Communion on the hand dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter COHiggins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm. So your response which just excoriates me for your blanket generalisation of ‘straw men’ is supposed to excuse you from not replying? Isn’t that an example of a fallacy itself?

I don’t mind, or care, if you don’t agree with me; you’re entitled to your opinion. Since you truly don’t appear to want to even consider anything I said and simply to label it with a cutesy one-liner, I’ll wish you a good evening.
 
Montrose said:
At the Last Supper it was Jesus and his Apostles. Scripture does not say anyone else was present.
Click to expand...
Apparently you did not read my suggestion.

If the disciples on the way to Emmaus were not previously on the prior Thursday in the Upper Room, then how did they “recognize him in the breaking of the bread”?

You can cite a miracle, but that not only stretched the narrative, but it is not how the incident was written; the word “revealed” is not used, but rather “recognized”.

Thursday evening, Christ celebrated the Passover Meal, which we refer to as the Last Supper. There is no indication in the narrative that only the Apostles were invited. The lack of mention of others at the Supper is not indicative that others were not there; it is simply silence as to any others.

And the disciples went back to the Upper Room - how would they even know where the Apostles were unless the disciples were also with them? Nor was there any surprise noted when the disciples told the Apostles they had seen the risen Christ35 "Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread"

And none of the Apostles remarked “But you weren’t there - how did you know this?” or express any amazement that the disciples would know something which they had not previously seen and participated in.

Again, you have to explain how the disciples would even know the Eucharist without having participated in it, and how they knew where the Apostles were if they had not been with the Apostles.

So I submit that Scripture does say they were with Christ and the Apostles at the Last Supper; the information is at the end of Luke’s Gospel.
 
If you want me to make it more clear; after He says “This is My Body” he looks down at your hands and extends the Eucharist well below your chin.

But we both know that is not necessary to further explain. You know what I am asking. And I am not looking for a response; I am asking whether your feelings against Communion in the Hand would be altered by the scenario.
 
otjm said:
So I submit that Scripture does say they were with Christ and the Apostles at the Last Supper; the information is at the end of Luke’s Gospel.
Click to expand...
All I can say is the Church does not say that so I will go with what I said. Scripture does not mention anyone else present at the Last Supper other than Jesus and the Apostles. Better than your private opinion.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
With the knowledge that a person only has to receive communion once a year during the Easter Season, is any Catholic who is not in a state of mortal sin rejecting Christ if he or she does not receive?

If so, why does the Church not require or command a person of age and not in mortal sin to receive at every Sunday Mass or Mass obligation?

Since the Church does not so command, a Catholic is not bound to receive at any given Mass and does not reject Christ by not receiving.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry if you misunderstood but I was asking 27w the question.
 
stpurl said:
Here’s the thing: Anything that has the perception of ‘trad’ to some eyes is automatically already suspect.

How often is a woman wearing a head covering told that she is pridefully calling attention to herself, and is ‘glorifying herself’ by wearing it, and ‘disrespecting’ women who don’t?
Click to expand...
Virtually never, at least around here. I think some of the posters who identify as “trads” can be a bit hyper-sensitive to criticism and prone to a siege mentality.

What I do sometimes see is an aura of superiority or condescension around these hot button issues. If it’s “i do (x traditional practice) because I prefer it, but if you don’t, that’s cool too.” then no one really has a problem. But sometimes the tone is “I do (x traditional practice) and that makes me more reverent, more devout, a better Catholic, etc.” That’s what people push back against, not the traditional practice itself.

There are very few people who actually have a per se problem with traditional practices themselves, at least among people who post on CAF.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
If you want me to make it more clear; after He says “This is My Body” he looks down at your hands and extends the Eucharist well below your chin.

But we both know that is not necessary to further explain. You know what I am asking. And I am not looking for a response; I am asking whether your feelings against Communion in the Hand would be altered by the scenario.
Click to expand...
Yes if Our Lord were offering me CITH I would receive. And I have received CITH during pandemic and non-pandemic CITH.
 
