How do you receive the Body of Christ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oneofthewomen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Holy Father re-instituted the practice of receiving kneeling and on the tongue when receiving from him for a reason and I somehow doubt that it was for his personal satisfaction and gratification. He truly believes that communion on the tongue is the better way to receive. If he did not believe so, why require it in the first place? Since he believes it, don’t you think we should all take a good hard look at why he does? I truly wonder why so many today do not understand and share his sentiment and in fact disparage those who choose to follow the Holy Fathers wishesand example.
 
Ockham said:
Can anyone provide any theological or dogmatic support for CITH beyond the “make your palm a throne” quote or the good ol ‘it’s in the GIRM!’?
Click to expand...
Well, as long as there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it doesn’t matter, does it? Receiving on the tongue from a person not ordained is making only half a point. If you believe the Host should be placed on the tongue because your hands aren’t blessed or consecrated or whatever, then the same holds true for the EMHC placing it on the tongue as well.

Unless the altar rails are replaced and we all receive on the tongue kneeling before the priest, we haven’t fixed the problem.
 
Ockham said:
You have spent a great deal of time insinuating points I’ve never asserted.

Try again on the history of CITH. I know you are a clever chap so it shouldn’t be a difficult task.

I don’t know whether Mother Teresa made that quote or not. It doesn’t matter to my argument. Let’s take it off the table shall we?
Click to expand...
I did some checking on whether or not Mother Theresa made that quote about Communion in the hand. Here’s what I came up with:

From the Latin Mass Society, I came across this often quoted statement of Mother Theresa, though this is the first time I have ever seen an actual reference to it with it’s origin.

"I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us… "Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her – don’t know why – ‘Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?’ She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’”
  • Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City (a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church)
 
PaulinVA said:
Well, as long as there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it doesn’t matter, does it? Receiving on the tongue from a person not ordained is making only half a point. If you believe the Host should be placed on the tongue because your hands aren’t blessed or consecrated or whatever, then the same holds true for the EMHC placing it on the tongue as well.

Unless the altar rails are replaced and we all receive on the tongue kneeling before the priest, we haven’t fixed the problem.
Click to expand...
That is why so many avoid the EMHC and only receive from the priest. Most of the Novus Ordo Catholic Churches in my Archdiocese have portable kneelers so that those who wish to receive kneeling may do so.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, 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.” - ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica
 
choy said:
correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t Martin Luther receive kneeling, on the tongue, in a TLM, before the Reformation?
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that receiving COTT was the cause of Luther’s heresy? If so, you are committing the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc. When one thing happens after another thing, it does not necessarily mean that the first one caused the second. I brushed my teeth this morning. I had ice cream at lunch. This does not mean that brushing my teeth caused me to eat ice cream.

If you want to claim that Luther’s method of reception of the Eucharist was a factor in his heresy, you need to build some sort of logical case for your assertion.
 
floresco said:
Are you claiming that receiving COTT was the cause of Luther’s heresy? If so, you are committing the fallacy of post hoc propter hoc. When one thing happens after another thing, it does not necessarily mean that the first one caused the second. I brushed my teeth this morning. I had ice cream at lunch. This does not mean that brushing my teeth caused me to eat ice cream.

If you want to claim that Luther’s method of reception of the Eucharist was a factor in his heresy, you need to build some sort of logical case for your assertion.
Click to expand...
i’m refuting your earlier point that proper practice will eventually instill proper reverence
Matin Luther had this practice. TLM, COTT + kneeling. but in the end he still changed the understanding of Real Presence

it just drives my point even better. reverence is not a product of the action, but a product of your faith and your heart.
 
PaulinVA said:
Well, as long as there are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, it doesn’t matter, does it? Receiving on the tongue from a person not ordained is making only half a point. If you believe the Host should be placed on the tongue because your hands aren’t blessed or consecrated or whatever, then the same holds true for the EMHC placing it on the tongue as well.

