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

[Stylites]

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.

Where’s the Vatican document explaining this? Lutherans believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation, wherein they acknowledge in their faith the supposed real presence of Christ in their communion, so even without any Vatican documents supporting your conjecture, it fails on logic.

For any member of the laity to try to claim that CITH is wrong and should not be allowed, when the Church allows it, requires an awful lot of, um, . . . humility or something.

 

[Will_S]

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

“Catholics who receive communion in the hand” is an awful large group so I don’t feel comfortable saying anything about the orthodoxy of the group as a whole.

However if we were to concentrate on one member of the group, like you, then there is no reason to think you are “less orthodox” than any other Catholic, unless you receive communion in the hand specifically because you wish to downplay or deny transubstantiation.

That doesn’t change the fact that the modern reappearance of communion in the hand was not done out of motives of piety or obedience. It was in fact overt, rebellious disobedience done to copy the protestants who introduced it to show that they didn’t have the Catholic faith.

 

[Stylites]

That doesn’t change the fact that the modern reappearance of communion in the hand was not done out of motives of piety or obedience. It was in fact overt, rebellious disobedience done to copy the protestants who introduced it to show that they didn’t have the Catholic faith.

Fact? More speculation and conjecture, rather than Vatican documents, eh?

 

[Will_S]

Where’s the Vatican document explaining this? Lutherans believe in consubstantiation not transubstantiation, wherein they acknowledge in their faith the supposed real presence of Christ in their communion, so even without any Vatican documents supporting your conjecture, it fails on logic.

Consubstantiation is not the same as transubstantiation. Lutherans consider the consecrated host to be still a piece of bread, Catholics do not. And what do you mean by “Vatican documents”? Do you think that communion in the hand in Catholic churches was introduced by the Vatican? It was not.

For any member of the laity to try to claim that CITH is wrong and should not be allowed, when the Church allows it, requires an awful lot of, um, . . . humility or something.

That’s just you being ridiculous again. Just because something is allowed doesn’t mean that it is “as good” as the alternatives. The Holy See agreed to tolerate communion in the hand because it feared that to try to crack down on the practice would be more harmful, given the very rebellious climate in the 1970s.

There is nothing wrong with arguing that the Holy See made a prudential mistake at that time. The Holy See can make mistakes, and the fact that people now seem to think that communion in the hand was some sort of wonderful liberation from anachronistic superstition suggests very strongly that the Holy See did indeed make a mistake in permitting communion in the hand.

 

[Stylites]

. . . and the fact that people now seem to think that communion in the hand was some sort of wonderful liberation from anachronistic superstition suggests very strongly that the Holy See did indeed make a mistake in permitting communion in the hand.

I’d like to get into that mind-reading shtick, too. Sounds like a lot of fun.

 

[Will_S]

Fact? More speculation and conjecture, rather than Vatican documents, eh?

Does the Vatican publish history books? The modern history of communion in the hand is no secret. It was introduced disobediently contrary to the laws of the Church. Here are a few resources for you, which I provide not to make the argument for communion on the tongue, but merely to make clear that the history of how modern communion in the hand was introduced is well known and not a matter of debate.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

 

[curlycool89]

“Catholics who receive communion in the hand” is an awful large group so I don’t feel comfortable saying anything about the orthodoxy of the group as a whole.

However if we were to concentrate on one member of the group, like you, then there is no reason to think you are “less orthodox” than any other Catholic, unless you receive communion in the hand specifically because you wish to downplay or deny transubstantiation.

But you are saying that! You are saying that CITH is less Orthodox, so how can you say that people who receive CITH can still be orthodox? People who follow non-orthdox (or less-then-orthodox) practices cannot by definition be orthodox. What kind of mental gymnastics are you trying to do here?

That doesn’t change the fact that the modern reappearance of communion in the hand was not done out of motives of piety or obedience. It was in fact overt, rebellious disobedience done to copy the protestants who introduced it to show that they didn’t have the Catholic faith.

Short version: “Blah blah blah CITH is evil blah blah blah …”. Frankly, it doesn’t matter what you think because CITH is a licit practice.

 

[ElToro]

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

Nor did Pope Benedict XVI even suggest that COT was in any way superior to CIH.

 

[ElToro]

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.

That sentiment is hogwash too. It’s not something the Church teaches. Byzantine Catholic Priests’ hands are not consecrated. Deacon’s do not “distribute wine” BTW.

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.

“familiarity -]builds/-] breeds contempt” You’re offering a personal opinion that you cannot substantiate with any facts.

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.

So?

 

[ElToro]

Does the Vatican publish history books? The modern history of communion in the hand is no secret. It was introduced disobediently contrary to the laws of the Church. Here are a few resources for you, which I provide not to make the argument for communion on the tongue, but merely to make clear that the history of how modern communion in the hand was introduced is well known and not a matter of debate.

catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

CITH is likely the most ancient of ways to receive Holy Communion. It is nice that it is an option today in most parts of the world.

