How do you receive the Body of Christ?

[ProVobis]

Is it possible that the Church or the pope or whomever is hoping to let CITH die a natural death, slowly supplanted by COTT?

As I understand it, 1 more than a third of the bishops can cut it in those countries where CITH is currently practiced and they can do it tomorrow. The Pope has never granted universal approval and doesn’t need to do anything.

 

[ProVobis]

I need to amend mine from before. Now that I’ve got nerve issues in my back (and at the age of 28 begun walking with a cane…which is pretty depressing when I think about it) I bow, make the sign of the cross, then receive on the tongue while standing.

At the EF I attend, you can ask an usher to tell the priest that you are unable to approach the altar and the priest will personally come and distribute it to you in your pew.

 

[jam070406]

let us not forget that no Bishop becomes a Bishop without the approval of the Pope. and we regard the Pope so highly, so why can’t we regard these people he has chosen highly as well? lets trust in their judgment

I wish the Bishops regarded the Pope’s pastoral guidance with higher regard.

John Paul II when asked about CITH:

“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it. The permission was granted only due to the insistence of some diocesan bishops.”

 

[PaulinVA]

When I first entered the CITH COTT discussion, I was defaulted to CITH, because, while I’m old enough to remember the altar rail and COTT, I was loathe to take a position espoused by those darn traditionalists. (Sorry. )

But, after much reflection, and an examination of the result of CITH for the past 4 decades, I have to say that CITH (and the corollary EMHCs) are a major factor in the lack of reverence in general in the Church today. I’m sure some people, including some posters here, are receiving CITH with much reverence. I myself receive CITH, because we always sit in an area server by an EMHC, and it seems to not make sense to make a point of standing and receiving COTT from an EMHC. That’s just my personal take. I would prefer an altar rail, a priest, and COTT. And, I haven’t been to a TLM in probably 45 years.

Anyway, one can recieve CITH with reverence, but most don’t. Most people don’t even slow down in the communion line when they receive.

 

[Ockham]

Oh, so we’re back to something being the universal norm being translated as being superior and the Church “directing us to it?” Then we’re right back to the the logical extension …

Two separate issues so no blanket ‘logic’ applies. The CITH indult was granted from disobedience. The NO pushed the TLM into the closet for no good reason. Both ‘reforms’ are subject to change.

There is nowhere where the Church is “directing” anyone to COTT.

I’ve provided the key points to my argument and stand by them. One manner is the traditional way with no stipulations, the other has stipulations and only became an indult through disobedience. God gives us free will, what we do with it can have consequences.

It still boggles my mind here that some people just cannot accept that some people find reverence and can honor God in a way that is different from their personal preference.

Oh, so we are back to this ‘interior reverence’ concept, eh? The point is exterior reverence in the way we approach the Lord. Concepts like personal preference, conscience, and the good ol’ “that’s between you and God” are fluffy ‘spirit of V2’ errors.

 

[ncjohn]

Oh, so we are back to this ‘interior reverence’ concept, eh? The point is exterior reverence in the way we approach the Lord.

If you really believe that there is no foundation for further discussion. Jesus spent a great deal of time on the “woe to you Pharisees” passages dealing exactly with that mistaken concept. Thanks for clearing up why such great differences exist though.
jam070406":

The form used by Benedict XVI attempts to underline the force of the valid norm for the entire Church."

Exactly. Just as the fact that he uses almost exclusively the OF form because it is the norm of the Church. Again, this doesn’t imply superiority; all it does is say that the head of the Church abides primarily by the universal norms. Again I would say that if we are going to read into which he is doing as being “superior” then you have a problem with the EF becoming inferior. And again, keep in mind that COTT is not universal at Papal Masses, only at his private Masses or for those receiving from him directly.

And while he may in fact feel that COTT better highlights the real presence, that is both a subjective opinion rather than any dogmatic fact and certainly not applicable in any universal way to Catholics in general. The very fact that this discussion exists shows that there are people on both “sides” of the question who find great reverence in the way they approach communion.

I stand by my position while repeating that I am neither for or against CITH. The entire real point of the discussion is that we are being sinful when we start making judgments of how other Catholics make their legitimate expressions of piety and devotion from what the Church has approved. You can tell me all day how and why you find your preference more reverent to you. That does not in any way require anyone to agree with you or to not find a valid alternative just as reverent. That is the part that some here really seem to have a hard time grasping.

 

[jam070406]

If you really believe that there is no foundation for further discussion. Jesus spent a great deal of time on the “woe to you Pharisees” passages dealing exactly with that mistaken concept. Thanks for clearing up why such great differences exist though.

Exactly. Just as the fact that he uses almost exclusively the OF form because it is the norm of the Church. Again, this doesn’t imply superiority; all it does is say that the head of the Church abides primarily by the universal norms. Again I would say that if we are going to read into which he is doing as being “superior” then you have a problem with the EF becoming inferior. And again, keep in mind that COTT is not universal at Papal Masses, only at his private Masses or for those receiving from him directly.

