Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[choy]

So how do you avoid the tongue, which is at least as sinful as the hands? Hmmm, indeed.

doesn’t sin come from the heart and the mind
so the proper way to receive the Eucharist really is to prepare one’s heart, that is to clean out the dirt via Confession

 

[choy]

This seems to be an odd response to me saying that, when I became convinced that COTT was objectively better, I changed from CITH which I preferred. I wasn’t writing about arguing. I was writing about becoming convinced and changing.

i too believe that people should receive in the manner in which their hearts and minds see the most reverence

the problem here is that some people tend to call out those who choose to do something else just because CITH is not their preference and personally they don’t see its worth. its all in the eye of the beholder, if both methods are allowed then we shouldn’t judge those who wish to receive in a way that is allowed. this includes standing vs kneeling

 

[ProVobis]

My point was that I am challenging myself to obey the Holy Father and quit arguing. I was challenging you to join me in it.

Why pick on me? Why don’t you challenge those who advocate CITH?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Why pick on me? Why don’t you challenge those who advocate CITH?

Because you seem like you simply can’t let go of the fight.

I’ll leave you alone if you’d prefer.

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

Because you seem like you simply can’t let go of the fight.

If you’ll check, I’m not the OP here. Nor the resurrector of the thread. So obviously it bothers someone else more.

 

[floresco]

The response was in regard to the use of “objectively better”. That is incorrect.

What you are describing is a “subjective” opinion.

ob·jec·tive ob jéktiv ]
free of bias: free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings
based on facts: based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions
observable: describes disease symptoms that can be observed by somebody other than the person who is ill
Synonyms: impartial, detached, neutral, unbiased, unprejudiced, independent, dispassionate, disinterested, fair
See full definition · Encarta World English Dictionary

Based on the Holy Father’s words, neither form of receiving the Eucharist, is “objectively better”. They are equal. That is fact.

My personal feelings were that I was far more comfortable with CITH. Based on facts that can be observed by anyone (it’s the norm of the Church, identified by Church authorities as more reverent, and the only practice permitted at papal Masses) I came to decision that COTT was objectively better. Therefore I changed.

The Holy Father did not say anything about them being equal in the passage you quoted. He said not to argue about it. It seems very unlikely he actually thinks they are equal if he only allows one of them at the Masses where he presides.

And I don’t argue about it. I do not seek out people who practice CITH to tell them they are wrong. I do, however, defend myself from accusations that I am judgmental.

 

[floresco]

Something having objective value means it has intrinsic, inherent value, value because of what it is rather than what somebody thinks or feels it is.

No that is not what “objective” means. A definition was quoted in post #157. It has nothing to do with being inherent or timeless. For example, it is an objective fact that COTT is the norm of the Church because this can be observed by anyone who researches the question. It does not depend on personal feelings.

I admire you for going to what you feel is more reverent and sticking with it. Since the Church says both can be equally reverent–and as noted previously with Ockham I think we all agree that internal reverence is not attached to the form–can we not agree to stop judging reverence and acceptability based on externals that don’t go to the core question asked by either God or the Pope?

I am not going to stop because I never started. I have never judged anybody’s internal reverence based on their mode of receiving Communion and I am pretty tired of being accused of it. I also know very well that both methods are acceptable (in places where the indult applies) since that is an objective fact just like COTT being the norm of the Church.

The funny thing is that it’s just as often traditionalists who post these threads. Maybe if the traditionalists banded together and boycotted the subject, or asked the mods for this topic to be forbidden in this subforum they would just go away. .

Why shouldn’t trads express typical trad opinions on a sub-forum for trads? The people who disagree about COTT apparently come here seeking to argue with trads.

 

[Indyann]

Why shouldn’t trads express typical trad opinions on a sub-forum for trads? The people who disagree about COTT apparently come here seeking to argue with trads.

Actually, I have not seen anyone express an opinion that “disagrees about COTT”. If I attend a parish where that is the custom, I receive on the tongue.

Where the disagreement comes into play is when the self-identified “Traditionalists” disparage the reception of the Eucharist in the hand.

Orthodox Catholics post in this forum to defend a practice that is allowed by the Church. We believe that the Church could not lead us into anything that is “sinful”.

Now, I know that anyone who receives the Eucharist from the Holy Father must kneel and receive on the tongue.

But there are usually hundreds and hundreds of people at these Masses. How do those not blessed to receive from the Pope, receive?

 

[ncjohn]

No that is not what “objective” means. A definition was quoted in post #157. It has nothing to do with being inherent or timeless. For example, it is an objective fact that COTT is the norm of the Church because this can be observed by anyone who researches the question. It does not depend on personal feelings.

You are right that COTT is the norm of the Church but that has nothing to do with being “objectively better” as I pointed out previously.You are also correct that something that is objectively true does not depend on feelings. If you don’t see the relationship to the definition, or aren’t familiar with it in usage, I’ll not belabor it though as the point to be made was already made.

