Quick help needed - proving it's okay to receive on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uxor said:
And Saint Maria Faustina would never take Communion in the Hand either she came out of the Tradtional Mass…
Click to expand...
You fear standing before God for not defending the Eucharist. Think carefully about this before you answer: I know a lot of Catholics that came out of the Traditional Mass. They receive Communion in the hand. Are they bad Catholics?
 
bear06 said:
Uh, letting people receive Communion period has led to abuse. Should we stop that? Yikes. People have been desecrating Host for hundreds to thousands of years. Again, I don’t receive Communion in the hand. I prefer it on the tongue. In fact, I’d go as far to say that I wish the Church would make that the sole way of doing it but it’s ridiculous to say it has led to abuse. That would pretty much be original sin.
Click to expand...
Well you are not my judge God is. I hear that from you and Kirk but you defend Communion in the Hand, so don’t why do you receive in the Hand then? We can’t make an commitment, can’t take a stand? Also you have no proof that people desecrated the Host for hundreds to thousands of years, yes probably when they were taking it in the Hand and that is why it was banned but today it is worst. I don’t know if you are a convert Bear, but like I told Kirk once, when he was a Baptist he would of called me an idol worshipper, now he switches over and calls me a heretic, same thing. I know raised as a Catholic, we don’t talk like that to oneanother. If that is a practice from your old faith I wish you leave it there.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You fear standing before God for not defending the Eucharist. Think carefully about this before you answer: I know a lot of Catholics that came out of the Traditional Mass. They receive Communion in the hand. Are they bad Catholics?
Click to expand...
That is not for me to judge.
 
Uxor said:
Well you are not my judge God is. I hear that from you and Kirk but you defend Communion in the Hand, so don’t why do you receive in the Hand then? We can’t make an commitment, can’t take a stand? Also you have no proof that people desecrated the Host for hundreds to thousands of years, yes probably when they were taking it in the Hand and that is why it was banned but today it is worst. I don’t know if you are a convert Bear, but like I told Kirk once, when he was a Baptist he would of called me an idol worshipper, now he switches over and calls me a heretic, same thing. I know raised as a Catholic, we don’t talk like that to oneanother. If that is a practice from your old faith I wish you leave it there.
Click to expand...
You’ve called me a liar in one thread, now you’ve charged me with calumny. You’ve no proof that I would have called you an idol worshipper. I would, therefore, be careful of admonishing others as to how Catholics should behave, given those facts. I also have not called you a heretic, I’ve pointed out what Church teaching is. Also, I receive on the tongue as reparation for the divisions in the Church, not because I think it is more reverent (I don’t).
 
Uxor said:
Well you are not my judge God is. I hear that from you and Kirk but you defend Communion in the Hand, so don’t why do you receive in the Hand then? We can’t make an commitment, can’t take a stand? Also you have no proof that people desecrated the Host for hundreds to thousands of years, yes probably when they were taking it in the Hand and that is why it was banned but today it is worst. I don’t know if you are a convert Bear, but like I told Kirk once, when he was a Baptist he would of called me an idol worshipper, now he switches over and calls me a heretic, same thing. I know raised as a Catholic, we don’t talk like that to oneanother. If that is a practice from your old faith I wish you leave it there.
Click to expand...
You’re being too dramatic here. I don’t remember judging your soul nor did I ever call you a heretic so please drop the rhetoric.

I don’t receive in the hand because I feel that God want ME to receive on the tongue and the Church has given me the choice to do so so I do. It’s not about making a stand.

Also, I was born, raised and have always been a Roman Catholic. Any other “credentials” you’d like.

And do you truly believe that nobody has ever committed a sacrilege when receiving on the tongue? It seems that you wouldn’t be able to answer this question and still keep your end of the argument going unless you were going to answer and absurd “no”.

If you’re going to make statements like
To stop the abuses and change the discipline, people should either stop taking Holy Communion in the hand
Click to expand...
then be prepared to hear what we think on them. If you don’t want to hear people’s opinions then don’t participate. This isn’t a one way street where you get to say everything and we get to agree with you. Stop claiming “attack” and saying “as a Catholic we…” everytime people say that they think you’re wrong. I am a Catholic and I would willingly die for my faith as I’m sure Kirk would.
 
KMXV said:
“Disciplinary infallibility?” That would seem to imply that disciplines have divine protection. And as such cannot be altered.

Wait a minute. We’d all be in a bit of a mess if that were true. Wouldn’t we?

All things to the contrary notwithstanding. Except the infallible contrariness.
Click to expand...
👍
 
KMXV said:
Let me guess, Vegas. You’re a lawyer.

