How am I putting it down? By pointing out that it allows places which were already in violation of Church law to get approval for the practice instead of revert to the legal practice? That’s the indult’s loophole, if you will.
It is a current indult - it was not drafted by idiots and not approved by a fool.
This is why I said “although you sometimes hear it expressed.” I’m not saying that the fact that the Apostles took the consecrated bread in their hands at the Last Supper means we have to have communion in the hand. But I think the idea that Christ fed it to them is a modern invention, and invented to support a particular argument and score debating points. The Scripture doesn’t support the idea. It says He broke the bread and gave it to His disciples. He then gave them the cup. If he fed them by His hand why wouldn’t that be mentioned, adn why wouldn’t the early Church have known that and imitated it?
I think you still misunderstand my position on the matter. What I am “painting … as … disobedience” are the actions of people who, before the indult was granted to their diocese/conference: a) forbade or denigrated Communion on the tongue, b) falsely claimed that Communion on the tongue was outlawed, c) falsely claimed that the illegal practice was already permitted, d) willfully engaged in the illegal practice, e) introduced the illegal practice so as to abuse the “grandfather clause” of the indult, or f) forced people to receive in the illegal manner.
Which you bring up over and over and over again WHILE avoiding that it has long since been resolved and the indult has been in place for several decades. It is all one side and always negative.
I brought it up in response to someone’s story about her mother being taught incorrectly; it seemed rather apropos at the time.
I do receive on the tongue, in the parish we attend now. However, in the parish we belonged to for many years, NO one, literally not one person, during the 10 yrs. we went to Mass there received on the tongue. I understand the poster who replied to your question by saying that he didn’t want to receive in the hand but did so because that was the custom in his parish…for it was the same with me. This is not a great reason, but it’s my reason for receiving in the hand for 10 yrs. THANK YOU Pope Benedict…for the Latin Mass we now attend. Everyone receives on the tongue. I do believe that this is the best way for me, at least. Since both forms are “legal”, people are free to choose (in most parishes) however they want.
Not really. When these changes were made, most of us accepted them without a problem…why wouldn’t we? Before the abuses that can be directly attributed, not to Vat. II, but to those who used the “spirit of Vat. II” to promote their own agendas…the Catholic Church had always provided a beautiful & solemn liturgy. Why would anyone who had grown up in this atmosphere expect anything else than continued reverence & holiness from a Catholic Mass. It wasn’t until years later that most of us who don’t care for dancing scarves/holding hands/watching 8 EMs. troop to the altar to serve the Eucharist to 300 people, began to realize that it wasn’t working.
I don’t think anyone resents the question.
That was how I took it and was the questio I answered in post #70.
There’s actual proof of this?
Do the reasonings even matter? If protecting the Blessed Sacrament isn’t #1 on the list?
Equating what Luther et al did with those who were practicing COTH before the indult???
Many I know who object to the MP fear the political dealings that lead to it rather than any change and the bait/switch by supporters on some information and reasoning.
No one has ever, EVER. treated Jesus as one among equals here or even insinuated anything that could be construed as such. And if you think we have the same result as Luther and the reformers (ouside the Church) as American bishops (inside the Church), you have the most liberal view of extra ecclesia nulla salus I have ever heard.
Are those who want to do things more like what was set down at Trent want to go back to laity rarely receiving any of the sacraments (but especially confession and HC)? Go back to going from altar to altar to ‘hear’ the mass?
I agree with this. Protecting the Sacrament should be the #1 reason for why someone does something.
You’re right, there is no theological reason because quite frankly the method of reception is a matter of discipline and not theology. As such HMC can choose to allow the Bishops to allow it or not in their own Diocese. It is an indult meaning it is not the “norm” if you will even though it is the normal way most people receive and unfortunately in some Parishes the only way taught to the First Communicants
.A discipline resulting from disobedience perhaps but you have to admit that HMC would never have given the Bishops this right (to give the indult in his own Diocese) if it was a discipline that was wrong. Think about some of the other disciplines of HMC that have not been changed like a Celibate Priesthood for the Roman/Latin lung of the Church. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 have reiterated that this discipline will not be changed even with some very vocal people saying it should change.
Lazy’s not the correct word, more “the path of least resistance” which isn’t necessarily the right way. Sad but true.
You can’t argue against the truth.