D
- Status
J
justin_sp
Guest
At Mass today before my wife took communion, she looked down at the plate the alter boy puts under communicants chins lest 1 particle be dropped,and lo and behold several white particles were there.Imagine how many are lost because of CITH. Our Lord is there whole and entire under each and every particle.
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Personally speaking, I recieve on the tongue. I started doing this after attending a parish nearby, and witnessing a priest who repeatedly simply held out the ciorbum (the plate with the consecrated hosts?) so that the Eucharistic Ministers could simply pick out a host and eat it. I didn’t like that, since it seemed no more reverent than simply taking out a handful of potato chips. As a result of this abuse, I started to recieve on the tongue.
That being said, I don’t think that it is wrong to recieve in the hand, and I still do occasionally, and I try never to notice how other people recieve communion. As other posters have said, none of us are worthy to recieve Jesus in any manner. It’s far better to prepare yourself to recieve Jesus into your soul, and to thank Him for coming into your soul, than to worry about how you or everyone else is recieving communion.
That being said, I don’t think that it is wrong to recieve in the hand, and I still do occasionally, and I try never to notice how other people recieve communion. As other posters have said, none of us are worthy to recieve Jesus in any manner. It’s far better to prepare yourself to recieve Jesus into your soul, and to thank Him for coming into your soul, than to worry about how you or everyone else is recieving communion.
G
gospel_life
Guest
From today’s gospel…
Congratulations to them for their zeal and devotion. Shame on them for trying to divide the Body of Christ based on their personal preferences, which they put above the teaching of the Pope and Magisterium. Mostly, shame on them for apparently not believing that others can be just as zealous and devoted while holding a different preference on this.
Finally, shame on them for trying to make “traditions of men” into “Traditions of God”. Jesus had some very specific comments about that specific behavior. He also had some very specific comments about doing things for public display as many of that group have suggested. Instead he instructs us to pray in private–in other words without “show”–and to not let the left hand know what the right is doing. To not trumpet our piety on street corners. “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.”
External signs are important but they are no indication of what is in someone’s heart. The continued judgments on lack of reverence and implications that those who receive CITH don’t really believe in the Real Presence are simply scandalous.
It seems we have a handful here who want to create the exact kind of division that John was suggesting. Who seem to think they have a corner on God’s grace and that anyone who doesn’t follow their beloved opinions should be shunned since they couldn’t possibly actually be true followers of Jesus. <gasp!>
Congratulations to them for their zeal and devotion. Shame on them for trying to divide the Body of Christ based on their personal preferences, which they put above the teaching of the Pope and Magisterium. Mostly, shame on them for apparently not believing that others can be just as zealous and devoted while holding a different preference on this.
Finally, shame on them for trying to make “traditions of men” into “Traditions of God”. Jesus had some very specific comments about that specific behavior. He also had some very specific comments about doing things for public display as many of that group have suggested. Instead he instructs us to pray in private–in other words without “show”–and to not let the left hand know what the right is doing. To not trumpet our piety on street corners. “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.”
External signs are important but they are no indication of what is in someone’s heart. The continued judgments on lack of reverence and implications that those who receive CITH don’t really believe in the Real Presence are simply scandalous.
T
truevaticanii
Guest
Actually, I got that quote from a Franciscan.Actually you misquoted our holy Father. The quote end that he would kiss the hands of the priest becaus “it is through the holy sacrifice that he offers daily that I can see the only visible sign of the body and blood of our lord Jesus Christ.”
Never misquote St. Francis to Franciscan friars. We have a love affair with our holy Father. I think we’re one of those orders who has such a high esteem for our holy Father that we spend six-years in formation studying no one but him, before we go on to study theology.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Ockham
Guest
That was a lot of shame you just threw around. How do you think that will be received? Could it be you are adding to any potential division by your judgement of others?
I agree that division is not a good thing. The quickest way to end that is to return to the universal norm of the Church and end the indult that permits CITH.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please take some time to read the teachings of the Church over the centuries as to the proper way to receive the Blessed Sacrament and the history of CITH. It is not my opinion nor my personal preference.
I would be happy to read anyone’s theological argument for CITH. Please support your position with quotes from popes, saints, doctors of the Church or other authorative persons. It would also be interesting to see some quantifiable benefit CITH has produced these past forty years.
I agree that division is not a good thing. The quickest way to end that is to return to the universal norm of the Church and end the indult that permits CITH.
You are entitled to your opinion. Please take some time to read the teachings of the Church over the centuries as to the proper way to receive the Blessed Sacrament and the history of CITH. It is not my opinion nor my personal preference.
I would be happy to read anyone’s theological argument for CITH. Please support your position with quotes from popes, saints, doctors of the Church or other authorative persons. It would also be interesting to see some quantifiable benefit CITH has produced these past forty years.
T
truevaticanii
Guest
This is why I ask foe COTT because it protects HIS SARED BODY! What do you people have against this? Why would you not protect His sacred body? Jesus fell enough times during the Way of the Cross, why now do you wish for Him to fall for the “un-teenth” time!?
