Not just another CITH Thread...

[ConstantineTG]

Seriously, I don’t think the computer keyboard is the problem unless you can find one that types by itself.

But, I have to ask. Do you type with your tongue?

And I have to ask too, do you really want to know what may tongue can or cannot do?

 

[ProVobis]

Well, its more obvious with CITH. How can you tell someone receiving COTT just because he was only taught COTT. It looks the same way for everyone, so its hard to tell if one believe in the Real Presence or not. Its one thing to believe, its another to do just because you’re told.

Young kids (and many others) are usually taught procedures and memorization. The belief and understand come later, if at all, and probably from someone else. There seem to be a lot more people discussing procedures and permissions than the actual Real Presence (and the mystery surrounding it) on these forums so what does that tell you?

 

[PJM]

=Ockham;6821738]Ok brothers and sisters, let’s see if we can have a mature and responsible discussion on one of our favorite subjects - Communion in the hand.

Here are the givens:

1. It is approved
2. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’
3. the Franciscans do it

Ok? So we don’t need to repeat these three statements. The challenge then is this - **should **CITH be approved? Why is it approved? What are the theological differences?

It is not an isu of RIGHT verses wrong.

It’s an issue of which is more approiate to OUR GOD IN PERSON.

ITH is “taking Christ”

OTT is “receiving Christ”

The “norm” was changed because OF ABUSE.

If you doubt this is comon today; LOOK at the wat Christ is received and handed out.

Many wish to make th “debate” about “there rights”. Without God there would be NO rights at all.

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[ProVobis]

I think its a wonderful practice that instills reverence for CITH.

Sounds good but progressives wouldn’t want any more reverence than they need. Just saying from experience.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Young kids (and many others) are usually taught procedures and memorization. The belief and understand come later, if at all, and probably from someone else. There seem to be a lot more people discussing procedures and permissions than the actual Real Presence (and the mystery sounding it) on these forums so what does that tell you?

It took me a while to understand, and it still took much effort. I grew up receiving via COTT, even then I had a shaky understanding of Transubstantiation. I always believed Jesus Christ is in the Host, but the understanding of how took a while. I was drifting around Consubstantiation and Spiritual presence in the bread for a while. COTT didn’t help bring better and correct understanding, better Catechisis did. That is why I am so interested in being a Catechist (aside from my frustration of so many people converting to Charismatic Protestantism).

 

[ProVobis]

It is not an isu of RIGHT verses wrong.

It’s an issue of which is more approiate to OUR GOD IN PERSON.

ITH is “taking Christ”

OTT is “receiving Christ”

The “norm” was changed because OF ABUSE.

If you doubt this is comon today; LOOK at the wat Christ is received and handed out.

Many wish to make th “debate” about “there rights”. Without God there would be NO rights at all.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Nicely put.

 

[ProVobis]

And I have to ask too, do you really want to know what may tongue can or cannot do?

Now I understand where you’re coming from when it comes to CITH.

 

[kozlosap]

It is not an isu of RIGHT verses wrong.

It’s an issue of which is more approiate to OUR GOD IN PERSON.

ITH is “taking Christ”

OTT is “receiving Christ”

The “norm” was changed because OF ABUSE.

If you doubt this is comon today; LOOK at the wat Christ is received and handed out.

Many wish to make th “debate” about “there rights”. Without God there would be NO rights at all.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Now I’m “taking Christ” instead of “receiving Christ” - I learn so much about my relationship with the Lord everytime I log on, especially in the last week.

 

[Ockham]

And as we’ve discussed in recent pages, how do you prove that its a direct cause and not a coincidence? There is a ton of things that has happened since Vatican II and then the granting of the CITH indult in the 70s. From liberalization of the media, public acceptance of single parenthood, divorce, remarriage, same-sex partnership, etc. There’s so many things today that contribute not only in the decline in the belief of the Real Presence, but decline in the faith overall

Single parents have a lower belief in the Real Presence?

Many clergy think CITH has led to a diminished belief in the Real Presence, including popes. Write the Vatican and debate that it is merely a coincidence.

 

[ConstantineTG]

ITH is “taking Christ”

Not necessarily true because you receive in your hands. Taking means there is no giver. The minister of the Eucharist is the giver, you are the receiver

 

[ConstantineTG]

Single parents have a lower belief in the Real Presence?

Its a long discussion that I just left at that. I was thinking of those who freely become single parents, either getting impregnated naturally or unnaturally but never had the desire to be in a marriage. I’m not necessarily talking about those who end up as single parents by circumstances not of their choice. I had a certain group of people in my mind and I guess I missed the others who could also fall into that group.

Many clergy think CITH has led to a diminished belief in the Real Presence, including popes. Write the Vatican and debate that it is merely a coincidence.

