Why are there cafeteria Catholics when it comes to the OF?

[benedictgal]

No. That is ridiculous. This is not a question of the Magesterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church. When the Holy See granted the indult to permit communion in the hand, it was not an act of teaching authority. It was an act of presumed mercy done to legitimize the rampant illicit and disobedient abuse of communion in the hand that was already widely occurring.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing that decision or the current practice.

In fact, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Holy See said that if there is a risk of profanation of the Holy Eucharist, CITH can be suspended.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

***While I strongly agree with most of your reply, there is a difference in the level of piety in the decessions we choose to make.

Certainly piety is both a private thing and a public thing. One errors in not understanding this. Receiving keeling is both publically [the lesser important aspect] and privately a MUCH better choice, because we DO NOT TOUCH or hold God in our hands. Our “bodies indeed are a temple” but ONLY consecrated hands ought to touch the REAL Presence of Jesus. But if Mother Church allows it…who are we to judge other people. Especially in cases where a church has one priest…only one. There are no deacons either.***

Similarly Kneeling is both an outward sign of an inward disposition of SUBJECTION to and for our God.

In the hand and standing IMO is an attempt to at least be on a par with our Ordained Priesthood. And this not only is not the MOST pious manner of going to Holy Communion. In the HAND is “taking Christ” while on the tongue is RECEIVING Christ. That is a HUGE Theoligical difference. But again…that is your OPINION. We should not try to judge the motives of others. I receive in the hand and standing (for one thing it is the norm in our parish and you could take several people out by kneeling. My motive is not an attempt to be on par with the ordained priesthood. FAR FROM IT! When I see people receive on the tongue…I don’t assume things about their motives, why would people assume about my motives for CITH:shrug:

Everyone OWES to God the very BEST they can give back to him. Kneeling and on the tongue seems to better fulfill this obligation. But again…to you it seems to be better to fulfill this obligation…doesn’t mean it is.

Because of my age and physical condition I Genuflect and receive Christ on my tongue. I ONLY receive communion from the priest and ONLY take the Blood of Christ from a priest or a Deacon. Good for you…but you do realize that is not an option for everyone?

Pat

What I really get tired of is people who assume that I am a “modernest”/cafeteria Catholic because I receive CITH and prefer the OF. Last I checked those were both VALID options without being a cafeteria Catholic. What would people think if I started critizing COTT or while kneeling? (Not that I would). That would be an “allowed” critizism of a discipline…if I judged your motive for COTT would that not bother you?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

In fact, in Redemptionis Sacramentum, the Holy See said that if there is a risk of profanation of the Holy Eucharist, CITH can be suspended.

Which is why the Pope give COTT only…not because of his personal preference…but because people were trying to take home “souvenirs” which to me is just stupid…if you are Catholic…you should KNOW better!

 

[benedictgal]

Which is why the Pope give COTT only…not because of his personal preference…but because people were trying to take home “souvenirs” which to me is just stupid…if you are Catholic…you should KNOW better!

Annabelle Marie, perhaps you might want to read this explanation from the Papal MC, himself, Msgr. Guido Marini:

As for communion placed by the pope on the tongues of the faithful, kneeling – during his recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and Brindisi – Marini affirms that this will become “a regular practice at papal celebrations.” And he continues:

«In this regard, it must not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand remains, from the juridical point of view, a dispensation from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to the bishops’ conferences that have asked for it. The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church. In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery. In our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to recover and emphasize these aspects.»

What I quoted in my previous response was taken from RS, itself. That you would apply it as a reason for the Holy Father’s decision to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue to those who kneel is your interpretation. Msgr. Marini does not even mention the perceived reason that you give as to why the Holy Father has used this particular practice.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

From your OWN quote:

" In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other,"

 

[PJM]

=ElToro;8026611]I’m trying to understand why people make the comments you are making. It’s really the focus of this entire thread. Why do people attempt to make themselves the arbiter of what is right and wrong, good or bad within the context of the faith?

This is the Church;s job, not their job.

