G
godisgood77
Guest
We’re not discussing the True Presence of Christ in this thread. Instead we are discussing an external posture and the differing preferences of those who receive
Cardinal Sarah: return to Communion directly on the tongue while kneeling
- Status
K
KMG
Guest
Rome has more than clarified that nobody who kneels for Communion can be remotely accused of disobedience or anything of the sort.
P
pnewton
Guest
But the fact remains, there is no desecration of the Eucharist, or else the Catholic Church teaches we should desecrate Jesus. At that point, it would be best to be something other than Catholic. So, working backwards, if one believes the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to be free of error, and the desecrating the body of the Lord is an error, then that which the Church does is not desecration.
Piety is a gift of the Holy Spirit, one that we should embrace and accept in others, especially those different, as part of unity. I think the word you should have used is uniformity.
Again, this issue is addressed in 1 Corinthians 12.
Last edited:
S
Sugabee43
Guest
I prefer Communion on the tongue for a number of reasons- I don’t want my own unanointed hands to touch His precious Body; COTT promotes reverence; and I have personally witnessed at least 5 (different) people in the last several years who have received on the hand, and not consumed the Host immediately. There was one teenaged girl who still had the Host in her hand at the end of Mass in the Narthex! I gently confronted her, and it turns out she was “waiting until she could go in the bathroom and remove her retainer”!! 
COTT would negate all of that- and the lines go not much slower than what everyone is used to if Communion rails are used. I grew up in the Episcopal church, and once you get the pattern down, it’s pretty doggone quick.
COTT would negate all of that- and the lines go not much slower than what everyone is used to if Communion rails are used. I grew up in the Episcopal church, and once you get the pattern down, it’s pretty doggone quick.
T
Teek
Guest
Or they might be more concerned and place more importance in Who they approach to receive at the altar than they are with their own silly piety or with the censure of the rest of the faithful.
If you could see Jesus standing before you on the altar as you approached, would you not fall to your knees? Not to look all pious, but because there He is! It is the Lord! King of the Universe, Author of Life! In spite of knowing people will judge you for it as someone trying to look pious, you still might actually BE that pious!
And He is no less there in the Eucharist than if you could see Him standing there.
I don’t think you would just stuff your joy and adoration down and stand there to match everyone else.
I don’t think you should just stuff your joy and adoration down and stand there to match everyone else, if that is your reason for standing.
Sometimes people look pious and reverent because they really are.
That should be the assumption.
T
Teek
Guest
How can the response of the faithful to the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist be a low minded topic? Everything we do in Liturgy is our response to the True Presence of God in our midst.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
If it were me, I would not fall to my knees, I would run up, and give Jesus a big, old bear hug. Which is exactly why I receive in the hand. I hug Jesus every time I receive him.
That can’t be a bad thing, unless you don’t like hugs.
That can’t be a bad thing, unless you don’t like hugs.
Last edited:
A
angel12
Guest
And if we trust that part of the Church’s teaching, why should we not trust the Church’s teaching on how we may receive Him?
G
godisgood77
Guest
I believe it to be low minded to insist on one external posture vs another. The internal disposition of the communicant is the more important topic. Obsessing over one’s subjective preference to kneel and forcing others to your preference… put frankly, stinks.
It seems that those who prefer kneeling and on the tongue are interested in imposing that on everyone else. While I don’t hear or experience that insistence from others… we should remember… if you prefer to kneel, you are free to today.
It seems that those who prefer kneeling and on the tongue are interested in imposing that on everyone else. While I don’t hear or experience that insistence from others… we should remember… if you prefer to kneel, you are free to today.
T
Teek
Guest
Because of the many, many, MANY times the Church condemned it, and reasserted that condemnation, beginning in the 300’s and not wavering until the 1960’s due to widespread disobedience to the universal prohibition against receiving in the hands.
Because when the Protestants wanted to ensure that people didn’t think the Eucharist was more than a symbol, they abolished the act of receiving on the tongue.
Because the permission to receive the Eucharist in the hand was only given to countries who had already established widespread disobedience to the prohibition against it.
Because permission was granted with several restrictions which are not all met and, therefore, to receive the Eucharist in the hand the way we do is, in fact, a violation of the terms of the permission granted. (That is not the fault of the persons who receive in the hand in obedience to their local ordinary. Their lack of culpability does not make it less true.)
Because a maxim cannot be both true and untrue at the same time, and in the same way. It cannot be true that the particles of the Eucharist are so precious that we zealously guard against their loss or desecration in the way we treat the objects that contact them, while at the same time being true that those particles that are lost on people’s hands are no big deal. It is one, or the other. We treat the Eucharist with less care than the vessels that we use to contain it! Jesus is truly present, and so it can only be true that the Eucharist is worth vigilantly protecting at all times, and in all circumstances, to the best of our ability.
