Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1343949642' post='2461749']
So... you believe we are morally obligated to follow unjust authority when that authority figure is not commanding us to do something sinful?

If the United States Government makes it a law that listening to music is illegal, do you believe we are required to comply with that law? Why or why not?

On a religious point: If a priest tells us that men must wear t-shirts and shorts to masses where he is the celebrant as he views those clothes to best depict the proper reverence we should show at mass do you believe we are morally obligated to wear t-shirts and shorts? Why or why not? (assume that you don't view t-shirts and shorts at mass as sinful)
[/quote]

Start a new thread and I'll entertain your argument.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1343955283' post='2461783']
I've offered numerous documents from the Holy See that give clear evidence that it is not a matter of disobedience to kneel and receive communion on the tongue while kneeling. While you've thus far have been unable to give evidence that those that choose to kneel while receiving communion on the tongue even when their priest or bishop says they cannot are disobedient.
[/quote]

You've offered one document. In your opinion, it is satisfactory. In mine, it's not. My only evidence is a more thorough analysis of the document you offered - since the Church will never come out and say, "This very specific action is sinful" - since the morality of the very specific action in question is dependent entirely on circumstances.

Your argument now seems to be, "Yes, the document DOES say that." And mine is, "No, it doesn't."

Our argument now is simply one of personal opinion, so there is no need to discuss further.

I will say, though, that's it's not a matter of my being unwilling to admit when I'm wrong - as you implied earlier. I [i]want[/i] to be wrong. I just can't overlook certain obstacles with a clear conscience, as you seem to be able to do. Good for you.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1344019929' post='2462229']


You've offered one document. In your opinion, it is satisfactory. In mine, it's not. My only evidence is a more thorough analysis of the document you offered - since the Church will never come out and say, "This very specific action is sinful" - since the morality of the very specific action in question is dependent entirely on circumstances.

Your argument now seems to be, "Yes, the document DOES say that." And mine is, "No, it doesn't."

Our argument now is simply one of personal opinion, so there is no need to discuss further.

I will say, though, that's it's not a matter of my being unwilling to admit when I'm wrong - as you implied earlier. I [i]want[/i] to be wrong. I just can't overlook certain obstacles with a clear conscience, as you seem to be able to do. Good for you.
[/quote]

I've posted more than one Church document to back my position. Those documents are clear bishops/priests don't have the right or authority to demand that the faithful to not receive communion on the tongue while kneeling. And those faithful that do after such demands are not to be accused of disobedience. It plain and clear there really nothing more to add if you are unable to offer proof of your stance from the Church that pertains to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling. Then we are done here.

Edited August 3, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1344020622' post='2462239']
It plain and clear there really nothing more to add if you are unable to offer proof of your stance from the Church that pertains to receiving communion on the tongue while kneeling.
[/quote]

Edit: Nevermind - I'll let you have the last word.

Edited August 3, 2012 by fides' Jack

[Amppax]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1344021694' post='2462259']
Edit: Nevermind - I'll let you have the last word.
[/quote]

Little hard if you post again, isn't it?

[Slappo]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1344019286' post='2462226']
Start a new thread and I'll entertain your argument.
[/quote]

Done. [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122802-obedience-to-authority-figures/"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122802-obedience-to-authority-figures/[/url]

Edited August 3, 2012 by Slappo

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1343691257' post='2460443']
I went up to communion at Mass this weekend - I receive on the tongue, stuck my tongue out. The EME was shorter than me, and didn't want to touch me (didn't know how to give the host to someone on the tongue? i dunno??), and ended up dropping Jesus on the ground! Luckily she picked it up & consumed it, so on the second try, I just put my hands out to receive. It wasn't a fluke either because I saw another lady try to receive on the tongue; this time though the EME lady actually got it in her mouth.
[/quote]

thats sad the host fell on the ground, i think there is a vatican official ruling for such an instance. I will allow you all to search for that ruling for yourselves.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

doth the ground tainteth thy GOD whom became flesh and suffered sin upon the cross, is your GOD mortal and taintable, is your GOD truely all powerful ? A bit of sweat on my hand is not going to taint my GOD,in truth that sweat becometh holy. But in that i will be recieving on the tounge now just because the council of trent says so and i need every particle of jesus i can get. Be careful though your not just honouring thy GOD with tithes of mint and dill and no real substance which is love. Which reminds me of the church in the book of revelations who's doctrine was practised without love. Please do not be that church.

