Do you want the EF as normative for the entire Latin Church?

[Baelor]

In any case, it is possible to have something permitted that is bad.

Let us use more precise terminology – “immoral,” “sacrilegious,” “inefficient,” and so forth.

You go from Priests with consecrated hands barely touching the host (thumb and forefinger only) to everybody in the parish taking Jesus in their hands and leaving crumbs everywhere so that people can step on Him. Gotta be something wrong here.

The Precious Blood is evaporating into the air continually. Is that not important? Microscopic pieces of the Body rub and break off regardless of type of reception. Are those suddenly irrelevant?

Your opinion. I’d rather insult clergy and laity than insult God Almighty be treating Him like a cookie.

I would rather trust God and His Church rather than presumptuously know that I am more reverent and aware of God than the institution God Himself gave to us.

 

[Basilios]

No, it is not my opinion. It is not sacrilege to receive Communion on the hand. It is a manner of receiving permitted by the Church. Are you maintaining that the Church is not in the business of permitting sacrilege as part of the liturgy of the Mass?

It is not immoral to receive Communion on the hand. It is absolutely not a sin. This is not simply my opinion, that is the teaching of our Church.

To maintain that it is immoral (and therefore sinful) to receive Communion in the hand is a heretical position which is contrary to the teaching of our Church.

Objective sacrilege vs subjective sacrilege. You’re putting words into my mouth.

To maintain that it is sacrilege for a layman to receive CITH is certainly not heretical lol. Otherwise I think the Church pre-1960’s must have been filled to the core with heresy.

 

[Basilios]

Let us use more precise terminology – “immoral,” “sacrilegious,” “inefficient,” and so forth.

I’d like to be more precise but I fear that I cannot be on this particular forum. If you’d join another one I’d be glad to talk a bit more openly!

The Precious Blood is evaporating into the air continually.Microscopic pieces of the Body rub and break off regardless of type of reception.

When the accidents are no longer identifiable the substance is no longer there. Which is why, for example, a particle of Our Lord’s body is put into water if it cannot be eaten at that moment (like, if you just happened to find a particle in a Church and are in a state of mortal sin or something).

I would rather trust God and His Church rather than presumptuously know that I am more reverent and aware of God than the institution God Himself gave to us.

I am trusting the Church. For centuries she taught that the laity should not receive Holy Communion in the hand because it was sacrilege.

 

[agnes_therese]

I am trusting the Church. For centuries she taught that the laity should not receive Holy Communion in the hand because it was sacrilege.

No, you aren’t. If you were trusting the Church, you would trust her when she allows both forms of reception.

 

[Basilios]

No, you aren’t. If you were trusting the Church, you would trust her when she allows both forms of reception.

This guy must be a bad Catholic like me too

en.gloria.tv/?media=2710

 

[Brendan_64]

To maintain that it is sacrilege for a layman to receive CITH is certainly not heretical lol. Otherwise I think the Church pre-1960’s must have been filled to the core with heresy.

Yes it is heretical. Our Church permits receiving Communion in the hand as an acceptable way of receiving Communion, and it is indeed the most common way of receiving for the vast majority of Catholics.

Our Church certainly does not view receiving Communion in this way as being sinful. To maintain that this is actually sinful is indeed a heretical position at odds with the teaching of our Church.

I am not putting words into your mouth. You have maintained that receiving Communion in the hand is an immoral act (i.e sinful)

It’s not incorrect legally speaking. It is incorrect morally speaking.

Ought Catholics to confess this sin at the sacrament of penance, along with the other sins we have committed?

Is the Church itself guilty of promoting sinful behavior during the Mass by effectively promoting a sinful act?

 

[Brendan_64]

No, you aren’t. If you were trusting the Church, you would trust her when she allows both forms of reception.

 

[Basilios]

Yes it is heretical. Our Church permits receiving Communion in the hand as an acceptable way of receiving Communion, and it is indeed the most common way of receiving for the vast majority of Catholics.

It shouldn’t be. The universal norm is still COTT. Guess that disobedience, and the disobedience of CITH when it first started, doesn’t count, right?

You have maintained that receiving Communion in the hand is an immoral act (i.e sinful)

… objective… vs… subjective…

Ought Catholics to confess this sin at the sacrament of penance, along with the other sins we have committed?

If they are subjectively aware of any sin of sacrilege of course they must.

Is the Church itself guilty of promoting sinful behavior during the Mass by effectively promoting a sinful act?

Promoting? It’s something that’s allowed, not promoted.

The Church *qua *Mystical Body of Christ cannot sin or promote evil. But the clergy can allow these kinds of things to happen, but that’s not the ‘Church’ doing it. God is allowing this for some greater good.

 

[Megan7]

This guy must be a bad Catholic like me too

en.gloria.tv/?media=2710

NO BASILIOS, YOU are NOT a bad Catholic. And this guy is a very humble, Holy man.
And he seems to be a wonderful Catholic as well. He published a booklet on this, right?
May our Lord Bless Him!

How we Greet the Lord of Lords, The King of Kings!! I loved how he said that!

