Receivng Communion on your Hand

[Ockham]

Henry XIII did not create the Church of England - that was Henry VIII.
The Tridentine Mass came about from the Council of Trent. Yes, it was almost exactly the same as it was before (in the time of HVIII) but it’s an anachronism to call it the Tridentine Mass.

Thank you for the correction, of course Henry VIII created the COE.

I realize the phrase “Tridentine Mass” isn’t the most accurate. My point is that our Mass, the pre-V2 Novus Ordo Mass, existed prior to the COE, therefore they copied us.

If we are truly Christ’s Church shouldn’t we be leaders instead of followers? Why have we changed our liturgy to resemble the Protestants? Why was the Mass changed after the Council of Trent codified it - never to be altered?

 

[estesbob]

It isn’t my opinion COTT is superior, it is the Church’s. It is the universal norm to receive COTT and only by an indult can CITH be received. Don’t argue with me, read what Pope Paul VI said about it when this liturgical abuse started post V2. Then read all the quotes from other popes, saints and theologians too. CITH was practiced early in the Church and then seen to be improper. Do your research before making accusations as to my intentions. Try responding to the facts I have presented instead of trying to reduce this debate down to an absurd level of my opinion versus yours, or the ol’ “its in the GIRM”.

The facts are that the Church allows CITH. The fact that you dont like it does not mean that rest of us should be denied recieving communion the way find most reverent just because you dont like it. I have not seen a single person in this thread tell you you should not be allowed to recieve on the tongue.I wish you would show the same respect for our wishes.

 

[Ockham]

Why don’t you consentrate on your own Communion instead of others? If you did you might find some joy in the Lord.

I’m starting to find posts like this insulting. What do you mean I don’t find joy in the Lord? If you don’t like this thread or my argument then stop reading and responding to it.

 

[tweetymom]

I’m starting to find posts like this insulting. What do you mean I don’t find joy in the Lord? If you don’t like this thread or my argument then stop reading and responding to it.

Sorry but most of the posts from you I find insulting. I don’t understand why you are argueing anyway:shrug: So instead of a me why don’t you stop arguing? I said you need to consentrate on the joy of the Lord when you have Communion instead or how others are receiving… I don’t dislike this thread just do not understand your arguing:shrug:

 

[Ockham]

I don’t dislike this thread just do not understand your arguing:shrug:

Clearly.

READ what Pope Paul VI said before your next post please.

Again I wonder why pro-CITH people enter into the Traditional Catholic forum and open up a thread discussing this subject and have negative reactions.

 

[estesbob]

Clearly.

READ what Pope Paul VI said before your next post please.

Again I wonder why pro-CITH people enter into the Traditional Catholic forum and open up a thread discussing this subject and have negative reactions.

Is CITH allowed by the Church or is it not? If it is why should we care what Paul VI said or anyone else-are we not to follow the intruction of the Church?

 

[tweetymom]

Clearly.

READ what Pope Paul VI said before your next post please.

Again I wonder why pro-CITH people enter into the Traditional Catholic forum and open up a thread discussing this subject and have negative reactions.

Entering this thread was a choice made by me. I am pro CITH for ME, and if you don’t like it by all means COTT, matters not to me. My point is that we need to consentrate on ourselves and Christ not everyone else’s relationship:thumbsup:

 

[tweetymom]

Is CITH allowed by the Church or is it not? If it is why should we care what Paul VI said or anyone else-are we not to follow the intruction of the Church?

AMEN AMEN:tiphat:

 

[tweetymom]

If you think we have a mote in our eye maybe you need to worry about the beam in yours you think?

 

[Ockham]

It seems to me you two are the ones judging. Tweety has told me I don’t find joy in the Lord, Bob accuses me of conspiracy theories, someone else said I worship the Mass and not God. If you people can’t make an intelligent case for CITH that’s one thing, but leave the pettiness and insults out of it please.

Obviously you don’t see the contradiction in your argument so I’ll point it out to you. You are saying because the Church says it’s ok then we shouldn’t challenge it. The Church said CITH was not allowed and yet it was practiced anyway. How about that? The pro-CITHers in the seventies were openly defying the Church. You can’t have it both ways.

