Is it possible that true reverence for The Body of Christ is a thing of the past..

I was thinking about something today...it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated.

My issues/questions are this:

1) Was this practice abrogated? Because I don't ever see priest doing it.
2) If it was not abrogated, why is it not being followed with strict adherence?
3) I know for a fact the EMHC do not do this...which is troublesome to me

With all of those questions/issues in my mind, it has made me think. Has the modern Catholic Church, or at a least a great number of Catholics today in The Church...including clergy, lost belief in The Real Presence????? Because if we have always believed in The Real Presence and this is a practice that was found in the Traditional Latin Mass, then why would it EVER be abolished, or not practiced...and if there was some rogue priest not doing it, then why on God's green earth is their Bishop not reprimanding them and making them do it. And finally, just 40+ years ago, every Priest would do what I described above at every Mass....now we have non-ordained people...regular lay people touching The Most Blessed Sacrament indiscriminately...not taking anywhere close to the same precautions.

Does anyone else see this as a problem? Why such a huge and drastic shift in the way we view, revere, and handle Christ in our Churches???

[quote="michaeldaniels, post:1, topic:188575"]
I was thinking about something today...it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated.

My issues/questions are this:

1) Was this practice abrogated? Because I don't ever see priest doing it.
2) If it was not abrogated, why is it not being followed with strict adherence?
3) I know for a fact the EMHC do not do this...which is troublesome to me

With all of those questions/issues in my mind, it has made me think. Has the modern Catholic Church, or at a least a great number of Catholics today in The Church...including clergy, lost belief in The Real Presence????? Because if we have always believed in The Real Presence and this is a practice that was found in the Traditional Latin Mass, then why would it EVER be abolished, or not practiced...and if there was some rogue priest not doing it, then why on God's green earth is their Bishop not reprimanding them and making them do it. And finally, just 40+ years ago, every Priest would do what I described above at every Mass....now we have non-ordained people...regular lay people touching The Most Blessed Sacrament indiscriminately...not taking anywhere close to the same precautions.

Does anyone else see this as a problem? Why such a huge and drastic shift in the way we view, revere, and handle Christ in our Churches???

[/quote]

Hi, Michael.

While I've likely not been a Catholic nearly as long as you have, and despite other minor liturgical gaffes during Mass (mostly by the laity, such as holding/raising hands during the Our Father), I've not seen any inappropriateness in the slightest with the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, where I reside.

The respect due to the Host has never, or will ever by abrogated.

Every single parish I've ever visited (including several in Chicago) have treated the Body and Blood with great care. While I do see EMHCs inappropriately blessing those who cannot receive the Blessed Sacrament, I do not see what you're concerned about.

Abuse of the Blessed Sacrament isn't something that people like myself, who attend only the Ordinary Form, would abide in the slightest. I suspect that such issues are quite in the minority--the Eucharist is the most important part of the Mass and such abuses are tantamount to not only violation of the GIRM, but sacrilege.

Priests are human. They must uphold the GIRM, yes. Such remedies to abuses, however, should not be reported here, but *immediately *to the local bishops.

Unfortunately, I think you already know the answer. I saw some Gallup Poll (I can find the actual study when I get home) that said only 30% of Catholics surveyed believed that they were receiving the actual Body and Blood of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. That's why there's no reverence being shown; people simply don't believe.

I'm sponsoring an RCIA candidate at a very liberal/progressive parish and I noticed that some of the EMHC's are smiling and starting conversations during the distribution of Holy Communion. A lot of them allow self-intinction.

Last year I attended a discussion led by a deacon from the FutureChurch who repeatedly said that Catholics are merely receiving the Spirit of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and not the Body and Blood. When he was confronted about this stance after his sermon, he adamantly repeated what he had said during his speech.

