Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m having a hard time with that concept. Is that meant as a first or second derivative of an argument?

I see it as a “meta-argument.”

But has the Vatican decreed this? We are still ALLOWED to discuss this, aren’t we?

I don’t know. I thought we were supposed to do what the Holy Father says he would prefer, even if disobedience to his personal preferences is not technically disallowed by the Church.

Pope says get Communion this way, we should all get it that way.

Pope says not to argue, we argue anyway. :slapfight:

In my opinion receiving casually is not a good step in that direction.

I can’t argue against that, since it’s your opinion (and of course because I’m uber-obedient when it suits me ). I do believe most people would agree with you, as long as we could agree on the meaning of “casually.”

Peace and Joy,
Alan

 

[ncjohn]

In my opinion receiving casually is not a good step in that direction.

And of course this is the crux of the Pope’s argument: that we need to instill hearts properly disposed rather than arguing about which method is used.

On what basis would you judge the hearts of those who receive CITH to be receiving “casually?” On what basis would you judge the hearts of those who receive COTT to not be doing so casually?

This gets back to exactly the point I made previously. We CANNOT know the interior disposition as there is nothing in the externals that tells us that one way or another. I would contend that, human nature being what it is, reverence or lack of it are equally distributed across the two populations and that the WAY we receive has absolutely nothing to do with the issue beyond possibly one segment making a greater effort to appear reverent because of the expectations of those around them.

Which gets us back to the REAL question: How do we get people away from the focus on worrying about what others are doing and bring them to truly focusing on God?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Which gets us back to the REAL question: How do we get people away from the focus on worrying about what others are doing and bring them to truly focusing on God?

I believe that even if certain ways to receive were actually objectively wrong and a diabolical plot, then I’d venture to guess God allowed such testing, to purify His church and her members’ internals, through his people – starting with the way we are going to answer this question on this thread.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t know. I thought we were supposed to do what the Holy Father says he would prefer, even if disobedience to his personal preferences is not technically disallowed by the Church.

Pope says get Communion this way, we should all get it that way.

Pope says not to argue, we argue anyway. :slapfight:

I too noticed this dichotomy with amusement. Trotting out selectively the part of the quote that supports one’s argument while ignoring the rest of the discussion.

Both are subjective and only “requests” but are given totally different weight. And of course that is true on both “sides” of the question.

Of course I will admit that I personally find the second point to be the more compelling because it specifically acknowledges that the first is his subjective preference and asks people to stop fighting about it since both are considered reverent by different people and there is no part of us that is “worthy” no matter how hard we try.

 

[Ockham]

This gets back to exactly the point I made previously. We CANNOT know the interior disposition as there is nothing in the externals that tells us that one way or another. I would contend that, human nature being what it is, reverence or lack of it are equally distributed across the two populations and that the WAY we receive has absolutely nothing to do with the issue beyond possibly one segment making a greater effort to appear reverent because of the expectations of those around them.

Which gets us back to the REAL question: How do we get people away from the focus on worrying about what others are doing and bring them to truly focusing on God?

John, I respect your posts but must say that I’m terribly bored of this argument. Of course one may receive COTT but internally not be revererent or even in a state of grace. Conversely one may receive CITH but be a walking saint.

That is the internal disposition. The difference between COTT and CITH is external reverence. The best scenario is for someone to be in a state of grace, internally reverent and receive COTT. That’s why COTT is the universal norm, has not gone away and CITH is still just an indult that hopefully will go away one day soon.

How we worship leads to how we believe. Archbishop Chaput said in the speech I posted on another thread that how we pray is a prayer itself. COTT is intrinsically superior to CITH and shouldn’t we be receiving our Lord in the most reverent external manner possible?

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know. I thought we were supposed to do what the Holy Father says he would prefer, even if disobedience to his personal preferences is not technically disallowed by the Church.

Guess what else falls into this category. All evidence suggests the Pope does prefer communion kneeling and on the tongue.

 

[giuseppeTO]

I too noticed this dichotomy with amusement. Trotting out selectively the part of the quote that supports one’s argument while ignoring the rest of the discussion.

Both are subjective and only “requests” but are given totally different weight. And of course that is true on both “sides” of the question.

Of course I will admit that I personally find the second point to be the more compelling because it specifically acknowledges that the first is his subjective preference and asks people to stop fighting about it since both are considered reverent by different people and there is no part of us that is “worthy” no matter how hard we try.

If you were brought up in the church prior to the 1960’s, you were taught that, in general, for a layman to touch the host is a sin. Even though CITH is now approved, it will always have a ‘sinful’ stigma to many of us.

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t argue against that, since it’s your opinion (and of course because I’m uber-obedient when it suits me ). I do believe most people would agree with you, as long as we could agree on the meaning of “casually.”

I agree with you there. Maybe “nonchalantly” would have been a better word on my part.

Non-chalant: Seeming to be coolly unconcerned or indifferent.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If you were brought up in the church prior to the 1960’s, you were taught that, in general, for a layman to touch the host is a sin. Even though CITH is now approved, it will always have a ‘sinful’ stigma to many of us.

That, I totally understand. :sad_yes:

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

How do we get people away from the focus on worrying about what others are doing and bring them to truly focusing on God?

So now we’re going to be judging the judger’s judging? How do you know that some people can’t multi-task?

Ockham’s question on of what great benefits CITH has had on the Church has gone unanswered and we’re judging the questionaire?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

So now we’re going to be judging the judger’s judging? How do you know that some people can’t multi-task?

Ockham’s question on of what great benefits CITH has had on the Church has gone unanswered and we’re judging the questionaire?