edit: But than again even if i recieve 1 particle of jesus and not the whole host is not jesus fully present in even the smallest particle so i can't recieve him any more or less whether i recieve the whole host or even half the host.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I just found something out from a local deacon, i did not know this previously. I found out that each ecumenical council that has ever gathered is infallible and i thought it was only the pope on matters of faith and morals, and also the bishops, cardinals etc are also infallible as to what they believe about christ, i assume that be the apostles creed,the niciene creed etc. But also he stated that any vatican council can clarify anything from previous councils that may be in doubt or mis-interpreted sometimes being new doctrine to clarify previous doctrine, to clarify and illuminate. And you know what else he told me is that the holy bible is not infallible in the matter of and he gave this example as to the number of angels that where at the tomb as whether or not it was the same angel appearing twice. Which leads me to think than why does the catechism state that sacred scripture can save a person, if indeed only GOD can truely save and is the final judge, than holy scripture is the direct the will of GOD if indeed it can save as the catechism therefore infallible. But this is just my musings and not absolute beliefs, i am open to learn what the vatican councils have to say on the matter, if anyone knows.

Onward christian souls
JESUS iz LORD.

JC "knock and the door will be opened, seek and you shall find."

[Aloysius]

Just want to jump in on the topic of the last couple pages... here's the reason you don't have to obey a priest who commands you to stand up if you're kneeling to receive:

"Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass." GIRM § 24

"Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority" Sacrosanctum Concilium,[b] [/b]22.3

The point I saw being made earlier was that we should obey the priest's authority; however, the priest has NO authority to deviate from the GIRM, so refusing to stand if he tells you to is not being disobedient to any authority. The point is that the priest does not have authority to alter any aspect of the GIRM. So if a priest commands you to hold hands at the Our Father, you don't have to, because he doesn't have that authority. If he commands you to stand during the conseration, you don't have to because he doesn't have the authority. If he tells you to receive in the hand instead of on the tongue, or to stand instead of kneel, you don't have to because, as the above quotes show, he doesn't have the authority to do that.

If a priest commands anything that is an addition or alteration to the Liturgy, except where he has specific leeway in options, that priest has no authority to make such a command. I'm not saying that one should ever purposefully make a scene during the liturgy, you absolutely should not try to make a scene or a statement in the context of the liturgy. but if you kneel to receive communion and the priest tells you to stand up, that's absolutely wrong and the priest has no authority to make you stand, and therefore it is not disobedient to remain kneeling. it would be the same if you were putting out your hands to receive in the hand (in the United States) and a priest demanded that you present your tongue to receive (in the Ordinary Form, Universae Ecclesia has established that special law governs the extraordinary form and therefore receiving in the hands is not an option at the Traditional Latin Mass), he'd be wrong and he'd have no authority to do that.

[Amppax]

And above is why I've adopted the patented L_D approach to liturgical discussion.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1344091256' post='2462636']
Just want to jump in on the topic of the last couple pages... here's the reason you don't have to obey a priest who commands you to stand up if you're kneeling to receive: [...]
[/quote]

Yeah, I think you're wrong. My reason is in the other thread started by Slappo.

Your argument doesn't say anything about us obeying them, it just says that they don't have the authority to do what they did.

This is the [b]exact[/b] same argument that's been going on here since the 2nd or 3rd page. You're right in that the priest doesn't have the authority to do that, but he [i]does[/i] have authority over your spiritual life, which includes whether or not to obey a command given during Mass... So, we're coming to a very circular argument here...

And I'll let the argument sit there. Respond how you like - I probably won't come back to this thread to read it.

