Arguing about how to receive Holy Communion

[choy]

from wiki

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

ah, wikipedia, the most reliable source of authoritative information on the 'net

 

[Ockham]

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

You just proved my point.

 

[ncjohn]

“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.

And yet the recognitio exists so there is therefore no abuse.

Those who choose to practice a legalized abuse should ask themselves who’s interests are being served: their pride or the glory of God.

And those who insist on making judgments about things that contradict what the Church says should ask themselves the same question.

This absolutely false refrain of “it’s approved is all they can muster” is getting really old. No matter how many times you scream it from the rooftops it is no more true today than it was the first time you made the claim. Quite frankly, it’s all that is necessary even if it was the only thing anyone claimed, and beyond that how someone legitimately receives communion is just really none of your business.

I just continue to be baffled about why it is that so many get the panties in such a knot over how someone else receives communion. Yes, there does indeed seem to be pride involved here but it appears to be on the side of those who just cannot abide that the world doesn’t revolve around their preferences and interpretations and that people won’t bow down to the false idol of the wisdom they think they possess.

If someone is approaching communion with an interior dispostion of reverence and in compliance with what the Church has laid down then God is pleased and nobody else has any business making any further judgments about it. Period. I’m sorry if someone thinks it doesn’t look reverent enough and that that offends someone’s sensibilities but if they keep their focus where it is supposed to be that won’t be an issue.

 

[floresco]

I just continue to be baffled about why it is that so many get the panties in such a knot over how someone else receives communion.

I am baffled about how a person who believes that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ could be baffled by people who are concerned by lack of reverence and risk of desecration.

 

[ncjohn]

I am baffled about how a person who believes that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ could be baffled by people who are concerned by lack of reverence and risk of desecration.

Because I don’t see a lack of reverence, at least to any greater degree than I ever did at the TLM. I simply see reverence expressed in a different way.

Going strictly by appearances, I saw a much greater lack of reverence pre-Vatican II, when I was holding the paten, than I do today. The blank looks on people’s faces always made me wonder why they were even up there. Of course I had no more way of knowing what was going on inside than anyone here does today so that apparent lack of reverence might have been totally a matter of perception.

 

[Ockham]

And yet the recognitio exists so there is therefore no abuse.

But it was forty years ago. What’s changed, theologically?

And those who insist on making judgments about things that contradict what the Church says should ask themselves the same question.

Please don’t play the victim card. This isn’t Oprah’s couch

This absolutely false refrain of “it’s approved is all they can muster” is getting really old.

How is it false?

I just continue to be baffled about why it is that so many get the panties in such a knot over how someone else receives communion.

Because it is an irreverant towards God.

Yes, there does indeed seem to be pride involved here but it appears to be on the side of those who just cannot abide that the world doesn’t revolve around their preferences and interpretations and that people won’t bow down to the false idol of the wisdom they think they possess.

It is the Church’s preference. There is no false idol of COTT. There is the golden calf of CITH though. God has given us free will on this subject.

If someone is approaching communion with an interior dispostion of reverence .

External. External. External.

 

[Ockham]

Because I don’t see a lack of reverence, at least to any greater degree than I ever did at the TLM. I simply see reverence expressed in a different way.

Spoken like a true Franciscan.

This argument is like an insolent child boasting about the concession they’ve negotiated from their parents. The parent has unfortunately given the child the option of being obedient or not and the child is revelling in the latter.

CITH is an indult that shouldn’t be. That’s a fact. Your defence is disobedient and defiant.

 

[floresco]

Spoken like a true Franciscan.

St. Francis of Assisi was known for his devotion to the Eucharist. It is hard to imagine him receiving CITH. His reason for not becoming a priest was that he did not feel worthy to touch the Blessed Sacrament. So it seems inaccurate to call ncjohn’s position that of a “true Franciscan”.

 

[ncjohn]

But it was forty years ago. What’s changed, theologically?

Maybe you should ask the Church rather than pretending that you are omniscient and know all the answers.

Please don’t play the victim card. This isn’t Oprah’s couch

Victim card?
Perhaps you can show me where the statement is wrong and where you’re not contradicting the Church.

How is it false?

Because people have given their valid reasons over and over. The fact that you choose to not see them does not mean they do not exist. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want but it doesn’t change that.

Because it is an irreverant towards God.

It is the Church’s preference. There is no false idol of COTT. There is the golden calf of CITH though. God has given us free will on this subject…

LOL. Do you truly not realize how much you are setting up your personal preference and observations as an idol? Perhaps you should find another 94 theses to add to this one and go tack them up on the Church door.

External. External. External.

This one baffles me more than any of the rest, how you continue to ignore the direct words of Jesus and all the scripture writers and cling to what is designed to put on a show for man instead of what God is looking for.

As for your other post, I’ll not even touch the *ad hominem *present there. Over the line doesn’t even begin to describe that.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

This argument is like an insolent child boasting about the concession they’ve negotiated from their parents. The parent has unfortunately given the child the option of being obedient or not and the child is revelling in the latter.

CITH is an indult that shouldn’t be. That’s a fact. Your defence is disobedient and defiant.

