N
Neofight
Guest
Bobby was quoting George Bernard Shaw.
- Status
R
Rich_C
Guest
This goes against every source I’ve seen on the matter. COTT is almost as old as the Church and according to Bp. Athanasius Schneider’s article on the matter, became universal in the 6th Century.
Furthermore, that quote from St. Cyril has been discredited as a heretical document that was most likely written by someone else. After the part you quote, it goes on to say all sorts of crazy things that the Church already condemned at the time. Find the whole text and you’ll see what I mean.
Furthermore, that quote from St. Cyril has been discredited as a heretical document that was most likely written by someone else. After the part you quote, it goes on to say all sorts of crazy things that the Church already condemned at the time. Find the whole text and you’ll see what I mean.
Z
zz912
Guest
Who is the father of the gas chambers.
Z
zz912
Guest
The tongue touches the Eucharist in both scenarios.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
It doesn’t matter if it was a dispensation. It is a legitimate form of receiving the Eucharist, just as legitimate as COTT, and there should be absolutely no implication whatsoever that it is not just because it was a dispensation. It also should not be implied that is is somehow “holier” or whatever. The Bishops have spoken.
Let’s put another perspective on this: many marriages in the Church are contracted under a dispensation from the Bishop. Are they somehow less of a marriage, or less holy, or less worthy, or less Catholic, or less whatever because they were contracted under a dispensation?
Too many people on these forums (and I am not singling out anyone) are using the “dispensation” thing to somehow imply that CITH is not as worthy or reverent or whatever as COTT. That needs to stop. People should not be made to feel that somehow they are receiving Jesus in a less than proper and holy and reverent manner.
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
To call him ‘the father of the gas chambers’ is perhaps a little over the top. That honour should be awarded to Hitler, Himmler et al and their technical designers.
Shaw was indeed a eugenicist, which was at that time in popular vogue along with phrenology - both pseudo-sciences that were ill disciplined spin offs of early Darwinian evolutionary thinking.
He was also rather frosty about votes for women. .
G
GangGreen
Guest
The facts are:
- Communion touches the tongue no matter which way you receive.
- The Church decided that Communion should no longer be given on the hand for any reason. This was the rule for more than 15 centuries. It was done to a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
- Many Saints throughout history have supported the notion that the Eucharist should only be touched by the consecrated hands of a priest. An example below
- Communion on the hand was not reintroduced by the Church, but instead was done when it was not allowed. The Pope only then allowed its use after it had already become widespread.
- The preferred method of the Church when receiving Communion is still on the tongue while kneeling. However, both methods are allowed and can be done while standing.
- Saying that anything that the Church did in the beginning is worth more than anything that happened in between is heresy.
C
CaptFun
Guest
:blushing: If this includes more than the four full days you’ve been a member, don’t let my easily tempted ego know about it. Lol.CaptFun, to be honest, that was probably the most in-depth answer I have ever seen on Catholic Forums. Please don’t thank me
I thank you!
Thank you everyone else for all your answers.
That WAS an extremely nice and thoughtful compliment (but per your request I won’t thank you).
A lot of these things had been on my mind over the years anyway. But I guess the most important thing is Christ in the Eucharist Himself. If our focus is there with Him, the few seconds involved in which part of our bodies we receive Him with becomes a much smaller detail.
P
paperwight66
Guest
Thank you for that, Deacon Jeff. Especially since I see that the good Monsignor accepts the term ‘Eucharistic Ministers’ quite happily where EMHCs are being referred to (as in ‘my fellow Eucharistic Ministers’ ).
Anyone care to slap his hand and tell him that he shouldn’t?
Anyone care to slap his hand and tell him that he shouldn’t?
L
Lapey
Guest
I have heard our director of office of worship for the diocese improperly use this term as well…after conducting a seminar for EMHCs and instructing all of them that only the priest is a Eucharistic minister. All of us use a term improperly at times…doesn’t make it right.