<<<< Quote: I was thinking about something today...it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated. >>>>

Mal: I completely agree with you on this. At the TLM if you watch the Priest during Mass - he is very careful to make certain every single speck is treated with reverence and this includes washing of the Fingers and of course when Holy Communion is distributed at the communion rail not only is there a communion linen but the Altar Boy uses the Paten under the chin of each Communicant and having been an Altar boy myself in my youth I can personally attest that during distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful even on the Tongue that particles sometimes wind up on the paten. If the Priest sees a particle large enough he will stop communion and put the particle back and every time after Communion He meticulously cleans the Paten making certain all the specks are removed into the Chalice which is then Purified with wine and consumed by the Priest. With the advent of Communion in the hand - no one can tell me that no matter how careful they are these same particles dont end up on the floor and that is indeed horrifying. I completely agree and refuse to recieve Our Lord in my hand . I never have and I never will. I am not judging those who do. But I just know what I have seen with my own eyes. There can be no question that communion in the hand has led to the decline by todays Catholics in the reverence for and belief in the Real Presence. And that should have every Catholic concerned. My solution is simple. Why wait for the Church to change things. There is no law against it and therefore it isnt disobedient for all catholic to recieve COTT. We can institute the practise ourselves beginning this Sunday. Just as we can Abstain from Meat every Friday of the year and not be disobedient. And we can teach our Children the Catholic way. We can all start being Better Catholics and providing the good example to our neighbors . We can wear a suit and tie to every mass. Our wives and daughters can wear a modest dress and a veil. We can practise Catholicism despite whats going on around us. We dont have to hold hands during the Our Father. We can be Catholics even if the some refuse to. And we can start this Sunday. We can take our Church back from the novelties. One Catholic at a time.

Pax

Great points Malleus...in a rush to get the thread published, I forgot to even touch on CITH, which also will most definitely result in crumbs (The Actual Body and Blood of Our Lord) being accidently desecrated by unsuspecting Catholics who don't know any better. Every way you look at this, it is just bad....and I notice that none of the proponents for CITH has really spoken out against this point of view, because I really feel like it is iron clad and can not be argued against.

[quote="Malleus_01, post:4, topic:188575"]
<<<< Quote: I was thinking about something today...it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated. >>>>

Mal: I completely agree with you on this. At the TLM if you watch the Priest during Mass - he is very careful to make certain every single speck is treated with reverence and this includes washing of the Fingers and of course when Holy Communion is distributed at the communion rail not only is there a communion linen but the Altar Boy uses the Paten under the chin of each Communicant and having been an Altar boy myself in my youth I can personally attest that during distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful even on the Tongue that particles sometimes wind up on the paten. If the Priest sees a particle large enough he will stop communion and put the particle back and every time after Communion He meticulously cleans the Paten making certain all the specks are removed into the Chalice which is then Purified with wine and consumed by the Priest. With the advent of Communion in the hand - no one can tell me that no matter how careful they are these same particles dont end up on the floor and that is indeed horrifying. I completely agree and refuse to recieve Our Lord in my hand . I never have and I never will. I am not judging those who do. But I just know what I have seen with my own eyes. There can be no question that communion in the hand has led to the decline by todays Catholics in the reverence for and belief in the Real Presence. And that should have every Catholic concerned. My solution is simple. Why wait for the Church to change things. There is no law against it and therefore it isnt disobedient for all catholic to recieve COTT. We can institute the practise ourselves beginning this Sunday. Just as we can Abstain from Meat every Friday of the year and not be disobedient. And we can teach our Children the Catholic way. We can all start being Better Catholics and providing the good example to our neighbors . We can wear a suit and tie to every mass. Our wives and daughters can wear a modest dress and a veil. We can practise Catholicism despite whats going on around us. We dont have to hold hands during the Our Father. We can be Catholics even if the some refuse to. And we can start this Sunday. We can take our Church back from the novelties. One Catholic at a time.

