F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
That’s fine but I do not feel the need to justify a practice that the Church allows for.
Again, its none of your concern why or how I receive as long as I follow the Church in it.
- Status
Again, its none of your concern why or how I receive as long as I follow the Church in it.
P
PatriceA
Guest
Quite honestly, if I am forced to receive communion from an extrordinary minister and I’ve noticed they might be suffering from a cold, I receive CITH. I really do not want their hands near my mouth, even though I am fully aware I can still catch whatever they have by CITH. Its just my personal issue.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
Let me first state that I have no issues with the faithful receiving either on the tongue or in the hand, as both are accepted practices within Holy Mother Church, though in certain areas of the world, the local successors of the Apostles have asked that one or the other way be followed. If it is allowed, I will accept the practice as acceptable in obedience.
Just an observation, though…When Jesus first said, “Take and eat” at the last supper, and again during the meal on the road to Emmaus, do you think that when distributing the consecrated bread (bread that had become, through His blessing His body, blood, soul and divinity) in each of those meals, that He was requesting His disciples to receive only on the tongue? Do you not think that when breaking the bread and passing it out, there were not crumbs that fell, many of which would have been much greater in size than the crumbs we are speaking of here in a modern-day communion wafer?
I for one will hope and pray that our God will and does accept our humanness, and in that understand that from time to time we may create an un-expected, un-intended mess.
Just some thoughts.
Just an observation, though…When Jesus first said, “Take and eat” at the last supper, and again during the meal on the road to Emmaus, do you think that when distributing the consecrated bread (bread that had become, through His blessing His body, blood, soul and divinity) in each of those meals, that He was requesting His disciples to receive only on the tongue? Do you not think that when breaking the bread and passing it out, there were not crumbs that fell, many of which would have been much greater in size than the crumbs we are speaking of here in a modern-day communion wafer?
I for one will hope and pray that our God will and does accept our humanness, and in that understand that from time to time we may create an un-expected, un-intended mess.
Just some thoughts.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is this a valid argument?
Pollen is not seen by anyone, yet if a person is allergic they sure can sense the smallest amount of it in the air.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Let me ask you this…does it matter? How is it different for COTT with no paten? Particles may fall to the ground on the way to said tongue. Particles will even cling to a priest/deacon or EMHC’s hand. I simply fail to see how it changes for CITH vs COTT.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
BTW…not an arguement on my part. Someone asked…and since I’m the only one so far brave enough to risk peoples judgement I stated my reasons. I am not arguing FOR CITH…I’m stating why I receive that way.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
Or perhaps they don’t care to have YOUR judgement when Holy Mother Church allows for it…To give this group reasons is to make yourself vunerable to your judgement.
E
EcceAgnusDei
Guest
It does matter! It is a dogma of our Faith, declared by Trent, as I posted above. All dogmas and doctrines matter a great deal.
This is true, but it is a logical fallacy to argue that since we can prevent something 100% of the time, we shouldn’t try to prevent it. Take abortion, for example. As things stand now, millions of babies are being murdered despite our efforts to the contrary. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try our hardest to prevent it.
This is the reason why, in the EF, the priest keeps his index finger and thumb together from the moment of consecration until he cleanses his fingers and the vessels. Such a practice nicely fits the dogma defined by Trent.
- PAX
B
Brooklyn
Guest
That’s interesting. You are positing that Christ turned the bread and wine that He used at the Last Supper into his own Body and Blood and gave that to the apostles. I have never heard that before, and it really doesn’t follow when you realize that none of the Apostles had received the Holy Spirt yet, which came at Pentecost, and those who did receive from our Lord included Judas Iscariot, who was most definitely not in a state of grace. It seems to me that our Lord was giving us the form and method to be used for transubstantiation, but if the bread and wine had actually been turned into His own Body and Blood, none of the apostles would have been eligible to receive it.
Sorry, but I don’t think this example works.
