Ecumenism-Why the Euphoria and what is the Gain for Catholics?

[TNT]

Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.
Question to Mother Teresa:
“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”
** Mother Teresa:**
“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

We have to understand what was meant by “antiquarianism” as it was condemned. Pope Pius XII was very clear that he was referring to the form brought about at the council of Pistoia.

It had nothing to do with restoring select practices in the past – in fact, the Pope Pius V said that was what he was doing when he promulgated the new missal.

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

Two posters have numerous sources displayed that treat this:
“Is it taking the Eucharist by hand or recieving the Eucharist on the tongue?”

I didn’t see why this question first arose in those posts.

Other reasons beside what I will give may arise, but here are just a few reasons for recieving on the tongue.

1. There is a smaller chance of dropping it to the floor.
   2… * There are some cults who want to desicrate the Eucharist in some sort devil worship. They want to take the Eucharist outside the Church.
   3 It has been the custom in the R.C.Church for centuries to recieve on the tongue.
2. It is more reverent to recieve on the tongue

 

[Deacon_Ed]

TNT:

Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.
Question to Mother Teresa:
“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”
Mother Teresa:
“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

Two points:

1. 
   *]This is unsubstantiated, and Fr. Rutler has, in the past, said this never happened.
   *]Who cares what made Mother Teresa sad? She is not the Church, she is one very holy person, but her opinion is just that, an opinion.
   
   Deacon Ed

 

[TNT]

Deacon Ed:

Correct – but whether one receives communion on the tongue or in the hand, it eventually winds up “in the mouth.” Nothing here prohibits communion in the hand.

By this truism, I could take communion using my toes…or sniffed up my nasal passage. The same applies equally to potato chips and chicken strips.

I can’t find the records of this synod, but I’ll admit it’s probably accurate. However, the later Council of Trullo (692) didn’t support it. It excommunicated those who brought gold or silver vessels instead of receiving in the hand.

“In Trullo” in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves.
Src: Can. 2 (Mansi, X, 1199). Apud Jungmann-Brunner, The Mass of the Roman Rite, vol. 2, pp. 381f, New York, Benziger Bros., 1955.

This also does not condemn the practice of receiving communion in the hand. It does require a priest to give communion.

Correct, as communion in the hand by definition, is giving ONESELF communion, known commonly as self-communicating.

However, as Pope John Paul II noted – that is a privilege that may be delegated as needed.

Excellent point:
A mark of liberal liturgical instruction (or even items De Ffide) is stating something obvious as true, then nullifying it with “however, except as needed”, nevertheless, but, wherever it is practiced otherwise, unless by competent authority, notwithstanding…"
That imprint of ambiguity and uncertainty like JPII is throughout the VATII document on the liturgy. THAT is the very reason no one can agree on anything in it. They kiss the feet of the heretics, and the hands of the Catholic… …at the same time. Pleasing neither.
As St Pius X said: Ambiguity (an ambivolence) is their trademark. Sooo true.

**In Summary, Communion on the tongue is historically Roman Catholic. Communion in the hand outside conditions of persecution, is historically Protestant.
**
I remain Historically by tongue, by veil, by knee, by sign of the cross, as my father and his, Roman Catholic.

** Proceed to evolve and mutate as you wish.
For
How can you destroy a religion without first severing its perennial traditions?
**

 

[TNT]

Deacon Ed:

We have to understand what was meant by “antiquarianism” as it was condemned. Pope Pius XII was** very clear** that he was referring to the form brought about at the council of Pistoia.

It had nothing to do with restoring select practices in the past – in fact, the Pope Pius V said that was what he was doing when he promulgated the new missal.
Deacon Ed

In that he was very clear, no doubt. That you are very cloudy, also no doubt. He even SELECTS:

“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition (antiquarianism) is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example (here comes those select practices they you testify have Nothing to do…), to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table (done); to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors (done), and pictures and statues excluded from our churches (done); to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer (done).” (Pope Pius XII, (Prophet?) Encyclical Letter “Mediator Dei”)

 

[mtr01]

TNT:

In Summary, Communion on the tongue is historically Roman Catholic. Communion in the hand outside conditions of persecution, is historically Protestant.

