Did anyone see this nice little comment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YoungTradCath

Guest
An article appeared on the website of The Liturgical Commission called “Communion in the Hand.” The writer obviously has a profuse love for the practice. Whatevs, that didn’t really bother me. What did, however, was this nice little comment:
It was only later that over-emphasis on Christ’s divinity…
Click to expand...
litcom.net.au/liturgy_lines/displayarticle.php?llid=695

Seriously? Good God have mercy on us! Thoughts?

If this rather belongs in the news forum, please do move it
 
YoungTradCath said:
An article appeared on the website of The Liturgical Commission called “Communion in the Hand.” The writer obviously has a profuse love for the practice. Whatevs, that didn’t really bother me. What did, however, was this nice little comment:

litcom.net.au/liturgy_lines/displayarticle.php?llid=695

Seriously? Good God have mercy on us! Thoughts?

If this rather belongs in the news forum, please do move it
Click to expand...
It makes more more sense if you don’t chop off the remainder of the sentence in that way:
… and on human sinfulness led to a ban on people receiving communion in the hand. In fact, people seldom received communion at all.
The author’s point is that what he sees as an excessive emphasis on the unapproachability of Christ (not to mention the formalization of Eucharistic theology) and on the unworthiness of man caused a shift in the way the act of Communion was viewed, which in turn worked changes in Communion praxis. The wording is poor, and I think the overall point is mistaken, but not exactly in the way you seem to take it.
 
“…and it is unhygienic because it is difficult for ministers to avoid passing saliva on to other communicants.”

Surely this guy is fighting to suppress the distribution of the blood of Christ to the faithful also since he is so worried about hygiene and the passing of saliva. Just laugh at these stories and realize their time of destruction is coming to an end.
 
We can never, in any sense of the phrase, no matter with what other qualifiers are attached, over-emphasize the divinity of Christ. I shall never be convinced of that.
 
YoungTradCath said:
We can never, in any sense of the phrase, no matter with what other qualifiers are attached, over-emphasize the divinity of Christ. I shall never be convinced of that.
Click to expand...
We can and we do when we discount His humanity, though.
 
YoungTradCath said:
We can never, in any sense of the phrase, no matter with what other qualifiers are attached, over-emphasize the divinity of Christ. I shall never be convinced of that.
Click to expand...
Sure you can. It’s called Monophysitism, or Docetism, or Apollinarianism, or any of several other heresies.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Then I suppose I don’t know what to believe anymore.
Click to expand...
This is one of the great mysteries of faith.
Jesus was both, MAN & GOD. He knew it and He embraced both.
We, through our exercise of the faith, need to do so also.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
We can and we do when we discount His humanity, though.
Click to expand...
This. I think it is equally dangerous to stress ONLY the humanity of Christ though. These days it feels like people try to stress His humanity while at worst ignoring and at best downplaying His divinity. I think this is done in good faith, it’s a way to draw people closer to Christ but really Christ is divine AND human… the two should be equally stressed.
 
Compendium from Pope Benedict XVI
  1. In what way is Jesus Christ true God and true man?
464-467
469

Jesus is inseparably true God and true man in the unity of his divine Person. As the Son of God, who is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,” he was made true man, our brother, without ceasing to be God, our Lord.
  1. What does the Council of Chalcedon (in the year 451) teach in this regard?
467

The Council of Chalcedon teaches us to confess “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in his humanity, true God and true man, composed of rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father by his divinity, and consubstantial with us by his humanity, ‘like us in all things but sin’ (Hebrews 4:15), begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity, and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, as to his humanity.”

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
 
YoungTradCath said:
Then I suppose I don’t know what to believe anymore.
Click to expand...
What you are to believe is what the Church teaches, not what you would like it to teach, or think it teaches. It is quite possible to emphasize Christ’s divinity over His humanity to the point of heresy, and it has happened in the past. It is also quite possible to emphasize His humanity over His divinity, and we still see evidence of that today in some sects, and that is also heresy.

The Church teaches that Christ is 100% divine AND 100% human, and both are to be recognized equally. We absolutely cannot separate the Divine and the Human in Christ. This is the hypostatic union. He is a Divine Person.
 
In that context the comment was insulting and completely uncalled for.
 
CB_Catholic said:
What you are to believe is what the Church teaches, not what you would like it to teach, or think it teaches. It is quite possible to emphasize Christ’s divinity over His humanity to the point of heresy, and it has happened in the past. It is also quite possible to emphasize His humanity over His divinity, and we still see evidence of that today in some sects, and that is also heresy.

The Church teaches that Christ is 100% divine AND 100% human, and both are to be recognized equally. We absolutely cannot separate the Divine and the Human in Christ. This is the hypostatic union. He is a Divine Person.
Click to expand...
Right, I understand that and accept that.

But I can’t quite grasp how receiving Communion on the tongue supposedly “over-emphasizes the divinity of Christ.” His humanity and his divinity are sacred, and by saying what the author said, it feels like he is removing the sacredness of Christ. Just because He is true man, which of course he is, doesn’t mean we should treat Him like some random cracker. I don’t care for the sake of this argument if Jimbob wants to receive Communion in his hand, but I do care when it is very much implied that we over-emphasize the sacredness of God by receiving Communion on the tongue.
 
It is only that author’s opinion and carries as much weight as that and no more. I do not agree with him either.
 
I will not/cannot allow discussion about the merits/demerits of receiving COTT vs. COTH. The central question has been answered. This thread is now closed. Thank you all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top