Bishop calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent

[ProVobis]

“The Church allows us to receive in two ways. By stating one way is more reverent than the other you are saying or implying the Church is wrong in allowing two ways to receive.”

Ok, so let’s say that’s true. If I were to say that doing Friday meat abstinence is more preferable than eating meat, I’m being disobedient because the Church has allowed eating meat on non-Lenten Fridays?

Or, better, if I insist on doing a three-hour fast before Communion, I’m being disobedient because you’re doing only a one-hour fast?

I think we need to clarify what real disobedience is. But, more to the subject matter at hand, are we calling the bishop in question disobedient for calling tongue Communion more reverent? What if he forbids hand communion in his diocese? It’s still an indult the last I heard and not all countries honor it so I would backatcha with the disobedience wrap.

 

[Brother_John]

Then perhaps you should expand on your post - I read it as implying that traditionalists claim that receiving on the tongue is the only proper way to receive the Eucharist - which couldn’t be further from the truth because a true Traditionalist position agrees with the Church.

I would ask again, that you peruse some of the other threads at CAF on this issue.

The traditionalist position is repeatedly stated that Communion on the tongue is the only “proper” way to receive, and that receiving in the hand is more or less limited to the United States…and is by indult that resulted from disobedience.

 

[Freshman88]

I would ask again, that you peruse some of the other threads at CAF on this issue.

The traditionalist position is repeatedly stated that Communion on the tongue is the only “proper” way to receive, and that receiving in the hand is more or less limited to the United States…and is by indult that resulted from disobedience.

That you think online forums determine the “traditionalist” opinion is very silly.

You must understand that traditionalists like most people, are individuals. The individuality of the traditionalist is all the more important given the fact that traditionalist beliefs are determined by nothing more then a love of the mass. That is the only uniting factor amongst traditionalist - it defines a traditionalist, it is one who loves the EF. Even this statement is debated, because traditionalist is a self-determined title and the individual himself can determine what constintutes a traditionalist because we are not bound by any kind of laid out beliefs (beyond ofc,the Catholic Church)

Everything else is mere opinion and determined by the individual. There is no set of traditionalist beliefs. When one looks at a communist, they can critique them based on documents such as the communist manifesto. Traditionalist have no such set of declared beliefs and so to claim that traditionalists say “X” is a very bold claim that is completly unfounded. You may say it is likely based on the experience of an online forum - but that is a very weak statement.

 

[Brother_John]

That you think online forums determine the “traditionalist” opinion is very silly.

You must understand that traditionalists like most people, are individuals. The individuality of the traditionalist is all the more important given the fact that traditionalist beliefs are determined by nothing more then a love of the mass. That is the only uniting factor amongst traditionalist - it defines a traditionalist, it is one who loves the EF.

Everything else is mere opinion and determined by the individual. There is no set of traditionalist beliefs. When one looks at a communist, they can critique them based on documents such as the communist manifesto. Traditionalist have no such set of declared beliefs and so to claim that traditionalists say “X” is a very bold claim that is completly unfounded. You may say it is likely based on the experience of an online forum - but that is a very weak statement.

To be candid, yes, CAF is where I determined my opinion of traditionalists. Because, before I came here, I had never heard any of the things I see on this site. I had never even heard the tern “Traditional Catholic”.

I never dreamed that the Catholic Church was so internally divided.

The “traditionalist” view seems to disagree with anything that came out of, or after Vatican II. The most common issues:

Latin Mass
Communion on the Tongue
Communion on knees at a rail
Music
Location and use of Tabernacle
Eucharistic Ministers
Clothes worn to Church
Male/Female Altar Servers

I think you get the picture. Perusing the Traditional Catholicism sub forum, you will figure out who these people are, and the opinions are consistient.

 

[Freshman88]

To be candid, yes, CAF is where I determined my opinion of traditionalists. Because, before I came here, I had never heard any of the things I see on this site. I had never even heard the tern “Traditional Catholic”.

I never dreamed that the Catholic Church was so internally divided.

The “traditionalist” view seems to disagree with anything that came out of, or after Vatican II. The most common issues:

Latin Mass
Communion on the Tongue
Communion on knees at a rail
Music
Location and use of Tabernacle
Eucharistic Ministers
Clothes worn to Church
Male/Female Altar Servers

I think you get the picture. Perusing the Traditional Catholicism sub forum, you will figure out who these people are, and the opinions are consistient.

But John, you have to understand that this a big mistake and is unfair.

I think what needs to be done is to better understand traditionalism. The fact of the matter is is that traditionalism is a very undefined and loose term. It includes people such as myself who agree with every teaching of the church, all the way to the self-appointed popes of sedevacantism.

Clearly this movement called “Traditionalism” is as varied as a term such as proestant and must be taken on a person by person case.

I have traditonalist friends, I attend a traditonal parish, I go on multiple traditional forums and other online communities. I know first hand that there are many loyal traditional Catholics.

 

[Brother_John]

It includes people such as myself who agree with every teaching of the church, all the way to the self-appointed popes of sedevacantism.

So, are you stating that you are a Sedevacanist? Or, did I misunderstand your post?

 

[Freshman88]

So, are you stating that you are a Sedevacanist? Or, did I misunderstand your post?

LOL!
yes I see how you can read that let me edit that setence.

First let me stress this part
It includes people such as myself who agree with every teaching of the church, ****all the way [meaning I am at one spectrum and sedevacantis are the other] **to the self-appointed popes of sedevacantism.

Now here is a clearer versuon
At one end of the spectrum It includes people such as myself who agree with every teaching of the church and at the other end of the spectrum are the self-appointed popes of sedevacantism.