---

Not really so sure about that. From the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “Paten”:

The word paten comes from a Latin form patina or patena, evidently imitated from the Greek patane. It seems from the beginning to have been used to denote a flat open vessel of the nature of a plate or dish. Such vessels in the first centuries were used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who in their own hands received each a portion from the patina.

newadvent.org/cathen/11541b.htm

 

[Deacon_Ed]

“The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition (antiquarianism) is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example (here comes those select practices they you testify have Nothing to do…), to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table (done); to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors (done), and pictures and statues excluded from our churches (done); to require crucifixes that doe not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer (done).” (Pope Pius XII, (Prophet?) Encyclical Letter “Mediator Dei”)

Nope, not cloudy at all – I fully understand what the pope wrote.

First, as I pointed out, what was condemned was “[the restoration of] everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition.” The Church didn’t do that. As for the altar, it has always been the shape of a table, perhaps an elongated one, but a table. For a short period of time it was attached to the back wall, but that was an aberration of history. In the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition the altar has always been square as was found in the Jewish temple.

Black is still a liturgical color, one of three that may be worn for funerals.

I don’t know of any order excluding statues from churches. Yes, there are some pastors who have done this, but that didn’t come from the Church. The Church still requires a cross with the corpus on it commonly called a “crucifix” – the Risen Christ is not acceptable.

So, it seems that you claim as fact that which is, itself, an aberration.

Deacon Ed

 

[CrusaderNY]

The question asked, and you as an Orthodox can answer, what does my church, the Catholic church, gain by playing nice nice with you the Ortodox, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Jews, the Protestants and all non Catholics in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, (which it should not have per doctrine of Ecumenism)?

The Orthodox still call our Pope the Anti Christ, the Jews still study from the Anti Catholic Talmud, and the Moslems read from the Koran which blasphems our lord, but our Liberal Council fathers in Vatican II state how wonderful the Moslems are. It is all hipocracy and must and will stop as Catholics are becoming more educated.

I ask once again, what do you, as an Orthodox Catholic, hope to gain from the ecumenism fostered by the post Vatican II liberal Popes, and what from your schism are you willing to forego in order to reconcile (the Filoque, the hatred of the Pope, etc).

If you have nothing to bring to the barganing table, that what is the use of talking? I as well as many others are waking up and are tired of our church bending over and having this feeling of guilt for the Orthodox who ran away like little babies, the Protestants who have hatred and jealousy in their hearts, and the Jews who are still waiting for a messiah after some 5000 years and missed the boat some 2000 years ago and their pride still wont allow them to admit their errors. The Vatican still has not got the point on many things yet, but listen to EWTN town hall meetings and other forums by Novus Ordo lay persons as well at conservative and traditional catholics, and we are tired of this garbage that has been thrown our way, and there will be sweeping changes from the seminary level on up, as the morality of our young as well as what is being taught to them is corrupted from non Catholics and liberal Catholics, who have had thier way for the past 40 years and have done nothing but damage.

Please answer this question, the church has watered itself down after V2, and now it is your turn to offer something back

1) Not of necessity; The church is doing what it considers the will of God in the uniting with others in the world. It expands, it gains allies and it gives

2)That my friend, was decided for us one Friday about 2,000 years ago. We have walked that path of “danger” since the Apostles preached and taught, in Rome through the pagans, the polytheists, the Reformation, the athiests and two world wars…it comes with the baptismal water.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

TNT:

By this truism, I could take communion using my toes…or sniffed up my nasal passage. The same applies equally to potato chips and chicken strips.

But reception by one’s toes is not permitted. I don’t care what you do with potato chips.

