Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

I never heard it put in those terms before. I don't think you can quantify sanctifying grace. It's something that we have or don't have. The more frequently we receive the sacraments, the greater our chances of dying in sanctifying grace.


I just answered that one above. Look up.

So, it appears from your answer above that you would say yes, it is better to receive frequently because that would increase our chances of dying in sanctifying grace. If so, then we have an example where an allowed option in the Church (receiving frequently) is more beneficial to us (our chances for salvation) than another allowed option (receiving once a year).

So, do we agree that some allowed options are more beneficial than other allowed options?

+ PAX

[JReducation]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

So, it appears from your answer above that you would say yes, it is better to receive frequently because that would increase our chances of dying in sanctifying grace. If so, then we have an example where an allowed option in the Church (receiving frequently) is more beneficial to us (our chances for salvation) than another allowed option (receiving once a year).

The chances of dying in a state of grace increase. There is a benefit there.

So, do we agree that some allowed options are more beneficial than other allowed options?

+ PAX

No, we can't say that. The benefit is not derived from the option, but from the source of grace. If I have an option to receive Holy Communion standing or kneeling, neither is going to more beneficial than the other. The source of grace is the sacrament, not the posture.

The Church does not compare the benefits of options outside of their specific domain. I don't know why lay people do this. Receiving daily communion instead of annual communion is in a different domain from standing or kneeling to receive. The former is about the reception of the sacrament, which is the source of grace. The latter is about the posture, which is not the source of grace. Therefore, the posture and the sacrament do not belong to the same domain and cannot be spoken of in the same manner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by JReducation

No, we can't say that.

But you just said above that there is a benefit. Can you explain this contradiction?

The benefit is not derived from the option, but from the source of grace. If I have an option to receive Holy Communion standing or kneeling, neither is going to more beneficial than the other. The source of grace is the sacrament, not the posture.

I was talking about general principles and the option of receiving sacraments more frequently. I hadn't said anything about standing or kneeling.

The Church does not compare the benefits of options outside of their specific domain. I don't know why lay people do this.

There are many people on this forum who say that all allowed options in the Church are of equal value. This obviously is not true as my example has shown. Now it remains to determine when, where, and how the principle is to be applied. Domains is a good way to start.

No need to poke at the laity here, brother. We're just using logic

+ PAX

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

There are many people on this forum who say that all allowed options in the Church are of equal value. This obviously is not true as my example has shown. Now it remains to determine when, where, and how the principle is to be applied. Domains is a good way to start.

No need to poke at the laity here, brother. We're just using logic

+ PAX

Your not using logic. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Br JR does a good job at showing you the error you are making.

Some options are not equal, such as reception of the sacraments on a more frequent basis. Some options are equal, COTT/CITH or standing/kneeling as they are wholly neutral as to the grace derived from their usage. The grace received when receiving the Eucharist in the hand standing is the same as the grace received when receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

So those options a wholly equal to each other.

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Some options are not equal, such as reception of the sacraments on a more frequent basis.

This is as far as I have gotten. It's taken this many posts to get a clear answer that some options are not equal. I'm glad we're finally able to agree on this.

Some options are equal, COTT/CITH or standing/kneeling as they are wholly neutral as to the grace derived from their usage. The grace received when receiving the Eucharist in the hand standing is the same as the grace received when receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

I haven't said one thing about these options. All I've been trying to do is to get an acknowledgement that all options are not equal. That statement doesn't mean that no options are equal, though. I just wanted to dispel the idea that all options are equal and then see where we could go from there.

Again, I'm glad we've come to a basic agreement/warrant. Some options are not equal, even though they are legal. This clearly means that there is more to determine what is equal, better, or less than just the fact that it is allowed.

+ PAX

[Friar David, O.Carm]

Originally Posted by EcceAgnusDei

This is as far as I have gotten. It's taken this many posts to get a clear answer that some options are not equal. I'm glad we're finally able to agree on this.



I haven't said one thing about these options. All I've been trying to do is to get an acknowledgement that all options are not equal. That statement doesn't mean that no options are equal, though. I just wanted to dispel the idea that all options are equal and then see where we could go from there.

Again, I'm glad we've come to a basic agreement/warrant. Some options are not equal, even though they are legal. This clearly means that there is more to determine what is equal, better, or less than just the fact that it is allowed.

+ PAX

Sorry you see it this way. It has not taken this long to reach this. It just took this long for you to get an answer that you could play with.

Speaking of frequent use of the sacraments. I do not agree that it is always better. I believe, as I have stated, it depends on the individual involved.

You either skipped over it, did not read it, or just refused to reply to it but I did point out that there are numerous cases where spiritual fathers have ordered their directee to refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. If we take your thoughts on this then it would appear that this spiritual father is doing something wrong. I do not believe that is so.

[EcceAgnusDei]

Originally Posted by ByzCath

Sorry you see it this way. It has not taken this long to reach this. It just took this long for you to get an answer that you could play with.

Play with? Are you impugning my rhetorical motives?

Speaking of frequent use of the sacraments. I do not agree that it is always better. I believe, as I have stated, it depends on the individual involved.