 

[ElToro]

That’s just you being ridiculous again. Just because something is allowed doesn’t mean that it is “as good” as the alternatives. The Holy See agreed to tolerate communion in the hand because it feared that to try to crack down on the practice would be more harmful, given the very rebellious climate in the 1970s.

There is nothing wrong with arguing that the Holy See made a prudential mistake at that time. The Holy See can make mistakes, and the fact that people now seem to think that communion in the hand was some sort of wonderful liberation from anachronistic superstition suggests very strongly that the Holy See did indeed make a mistake in permitting communion in the hand.

Sure it does. The Church would certainly NOT allow something inferior unless there were exigent circumstances and this is not the case here.

You’re simply not the arbiter of that. CITH is no better or worse than COT until the Church says it is one way or the other. Your personal opinion has absolutely no weight on this matter. How thunderously arrogant do YOU have to be to suggest the Church “made a mistake” because the result insults your personal sensibilities? Do you get that? Is it registering yet?

To me that is a stunning form of caferia Catholicism. You are not only rejecting a licit practice per the Church, you are suggesting the Church was wrong to allow it…

 

[ElToro]

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.

Did you actually read this somewhere or is this just another personal opinion? So you are aware, there are not varying degrees of orthodoxy. Either something is orthodox or it’s not.

 

[SteveGC]

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

This question strikes at the very core of this entire subject, and to me, it’s really what needs to be addressed.

To what degree does the characteristic of a method subsequently define the characteristic of that method’s individual chooser?

I think it depends largely on what characteristic is being offered…but most of the pro-COTT folks I’ve seen on here use descriptors that should not be construed as a characteristic of the pro-CITH folks. While there may be some exceptions from overly harsh and critical pro-COTTs who directly and unabashedly take aim at individual character, most of what I’ve witnessed is criticism of method exclusively.

IOW, if one says that the Holy Father prefers COTT because it 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…does this say (or clearly infer) that an individual person who choose CITH is less aware of the truth of the Real Presence, is less devoted, and less immersed in the mystery?

To me, it says no such thing. Even saying something as vague and simplistic as “COTT is better than CITH”, to me does not infer that the COTT folks are saying that they themselves are better than the CITH folks. But maybe I’m not sensitive enough to all this. Heck, to me, you could say “CITH is stupid”, and if I were a devout CITH subscriber, I still wouldn’t translate it to say “you are stupid”.

As far as the “superior” argument goes…I’m not sure why some are trying so hard to deny that the Holy Father sees COTT as superior. If for certain reasons he sees some licit thing as “better” than some other equally licit thing, then to me, by definition, he feels that the better thing is superior to the other thing, for those certain reasons. For other reasons, perhaps he feels CITH is better, and hence superior. But because he has yet to articulate that, it seems reasonable for one to argue that the COTT method is seen by the Holy See as superior.

What am I missing? Does the Holy See think COTT is better for certain reasons or not? Does he have a similar claim for CITH, or not? If the answers are “yes” and “no” respectively, than IMO the Holy See views COTT as superior.

Peace.

 

[Will_S]

But you are saying that! You are saying that CITH is less Orthodox, so how can you say that people who receive CITH can still be orthodox? People who follow non-orthdox (or less-then-orthodox) practices cannot by definition be orthodox.

Not true. The Church permits Catholics to receive the sacraments from Eastern Orthodox clergy if there is no other option, and doing so doesn’t make a Catholic a heretic or schismatic. So neither is a Catholic unorthodox for receiving communion in the hand, even though it was introduced by protestants in their communities for reasons of unorthodoxy, and then rebelliously and disobediently introduced in the Catholic Church in an attempt to “do things like the protestants” (ecumenical intent).

So while there is no doubt that the modern practice of communion in the hand is problematic. It is, however, (because of the weakness of the Holy See at the time) licit.

It is good for people to know the history of communion in the hand. How it was condemned multiple times over the past 1500 years, and how it was rebelliously and disobediently reintroduced into the church by bishops and priests seeking to emulate protestant practice.

And then if they choose to continue receiving communion in the hand, I might wonder why they choose to totally disregard the history of the practice for the sake of some perceived convenience, but I can’t say they are disobedient or doing anything wrong, because it is (currently) licit.

 

[Will_S]

Did you actually read this somewhere or is this just another personal opinion? So you are aware, there are not varying degrees of orthodoxy. Either something is orthodox or it’s not.

One could say the same thing about being in communion with the Church. You’re either in communion, or not. But people seem to be very eager to split the difference there too.

If you are interested in my opinion, I say communion in the hand is not contrary to the faith, but it is dangerous to faith, rightly condemned, and unfortunately tolerated at the present time.

 

[SteveGC]

Sure it does. The Church would certainly NOT allow something inferior unless there were exigent circumstances and this is not the case here.