“In Trullo” in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves.
Src: Can. 2 (Mansi, X, 1199). Apud Jungmann-Brunner, The Mass of the Roman Rite, vol. 2, pp. 381f, New York, Benziger Bros., 1955.
Correct, as communion in the hand by definition, is giving ONESELF communion, known commonly as self-communicating.

You didn’t read the letter from St. Basil that I cited earlier. If you had, you would know that this is patently false. Rather than make you scoll back, here it is again:

For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.

Clearly, St. Basil doesn’t accept the self-communion argument. The Church still permits only priests (and bishops) to self communicate except in cases where deacon or lay person is leading a communion service in which case that person may self-communicate at that service.

Excellent point:
A mark of liberal liturgical instruction (or even items De Ffide) is stating something obvious as true, then nullifying it with “however, except as needed”, nevertheless, but, wherever it is practiced otherwise, unless by competent authority, notwithstanding…"
That imprint of ambiguity and uncertainty like JPII is throughout the VATII document on the liturgy. THAT is the very reason no one can agree on anything in it. They kiss the feet of the heretics, and the hands of the Catholic… …at the same time. Pleasing neither.
As St Pius X said: Ambiguity (an ambivolence) is their trademark. Sooo true.

It’s not ambiguous at all. At least, not to those who read it without an agenda.

In Summary, Communion on the tongue is historically Roman Catholic. Communion in the hand outside conditions of persecution, is historically Protestant.

I remain Historically by tongue, by veil, by knee, by sign of the cross, as my father and his, Roman Catholic.

That’s the nice thing about the Catholic Church – not everybody has to do things the same way. You can retain your practices and they are just as valid as the practices of those who choose the receive communion in the hand.

BTW, communion in the hand was the practice of the Church for at least the first 700 years – although there seems to be placed where communion on the tongue was practiced during the period. For the last 1300 years it has been a tradition (note the lower case “t”) to receive on the tongue. That does not make it doctrine or dogma – it’s still a discipline.

Deacon Ed

 

[JKirkLVNV]

2… * There are some cults who want to desicrate the Eucharist in some sort devil worship. They want to take the Eucharist outside the Church.

3 It has been the custom in the R.C.Church for centuries to recieve on the tongue.
4. It is more reverent to recieve on the tongue
I asked the question of TNT. He cited numerous sources and Deacon Ed countered. I didn’t wish to hijack the thread, so as I said, sorry. I’m perfectly willing to rec. on the tongue, if it can be shown to me that that is what is asked of me. I said something else in another post about obeying the spirit of a directive, not merely the letter. I want to be obedient. I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that #4 is an entirely and overtly subjective opinion. One mode is not more reverent than another. The disposition of the heart is what makes for reverence, not the outward gesture. One assumes that the cults who come in to steal the Host are making outward gestures or saying, “Amen,” when the Host is presented to them. That said, if the Holy Father desires us to rec. on the tongue, then I will rec. on the tongue. If you want to return to the original topic, we can.

 

[CrusaderNY]

Having Communion in the hands was the original way that communion was given, it was then given on the tongue later on, and forget about St Basil as that is what every liberal, and anti catholic quotes. Communion in the hand started at the time of the reformation by Luther and his cohorts to clearly show that they did not believe in the Transubstantiation of Our Lord, and at the Council of Trent, this was clarified and we were instructed to receive on Our Tongue just for that reason, to show that we believed, and it clearly stated that Only Consecrated hands shall touch the eucharist. For some reason, as it is not in the V2 documents that I have read, and like all reverent things, to appease the laity to make them feel like they were “participating” the liberal Council fathers after V2 allowed Communion in the hands and allowed not only unconsecrated hands to touch our lord, but unconsecrated hands in a eucharistic minister to hand it to a lay person in their hand and THEN hopefully place it in their mouths. Here in NY the gays stormed St Patricks, received the eucharist in their hands, and then they all placed them on the floor and stepped all over them at the gay pride parade. Even Pope Paul VI and John Paul II agreed, but do not want to go after the liberals of the church, and really do not do anything as it pertains to retaining the traditions.

