Priest says we can't kneel down
#21
(06-16-2013, 08:58 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Every priest in every traditional Mass receives reverently "in the hand". So there is such a thing.

His hands are consecrated, and by default of his position must do so. When not celebrating Mass, he receives on the tongue. If he were to receive truly in the hand he'd receive in the palm, which isn't the case. Further, a priest is not a laymen so it is acceptable for him to touch the Blessed Sacrament as an Alter Christus.
---
The germs issue makes no sense. The priest, and E(O)MHCs, in Parishes that use them, both touch. If receiving on the tongue only one hand touches. If receiving on the hand, two touch. Therein is presented two vectors of possible disease.

If germs are an issue, and the only issue, no one should receive from the chalice but the priest. Instead, we have people licking their unwashed hands and swapping oral germs in the NO.

Seems to me like licking the toilet seat clean so you don't get someone's butt sweat on your bum. Sense? None.
Reply
#22
(06-15-2013, 07:09 PM)loggats Wrote:
(06-15-2013, 05:10 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-15-2013, 03:48 PM)Ursus Wrote: So even though it IS acceptable you have to PROVE it and make them all angry in the process, while at the same time being quietly labeled as a troublemaker.

It's just sad.

Yes it's sad, but to NOT speak up on this issue is a slap to the face and memory of every single martyr who has died for the Faith.

The martyrs did not die for us to receive communion kneeling, they died for love of Christ. If you feel that receiving in that way suits you, that's all well and good but that's all it is. Acknowledging the Real Presence doesn't mean we must kneel as though people who receive on the tongue (or reverently in the hand) while standing are committing some kind of atrocity.

You just want to argue. You know exactly what I implied they died for. It's right there in black and white. Re-read my post.

Reply
#23
(06-16-2013, 08:58 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Every priest in every traditional Mass receives reverently "in the hand". So there is such a thing.

And where does he do this ? At the altar where the chance of a dropped host ever reaching the floor is nearly non- existent. His hands are consecrated as well.

Silly argument you present there.
Reply
#24
(06-16-2013, 11:22 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 08:58 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Every priest in every traditional Mass receives reverently "in the hand". So there is such a thing.

And where does he do this ? At the altar where the chance of a dropped host ever reaching the floor is nearly non- existent. His hands are consecrated as well.

Silly argument you present there.

Absolutely true! And since he administers Holy Communion to himself, I don't see how it can be called CITH unless someone is pushing an agenda. :eyeroll:
Reply
#25
(06-16-2013, 05:32 PM)jonbhorton Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 08:58 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Every priest in every traditional Mass receives reverently "in the hand". So there is such a thing.

His hands are consecrated, and by default of his position must do so. When not celebrating Mass, he receives on the tongue. If he were to receive truly in the hand he'd receive in the palm, which isn't the case. Further, a priest is not a laymen so it is acceptable for him to touch the Blessed Sacrament as an Alter Christus.
---
The germs issue makes no sense. The priest, and E(O)MHCs, in Parishes that use them, both touch. If receiving on the tongue only one hand touches. If receiving on the hand, two touch. Therein is presented two vectors of possible disease.

If germs are an issue, and the only issue, no one should receive from the chalice but the priest. Instead, we have people licking their unwashed hands and swapping oral germs in the NO.

Seems to me like licking the toilet seat clean so you don't get someone's butt sweat on your bum. Sense? None.

Excellent post, Jon! Thank you!
Reply
#26
(06-16-2013, 11:50 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 11:22 PM)Whitey Wrote:
(06-16-2013, 08:58 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: Every priest in every traditional Mass receives reverently "in the hand". So there is such a thing.

And where does he do this ? At the altar where the chance of a dropped host ever reaching the floor is nearly non- existent. His hands are consecrated as well.

Silly argument you present there.