Because it is not the Church’s teaching! It is a reluctant exception that was borne from disobedience and the hard hearts of man.
Last edited:
S
Sugabee43
Guest
@Teek :raised_hands:t3::raised_hands:t3::raised_hands:t3: Amen!!
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
So, according to Teek, the Church is so weak she could not fight the horrible heresy of CITH and just rolled over and let all those disobedient people just do what they want.
The Church allows the practice, how it happened means nothing! If the Church felt it was important enough to change she would.
Until she does, I will listen to her and not some overly zealous, judgemental person who thinks they know better.
The Church allows the practice, how it happened means nothing! If the Church felt it was important enough to change she would.
Until she does, I will listen to her and not some overly zealous, judgemental person who thinks they know better.
S
Sugabee43
Guest
Where is @Teek being judgmental? I think by calling @Teek “overly zealous”, as if being zealous for Jesus and the Eucharist is a negative thing, you’re the one being judgmental.
T
Teek
Guest
You should read the historical documents surrounding the request. It is heart breaking.
In the US, the USCCB voted three times about whether to request permission to disobey the prohibition against it: 1975, 1976, and 1977. All three times they voted against requesting it. The third time, Cardinal Bernardin said the vote would not be final until they got the votes of those who were absent. This was a violation of the rules that governed the USCCB’s voting process, and a violation of the requirement of the Holy See that a 2/3 vote in favor must be conducted. Many Bishops protested. There was no official accounting. The request was made in spite of the Bishops’ vote against it. It is invalid.
How it happened is foundationally significant.
In the US, the USCCB voted three times about whether to request permission to disobey the prohibition against it: 1975, 1976, and 1977. All three times they voted against requesting it. The third time, Cardinal Bernardin said the vote would not be final until they got the votes of those who were absent. This was a violation of the rules that governed the USCCB’s voting process, and a violation of the requirement of the Holy See that a 2/3 vote in favor must be conducted. Many Bishops protested. There was no official accounting. The request was made in spite of the Bishops’ vote against it. It is invalid.
How it happened is foundationally significant.
Last edited:
T
Teek
Guest
I am sorry I came across that way to you. What choice do I have?
“Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend the truth is to suppress it” – Pope St. Felix III
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
What choice do you have?
How about you accept the fact that it is allowed and stop judging people who don’t do as you do as inferior Catholics who don’t understand anything.
I know all about the how’s & why’s that the manners if reception have changed over the years. They teach you a lot of that when you are working on an MA in Sacramental theology.
How about you accept the fact that it is allowed and stop judging people who don’t do as you do as inferior Catholics who don’t understand anything.
I know all about the how’s & why’s that the manners if reception have changed over the years. They teach you a lot of that when you are working on an MA in Sacramental theology.
T
Teek
Guest
Well done getting your MA! Now, please, use it to give a theological response to refute the arguments I have presented.
We are in full agreement about my character—major improvement needed! No debate there. But if a flawed person like me speaks the truth, the truth is not marred.
Show me where what I have said is untrue.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I do not care to debate with you as I do not have an issue with how other people receive communion.
Reverence needs to be in the heart. Can it manifest itself in outward actions? Yes, of course, but outward actions are not always indicative of interior disposition.
The Church allowed it. Period. Regardless of what you think about the how, it is allowed. I have no less love or reverence for the Blessed Sarament because I choose to do something that is permitted even though Teek says different.
I’m sorry, but I will not set myself up as an alternate Magisterium.
Reverence needs to be in the heart. Can it manifest itself in outward actions? Yes, of course, but outward actions are not always indicative of interior disposition.
The Church allowed it. Period. Regardless of what you think about the how, it is allowed. I have no less love or reverence for the Blessed Sarament because I choose to do something that is permitted even though Teek says different.
I’m sorry, but I will not set myself up as an alternate Magisterium.
Last edited:
T
Teek
Guest
I’m sorry for that. I was looking forward to your response.
I agree with you interiorly and outwardly.
To me, the conversation is entirely about Who we go to receive, not who is receiving.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
The question of whether or not it should be permitted is moot. It is.
Saying it shouldn’t be of course says something about the person receiving that way. The Church has permitted it. How it came to be is also a moot point. If the Church had issue with it, I am sure she would have come out hard and fast in response and would have forbidden the practice once and for all.
She has not, therefore, in my eyes, Rome has spoken, case closed.
Saying it shouldn’t be of course says something about the person receiving that way. The Church has permitted it. How it came to be is also a moot point. If the Church had issue with it, I am sure she would have come out hard and fast in response and would have forbidden the practice once and for all.
She has not, therefore, in my eyes, Rome has spoken, case closed.
- Status