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

JKirkLVNV:

I asked the question of TNT. He cited numerous sources and Deacon Ed countered. I didn’t wish to hijack the thread, so as I said, sorry. I’m perfectly willing to rec. on the tongue, if it can be shown to me that that is what is asked of me. I said something else in another post about obeying the spirit of a directive, not merely the letter. I want to be obedient. I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that #4 is an entirely and overtly subjective opinion. One mode is not more reverent than another. The disposition of the heart is what makes for reverence, not the outward gesture. One assumes that the cults who come in to steal the Host are making outward gestures or saying, “Amen,” when the Host is presented to them. That said, if the Holy Father desires us to rec. on the tongue, then I will rec. on the tongue. If you want to return to the original topic, we can.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

CrusaderNY:

Having Communion in the hands was the original way that communion was given, it was then given on the tongue later on, and forget about St Basil as that is what every liberal, and anti catholic quotes.I fail to understand why a quotation from one of the great saints of our Church should be ingored. I am neither a “liberal” nor an “anti-Catholic.” I serve the Catholic Church in both the Latin and Melkite Churches. There are numerous examples of artwork in the catecombs showing communion in the hand; there is the Catechetical Instruction of St. Cyril of Jerusalem also describing how the neophytes are to receive communion in the hand.

Communion in the hand started at the time of the reformation by Luther and his cohorts to clearly show that they did not believe in the Transubstantiation of Our Lord, and at the Council of Trent, this was clarified and we were instructed to receive on Our Tongue just for that reason, to show that we believed, and it clearly stated that Only Consecrated hands shall touch the eucharist.Luther did not reinstitute communion in the hand – that came with those who followed Cranmer in the Church of England. Luther held to the fact that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood of Jesus – he never denied that. Luther, being an Augustinian, would have followed Augustinian philosophy rather than the Dominican philosophy of Aquinas and, therefore, would have refrained from the use of the term “transubstantiation.”

For some reason, as it is not in the V2 documents that I have read, and like all reverent things, to appease the laity to make them feel like they were “participating” the liberal Council fathers after V2 allowed Communion in the hands and allowed not only unconsecrated hands to touch our lord, but unconsecrated hands in a eucharistic minister to hand it to a lay person in their hand and THEN hopefully place it in their mouths. Here in NY the gays stormed St Patricks, received the eucharist in their hands, and then they all placed them on the floor and stepped all over them at the gay pride parade.And that could happen just as easily with communion on the tongue which is why the good sisters were very careful in asking us, as students, to watch those around us to make sure they did not remove the Blessed Sacrament from their mouths as they returned from receiving communion.

Even Pope Paul VI and John Paul II agreed, but do not want to go after the liberals of the church, and really do not do anything as it pertains to retaining the traditions.

Agree? What makes you think they agree? Pope Paul VI authorized the process, under the condition that the national conference of bishops request it by a 2/3 vote. This happened in the United States, it did not happen in Italy thus the indult is granted here, but not in Rome. This has nothing to do with the desires of Pope John Paul II who does, indeed, give communion in the hand as anyone who has watched the papal liturgies would know.

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

But nothing says they gave communion only on the tongue. This is a strawman argument.

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Not only has it been retained, it is the normative method for the reception of communion in the Latin Rite Church, receiving in the hand is an indult, an exception to the law granted by Rome.

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

I’ve already shown how this is only the first half of the citation – the remained shows that the Chuch has the right to grant this privilege to any they desire where there is need.

Deacon Ed

 

[Exporter]

During the 30’s, 40’s 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80,s one would not see communicants have the Eucharist put in their hands. It was recieved on the tongue. This I know from obsevation. Where I live the first time I saw a Priest place the Eucharist into the hand was about 1990, and then it was very few.

