Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[ncjohn]

One can assign a truth value to a proposition not to an action. _______

A discipline would not be called an objective truth, subjective truth or any kind of truth. The words do not go together.

Since I agree with you fully on these points I guess now I’m more confused than I was by your position then that an action, regarding a discipline, can be “objectively better.” I can certainly understand examining the alternatives and perceiving it to be better in some way but there is little to nothing objective in the criteria that one would use to arrive at the conclusion. Even the decision as to what criteria would be used to make a decision, and what weight to assign to the pieces, is subjective in nature.

In the end it becomes similar to the difference in weight that is needed in a civil vs a criminal trial. This topic is really comparable to a civil trial where a preponderance of the evidence is all one would need to make a decision which one they prefer, or even find “better.” It doesn’t make it objectively certain but it is enough for an individual to move forward on. A doctrinal or dogmatic issue, on the other hand, would be comparable to the criminal proceeding where it must be beyond reasonable doubt, essentially making it objectively certain. Disciplines do not rise to the level of doctrine however because of their changeable nature and thus fall short of that objective certainty. Each of the alternatives in this case is supported by doctrinal aspects which are objectively certain and disciplinary aspects which are not which prevent a conclusion with objective certainty.

Again, it may seem subtle or like hair-splitting but in the end it is this “objective superiority” claim which is used to then portray those who support a different alternative as consequently “objectively inferior” that is really the basis of the entire “argument.” Stating that one finds one or the other preferable, based on whatever criteria they use, is certainly fine. Questioning another’s ability or right to give different weighting to the criteria and arrive at a different choice of valid alternatives is an unacceptable exercise of “judgment.” However much one may disagree with, or be unable to fathom, the other’s conclusions, it is as much their legitimate right to arrive at them as anyone else’s.

I don’t personally have a dog in this fight. I’m just tired of the division that this creates by people investing themselves so heavily in their subjective preference that they become unable to allow brothers and sisters to do the same in good faith and with the Church’s blessing.

To me, this topic is a quintessential example of the maxim “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” It’s really time to stop slicing and dicing each other over such a non-essential. Would you consider joining me in prayer that this can become a matter of, at most, bemusement rather than continuing as a source of division between equally-devoted Catholics?

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

I think I understand what you are saying. While claiming that COTT is better implies that CITH is comparatively worse, it does not necessarily mean CITH is bad. You are bothered by statements about CITH being bad because you see them as a criticism of the people who receive that way and of the Church for allowing it. Is that what you are saying? I feel like I have a much better grasp of your position now.

Do you consider someone stating that CITH is more susceptible to abuse than COTT to be denigration? As I recall, I have written that. But I really don’t think anything bad about those who practice CITH. I did it myself for decades. And, while I do think it is a problem that the Church allows CITH, I would not say that the Church is bad. Fixing the problems in the Church is a putting-the-toothpaste-back-in-the-tube situation. It is not a simple matter and I really try to avoid second-guessing Church leaders. Every time I am tempted to, I ask myself if I would want their job.

I would agree with this as it is also what I have largely been trying to say, though not effectively apparently.

I recognize that you have not personally taken the “bad” position, simply the “better” position that implies the bad in most people’s minds, especially in a thread where so many are explicity taking the “bad” position. I personally allow for others to arrive at a different position of “better” but if we can actually get to a position of just talking about greater or lesser good when talking about people’s desire to please God in their reception of communion that would be a huge step.

 

[choy]

That is ridiculous. There are more germs on your keyboard and the paper money you handle than you can imagine.

What about the cup ? You think an EMHC wiping the cup repeatedly with the same cloth sanitizes it ? How about backwash ? How about the hand you shake during the Sign of Peace, or the pew you steady yourself with as you stand from kneeling or genuflect ?

For all the suffering Our Savior endured for our sake, we are to worry about catching a cold ?

We genuflect before the Tabernacle because of what it contains, but receive what it contains without bending a knee.