It’s more like a child whose parents have given them two choices, and the child’s sibling butts in and says, “Little Tommy should know you don’t really mean to give him two choices. He is disobedient by picking the one you know very well you shouldn’t be offering. Nyaa.”

I still say that if the indult “shouldn’t be” on any “objective” scale, then the Church would get rid of it. Maybe you don’t think the indult should be, but it is. That’s a fact.

Maybe the pope prefers one method, but he has clearly said we should not look down on others who receive using a different method. To do so is disobedient and defiant.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

St. Francis of Assisi was known for his devotion to the Eucharist. It is hard to imagine him receiving CITH. His reason for not becoming a priest was that he did not feel worthy to touch the Blessed Sacrament. So it seems inaccurate to call ncjohn’s position that of a “true Franciscan”.

Interesting point. I wonder what ncjohn’s take on this would be?

 

[Ockham]

Maybe you should ask the Church rather than pretending that you are omniscient and know all the answers.

I don’t know all the answers, but I know the history of CITH. Perhaps you should too.

Because people have given their valid reasons over and over. The fact that you choose to not see them does not mean they do not exist. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want but it doesn’t change that.

The only reason I’ve seen is “it’s approved!” Do you have anything else?

LOL. Do you truly not realize how much you are setting up your personal preference and observations as an idol? Perhaps you should find another 94 theses to add to this one and go tack them up on the Church door.

You accuse me of ‘ad hominem’ and then compare me to Luther? At least Luther was man enough to walk out of the Church rather than attempt to change it to his morally relative preferences.

This one baffles me more than any of the rest, how you continue to ignore the direct words of Jesus and all the scripture writers and cling to what is designed to put on a show for man instead of what God is looking for.

How can you ignore the direct words of the Church? The Church ruled against CITH and yet you, Fransican promote it.

 

[Ockham]

I still say that if the indult “shouldn’t be” on any “objective” scale, then the Church would get rid of it. Maybe you don’t think the indult should be, but it is. That’s a fact.

Have you researched this subject? Have you read what was going on during those chaotic days? Or are you just waxing poetically offering up conjecture and opinion?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Have you researched this subject? Have you read what was going on during those chaotic days? Or are you just waxing poetically offering up conjecture and opinion?

Which part do you disagree with? That the indult exists, or that the Church has the authority to get rid of it?

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe the pope prefers one method, but he has clearly said we should not look down on others who receive using a different method. To do so is disobedient and defiant.

But that’s exactly the way the practice came about. Or resurrected after a thousand years, if you will.

Unless you can show where a Pope initiated a motu proprio to begin/resurrect the practice, you’re just going to have to accept that the practice has been tarnished by scandal. Is that the way you think all practices should begin? Or do you think a general “amnesty” be granted everytime some defiant act occurs? Isn’t this a more of a political issue than a religious or one of reverence? If so, that’s profanity right there, isn’t it?

 

[ncjohn]

I’ll be vacating the thread, at least for the time being. When no arguments are being advanced beyond the circular “it’s wrong because I say it is and I say it is because it’s wrong” and are then coupled with nothing but personal insult and slander there is clearly no rational discussion to be had.

Interesting how people so selectively quote the Pope and Church to fit their needs and then put their fingers in their ears when it doesn’t suit them.

Off to rinse off the septic sludge.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’ll be vacating the thread, at least for the time being.

We’ll be here when you get back.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

I’ll be vacating the thread, at least for the time being. When no arguments are being advanced beyond the circular “it’s wrong because I say it is and I say it is because it’s wrong” and are then coupled with nothing but personal insult and slander there is clearly no rational discussion to be had.

Interesting how people so selectively quote the Pope and Church to fit their needs and then put their fingers in their ears when it doesn’t suit them.

Off to rinse off the septic sludge.

Figures. Run along now. Come back with some facts or stay away altogether. It would be charitable if you took digger and choy with you.

 

[Ockham]

Which part do you disagree with? That the indult exists, or that the Church has the authority to get rid of it?

Alan

Oh, I’ve never disputed the existence of the indult. Can you tell me how it came about? Who it actually applied to? What the conditions are?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Oh, I’ve never disputed the existence of the indult. Can you tell me how it came about? Who it actually applied to? What the conditions are?

I saw the conditions once, but I don’t remember them.

Here’s what I know. I had stopped going to church during my young and foolish years, and when I got back people were doing CITH. I was puzzled, but I didn’t dare do so until a priest explained in detail how it was to be done. Never, outside of this forum, have I even heard of the existence of any controversy about the matter. The people who are being accused here of being “disobedient” have no idea about it, and they were not the ones who started it – they are simply obeying their leader.

If you think this needs to be changed, then why deal with small potatoes like us? What sort of plan is there to correct it at a level it would actually make any difference? If that can’t be done, then I’d say the arguing is all pointless because CITH is here to stay. For every one we can convert on this forum, gazillions of others will be trained in CITH. What can be done?

With all the bishops and clergy in the US who are obviously very church-centered, and these practices are so obviously and “objectively” being done wrong, why is this not being handled at a much higher level? Or is it? Are there bishop wars over this?

Alan