I am deeply saddened and not only that but scandalized that Catholics could possibly go on without trying to stop this… how they can receive on the hand and not give it another thought! Don’t you love our Lord?!
All I ask is that you prayerfully consider what I have said… no one here as justified using their hands while particles fall to the ground… no one! Why? Because it cannot be!
… huh… what has the world come to?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The method of receiving communion will not by itself resolve divisions in Christianity or the Catholic Church.
Still, I would say that a quicker way to end whatever divisions you refer to would be for people to follow Church teaching. If the Church allows such and such a practice, accept it and those who faithfully follow that practice, with charity and humility.
Imposing a discipline that some may be against will most likely drive them out, not keep them unified. I guess that begs the question of how best to end division: bring people together, or get rid of the ones we disagree with. I opt for the former.
T
truevaticanii
Guest
You do not get it… this is NOT about traditions of men… this is about saving the Body of Christ froming cast down to the ground just because certain people refuse to change their ways that the Lord might be treated with the respect that He deserves! Why can’t you see this? Why? Are you more considerned with your tradition of CITH than with keeping Christ froming falling to the ground??? It is scandalous that you will not prevent such a thing… I am sickened by this. Is it because you care more about pleasing those who prefer CITH? Or is it because something is holding you back? …perhaps it is not your fault… but I am deeply wounded by this… this is what drives a person to the SSPX and the SSPV!
1
1 2 O stupid Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
2
I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard? 3
3
Are you so stupid? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? 4
4
Did you experience so many things 5 in vain?–if indeed it was in vain.
5
Does, then, the one who supplies the Spirit to you and works mighty deeds among you do so from works of the law or from faith in what you heard?
6
Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 6
-galatians 3:1-6
This is not about a traditional law, this is about faith and love of Christ.
T
truevaticanii
Guest
The same occurs with CITH… it is things like CITH that send us to the SSPX and SSPV!
G
gospel_life
Guest
Actually, I do get it. It is ALL about traditons of men. Disciplines such as this are by definition “traditions of men”. Resorting to gross hyperbole in claiming that people are casting down the Body of Christ is simply ridiculous. Anyone who would do such a thing would do it just as quickly and be just as irreverent if receiving on the tongue.
And again we come up with the same baloney, the same “we tried to stop them because they aren’t of our band” stuff. “Certain people” refuse to change their ways and are not treating the Lord with the respect he deserves. What unmitigated arrogance to think you can pronounce on what degree of respect anyone is showing to the Lord based on posture! Because others fully believe they are reverently and respectfully do something different from what you do you’re all ready to make all kinds of judgments.
Oh, and here we go again with more of the same.
No, none of us have any faith or love of Christ because we hold our hands different. As someone previously mentioned, there are centuries of saints and martyrs who managed to be pretty devout and reverent but I guess we aren’t capable of that.
Why would I bother? You’ve ignored every one posted because they don’t match your opinions or a 40 year old document that the Church changed its mind on.
O
Ockham
Guest
Exactly the type of response the pro-CITH crowd has offered in this thread. The Church didn’t change its mind; people disobeyed the Church and to prevent schism an indult was issued. Please research this subject prior to spewing baseless opinion and conjecture.
G
gospel_life
Guest
LOL. You really need to get over yourself! You are far from the only person to ever look into the subject and your limited sources are far from convincing to anyone who doesn’t hold your preconceived notions. The practice has been in continuous use in the Church since the very beginning and far predates any source you have offered.
Your speculation notwithstanding, the Church did in fact change its mind or there would be no indult. You may not like the reasons, and perhaps the history of how it came to be isn’t perfect, but the fact is that the Pope made a valid and legitimate decision on a matter of discipline. He’s allowed to do that, even without consulting you or giving you his reasons. (If it makes you feel any better he didn’t consult me either.
) Three more Popes since have had the opportunity to change it but have not done so.As to “spewing baseless opinion and conjecture”, you’ve been doing it in post after post, adding in substantial degrees of personal judgment and snide sarcasm. Since this is a matter of discipline, and one on which the Church has provided legitimate options, offering one’s opinions is most assuredly not “spewing” as it is the only position we can take. We do not define disciplines; that is the purview of the Pope. We can disagree about them being prudent but we should not be condemning anyone who chooses to avail themselves of the options that are available. That is where one starts to get off into exactly what Jesus condemned in this morning’s gospel. At least I’m not opining on the practice itself, just on those who think they outrank the Pope in deciding what is good for the Church and condemning faithful Catholics in the process.
O
Ockham
Guest
Waiting…
K
KingTheoden
Guest
Gospel Life,
Reducing centuries of organic development, prayer, and leadership by the Holy Spirit to ‘traditions of men’ seems unfair. Yes, disciplines can be changed, but they have stood so for solid reasons. Simply because the Church can change certain things does not mean it ought to.
Shaming those opposed to the practice of communion in the hand is not a helpful step in binding together the body of Christ to Jesus. We are convinced in our position that, given our development in the Latin Rite, our understanding of the Eucharist, and our cultural norms, it is simply not as reverent to receive in the hand than it is on the tongue.
