Receiving the Eucharist on the Tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Domnall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
choy said:
anyway, someone did their research so that i wouldn’t have to 😛

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
Click to expand...
I couldn’t get past the second paragraph. Perhaps you should start using better sources.

Yes there was CITH in early Church practices. Yes the early Church ruled against it. Yes COTT became the norm and stayed that way. Yes CITH came into the GIRM from disobedience.

Disobedience. It started in Holland where the bishops also wanted married priests and female ordination. CITH was a symbol of defiance.
 
Ockham said:
I couldn’t get past the second paragraph. Perhaps you should start using better sources.

Yes there was CITH in early Church practices. Yes the early Church ruled against it. Yes COTT became the norm and stayed that way. Yes CITH came into the GIRM from disobedience.

Disobedience. It started in Holland where the bishops also wanted married priests and female ordination. CITH was a symbol of defiance.
Click to expand...
read the whole thing for once, its well researched and he cited his sources
don’t reject something just because it goes against what you have set your mind on
 
Actually I read the first two sections. Why I quit reading was the tone and false statements. If you have a good argument you need not use such inflamatory terms and generalizations and should stick to your argument rather than going off course with falsehoods. The bottom line is when CITH resurfaced in rebellious Holland the Church ruled against it. Further disobedience eventually force the Magsterium into releasing the indult.

If we can have two officials forms of liturgy why hasn’t the Vatican given us two offical means of receiving the Blessed Sacrament? Why is one an indult and the other official and prefered?
 
Ockham said:
Actually I read the first two sections. Why I quit reading was the tone and false statements. If you have a good argument you need not use such inflamatory terms and generalizations and should stick to your argument rather than going off course with falsehoods. The bottom line is when CITH resurfaced in rebellious Holland the Church ruled against it. Further disobedience eventually force the Magsterium into releasing the indult.

If we can have two officials forms of liturgy why hasn’t the Vatican given us two offical means of receiving the Blessed Sacrament? Why is one an indult and the other official and prefered?
Click to expand...
really amazes me how people say how devoted Catholics they are, and then bash the Vatican regarding decisions they do not agree with. if you think the Church succumbs to the wills of evil people, then the Church itself has become evil. then why are you still Catholic?
 
choy said:
really amazes me how people say how devoted Catholics they are, and then bash the Vatican regarding decisions they do not agree with. if you think the Church succumbs to the wills of evil people, then the Church itself has become evil. then why are you still Catholic?
Click to expand...
That’s an inflamatory post. Perhaps you’ve been influenced by that article. You should restrict your use of the word ‘evil’ to more accurate and appropriate junctures. It’s quite a serious charge.

Truth is the opposite of what you are accusing me of. I’m defending the Vatican and the decree Pope Paul VI issued denouncing CITH. COTT is the official means of receiving Holy Communion so actually I’m acting more Catholic than you are receiving in the hand. In the Bible we learn that God allowed the Jews to divorce due to the hardness of their hearts. If you let this issue become polemic then that’s exactly what will happen to you.

What amazes me is how some people totally ignore the circumstances CITH got into the GIRM. It’s not cast in stone you know. One day it may be removed. I suggest removing your emotional attachment and reviewing the facts objectively then ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

I was nervous leading up to the first time I received COTT but what I found is a much deeper appreciation of our Redeemer’s Sacrifice and intimate connection to him. There is also a sense of parent/child relationship between you and the priest which I had never encountered from CITH.

The Dutch bishops wanted married priests too something that did occur in the early Church. Do you really want to follow their example or centuries of Church teaching?
 
Ockham said:
That’s an inflamatory post. Perhaps you’ve been influenced by that article. You should restrict your use of the word ‘evil’ to more accurate and appropriate junctures. It’s quite a serious charge.

Truth is the opposite of what you are accusing me of. I’m defending the Vatican and the decree Pope Paul VI issued denouncing CITH. COTT is the official means of receiving Holy Communion so actually I’m acting more Catholic than you are receiving in the hand. In the Bible we learn that God allowed the Jews to divorce due to the hardness of their hearts. If you let this issue become polemic then that’s exactly what will happen to you.

What amazes me is how some people totally ignore the circumstances CITH got into the GIRM. It’s not cast in stone you know. One day it may be removed. I suggest removing your emotional attachment and reviewing the facts objectively then ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

I was nervous leading up to the first time I received COTT but what I found is a much deeper appreciation of our Redeemer’s Sacrifice and intimate connection to him. There is also a sense of parent/child relationship between you and the priest which I had never encountered from CITH.

The Dutch bishops wanted married priests too something that did occur in the early Church. Do you really want to follow their example or centuries of Church teaching?
Click to expand...
the thing is, you’re always looking the past. looking at what is said in the past to justify what you want today. the Church has to adjust what it can adjust so that more people can be.

Married Priests are not a violation of any Church doctrine. we’ve always maintained that at any moment the Church can lift the discipline on Latin Rite priests, and this would not change anything within the Church. so why are you making it sound like its such a bad thing to have married priests? the Eastern Churches have it, the Orthodox who have valid Orders have it. its just a discipline. its not aginst the Church to lift that discipline. don’t make it sound like its an evil act to do so

as for your experiences for receiving via COTT, i respect that. but don’t make those who choose to receive CITH when the Church allows it look like disrespectful, ignorant fools. don’t think we don’t find the same value in our practice that you find in yours.
 
choy said:
so why are you making it sound like its such a bad thing to have married priests?
Click to expand...
There we have it. Shall we continue?

Abortion. Yes or no.

Divorce/remarriage. Yes or no.

Papal infallibility. Yes or no.

Transubstantiation. Yes or no.
 
Ockham said:
There we have it. Shall we continue?

Abortion. Yes or no.