Pax

[/quote]

This is somewhat related I think but another thing that has always bothered me about the way the OF is usually practiced at least around here is the way the vessels are treated after communion. In the pre vatican II TLM and at the EF Mass I attend, the vessels are reverently cleaned by the priest then everything (chalice, paten, corporal, etc.) is properly vested, whereas in the OF you have various bowls that were used by the EMHC's which are sometimes cleaned out thoroughly sometimes not, then the chalice is unceremoniously carried off to the side by an altar server, sometimes with the purificator stuffed in it, other times it is at least draped over it, but no more vested chalice. Not sure what they do with the corporal which undoubtedly still may contain crumbs from the hosts.

Wanted: Proponents of CITH that can logically and theologically respond to this thread!!!!

There's a very simple answer.

They don't believe. They say they do but it is obvious that they don't.

There's a very old and true saying: ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

When history under the microsocpe gets me down I like to look at macro history to feel a lot better about bad times. Or, as Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, There is nothing new under the sun,

As for how many's, during the Arian controversy a full 30% of the Church fell under its influence, I believe even St. Augustine as a young man was swayed by it.

As for how bad things get, St. Francis was commanded to rebuild this Church brick by brick.

We just need to remember Christ's promise that Upon this rock I shall build my Church and against It the gates of hell shall not prevail.

That is less of an answer than a pep talk :D

That there has been a lowering in reverance in general is without question. But saying it is due to Communion in the hand and ignoring all of the other issues that have come into play in the last 40 years is a) knee jerk reaction and b) partially post hoc, ergo propter hoc response.

The Church in the Roman rite had Communion in the had to a greater or lesser extent well into the 10th century. If it was so terribly horrible, so indicative of lack of belief in the True Presence, so fraught with sacrilege, then one has to explain how the Church managed to survive intact. The short answer is that receiving in the hand was not so horrible, etc. It was simply the common way of receiving in many areas and for ages and ages.

There have been other issues at play ove the last 40 years, not the least of which was the throwing out of the Baltimore Catechism without an adequate catechism to replace it. Teaching doctrine went out, a la baby with the bathwater, and the "social gospel", sans "gospel" was in. People were simply not told what the Church actually professes; it is no wonder that a generation or more cannot identify the term "transubstantiation" if they were never taught it. In addition to that, society in general has become far less reverent (see, e.g. the massive increase in lack of respect for life - abortion - and basic moral laws - sex outside of marriage), and a general lack of reverence in society will play itself out in the Catholic population.

However, it is a false charge to turn around and say that if they can't identify the correct term, that they have no faith or belief. The Church survived for centuries without using the term and belief in the True Presence managed to survive.

Are there some receiving who do not believe? Undoubtedly, but before one presumes a willful unbelief, one has to prove more than that they exist and don't believe.

Further, there is an unspoken assumption that people had much greater belief before CITH, but that is based on not much more than people showing up at Mass in larger numbers, coupled with a closer connection to adequate catechesis.

As to crumbs - some people get hyper-extended. If there are visible crumbs which can be identified as comeing from the Host, then they need to be consumed. If they are not identifiable, then the True Presence does not any longer exist and no irreverance is done. The Hosts today (with the exception of the large Host which is fractioned) simply do not cause crumbs. The large fractiopned Host can but does not necessarily do so; and again, catechesis has been lacking. But the cure for lacking catechesis is catechesis, not changing practice.

The norm is still COTT and no one anywhere ever should be denied it. Some people feel that COTT is more reverent. Reverent is as reverent does; I have lived long enough to have seen communicants receive on the tongue with expressions that would seem to indicate a lack of reverence. Those who insist that COTT is more reverent in and of itself are relying on feelings; feelings come and feelings go, and are not seriously indicative of much more than the individual's disposition.

It is an indult, and indults can be withdrawn. However, it has not been withdrawn, and it is the manner in which the large majority of people receive.

