How do you receive the Body of Christ?

[choy]

You are wasting my time. I already acknowledged the indult and speaking of it in greater depth then the surface. If all you can offer is “if’s allowed” then we don’t have anything more to discuss.

well, there is nothing more to discuss. your position can’t be defended. the Church has allowed something you personally don’t like, its a matter of who has the authority over this affairs. unfortunately for you, its not you. the facts are simple, but you seek to make it complicated as to confuse people to believe in what you believe. but the truth oftentimes, as in this case, is just plain simple

 

[Ockham]

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. **This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence **and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Sacraments Today:
Belief and Practice among U.S. Catholics
About six in ten Catholics (57 percent) agree that Jesus Christ is really present in the
bread and wine of the Eucharist.

cara.georgetown.edu/sacramentsreport.pdf

 

[Ockham]

A Case for Communion on the Tongue

                   by:  David L. Vise

*So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The
answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini,
where it states:

 "If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the
 hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the
 episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's
 often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the
 conferences the duty and function of judging particular
 circumstances, if any.  They may make this judgement provided
 that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false
 opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the
 faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."

Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observance
of Communion on the tongue for the “common good of the Church”
provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become the
pervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in “particular
circumstances” and only if the practice “has already developed in any
place” with the provision that “any danger is avoided of insufficient
reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind
of the faithful.” What we have in the United States is an abuse, for
this practice (Communion in the hand) was not “already developed” in
our land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, nor
could we consider honestly our case a “particular circumstance.” It
is not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals who
disbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments.
Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: “A
change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and
venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries
certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of
administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for
the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating
the true doctrine.”*
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

 

[Ockham]

I would, but I am not quite sure how to.
I was not sure if it was apporpriate for this forum, which is why I posted there.
Any advice as to how to move it would be greatly appreciated!

That thread should be fine. I agree with your main point. If more Catholics knew their faith we’d have fewer problems (and threads on the L&S board).

 

[floresco]

your position can’t be defended. the Church has allowed something you personally don’t like, its a matter of who has the authority over this affairs. unfortunately for you, its not you. the facts are simple, but you seek to make it complicated as to confuse people to believe in what you believe. but the truth oftentimes, as in this case, is just plain simple

You appear to have misunderstood the facts. You are taking the fact that both practices are allowed and saying this means they are of equal value. This does not logically follow. It is allowed to say the Rosary every day and also allowed not to say the Rosary at all. Does this make it true that saying the Rosary is no better than not saying the Rosary? One is allowed to go to Confession as little as once a year. Does this make it true that it is not better to go to Confession more often?

While, of course, we rule out any spiritual practices that are not allowed, to determine their value of we examine their effects. We ask if they are detrimental or if they are of benefit. We also ask if they are recommended by saints and Church authorities. This is what we must look at when we compare the value of two practices.

As has already been presented in this thread, we have it from the highest levels of authority in the Church that there are detrimental aspects to CITH. It has been officially recognized as open to serious abuse. We also have Church teaching recommending COTT and explaining it spiritual benefits. This is not a matter of personal preferences or opinions. By looking at Church teaching we can see that COTT is an objectively better practice than CITH.

Given that COTT is objectively better, this is the practice that we should encourage. We should explain all these facts to people so they will know the truth. Then, since both are permitted, people may choose. Personally, even though I was deeply convinced that COTT is better and what I ought to be doing, I found changing to COTT a great struggle. I was taught only CITH and had received Communion this way for decades. I needed God’s help to make this change.

 

[floresco]

i wouldn’t be so hasty to say that just because Practice B is allowed only in some places, Practice A is always better. thats not the case all the time.

Perhaps it is not conclusive by itself. When this factor is combined with Practice A being recommended and Practice B being not recommended, then it is very clear that Practice A is objectively better.

 

[Ockham]

You appear to have misunderstood the facts. You are taking the fact that both practices are allowed and saying this means they are of equal value. This does not logically follow. It is allowed to say the Rosary every day and also allowed not to say the Rosary at all. Does this make it true that saying the Rosary is no better than not saying the Rosary? One is allowed to go to Confession as little as once a year. Does this make it true that it is not better to go to Confession more often?