Greetings friend,

I just read an article from ***Homiletic & Pastoral Review ***current issue on the topic of the formation of the Dogma of “Infallibility.”

The short story is that it was **the Council of TENT 1545 - 1563 **who defined the Church as being Infallible on ALL matters of Faith-belief and Moralty. OUT of this came the logical conclusion that in-so-far as the POPE HAD TO sign off on Her [the Churches Teaching], it is logical that the Pope too is Inspired by the Holy Spirt, and he too is Infallible when teaching Officially on these two Broad areas. And it was the First Vatican Council in about 1870 that made the Teaching a Dogma of the Catholic Church.

The Church is an " entity" guided by BOTH the Holy Spirit John 14-16-17 AND Jesus Himself **John 17:15-19]. **More than “one-chief” means more than one opinion or view most often.That is WHY Christ choose a singular HEAD for Complete and total Governance of His One Faith, One Church. [Eph.4:1-7].

NOTICE THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE SINGULAR TENSE USED BY CHRIST…

Matt.16: 15 to 19 "He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, [DONE DEAL…ALL ACCESS TO HEAVEN MUST BE THROUGH THE CC]*** and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”***

These terms IN ADDITION to the power to forgive sins THROUGH and WITH CHRIST [John20:19-23] Transfere COMPLETE and total Power to the SEE of ROME through the Supreme Pontiff.

***The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church. ***

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1**[A.D. 95]).**

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1** [A.D. 110]).**

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 inter A.D. 180-190]).

The “church” can not speak for Herself; SHE MUST rely on the Pope and the Catholic Magesterium to SPEAK for her. Infallibility and necessary compliance are FIRST the responsibility of the Pope who is the “VICAR OF CHRIST” [meaning the one standing in for Christ on earth and GUIDED by Him.]. But apply to Faith Matters and Morals ONLY.

God Bles you,
Pat

 

[benedictgal]

From your OWN quote:

" In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other,"

Annabelle Marie, I am only posting what Msgr. Marini said to clarify some misconceptions and misperceptions of the Holy Father’s actions. If you will note, the only thing that I have mentioned in my posts is what the documents say. I have not made any statements in this thread about one method of receiving Holy Communion over another one. Please do not put words in my posts that I have not typed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Annabelle Marie, I am only posting what Msgr. Marini said to clarify some misconceptions and misperceptions of the Holy Father’s actions. If you will note, the only thing that I have mentioned in my posts is what the documents say. I have not made any statements in this thread about one method of receiving Holy Communion over another one. Please do not put words in my posts that I have not typed.

I did not mean to put words into your posts. But what Msgr. Marini says seems to punctuate that both are valid options, a point some people seem to overlook. The whole point of this thread seems to be that while people can prefer one way of receiving communion or one Mass over another, it’s not right to look down on a fellow Catholic that does it a different way, as long as that is what Holy Mother Church allows. Not saying that you, necessary, do that but there are others who assume motives for CITH that are just not there. It would kind of be like me saying that everyone who receives COTT is doing it just to show how pious they are…

 

[PJM]

=promethius;8025226]Apples and oranges, because likewise the difference between voicing a preference for one over the other as more reverent and declaring valid actions as objectively wrong or disordered is just as far as the east is from the west… and that’s the point that’s being made: we can have preference (Lord knows I certainly do!), but we cannot declare invalid and illicit what the church has allowed as valid and licit.

I’m unclear why you disagreed with me

But I certainly agree with what you have just posted

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=Annabelle Marie;8030658]What I really get tired of is people who assume that I am a “modernest”/cafeteria Catholic because I receive CITH and prefer the OF. Last I checked those were both VALID options without being a cafeteria Catholic. What would people think if I started critizing COTT or while kneeling? (Not that I would). That would be an “allowed” critizism of a discipline…if I judged your motive for COTT would that not bother you?

Hi Annabelle Marie

I’m not passing judgment on you or anyone else.