Unless the altar rails are replaced and we all receive on the tongue kneeling before the priest, we haven’t fixed the problem.
Click to expand...
how do you think EMHCs came to be? the priest just randomly selects 2-3 people from the laity before mass and asks them to distribute Holy Communion? these people have been trained by the priest and given a blessing to assist him in his duties
 
MarkThompson said:
Martin Luther was a Catholic priest. A TLM priest, you could say.
Click to expand...
Most if not all Western priests since Pope Gregory were TLM priests for that matter. Some were saints, some became heretics, many of them weren’t either. Some preferred CITH, some preferred standing, but nothing that a statistician would find surprising if he took surveys.
 
choy said:
i’m refuting your earlier point that proper practice will eventually instill proper reverence
Matin Luther had this practice. TLM, COTT + kneeling. but in the end he still changed the understanding of Real Presence
Click to expand...
I did not say that proper practice will eventually instill proper reverence. I said that proper practice fosters reverence. This did not mean that every person who makes reverent gestures will end up genuinely reverent. Obviously there are other factors that affect how reverent a person is.

By the way, this fallacy, in which one attributes a position to the opponent that is not his actual position, is called straw man.
 
floresco said:
I did not say that proper practice will eventually instill proper reverence. I said that proper practice fosters reverence. This did not mean that every person who makes reverent gestures will end up genuinely reverent. Obviously there are other factors that affect how reverent a person is.

By the way, this fallacy, in which one attributes a position to the opponent that is not his actual position, is called straw man.
Click to expand...
well, you never stated it that way earlier. you only said that proper practice fosters reverence. and therefore i refuted it. i have a long list of former Catholics who eventually put up heretical beliefs, but i guess one famous example is enough.

oh, and i’m not attributing a position on you that is not your position. i’m reacting to your posts and therefore i can only perceive your position based on your posts. this is called, “i do not read other people’s minds” 😉
 
Razz(name removed by moderator) said:
To better explain: If only the priest is worthy of touching the Consecrated Host, and a communicant is using that as his/her reason to receive COTT, it would seem to me that such a communicant would go to only the priest and never receive Communion from an EOM, since the EOM had to touch the Blessed Host/Body to place It on the tongue. Is that so?

That is why it appears contradictory to me to receive COTT and then go to an EOM.
Click to expand...
I receive on the tongue and have always gone to the extraordinary minister just because that is always the side of the church I am on. In fact, I have only received from the priest once and that was on Easter when I came into the Church. Even though I think it would be wrong for me to receive in the hand because it goes against my conscience, I don’t have a problem receiving from an extraordinary minister because 1) the Church allows it, and 2) I don’t know if he or she is doing anything wrong by touching the Host, I just know it would be wrong for me.
 
choy said:
how do you think EMHCs came to be? the priest just randomly selects 2-3 people from the laity before mass and asks them to distribute Holy Communion? these people have been trained by the priest and given a blessing to assist him in his duties
Click to expand...
My point is that they are still lay.

If one receives COTT because they believe the laity isn’t worthy to touch the Host with their hands, then receiving from a lay person on the tongue doesn’t really change anything.
 
PaulinVA said:
My point is that they are still lay.

If one receives COTT because they believe the laity isn’t worthy to touch the Host with their hands, then receiving from a lay person on the tongue doesn’t really change anything.
Click to expand...
what one believes isn’t always what is
it doesn’t matter if the laity accepts this or not, the Church in her authority empowered these lay people to this task. the Church made it valid. the laity cannot make it invalid based on their own personal opinion.
 
ProVobis said:
Most if not all Western priests since Pope Gregory were TLM priests for that matter.
Click to expand...
I thought it made for a humorous counterpoint to the line you usually get, though, that “So many thousands of saints were nourished by the TLM,” “Well, Padre Pio never said a Novus Ordo ‘mass’,” etc. etc. So Martin Luther probably said thousands of TLMs, so what?
 
PaulinVA said:
My point is that they are still lay.

If one receives COTT because they believe the laity isn’t worthy to touch the Host with their hands, then receiving from a lay person on the tongue doesn’t really change anything.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really follow, though, does it? I can think of plenty of motivation to receive kneeling and on the tongue that doesn’t have to do with “lay unworthiness.” In fact, I’d hope that for most people it has to do with their inward disposition and their posture in meeting the Lord instead of with judgments about who is “worthy” to dispense from the ciborium. Otherwise, that’s just kind of disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top