Mind boggling.

the issue here is if the priest’s hand touches the tongue of another person and then touches your tongue, thats how diseases are spread. its not about the amount of bacteria and germs in one’s hand

just because Jesus suffered doesn’t mean we should go suicidal on our health. Jesus died for our sins. if we’re careless with our health, we died for nothing. HUGE difference

besides, like i said, people switch because of the simple fact that its allowed. if people have no other option, they won’t switch. its as simple as that

 

[choy]

Now* you know what’s going on in the minds of those who receive CITH? This is too much.

well i receive CITH and i know whats on my mind. and i know many people who receive CITH and all these things that we are being accused of thinking of have never crossed my mind. yes, i cannot speak for all people who receive CITH. but at least i receive CITH and at the veryu least can speak for myself. i wonder why people like you who never receive CITH can make such accusations when you have never experienced the practice at all

I don’t think about people who receive CITH. Most of the time, I go to TLMs, where it doesn’t exist. So lets leave them out of it. Judging CITH is not equal to judging CITH receivers. Not by a long chalk, in any rational discussion.

no you can’t. an action cannot exist by itself without an actor. can murder be wrong and the murderer innocent? no. can adultery be wrong and the cheating man or woman be innocent? no. when you judge CITH the action, you also judge the persons who receive CITH, and the Catholic Church who allows it

*“Which does God prefer: a person being interiorly reverent or an outerly reverent posture?” *is a trick question, to which the answer is: “God, we guess, prefers both”. It assumes that we have to choose or that one is antagonistic towards the other.

God of course prefers someone who’s interiorly reverent. the reverence of the heart will justify the action. your heart can push your body to do whats right. but you’re body cannot change whats in your heart.

I’d add that outer reverence encourages the inner. What would be the point of turning up to a free-for-all? It would be terribly distracting. Pointless.

as i mentiond, the direction is from inner to outer, not the other way around. the soul can dictate the body, the body cannot dictate the soul although the body can act independently. thats why there are things like lipservice. we can act, we can say things that are not in our hearts. but if we let our hearts speak, then our bodies follow accordingly

The changes to our rite are stupid. Dump Latin, ancient hymns, altar rails, beautiful prayers, exclusion, long fasts. Add in unvested laity in the sanctuary, folk hymns, 1 hour fasts, local lingo, laywomen handing out communion, emphasise the ‘Lord’s banquet’ and then wonder where the mystery and awe has gone.

“It’s still the Holy Sacrifice Of the Mass!”, say proponents. Well, I say those involved should jolly well act like it is.

how about the #1 Catholic trait? humility. can’t you be humble enough to accept that the Church knows more than you in these things, that in her collective knowledge of all the Bishops, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they see these changes as necessary to tackle the challenges of the modern world.

In a way, I thank God for the N.O. It gives the experimenters and their willing test-subjects something to play around with, while those who want something tried-and-tested can go to a TLM. Imagine if the TLM had been let ‘organically develop’ in the last 40 years in the hands of ‘liturgical scholars’? [shudders]

this statement reminds me of the Pharisees prayer

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 18:9-14[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Monty61]

we just don’t see the mode of reception as an issue or an impediment to inner reverence

Modes are important. For example: When Moses approached the burning bush, the Lord told him: “Moses, take off your shoes for you are on holy ground.” Was the Lord telling Moses that shoes are bad? Of course not.

He was telling Moses, “When you interact with me, you are to do so in a manner (or mode) that is different than the way you interact with others. If you accept Me as your Lord, you are to show me this deference when you come to meet Me.”

Therefore, in my opinion, the manner we receive the Eucharist should be different than how we eat a potato chip or donut(from our own hand).

The music at Mass should be different in character and in the musical instruments used than what we hear 24/7 outside the Church.

While I don’t object to the vernacular language, the use of Latin adds to this atmosphere of difference from the rest of the world.

The Church (and Christ) calls us to be different from non-believers and even non-Catholics. Yet in the ordinary form, there is the obsession with “cultural adaptation.” People lose the ability to distinguish the holy elements from the cultural elements.

A perfect example of this are altar girls. This practice is common in the USA, where we are obsessed with “inclusion.” We feel bound to have women as prison guards, even fighter pilots. But the Scripture only allowed male ministers, and for centuries only male servers were allowed. So we have opposed Church tradition and it’s scriptural roots for the sake of a 20th century cultural development. And we are so ingrained in it that to point out the Church’s tradition of males only is sure to be bashed as sexist and woman hating.