I’m doing something more proactive by becoming a Catechist. The handful of children I teach may not be many, but thats 2-3 kids more who’d grow up believing and understanding the Real Presence.

 

[Ockham]

You may receive Christ in your hand but then you self-administer.

To not get the other thread off topic I’ll answer you here. I pray for that God’s will be done and trust He knows the best too. Looking at the two manners of reception, one is the universal norm, the other an exception with several conditions some of which are ignored. I think it is clear with manner is best.

 

[ProVobis]

Not necessarily true because you receive in your hands. Taking means there is no giver. The minister of the Eucharist is the giver, you are the receiver

I’ll see if I can find the source, but I understand originally the indult did “allow” actual taking of the Eucharist.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Now I understand where you’re coming from when it comes to CITH.

LOL
But the truth is I really do not see the difference. If the Church allows for me to receive one way or another, then I would whatever suits me at that time.

Earlier you asked if I will allow my baby to be baptized via immersion, I said no. But what if immersion is the only way? For me my child’s baptism is very important and I would have gone through with it no matter what. Thankfully we have a choice (well, actually I didn’t but say we didn’t have that unfortunate event). Actually, its more of the norm in the Latin Rite although some do practice immersion still even for babies.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll see if I can find the source, but I understand originally the indult did “allow” actual taking of the Eucharist.

For me, taking means reacing into the chalice. I don’t think that is allowed.

 

[ProVobis]

Earlier you asked if I will allow my baby to be baptized via immersion, I said no. But what if immersion is the only way? For me my child’s baptism is very important and I would have gone through with it no matter what. Thankfully we have a choice (well, actually I didn’t but say we didn’t have that unfortunate event). Actually, its more of the norm in the Latin Rite although some do practice immersion still even for babies.

Then all Christians would have to agree on immersions, I would think, as Protestants have valid baptisms as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You may receive Christ in your hand but then you self-administer.

At this point, you still didn’t take the Precious Body of our Lord. It was given to you. The giving and taking doesn’t mean you split your body into different, autonomous parts. Your hands and your mouth is part of the same person, you. You have received the Host via your hands. You can’t really take something from yourself. In fact, with self administering, you have received from your hands. So you received twice. More humble?

To not get the other thread off topic I’ll answer you here. I pray for that God’s will be done and trust He knows the best too. Looking at the two manners of reception, one is the universal norm, the other an exception with several conditions some of which are ignored. I think it is clear with manner is best.

Same, but my case I don’t want to tell God whats better. Even if it may be obvious to me, because I don’t see the whole picture, God does, God still knows whats better. I learned this the hard way. I’ve asked for so many things in the past that was obvious that those were best for me. But time told me that they weren’t. So I trusted God more.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then all Christians would have to agree on immersions, I would think, as Protestants have valid baptisms as well.

Actually, more Christians (including Protestants and Restorationists) do think that immersion is the only way. I know some sects believe Catholic baptisms are invalid because its not by immersion. Also for those who were baptised before the age of reason.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It is not an isu of RIGHT verses wrong.

It’s an issue of which is more approiate to OUR GOD IN PERSON.

ITH is “taking Christ”

OTT is “receiving Christ”

The “norm” was changed because OF ABUSE.

If you doubt this is comon today; LOOK at the wat Christ is received and handed out.

Many wish to make th “debate” about “there rights”. Without God there would be NO rights at all.

Love and prayers,
Pat

Look at whom Christ ate with when He walked the earth and tell me He would be paranoid about the types of things going on here … unwashed hands and the like. Those who were about purifying their hands before eating were horrified – but Christ went on unabated.

Long ago I conceded that tradition is necessary for the longevity of the church, but please do not elevate the traditions of men as if God Himself had dictated them – or has a personal preference. It is about how people view the sacrament, not how God views it.

Maybe that’s not what you meant, but I just wanted to make sure. I’d bet my life that God doesn’t care one whit about whether any particular individual receives COTT or CITH. Except, of course, to the extent that such issue divides His church.

If a communicant fails to bow, for example, it might annoy the person behind him/her, although that person should be minding his own business. Same person will be judged by internals only by God. If they failed to bow for a reason of pride, like they felt they were too good to bow, then God will know – regardless of what other observers think. If they do not bow because they’re careless and sloppy and irreverent, God will know that too – regardless of what other observers think. If they do not bow because of physical problem or whatever, God will know that too – regardless of what other observers think.

IOW, I contend that God is concerned only with the internals during Communion. For the longevity of His church and tradition, externals matter.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

This is an interesting read. I may have posted it already. In any event, check out the bottow of page 3: philippineaid.org/transfer/CIH.pdf