God bless you Basilios, do not let what some people say affect your Faith

Thank you for your wonderful posts:thumbsup:

Pax

 

[Brendan_64]

Promoting? It’s something that’s allowed, not promoted.

So the Church actually allows sin to be part of the Mass?

That is a heretical position if ever there was one.

Your view that to receive Communion in the hand is to commit a sin is ludicrous, and is at odds with the teaching of our Church.

Are the clergy (including the Holy Father) guilty of colluding in the sinful acts of others by facilitating sin on such a vast scale during the Mass?

 

[Basilios]

NO BASILIOS, YOU are NOT a bad Catholic. And this guy is a very humble, Holy man.
And he seems to be a wonderful Catholic as well. He published a booklet on this, right?
May our Lord Bless Him!

How we Greet the Lord of Lords, The King of Kings!! I loved how he said that!

God bless you Basilios, do not let what some people say affect your Faith

Thank you for your wonderful posts:thumbsup:

Pax

Thanks be to God I was being facetious when I posted that comment I’m probably a bad Catholic for different reasons

Yes Bishop Scheider is fantastic! Speaks so well on the love of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

God Bless +

 

[Basilios]

So the Church actually allows sin to be part of the Mass?

That is a heretical position if ever there was one.

Your view that to receive Communion in the hand is to commit a sin is ludicrous, and is at odds with the teaching of our Church.

As I have told you at least three times now: there is a difference between objective and subjective sacrilege.

I have never said that ‘the Church allows sin to be a part of the Mass’. You have said it, repeatedly. That’s what you dearly wish for me to say. I don’t say it though. Sorry. We’re talking past each other it looks like.

Guess we won’t be convincing each other either way then

But God Bless you anyway! Your love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is clear. You, and others, only respond because you love Jesus and His Church. I do the same. Forgive the way I come across sometimes - I type for brevity so it seems as if I am being curt.

I will look into this topic more. I hope you can do the same.

God Bless +

 

[godisgood77]

Objectively sacrilege I would say. Subjectively, it is up to the individual.

Can we stop pretending like CITH started in the 60s?

 

[Brendan_64]

I have never said that ‘the Church allows sin to be a part of the Mass’.

You said that receiving Communion in the hand was immoral. An immoral act is a sinful act. You admitted that the Church allows the receiving of Communion in the hand during the Mass. Your position is therefore that the Church allows a sinful act during the Mass.

The clergy therefore must be colluding in this sinful act by facilitating it when they give Communion in this manner, to the vast majority of Catholics, week after week. This collusion will involve practically all priests, bishops and the Holy Father (including Benedict XVI, Blessed John Paul II etc.).

To maintain that receiving Communion in the hand is a sinful act is indeed heresy. It is a pretty serious allegation, and the implications regarding the collusion of the clergy in this are pretty damning.

But God Bless you anyway! Your love for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament is clear. You, and others, only respond because you love Jesus and His Church. I do the same. Forgive the way I come across sometimes - I type for brevity so it seems as if I am being curt.

I will look into this topic more. I hope you can do the same.

God Bless +

And you too Basilios.

And I too can be guilty of appearing curt when typing online. I reckon we would have a much more cordial conversation if we were to talk in the flesh.

God Bless

 

[CutlerB]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

While I see your point, it’s just semantics. Change the name and the question is no paradox, while retaining its meaning.

 

[jwinch2]

Yes it is heretical. Our Church permits receiving Communion in the hand as an acceptable way of receiving Communion, and it is indeed the most common way of receiving for the vast majority of Catholics.

No, it is not heretical. There is no dogma of the Faith defining the proper way to receive communion. In the Latin Church, the normative manner for reception of Holy Communion is kneeling and on the tongue. An indult was granted to allow for standing and in the hand, but the Church’s preference is kneeling and on the tongue.

There are things which the Church allows and there are things which the Church prefers. There is a difference, and it has nothing to do with what is the most common. This was addressed here quite nicely by Francis Cardinal Arinze when he was the prefect of the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[sw85]

Guys, “heresy” pertains to the denial of a dogma of the faith. How communion is received isn’t dogma, it’s not even doctrine.

Whether or not CITH is a good idea or not is a prudential question with a prudential answer about which reasonable people can disagree. It’s not a moral question. The Church has never held it to be a sacrilege as far as I know, and it has allowed some religious orders (e.g., the Franciscans) to practice it since long, long before Vatican II, as brother JR would tell us if he were here. It typically forbade this practice in diocesan parishes but that was, again, a matter of policy, of discipline, which can change.

 

[ProVobis]

When the accidents are no longer identifiable the substance is no longer there.

Maybe a little OT, but isn’t the substance lost after a point in time?

 

[Lucky7]

The Church allows Communion in the hand. I don’t have the authority to overrule the Church’s decision.

This is another change beyond the change to vernacular that I just don’t understand. What was wrong with keeping communion only on the tongue? Why was there a need to change it to include receiving communion in the hand? This just does not compute for me.

 

[ProVobis]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

Fair point. Maybe the better question would be whether a Mass with some (or all) Latin should be the normative Form in the LATIN Church?