Why can’t there be levels of preference or superiority among licit things? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Will_S]

CITH is likely the most ancient of ways to receive Holy Communion. It is nice that it is an option today in most parts of the world.

“Most ancient” doesn’t mean anything at all, even if true.

If antiquity is a virtue, then let us follow the “most ancient” form of the sacrament of penance, whereby penitents do public penance, including standing outside in front of the church in the “sinners box”, for 10 years before receiving absolution.

 

[Will_S]

Sure it does. The Church would certainly NOT allow something inferior unless there were exigent circumstances and this is not the case here.

Exactly the opposite. Pope Paul VI told the Europeans to stop giving communion in the hand and they ignored him. So then, realizing he could not enforce the law without taking drastic measures, he permitted the practice instead.

CITH is no better or worse than COT until the Church says it is one way or the other. Your personal opinion has absolutely no weight on this matter. How thunderously arrogant do YOU have to be to suggest the Church “made a mistake” because the result insults your personal sensibilities? Do you get that? Is it registering yet?

The Church has condemned communion in the hand multiple times.

To me that is a stunning form of caferia Catholicism. You are not only rejecting a licit practice per the Church, you are suggesting the Church was wrong to allow it…

Cafeteria Catholicism is rejecting whatever doctrine of the Church one personally does not agree with. Communion in the hand is not a doctrinal issue. It is an matter of discipline and the historical facts are that the the Holy See approved communion in the hand only after being completely ignored when it tried to uphold the law. It is not something that the Church, in her great wisdom, thought advisable; rather something that the Church prohibited and only tolerantly permitted when it seemed that there was no other option.

You are taking an unfortunate and questionable decision made by the Holy See under extremely unusual circumstances and making it out to be a wise and benevolent gesture for the good of the faithful. And that is just wrong. Do you get it?

 

[curlycool89]

Not true. The Church permits Catholics to receive the sacraments from Eastern Orthodox clergy if there is no other option, and doing so doesn’t make a Catholic a heretic or schismatic. So neither is a Catholic unorthodox for receiving communion in the hand, even though it was introduced by protestants in their communities for reasons of unorthodoxy, and then rebelliously and disobediently introduced in the Catholic Church in an attempt to “do things like the protestants” (ecumenical intent).

So while there is no doubt that the modern practice of communion in the hand is problematic. It is, however, (because of the weakness of the Holy See at the time) licit.

It is good for people to know the history of communion in the hand. How it was condemned multiple times over the past 1500 years, and how it was rebelliously and disobediently reintroduced into the church by bishops and priests seeking to emulate protestant practice.

And then if they choose to continue receiving communion in the hand, I might wonder why they choose to totally disregard the history of the practice for the sake of some perceived convenience, but I can’t say they are disobedient or doing anything wrong,** because it is (currently) licit**.

Then what’s the problem?

You’re bouncing back and forth here. The last line is really all that matters. CITH is licit; nobody is committing any sins by choosing that option.

And you’re doing a great politician impression. First you say “I might wonder why they choose to totally disregard the history of the practice for the sake of some perceived convenience”, which is totally saying that you think people who receive CITH are ignorant and bad Catholics. You then follow up with “but I can’t say they are disobedient or doing anything wrong,** because it is (currently) licit”, because you know that you can’t justify the fist half of the sentence.

You shoot your point across and then back away; I’ve done it many time before myself so I know what it looks like. Are you going to actually take a side? It’s hard to tell when you’re telling us on the one hand it’s bad and on the other hand it’s good. Is it bad or is it good? It has to be one or the other, they’re mutually exclusive properties.**

 

[SteveGC]

Then what’s the problem?

You’re bouncing back and forth here. The last line is really all that matters. CITH is licit; nobody is committing any sins by choosing that option.

And you’re doing a great politician impression. First you say “I might wonder why they choose to totally disregard the history of the practice for the sake of some perceived convenience”, which is totally saying that you think people who receive CITH are ignorant and bad Catholics. You then follow up with “but I can’t say they are disobedient or doing anything wrong,** because it is (currently) licit”, because you know that you can’t justify the fist half of the sentence.

You shoot your point across and then back away; I’ve done it many time before myself so I know what it looks like. Are you going to actually take a side? It’s hard to tell when you’re telling us on the one hand it’s bad and on the other hand it’s good. Is it bad or is it good? It has to be one or the other, they’re mutually exclusive properties.**Respectfully, I didn’t see any ambiguity or politics here. I think his position is clear. CITH is a bad practice. Period. There’s no denial of it’s licitness, but he feels it is bad. Saying that he would wonder about the motives of someone choosing CITH but acknowledging that their choice is licit does not seem to make him a fence-sitter at all, IMO.

Not necessarily saying I hold the same position (because I am not as versed in the history of CITH), but nonetheless, I think his position is crystal clear. I also don’t think he judges anyone who does choose CITH, btw. The fact that he “might question their motives” does not equate to declaring them “bad Catholics”. But as I’ve said before, sometimes I too thick-skinned.

Peace.