I am not going to stop because I never started. I have never judged anybody’s internal reverence based on their mode of receiving Communion and I am pretty tired of being accused of it.

The problem here is that as long as you continue to claim that COTT is objectively better you are saying the CITH is objectively inferior. I never claimed you were judging anyone’s interior disposition. What I said was that you can only make judgments about the externals which do not tell you anything at all about reverence and are therefore meaningless and amount to petty gossip, along with being a major distraction away from the focus that should be on God.

Why shouldn’t trads express typical trad opinions on a sub-forum for trads? The people who disagree about COTT apparently come here seeking to argue with trads.

I don’t think anyone has objected to traditionalists voicing their opinions. The only problem some have is when they start claiming their opinions to be objective fact and start putting down other options the Church offers because they don’t match their preferences. Being as it is a forum and not a pep rally, others are allowed to voice their opinions also, especially when statements are presented as fact that are not. If tradtionalists don’t want to discuss the topic, which is understandable since it isn’t of interest in the liturgy they attend, I was totally serious about them banding together and asking the topic not be allowed in the subforum.

I personally would love to see all discussion on the topic cease beyond being allowed to promote one’s preference without casting aspersions on anyone else’s.

Peace,

 

[ProVobis]

I personally would love to see all discussion on the topic cease beyond being allowed to promote one’s preference without casting aspersions on anyone else’s.

Peace,

I have an idea. Make the 3-hr fast and confessions mandatory and I’ll guarantee you that EMHC-CITH vs priest-only COTT debate will be a thing of the past.

 

[floresco]

Orthodox Catholics post in this forum to defend a practice that is allowed by the Church. We believe that the Church could not lead us into anything that is “sinful”.

I have never said that CITH is sinful. I have never denied it is allowed by the Church. I have never said that this implies anything wrong with people who receive this way. All I have said that it is objectively less good than COTT.

 

[floresco]

The problem here is that as long as you continue to claim that COTT is objectively better you are saying the CITH is objectively inferior. I never claimed you were judging anyone’s interior disposition. What I said was that you can only make judgments about the externals which do not tell you anything at all about reverence and are therefore meaningless and amount to petty gossip, along with being a major distraction away from the focus that should be on God.

The Church allows two options. It was necessary for me to make a judgment in order to decide between them. This is not meaningless nor is it gossip. Should I have flipped a coin?

Rather than base this decision on my personal feeling ( a preference for CITH) I looked at the objective facts available to me. COTT is the norm of the Church. It is the only method allowed at papal Masses. The highest Church authorities describe CITH as less reverent and more susceptible to abuse. Based on these objective facts, I concluded that COTT was better. I still am more comfortable with CITH. My decision was not and is not based on my personal preference but on information observable by all.

I don’t think anyone has objected to traditionalists voicing their opinions. The only problem some have is when they start claiming their opinions to be objective fact and start putting down other options the Church offers because they don’t match their preferences. Being as it is a forum and not a pep rally, others are allowed to voice their opinions also, especially when statements are presented as fact that are not. If tradtionalists don’t want to discuss the topic, which is understandable since it isn’t of interest in the liturgy they attend, I was totally serious about them banding together and asking the topic not be allowed in the subforum.

I personally would love to see all discussion on the topic cease beyond being allowed to promote one’s preference without casting aspersions on anyone else’s.

I don’t mind discussing the topic. I have put a fair bit of thought and research into it and am happy to share my conclusions. I object to being told that I should not be arguing about this by people who have, to all appearances, come here to argue about it. People who have a problem with seeing statements about COTT being objectively superior should reconsider reading a sub-forum called “Traditional Catholicism”.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I have never said that CITH is sinful. I have never denied it is allowed by the Church. I have never said that this implies anything wrong with people who receive this way. All I have said that it is objectively less good than COTT.

I’ll try to make this about the argument, and not about the issue itself.

Do you see what we mean by “inferior” and therefore the Church is offering an “objectively inferior” mode of receiving a Sacrament? My comment isn’t about how to receive Communion; it’s about the Church offering – as legitimate practice for an individual – an “objectively inferior” behavior mode in church. The Church “behavior police” I grew up fearing, are not to be deterred with either mode; it’s either done properly, with proper sign of respect, etc. or it isn’t. There is plenty to do wrong with either one, that makes it appear sloppy and careless.

When it isn’t, people need to be trained and cajoled. When they are doing it right they need to be left alone and if the Church is doing something wrong, then we have to assess what our role is in fixing it or remaining obedient.

So in summary, is the Church even capable of reducing the effectiveness or quality of a sacrament, given her protection from error?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I don’t mind discussing the topic. I have put a fair bit of thought and research into it and am happy to share my conclusions. I object to being told that I should not be arguing about this by people who have, to all appearances, come here to argue about it. People who have a problem with seeing statements about COTT being objectively superior should reconsider reading a sub-forum called “Traditional Catholicism”.