I AM however sharing the Roman Catholic Truth,

May God CONTINUE to Bless you and yours,
Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[Will_S]

I did not mean to put words into your posts. But what Msgr. Marini says seems to punctuate that both are valid options, a point some people seem to overlook. The whole point of this thread seems to be that while people can prefer one way of receiving communion or one Mass over another, it’s not right to look down on a fellow Catholic that does it a different way, as long as that is what Holy Mother Church allows. Not saying that you, necessary, do that but there are others who assume motives for CITH that are just not there. It would kind of be like me saying that everyone who receives COTT is doing it just to show how pious they are…

One of the biggest problems with communion in the hand is that it was permitted only because it was already being done illicitly and disobediently in several European countries and the Holy See believed that trying to stamp it out would be more harmful to the Church in those countries than permitting it.

But a bad practice which is tolerated only because disobedient and rebellious persons started doing it without permission is still a bad practice.

 

[paperwight66]

Annabelle Marie, perhaps you might want to read this explanation from the Papal MC, himself, Msgr. Guido Marini:

What I quoted in my previous response was taken from RS, itself. That you would apply it as a reason for the Holy Father’s decision to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue to those who kneel is your interpretation. Msgr. Marini does not even mention the perceived reason that you give as to why the Holy Father has used this particular practice.

Annabelle Marie is quite right. It is not just her interpretation. Pope Benedict, in his most recent book, ‘Light of the World’ , gave precisely that as one of his reasons for insisting on COTT, kneeling. The other reason he gave was to underline the holiness of the occasion to those observing.

iN the same book, he stated that he had no problem with CITH, and in fact, had both received and distributed that way himself.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

One of the biggest problems with communion in the hand is that it was permitted only because it was already being done illicitly and disobediently in several European countries and the Holy See believed that trying to stamp it out would be more harmful to the Church in those countries than permitting it.

**But a bad practice which is tolerated only because disobedient and rebellious persons started doing it **without permission is still a bad practice.

Says you, but the Church does allow it and Pope Benedict has said he doesn’t have a problem with it. So, saying it isn’t allow does make someone a Cafeteria Catholic because that is NOT what the Church has said. Just because someone does not “like” it does not give them the right to act as if someone is disobedient for doing it. It is no different, IMO, then a Cafeteria Catholic because they want to pick and choose. Having a personal preference is fine…its when you start teaching something other then what the Church has said that is not. It would be like me teaching that COTT is not allowed any more

 

[ElToro]

Seems we’re trying to redefine the colloquialism “cafeteria Catholics”. Not a big deal to the point of this thread, but since others seem to debate the use of it, I thought I’d remind everyone that the primary use of this phrase is associated with those Catholics who pick and choose which DOCTRINES to follow, not which DISCIPLINES. Cafeteria Catholics are typically not in communion with the Church for one reason or another.

Painting alleged “attackers of CIH” with the broad brush of “cafeteria Catholic” will not get one far in productive dialogue, simply because that label does not fit. Granted, I do not support any Catholic “attacking” another over a discipline, but could we be more clear about what we really mean by “attacking”? It seems a harsh allegation, and I would not equate someone stating that CIH is inferior to COT as being an “attacker”.

My personal opinion is that if the Pope finds COT while kneeling to be preferable, than to him it is superior to CIH, and since he is our Holy Father, it is not unreasonable for some to assert that it should have superiority for all the faithful.

Peace.

Maybe my terminology could be improved. Would it be more correct to label a Catholic who attack say CIH as being an illicit abuse as a dissenting Catholic rather than a cafeteria Catholic?

To answer your question, you can see attacks on this very thread of elements approved by the Church that some feel are wrong/abusive/whatever and they say so in a strident manner.

 

[ElToro]

I would like to give a prime example of what I meant by cafeteria Catholicism.

I was attending a Divine Liturgy at a local Byzantine Catholic parish. This small parish is loaded not with canonically Eastern Catholics but with disgruntled Catholics for one reason or another. A small group of them approached me and said they had seen me acting an an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion at a local Roman Rite parish and they seemed upset about it.

