How do YOU recieve Communion?

[Lapey]

No one in this entire thread disputes that. Come on.

No, we’re not. The entire argument is based on whether or not we should heighten our level of reverence and respect for Him, over and above our own personal preferences (as per some of the excuses have been). I take there to be an objective level of respect which should be practiced when possible (i.e. taken on the tongue, from a priest etc.).

You should receive communion every chance you get (as long as you have the prerequisites to do so; absolution of sins etc.), but don’t you agree that along with receiving the sacrament, you should also take the opportunity to venerate and revere Him with the utmost respect?I do, even if I recive from a EMHC. The Sacrement does not change. I just simply place myself in a spot where I know I will not have to recieve from anyone but an ordinary minister.

This is what we are arguing about.

Stating the obvious my friend.

But your whole argument is with the discipline and what’s allowed, by making your argument you belittle those who do what Mother Church has allowed. And neither by the way deminish the Eucharist.

As I have stated, my opinion is EMsHC only when absolutly needed and communion on the tongue, He should not simply be placed in a persons hand, this does reduce the level of reverance and awareness in the laity, but this is policy and discipline as of right now is appoved. Therefore to say as some of you do with the words you choose to use you appear and offensive and fake.

As long as these methods are allowed they are just that, allowed. Call your bishop, write to Rome and speak you peace, but do not talk down to or criticize those who choose to abide by what is allowed.

Now if you want to turn my words around or add meaing to them, be my guest; but remember, I am on your side of this matter up to the point where you say those who recieve on the hand by a EMHC are in some way less than you in peity. This is the implication of your words.

This thread was simply asking how you recieve, not your opinions of others on how they recieve. This is precisely why these threads always get locked.

 

[Lapey]

And…? She had asked where the Church ever said that we SHOULD receive from a priest. Thank you for proving that I answered her question perfectly well. Your third point is incorrect. This does not state that it is merely a “custom,” but that it is “Apostolic Tradition,” and Apostolic Tradition is an essential component of the Catholic Faith (Scripture, Magisterium, Tradition, right?) Something that a dogmatic Ecumenical Council pronounces to be Apostolic Tradition that “ought to be retained”, well, it should be retained. It’s as simple as that.

Quite honestly, I couldn’t care less about anyone’s preference. I care about the Most Blessed Sacrament of Our Lord being treated with utmost reverence. I am terribly sorry if that offends you, but I will not change that to meet anyone’s approval save Christ Himself.

The total statement you quoted reads exactly what I stated in point three…go back and read the full context of that statement, then go read the entire document which you chose to use one small section to make your point.

“;which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical Tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.”

Hummm…custom, yes…from Apostolical Tradition, yes…ought with justice be retained…yes…How did I get it wrong? Do you think I am down playing AT? That would be a very improper assuption on your part. You know what they say about making assumptions…

This thread is totally about what you could not care less about…why are you hijacking it?

 

[Greg_N]

But your whole argument is with the discipline and what’s allowed,

No. My argument is in recognizing the significance of reverence towards the Holy Sacrament whenever applicable.

but remember, I am on your side of this matter

Then stop arguing over nothing lol.

 

[IesumPerMariam]

The total statement you quoted reads exactly what I stated in point three…go back and read the full context of that statement, then go read the entire document which you chose to use one small section to make your point.

“;which custom, as coming down from an Apostolical Tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.”

Hummm…custom, yes…from Apostolical Tradition, yes…ought with justice be retained…yes…How did I get it wrong? Do you think I am down playing AT? That would be a very improper assuption on your part. You know what they say about making assumptions…

You had left out the words “Apostolical Tradition” in your previous post. That’s what I thought was incorrect. I had thought you had omitted these important words intentionally, but it apparently it was just incidental. I apologize for making that assumption.

This thread is totally about what you could not care less about…why are you hijacking it?

Well, folks on the other side began spreading fallacies (e.g. “In the hand like the Twelve Apostles during the Last Supper and the first eight centuries of the Mass.”), and such fallacies should be corrected.

 

[aemcpa]

No. My argument is in recognizing the significance of reverence towards the Holy Sacrament whenever applicable.

Then stop arguing over nothing lol.

I would remind you that you are writing to a member of the clergy.

 

[Greg_N]

I would remind you that you are writing to a member of the clergy.

Did I say something wrong.

 

[aemcpa]

Did I say something wrong.

“Stop arguing over nothing” struck me as flippant.

 

[Lapey]

No. My argument is in recognizing the significance of reverence towards the Holy Sacrament whenever applicable.

