Holy Communion in the hand or on the tongue ?

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

44 minutes ago, <3 PopeFrancis said:

The Church teaches to know God, to love God, and to serve God for the Glory of God.  It is a journey for the Glory of God.

I feel like your quote feature is all messed up.  It keeps tagging the wrong people

Edited September 4, 2016 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[<3 PopeFrancis]

That is what I feel.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

I'm not talking about judging others based on posture. I understand that there are those who physically cannot kneel or are handicapped.  Yet sadly many Catholic who can kneel, do not kneel but use this same extreme of "what about handicapped people" as their deffience to be lazy in their own posture.  

 

The Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ. It is His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! This means His eyes are literally there, His ears are literally there, and His flesh is literally there present in the Host. This means Christ is the same in the Host as when He walked on earth! 

Such an excuse makes no sense at all if they are not handicapped themselves if The Church did mandate kneeling at Holy Communion, currently in most diocese I know of, The Church as one's diocesan bishop does not so mandate.  Some might be able to fool others for some reason or other, but they can never fool The Lord who is the sole Judge. And if a person should be lazy in posture the command remains "Judge not that you may not be judged".  Also "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".  Most every single one of us is a bundle of sin and virtue, sinner and saint as it were.  Indeed, what makes my sin less serious than another's so that, in my sense of self-righteousness, I have the completely false right to accuse another when Judgement is The Lord's alone.  We are all in glass houses!

The Sacred Host is precisely that same Jesus that walked the earth - but today under the species of Bread and Wine and so our response to Him, apparent to the eyes of Faith only, under so humble and self-effacing appearances is different to what it might be if one actually saw Jesus in human form as He was when He walked the earth and still is and will remain forever in Heaven - different today but yet ideally full of reverence and adoration, thanksgiving and praise howsoever one chooses to express this both inwardly and outwardly.  And in most if not all instances, The Church gives us choices on how to do this outwardly.

Edited September 4, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[<3 PopeFrancis]

3 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said:

6 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

The Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ. It is His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity! This means His eyes are literally there, His ears are literally there, and His flesh is literally there present in the Host. This means Christ is the same in the Host as when He walked on earth! 

has left the building

 

How do I choose to receive Him?

[Guest]

Not left the building yet - rather still here in every way as before, just simply changed His clothing.

The clothing He has changed into to remain among us forever here on earth is the most ordinary and self effacing clothing imaginable considering His Identity - this all tells me something.

"Whatever you do, though it be to the least of my brethren, you have done it to Me".  That is a very literal statement, nothing metaphor or simile about it whatsoever.

It also tells me much about this:

"Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, ² Who, ³ though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. ⁴

Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; ⁵ and found human in appearance he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. ⁶ " (Philippians Chapter 2 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__P10G.HTM )

"Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe" (Jesus to St Thomas after the resurrection)

[Peace]

8 hours ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

The Eucharist is the True Presence of Christ. It is His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity!

Amen to that brother.

Quote

This means His eyes are literally there, His ears are literally there, and His flesh is literally there present in the Host. This means Christ is the same in the Host as when He walked on earth! 

Nope. Sorry. The Church does not teach this. I think this is a common misunderstanding.

There is plenty of stuff online that explains the actual manner in which Jesus is present in the Eucharist, but here is a good one that explains it:

http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html?m=1

[CountrySteve21]

 Would it break the camels back if we added receiving from the Chalice to this discussion?

 

 

 

[Gabriela]

4 hours ago, ortus said:

Sister, I am so sorry that you suffered such vitriolic abuse for your heartfelt post. I found it both interesting and heart provoking.

I note that perhaps the most repulsive response you received was from an individual who cast doubt upon your veracity as a committed religious. It is interesting that this individual posts frequently on the Vocation part of this website and presumes to give her advice to those discerning their vocation. One can only hope that she if she is in active vocational discernment, that the communities with which she is in dialogue are aware of her behavior so that they can make an accurate assessment of her character.

Do you always talk about people behind their back right in front of their face? This is the most passive-aggressive post I've seen in a long time. Just because someone on the internet says they're a religious doesn't mean they are. Very often, people who put status-claiming identifiers in their username are just trying to claim status, nothing more. We see this all the time around here. Your sycophantic submission to that status is precisely what such people hope to achieve by their lies.