As a catechist, choy will no doubt point out that Our Lady asked us to pray the rosary daily. Other than that, you presented a good argument that a sensible person should take to heart.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps it is not conclusive by itself.

You are correct in that. Just as everyone has a somewhat different interpretation of what constitutes “grave” matter for sin to be committed, profanity or irreverence is a matter of conscience too. But profanity is against divine law. It is the risk of profanity that is to be avoided and the Church can only and does give guidelines on the matter.

 

[Ockham]

Then there is the question of the particles. The indult states “care and concern” must be exercised so that none fall to the ground. What measures are in place to ensure this rule? I’ve never seen any other than at an EF.

 

[Pug]

Then there is the question of the particles. The indult states “care and concern” must be exercised so that none fall to the ground. What measures are in place to ensure this rule? I’ve never seen any other than at an EF.

My experience is somewhat different from yours. They use patens at our parish with CITH and COTT both at the OF. This is clearly an attempt at care and concern about particles.

But, when people are taught to receive CITH, they are not taught to check their palm or fingers for particles, at least not that I’ve seen locally. This ought to be corrected. I suspect, though, that this lack of teaching happens because teachers are always rushed when they teach people how to receive, and it isn’t due to a lack of love for the Eucharist. Also, one single person isn’t in charge of it, so it is often taught by an inexperienced teacher each year. Teaching a lesson well takes practice.

edit: I could try and point this out at the August meeting, but it won’t be remembered, and I am *always *the lunatic who tries to point something out at the August meeting. Also, they are trying to fix it by pushing COTT. Still, that won’t help since some will pick CITH, and they ought to be told. Being part of a parish can be irritating. Just ignore me.

 

[Melchior_1]

Then there is the question of the particles. The indult states “care and concern” must be exercised so that none fall to the ground. What measures are in place to ensure this rule? I’ve never seen any other than at an EF.

Once, after receiving our Lord via COTT, I sneezed soon thereafter. I fully covered my mouth to cover the sneeze. After this, I did not go to the washroom to clean my hands, nor did use any wipes or handkerchiefs. I remembered because that the sacristy has the sink that goes directly into the ground, I should probably go directly to the ground too. So I sent outside to where one of the gardens was (the doors to go outside can be opened with no hands) and proceeded to dust off (for lack of a better term) my hands over the garden so that any bit of Jesus would go straight to the ground.

After five minutes of doing this I went back inside and washed my hands in the washroom, satisfied that Jesus wouldn’t be going through a conventional sewage system.

I mention this because OF, EF, it doesn’t matter. Regardless of parishes or Rites attended to the true belief of the Real Presence must be there and proper instruction is needed. COTT or COTH, to me it makes no difference; one must have that true belief and reverence within their heart and the knowledge of what’s being thrown down.

Because you’ll never know when you’re going to sneeze after receiving our Lord at an Easter Vigil

 

[Ockham]

COTT or COTH, to me it makes no difference; one must have that true belief and reverence within their heart and the knowledge of what’s being thrown down.

That’s quite the story but I disagree with your conclusion. First of all reverence is two fold: interior and exterior. CITH does not have the same amount of exterior reverence. Second, particles are much more easily lost with CITH. I’m impressed with Pug’s parish using patens (indeed, I have never seen that with CITH) but particles can be left in the palm of one’s hand unknown to the recipient.

Compare the rubics of the OF and EF and it is striking how much more care and concern for the particles is displayed in the latter.

 

[Melchior_1]

That’s quite the story but I disagree with your conclusion. First of all reverence is two fold: interior and exterior. CITH does not have the same amount of exterior reverence. Second, particles are much more easily lost with CITH. I’m impressed with Pug’s parish using patens (indeed, I have never seen that with CITH) but particles can be left in the palm of one’s hand unknown to the recipient.

Compare the rubics of the OF and EF and it is striking how much more care and concern for the particles is displayed in the latter.

I’m inclined to disagree with your disagreement, as I find that you can’t judge reverence based on purely outward appearances. Particles can get lost easily through many methods. Caution needs to be used regardless of the form used. I mean, I receive on the tongue but that’s a personal choice on my part and when I think about it, there are times where particles may have been lost due to that method.

 

[Ockham]

I’m inclined to disagree with your disagreement, as I find that you can’t judge reverence based on purely outward appearances.

