Doesn't receiving only from the Priest rather than the EMHCs mess up the flow of traffic?

[FAB]

I just don’t understand how you don’t understand the definition of “obligation”. If the Church wanted to mandate that someone MUST receive from an EMHC, or MUST receive the Precious Blood, then the Church would do that. But it’s not an obligation.

I agreeded it’s not an oblgation, but we are called by the church to follow it’s teachings.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there are bits of Catholic theology that are left up to the individual. A Catholic is free to take the creation story literally, or not

.
Another subject, but the Church does teach that we do not take the bible liturally including the creation story. The bible is true as it teaches God’s salvation.

They’re free to attend different liturgies.

Interesting since I would assume your prefer the EF form of the liturgy as the norm over the OF, but the object to EMHC

They’re free to disagree on whether Mary was assumed to heaven before or after she died. Not everything is written in stone. And when it is written in stone, I don’t argue with it.

Not everything is black and white.

edit: I think I may have meant that for another thread, but I can’t tell, because they’re all mixed up now

I think you hit on the basic reason of the yearning of a tradition Catholic. At one time in the Church everything was black and white. The priest gave out communion, we were taught that only he could touch the eucharist because of his position in the church. Now it’s allowable for a EMHC to distribute, a lay person with no particular status and limited training. This flies in the face of centuries of teaching. But even that was not writtten in stone.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Jenny_Z]

Actually, I prefer a reverent Latin OF. I’ve been to the EF twice, but haven’t really gotten into it yet. It’s hard to pick up on if you weren’t raised with it.

We’re going in circles… all I can say is that I disagree with you that just because the Church offers something, doesn’t mean we’re obligated to receive, and the Church even states such.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving, and I think you should if you feel so called. If you want to receive Precious Blood from an EMHC, go right ahead, the Church says that’s ok if there aren’t enough priests and deacons. But don’t tell me I’m a bad Catholic (which is basically what you’re doing) just because I don’t.

 

[pickguard1]

We’re going in circles…

:yup:

 

[FAB]

I am curious which rules are being rejected here.

Part of the previous post was move so you would need to go find them to know what I was responding to. In general, more than once I have followed a thread, the call is given to show the evidence of what you say, and when it is presented, there is a yea, but… usually followed by a response that still trys in some way to discount the facts given.
Peace,
FAB

 

[Brendan]

I agreeded it’s not an oblgation, but we are called by the church to follow it’s teachings.

I’m curious, did Jenny say that we should not follow a teaching of the Church?

If so, what teaching did she say we do not need to follow?

 

[FAB]

Actually, I prefer a reverent Latin OF. I’ve been to the EF twice, but haven’t really gotten into it yet. It’s hard to pick up on if you weren’t raised with it.

We’re going in circles… all I can say is that I disagree with you that just because the Church offers something, doesn’t mean we’re obligated to receive, and the Church even states such.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving, and I think you should if you feel so called. If you want to receive Precious Blood from an EMHC, go right ahead, the Church says that’s ok if there aren’t enough priests and deacons. But don’t tell me I’m a bad Catholic (which is basically what you’re doing) just because I don’t.

We are obligated to a number of things in the Church. We are obligated to reject abortion, to respect life from natural conception to natural death. We are told to recieve the sacrament of reconcilation at least once a year and communion on a regular basis. There are fuindamental teachings to witch we are obligated to follow are we would be not be Cahtolic.

I wasn’t saying your a bad Catholic if you don’t recieve under both species, but hoping that you would reconsider your reasoning. This is your choice, but in my opinion not the best choice. We are given the opportunity, the gift of our savior’s flesh and blood, John said in his Gospel that we are the eat of His body and drink of His blood. The church saw the importance of communion under both species as far back as the Council of Trent 400 years ago, it was the practice for a 1000 years of the early church, so why not accept the gift? You said yourself you have no real reason.
Of course it’s your choice.

Peace,
FAB

 

[benedictgal]

We are obligated to a number of things in the Church. We are obligated to reject abortion, to respect life from natural conception to natural death. We are told to recieve the sacrament of reconcilation at least once a year and communion on a regular basis. There are fuindamental teachings to witch we are obligated to follow are we would be not be Cahtolic.