P
PJM
Guest
Actually MANY have said that COTH is THEOLOGICALLY inferior. BEging with Sacred Tradition, continuing to Vatian II, confirmed by the actions of Pope Benedict XVI and ALL of this is supported by common sense.
Only the Ordained have CONSECRATED HANDS.
Therefore ONLY the Ordained are suitable for the task.
The idea that layfolk can or ought to hold Jesus Christ; the Son of God in their hands is a GROSS lack of respect due to our God.
Mother Theresa of Culcuta was of the opinion that this practice is the WORST abuse possible. I AGREE. What it does for catechesis is dismal.
The International Norms for the Universal RCC remains: keeling and on the tongue.
RECEIVING CHRIST
NOT
taking Christ
God Bless,
Pat
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Minor quibbles;
Deacons don’t have consecrated hands, although they are ordained.
Again, Deacon’s don’t have consecrated hands. And in extraordinary times, Laymen can assist.
It’s been established that this quote was a hoax.Mother Theresa of Culcuta was of the opinion that this practice is the WORST abuse possible. I AGREE. What it does for catechesis is dismal.
B
Big_Feet
Guest
So, you are saying that what Jesus said and did was merely symbolic and instructive, then?
Did he not say “THIS is my body…eat…THIS is my blood…drink…”?
Now, THAT is new to me.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
I can’t speak for others, but I am most definitely not judging you, even though I prefer to receive on the tongue. If you receive in the hand, you are doing nothing wrong. Unless, of course, you attend the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Then you will have to receive kneeling and on the tongue or the priest will not give you communion.
But I do find it interesting that those who receive in the hand feel judged, but those who receive on the tongue never make that complaint.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Yes it is. As the Church Teaches (how many times will this be said here?) once the appearance of bread is gone so is the real presence.
Can you truly argue that a fragment or particle or whatever you wish to call it that is so small that you can not see it with the unaided eye still has the appearance of bread?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
The Church Teaches that the Last Supper is the institution of the Eucharist.
How can it teach this if it does not believe that this was the first Eucharist?
As for Judas, he left before this point of the meal. The daily Gospel readings for today and yesterday make that clear.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Actually the Latin is ACCIPITE, from which our English word “accept” comes. “Take” is an awful translation IMO.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
But how could the apostles have received the actual Body and Blood of Christ at the last supper on Emaus when they had not yet received the Holy Spirit? And how could Judas Isacariot have received the Body and Blood? Do you think Jesus Christ would have desecrated himself by doing this?
Yes, before the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it was symbolic. There is no other choice. The only one who would have been eligible before Pentecost was the Blessed Mother.
As I’ve pointed out, when the early Church (after Pentecost, I might add) received, they did so in the hand, but they were so protective of the Blessed Sacrament, that they scooped it out of their hand with their mouth and then licked the palm to make sure they got all fragments. Would you be willing to do that? For me, it’s just easier to receive on the tongue. But if I ever do have to receive in the hand, I will use the method employed by the early Church.
You know that I am NOT saying that when the priest pronounces the words of consecration at Mass that it is symbolic.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Of course it was the institution of the Eucharist. Christ was showing us how it was to be done. But how could those without the Holy Spirit,who are not in a state of grace, receive the Body and Blood of Christ? That is anathema.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Again, the Last Supper is viewed by the Church as the institution of the Eucharist. No where does the Church Teach that the Eucharist could not occur before Pentecost.
I also pointed out that Judas left before this part of the Last Supper.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
Judas did not leave the last meal.
Luke 22:
[14] And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. [15] And he said to them: With desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer.
[16] For I say to you, that from this time I will not eat it, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. [17] And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks, and said: Take, and divide it among you: [18] For I say to you, that I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, till the kingdom of God come. [19] And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. [20] In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you.
[21] But yet behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. [22] And the Son of man indeed goeth, according to that which is determined: but yet, woe to that man by whom he shall be betrayed. [23] And they began to inquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. [24] And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. [25] And he said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent.
Judas was most definitely present when Christ instituted the Eucharist.
- Status