 

[choy]

Modes are important. For example: When Moses approached the burning bush, the Lord told him: “Moses, take off your shoes for you are on holy ground.” Was the Lord telling Moses that shoes are bad? Of course not.

He was telling Moses, “When you interact with me, you are to do so in a manner (or mode) that is different than the way you interact with others. If you accept Me as your Lord, you are to show me this deference when you come to meet Me.”

Therefore, in my opinion, the manner we receive the Eucharist should be different than how we eat a potato chip or donut(from our own hand).

The music at Mass should be different in character and in the musical instruments used than what we hear 24/7 outside the Church.

While I don’t object to the vernacular language, the use of Latin adds to this atmosphere of difference from the rest of the world.

The Church (and Christ) calls us to be different from non-believers and even non-Catholics. Yet in the ordinary form, there is the obsession with “cultural adaptation.” People lose the ability to distinguish the holy elements from the cultural elements.

A perfect example of this are altar girls. This practice is common in the USA, where we are obsessed with “inclusion.” We feel bound to have women as prison guards, even fighter pilots. But the Scripture only allowed male ministers, and for centuries only male servers were allowed. So we have opposed Church tradition and it’s scriptural roots for the sake of a 20th century cultural development. And we are so ingrained in it that to point out the Church’s tradition of males only is sure to be bashed as sexist and woman hating.

you’re right. God did tell Moses to take off his shoes
and the Church is telling us that we can receive CITH
therefore we can

 

[floresco]

I recognize that you have not personally taken the “bad” position, simply the “better” position that implies the bad in most people’s minds, especially in a thread where so many are explicity taking the “bad” position. I personally allow for others to arrive at a different position of “better” but if we can actually get to a position of just talking about greater or lesser good when talking about people’s desire to please God in their reception of communion that would be a huge step.

Considering that a significant proportion of Catholics are not attending Mass, most anyone who shows up is doing something good, no matter the method he chooses to receive Communion. I think that the vast majority of people who receive CITH are trying to do the right thing. I really don’t have a problem with the people. It is the practice in itself that I see as less good than the practice of COTT.

 

[At_Trent]

the issue here is if the priest’s hand touches the tongue of another person and then touches your tongue, thats how diseases are spread. its not about the amount of bacteria and germs in one’s hand

just because Jesus suffered doesn’t mean we should go suicidal on our health. Jesus died for our sins. if we’re careless with our health, we died for nothing. HUGE difference

besides, like i said, people switch because of the simple fact that its allowed. if people have no other option, they won’t switch. its as simple as that

You see COTT as suicidal ?

Well, I’ve never received in the hand nor will I ever. In my case, that would be spiritual suicide.

 

[choy]

You see COTT as suicidal ?

that is not what i said and you know that

Well, I’ve never received in the hand nor will I ever. In my case, that would be spiritual suicide.

1. its your opinion
2. its your option
3. i’m not convincing you to receive CITH anyway

 

[Layman]

Pharasee-im. Judgemental. Interior reverence. It’s the same tune over and over again. The name of the song: “We want to do whatever we want”. In a public, communal, ancient, rite.

Catholicism 2010 is very different from Catholicism 1910. There have been wide and deep changes in it. Despite the emphasis on populism (e.g. ‘The People’s Mass’), vocations are way down, as is Mass attendance. Contraception is up, so that’s affecting the numbers, too.

I wonder if fans of the N.O. will ever realise that, the more you add mundane elements to the rite, the less interesting its going to be?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You see COTT as suicidal ?

Well, I’ve never received in the hand nor will I ever. In my case, that would be spiritual suicide.

In your case, it would be because of the way you feel about it.

In my case, I would not consider it spiritual suicide.

I do not think of COTT as physically suicidal, because when we receive that way we’re probably thinking more of the sacrament than with the tongue touching, or we’d get it in the hand all the time. It’s more like, “oh, I’m not going to catch anything” rather than, “I will risk catching something for the sake of God” or something like that.

Each person must follow his/her own conscience, within the limits the Church allows.