I wasn’t saying your a bad Catholic if you don’t recieve under both species, but hoping that you would reconsider your reasoning. This is your choice, but in my opinion not the best choice. We are given the opportunity, the gift of our savior’s flesh and blood, John said in his Gospel that we are the eat of His body and drink of His blood. The church saw the importance of communion under both species as far back as the Council of Trent 400 years ago, it was the practice for a 1000 years of the early church, so why not accept the gift? You said yourself you have no real reason.
Of course it’s your choice.

Peace,
FAB

But, receiving from an EMHC is not necessarily a teaching of the Church. It is an allowance, but, it has to meet certain parameters, as indicated in RS and the GIRM.

 

[Jenny_Z]

We are obligated to a number of things in the Church. We are obligated to reject abortion, to respect life from natural conception to natural death. We are told to recieve the sacrament of reconcilation at least once a year and communion on a regular basis. There are fuindamental teachings to witch we are obligated to follow are we would be not be Cahtolic.

I wasn’t saying your a bad Catholic if you don’t recieve under both species, but hoping that you would reconsider your reasoning. This is your choice, but in my opinion not the best choice. We are given the opportunity, the gift of our savior’s flesh and blood, John said in his Gospel that we are the eat of His body and drink of His blood. The church saw the importance of communion under both species as far back as the Council of Trent 400 years ago, it was the practice for a 1000 years of the early church, so why not accept the gift? You said yourself you have no real reason.
Of course it’s your choice.

Peace,
FAB

I didn’t say I didn’t have a reason… I gave you my reasons. Here, I’ll give them again.

1. I’m pregnant, don’t want to risk the germs (and I won’t want to risk them once I have the child either, nor would I want to risk accidentally dropping the chalice with a baby in my arms), 2) Receiving the Eucharist is 100% the Body and Blood of Jesus. Both are present in the Eucharist, 3) It holds up the line and causes a traffic jam.

Number 2 is the most important.

They don’t even offer it at the new parish I’ve been going to, so it’s not even a problem. But let me ask you… by your reasoning, is a priest wrong for not offering the Precious Blood? Is he depriving his flock? (I suspect I already know your answer, but I want to verify)

 

[FAB]

But, receiving from an EMHC is not necessarily a teaching of the Church. It is an allowance, but, it has to meet certain parameters, as indicated in RS and the GIRM.

I think you want to slit hairs on what is a teaching. I consider anything that is written, approved and released by the Church it’s teachings.
The Church teaches that EMHC may be used, but sparingly and teaches who, what when and why. No Argument. Your disagreement is when they are used. That up to the bishop and his agent the priest. If you want to barrate your pastor over things like this, that up to you, but in the end, even if it is an allowance as you call it, in the end, does it really effect your salvation?

Peace,
FAB

 

[Brendan]

We are obligated to a number of things in the Church. We are obligated to reject abortion, to respect life from natural conception to natural death. We are told to recieve the sacrament of reconcilation at least once a year and communion on a regular basis. There are fuindamental teachings to witch we are obligated to follow are we would be not be Cahtolic.

… We are given the opportunity, the gift of our savior’s flesh and blood, John said in his Gospel that we are the eat of His body and drink of His blood.

And that is accomplished with a single species. That is one of the teachings of the Church that we are obligated to follow.

What the Church also says is that it is a fuller sign, yes. But we also covered what the Church means when it says that something is a sign. It is a pointer towards a larger reality and a aid to remove doubt.

If someone has achieved the reality, and has no doubt of it, the sign literally serves no purpose. And the seeking of signs is something that we are supposed to move past.

The church saw the importance of communion under both species as far back as the Council of Trent 400 years ago, it was the practice for a 1000 years of the early church, so why not accept the gift? You said yourself you have no real reason.
Of course it’s your choice.

As we mentioned before, the gift is 100% accepted in a single species. There is no aspect of Christ that is missing. The gift is fully recieved.

 

[FAB]

1. I’m pregnant, don’t want to risk the germs (and I won’t want to risk them once I have the child either, nor would I want to risk accidentally dropping the chalice with a baby in my arms), 2) Receiving the Eucharist is 100% the Body and Blood of Jesus. Both are present in the Eucharist, 3) It holds up the line and causes a traffic jam.