Last edited:
I have personally been told that wearing a head covering is holier. I have also been told that COTTis holier so there is that.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
but in a belief that this pleased the Lord more, might wish to abstain until that person could receive as he or she felt the Lord desired,
Click to expand...
Mi_Rose said:
I have personally been told that wearing a head covering is holier. I have also been told that COTTis holier so there is that.
Click to expand...
I think the heart of the issue is the part I’ve bolded above. The Church doesn’t provide a superior and inferior option; the Church provides two equal options, else the option wouldn’t exist. It’s because of this line of thought that your comments below are, in essence, what @RolandThompsonGunner described above.
stpurl said:
I see the same kind of view here. The automatic assumption is that the person who wishes to receive COTT is doing so to look holier than thou, and to disrespect those who receive CITH.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This iss why I stsy out of these discussions. I didn’t say anyone was holier. Sheeh.
 
One can’t help but notice that for centuries CITH would have been absolutely unthinkable.
Then, magically, after 1970-whatever, oh, okay.
 
And I have personally been told that wearing a covering is shameful, that the woman is a traitor, that the whole thing was a male chauvinist issue, that women who wear are stupid sheep, and that seeing another woman with a cover triggered feelings of nausea and flashbacks of feeling ‘unworthy’ just by being a woman.

So? It’s not about duelling experiences.

Because one person said that to you, does that mean all women who wear a head covering are doing so thinking they’re ‘better’?
 
You misunderstand me. It was late at night but once again in forums it is necessary to ‘dot the i’s.

Where I said “pleased the Lord” may I make it perfectly clear now that it is not the particular action of the wearing of the cover by the woman I used as a hypothetical, but the ‘CALLING’ of the Lord Himself?

We are all individuals. Some people are called to individual actions or devotions without said action or devotion as done by THEM individually casting aspersions on OTHERS who do not.

Is that clear? That I am saying that Jill Catholic who, due to her own personal prayer life and communication with God, feels that God has asked her to cover for HIS glory, not HERS, does so to please GOD, not to please herself or to act holier than thou or better because she does this and Jane Catholic does not? Jane’s devotion may be that she says a daily rosary for the unborn. Or something completely different. But Jane wouldn’t feel that every other Catholic has to say a daily rosary, and Jill does not feel that because she wears a covering that every other woman has to, or that she, Jill, is better than others. Jill is simply trying to please God by her personal devotional action to God.

Is that clear now?
 
Thank you. I do appreciate that you clarified that, as I was under the wrong impression earlier.
 
Much like, I imagine, was the reaction by those where CITH had been a practice until one day the Church decided it wasn’t ok anymore. 🤷‍♂️
 
stpurl said:
Jill is simply trying to please God by her personal devotional action to God.
Click to expand...
It is so precious that you suggest that reception of Holy Communion is a “personal devotional action”.

It is not.

When we receive Holy Communion, we take part in a corporate action. We join ourselves to the Mystical Body of Christ, to the saints and angels in Heaven, to all the other people receiving Holy Communion around the world. We forsake our personal needs and wants and participate in the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.

I used to kneel to receive Holy Communion; in doing so I thought I was more reverent, and besides, Cardinal Sarah said it was important. In fact I inspired a couple other people to follow suit. My pastor had no problem with it, although he did not facilitate it with a prie-dieu, so it was difficult to stand back up. But I visited another parish frequently, and the pastor there stopped me, and said it’s not the norm, and I’d need to stand up. Rather than have a hissy fit about posture, I conformed to his wishes out of obedience. He is the pastor. And you know what? I stopped kneeling altogether, soon after that. I just didn’t feel the need to be different anymore.
 
Didn’t she mean that wearing a hair covering is her personal devotional act? Not receiving Communion?
 
Anesti33 said:
It is so precious that you suggest that reception of Holy Communion is a “personal devotional action”.

It is not.
Click to expand...
I assume he meant the means of receiving is a personal action, not Communion itself. Someone who receives on the tongue is still apart of the same communal activity as the person who receives on the hand.

Really, this controversy should always just boil down to “both are allowed, do whichever you prefer, and respect that other people might do the opposite.” That’s really all that needs to be said in my humble opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top