P
ProVobis
Guest
And don’t forget the server holding the paten under your chin, no doubt counting all the teeth you have capped which would count towards some miles on his credit card.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then where’s the Church’s justification for COTT in the first place, if it’s as horrible as you make it sound?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
That’s a good question. I, for one, am glad that CITH came about. At first I wouldn’t do it; I always went to a priest and got COTT. After about a year, I went to a lay minister and tried CITH. I realized it was not so bad to touch the host, and yeah – nobody had to see my slobbery tongue.
I might as well admit it, maybe I’m emotionally attached to this issue, as well.
Alan
P
ProVobis
Guest
So do you, like, always put your hand over your mouth when you talk?nobody had to see my slobbery tongue.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I think some people would prefer that I did…So do you, like, always put your hand over your mouth when you talk?
Anyway I gotta go pick up my daughter now. It’s been fun; I’ll check back with you later.
Peace and Joy,
Alan
D
DebatingDebator
Guest
@ Alan from wichita.
The last supper is a red herring because we do not know for sure whether Communion was received by the Apostles on the tongue because of the tradition of the sedar meal or whether they received in the hand. Therefore the last supper cannot really be used by either side.
As I said in my post that both sides have missed the point with regards to the modern practice.
The issue with the modern practice is nothing got to do with subjective arguments about whether it is more appropriate to receive in the hand or in the tongue.
You can make all kinds of assertions to do with individual reverence and go on about it all day about which way is more reverent. That however has got nothing to do with why the Church ruled against Communion in the hand before.
The issue is not over individual subjective reverence.
This issue is about making sure that nothing of the Blessed Sacrament gets lost.
If you really want me to ignore the real issue and argue about subjective things that depend on the individual and even to a certain extent on culture, then you must realize that there is a lot more evidence on the side of the Communion in the Tongue than in receiving in the hand. However this skirts around the issue and doesn’t help you at all.
DebatingDebator
The last supper is a red herring because we do not know for sure whether Communion was received by the Apostles on the tongue because of the tradition of the sedar meal or whether they received in the hand. Therefore the last supper cannot really be used by either side.
As I said in my post that both sides have missed the point with regards to the modern practice.
The issue with the modern practice is nothing got to do with subjective arguments about whether it is more appropriate to receive in the hand or in the tongue.
You can make all kinds of assertions to do with individual reverence and go on about it all day about which way is more reverent. That however has got nothing to do with why the Church ruled against Communion in the hand before.
The issue is not over individual subjective reverence.
This issue is about making sure that nothing of the Blessed Sacrament gets lost.
If you really want me to ignore the real issue and argue about subjective things that depend on the individual and even to a certain extent on culture, then you must realize that there is a lot more evidence on the side of the Communion in the Tongue than in receiving in the hand. However this skirts around the issue and doesn’t help you at all.
DebatingDebator
P
ProVobis
Guest
I believe that that’s one of the conditions of the legality of the practice.
D
DebatingDebator
Guest
Yes and No.
Communicant receives Holy Communion in the Hand ------------------ Legal, Licit etc…
Communicant purifies his hands according to the rubrics of the early church [note differenT practices for men and women - see interview with patristic expert Bishop Schneider on EWTN] ------------------ Legal, Licit etc…
However what often happens today is different.
Communicant receives CITH ------- Legal, Licit, fine etc.
Communicant goes back to seat without even looking at their hands as a minimum for fragments of the Blessed Sacrament ------------ Very very large problem.
As long as we can make the difference we can see what needs to be done in God’s church today.
DebatingDebator
C
choy
Guest
so the OF is superior to the EF
thanks for clarifying that
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Fair enough. For now I’ll take your word for it.
I agree with you here. I also thought the discussion was silly and unproductive, if not evil.
Can you teach me to find things like this in the Church rules? Certainly it’s online; how do we know this is what “the Church” was thinking?
It doesn’t really help anybody; it’s just become a combat.
If the Church made its decision on losing pieces of the Eucharist, then I note that with modern science we know that some of it – even if too small amount to see or notice – is going to be lost, so preserving ALL of it is literally impossible. Now, as to how much is considered enough to worry over, that could cause a whole new discussion.
Still from the COTT point of view, I can see why they would want to receive COTT and I fully uphold their decision to get it that way.
From the CITH point of view, I can see why they would want to receive CITH and I fully uphold their decision to get it that way.
As far as one being right and the other wrong and the Church putting up with wrong because she’s afraid people won’t obey, sorry but that sounds like an excuse for anti-CITH crowd to complain and whine. As far as calling the CITH people disobedient and all the other things we’ve insinuated, I think whoever thinks that in church should excuse himself from Communion and first go confess having judged a brother as being disobedient when in fact they are obeying the only procedure they were taught, or the one of choice of two of them. Maybe we need a real-time examination of conscience while in the Communion line, as we stand there and judge each Communicant before us as either a Catholic Hero or as a scum who is (probably on purpose) ruining the liturgy.
COTT people apparently think that CITH people should spontaneously check up on their bishops and decide for themselves that CITH is wrong and quit doing it. If this isn’t what they want to see happen, please correct me. It doesn’t sound like anybody is proposing that the Church changes anything in this regard, so to me that’s just spitting into the wind.
CITH people, as far as I can tell, are for the most part oblivious to this entire discussion, and have no idea how troubled OTHER people are when they receive Communion. Those we are involved in the discussion have no evidence except hearsay – at least none I’ve seen presented in this thread – that the Church actually does not want us to do what our pastor and bishops have taught us to do.
I say it’s time to either encourage the Church to fix the problem, or declare it a non-problem. Anything else is an insult to the Church.
Alan
P.S. Personally I often receive COTT when it’s a priest, but that isn’t frequently for me. It’s been years (on regular Sunday/Holyday Mass) that I have been able to go to a priest. I play piano/organ for Mass, and the musicians are fed by EMs or whatever they are properly called.
D
DebatingDebator
Guest
Well I would like to remind you about the wonderful absorbent qualities of water.
How could the church have known to use water for ablutions when we are only now discovering how absorbent it actually is. I would say that when the ablutions over the fingers are done properly it would be legitimate to believe that none of the Blessed Sacrament does get lost due to this factor. Note a double ablution in the EF.
Got to work for 13 hours now, will quote a lot of material for your perusal later.
DebatingDebator
How could the church have known to use water for ablutions when we are only now discovering how absorbent it actually is. I would say that when the ablutions over the fingers are done properly it would be legitimate to believe that none of the Blessed Sacrament does get lost due to this factor. Note a double ablution in the EF.
Got to work for 13 hours now, will quote a lot of material for your perusal later.
DebatingDebator
O
Ockham
Guest
Type Communion in the hand into Google. Add Pope Paul VI. It’s quite an interesting story how CITH got into the GIRM. If you prefer old school then read Iota Unum by Romano Amerio.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Thank you for the reading information.
I remember when I was going to make my first Communion, my Lutheran friend and I used to take turns pretending to give each other COTT with Necco wafers.
Too bad we couldn’t share in the Real Thing.
Oh well. I’ll probably continue what I’ve been doing; when it’s a priest I might go either way, when it’s a lay minister, I’ll go CITH every time.
That is, until our pastor notifies us we should do otherwise.
Until then, I’ll trust that God, the Holy Spirit, and the Church are all doing the Right Thing as far as I’m concerned.
My major point, however, remains. No matter what the consequences of CITH, I believe that arguing between COTT and CITH people is feeding into the devil’s hands.
I will do what I do, but not argue anymore about one v the other. (argument clinic
)
Alan
I remember when I was going to make my first Communion, my Lutheran friend and I used to take turns pretending to give each other COTT with Necco wafers.
Too bad we couldn’t share in the Real Thing.
Oh well. I’ll probably continue what I’ve been doing; when it’s a priest I might go either way, when it’s a lay minister, I’ll go CITH every time.
That is, until our pastor notifies us we should do otherwise.
Until then, I’ll trust that God, the Holy Spirit, and the Church are all doing the Right Thing as far as I’m concerned.
My major point, however, remains. No matter what the consequences of CITH, I believe that arguing between COTT and CITH people is feeding into the devil’s hands.
I will do what I do, but not argue anymore about one v the other. (argument clinic
)Alan
S
Sirach2
Guest
That is very wise, Alan. When mindsets are that strong, you will never, ever change them with words of wisdom. Ask me sometime how I know.
Your argument clinic was precious!
[Lk. 16:31] "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ "
N
ncjohn
Guest
Amen.
Unfortunately it appears that many here never learned “argument” which at least involves rational discussion rather than projecting personal preferences and attacking those who don’t share them, and apparently skipped straight through to “abuse” instead.
God must be soooooo pleased!
P
ProVobis
Guest
So basically you are saying, if they figure it’s good enough for non-priestly hands to administer communion, then I might as well take it in my hands? Just trying to understand here. There seems to be too much hand involvement here leading to more chances of leaving small particles in more moist places. Talk legalities all you want but I think I’d rather see your tonsils than thinking the thought of leaving the Particles of Christ all over the place.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Kind of. I figure the amount lost is never zero, so we can only change the quantity that is lost. Therefore I don’t worry about it, as long as it is some miniscule amount we can’t see. So when I go to priest for COTT it is probably more out of nostalgia than cleanliness or whatever. I just don’t feel that way about lay ministers.
That said, I do see your concern, and yes, I’m explaining but will not actually “argue” in the spirit of the clinic.
Alan
P
PJM
Guest
It’s not “more Catholic” friend; it’s GREATER reverence. It’s not about us’ it’s about God.
But you’ll entitled to do as you want.
Love and prayers,
P
PJM
Guest
THANKS for trying.
But we are talking to people “that know more and know better” just like the folks that introduced the practive. How one is able to MORALLY justify holding God in there hands speaks loudly for “I” " ME" and PRIDE. It’s only wrong "if I say it’s wrong crowd.
I have several time posted the actual vote from Vatican II document that rejected the practice mutiple times. But hey; what do the Pope and Magisterium know anyway?
D
DebatingDebator
Guest
Perhaps it is impossible to prevent the loss of a little of the Blessed Sacrament.Kind of. I figure the amount lost is never zero, so we can only change the quantity that is lost. Therefore I don’t worry about it, as long as it is some miniscule amount we can’t see. So when I go to priest for COTT it is probably more out of nostalgia than cleanliness or whatever. I just don’t feel that way about lay ministers.
Alan
However we are bound to do as much as we can - and the testimony of the early Fathers, the Eastern liturgy, our own liturgical heritage, the testimony of the magisterium supports this entirely.
The following situation cannot be justified in any way shape or form.
Communicant who receives in the hand who then does nothing whatsoever to prevent the loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
This action cannot be justified in the slightest.
Now if we want a true understanding of the development of discipline with regards to our reception of Holy Communion the correct practice to compare it to is this.
**
Priestly Celibacy**
Early Church ------------ Priests and Bishops can get married.
Time for reflection ---------- Priests and Bishops can no longer get married in the west, Bishops cannot in the east because they need to devote their entire lives to God
Protestant time -------------- You cant do that, Protestants get married.
Modern Times ----------- Some people still desperately trying to change the discipline of Celibacy for Priests.
Communion in the Tongue
Early Church ------------ People can receive in the hand.
Time for reflection ---------- It is better to receive in the tongue while kneeling for many reasons including that of preventing loss to the Blessed Sacrament.
Protestant time -------------- You cant do that, We must introduce CITH to teach the faithful not to show false honor to the Sacrament because it is not the real presence [cranmer et al]
Modern Times ----------- People forget all of the things that the Church did for a minimum of 1500 years to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
DebatingDebator
- Status