Then stop arguing over nothing lol.

We are good, I find myself sometimes defending people for exercising a method that is fully approved, whether I agree with it or not. If it is an approved method, then it is. I don’t think a person who does this is in his actions showing less reverence, however, I agree the practice has allowed the lessoning of reverence as a whole. I know, that sounds contradictory; I hope you understand my point.

It’s kind of like a lawyer who represents a client who by following a law is charged with a crime; its not the person, it is the law, or in this case the discipline. Make sense?

 

[Lapey]

You had left out the words “Apostolical Tradition” in your previous post. That’s what I thought was incorrect. I had thought you had omitted these important words intentionally, but it apparently it was just incidental. I apologize for making that assumption.

Well, folks on the other side began spreading fallacies (e.g. “In the hand like the Twelve Apostles during the Last Supper and the first eight centuries of the Mass.”), and such fallacies should be corrected.

Thanks for recognizing my intent was not to slight the writing. And I agree, the analogy of “well they did it this way at the Last Supper” drives me nuts too. My pastor and the good sister at my parish made fun of me at a pastoral council meeting when this came up when I said that more people will be presenting themselves for Holy Communion on their knees and we should train our ministers who see this to handle it properly, by obliging the communicant. I was made fun of with this very idea. Those who bring this up forget those twelve men were the first who had just been ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and also raised to the level of the Episcopate; so yes they would self Communicate.

My whole point on this thread is, both methods are approved, let’s respect that.

 

[Greg_N]

We are good, I find myself sometimes defending people for exercising a method that is fully approved, whether I agree with it or not. If it is an approved method, then it is. I don’t think a person who does this is in his actions showing less reverence, however, I agree the practice has allowed the lessoning of reverence as a whole. I know, that sounds contradictory; I hope you understand my point.

It’s kind of like a lawyer who represents a client who by following a law is charged with a crime; its not the person, it is the law, or in this case the discipline. Make sense?

“The sane person always cares more for truth than consistency. If he sees two truths that seem to contradict each other, he accepts both truths and the contradiction along with them. His intellectual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.”

• G. K. Chesterton

 

[Lapey]

No. My argument is in recognizing the significance of reverence towards the Holy Sacrament whenever applicable.

Then stop arguing over nothing lol.

I would remind you that you are writing to a member of the clergy.

He’s good. It has been a good discussion, and respectful hopefully on both of our parts.

 

[englishredrose]

I would remind you that you are writing to a member of the clergy.

…and if you saw quite how I write emails to mny priest… but there again he knows who I am and what is happening.

But do we really need to speak to our priests differently than we do to each other? Wouldn’t it be nice that we could treat everyone with the same Spirit that God is with them. Whether Ordained or not ordained. We are no different in that God sees how we treat everyone.

By the way since I have royally gone of topic and that there seems to be want of argument and finger pointing than the actual question merits, can’t this thread be closed in that we are now going of topic somewhat. I have already answered I receive on the tongue.

:hammering: surely time to close this thread now that people are wanting to get at each other rather than answer the question…

 

[clem456]

What if indeed.

(From the reading last Sunday).

Exodus 3:5: Do not come any closer," God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.”

Do you get the point?

The point is, God is who He is. Your dress cannot change who God is. If at the time of Exodus it was customary, per obedience to discipline, to remove one’s sandals, then that would be reverent. To do otherwise could be considered obstinate or rebellious. Nowadays people have anxiety attacks over sandals, let alone remove them. I’m pretty sure you’re not wearing sandals this Sunday, so is the God you recognize the same as the God from Exodus, or not? Is the Eucharist the same at a Mass in Africa with drums and tropical dress as in the Vatican? What do you think?
Does it really make a difference if I receive in the hand or on the tongue, per obedience to Church discipline? Please cite something to indicate that God has changed from one form of discipline to the other.
And if you believe the practice of two different accepted forms is a matter of reverence, then you must be able to read hearts. That is troublesome territory.

 

[Lapey]

“The sane person always cares more for truth than consistency. If he sees two truths that seem to contradict each other, he accepts both truths and the contradiction along with them. His intellectual sight is stereoscopic, like his physical sight: he sees two different pictures at once and yet sees all the better for that.”

• G. K. Chesterton

I’m kind of partial to this guy.

*“Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.” *

― Fulton J. Sheen

 

[Greg_N]

I’m kind of partial to this guy.

*“Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.” *

― Fulton J. Sheen

You win this round… I got nothin on The Sheen.