I am pleased that you are sharing your opinions. Discuss it is one thing. Fighting and arguing about it, and in this context I assume that includes judging and condescension, is what I think the objection is. OTOH, does it matter that the Holy Father has asked us not to argue about it – which I think is the main basis on which this thread was originated? (Note that I am not claiming you personally fight and argue about it – God knows we’ve prayed for each other, how can we be fighting? )

People who have a problem with seeing statements such as “COTT is objectively superior” and want to discuss it are, in fact, discussing Traditional Catholic issues. I do not see that this forum is restricted to those opinions about those issues that support whatever is the “official” or “predominant” trad position. As long as there is a place on this forum where it is a center where people will be told that their (sometimes lifelong) practices in Church, as taught to them by Church authorities, is an “objectively inferior” practice, CITH apologists will flock to it like flies on trash.

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

So in summary, is the Church even capable of reducing the effectiveness or quality of a sacrament, given her protection from error?

Alan

It is not possible to reduce the quality or effectiveness of a sacrament in the objective sense. However, the perception can change, but that becomes our problem, not the Church’s. Sacrilege is still sacrilege and profanity is still profanity; by Divine Law it’s our duty to avoid them.

 

[floresco]

I am pleased that you are sharing your opinions. Discuss it is one thing. Fighting and arguing about it, and in this context I assume that includes judging and condescension, is what I think the objection is. OTOH, does it matter that the Holy Father has asked us not to argue about it – which I think is the main basis on which this thread was originated? (Note that I am not claiming you personally fight and argue about it – God knows we’ve prayed for each other, how can we be fighting? )

People who have a problem with seeing statements such as “COTT is objectively superior” and want to discuss it are, in fact, discussing Traditional Catholic issues. I do not see that this forum is restricted to those opinions about those issues that support whatever is the “official” or “predominant” trad position. As long as there is a place on this forum where it is a center where people will be told that their (sometimes lifelong) practices in Church, as taught to them by Church authorities, is an “objectively inferior” practice, CITH apologists will flock to it like flies on trash.

Of course it matters that the Holy Father said we shouldn’t argue about it.

I’m not saying that CITH apologists should not do their flocking thing. They have as much right to post here as anybody. I’m saying that proclaiming “The Pope says we shouldn’t argue” while they are flocking is rather hypocritical. There wouldn’t be any arguing if they didn’t flock here to argue about it. They do have the option of ignoring us saying that COTT is objectively superior.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Of course it matters that the Holy Father said we shouldn’t argue about it.

I’m not saying that CITH apologists should not do their flocking thing. They have as much right to post here as anybody. I’m saying that proclaiming “The Pope says we shouldn’t argue” while they are flocking is rather hypocritical. There wouldn’t be any arguing if they didn’t flock here to argue about it. They do have the option of ignoring us saying that COTT is objectively superior.

I’m not sure what you mean by “flocking” unless you mean supporting each others’ point. You are right that if CITH-ers come here to preach against arguing, they are hypocritical in the least to argue themselves. If it’s just another way to open a fight while pretending to be above it, then it fails. I’m not sure that’s what the OP intended, but I admit that’s partly how it’s been used. I think there is enough bad will on both sides here to go around.

In summary, I think I see your point.

Alan

 

[floresco]

I’m not sure what you mean by “flocking” unless you mean supporting each others’ point.

I so appreciated the imagery of your simileAs long as there is a place on this forum where it is a center where people will be told that their (sometimes lifelong) practices in Church, as taught to them by Church authorities, is an “objectively inferior” practice, CITH apologists will flock to it like flies on trash. that I alluded to it in my own post.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Ah.

Gosh, if I could just remember what I wrote, I’d be ahead.

Anyway, I’m going to try to give this thread a rest for a while. Thank you all for the enjoyable banter.

Alan

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Can’t we just receive communion like they did in the early millenium of Christianity? (Which is by the hand)… it’s nice to have order, but Jesus was practical.

After all it is not what a person eats that makes him dirty but what comes out of his mouth…

ABiii:

This is a good transport forward - In the Early Church:
Catechumens didn’t even attend the “Mysteries” - They were sent out after the Liturgy of the Word and received Instruction at home during the Week… Only Baptized Believers were allowed to stay after the Homily, and only Baptized Believers said the Creed Together, the Prayers of the People, the Confession of Sin, the Offertory, and the Canon of the Mass…

After New Christians were Baptized (and Confirmed), they received further instruction in the “Mysteries” (The Mystagogia) about the significance of what they were receiving. Almost all Christians knew they were receiving Christ’s Body and Blood, and they understood what Christ had done so they could receive their salvation & His Body and Blood. This was demonstrated repeatedly by Christians who died rather than releasing the Eucharist to Street Toughs, or who risked their lives to get the Eucharist out of burning buildings, or who died rather than deny the Lord who bought him.

I’d receive Communion like that, but I’m not sure we’re ready fr that much Catechesis, or for that radical a commitment.

Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael