L
- Status
R
ricmat
Guest
I too miss the altar rails (for many reasons). And the priest facing with the congregation instead of towards it. Etc.
But I have 2 questions for those who insist/recommend communion on the tongue.
I’m not accusing anybody of anything. I’m just curious.
But I have 2 questions for those who insist/recommend communion on the tongue.
- As the cardinal in the above (post 96) mentioned to those receiving communion in the hand, while standing - “Why don’t you kneel, why don’t you crawl?”
- Do you receive from the cup, when it is offered?
I’m not accusing anybody of anything. I’m just curious.
L
lizaanne
Guest
I do kneel - at the rail. Crawling is ridiculous - he’s just being sassy and trying to divert the conversation.
It is never offered at our parish - we receive only via intinction, only at the rail, and only on our knees. If someone is not capable of kneeling they stand at the rail - we have a few elderly folks who do this.
~Liza
R
ricmat
Guest
A lady at our parish crawls on her knees from the back to the front of the church for Eucharistic adoration. Is that ridiculous also?
You have a rail! That’s wonderful, I wish we had one too. I’ve not seen an altar rail in a Catholic church since…uh…mid-60’s (estimated).
And I’ve never seen intinction although I’ve heard rumors that it exists. It actually seems like a good idea to me, but it isn’t widespread.
Question for you. When you visit churches where the cup is offered, do you drink from the cup or not?
L
lizaanne
Guest
I think it makes her a spectacle, and draws undue attention to her that is not appropriate, taking the focus from Christ. Now if it were the norm in your parish for EVERYONE to do this, then perhaps it would not be, but since she is the only one then I think it is not appropriate.
EDIT: - OH, adoration, not Holy Communion! I did not read that correctly. If she is doing this in a very private setting with only a small number of people then I think it’s fine. I could see someone doing that where we go to adoration and would not think much of it. But if she is doing this for Communion then that is not appropriate.
This is my parish: te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/tridentine-holy-week-2008-photo.html
We are extraordinarily blessed.
I did this past weekend when at a conference, but I don’t always. There is no rhyme or reason to it, sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t.
I really prefer not to make a spectacle of myself, so if everyone is standing to receive then I stand. But I will NEVER receive in the hand.~Liza
C
CLMCatholic
Guest
In our church we sometimes have the cup offered. Not always. When it is offered, I receive from it. It was not offered at all until relatively recently (last few years) - and I find myself unable to “not” take from the cup when it is available. Yes, I know that Christ is present, complete and whole, in the tiniest speck of the host so there is no ‘need’ to take in both species. But I still feel so blessed to be able to take Him in both species, so I do take from the cup whenever I can.
With flu season approaching (even in years when H1N1 was not the focus), most churches have removed the Blood from congregational offering. So right now it is not an issue. But when it is, I do not usually worry about person-to-person cross-contamination:
As far as the contents themselves…I find it hard to believe that ANY germ or organism could survive in the Precious Blood!! :heaven: It just does not compute with me at all. I am not being purposefully obtuse. I have a PhD in Molecular Biology. But as a Catholic first and a scientist second, I firmly and unequivocally believe that NO foreign germ or bug could survive in the Precious Blood. – Period !! – The issue of contamination of the vessel itself does remain, but In my experience (at least in the churches I’ve been in), anyone who is coughing or sniffling or is obviously ill is “wise enough” to refrain from taking the Precious Blood so those in line behind them don’t have to worry about the rim of the cup being contaminated from someone in front. Common sense does prevail. And if someone is “infected” but does not know yet since they are not exhibiting symptoms yet…they are probably also not carrying enough of a viral load to be horribly dangerous to the people coming after them. The wipe of the rim is likely more or less sufficient.
This is just my opinion of course. Many churches withdraw the Precious Blood during the height of any infectious season. Much of this is public perception. People worry. People complain. People get stressed out. The pastor takes the brunt of it all. So it is best to calm all of their fears and make it a non-issue. But - as a PhD scientist…and as a Catholic who believes unwaveringly in the Real Presence - I consider myself blessed to be able to receive from the cup whenever and wherever it is offered.
CLM
<><
C
Ceil-1
Guest
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The same way the Church (Magisterium) justified the changes following Trent, in the spirit of Trent, that resulted in the promulgation of a new Missal, Catechism, etc.
L
Layman
Guest
Except CITH was born in disobedience to the Magisterium and COTT, kneeling is still the preferred norm.
Bishops who have got an indult for this are wrong. I would like to know what spiritual or practical benefit it brings. How does it glorify God?
Let’s see:
CITH is part of a spectrum of irreverent alterations to our worship. It should stop. I think there’s a section of the church that’s quite happy that we’re heading towards a minimalist, democratised, and personalised worship. Heaven, however, is not a democracy and I doubt it’s bare of adornment either.
Bishops who have got an indult for this are wrong. I would like to know what spiritual or practical benefit it brings. How does it glorify God?
Let’s see:
- Dump prayers;
- Dump latin;
- Dump Gregorian chant;
- Strip out altar rails;
- Remove sacramentals;
- Stylize the remaining symbols;
- Let unvested laity into the sanctuary;
- Let them handle the Host also, and …
CITH is part of a spectrum of irreverent alterations to our worship. It should stop. I think there’s a section of the church that’s quite happy that we’re heading towards a minimalist, democratised, and personalised worship. Heaven, however, is not a democracy and I doubt it’s bare of adornment either.
T
tcm22
Guest
However it was born, it is approved and accepted by the Church. Your failure to understand the reasons for the granting of the indult don’t make it any less valid.
Objectively speaking, the Bishops who “got an indult” for this are NOT wrong. They are 100% right, valid, and licit, as approved by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. You may disagree, or wish it were not true, but it is certainly not wrong unless you believe you know better than the Congregation.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
An excerpt:
Interestingly, the letter is filled with cautions about how the practice should be implemented, to included proper catechesis. Obvioulsy the Congregation understood the concerns associated with CITH, and made an effort to address them. We can probably debate whether their efforts were adequate, but they are still quite clear in stating the validity of the practice.
For my money, I’m going with them when it comes to questions of right and wrong in the Liturgy.
L
Layman
Guest
I think it’s wrong. I’ve given reasons why. No one has argued against my propositions successfully, except to say *“It’s allowed, so it’s OK”. * Or “It was done 1600+ years ago, and/or in another rite, so it’s OK to change the Roman rite, now”.
The fact that the document you linked to contains cautionary wording about how it should be done is telling, in my opinion. The document you quoted even mentions that the laity could take the Host from the ciborium themselves. The author said that this was later forbidden. So it looks like the Vatican/Magisterium/Rome can make a change, admit it was wrong and change its instructions again..
I expect the same will occur with CITH, standing.
For example, I find it significant that one of the most recent outrages against the Body of Christ occurred in the London Oratory. This is a beautiful church, famous for it’s music, and one of the few places in the world, I understand, where the Novus Ordo is celebrated with Latin, ad-orientem, with chant. It’s also one of the few places in Britain where there’s a daily public TLM. The sacrilege was even memorialised on video, I recall. So that’s another reason to dump this practice. Why make it easy for the allies of Satan to abuse Christ once more?
The fact that the document you linked to contains cautionary wording about how it should be done is telling, in my opinion. The document you quoted even mentions that the laity could take the Host from the ciborium themselves. The author said that this was later forbidden. So it looks like the Vatican/Magisterium/Rome can make a change, admit it was wrong and change its instructions again..
I expect the same will occur with CITH, standing.
For example, I find it significant that one of the most recent outrages against the Body of Christ occurred in the London Oratory. This is a beautiful church, famous for it’s music, and one of the few places in the world, I understand, where the Novus Ordo is celebrated with Latin, ad-orientem, with chant. It’s also one of the few places in Britain where there’s a daily public TLM. The sacrilege was even memorialised on video, I recall. So that’s another reason to dump this practice. Why make it easy for the allies of Satan to abuse Christ once more?
C
cuqui
Guest
Thanks for the link. I forwarded the link to our deacon. Incidentally, our pastor is in charge of promoting Eucharistic Adoration in our Archdiocese (Philadelphia), so I can’t imagine why he would pick me and others to be EMHC if he knows it is wrong. Anyway, I only had to humbly accept the opportunity to serve and not question.
