Do we dip the eucharist

[Timidity]

Brendan:

No, one is not allowed to take the chalice, one is allowed to recieve the chalice. That is were the difference lies.

When you go to Mass, do the Words of Institution say “Take this, all of you, and drink from it”, or “Recieve this, all of you, and drink from it”?

 

[otm]

tee_eff_em:

We might just as well ask: *“Who [mistakenly] taught this communicant to self-intinct?” *Of course we can only ask such rhetorically, since the party in question is not known to be a participant in this thread.

Was anyone here [mistakenly] taught that they may do this? Was anyone explicitly taught not to? (I don’t recall ever being *taught *not to, though I did learn of it later (not that I ever attempted self-intinction))

tee

Considering that it happens so infrequently, I suspect that it was not an issue of training, but of ignorance. any training that was done was done a long time ago, most likely, and people have a tendency not to remember all the detail of everything they are taught. I would strongly suspect that it, like many mistakes people make, was done in innocense and ignorance.

 

[otm]

Timidity:

When you go to Mass, do the Words of Institution say “Take this, all of you, and drink from it”, or “Recieve this, all of you, and drink from it”?

the words of Institution are “Take”, not “Receive”. However, they are the words of Christ; when the priest speaks them, he speaks them In Personam Christi; that is, Christ speaks through the ministry of the priest. and since it is Christ “handing” it to us, He hands it and we receive it.

When I hand something to my children, I say, “Here, take this”. I simply do not say, and I have never heard anyone else say, “Here, receive this”.
Interestingly, the webster’s College Dictionary I have handy lists 82 definitions of the use of the word “take”; the first on is "to get into one’s hands or possession by voluntary action: Take the book, please.. Out of the next 11, 7 have the term “accept” or “receive” in the definition.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Self-intinction sounds like the next BIG THING! Yes siree, we get this practice firmly established here in this country like we did with Communion in the hand, girl altar boys, hand-holding during the Our Father, etc. and, before we know it, Rome will issue a directive “allowing” the practice.

The clueless liturgical abusers must not be made to feel like they are doing something wrong. Oh, the horror. :bigyikes: Rather, we must be courteous and conscientious of the feelings of the liturgical abusers and give formal permission to their abuse, which automatically makes it an “approved liturgical option” instead of an abuse. Isn’t that much nicer?

Yes, indeed, self-intinction…the wave of the future. Ahhhhh…don’t you just love the new springtime? :dancing:

 

[otm]

Dr. Bombay:

Self-intinction sounds like the next BIG THING! Yes siree, we get this practice firmly established here in this country like we did with Communion in the hand, girl altar boys, hand-holding during the Our Father, etc. and, before we know it, Rome will issue a directive “allowing” the practice.

The clueless liturgical abusers must not be made to feel like they are doing something wrong. Oh, the horror. :bigyikes: Rather, we must be courteous and conscientious of the feelings of the liturgical abusers and give formal permission to their abuse, which automatically makes it an “approved liturgical option” instead of an abuse. Isn’t that much nicer?

Yes, indeed, self-intinction…the wave of the future. Ahhhhh…don’t you just love the new springtime? :dancing:

Sounds a little over the top, to me.

Perhaps we could all take a lesson from our Holy Father: during the funeral Mass for JP2, the leader of the Taize movement, who was known personally to then Cardinal Ratzinger, came up to Communion; and the Cardianl distributed Communion to him without batting an eye.

So since we seem focused on abuses, which is the greater abuse: allowing someone who is uninformed to intinct, or knowingly distributing Communion to a publicly known non-Catholic?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

otm:

Sounds a little over the top, to me.

Perhaps we could all take a lesson from our Holy Father: during the funeral Mass for JP2, the leader of the Taize movement, who was known personally to then Cardinal Ratzinger, came up to Communion; and the Cardianl distributed Communion to him without batting an eye.

So since we seem focused on abuses, which is the greater abuse: allowing someone who is uninformed to intinct, or knowingly distributing Communion to a publicly known non-Catholic?

Of course it’s over the top. But why is it any more over the top than all the other options that started out as abuses?

And I read somewhere, might have been the Register, that Brother Roger might have secretly become a Catholic. If I can find it online, I’ll post a link. Maybe only a few people, including Cardinal Ratzinger knew about it? I’ll presume he (Ratzinger) knew what he was doing, until I hear otherwise.

 

[otm]

Dr. Bombay:

Of course it’s over the top. But why is it any more over the top than all the other options that started out as abuses?

And I read somewhere, might have been the Register, that Brother Roger might have secretly become a Catholic. If I can find it online, I’ll post a link. Maybe only a few people, including Cardinal Ratzinger knew about it? I’ll presume he (Ratzinger) knew what he was doing, until I hear otherwise.

I presume he knew what he was doing also, and I too have seen the rumor that Brother Roger may have become a Catholic. But the point is that at the time of giving Communion, many Church leaders take the postion that it is the better choice to give Communion than to withhold it when the known person in front of them, not Catholic, presents themselves to receive.

Which, one would think might lend something to the weighing of what some seem to think are such horrible “abuses”, such as holding hands… which I submit, pale into insignificance next to the issue of who receives and who does not.