A
Aces_High
Guest
Could it be that he/she was just asking a simple question?Oh, now we’re going to discredit the bishop if we don’t like what he says?
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. How’s that?
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes, I have heard some defenses of CITH that show a poor understanding of the presence of Christ. I have also heard some rather interesting defenses for why it should** not** be allowed that defy logic.Hold on there, pn. Paul may be onto something there, especially if you found it only on occasion to be untrue, implying that other times you may find it true?
.
BTW - the bishop’s diocese was partially blocked but I think it was Kazakastan. If there is no indult in the area where the man is a bishop, then receiving communion in the hand is wrong. Period.
P
ProVobis
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
I hope the fact that COTT only is old custom is not one of them.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Who determines the indult, the Vatican or the synod of bishops? Just asking.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
A nation’s conference of bishops can ask for the indult from the Holy See. The Holy See then grants it or not (as of 2007, it was permitted in Poland).
I think it important to realize that according to Catholic teaching, the Church’s disciplines cannot in themselves lead the faithful to impiety. I receive Holy Communion on the tongue, not because I think it is more reverent (I, for one, sin far more with my tongue than with my hands), but as an act of reparation for this essentially silly internecine fight among the faithful. Either way is permitted by the Church and no one should feel guilty about electing either mode. Those who want to browbeat others into doing it their way (and I mean those on either side of the fence, because I know the “on the tongue” crowd is also mocked by, for want of better descriptors, “liberals” and "progressivists) ought, I think, to examine their motive. Reverence for our Lord? Then why don’t we crawl down the aisle to Holy Communion? If Pope Benedict or a future pontiff ends the indult, fine, we’re obligated as faithful Catholics to obey. If they allow it to continue, those who receive in the hand cannot objectively be reckoned as less than that: faithful.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
Bishop Schneider is the Auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda, a relatively large city in Kazahkstan.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
**I have pointed out that several ancient liturgies still used by the Catholic Church call for communion in the hand BY RUBRIC, and there has never been any association of doubt in the Mystery of the Eucharist in these cases. In other words, there’s nothing modern about receiving communion in the hand.
However, you are right–should communion be received in the hand, the palm should be searched for Pearls (as we call them in the East).
And nobody has answered my question about why it’s so noteworthy that someone on EWTN disapproves of communion in the hand, as the original poster claimed.**
A
Adeodatus
Guest
I can’t say for sure… only guessing: because EWTN is a national channel? “To say X on national television” suggesting that X is something pretty big and/or controversial? Perhaps from the standpoint that bishops in general have not spoken about such issues?
P
pnewton
Guest
I found the historical development of communion intriguing. According to the bishop, the palm was not considered profane, but the fingers were. Men’s palms were not profane, but women’s palms were. The right palm (of a man) was not profane but the left was.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
I asked a simple question, and this is the answer I get. I never heard of this Bishop, and have no opinion on what he said, because I didn’t watch the program and only know what was posted by the OP, nothing first hand. Never mind, I just Googled his name and got the information I wanted. I should have done that in the first place. I think I’ve learned a lesson here.Oh, now we’re going to discredit the bishop if we don’t like what he says?
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
Thank you.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Getting rid of CITH is only useful if you also get rid of Extraordinary Ministers.
Insisting on Communion on the Tongue from an EMHC is ignoring the bigger problem.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Jkirk, I don’t know if you read Paul’s post. This CITH COULD be more than just discipline if it leads to a heretical mindset like Consubstantiation which Lutherans adhere to. It’s a subjective argument and I’m not on solid ground here, I understand, but it’s a point worth making for everyone who chooses to receive this way. Consubstantiation is heresy and treatment of the Body and Blood of Chirst that resembles by substance rather than by accident COULD very well be impious.
That Trent teaching on impiety, by the way, is not infallible. I once made the argument that it was but I was proven wrong.
P
ProVobis
Guest
EWTN can be streamed to anyone’s computer; it’s international unless it’s firewalled somewhere along the way.
It’s becoming clear the boundary lines of all these indults is becoming more and more blurred. I hope the Vatican comes forward and makes a statement on this one of these days.
P
ProVobis
Guest
This is very true. It’s the entire process of standing before a minister who has a consecrated host in his hand (and probably without a paten underneath) and then places it to your hands and then your hands to your mouth which introduces all kinds of loose fragments that are basically discarded in the air. And if there are people out there who trivialize these fragments as being too tiny to worry about, think again. This whole thread can be electronically stored on circuitry about the size of a few angstroms. The small becomes large very quickly.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Not so. Look up “negative infallibility.” At the least, the Church’s disciplines are incapable of leading the faithful to impiety.
And the consubstantiation arguement doesn’t hold up. For one thing, CITH MAY have been Apostolic practice and it was Patristic. For you to be correct, that would mean that the Fathers were wrong and possibly the Apostles. Besides, consubstantiation, while untrue, is every bit as esoteric in its way as transubstantiation might be claimed to be. Why would CITH be any more acceptable? If Our Lord was touched and handled by His Disciples on earth and acknowledged by Him to be God, why is it a denial of Transubstantiation to rec. in the hand now? Further, if it touches on a matter of infallibility, then the Church has failed to “teach” truth (by permitting a discipline?!?!) and Christ has failed in His promise. CITH does not, of itself or ontologically, lead to the heresy of consubstantiation any more than Communion on the tongue does.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not to agree or disagree with either, but I think it can be readily agreed that if we find CITH leading to a decreased understanding of the reality of the Real Presence, then it could be considered imprudent as a discipline. This would be one reason why the indult could be withdrawn.
I am not going to root for either side of the indult question. I’ll go along with whatever happens.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I think we’ve gone through this before. If “negative infallibility” applies here, then it should also apply to the anathema against those setting up new rites. But we know that isn’t infallible, either directly or negatively so I doubt if “negative infallibility” applies to impiety as well. Can we have a second opinion on this? pn, what do you think?
This is not any more convincing than my opinion. Christ doesn’t fail because a Pope tolerates a practice which he can’t apparently stop.
- Status