C
cuqui
Guest
thanks for the link. very helpful!!!
N
nice2000
Guest
Here is an interesting article. I found this link in a similar forum discussion.
newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Pope Benedict is trying to get us back to the the old school. I agree with Pope Benedict. Bring back the tradition.
newsblaze.com/story/20090801065749zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Pope Benedict is trying to get us back to the the old school. I agree with Pope Benedict. Bring back the tradition.
J
JohnT58
Guest
The Church seemst to allow the option of both, but I must say, when I brought this up before, about recieving on the tongue while kneeling for the pope, the moderator threatened to close the thread. Don’t know if they like people arguing over which way is best:blush:
N
nice2000
Guest
I hear you. I am shocked to hear that the moderator would close the thread though. Well the Pope (Benedict) has said it from his own lips. I am not sure why some of the Bishops and Priests and even some of the Cardinals are not helping to enforce what the Holy See is saying though.
I like what Archbishop Sheen says See this link below . Shoshana posted it in her thread dated August 26th.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=314915&page=25
Archbishop Sheen states, “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops like biships and your religious act like religious”
N
ncjohn
Guest
Well, duh!! If you are the only authority on what constitutes a successful argument it’s pretty clear what your conclusion will be regardless of what the rest of the world, or the Church itself, has to say.
Your statement that it is “wrong” is objectively untrue. Period. For it to be “wrong” now would mean that it had to always be “wrong” as “wrong” is an objective state. Since the entire Catholic Church received that way for centuries, and has continued to do so unabated in some rites, it clearly is NOT objectively wrong, your considered opinion notwithstanding.
When it was suspended, it was not done for reasons of reverence. It was done to counteract the potential for a specific heresy. That was a disciplinary decision made by the Church based on the circumstances of the time. The Church has that power and has exercised in many, many ways through its history. If it currently deems that concern not to be significant it certainly has the right to allow a practice that was the norm for many, many saints and martyrs.
Aside from that, the very fact that the Church says it is ok is the ultimate “successful argument” against your proposition. You are not the Pope. You don’t get to make the decisions nor are you privy to all the reasons for them making them. But the Pope cannot lead the Church into impiety.
You are certainly welcome to think that it is an imprudent decision. You are certainly allowed to make your concerns known. You are certainly allowed to choose to receive on the tongue yourself. What you are not allowed to do is to usurp the power of the Pope and declare it to be “wrong”.
And worse, you put yourself in grave danger by copping the attitude that you have some superior position and that others just don’t measure up. That others just aren’t externally reverent enough for you. Jesus devoted substantial cautions in his “woe to you Pharisees” passages. St. Paul included warnings in pretty much every one of his letters against putting stumbling blocks in people’s ways on such things.
This has all been addressed by numerous posters in many different ways so I don’t expect that anything will change for you. But please just try to step outside yourself for a bit to see what it is that so many others see. Nobody here is denying you your right to receive as you wish, or looking down on you for your preference. But it is getting incredibly old listening to the same litany of things that don’t stand up to the Church’s history or its teaching, much less to the message of Jesus on how we are to treat each other.
The fact that you can’t see the benefit, or even give the least consideration that there might be one for others, is very telling. It is the equivalent of me stating that I can’t see how anyone could stand the taste of okra and anyone who likes it must be challenged in some way when it is perfectly legitimate to like okra. The world doesn’t revolve around us and our preferences. Others are allowed to see a benefit that you don’t and to act in a licit and legitimate manner based on that without having to worry about your disapproving glare.
Can we please put an end to this and move on? The Church has spoken and its word is all we have to listen to. If they change it back, then so be it and I’m sure we’ll all conform. Until then though, how about not dividing the Church any further on things that don’t influence our salvation?
Peace?
L
Layman
Guest
Let’s make this simple:
What are the benefits of changing, in the Roman Rite, today, from Communion on the tongue, from a priest, kneeling, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman?
**
What are the benefits of changing, in the Roman Rite, today, from Communion on the tongue, from a priest, kneeling, to Communion in the hand, standing, from a laywoman?
**
D
diggerdomer
Guest
N
ncjohn
Guest
- Status