[Amppax]

[quote name='fides' Jack' timestamp='1344258848' post='2463406']
Yeah, I think you're wrong. My reason is in the other thread started by Slappo.

Your argument doesn't say anything about us obeying them, it just says that they don't have the authority to do what they did.

This is the [b]exact[/b] same argument that's been going on here since the 2nd or 3rd page. You're right in that the priest doesn't have the authority to do that, but he [i]does[/i] have authority over your spiritual life, which includes whether or not to obey a command given during Mass... So, we're coming to a very circular argument here...

And I'll let the argument sit there. Respond how you like - I probably won't come back to this thread to read it.
[/quote]

You're really stubborn, aren't you?

[Aloysius]

hmm... perhaps if he's your spiritual director or regular confessor and he tells you to stop kneeling in the context of the actual authority he holds over your spiritual life (such a command would be given during spiritual direction or inside of confession), then sure you should listen to him, unless what he is commanding of you is contrary to the liturgical rubrics (a spiritual director can't tell you to do something contrary to what the Church commands of you); if you feel he's telling you something wrong then it may be good to seek out a different spiritual director or confessor, always being careful to do so with all humility and not to shop around until you find someone who just agrees with you, as would be prideful, so only if it's something really serious that you prayerfully feel is wrong advice should you ever seek out a second opinion of sorts. or if he happens to be the superior of an order you are a part of and you have a vow of obedience to him. but other than that, the priest who just happens to be celebrating any mass that you go to doesn't really hold any authority over you in that way, where are you getting that idea from? he cannot add or subtract anything in the liturgy. the priest celebrating a mass has no authority to command anything of you in addition to or in alteration from the rubrics of the sacred liturgy--he doesn't have authority to do so as a pastor, as a priest, as a celebrant--he doesn't hold that authority over the liturgy, over you, or over your spiritual life. when I say he has no authority to do it, I mean [i]no [/i]authority whatsoever.

the ONLY way a priest would have authority to command you to do something specific in the context of the liturgy is if he did so in spiritual direction wherein you had placed your spiritual life under his care and he felt that a particular thing you were doing in the liturgy was personally harmful to your spiritual life (I can think of things like pride or scrupolosity that a spiritual director may feel are being fed by particular dispositions at mass and it might be imaginable for a spiritual director to tell you to stop doing as a means of honing your humility). even then I would think spiritual directors should be cautious not to limit someone from excercising any option that the Church herself allows; if the Church allows it, who is an individual spiritual director to step in and say that it is harmful?

oh and I didn't post in the other thread because that topic seemed more broad about the question of authority and obedience in general, ranging from speeding to dress codes to who knows what. I was here specifically concerned with the [i]liturgical[/i] question; whatever authority a priest has over his parish, over his flock, over his penitents and over his spiritual directees, he still holds no authority under any of those capacities to add or alter any requirement of the sacred liturgy. perhaps I'll venture over there since you said you won't be back in this thread, though.

Edited August 6, 2012 by Aloysius

[Amory]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1344267036' post='2463449']
but other than that, the priest who just happens to be celebrating any mass that you go to doesn't really hold any authority over you in that way, where are you getting that idea from? he cannot add or subtract anything in the liturgy. the priest celebrating a mass has no authority to command anything of you in addition to or in alteration from the rubrics of the sacred liturgy--he doesn't have authority to do so as a pastor, as a priest, as a celebrant--he doesn't hold that authority over the liturgy, over you, or over your spiritual life. when I say he has no authority to do it, I mean [i]no [/i]authority whatsoever.
[/quote]

Doesn't a pastor have juridiction over those Catholics who reside within (or--in the case of non-territorial parishes--belong to) his parish?

I agree that a regular priest doesn't have authority over the liturgy he celebrates. Clearly any command he gives that deprives a Catholic of his canonical right to receive Communion kneeling is not a valid command that binds in conscience. At the same time, though, it's not correct to say that a pastor has no authority over his parishoners.