Absolutely true! And since he administers Holy Communion to himself, I don't see how it can be called CITH unless someone is pushing an agenda. :eyeroll:

Poor Script has drank the kool aid  :LOL:
Reply
#27
Yea, John beat me to it and said it better anyhow.
Reply
#28
The problem is calling CITH a sacrilege, which was the original assertion. Go figure this out. Catholic Church approves world-wide sacrilege. Then try coming back with your faith. I am not in favor of CITH. I want it gone. I am in favor of clear Catholic teaching. CITH is not sacrilege. It can be done sacrilegiously, but it isn't in itself. That word is used too loosely in regard to CITH, and it does great damage to people's faith. The tongue is a much more inferior member of the body to touch the Lord with than the hand. And it shouldn't even be that the lay person is "unworthy" to touch, since all are unworthy.

Plus I am just calling people out on their irresponsible hyperbole. Someone said communion couldn't be received reverently in the hand ("Reverently in the hand? No such thing.") I pointed out that such an occasion exists. If anything you should write back to the person who said that and ask them to not be irresponsible with their statements. And, of course, he impugns our forebears who received in the hand.
Reply
#29
(06-17-2013, 09:39 AM)Scriptorium Wrote: The problem is calling CITH a sacrilege, which was the original assertion. Go figure this out. Catholic Church approves world-wide sacrilege.

No the Catholic Church doesn't approve of it. It never has. Some documents issued seem to approve of it - but that is about it. Get this, the indult specifies that it must be done reverently (forget the exact wording). And CITH can never be done reverently. It almost always involves objective sacrilege. That to me sounds like the Holy Ghost protecting the Church as if to say "When you all look back on this you'll see that despite all that was happening I was still in charge".

Quote:It can be done sacrilegiously, but it isn't in itself.

It is near impossible not to commit sacrilege when receiving on the hand. Look at the videos I posted.

You're making the same mistake that someone on CAF made with me: not knowing the difference between objective and subjective sacrilege. I am not saying people receiving CITH are in mortal sin or commit mortal sins - that can only be known to God who knows if they are receiving with due care and reverence. But objectively speaking it can be called sacrilege.


Quote:That word is used too loosely in regard to CITH, and it does great damage to people's faith.

How? How so more than CITH?

Quote:The tongue is a much more inferior member of the body to touch the Lord with than the hand.

Scrip, this is liberal kool-aid. There is no theological or philosophical proof or standard of what body part is inferior or superior. The liberals say this all the time and it's a red herring and doesn't even make sense.

Quote:And it shouldn't even be that the lay person is "unworthy" to touch, since all are unworthy.

If people use the word worthy then yes I agree. But the better word would be qualified or something similar. Priests and deacons are qualified to touch Our Lord's Body for the purpose of giving Communion. And even then, they will only take Him between two fingers - and they will go through a big ritual to cleanse their finger tips before and afterwards. They're given a mandate by the Church on behalf of God. It would be like some ancient Jew going into the temple and walking into the Holy of Holies and saying "well nobody is worthy to go here so thus we're all equal and let's all go in here!"

Quote:Someone said communion couldn't be received reverently in the hand ("Reverently in the hand? No such thing.") I pointed out that such an occasion exists.

No, you pointed out something untrue: you said a Priest receives Communion in the hand. But he doesn't. Watch the video of the CITH experiment and tell me if there is any occasion where CITH can be done without sacrilege. And consider that in that video someone is taking pains to be careful - your average joe Catholic strolls up with unwashed hands, gets given Our Lord by a 'minister' who holds Our Lord with a few fingers and the Host is pushed onto the hand and then with ANOTHER hand someone will carelessly take the Host and place it in his own mouth!

Quote:And, of course, he impugns our forebears who received in the hand.

More liberal kool-aid! Our forebearers did not receive CITH - I have done a lot of studying on this, and the only conclusion anyone can make is that if it did ever happen (which it did, very rarely it seems) then it was not done in the same way as it is done today with careless impiety. Not only that, but even if it were true that it was a widespread practice in the early Church period - so what? Quite obviously we woke up and realized something serious.