If it cannot contradict divine law, pray tell how can one discipline directly contradict another? If a previous discipline is overturned by a current discipline that is directly contradictory to it, then mustn’t the current discipline also be contradictory to divine law? Somebody’s being contradicted in there somewhere.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely right but liberals/modernists don’t see any contradictions or any other illogic as long as it suits their personal agenda. If they say Trent is disciplinary and not infallible and they know more than Christ, then that’s the way it is, period. :rolleyes:
 
Uxor said:
I don’t know if you are a convert Bear, but like I told Kirk once, when he was a Baptist he would of called me an idol worshipper, now he switches over and calls me a heretic, same thing.
Click to expand...
He was a Baptist? That explains it.
I know raised as a Catholic, we don’t talk like that to oneanother. If that is a practice from your old faith I wish you leave it there.
Click to expand...
Well, we should be charitable but to let those whose consciences and practices formed under Protestantism run our lives is deplorable and unacceptable.
 
BobP123 said:
Sinful hands, sinful tongues, what??? What’s this supposed to show or prove? I served a lot of Masses in pre-Vatican II days. First of all, the priest does wash his hands before every Mass so that should eliminate that fear. (I don’t know if I can say same for some of the EM’s that hand out communions.) I also held patens under literally thousands of communicants’ tongues. Halitosis? Most hold their breaths or inhale when receiving so I never keeled over because of bad breath (and I have a keen sense of smell.) Poor hygiene? Possible but don’t you come into close contact with people on buses, in elevators, etc.? And for far greater time period? And hasn’t science shown that colds, etc. are spread faster by touch of hands anyway? Since you’re so concerned with hygiene, I would stay away from that handshake of peace first if I be you. Then use a glove (preferably one without sin;) ) when receiving the Host later. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my point. It was about us receiving the Host in a reverent manner, not the priest giving the Host to us.
 
japhy said:
I think you misunderstood my point.
Click to expand...
Didn’t know you had one.
It was about us receiving the Host in a reverent manner, not the priest giving the Host to us.
Click to expand...
Reverence, as I’ve been saying all along, is subjective and a matter of degree. What works for you obviously doesn’t work for me.

[Edited by Moderator]
 
BobP123 said:
What’s this thread even doing here on the trad board? Are trads the only problem for the ones who insist on receiving in the hands?
Click to expand...
:rotfl: Reread the OP. They asked for help to explain in an RCIA class that it’s okay **to receive on the tongue. **It makes sense to me that they would ask that on a Traditional Catholicism board.

If you don’t want to help in that effort, it’s your choice. PM the author of the OP and tell them not to ask such questions on *your *forum. :rolleyes:
 
rlg94086 said:
BTW…this is the reason I take Communion in the hand when visiting a parish without patens. In most of these parishes, the Extraordinary Minister is not proficient at administering the host on the tongue. I would prefer to protect the sacred host.
Click to expand...
My solution to that is to only receive from the priest.
 
paramedicgirl said:
My solution to that is to only receive from the priest.
Click to expand...
And, if the priest isn’t even administering the Communion, it certainly isn’t necessary to receive communion every time we attend Mass.
Finally, you could just receive from the chalice which is what I did (before I quit the NOM altogether) when the priest was nowhere in sight.
Actually I found by accident, the Anglican Use Parish that still had communion rails, communion from priest or deacon only, and always patens.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
You’ve called me a liar in one thread, now you’ve charged me with calumny. You’ve no proof that I would have called you an idol worshipper. I would, therefore, be careful of admonishing others as to how Catholics should behave, given those facts. I also have not called you a heretic, I’ve pointed out what Church teaching is. Also, I receive on the tongue as reparation for the divisions in the Church, not because I think it is more reverent (I don’t).
Click to expand...
I read back in the thread, and I’m pretty sure Uxor is referring to this exchange when she says she was called a heretic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxor Do you honestly believe, I guess you do that God is going to approve of anything that was done out of disobedience and underhandedly?
Click to expand...
JKirkL7VNV said:
Uxor: I believe that Christ gave authority to His Church to determine such things. Trying to second-guess what God approves in this instance is a waste of time, given that****. It is, in fact, a thoroughly Protestant activity****
Click to expand...
When I first read that, it was my perception as well. Maybe it shoulda been worded differently?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
On the contrary, Uxor, because it is a discipline of the Church, promulgated or permitted by the Supreme Pontiff, it is by definition NOT impious nor a sacrilege. This is Catholic teaching. At one point, the majority of bishops in the Church had lapsed into the Arian heresy. The Holy See did not. That of course was a dogmatic matter, but again, this discipline enjoys at least a negative infallibility. Also, you have no objective proof that that the practice HAS lead to any impiety (if it could). Certainly, people can do impious things within the context of a discipline, but that does not render the practice impious or responsible FOR their impiety.
Click to expand...
With all due respect or respect due, This is a wonderful definitive example of SOPHISTRY with a great blend of liberal doublemindedness mentioned by ST Pius X.
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top