I asked them what their problem was? There is a genuine need at that parish and I have been commissioned by my local bishop. They said they would never receive communion from anyone whose hands were not consecrated. Oh? How come? Nevermind, they wouldn’t have had a satisfactory answer. I told them that in that case, if they really meant it, then they needed to skip communion on that day because a Byzantine Priest’s hands are not consecrated. They had also had better never receive from a deacon because their hands are not consecrated either – including Roman Rite deacons.

They almost did a melt-down on the spot. Then they scuttled off and found they priest and I could hear another near meltdown. Not receiving communion because a priests’ hands are not consecrated is to me a prime form of cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[Will_S]

Says you, but the Church does allow it and Pope Benedict has said he doesn’t have a problem with it. So, saying it isn’t allow does make someone a Cafeteria Catholic because that is NOT what the Church has said. Just because someone does not “like” it does not give them the right to act as if someone is disobedient for doing it. It is no different, IMO, then a Cafeteria Catholic because they want to pick and choose. Having a personal preference is fine…its when you start teaching something other then what the Church has said that is not. It would be like me teaching that COTT is not allowed any more

No one said that communion in the hand isn’t allowed.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

No one said that communion in the hand isn’t allowed.

Hang out around here long enough and someone will…or how people who take CITH don’t believe in the Real Presence or some other rubbish like that…

 

[curlycool89]

It’s not “essentially saying” anything. It’s saying that people without consecrated hands shouldn’t touch the Eucharist. For your argument about the Deacon, the Deacon is the ordinary minister of the Chalice. This is why when there is a Deacon present, he raises the Chalice during the consecration. Whenever I’ve been to a Mass without any EMHC’s and there’s a deacon, the priest(s) distribute the host, and the deacon(s) distribute the wine.

And yet the Deacon is still an ordinary minister of Holy Communion. Also, deacons were the ones (if I remember right) in the early Church who took the Eucharist to the sick and those who couldn’t make it to the Mass. You can bet that they had to touch the Eucharist in order to give it to those people (because there’s physically no other way).

Again, you’re reading into things too much. There’s the old saying, “familiarity builds contempt” and this is what most people mean when it’s inwardly a better choice. How many people who receive CITH honestly make a profound sign of reverence and then receive Him in their hands which they raise and make like a throne to receive their King? (Seriously, think about it in those words.) When I quit receiving CITH, the way in which I inwardly received him changed.

How do you know they don’t? Do you sit in the pews and watch each communicant like a hawk to ensure that they are? Can you read people’s hearts? You’re assuming bad faith of many, many Catholics.

Vatican II never said to remove the communion rails and to start receiving communion in the hand. In fact, CITH is only permitted right now because special permission was granted to some Congregations of Bishops in areas who requested it. At any moment the pope could remove the permission for CITH and everyone would have to receive on the tongue. Furthermore, the priest has every right to refuse CITH if he believes there is risk of profanation of the Eucharist. COTT is the universal norm. CITH is only permitted with special permission from the pope.

Nice job avoiding the question. Yes, we all know the song and dance by now, but none of that changes the fact that it’s still licit and just as orthodox as COTT.

Curlycool, the deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion, not the Eucharist. As he is neither a bishop nor a priest, he cannot confect (consecrate) the Eucharist.

Mea culpa . I meant distribution of the Eucharist, not the consecration of. I’m sorry if I confused anyone.

 

[Will_S]

Nice job avoiding the question. Yes, we all know the song and dance by now, but none of that changes the fact that it’s still licit and just as orthodox as COTT.

It is licit, but not “as orthodox” because the very reason it was introduced was to follow the practice of the Lutherans in Europe, and the reason the Lutherans started it was to demonstrate their lack of belief in transubstantiation.

 

[curlycool89]

It is licit, but not “as orthodox” because the very reason it was introduced was to follow the practice of the Lutherans in Europe, and the reason the Lutherans started it was to demonstrate their lack of belief in transubstantiation.

So you are in fact saying then that Catholics who receive CITH are less orthodox than those who receive COTT?