I "presume" to give my advice to those discerning their vocation because I did myself discern for a long time (and yes, some of the communities I discerned with are on Phatmass and know how I post), and I also interviewed 35 sisters for my Master's thesis about their discernment process. No one has to take my advice—and lots of people don't, and lots of people disagree with me—but most people around here know who I am. In fact, my name, email, and phone number are posted in four of the forums. There are videos of me all over the web, including in Phatmass. And I never claimed to be "in active vocational discernment". That is not where my credibility with VSers derives from. It derives from their knowing me, knowing who I am in RL, and knowing that, in the past, my posts have been both orthodox and helpful—at least to some.

How about, in future, if you have something nasty to say to somebody, you say it directly to them instead of trying to garner favor with other Phatmassers by saying it as detraction? I at least had enough respect for McM RSCJ to speak directly to her.

 

4 minutes ago, CountrySteve21 said:

 Would it break the camels back if we added receiving from the Chalice to this discussion?

How about we just blow up the internet right now?

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Gabriela

[<3 PopeFrancis]

31 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

33 minutes ago, CountrySteve21 said:

 Would it break the camels back if we added receiving from the Chalice to this discussion?

How about we just blow up the internet right now?

 

ha ha 

[McM RSCJ]

Dear Ortius, 

Thank you for your kind support. And I admit I have been thrown by the responses to my account of my experience.  I would like to think anyone would get a ore sympathetic hearing.  Add to that the attack that I am a suspicious character and not a Religious. . . . 

 

Thank you, Quasar, for saying you think that what happened to me was violation.  That touches me.

Peace, you make two points:

1) I Could have kept my mouth closed when I went to Communion.

I did. (The Monsignor forced the host in anyway.  Though I had my hands up to receive the host.) 

2) I should not have referred to what happened to me as rape.

I did not.  I was careful to choose my words.  I said "akin to rape."  If you think that is exaggeration, you might want to look at the law and the particular wording.

 

 

[McM RSCJ]

Oremus Pro Vicem,

You say the Monsignor could have "gently placed the host on my tongue" which you think I would have done anyway.  Well, my mouth was an open wound, literally.  

Let's the baseline question.  Was he acting "in persona Christi," when he forced the host into my mouth (open wound) when my hands were up to receive the Eucharist?

Edited September 5, 2016 by McM RSCJ

[McM RSCJ]

Gabriela,

You were quick to accuse Ortus of "passive-aggressive" behavior for not responding to you directly when you posted that you--and others--do not believe I am a Religious.

But when I had responded to you previously, saying that no matter what you (and others) think, I am a Religious, you did not respond.  Passive-aggressive?

You will understand, I hope, that I am startled (weak verb) at being told that you (and unnamed others) do not believe I am who I say I am, plus a suspicious character to boot.  I continue to think that is because I do not agree with your points of view.

You say your identity is well-known on this Phorum.  So if contact you through the email address in your recruitment letter for dissertation interview subjects, do you think you might then acknowledge on Phatmass I am a Religious of the Sacred Heart and your judgment was wrong?   (It is okay if you continue to think I am a suspicious character. Free country). Let me know your response.  If your answer is "yes," I will contact you.  If your answer is "no," or if you do not respond, I won't try to contact you at that email address

[Quasar]

1 hour ago, McM RSCJ said:

Peace, you make two points:

1) I Could have kept my mouth closed when I went to Communion.

I did. (The Monsignor forced the host in anyway.  Though I had my hands up to receive the host.) 

2) I should not have referred to what happened to me as rape.

I did not.  I was careful to choose my words.  I said "akin to rape."  If you think that is exaggeration, you might want to look at the law and the particular wording.

 

 

Legally speaking, what happened to you was a battery.  Being able to put a name to it may help you conceptualize why you feel the way you do about it.  A battery can range from an offensive contact with the person of another, to cases of severe injury (physical and/or emotional).  However, any such act is both wrong and chargeable, at least in theory.  Sometimes acknowledging that behavior is socially proscribed in a formal way (I.e. It's illegal) can help make sense of one's reaction to it.

From what I can see, priests are very flexible in terms of adapting to the practices of individual Catholics.  I've never seen a priest make an issue out of how someone tried to receive.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Comparing reception of communion on the tongue to rape is astonishingly offensive and in my opinion outright blasphemous. Good enough for the saints and doctors of the Church, good enough for us.

[Quasar]

16 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 in my opinion outright blasphemous. 

Is this the religious version of comparing one's opponent to Hitler?  If so, this thread may have run its course. 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Quasar