 

[ProVobis]

"The ‘traditionalist’ view seems to disagree with anything that came out of, or after Vatican II. The most common issues:

Latin Mass
Communion on the Tongue
Communion on knees at a rail
Music
Location and use of Tabernacle
Eucharistic Ministers
Clothes worn to Church
Male/Female Altar Servers"

Well at least you acknowledge that Vatican II wasn’t responsible for these changes. Many traditionalists are falsely accused of being anti-Vatican II when they even question these issues you mention which really don’t belong in the same sentence with Vatican II.

 

[Brother_John]

Now here is a clearer versuon
At one end of the spectrum It includes people such as myself who agree with every teaching of the church and at the other end of the spectrum are the self-appointed popes of sedevacantism.

Gotcha.

Reading the forums at CAF can lead to a definitive belief, that the “traditional” group is a major force in US Catholicism. However, in speaking with some local pastors (I do a lot of HVAC work for the churches in our area) the actual numbers of people who take issue with the things on my above list are very, very few, which would be more in tune with your “individual” position.

 

[Freshman88]

Gotcha.

Reading the forums at CAF can lead to a definitive belief, that the “traditional” group is a major force in US Catholicism. However, in speaking with some local pastors (I do a lot of HVAC work for the churches in our area) the actual numbers of people who take issue with the things on my above list are very, very few, which would be more in tune with your “individual” position.

its just the nature of the label “traditionalist” - it is defined by nothing else except the individual. There is no document that we subscribe to that lays out our beliefs or intentions. Therfore you have to let the individual define it for himself.

terms like SSPX are more revealing - but beyond that, it really is hard to say what a traditionalist subscribes to.

 

[Brother_John]

its just the nature of the label “traditionalist” - it is defined by nothing else except the individual. There is no document that we subscribe to that lays out our beliefs or intentions. Therfore you have to let the individual define it for himself.

terms like SSPX are more revealing - but beyond that, it really is hard to say what a traditionalist subscribes to.

Interesting thoughts…thanks

Just wondering though…would the same apply to those called out as “modernist” or “liberal” Catholics? I consider myself neither of those either…I consider myself a Practical/practical Catholic.

Cheers

 

[Freshman88]

Interesting thoughts…thanks

Just wondering though…would the same apply to those called out as “modernist” or “liberal” Catholics? I consider myself neither of those either…I consider myself a Practical/practical Catholic.

Cheers

Liberal for sure is of a similar nature. That said, it isn’t exactly positive because liberal suggests change and that proves problematic for a faith that is unchanging.

Modernist is however, described more accurately in documents such as the syllabus of errors.

Calling yourself practical could work - I would just stick to Catholic though

I apologize for the attack earlier, but I hope you understand why I interpreted your post so negatively.

 

[Brother_John]

Liberal for sure is of a similar nature. That said, it isn’t exactly positive because liberal suggests change and that proves problematic for a faith that is unchanging.

Modernist is however, described more accurately in documents such as the syllabus of errors.

Calling yourself practical could work - I would just stick to Catholic though

I apologize for the attack earlier, but I hope you understand why I interpreted your post so negatively.

After serving 5 four-year terms on the city council where I live, I take very little personally

 

[Jakub]

Communion on the tongue and the priest saying

“Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” (“May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen.”)

It’s been too long…

james

 

[drafdog]

Again we seem to have a lot of people who don’t believe in the omnipotence of God. They seem to think that the only way the Eucharist can properly be venerated is if the laity never come in contact with it except with their tongues.
Let us suppose that a crumb from the Eucharist falls to the floor of the Church unnoticed. Since the presence of God in the Eucharist is a miracle which by definition is beyond our comprehension, is it not possible for God to withdraw that presence and so protect it from desecration? Or is God not omnipotent?
Let’s stop worrying about God’s personal dignity. He’s a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us for that.

Matthew

PS I am a Catholic and have been all my life. I have a great love and respect for God. But He is God. We aren’t.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Poor bishop must go into an absolute lather whenever he contemplates the last supper. All those fellows passing a flat bread (pita) around and each tearing off a piece. I would be surprised if the man doesn’t faint at the aspect.

Matthew

Or maybe it happened like this:

1. The Last Supper

But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Or maybe it happened like this:

1. The Last Supper

But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

I have seen a few try to promote this before.

The wet morsel was for the traitor – it does not say the first one I give this to (as if he was dipping the bread in the wine for all the apostles).

This theory does not make much sense.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Again we seem to have a lot of people who don’t believe in the omnipotence of God. They seem to think that the only way the Eucharist can properly be venerated is if the laity never come in contact with it except with their tongues.
Let us suppose that a crumb from the Eucharist falls to the floor of the Church unnoticed. Since the presence of God in the Eucharist is a miracle which by definition is beyond our comprehension, is it not possible for God to withdraw that presence and so protect it from desecration? Or is God not omnipotent?
Let’s stop worrying about God’s personal dignity. He’s a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us for that.

Matthew

PS I am a Catholic and have been all my life. I have a great love and respect for God. But He is God. We aren’t.

Right. So why don’t we just have the priests toss the Holy Eucharist to people in the pews who raise their hands? If some fall to the floor, oh well. God’s a big God and doesn’t need our attempts to protect the sacred host. I’m sure He’ll just suck His presence out of any consecrated host that falls to the floor.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I have seen a few try to promote this before.

The wet morsel was for the traitor – it does not say the first one I give this to (as if he was dipping the bread in the wine for all the apostles).

This theory does not make much sense.

Apparently it was a tradition at the time of Jesus (and today) that would apply regardless of whether the person was a traitor or not.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Apparently it was a tradition at the time of Jesus (and today) that would apply regardless of whether the person was a traitor or not.

Even for the Passover?