An indult is an indult. It is not ‘the Church changing its mind;’ it is the Church allowing something that otherwise is not allowed for some purpose, in this case it was to prevent a formal schisim.
Communion in the hand is valid; but that doesn’t mean that it is the best way. It’s like this: If I have a pair of jeans (I do) and a suit (I do), I have a choice of wearing either to church. I think the respectful choice is the latter, even though my jeans are clean, sharp looking, and should not be taken to be bad clothing.
But if we suppose a particular tradition’s parishioners really only have jeans for work or cultural reasons, it would clearly not be offensive to don those demim pants to church.
That’s how I see the issue of Latin rite and Eastern traditions.
Now, if I wanted to wear jeans suddenly because I felt more comfortable or looked more in line with pop culture, that would not be a good choice because the motivation is not to better honor God. Instead, my motivation in this case is to honor myself, a very humanist quality.
I tend to doubt that any on this forum wag fingers at those who RITH. Some might not deal with such parishes, but most probably show nothing but courtesy at their OF parishes. I see the conservative push from the 20-35 age group as the Holy Spirit directing us to something.
I also think that my pastor is extremely timely and skilled at homilies as he addressed the internal Church conflict beautifully today. The end purpose is easy: Jesus Christ. I am sure that each side shares this. And we always need to pull back, pray, and submit to the will of God, not our own whims.
Reducing centuries of organic development, prayer, and leadership by the Holy Spirit to ‘traditions of men’ seems unfair. Yes, disciplines can be changed, but they have stood so for solid reasons. Simply because the Church can change certain things does not mean it ought to.
Shaming those opposed to the practice of communion in the hand is not a helpful step in binding together the body of Christ to Jesus. We are convinced in our position that, given our development in the Latin Rite, our understanding of the Eucharist, and our cultural norms, it is simply not as reverent to receive in the hand than it is on the tongue.
An indult is an indult. It is not ‘the Church changing its mind;’ it is the Church allowing something that otherwise is not allowed for some purpose, in this case it was to prevent a formal schisim.
Communion in the hand is valid; but that doesn’t mean that it is the best way. It’s like this: If I have a pair of jeans (I do) and a suit (I do), I have a choice of wearing either to church. I think the respectful choice is the latter, even though my jeans are clean, sharp looking, and should not be taken to be bad clothing.
But if we suppose a particular tradition’s parishioners really only have jeans for work or cultural reasons, it would clearly not be offensive to don those demim pants to church.
That’s how I see the issue of Latin rite and Eastern traditions.
Now, if I wanted to wear jeans suddenly because I felt more comfortable or looked more in line with pop culture, that would not be a good choice because the motivation is not to better honor God. Instead, my motivation in this case is to honor myself, a very humanist quality.
I tend to doubt that any on this forum wag fingers at those who RITH. Some might not deal with such parishes, but most probably show nothing but courtesy at their OF parishes. I see the conservative push from the 20-35 age group as the Holy Spirit directing us to something.
I also think that my pastor is extremely timely and skilled at homilies as he addressed the internal Church conflict beautifully today. The end purpose is easy: Jesus Christ. I am sure that each side shares this. And we always need to pull back, pray, and submit to the will of God, not our own whims.
J
JReducation
Guest
Then he or she misquoted our holy Father. Check out the writings of our holy Father.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Good thoughts, overall, thanks.
A note to the above.
The U.S. has approval from the Vatican for communion reception either in the hand or on the tongue, with no preference indicated. Regardless of whether it’s an indult or not (for in the hand), the norms were clearly not given to avoid schism. Or, do you know that the Church in the U.S. would have pursued schism if they weren’t given permission for communion in the hand?
For the second point, yes, the Vatican does not say that communion in the hand is best. Nor does it say that communion on the tongue is best. For the U.S., both methods are allowed, at the discretion of the communicant, with no preference indicated.
I
I_Believe
Guest
The fact is, CITH was done before it was approved via indult. It was not introduced by Rome as an option. Like so many things after the Novus Ordo Missae was introduced, it was in fact liberty taken with the rubrics of the Liturgy. Liberty that individual priests saw fit to take without approval from Rome. A total about face from the way things are done.
Changes in the rubrics are done after careful consideration by those in Rome. Not by those at the bottom of the ladder.
Thankfully, many Bishops are slowly following H.H. BXVI’s lead and discarding the practice for the more reverent norm. Deo Gratias.
Changes in the rubrics are done after careful consideration by those in Rome. Not by those at the bottom of the ladder.
Thankfully, many Bishops are slowly following H.H. BXVI’s lead and discarding the practice for the more reverent norm. Deo Gratias.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I would hate to make a mistake and put out my hand to receive communion in a diocese where communion in the hand is proscribed, so please, which Bishops have proscribed the practice of communion in the hand? Are there American dioceses where I cannot receive communion in the hand if I so desire?
I
I_Believe
Guest
- Status