In my case, at my normal Sunday Mass I do not have the opportunity to go to the priest, so I normally go CITH. I don’t think I’ve ever received COTT from a lay minister – just doesn’t seem right somehow.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Pharasee-im. Judgemental. Interior reverence. It’s the same tune over and over again. The name of the song: “We want to do whatever we want”. In a public, communal, ancient, rite.

But don’t you see that your example here is judgmental? By assuming to know what CITH people are thinking, your giving energy to your own stereotype. Yes, when you say what they “want” you sound like you are judging what they are thinking. Either that, or you mistyped. Am I wrong on that? If so, how? If not, I offer it in charity as helpful feedback – it is often easier to see your speck than my own plank, of course.

Certainly on the CITH side there are also people who can’t let go of their judgmentalism, but I’m not speaking for them.

Catholicism 2010 is very different from Catholicism 1910. There have been wide and deep changes in it. Despite the emphasis on populism (e.g. ‘The People’s Mass’), vocations are way down, as is Mass attendance. Contraception is up, so that’s affecting the numbers, too.

I don’t know about 1910, but when I grew up in the 60s I went to a Catholic grade school but I may as well not have. They taught us practically zip about Catholic teaching, because ALL they taught us – under the threat of physical and mental punishment – was how to behave. Most of what I’ve learned of Church teaching I’ve learned on my own research, and on this site, and from my kids who DO learn a great deal about church teachings in school these days – both grade school and high school.

My religion classes were too busy being social commentary to teach us our faith. For example, I ran across an old “religion” book the other day and a good portion of it was dedicated to anti-drug propaganda, complete with hard luck stories of kids gone wrong. Basically it was social engineering through fear. Oh yeah, and there was a large section on racism. I guess they thought that their directing our entire social and political lives are good substitutes for religion.

I wonder if fans of the N.O. will ever realise that, the more you add mundane elements to the rite, the less interesting its going to be?

I think the Mass is fascinating, and the reception of the Eucharist literally takes us out of this world. I don’t know that I see anything that happens at Mass more “mundane.”

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

from wiki

Host desecration, also called host-nailing[citation needed], is a form of sacrilege in Christianity (Anglicanism, Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and Roman Catholicism) involving the mistreatment or malicious use of a consecrated Host— the sacred Bread used in the Mass. In Roman Catholicism, Host desecration is a mortal sin, in that, unless it is forgiven and fully absolved, condemns a person to Hell after death. Throughout history, a number of groups have been accused of desecrating the Eucharist; because of the spiritual importance of the consecrated Wafer.

…

The Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox churches and Anglican churches believe that during the celebration of the Eucharist, the offerings of bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Jesus, in an extraordinary, metaphysical way, while still maintaining all the physical properties of bread and wine. In the Middle Ages, Catholic theology offered the concept of transubstantiation to explain this change, believed to be actual and not merely symbolic by the early Catholic Christians of the first century. The concept, defined as a dogma at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, holds that the substances of the offerings are transformed, while the appearance of bread and wine remain.

As Christians believe Jesus to be “true God and true man”, his Body and Blood in the form of the consecrated host are adored in the Catholic Church. Theft, sale, or use of the host for a profane purpose is considered a grave sin and sacrilege,[4] which incurs the penalty of excommunication, which is imposed automatically in the Latin Rite (See Code of Canon Law, Latin Rite Code canon 1367, or Eastern Rite Code canon 1442.) It was widely believed that under certain circumstances, such as disbelief or desecration, the host could display supernatural properties.
…

Host desecration has been associated with groups identified as inimical to Christianity. It is a common belief that desecration of the host is part of Satanic practice, especially the Black Mass. The modern Church of Satan regards Christian doctrine as false, and does not desecrate the host in most rituals. LaVeyan Satanists do not typically perform Black Mass as a regular ritual, though “Le Messe Noir” from Anton LaVey’s work The Satanic Rituals does include some elements.