Yes you can. To genuflect is to make a sign of reverence. To not genuflect therefore is not. To receive COTT nothing more is required for reverence. To receive CITH a bow and “Amen” are required meaning the form itself is not as reverent.

Particles can get lost easily through many methods.

The point is one method is much more likely to have particles trampled on.

 

[Melchior_1]

Yes you can. To genuflect is to make a sign of reverence. To not genuflect therefore is not. To receive COTT nothing more is required for reverence. To receive CITH a bow and “Amen” are required meaning the form itself is not as reverent.

The point is one method is much more likely to have particles trampled on.

Bowing VS genuflecting. I’ve seen some reverent bows and some poor genuflecting. In that case bows > genuflecting.

Someone who has a solid Confession and receives from the hand VS someone who receives on the tongue and is lukewarm. COTH > COTT in this case. But you can’t tell. Reverence is so much more than just what happens at Mass, it also is what happens in our spiritual lives as a whole.

Particles falling from the mouth VS particles falling from the hand; it’s a wash because either way they are still falling. I see your point(s) about limiting, but there are means to limit them while using COTH. Ask several orders of Franciscans, as IIRC Brother JR mentioned they’ve been doing COTH for centuries so they would know.

 

[Ockham]

I’m starting to think Francisian is synonymous with moral relativism.

While I’m sure you have seen what you claim, side by side to genuflect is more reverent than to not genuflect and more reverent than to bow.

Yes the person who just came out of the Confessional and receives CITH as reverently as possible is preferable to the serial killer who receives COTT, side by side the norm of the Church is more reverent than the indult.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m starting to think Francisian is synonymous with moral relativism.

While I’m sure you have seen what you claim, side by side to genuflect is more reverent than to not genuflect and more reverent than to bow.

Yes the person who just came out of the Confessional and receives CITH as reverently as possible is preferable to the serial killer who receives COTT, side by side the norm of the Church is more reverent than the indult.

I’ll be charitable and I’ll ignore the dig on Franciscans. I’m not the only person here who strives to follow the Rule of St. Francis and I’d like to think our actions speak for themselves, as Francis would approve. Did you read Brother JR’s detaield post regarding the history of Franciscans and COTH? It’s an interesting and historical read.

You took my quite reasonable example and made it an extreme one. I made no mention of serial killers at all, I said “lukewarm”. I’m not sure why you used serial killers in your example.

All I was saying was that one can appear to be pious and put on the show but not be, whereas another doesn’t put on the show but is being reverent. There’s a Scriptural precedent set about this, as you know.

 

[Ockham]

Did you read Brother JR’s detaield post regarding the history of Franciscans and COTH? It’s an interesting and historical read.

Yes and still maintain the norm of the Church should be followed.

You took my quite reasonable example and made it an extreme one. I made no mention of serial killers at all, I said “lukewarm”. I’m not sure why you used serial killers in your example.

If we are going to splash distraction on the comparison then why not make it big. Put the two forms side by side, leave out all the other “what ifs” and one if more reverent than the other.

All I was saying was that one can appear to be pious and put on the show but not be, whereas another doesn’t put on the show but is being reverent. There’s a Scriptural precedent set about this, as you know.

Let’s not get into a Scripture shoot out shall we?

At the risk of sliding into Ancedotalville I will nonetheless share these observations. At the OF I attend hardly anyone genuflects or bows whereas the EF it is practiced by everyone. Coincidence?

 

[Melchior_1]

At the OF I attend hardly anyone genuflects or bows whereas the EF it is practiced by everyone. Coincidence?

Pretty small sample size. Conversely I’ve been to several OF Masses in my city and I see genuflects and bows, some kneeling as well (w/ no rails I might add). I’m in Canada’s capital though, so I’ve had a chance to visit a few places (including the local FSSP parish).

One OF parish (and keep in mind there’s more OF parishes than EF one’s) isn’t a good indicator, but that’s just me. And unless you’ve got one CRAZY spiritual gift of discernment, you don’t know the state of Grace of those receiving the at your EF parish.

 

[Ockham]

And unless you’ve got one CRAZY spiritual gift of discernment, you don’t know the state of Grace of those receiving the at your EF parish.

Again I’ll point out that there are two types of reverence: internal and external.