There comes a time when the last man in is no longer the ‘newbie’. Once he is established in the team it becomes offensive to keep referring to him as if he’s not a regular member. There came a time when this form was no longer the ‘new order’. It’s the regular form now. The Ordinary Form. And it’s always those who don’t want to welcome it as the gift that it is that keep calling it ‘newbie’.LumineDiei:
Unlucky that you weren’t there to tell Pope Paul VI that he shouldn’t name it that way. Fact remains it is official name of the Liturgy as Liturgies often take names by their first edition. Would you say Church has named it offensively? That’s next level sedevacantist controversy where Church Fathers who developed Liturgy even know it would be “NO Mass”… or something. Not sure how you interpret that.
- Status
D
dochawk
Guest
It would be fair to compare the usage of the term to “negro”, “colored”, “moron”, and “mentally retarded”–which are generally avoided due to the abusive use.
2
27lw
Guest
What would I do? Lean back my head and stick out my tongue, of course! Why would CITH be my only choice?COHiggins:
The Eucharist is perhaps the greatest gift we have ever been given.
Let’s run a “what if” scenario. You are in Church, it is Communion time, your bench is clear as those next to you have gone up to Communion, and you look up. Christ is standing there next to you, holding up a Host and says to you “The Body of Christ”.
Would you tell him “No thanks - I don’t receive in the hand”?
Just a question - I have asked it before, and have had some interesting response.
Last edited:
L
LilyM
Guest
There is no way to know how they received 
There are plenty of good bishops and theologians and such that said they likely received in the mouth
Also they were apostles
[/quote]
Judas dipped His bread in the same dish as Our Lord,.so we can be reasonably confident He was not feeding them from His hands.
There are plenty of good bishops and theologians and such that said they likely received in the mouth
Also they were apostles
[/quote]
Judas dipped His bread in the same dish as Our Lord,.so we can be reasonably confident He was not feeding them from His hands.
M
Montrose
Guest
I did not say that. I would assume the bread was passed round and each apostle broke off a piece.
O
otjm
Guest
So I guess if he said "take this, this is my body (and was clearly trying to hand it to you), you would just ignore what he said and sit there with your tongue out?
O
otjm
Guest
You might want to read Luke’s account again, including the section at the end concerning the disciples on the road to Emmaus; reading it carefully indicates that not only were the Apostles present, but most likely also disciples.
M
Montrose
Guest
At the Last Supper it was Jesus and his Apostles. Scripture does not say anyone else was present.
2
27lw
Guest
Oh - was it supposed to be clear in the scenario that He was handing it toward my hand and not my mouth?
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I will never understand why people sit around creating “dilemmas” for themselves which they could avoid by simply following the procedures permitted by the Vatican.
It’s like standing in line for free headaches.
It’s like standing in line for free headaches.
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Correct. We are called to follow the cross of Christ, not create our own.
L
LilyM
Guest
‘Standing in line for free headaches’ - may have to steal that one …
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I cannot tell a lie, I stole it from Erma Bombeck, who was a Catholic, may she rest in peace.
With the knowledge that the Priest standing for Christ in this covid safe time, was offering Communion in the hand, would you reject Him?
2
27lw
Guest
Oh I have received CITH. Yes.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
I haven’t heard that name for a while. It brings a smile to my face and the image of the cover of “If Life is a Bowl of Cherries, Why am I in the Pits?” to my mind.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
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.
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.
A
Anesti33
Guest
One might abstain from receiving the Eucharist for various prudential reasons. I think what we are getting at is the selfishness of deciding: I only use one mode of reception, so Jesus must come to me in that mode or He won’t come at all. When the Church does not provide for such logic, this is a rejection.
S
stpurl
Guest
The Norm for Reception in the Church is on the tongue.
It is not about selfishness. It’s about respect.
Since both postures are currently accepted, even though I prefer to receive on the tongue, per our diocese I currently receive in the hand. But I can understand that a person who has (as I did) received on the tongue for decades (yes, decades) not for ‘selfish preference’ 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, with of course the understanding that one’s Easter Duty if there were only one option available would utilise that option.
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?
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.
There is seldom any idea that God might call different people to different actions. . .and remember that COTT and CITH are both valid options, and head covering for a woman or NOT covering are both valid options.
Yet somehow, only ONE option -the ‘newer’ option—is considered normal, right, etc because it has been more ‘popular’ in the last 40 years or so.
Since when is Catholicism something that caters to the popular vote? Remember, nobody here is saying CITH is wrong, or that women who don’t wear head coverings are wrong. . .
But it seems a heck of a lot of people want to say that receiving COTT is wrong, or wearing a head covering is wrong.
The whole way of speaking of these (and other) issues is geared toward making the people who want to do the ‘wrong’ thing’ feel as if they are ‘rejecting God’ by their attitude, or else ‘demanding He come only this way” or demanding that everybody else do it their way’.
I seldom see, “Oh, I can understand that you wish to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, and that you are praying and offering to God a spiritual communion in this COVID time.”
Nope, it’s, “How DARE you insist on YOUR way and reject Jesus”.
Yikes. I mean really, yikes. Nobody is sinning by not receiving, for heaven’s sake!!!
It is not about selfishness. It’s about respect.
Since both postures are currently accepted, even though I prefer to receive on the tongue, per our diocese I currently receive in the hand. But I can understand that a person who has (as I did) received on the tongue for decades (yes, decades) not for ‘selfish preference’ 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, with of course the understanding that one’s Easter Duty if there were only one option available would utilise that option.
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?
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.
There is seldom any idea that God might call different people to different actions. . .and remember that COTT and CITH are both valid options, and head covering for a woman or NOT covering are both valid options.
Yet somehow, only ONE option -the ‘newer’ option—is considered normal, right, etc because it has been more ‘popular’ in the last 40 years or so.
Since when is Catholicism something that caters to the popular vote? Remember, nobody here is saying CITH is wrong, or that women who don’t wear head coverings are wrong. . .
But it seems a heck of a lot of people want to say that receiving COTT is wrong, or wearing a head covering is wrong.
The whole way of speaking of these (and other) issues is geared toward making the people who want to do the ‘wrong’ thing’ feel as if they are ‘rejecting God’ by their attitude, or else ‘demanding He come only this way” or demanding that everybody else do it their way’.
I seldom see, “Oh, I can understand that you wish to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, and that you are praying and offering to God a spiritual communion in this COVID time.”
Nope, it’s, “How DARE you insist on YOUR way and reject Jesus”.
Yikes. I mean really, yikes. Nobody is sinning by not receiving, for heaven’s sake!!!
A
Anesti33
Guest
Your post is so chock-a-block with straw men that I am afraid to light a match.
- Status