So, has anyone come up with a good reason for CITH besides your personal preference and “it’s in the GIRM”? Remember, the Church corrected the earliest Christians in their practice of CITH and it was banned for the vast majority of the Church’s existence.

 

[Ockham]

Is CITH allowed by the Church or is it not? If it is why should we care what Paul VI said or anyone else-are we not to follow the intruction of the Church?

Stunning.

 

[tweetymom]

It seems to me you two are the ones judging. Tweety has told me I don’t find joy in the Lord, Bob accuses me of conspiracy theories, someone else said I worship the Mass and not God. If you people can’t make a mature, intelligent case for CITH that’s one thing, but leave the pettiness and insults out of it please.

Obviously you don’t see the contradiction in your argument so I’ll point it out to you. You are saying because the Church says it’s ok then we shouldn’t challenge it. The Church said CITH was not allowed and yet it was practiced anyway. How about that? The pro-CITHers in the seventies were openly defying the Church. You can’t have it both ways.

So, has anyone come up with a good reason for CITH besides your personal preference and “it’s in the GIRM”? Remember, the Church corrected the earliest Christians in their practice of CITH and it was banned for the vast majority of the Church’s existence.

How can you find joy in the Lord thru Communion when you are so consentrated on what others are doing? I am so happy giving and receiving Communion I don’t have time to worry about what others are doing, thats my point! Do you challenge everything you don’t agree with that the CC says? I worship God and let God worry about the rest. I don’t agree with everything the Church teaches I just don’t get upset about it. And because of that I am :extrahappy:

 

[gospel_life]

It isn’t my opinion COTT is superior, it is the Church’s. It is the universal norm to receive COTT and only by an indult can CITH be received. Don’t argue with me, read what Pope Paul VI said about it when this liturgical abuse started post V2. Then read all the quotes from other popes, saints and theologians too. CITH was practiced early in the Church and then seen to be improper. Do your research before making accusations as to my intentions. Try responding to the facts I have presented instead of trying to reduce this debate down to an absurd level of my opinion versus yours, or the ol’ “its in the GIRM”.

This is where your entire premise just falls apart. The fact that COTT is the norm does not translate to it being superior. The fact that CITH is done by indult does not translate to the Church deeming it inferior. It is no different than the fact that the OF being the ordinary form–the current norm of the Church–does not translate to it being superior to the EF.

What Pope Paul said in 1969 is irrelevant. Please get it clear in your mind that what one person says at one time compared to another at another time–or even the same person at different times–does not change the fact that the Church has the innate right to change matters of discipline. What other Popes or other saints felt about it are relevant only to the extent that a Pope considering such a change will certainly take those reasons into account.

So please stop with the “do your research” stuff as if you are some kind of authority. The only authority you are, or hold, is as to your own specific preference. Nothing about your interpretations holds up except to the extent that they are valid reasons for your personal choice. They do not apply to the Church or anyone else of the faithful.

The “facts” on this are clear. Even the Pope’s own spokesman states that there is no current intention to remove CITH. If the Pope and the Church deem it appropriate, as much as it pains you, you don’t hold high enough authority to overrule them and deem people irreverent or lacking in humility, however much you may be personally convinced that your way is superior. Holding one’s self able to command such authority would certainly seem to be lacking in humility if there is a case present.

By the way, the Church did not “correct” the early Church on the practice of CITH. It simply stopped it because of the presence of a particular heresy. It wasn’t a matter of finding what had been done to be wrong, simply that of changing due to the circumstances present.

 

[tweetymom]

great post gospel life. We need to worry about ourself first:thumbsup: There is one thing I feel for sure God is not going to ask me what person took CITT of COTT. :clapping:

 

[Layman]

By the way, the Church did not “correct” the early Church on the practice of CITH. It simply stopped it because of the presence of a particular heresy. It wasn’t a matter of finding what had been done to be wrong, simply that of changing due to the circumstances present.

Interesting. What heresy was that?

 

[diggerdomer]

My point is that our Mass, the pre-V2 Novus Ordo Mass, existed prior to the COE, therefore they copied us.