And while he may in fact feel that COTT better highlights the real presence, that is both a subjective opinion rather than any dogmatic fact and certainly not applicable in any universal way to Catholics in general. The very fact that this discussion exists shows that there are people on both “sides” of the question who find great reverence in the way they approach communion.

I stand by my position while repeating that I am neither for or against CITH. The entire real point of the discussion is that we are being sinful when we start making judgments of how other Catholics make their legitimate expressions of piety and devotion from what the Church has approved. You can tell me all day how and why you find your preference more reverent to you. That does not in any way require anyone to agree with you or to not find a valid alternative just as reverent. That is the part that some here really seem to have a hard time grasping.

LOL! I knew it would be a matter of time before someone threw in the old, “you’re just like the pharisees comment”
There is nothing judgemental about pointing out the fact that there is alot of Catholics that don’t believe in the real presence. It’s a fact that needs to be dealt with. I’ll trust in the Pope’s guidance on this issue.
As for you, hey, if you wanna disagree with the Pope that’s your perogative.

 

[ncjohn]

LOL! I knew it would be a matter of time before someone threw in the old, “you’re just like the pharisees comment”
There is nothing judgemental about pointing out the fact that there is alot of Catholics that don’t believe in the real presence. It’s a fact that needs to be dealt with. I’ll trust in the Pope’s guidance on this issue.
As for you, hey, if you wanna disagree with the Pope that’s your perogative.

Well, when one takes a position that it’s all about externals that was exactly what Jesus specifically spoke about with the Pharisees. I am certainly not addressing that to anyone else or to any other comments made here but to the specific comment made about it being all about externals.

I have also not taken any position of disagreeing with the Pope. I don’t believe the Pope has taken any particular position on the whole thing or he would be making a ruling of some type. Expressing one’s personal preference and opinions is not any kind of infallible position. We may not agree on musical selections either but I wouldn’t consider that being in disagreement with the Pope.

My only “position” here is in pointing out that people are turning their personal preferences and opinions into value judgments against other Catholics. If you can live with that I guess there’s not much more to discuss.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

LOL! I knew it would be a matter of time before someone threw in the old, “you’re just like the pharisees comment”
There is nothing judgemental about pointing out the fact that there is alot of Catholics that don’t believe in the real presence. It’s a fact that needs to be dealt with. I’ll trust in the Pope’s guidance on this issue.
As for you, hey, if you wanna disagree with the Pope that’s your perogative.

And I will agree with you that there are way too many Catholics who doubt, do not understand or do not believe in the Real Presence. That is a problem, but not one that I believe comes from CITH. My opinion is that the argument by some against CITH is just a “scapegoat” for many larger problems in our Church, most notably the lack of proper catechesis.

As someone who receives CITH, I can assure you that my belief in the Real Presence is very real! Again, I have no problem with anyone who wants to recieve COTT, if it works for you fine. But as “ncjohn” has stated so well, outward externals do not always lead to inward reverence.

 

[jam070406]

Well, when one takes a position that it’s all about externals that was exactly what Jesus specifically spoke about with the Pharisees. I am certainly not addressing that to anyone else or to any other comments made here but to the specific comment made about it being all about externals.

I have also not taken any position of disagreeing with the Pope. I don’t believe the Pope has taken any particular position on the whole thing or he would be making a ruling of some type. Expressing one’s personal preference and opinions is not any kind of infallible position. We may not agree on musical selections either but I wouldn’t consider that being in disagreement with the Pope.

My only “position” here is in pointing out that people are turning their personal preferences and opinions into value judgments against other Catholics. If you can live with that I guess there’s not much more to discuss.

Again, I’ll take the current Pope’s (and JPII’s) opinion over yours.

The only judging I see is by you, and your perceived intent of those that disagree with you. The sad thing is… you can’t see it yourself.

 

[choy]

LOL! I knew it would be a matter of time before someone threw in the old, “you’re just like the pharisees comment”
There is nothing judgemental about pointing out the fact that there is alot of Catholics that don’t believe in the real presence. It’s a fact that needs to be dealt with. I’ll trust in the Pope’s guidance on this issue.
As for you, hey, if you wanna disagree with the Pope that’s your perogative.

true, a lot of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, sometimes its because of poor or non-existent Catechisis. you can’t blame CITH for it. there have been just as many heretics pre-Vatican II as there are post-Vatican II. to say CITH is the reason behind the lack of belief in the Real Presence is a compeltely false statement

 

[mick321]

true, a lot of Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence, sometimes its because of poor or non-existent Catechisis. you can’t blame CITH for it. there have been just as many heretics pre-Vatican II as there are post-Vatican II. to say CITH is the reason behind the lack of belief in the Real Presence is a compeltely false statement

WRONG. Before V2, those who did not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist properly called themselves Protestants.