On this thread someone wrote,"I’m perfectly willing to rec. on the tongue, if it can be shown to me that that is what is asked of me. I said something else in another post about obeying the spirit of a directive, not merely the letter. I want to be obedient. I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that #4 is an entirely and overtly subjective opinion.

An insert here: Does the “hand reciever” think that the Priest’s hands are dirty, contaminated or repelling? Therefore that person thinks his own hands are cleaner, uncontaminated or more worthy than the Priest’s hands. Is that the reason they dont want the Priest’s hands near their mouth? Oh my, who do they think they are?]

The person who wrote this says, “I would be perfectly willing”…
They must think they are supposed to have Jesus placed in their (dirty) hands. Someone had to have taught them to put out the hands to recieve Jesus. How did that happen? Who said the Priest shouln’t put his hands close to the mouth?
No one tells us to come to Mass barefooted with dirty work clothes blowing bubbles with bubble gum. But we don’t do those things out of respect of what is about to happen at Mass. When I hear,“Would be willing”, it sounds to me like that person is satisfied to do the bare minimum, just “get by”. That is as bad as the teen aged girls wearing revealing “get-ups” to Sunday Mass. No Respect. eh?

My youngest relative is a 9 year old grand son. He recieves Our Lord on the tongue as do all the little kids in his Parochial School. Why do they do that, it is not subjective, there is a reason.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Exporter:

During the 30’s, 40’s 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80,s one would not see communicants have the Eucharist put in their hands. It was recieved on the tongue. This I know from obsevation. Where I live the first time I saw a Priest place the Eucharist into the hand was about 1990, and then it was very few.

The indult for receiving communion in the hand was granted in the early 1970’s. In my parish the option became available in the mid-70’s.

Deacon Ed

 

[TNT]

Deacon Ed:

Nope, not cloudy at all – I fully understand what the pope wrote.
… As for the altar, it has always been the shape (clever) of a table, perhaps an elongated one, but a table. For a short period of time (clever, 800 years is short to God, right?) it was attached to the back wall, but that was an aberration of history. Black is still a liturgical color, one of three that may be worn for funerals.

So, it seems that you claim as fact that which is, itself, an aberration. (You can visit P. XII on that.)

Deacon Ed

As you would have it, the whole need to mention altars (as P.XII accepted them) was a useless adminishment. Such revisionism.

“In the present liturgical dispositions of the Latin Rite, red is the color of the vestments worn on Good Friday, to remind us of the precious Blood of the Savior shed to take away our sins on that day. For funeral or “requiem Masses,” however, the priest has the ***option ***of wearing white, violet, or black vestments.”

Which effectively eliminates the need for ever using Black…clever, yes…

The spirit of the Encyclical has been killed by Newchurch, except for Newchurch advocates, then it’s just a matter of shallow, transparent cleverness.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TNT:

And From:
**OK, HERE IS YOUR LIVING POPE: JPII **
**Dominicae Cenae 24th February 1980, the LIVING Pope … “to touch the Sacred Species and to administer them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” **
Not enough? OK…
St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”

This sounds suspiciously like one of the pseudo-decretals or some other faked document. As does the one following - unless you know of an authentic Roman letter by either bishop, of course. St. Thomas quoted a fair number of such fakes in the Summa, Part Three. Another source of them is the Liber Pontificalis.​

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

St. Basil the Great (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution."

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue recieving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
“One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” Serm. 91.3

That quotation is non-committal on the matter. It is true, but it proves nothing on either side of the case​

The Synod of Rouen (650)
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman but only in their mouths.”

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the Communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” sess. 13, c.:8
One of the threads has Credibility for Sale…Go visit.

