H
Hereiam
Guest
But the power of grace is with them…let Christ alone judge the disposition of the heart of he who receives the Blessed Sacrament.
- Status
S
Saxum
Guest
I didn’t judge any souls. I stated facts. The fact that communion in the hand is an abuse that was reluctantly accepted because it couldn’t be stopped. It was an act born and raised in disobedience. It isn’t part of our Rite - it’s a mutation that poses a risk of Eucharistic profanation.
H
Hereiam
Guest
Opinion at best but hardly a fact…may not be judging souls, but now you are judging Church authority…both are wrong.
Last edited:
S
Saxum
Guest
I’ve told the truth. It’s up to you to research it for yourself. And the authority is on my side. For starters, read what Cardinal Sarah has recently called for.
H
Hereiam
Guest
Not yet…the Cardinal, like you, opines…the Pontif decides…and the Holy Father has not weighed in yet.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
What about those who rejected Church Authority ?
Pope Paul IV said no to CITH. When he asked the Bishops of the world the overwhelming majority said no.
So when those today say “it does not matter what the norm is for receiving Holy Communion, the Church says we can receive Communion in the hand. That’s what matters.”… Just know that when the Church said “no you can’t”, what the Church said didn’t matter to those who wanted to promote CITH.
One can certainly defend the right to receive CITH because of the indult reluctantly granted. But just know that before the indult, the promoters of this liturgical abuse, (and yes it was liturgical abuse), we’re not in communion with Rome in their decision to persist. They were in communion with their fellow dissidents.
Pope Paul IV said no to CITH. When he asked the Bishops of the world the overwhelming majority said no.
So when those today say “it does not matter what the norm is for receiving Holy Communion, the Church says we can receive Communion in the hand. That’s what matters.”… Just know that when the Church said “no you can’t”, what the Church said didn’t matter to those who wanted to promote CITH.
One can certainly defend the right to receive CITH because of the indult reluctantly granted. But just know that before the indult, the promoters of this liturgical abuse, (and yes it was liturgical abuse), we’re not in communion with Rome in their decision to persist. They were in communion with their fellow dissidents.
H
Hereiam
Guest
First, whether it is a liturgical abuse is an opinion. Second, there is more stock to be held in the understanding of the Lord than in the opinion of a sect of the Church…its an argument not worthy of our time or efforts…it you are in a diocese that allows either, take your pick…if you are not, follow what is mandated by your bishop…but none of us are held to obedience of the opinions of what is right and what is not by others.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
I did acknowledge that if one wants to receive CITH they can if their Archbishop invokes the indult.
As far as liturgical abuse, before the end. It was indeed liturgical abuse. When the Church decided that only the consecrated hands of clergy were to touch the Blessed Sacrament, and all of a sudden someday somewhere a member of the clergy decides on his own to place the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the laity without permission from Rome, if not liturgical abuse how would you describe it ?
No big deal ?
Some other term ?
And those that defend receiving CITH state that the early Church permitted it, they don’t understand that the manner in which the laity received the Blessed Sacrament in their hand was not in any way the same as the current practice.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider explains this very well.
As far as liturgical abuse, before the end. It was indeed liturgical abuse. When the Church decided that only the consecrated hands of clergy were to touch the Blessed Sacrament, and all of a sudden someday somewhere a member of the clergy decides on his own to place the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of the laity without permission from Rome, if not liturgical abuse how would you describe it ?
No big deal ?
Some other term ?
And those that defend receiving CITH state that the early Church permitted it, they don’t understand that the manner in which the laity received the Blessed Sacrament in their hand was not in any way the same as the current practice.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider explains this very well.
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
Deacons are ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.Their hands are not consecrated.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
Okay, I stand corrected on that.
Thank you
Thank you
C
commenter
Guest
Saxum made a valid point in that CITH is an indult, a permission that may be granted. I receive in the hand, when I am at my parish church, and on the tongue, when I go to the diocesan Latin Mass (EF). I am thinking about receiving on the tongue in my parish now.
I have a problem with people who assume CITH as the current, mandated form, and who regard those who receive on the tongue as dissidents, defying Church authority. When my children made their First Communion, all were taught only about receiving in the hand. I disagree with that.
Theological doctrine does not change. But prudent practice can, and sometimes needs to change. In the 1970s most Catholics believed in the Real Presence. It was considered harmless to offer CITH as an alternative then. Today most Catholics probably do not believe in the Real Presence. What was considered unnecessary in one decade might be necessary in another.
It is actually consistent to Vatican II for the Church to adapt pastoral practices to new situations. (We are not living in the 1970s now). One way the Church can respond to the current non-belief in the Real Presence is better catechesis for children and adults, which is long overdue. But another way the Church might respond is by reaffirming Communion on the Tongue as the normal practice in parishes, even though CITH is theologically valid.