Divorce/remarriage. Yes or no.

Papal infallibility. Yes or no.

Transubstantiation. Yes or no.
Click to expand...
Ockham, you do realize, don’t you, that the practice of priestly celibacy (unlike womynpriests) is merely a discipline and not a doctrine of the Roman Church? That it’s not a matter of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, does not exist in our Eastern rites*, and could be lifted tomorrow?

*With a few exceptions, I think.
 
Ockham said:
There we have it. Shall we continue?

Abortion. Yes or no.

Divorce/remarriage. Yes or no.

Papal infallibility. Yes or no.

Transubstantiation. Yes or no.
Click to expand...
i’m amazed that you can’t distinguish between Church doctrines, and things implemented as a matter of discipline, which can absolutely be changed
 
Ockham said:
How about answering the questions? Yes or No.
Click to expand...
Okay, no, no, yes, yes. But is this really your “purity test” for other commenters, or weren’t you actually trying to make the point that priestly celibacy is an unchangeable moral doctrine? I think you’ve pretty much lost us on this one.
 
Mark, i think he’s trying to classify us as liberalists or modernist, or whatever made up evil was created to classify those who say anything against TLM-only liturgy, including COTT-only with kneeling-only Communion
 
choy said:
Mark, i think he’s trying to classify us as liberalists or modernist, or whatever made up evil was created to classify those who say anything against TLM-only liturgy, including COTT-only with kneeling-only Communion
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, parts of that I’m for. I think would would be better off with COTT and kneeling (with all the usual exceptions to that statement for infirmity, Eastern rites, religious brothers, etc.). I just argue strenuously against claims that COTT is (a) the only way it was ever done until 1965, (b) inherently more reverent, (c) part of Catholic doctrine, or (d) that it makes you “more Catholic” if you do it, which Ockham claimed above, or (e) that if you say you find it just as reverent and fulfilling to receive standing in the hand, you’re lying, a Protestant, a mental defective, or all three, which is the general tenor of a lot of arguments on the issue.

I think receiving on the tongue greatly reduces the profanation of small particles of the Blessed Sacrament, and I think receiving kneeling fosters (in most people) a humility which is all too absent and easy to forget; it also makes it easier to distribute on the tongue. Both aspects, too, foster a recognition of the Real Presence. (FWIW, I receiving standing and on the tongue.)

The problem is when people say back, “See, that’s what I said! Receiving in the hand denies the Real Presence! It shows no humility!” Uh, no.
 
MarkThompson said:
Okay, no, no, yes, yes. But is this really your “purity test” for other commenters, or weren’t you actually trying to make the point that priestly celibacy is an unchangeable moral doctrine? I think you’ve pretty much lost us on this one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your responses Mark, but the question was put to choy. Choy keeps making references to a traditional hidden agenda. The point of my questions is to find out where choy stands on certain aspects of Catholicism. I’m curious to know if those who defend CITH most strenuously are also in favour of other non-Catholic practices or beliefs. Remember when I asked you for an account of how CITH got in the GIRM? Are you going to take me up on that?

choy, if you decline to participate I’ll assume your answers are the opposite of what Mark posted.

As to your other charges, no I have never said COTT was the only way it’s ever been done. However, you conveniently ignore that the Vatican made it the norm and ruled against CITH.

Have you seen the surveys on belief in the Real Presence? Any idea why it’s been dropping lately?
 
Ockham said:
Thanks for your responses Mark, but the question was put to choy. Choy keeps making references to a traditional hidden agenda. The point of my questions is to find out where choy stands on certain aspects of Catholicism. I’m curious to know if those who defend CITH most strenuously are also in favour of other non-Catholic practices or beliefs. Remember when I asked you for an account of how CITH got in the GIRM? Are you going to take me up on that?

choy, if you decline to participate I’ll assume your answers are the opposite of what Mark posted.

As to your other charges, no I have never said COTT was the only way it’s ever been done. However, you conveniently ignore that the Vatican made it the norm and ruled against CITH.

Have you seen the surveys on belief in the Real Presence? Any idea why it’s been dropping lately?
Click to expand...
oh, “OTHER NON-CATHOLIC”. so now you’re calling CITH non-Catholic, even if you’ve already acknowledged that this practice existed in the Catholic Church early in its history? even if the Church allows it? so anything you see inside Protestant Churches, we shouldn’t do at all, correct? so no more Sunday Best clothing because Baptists are famous for that.

you can presume anything you want. you’ve already pressumed a lot of things about me. at this point, does it really matter what my answers are?

and i know what your answer is to your last question. you will pin it again on CITH, which you cannot absolutely prove with any hard evidence. yes, its CITH, even though we’ve been bombarded by propaganda from Evangelicals, Pentecostals, JWs, LDS, etc. blame it on the practicing Catholic.
 
Easy now. Take a breath. Pray to the Holy Spirit for patience.

Are you not going to answer the questions?
 
Ockham said:
Easy now. Take a breath. Pray to the Holy Spirit for patience.

Are you not going to answer the questions?
Click to expand...
no

a. its besides the point
b. i’ve already been painted in a certain light. whats the use? no matter what i answer, i’m sure it will be used against me in one way or another
 
I’m giving you the opportunity to paint yourself in the exact paint you believe.

Mark was able to do it.

What’s the problem? Why the secrecy?
 
i’m not hiding anything. i’ve responded to a ton of threads in this forum and my position has been clearly painted in all those threads

however, seeing as how the flow of conversation is going on this particular thread, i don’t see the need for me to respond to such a question. because i know how people with my position, who defend the truth that “Spirit of Vatican II” practices are as valid as traditional practices, are always painted in a negative way by those who are against such practices. so i know i will be executed anyway, so why do i have to hand over the axe that will chop off my head?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top