Since the publication of a document called Memoriale Domine in 1969,[5] the Apolistic See of the Catholic Church has allowed certain countries to allow communicants to receive the Host in the hand, rather than directly onto the tongue, reviving an “ancient custom”.[5] Communion in the hand is now widespread in many parts of the world. **The practice means that access to consecrated Hosts is easier than in the past, since the person receiving it in the hand may pretend to place it in their mouth for consumption. **However, recent statements and practices of Pope Benedict XVI[citation needed] have caused a recent shift in Catholic practice of receiving on the tongue while kneeling, which is also an ancient practice.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

 

[AlanFromWichita]

from wiki

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

Thank you for that article. Of course, it’s from wiki but if I have any doubts I’m sure wiki has references.

That is one thing I’ve heard Communion ministers talk about … they have to watch each communicant to make sure they don’t slip the host into their pockets or something. There was a (gypsy) group at our church that was trying to do that. Maybe it wasn’t to profane the Eucharist per se, but still unacceptable.

To me, this could be the first “point” I concede where COTT can be considered “objectively” better. Once placed on the tongue, it’s unlikely they could still steal it and have it hold together for rituals. In the hand, the minister or others need to keep an eye on it.

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

That is one thing I’ve heard Communion ministers talk about … they have to watch each communicant to make sure they don’t slip the host into their pockets or something. There was a (gypsy) group at our church that was trying to do that.

There are other ways, even subtle ways, to profane the Eucharist. Intentions and negligence are included and ignorance is no excuse. But you knew that.

 

[ncjohn]

There are other ways, even subtle ways, to profane the Eucharist. Intentions and negligence are included and ignorance is no excuse. But you knew that.

I assume you’re not claiming that COTT is immune to abuse, theft or sacrilege? It may be harder to do but certainly not impossible by any stretch of the imagination. I remember well hearing of such things pre-Vatican II in my growing up years.

And of course profaning by bad intentions or negligence is just as able to occur with COTT as with CITH. But you knew that.

 

[ProVobis]

… It’s more like, “oh, I’m not going to catch anything” rather than, “I will risk catching something for the sake of God” or something like that.

Each person must follow his/her own conscience, within the limits the Church allows.

Yes, risk is the issue but it’s not the risk to your physical self. The risk is one against profanity if not downright flagrant profanity or sacrilege itself. Divine Law is absolute truth and profanity is against Divine Law. If the Church even hints that there may be risks involved, I will go with their “recommendations”. And if I don’t know for sure what the recommendations are, I will go with the established, time-tested custom.

It’s like walking on a ledge 40 stories high; why do it if there is no upside and you have the safety net inside? Because someone told me it was okay and nothing will happen?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m not saying that receiving Communion is objectively better one way or the other.

COTT makes it harder to steal the Eucharist, so the “objectively better” part is on the side of the Church, in policing correct reception.

I’m sure there are subtle ways to profane the Eucharist either way. But I knew that.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

“it’s approved”. That’s all the CITH defenders can muster. They will then state COTT preference is merely opinion. What they ignore is CITH **should not **be approved. It was ruled against by a 2/3 majority, yet unfortunately an exception was provided for countries were it was already practiced. North America and most of the world **was not **on the list. Only through disobedience by the faithful and acquiesence from the Authority was the indult extended. The Church does not ‘teach’ CITH nor has made it the offical norm. It is intrinsically inferior in external reverence, more prone to abuse and desecration and in my opinion leads to a diminished belief in the Real Presence. Those who choose to practice a legalized abuse should ask themselves who’s interests are being served: their pride or the glory of God.

 

[choy]

“it’s approved”. That’s all the CITH defenders can muster. They will then state COTT preference is merely opinion. What they ignore is CITH **should not **be approved. It was ruled against by a 2/3 majority, yet unfortunately an exception was provided for countries were it was already practiced. North America and most of the world **was not **on the list. Only through disobedience by the faithful and acquiesence from the Authority was the indult extended. The Church does not ‘teach’ CITH nor has made it the offical norm. It is intrinsically inferior in external reverence, more prone to abuse and desecration and in my opinion leads to a diminished belief in the Real Presence. Those who choose to practice a legalized abuse should ask themselves who’s interests are being served: their pride or the glory of God.

would’ve, should’ve, could’ve
all wishful thinking
fact is, it is. no matter what you say, you can’t change the fact