Number 2 is the most important.

I answered #2, because of alchol content of the wine, the gemes are killed. as far as dropping the chalice, when I am the minister for the chalice, I aways help those mothers recieve by helping them with the chalice…

Holds up the line is just not a reason.

You also said you didn’t recieve before your pregnacy, and admitted at the time you had no reason.

They don’t even offer it at the new parish I’ve been going to, so it’s not even a problem. But let me ask you… by your reasoning, is a priest wrong for not offering the Precious Blood? Is he depriving his flock? (I suspect I already know your answer, but I want to verify)/

Yes! very much so!

Peace,
FAB

 

[FAB]

And that is accomplished with a single species. That is one of the teachings of the Church that we are obligated to follow.

What the Church also says is that it is a fuller sign, yes. But we also covered what the Church means when it says that something is a sign. It is a pointer towards a larger reality and a aid to remove doubt.

If someone has achieved the reality, and has no doubt of it, the sign literally serves no purpose. And the seeking of signs is something that we are supposed to move past.

As we mentioned before, the gift is 100% accepted in a single species. There is no aspect of Christ that is missing. The gift is fully recieved.

I know:banghead:I know:banghead:I know:banghead:

 

[pickguard1]

Yes! very much so!

 

[Jenny_Z]

I answered #2, because of alchol content of the wine, the gemes are killed. as far as dropping the chalice, when I am the minister for the chalice, I aways help those mothers recieve by helping them with the chalice…

Holds up the line is just not a reason.

You also said you didn’t recieve before your pregnacy, and admitted at the time you had no reason.

I DID NOT SAY I HAD NO REASON! I said my reasons where the same, just without #1.

You haven’t said anything about #2.

Also, the alcohol in the wine isn’t strong enough to kill all germs. Unless you can give me some documentation on that, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, and I think you’re being naive.

Yes! very much so!

Peace,
FAB

Yeah, I figured as much. You seriously need to read up on the Eucharist being both the Body and Blood of Christ. You claim that you know this, but I really don’t think you do.

 

[FAB]

I DID NOT SAY I HAD NO REASON! I said my reasons where the same, just without #1.

You haven’t said anything about #2.

Also, the alcohol in the wine isn’t strong enough to kill all germs. Unless you can give me some documentation on that, I wholeheartedly disagree with you, and I think you’re being naive.

Yeah, I figured as much. You seriously need to read up on the Eucharist being both the Body and Blood of Christ. You claim that you know this, but I really don’t think you do.

Even if I gave you documentation, you wouldn’t accept it. The documentation from the USCCB on why both species are given was rejected. There is no sense in trying to change minds which are locked close.

Goodby

 

[pickguard1]

Even if I gave you documentation, you wouldn’t accept it. The documentation from the USCCB on why both species are given was rejected. There is no sense in trying to change minds which are locked close.

Goodby

 

[Jenny_Z]

Even if I gave you documentation, you wouldn’t accept it. The documentation from the USCCB on why both species are given was rejected. There is no sense in trying to change minds which are locked close.

Goodby

That doesn’t even make any sense. What you quoted were good reasons to receive both (and I agree, there are good reasons), but they didn’t say that you HAVE to. You don’t seem to understand the difference.

 

[Brendan]

That doesn’t even make any sense. What you quoted were good reasons to receive both (and I agree, there are good reasons), but they didn’t say that you HAVE to. You don’t seem to understand the difference.

And FAB provided documentation on it being a fuller sign (which we all fully accept and embrace), but seems very unwilling to accept what being a sign MEANT.

BTW, here is the defintion of SIGN from the *Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John Harden S.J. ( Fr. Harden was recently declared “Servant of God” by Pope Benedict BTW, so I would imagine he’s a pretty good source )

SIGN. Something that leads to something else. It may be an arbitrary or conventional sign that has a connection with what is signified only by agreement among people, such as a flag symbolized a nation. Or it may be a pure sign that leads to knowledge of something without itself being first known, as our ideas leads to knowledge of real objects.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Since my direction to keep the thread on topic has been ignored this thread is now closed.