2WhomShallWeGo
Well-Known Member
The words allowed and recommended are not at all defined the same. Allowed does not mean recommended. The Church hierarchy is not illiterate.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you want to be productive than accept that anyone in the Church can receive however the Church officially allows for and leave it at that.
If the Church officially approves of options then they ARE ALL recommended. All the documentation proves as much.
What the level of efficacy is for any given person is subjective to them personally.
Thats why the Church approves of broad options. For the efficacy of ALL the faithful.
Not to try and squeeze everyone into a narrow box.
Well, if one reads the norms, rubrics and bylaws of the Church then they would know thats not true.
What your calling heterodoxy here is simply an appreciation for diversity by the Church.
No one is expected to forget tradition.
Where did your quote come from?
Is that something you just made up?
Thats quite a stretch of the imagination to infer the Church allows for options to make money.
The words allowed and recommended are not at all defined the same. Allowed does not mean recommended. The Church hierarchy is not illiterate.
The point of these semantics do not change the facts.
We can choose to receive however we feel most comfortable with as allowed by the Church and she says no one can refuse us for that choice.
The Church makes no official recommendation of one way to receive over another.
Narrow minded people do that to each other, not the Church.
If the Church did this, she simply would not allow the other ways in the first place.
What is most efficacious for one person may be different for another.
Its left up to them to decide.
The Church protects any choice of how to officially receive that we make.
I'm not saying that the Church allows for options to make money, I'm saying that it seems that some priests allow existing or new heterodoxy for the sake of keeping parishioners going to Mass each week.
Sure those things happen on occasion. This matter isn't one of them. The officially allowed manners to receive communion are fully supported by the Magisterium.
There is a difference between development of doctrine and heterodoxy.
ChristoEtEcclesiae said:Every time I get a chance to log in, I find myself falling further and further behind in this thread.
Firstly, St Cyril also wrote "...sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ's Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs." How many of you guys actually do this?
Secondly, from the Council of Rouen: "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths."
Thirdly, Communion on the tongue was the definitive practice for what, 1600 years? One source (St. Cyril) says that it is fine to receive on the hand, so automatically everyone decides that the next 1500-1600 years of Church teaching and practice is made irrelevant just because modernist popes and one early Catholic saint said so? What about St. Basil, who said "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution?"
Read this list of quotations (Communion In The Hand - Quotations) and tell me that they don't trump St. Cyril and recent, questionable popes.
Sacred Tradition and past leaders and saints have all considered Communion in the hand to be an invalid way for the laity to receive.
That is incorrect.
The Magisterium of the Church explicitly approves of that indult.
No Saint pits himself against the Magisterium.
Don't forget Sacred Tradition, which at this point in the thread has been completely ignored except where convenient to mention it.
Read what I posted.
Understand what I posted.
And no it wasn't the tradition for 1600 years.
What is the Council of Rouen?
Why don't you quote your source with a link?
Pope John XXIII convened Vatican Council II in 1962. The Councils first document was
The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This fundamental teaching of the Church opened
even further the understanding of the Eucharist and many of the practices regarding it.
On May 29, 1969, in the document Memoriale Domini the Church gave permission for the
faithful to return to the ancient ritual practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand and
the practice went into effect in the United States on November 20, 1977. Lay people could
now receive Holy Communion reverently, either on their tongue or in their hand. About
this practice, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the 4th century: Make your left hand a
throne for your right, because your right is going to receive the King; make a hollow of your
palm and receive the body of Christ, saying after it: Amen! Then, after you have
partaken of the body of Christ, come forward to the chalice of His blood .
On January 29, 1973, the instruction Immensae caritatis was issued by Pope Paul VI.Sacred Cup.
With this instruction, the diocesan bishop was given permission to designate lay men and
women to distribute the Eucharist as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. It stated
that this faculty may be used whenever there is no priest, deacon or instituted acolyte
present, or when the ordinary minister is prevented from administering Communion
because of other pastoral obligations, ill health, or advanced age, or when the number of
the faithful is so great that, unless Extraordinary Ministers assist in the distribution, the
celebration would be unduly prolonged. It should also be noted that when Communion
under Both Kinds is offered, the deacon, if present at Mass, is the ordinary minister of the
Read the documents above in bold. I have to go.
Mediator Dei said:62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This is not exactly true for starters you can not walk into an eastern rite church that distributes by intinction and receive on the hand. You could try to complain to rome but nothing will come of itThe point of these semantics do not change the facts.
We can choose to receive however we feel most comfortable with as allowed by the Church and she says no one can refuse us for that choice.
The Church makes no official recommendation of one way to receive over another. .... The Church protects any choice of how to officially receive that we make.
The concept of autonomy makes bringing the Eastern Churches into this irrelevant. What you fail to realize is that the Church also protects the Eastern Churches right to preserve its culture as well as the West.This is not exactly true for starters you can not walk into an eastern rite church that distributes by intinction and receive on the hand. You could try to complain to rome but nothing will come of it.
The point is that just because a thing is allowed doesn't mean that it is recommended. The fact that things are allowed and not recommended means that their is a possibility that something else that is also allowed might be better.
I know what they say already. You still haven't read what I posted or the link I gave in the very first post of this thread, from where my quotes originate.
The indult is not a reversion, its an addition and never does he make a blanket generalization or specifically mention recieving on the hand. You do and apply his words to later actions of Popes that you refuse to ascend to.Guess what his successors did? That's right, they reverted to early prescriptions by bringing back Communion on the hand, which is only supported here by that one St. Cyril quote, even though St. Cyril also advocated doing things with the Blood that you guys probably wouldn't do now.
Read what I posted.
If a priest asked you to help him distribute communion would you refuse?
I might.
Matthew 25:35
For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
John 6:[62] ... Doth this scandalize you? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?