Tongue/Hand/Precious Blood

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mysty101
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mysty101 said:
“This is the cup of My Blood, which will be shed for you…”
Click to expand...

Did you quolt directly from the Hebrew and Greek translation? Or did you quolt from the “new AMERICAN Bible”? “This is the CHALICE of my blood, which will be shed for thee.”:tiphat:
 
40.png
aimekuelmc:
(Citing sources is important cptryon.org/ask/ask/signpeace.html though also easy to forget.)
My first communion was received on the tongue in the 70’s. I continued to receive on the tongue for years after - our parish at the time had the communion rails and all knelt to receive.

That said, I now receive communion in the hand, and have no qualms about it. Reverence can be shown whether in the hand, or on the tongue. And I believe it is reverence and a proper attitude towards our Lord and Savior that is most important. I no longer receive the blood because I can no longer have alcohol.

For those who rail against communion in the hand, or against communion on the tongue, remember that we are not discussing doctrine but practice. And practices can and do change - whether we agree or not, and whether we like them or not.

Both forms of reception are allowed, and it is up to the individual how they will receive.

Should the forms change and communion in the hand be forbidden (which I personally doubt) I would follow the Church.

I understand why individuals choose communion on the tongue, but my choice was made after several incidents. I would hope that others would respect my right to receive in the hand without treating me like a leper.

MC
Click to expand...
Come on, I have agreed with some things you have said so far, but this one:nope: .
What to say about the CONSECRATED HANDS OF THE PRIEST? Aquinas=“Nothing but the consecrated hands of the priest are to touch the consecrated hosts”(Summa Thelogiae).
 
40.png
misericordie:
What to say about the CONSECRATED HANDS OF THE PRIEST? Aquinas=“Nothing but the consecrated hands of the priest are to touch the consecrated hosts”(Summa Thelogiae).
Click to expand...
This question has an easy answer. Aquinas is not and never has been the Holy Father. It is the pope and those he empowers to make current disciplinary decisions. Therefore this quote from Aquinas is not relevant to current discipline. The lay faithful are permitted to receive the Lord in their hands in America.
 
dangerous to quote writers of another Age to support one’s argument. Aquinas also said a foetus was not human until six weeks old!
 
40.png
maklavan:
dangerous to quote writers of another Age to support one’s argument. Aquinas also said a foetus was not human until six weeks old!
Click to expand...
Really? Woe, that would be a valid statement, if we were discussing maybe NON-Catholic issues. However, since he is the ONLY!! Theologian which the NEW Code of Canon Law, and Vatican II’s Documents on priestly training say is to be studied, and he is qoulted by the NEW Cathechism of the Catholic Chuch more than 100 times, I beleive this would make him valid. In your opinion, anything said in the catholic tradition is no longer valid, which would make your satements heretical, being that even NOW this pope uses previous popes and the Saints to prove his points. Your arguments/thesis has no logic.
 
40.png
misericordie:
In your opinion, anything said in the catholic tradition is no longer valid…
Click to expand...
The writer of the previous post never said this. He used the word dangerous. While I would not use the word dangerous, I have to agree that a problem exists when we take statements out of context when discussing disciplinary matters. Eight centuries is a long way out of context. Disciplines that existed in the mid to late middle ages may not apply today.
 
40.png
pnewton:
The writer of the previous post never said this. He used the word dangerous. While I would not use the word dangerous, I have to agree that a problem exists when we take statements out of context when discussing disciplinary matters. Eight centuries is a long way out of context. Disciplines that existed in the mid to late middle ages may not apply today.
Click to expand...
So if your position is true, then I guess the Bible must be junked. After all, it goes WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Older than the “middle ages.”
Do you actually UNDERSTAND who St Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic Philosophy and theology are??? The ANGELIC DOCTOR!! ON WHICH MOST Catholic theology is still based and always WILL Be based on. Have you actually for example read THIS POPE’s TEACHING on AQUINAS? Encyclical : “FIDES ET RATIO” (faith and Reason: POPE JOHN PAUL II). Once read, you will realize as the Pope says: “Ite Tomasso” Go to Thomas.
 
40.png
misericordie:
So if your position is true, then I guess the Bible must be junked. After all, it goes WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Older than the “middle ages.”
Do you actually UNDERSTAND who St Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic Philosophy and theology are??? The ANGELIC DOCTOR!! ON WHICH MOST Catholic theology is still based and always WILL Be based on. Have you actually for example read THIS POPE’s TEACHING on AQUINAS? Encyclical : “FIDES ET RATIO” (faith and Reason: POPE JOHN PAUL II). Once read, you will realize as the Pope says: “Ite Tomasso” Go to Thomas.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…So am I to understand that you believe everything Aquinas wrote still applies today? and that everything he wrote was theologically correct?
 
40.png
misericordie:
So if your position is true, then I guess the Bible must be junked. After all, it goes WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY Older than the “middle ages.”
Do you actually UNDERSTAND who St Thomas Aquinas and the Thomistic Philosophy and theology are??? The ANGELIC DOCTOR!! ON WHICH MOST Catholic theology is still based and always WILL Be based on.
Click to expand...
I, like the poster before me, never said that. Only that context must be considered and there is a legitimate danger applying anything said out of historical context.

It is the basis of all strawman arguments to keep re-wording what people say into what they do not mean. To do so contrary to what they say is also calumny and a violation of the eighth commandment.