As to all these - not only does St Basil make an exception, which itself shows that the matter was not one of faith, but of custom; but, St.Cyril of Jerusalem knew of the custom of reception in the hand and did not object to it.​

Besides, the implication of stressing the dignity of the hands of the priest (as some have) is that the tongue of the communicant is somehow less holy or even unholy - which is absurd, because it forgets the Incarnation through which we are redeemed in hands, tongue, soul and body, totally. The fact remains, that permission for Communion in the hand has never yet been rescinded. I think your argument should really be with Paul VI, who allowed it in the first place, in 1971. He did express a prefernce for the older custom, as Michael Davies points out in PPNM - but he did not impose his preference; he gave liberty in the matter. So Catholics cannot be blamed if they avail themselves of that liberty.

Because your quotation does not show it has been - it does show, that the present Pope objects to self-communion. And self-communion is not the same issue as communion in the hand. So those words of JP2 don’t in fact say anything about communion in the hand ##

 

[Eric_Hyom]

In the run up to the week for Christian Unity I saw something that I could never have hoped to see and that was an Anglican Curate reading the Gospel at the Sunday Mass in the Catholic Church I attend.

I see this as the willingness by some people to try and brake down the barriers of division that exist.

I believe that there is the greater vision of One Body, which can be recognised by the visible love that exists between it’s many parts.

In peace

Eric

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Exporter:

During the 30’s, 40’s 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80,s one would not see communicants have the Eucharist put in their hands. It was recieved on the tongue. This I know from obsevation. Where I live the first time I saw a Priest place the Eucharist into the hand was about 1990, and then it was very few.

On this thread someone wrote,"I’m perfectly willing to rec. on the tongue, if it can be shown to me that that is what is asked of me. I said something else in another post about obeying the spirit of a directive, not merely the letter. I want to be obedient. I cannot, however, refrain from pointing out that #4 is an entirely and overtly subjective opinion.

An insert here: Does the “hand reciever” think that the Priest’s hands are dirty, contaminated or repelling? Therefore that person thinks his own hands are cleaner, uncontaminated or more worthy than the Priest’s hands. Is that the reason they dont want the Priest’s hands near their mouth? Oh my, who do they think they are?]

The person who wrote this says, “I would be perfectly willing”…
They must think they are supposed to have Jesus placed in their (dirty) hands. Someone had to have taught them to put out the hands to recieve Jesus. How did that happen? Who said the Priest shouln’t put his hands close to the mouth?
No one tells us to come to Mass barefooted with dirty work clothes blowing bubbles with bubble gum. But we don’t do those things out of respect of what is about to happen at Mass. When I hear,“Would be willing”, it sounds to me like that person is satisfied to do the bare minimum, just “get by”. That is as bad as the teen aged girls wearing revealing “get-ups” to Sunday Mass. No Respect. eh?

My youngest relative is a 9 year old grand son. He recieves Our Lord on the tongue as do all the little kids in his Parochial School. Why do they do that, it is not subjective, there is a reason.

(See Emphasis)
Then, sir, you mistake me much. The greatest desire of my heart is to please the Christ and attain Heaven. And you have not constructed a logical or fitting argument, ie., “is it or is it not permitted?” and “here’s why.” You have engaged (again) in a trip down memory lane and subjectivism. I wanted to know what the Church REQUIRED. I have not insulted you for rec. on the tongue or for your beliefs about rec. Holy Communion. But in the logic of linquistics, to say “it’s more reverent” is subjective. In your opinion, it is more reverent. I freely aknowledge that I prefer Gregorian Chant and polyphony, but absent heresy in the lyrics, if I’m asked to sing something inane out of Glory and Praise in choir, I sing it; that is to say, subjectively I don’t like it. Absent heresy, there’s nothing objectively wrong with it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TNT:

Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.
Question to Mother Teresa:
“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”
Mother Teresa:
“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

Thanks, but she was not a bishop, let alone the bishop of Rome.​

I wonder whether, in the event of arguments about some issue which involves quoting scholars, this will be remembered ? For if we should listen to the Pope (and not to theologians or scholars), then we should by the same reasoning listen to the Pope (and not to Mother Teresa).

Bishops, not nuns, have Spirit-given authority to teach, and the charismatic gift of so doing. ##