Well, in a sense, yes of course. Before the divisions of the 16th century, most Christians’ heritage of worship was the same as that influencing Trent (at least in the West). No mystery there. They worshiped largely as they had before the split, which was of course the same way the Catholic Church worshiped.

Why have we changed our liturgy to resemble the Protestants?

The liturgy was not changed “to resemble the Protestants.” That was not and is not the motive for Church changes to liturgy. Unless you know otherwise? Did any Pope promulgating a change to the Mass state that a reason for it was to resemble Protestants? Or did any Council direct that changes be made to resemble Protestants? I’m not aware of any, but if you know of some please share. De facto, changes made may or may not more closely resemble other Christian worship, but that does not mean the purpose of the Church’s changes was driven by that goal.

Why was the Mass changed after the Council of Trent codified it - never to be altered?

Any number of reasons. The Church’s liturgy has always evolved, developed, and been changed by the Church. The Council of Trent didn’t codify the Mass, the Missal promulgated following the Council was the Missal of Pius V promulgated in 1570 (just like Vatican II didn’t codify the Mass, revisions followed the guidance of the Council and were promulgated later). The Missal of Pius V was changed by Pope Clement XIII in 1604, Pope Urban VII in 1634, and additional times later. So it’s not clear at all to me how the Council codified a Missal that could never be altered.

 

[diggerdomer]

CITH and it was banned for the vast majority of the Church’s existence.

No it wasn’t. It’s been in continuous use in the Church. Parts of the Roman Church started the new practice of only receiving on the tongue in the Middle Ages (hardly the vast majority of the Church’s existence) and gradually this practice spread more widely in the Roman Church. This, at a time when the reception of communion by the laity was very infrequent anyway.

 

[Ockham]

Once again I’ll repeat myself, it is not my opinion - it is the Church’s. I am not the one claiming authority over the Church, it is you people with all your “I don’t care what the Pope said” rebelliousness. To be so opposed or ignorant of Church history and teaching is truly sad.

*"Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Pope Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” [Memoriale Domini, 8]. If Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence, then to argue over which mode was more reverent would be superfluous and ridiculous.

In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many dangers attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread*"

uvcarmel.org/2009/05/19/communion-in-the-hand-the-tradition-speaks/

 

[diggerdomer]

Once again I’ll repeat myself, it is not my opinion - it is the Church’s. I am not the one claiming authority over the Church, it is you people with all your “I don’t care what the Pope said” rebelliousness. To be so opposed or ignorant of Church history and teaching is truly sad.

*"Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Pope Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” [Memoriale Domini, 8]. If Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence, then to argue over which mode was more reverent would be superfluous and ridiculous.

In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many dangers attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread*"

uvcarmel.org/2009/05/19/communion-in-the-hand-the-tradition-speaks/

Who is Matthew Schultz and are there any references or sources to back up his claims?

 

[gospel_life]

Once again I’ll repeat myself, it is not my opinion - it is the Church’s. I am not the one claiming authority over the Church, it is you people with all your “I don’t care what the Pope said” rebelliousness. To be so opposed or ignorant of Church history and teaching is truly sad.

*"Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Pope Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” [Memoriale Domini, 8]. If Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence, then to argue over which mode was more reverent would be superfluous and ridiculous.

In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many dangers attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread*"

uvcarmel.org/2009/05/19/communion-in-the-hand-the-tradition-speaks/

Same ol’ same ol’. Now with some revisionist history thrown in, in an article led off with the ever-so-popular but totally debunked Mother Teresa quote. Obviously another self-proclaimed “authority”.

Enjoy yourself. If you’re convinced and called to your personal preference, by all means go for it. Please try to not be totally upset if most of us aren’t convinced. It truly isn’t that we aren’t reverent. It truly has nothing to do with a lack of humility. And it most certainly doesn’t have anything to do with us just not understanding. It just has to do with the “fact” that this is not a doctrinal issue and the Church allows more than one option. It isn’t a matter of “my Pope beats your Pope” and I have more saints that like what I do. Disciplinary decisions aren’t democratically made and we don’t get to overrule them. And if you feel ok with making your judgments about people based on this, and can disregard all the Biblical admonitions against doing so, I guess that’s part of what free will gives us.

I’ll go remove the splinter from my own eye now so you won’t have to do it any more.