You either skipped over it, did not read it, or just refused to reply to it but I did point out that there are numerous cases where spiritual fathers have ordered their directee to refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. If we take your thoughts on this then it would appear that this spiritual father is doing something wrong. I do not believe that is so.

There are exceptions to most general rules. For example, there are very nutritious and healthy foods that cause lethal allergies in a very small number of people. Doctors point out that these foods are healthy but then counsel individuals who allergic to refrain from them. For someone who does not have the allergy, the food remains healthy and is a better option than junk food. Rule: Tree nuts are healthier than twinkies. Exception: the person who is allergic to tree nuts is better off eating a twinkie than a tree nut. That exception does not negate the rule.

In the case you state, the general rule is that frequent reception of the sacraments is better than infrequent. The exception is the person whose spiritual director has told them otherwise. It would be silly to argue that because a handful of people have been told that they should refrain from the sacraments, that means that frequent reception is not better than infrequent reception, just as it would be silly for a doctor to say that twinkies are better to eat than tree nuts because that it is true for the handful of people who have allergies.

I think we might have reached the limit for this topic. It seems obvious that we are not going to change the way the other thinks on this. However, something tells me we'll meet again in another thread when options are being compared

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum, fratre.

[Rich C]

Well put, Ecce.

[RogerDeCourcy]

• Receving standing is as reverent kneeling;
• Receiving in the hand is as reverent as receiving on the tongue.

Can I just check that that is the official position? Because if it is, then the debate is over. The emperor is wearing a beautiful suit of clothes.

[clem456]

I'm still interested in an answer to the following question, expecially from those comparing various forms of the same sacraments or different forms of the one Mass:

Is grace quantifiable? Measurable? Is it a quantity that can be added up? Stored up like grain? Is it a finite substance that drops from a giant vending machine when the right buttons are pushed?

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by clem456

I'm still interested in an answer to the following question, expecially from those comparing various forms of the same sacraments or different forms of the one Mass:

Is grace quantifiable? Measurable? Is it a quantity that can be added up? Stored up like grain? Is it a finite substance that drops from a giant vending machine when the right buttons are pushed?

Excellent question! For that matter, is it possible for two or more people to receive the same Sacrament at the same time, yet receive different levels of grace?

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Excellent question! For that matter, is it possible for two or more people to receive the same Sacrament at the same time, yet receive different levels of grace?

Of course it is. The grace in the Eucharist is infinite, since we are talking about God Himself. The Grace is sufficient to bring me to highest ecstacy, make a saints immediately, and prevent me from ever committing a venial sin ever again.

However, that hasn't happened. I must not be actually receiving all of the grace I could, because of my own limitations and sin (venial sin, I pray, since receiving in mortal sin would compound).

[newyorkcatholic]

Originally Posted by RogerDeCourcy

• Receving standing is as reverent kneeling;
• Receiving in the hand is as reverent as receiving on the tongue.

Can I just check that that is the official position? Because if it is, then the debate is over. The emperor is wearing a beautiful suit of clothes.

The Church has in the past stated that kneeling (in context of the Latin Rite) is more reverent, and for all rites that receiving on the tongue is more reverent (false archeoogism aside).

Now the Church doesn't take that position in her official actions/words (or not so clearly).

Now true Church doctrine doesn't change, so what has changed must not be doctrine. It's law. No surprise, the relevant documents are primarily related to Canon Law and liturgical rubrics.

We are free to discuss the merits of laws as long as we obey them when they don't command sin.

I think there is very little merit to the laws allowing CITH and standing. I think it's been dangerous.

If as a Catholic I can't even consider this possibility, then why can a pope later change it? He can, no one denies that. Does what the Pope say magically reflect reality? Does he make doctrine? No!

The pope preserves what is handed down. And he can make laws as he sees fit. His words do not magically change reality.

[clem456]

Originally Posted by newyorkcatholic

The Church has in the past stated that kneeling (in context of the Latin Rite) is more reverent, and for all rites that receiving on the tongue is more reverent (false archeoogism aside).

Now the Church doesn't take that position in her official actions/words (or not so clearly).

Now true Church doctrine doesn't change, so what has changed must not be doctrine. It's law. No surprise, the relevant documents are primarily related to Canon Law and liturgical rubrics.

We are free to discuss the merits of laws as long as we obey them when they don't command sin.

I think there is very little merit to the laws allowing CITH and standing. I think it's been dangerous.
If as a Catholic I can't even consider this possibility, then why can a pope later change it? He can, no one denies that. Does what the Pope say magically reflect reality? Does he make doctrine? No!

The pope preserves what is handed down. And he can make laws as he sees fit. His words do not magically change reality.

Dangerous? I'm curious what you are seeing here.
What is the nature of reverence and how is it determined? Is it observable, or is it internal, a spiritual disposition? I'm not sure why the church would allow a communion practice that is irreverent.

[wasserfall]

Someone on CAF was claiming last week that the Church teaches that the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace.

I asked for a magisterial document upholding this "doctrine" of the Church.

I am still waiting.