I have a problem with people who assume CITH as the current, mandated form, and who regard those who receive on the tongue as dissidents, defying Church authority. When my children made their First Communion, all were taught only about receiving in the hand. I disagree with that.
Theological doctrine does not change. But prudent practice can, and sometimes needs to change. In the 1970s most Catholics believed in the Real Presence. It was considered harmless to offer CITH as an alternative then. Today most Catholics probably do not believe in the Real Presence. What was considered unnecessary in one decade might be necessary in another.
It is actually consistent to Vatican II for the Church to adapt pastoral practices to new situations. (We are not living in the 1970s now). One way the Church can respond to the current non-belief in the Real Presence is better catechesis for children and adults, which is long overdue. But another way the Church might respond is by reaffirming Communion on the Tongue as the normal practice in parishes, even though CITH is theologically valid.
Last edited:
P
paperwight
Guest
How can you say that?
K
KATRINA_68
Guest
Thank-you for posting.
C
commenter
Guest
Well, I said “probably”. I’m not sure where Catholics would learn about it. I have known exactly one pastor who speaks about it from the pulpit. When my son went through First Communion prep there was no real mention of the Real Presence. When I complained they said it is too complicated and it would be covered in later grades. But in that school it never was. Yes we do have Adoration chapels now. The people there are my age.commenter:
How can you say that?
Before and after Mass nice people socialize loudly in church even when there’s a convenient space right there to socialize
Last edited:
C
CradleRC58
Guest
You’re in denial brother.
You’re preaching about submission to the authority of the Church but won’t even acknowledge that Pope Paul VI said stop it.
All you want to point to is the indult that was reluctantly granted because there were those who in fact would not take no for an answer. Read : those who rejected Church Authority.
The indult was an appeasement of dissidence.
You’re preaching about submission to the authority of the Church but won’t even acknowledge that Pope Paul VI said stop it.
All you want to point to is the indult that was reluctantly granted because there were those who in fact would not take no for an answer. Read : those who rejected Church Authority.
The indult was an appeasement of dissidence.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
I know the feeling. I would prefer to be a member of my territorial Parish but before and after Mass it sounds like a bingo hall.
C
commenter
Guest
2014 article by Deal Hudson
“WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - Polls show that more than 60 percent of American Catholics say they do not believe in the Real Presence-that Jesus Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. What does this mean? Are U.S. Catholics lacking in faith or poorly catechized, or are there more basic flaws in our current understanding of the Real Presence? I think most Catholics understand Real Presence too narrowly.”
Hudson rightly points out there are other modes of “Real Presence” besides Eucharistic presence. This thread is about Eucharist, so that is the manner I was referring to. If the polls he refers to are right, I bet that 60% figure would be much higher among those born after 1960. But if Catholics misunderstand the Real Presence in the Eucharist, that increases the likelihood they misunderstand the Real Presence in other ways (Scripture, the person of the priest, the Community, etc).
The lack of common belief in Eucharistic Real Presence was not foreseen at the time CITH was being promoted in the early 1970s. Vatican II should lead us to adapt to unpredicted challenges, not hold onto innovations (even theological permissable ones) put in place when those gaps in belief were not evident.
“WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - Polls show that more than 60 percent of American Catholics say they do not believe in the Real Presence-that Jesus Christ is bodily present in the Eucharist. What does this mean? Are U.S. Catholics lacking in faith or poorly catechized, or are there more basic flaws in our current understanding of the Real Presence? I think most Catholics understand Real Presence too narrowly.”
Hudson rightly points out there are other modes of “Real Presence” besides Eucharistic presence. This thread is about Eucharist, so that is the manner I was referring to. If the polls he refers to are right, I bet that 60% figure would be much higher among those born after 1960. But if Catholics misunderstand the Real Presence in the Eucharist, that increases the likelihood they misunderstand the Real Presence in other ways (Scripture, the person of the priest, the Community, etc).
The lack of common belief in Eucharistic Real Presence was not foreseen at the time CITH was being promoted in the early 1970s. Vatican II should lead us to adapt to unpredicted challenges, not hold onto innovations (even theological permissable ones) put in place when those gaps in belief were not evident.
Last edited:
H
Hereiam
Guest
So are you goung so far to ssy in the hand onvalidates the sacrament and deniesbthe real presence, or you just dont like it?
P
paperwight
Guest
As has been said many times on other threads over the years, answers to questionnaires depend on how the questions are phrased.
If this poll asked ‘Do you believe that Jesus is bodily present?’ I could not give a yes or no answer, but would have to say ‘What do you mean by ‘bodily’? If you mean ‘physically’, not even the Pope himself would say that. The Church says that the Real Presence is a unique and sacramental presence, not a physical one’ .
C
CradleRC58
Guest
You are avoiding my point.
- Status