Nothing personal Script. Maybe I am wrong. I hope it's not hyperbole... but I can't think that CITH is not sacrilege. If I am wrong, Kyrie Eleison. Maybe I will have to rethink.
Reply
#30
(06-15-2013, 01:36 PM)ArturoOrtiz Wrote: My parish  priest today after several people had received communion kneeling stated that we are not to receive Holy Communion kneeling down , but only standing. He stated that the bishops have stated that the norm for receiving Holy Communion is standing.

Is there any place that the priest got this from? I don't know any document that has supported his claim.

Other priests have told me that priests should not deny people the right of kneeling to receive.

I don't think it helps the fact that all the altar servers were girls


There is a blog called Traditional Catholic Priest, quite good.  He just posted something that almost seems a response to your question:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com...ore-jesus/

Traditional Kneeling and Prostrating before Jesus
Posted on June 16, 2013
So many catholics will not kneel down to receive Jesus in Holy Communion.  Many bishops and priests will treat them as evil people for having knelt to receive Jesus in Holy Communion.  Many will be refused communion or be yelled at for showing respect to God present in Holy Communion.

All throughout the Bible we have adoration, prostration and kneeling to show respect for God.  After St. Peter experiences the miraculous catch of fishes, he gets down on the ground in front of Jesus.  Luke 5:8 “Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”

We see this prostration, kneeling and adoring over and over again.  Before Jesus ascends into heaven in Matthew 28 the apostles fall in adoration before him.  The Magi prostrate before the baby King Jesus. The Samaritan who was healed from leprosy prostrates before Jesus in gratitude and recognizing that only Jesus being God could have healed him.  St. Paul shows us how to pray in Acts of the Apostles 20:36 “And when he had said these things, he knelt on his knees and he prayed,”.  This is when St. Paul is leaving his beloved disciples.

Why do bishops and priests and lay people not want others to kneel in adoration?  It would seem to me that it comes from the devil, who refuses to adore, or kneel or prostrate before the All Holy God.  The devil will not humble himself.

Many priests and bishops use the General Instructions of the Roman Missal to refuse Holy Communion to those who kneel. But the GIRM was modified around three years ago which still states that the norm for receiving communion in the USA is standing, but the part of correcting the people after mass has been removed.  Here is the document from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops in their Committee on Divine Worship January 2012 bulletin:

“5. What does the Missal say about the posture of the faithful when receiving Holy Communion? What about Communion in the hand?

Both of these questions are covered in no. 160 of the GIRM. It states clearly there that the “norm” established for the United States for reception of Holy Communion is standing. In the 2003 GIRM, it stated that no one should be refused Communion if they kneel, but that afterward they should be properly catechized. In the current edition, the exhortation to catechesis is removed and the exception to the norm of standing is left to the discretion of the faithful: “unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.” The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 91, is then cited. With regard to receiving Communion in the hand, there is a significant development from the 1985 GIRM to the 2003/2011 edition. Whereas in 1985, Communion in the hand was granted by virtue of an indult received in 1977, in the Roman Missal, Third Edition, Communion in the hand is now ordinary liturgical law for the United States, though every communicant retains the equal right of receiving on the tongue.”

Again many catholics are scolded for receiving Jesus on the tongue too.  Most First Holy Communions children are only instructed to receive Holy Communion in the hand.  So many crumbs of Jesus fall from the hand and are trampled under foot in so many catholic churches.  Very very rarely are patens used to catch the crumbs.

Are we traditional catholic not so so blessed to be able to adore Jesus by kneeling for Holy Communion.  Are we not thankful that we are not dropping crumbs of the Sacred Host all over the floor to be trampled on my everyone every time they come into church?  Yes we will suffer to protect Jesus.  But He will protect us from eternal damnation.

We will not be like the devil, we will prostrate, kneel and adore Jesus in the Holy Eucharist.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)