 

[ProVobis]

I have also not taken any position of disagreeing with the Pope. I don’t believe the Pope has taken any particular position on the whole thing or he would be making a ruling of some type.

He needs to do nothing and needs to take no position. The bishops decide whether it should be allowed for their respective countries.

Expressing one’s personal preference and opinions is not any kind of infallible position.

So is infallibility the only issue? Maybe we’re just looking for some moral direction? Where’s the trend? If reading between the lines is the best we can do to see that trend, then so be it. Nothing wrong in expressing those thoughts.

 

[Ockham]

If you really believe that there is no foundation for further discussion. Jesus spent a great deal of time on the “woe to you Pharisees” passages dealing exactly with that mistaken concept. Thanks for clearing up why such great differences exist though.

Oh, please. Can we agree not to pull the “Pharisees” card on each other?

 

[jam070406]

to say CITH is the reason behind the lack of belief in the Real Presence is a compeltely false statement

Yes, that was stated long ago in this thread, so now you’ll stop trying to make me say something I didn’t say, right?

 

[Ockham]

But, after much reflection, and an examination of the result of CITH for the past 4 decades, I have to say that CITH (and the corollary EMHCs) are a major factor in the lack of reverence in general in the Church today. I’m sure some people, including some posters here, are receiving CITH with much reverence. I myself receive CITH, because we always sit in an area server by an EMHC, and it seems to not make sense to make a point of standing and receiving COTT from an EMHC. That’s just my personal take. I would prefer an altar rail, a priest, and COTT. And, I haven’t been to a TLM in probably 45 years.

Anyway, one can recieve CITH with reverence, but most don’t. Most people don’t even slow down in the communion line when they receive.

Agreed.

Two years ago I used to receive CITH from an EMHC as reverently as I knew how. I did not know that you are suppose to make a sign of reverence prior (bow) but I did stop to face the Tabernacle and make the Sign of the Cross immediately after. Problem was I usually would have someone nearly bump into me as they received in hand and full stride.

My ‘conversion’ came after learning the historical reasons for COTT and the rebellious causes of CITH. It wasn’t easy the first time but after you do it a couple times it becomes easy and much more fulfilling.

 

[jam070406]

And I will agree with you that there are way too many Catholics who doubt, do not understand or do not believe in the Real Presence. That is a problem, but not one that I believe comes from CITH. My opinion is that the argument by some against CITH is just a “scapegoat” for many larger problems in our Church, most notably the lack of proper catechesis.

As someone who receives CITH, I can assure you that my belief in the Real Presence is very real! Again, I have no problem with anyone who wants to recieve COTT, if it works for you fine. But as “ncjohn” has stated so well, outward externals do not always lead to inward reverence.

Do you disagree with this statement?:

(receiving Communion on the tongue) “better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces more easily the sense of mystery — aspects which, in our times, pastorally-speaking, it is urgent to highlight and recover.”

 

[jam070406]

My ‘conversion’ came after learning the historical reasons for COTT and the rebellious causes of CITH.

You mean something like this?:

Historians know that in the early days of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Bucer, in order to try to eliminate the Catholic “superstition” that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, persuaded Thomas Cranmer to institute communion in the hands through changing the rubrics in the Church of England’s 1552 Book of Common Prayer. Bucer, Cranmer and other reformers did not believe they could extirpate belief in Christ’s real presence as long as people continued to kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. The body language of adoration, Centurion-like humility, and child-like receptivity involved in kneeling to receive on the tongue would reinforce that they must be consuming something more than blessed bread.

catholicity.com/commentary/landry/00663.html

 

[Ockham]

As someone who receives CITH, I can assure you that my belief in the Real Presence is very real! Again, I have no problem with anyone who wants to recieve COTT, if it works for you fine. But as “ncjohn” has stated so well, outward externals do not always lead to inward reverence.

Good to hear. I’m sure your belief in the Real Presence is as genuine as was mine in my CITH days. However, COTT is a more reverant external form of reverence. Further, it is absurd to dismiss the surveys pre and post V2 regarding many aspects of Catholicism such as Transubstantiation. There has been a dramatic decline in this belief and to suggest CITH, EMHCs, the NO, and all the other ‘spirit of V2’ changes didn’t have anything to do with it is ridiculous.

We practiced COTT for nearly 2,000 years. CITH has been an indult for 40. Look at the results - they speak for themselves.

 

[Ockham]

You mean something like this?:

Historians know that in the early days of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Bucer, in order to try to eliminate the Catholic “superstition” that Christ was truly present in the Eucharist, persuaded Thomas Cranmer to institute communion in the hands through changing the rubrics in the Church of England’s 1552 Book of Common Prayer. Bucer, Cranmer and other reformers did not believe they could extirpate belief in Christ’s real presence as long as people continued to kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue. The body language of adoration, Centurion-like humility, and child-like receptivity involved in kneeling to receive on the tongue would reinforce that they must be consuming something more than blessed bread.

catholicity.com/commentary/landry/00663.html

Exactly.