I do know who St. Thomas is and do not claim to understand his brilliamt mind well. I do know the difference between matters of discpline (like receiving communion in the hand, under one or two species, etc.) and doctrine. I accept the current disciplinary teaching of the church.
 
M has succeeded in trashing this thread yet again.

And for those who respond to him—
Don’t you see the pattern yet? He will rant and double talk, but never respond to valid opposing arguments.

Please do not respond, especially when he goes off-topic.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_12_11.gif
 
40.png
bear06:
Hmmm…So am I to understand that you believe everything Aquinas wrote still applies today? and that everything he wrote was theologically correct?
Click to expand...
:hmmm: May I ask you the same thing here, but THIS time: Is all which Jesus is portrayed as saying in the NEW TESTAMENT what Jesus said? Maybe he did not ever say much nor teach much. Does this statement sound haywire? Well, the same thing regarding anyone’s opinion that Aquinas’ teachings are archaic. Actually, if you read Fides et Ratio you will notice that POPE John Paul II confronts the argument of those who poo poo to the side Aquinas because he was not from the year 2004.:tiphat:
 
misericordie said:
:hmmm: May I ask you the same thing here, but THIS time: Is all which Jesus is portrayed as saying in the NEW TESTAMENT what Jesus said? Maybe he did not ever say much nor teach much. Does this statement sound haywire? Well, the same thing regarding anyone’s opinion that Aquinas’ teachings are archaic. Actually, if you read Fides et Ratio you will notice that POPE John Paul II confronts the argument of those who poo poo to the side Aquinas because he was not from the year 2004 Actually I will tell you what the voice told St. Augustine in the garden, right before his conversion (Confessions of St. Augustine) “Tole Et Lege”(pick up and read) in this case: Fides et Ratio. .:tiphat:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
pnewton:
I, like the poster before me, never said that. Only that context must be considered and there is a legitimate danger applying anything said out of historical context.

It is the basis of all strawman arguments to keep re-wording what people say into what they do not mean. To do so contrary to what they say is also calumny and a violation of the eighth commandment.

I do know who St. Thomas is and do not claim to understand his brilliamt mind well. I do know the difference between matters of discpline (like receiving communion in the hand, under one or two species, etc.) and doctrine. I accept the current disciplinary teaching of the church.
Click to expand...
Regarding “context” this is why it is very important to logically state your thesis (main argument) in your first sentence, then proceed in an OBJECTIVE and systematic way into what YOUR point is. Otherwise, people will misenterprete what you may write BASED on what you ACTUALLY write.:ehh:
 
Peace to all of good will. I really must ask if it is valid to attack another person in these posts,and accuse them of heresy simply because they quoted an example of Aquinas getting it wrong. Also, is it Christian or charitable to write mmmmm yawn, yawn, sleep boring as a meaningful contribution to discussion? I will say a prayer for this sad, sick person during Mass tomorrow.
 
maklavan,

Please do not be upset. That is a minority of one, and we haven’t seen any valid confirmation of that opinion.

This is why I suggest that we ignore off-topic posts. The moderators will close the thread, if we answer these rude posts.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/8/8_5_11.gif
(Even if you do not celebrate this holiday----enjoy the day, And God bless you)
 
misericordie said:
:hmmm: May I ask you the same thing here, but THIS time: Is all which Jesus is portrayed as saying in the NEW TESTAMENT what Jesus said? Maybe he did not ever say much nor teach much. Does this statement sound haywire? Well, the same thing regarding anyone’s opinion that Aquinas’ teachings are archaic. Actually, if you read Fides et Ratio you will notice that POPE John Paul II confronts the argument of those who poo poo to the side Aquinas because he was not from the year 2004.:tiphat:
Click to expand...

These are yes or no questions here. Why can’t you just answer them. Did the Pope say that all Aquinas said was everything Aquinas wrote still applies today? and that everything he wrote was theologically correct? No. In fact, if he did, he’d be contradicting his own statements by going against Aquinas.
 
40.png
misericordie:
Come on, I have agreed with some things you have said so far, but this one:nope: .
What to say about the CONSECRATED HANDS OF THE PRIEST? Aquinas=“Nothing but the consecrated hands of the priest are to touch the consecrated hosts”(Summa Thelogiae).
Click to expand...
That was Aquinas. When in doubt, I tend to look to the Pope and the Magisterium. They are the God given leaders of His Church.

Is this a matter of Faith or Morals?

If so, then the Magisterium would hold much weight. If not, then it is not a matter of salvation and most likely can change.

Is this a matter of externals, a form of how something is done?

If so, then to hold on to such things too tightly couldleave one closed to the Grace of God. If not, and it is a matter of doctrine, then one must hold fast. That is the difference between traditions and Traditions.

I love the Catholic Church, I’ve been to an Indult Mass, and the NO Mass, I’ve also been to Charismatic Masses. I’ve received kneeling and standing, on the tongue and in the hand. I have no problems with any of them.

All these things are truly beyond the point. We are receiving Christ the King, God of all, and the one who created everything out of nothing. THAT is the point.

I firmly believe that it is the inner soul and how one receives Christ that matters, not the external, physical way. If one does not recognize the body… you know how that goes.
I recognize Christ in the Eucharist, and I don’t receive if I know of sin on my soul.

All that said, I admire those who receive on the tongue.

But it is not for me at this time.

For those who receive either way, remember who you are receiving, and make sure your heart is right and your soul prepared to receive your God and King.

MC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top