Pass this on to him, “Monsignor, with all due respect, please don’t use this term in from of the laity, they have a hard time determining the right term to use…thanks!!”
P
ProVobis
Guest
True but the onus is on you if you mishandle the host. People drop things in their hands all the time. Why chance it? Either way, where’s the paten?
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
If ever a topic deserved a moratorium around here, COTT vs CITH would seem to be it. The rancor this subject incites is both predictable and disheartening.
F
Facite
Guest
Why do you say that?
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the following are all true-
-Communion on the hand was not reintroduced by the Church
-and was done when it was not allowed
-and that it was widespread
Given those as true, your comment implies (I’m not saying you think this, but that the argument itself implies it) that the Holy Father and the Church are open to “peer pressure” to allow what should not be done.
What we end up with is a Church which, while it is willing to allow the incorrect/wrong method of receiving our Lord, it is not allowing such incorrect/wrong methods for other lesser matters (such as ABCs/abortion/gay marriage, and yes, in my mind that those are lesser matters when compared to receiving our Lord). That makes no logic sense to me.
R
R_C
Guest
It is a valid form in those countries where their bishops have *asked *the Holy See permission and the Holy See has *granted *it. Nothing more, nothing less.
The dispensation neither adds nor detracts to the reverence of each form to receive Communion. It is a fact that for 15 centuries the tradition of Holy Church has been to receive in the tongue, and it is a fact that the Holy Father, who sits on the Throne of Peter and holds the Keys, has spoken and affirmed that the traditional form was to be retained, describing why it came to be and why it is to be retained.
If this makes someone think that such arguments imply CITH is not as worthy or reverent or as holy, this says something about that person, not about the argument. I am one of the few who kneel and receive on the tongue, I do it with the greatest humility and with a fair share of humiliation, and I do not mind whether others think this is more or less holy or more or less reverent, or whether they think I am a buffoon and an eccentric, nor do I judge the rest of the congregation who chooses to receive on the hand, standing. We do things according to the way we are, and the Church allows both practices for a reason. Otherwise one of the two would be forbidden. But if both are allowed, it means some are called to one, some to the other, without making either better or holier, but rather each fitting to one’s disposition and promoting one’s reverence.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
If sanitation was the concern why did they also make the change to encouraging everyone in the parish receiving both species of Holy Communion which means everyone drinking from the same cup?
J
Joannm
Guest
There is a difference between drinking from a cup of which the rim has been wiped and the cup rotated after each communicant, no to mention the somewhat sanitizing effects of alcohol, and getting you fingers slurped on and then having to use those same fingers to put you fingers in a ciboria full of hosts and placing a host in someone else’s mouth OT hand.
P
ProVobis
Guest
In Lutheran services they use small cups, from what I’ve heard. I think they are conscious of the risk of germ spread. I don’t know if there is enough alcohol in wine (diluted with a small amount of saliva) to effectively remove all the germs at the top and outside of the chalice.
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
For me the archeological aspect is a red herring. That they did it one way in 200AD is not a good argument for changing over to doing it that way in 1980AD. Unless Mass is some form of theatre for you. Like doing Shakespeare in plain clothes.
The real crux is symbolism. We kneel to receive on the tongue as an echo of the Centurion’s statement “Domine non sum dignus …” It’s a sign of humilty and respect. I don’t think it was a good idea to allow CITH as it sends a signal, as a corporation, that we’ve changed what we believe.
The real crux is symbolism. We kneel to receive on the tongue as an echo of the Centurion’s statement “Domine non sum dignus …” It’s a sign of humilty and respect. I don’t think it was a good idea to allow CITH as it sends a signal, as a corporation, that we’ve changed what we believe.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Great article to expose the myths that so-called traditionalists and liberals employ to put forward the idea the customs such as communion in the hand/mouth, clerical celibacy, vernacular liturgy, plural prayer forms, and many others…
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
- Status