Instead of judging, care for a contest? I bet I can go longer than you without even referring to any points in the actual issue of CITH and COTT. (Not to say we can’t still participate in the multitasking and metadiscussions.) Is it on?

Alan

 

[floresco]

Just in case you missed it, this is what the Holy Father said about the matter:

" ‘It is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior.’ Pope Benedict XVI, God is Near Us, p. 71. The pope goes on to urge that instead of arguing about the outer forms or rituals of receiving Communion, we 'should be concerned only to argue in favor of a ‘reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God who puts himself into our hands.’

“He admonishes us ‘not to forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with our hands.’ He explains that, by coming to us in Communion, ‘God takes an enormous risk…allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him. We see this in the Lord’s willingness to enter into us and live with us, within us, and to become from within the heart of our life and the agent of its transformation’ (p.71)”

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.

 

[floresco]

You do realize that “objective” means always, for all people at all times, right? Are you then saying that the Eastern churches who have always stood for communion are “objectively” inferior? Are you saying that all those centuries when CITH was the norm were “objectively” inferior?

No, that is not what “objective” means. It means not basing conclusions on personal feelings or perceptions. It is possible to objectively determine that different circumstances require different actions.

 

[floresco]

Maybe instead of arguing about how to receive Communion, in the spirit of the OP we should argue about arguing about how to receive Communion. Otherwise we are disobeying our pope and probably falling right into enemy hands – who LOVES brother-against-brother brawls. Regardless of the COTT/CITH issue itself, we KNOW the Holy Father has specifically ordered us not to argue about these things. :sad_yes:

I have never seen Traditional Catholics argue among themselves about how to receive Communion. As far as I can tell, the arguments about it that occur in this sub-forum are between trads and non-trads . I am here because I am interested in traditional Catholicism. I don’t go looking for non-trads to tell them that they are doing things wrong. I keep finding all these people here who want to tell me how judgmental I am because I think that one way of receiving Communion is better than the other. Maybe if people would just accept that this is what traditional Catholics think and stop coming here to argue with us about it there wouldn’t be any arguments.

 

[ProVobis]

I bet I can go longer than you without even referring to any points in the actual issue of CITH and COTT.

You probably could. What’s your point?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You probably could. What’s your point?

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.

If you wish to continue arguing, please do not let me stop you.

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

John, I respect your posts but must say that I’m terribly bored of this argument.

I too am bored that there is an argument to take place at all.

Of course one may receive COTT but internally not be revererent or even in a state of grace. Conversely one may receive CITH but be a walking saint.

Ok, that’s a good starting point for agreement.

The difference between COTT and CITH is external reverence.

But that is the problem. That is only true for those who agree with you on which one is more reverent. And there just is no concensus on that.nor is there objective criteria to establish that.

The best scenario is for someone to be in a state of grace, internally reverent and receive COTT.

Again, not objectively true; only true in the mind of the one who believes it to be true.

That’s why COTT is the universal norm, has not gone away and CITH is still just an indult that hopefully will go away one day soon.

No, it’s the universal norm because at some point the Church declared it to be so and didn’t change it. It can’t “go away” because it falls under the category of “immemorial custom” and is always available. That is why it COTT kneeling is allowed even where CITH standing is the norm.

How we worship leads to how we believe. Archbishop Chaput said in the speech I posted on another thread that how we pray is a prayer itself. COTT is intrinsically superior to CITH and shouldn’t we be receiving our Lord in the most reverent external manner possible?

Again all of this is subjective rather than intrinsic. Actions only have the value we give them and have no “intrinsic” value of their own.

By the way, and I hate to bring this up again as I know you’re also bored with this comparison, but if the universal norm is the superior form then the OF liturgy becomes the superior liturgy. However much one tries to say it isn’t the same thing, the logic can only take one to one place if that argument is made.

I think that ultimately we do all agree that the interior disposition is what God is looking for, as expressed by the Pope in his request to stop arguing. It appears we do also agree that both sinners and saints can be found, disposition-wise, in both forms and with both preferences. If that is the case can we not agree to at least stop making the judgments and let people choose which they find more reverent until and unless the Church revokes CITH?

If we want to promote our preference–I have none in this matter personally–by extolling its virtues, I think that is perfectly reasonable and may even sway people. Putting people on the defensive by accusing them of being inferior when the Church says otherwise, on the other hand, is a sure recipe to entrench them even further and to possibly draw them to judgment toward you in return. Just a continuing bloodbath.

As I said before, I think we can be bettter than that.

 

[Indyann]

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.

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.

 

[ncjohn]

If you were brought up in the church prior to the 1960’s, you were taught that, in general, for a layman to touch the host is a sin. Even though CITH is now approved, it will always have a ‘sinful’ stigma to many of us.

I was part of that era and I understand what you’re saying. It doesn’t have that stigma for me but I do realize that for some it does. I have never argued against anyone choosing COTT, nor do I care what their reasons are as it is a legitimate choice. I also afford the same respect to those who find CITH preferable as long as the Church allows them to make that choice.

 

[ncjohn]

No, that is not what “objective” means. It means not basing conclusions on personal feelings or perceptions. It is possible to objectively determine that different circumstances require different actions.

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. COTT has “value” because at some point somebody assigned it value and made it the norm. Culturally it “stuck” for a long time and retained that value but it has no objective value of its own outside of Catholic culture, and not even universally within Catholic culture. Outside of the small minority who call themselves traditionalists it has no greater value than CITH or intinction or receiving from a golden spoon. Something that is objectively true would appear the same to an untrained, unbiased observer regardless of background. That most certainly would not apply in the case at hand.

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?

Maybe if people would just accept that this is what traditional Catholics think and stop coming here to argue with us about it there wouldn’t be any arguments.

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. .