And yes, the Pope distributes according to the norm; some people take that as a "see - if it was ok he would do differently", which makes as much sense as saying that because he has the power to say Mass according to one of the Eastern rites, the fact that he doesn't means they are inferior. It means no such thing. He also says the OF, not the EF. So what? That is not reflective of anything other than that the OF is the norm.
The bottom line is reverence is as reverence does. If one approaches Communion reverently, then reception is done reverently whether by COTT or CITH. Either is acceptable where the indult is in effect. Those who wish to judge another's heart by the physical means of reception would do well to re-read some of the Gospels, and then go to Reconcilliation. There is ample commentary not only about judging but also about pharisaical attitudes in the Gospels.

Other comments about the differences in rubrics between the EF and the OF as to how the priest holds the Host are making a presumption that two fingers are holier than more than two, which is just silliness.

Since CITH is an indult, the bishop has the right to prohibit it within his diocese, I take it? What would happen if the bishop did, in fact, prohibit it and give as his reason, that he feels it would have people show more respect to the Body and Blood of Christ if they received COTT from a priest or deacon only? What would be wrong with that?

[quote="otjm, post:10, topic:188575"]
That there has been a lowering in reverance in general is without question. But saying it is due to Communion in the hand and ignoring all of the other issues that have come into play in the last 40 years is a) knee jerk reaction and b) partially post hoc, ergo propter hoc response.

The Church in the Roman rite had Communion in the had to a greater or lesser extent well into the 10th century. If it was so terribly horrible, so indicative of lack of belief in the True Presence, so fraught with sacrilege, then one has to explain how the Church managed to survive intact. The short answer is that receiving in the hand was not so horrible, etc. It was simply the common way of receiving in many areas and for ages and ages.

There have been other issues at play ove the last 40 years, not the least of which was the throwing out of the Baltimore Catechism without an adequate catechism to replace it. Teaching doctrine went out, a la baby with the bathwater, and the "social gospel", sans "gospel" was in. People were simply not told what the Church actually professes; it is no wonder that a generation or more cannot identify the term "transubstantiation" if they were never taught it. In addition to that, society in general has become far less reverent (see, e.g. the massive increase in lack of respect for life - abortion - and basic moral laws - sex outside of marriage), and a general lack of reverence in society will play itself out in the Catholic population.

However, it is a false charge to turn around and say that if they can't identify the correct term, that they have no faith or belief. The Church survived for centuries without using the term and belief in the True Presence managed to survive.

Are there some receiving who do not believe? Undoubtedly, but before one presumes a willful unbelief, one has to prove more than that they exist and don't believe.

Further, there is an unspoken assumption that people had much greater belief before CITH, but that is based on not much more than people showing up at Mass in larger numbers, coupled with a closer connection to adequate catechesis.

As to crumbs - some people get hyper-extended. If there are visible crumbs which can be identified as comeing from the Host, then they need to be consumed. If they are not identifiable, then the True Presence does not any longer exist and no irreverance is done. The Hosts today (with the exception of the large Host which is fractioned) simply do not cause crumbs. The large fractiopned Host can but does not necessarily do so; and again, catechesis has been lacking. But the cure for lacking catechesis is catechesis, not changing practice.

The norm is still COTT and no one anywhere ever should be denied it. Some people feel that COTT is more reverent. Reverent is as reverent does; I have lived long enough to have seen communicants receive on the tongue with expressions that would seem to indicate a lack of reverence. Those who insist that COTT is more reverent in and of itself are relying on feelings; feelings come and feelings go, and are not seriously indicative of much more than the individual's disposition.

It is an indult, and indults can be withdrawn. However, it has not been withdrawn, and it is the manner in which the large majority of people receive.

And yes, the Pope distributes according to the norm; some people take that as a "see - if it was ok he would do differently", which makes as much sense as saying that because he has the power to say Mass according to one of the Eastern rites, the fact that he doesn't means they are inferior. It means no such thing. He also says the OF, not the EF. So what? That is not reflective of anything other than that the OF is the norm.
The bottom line is reverence is as reverence does. If one approaches Communion reverently, then reception is done reverently whether by COTT or CITH. Either is acceptable where the indult is in effect. Those who wish to judge another's heart by the physical means of reception would do well to re-read some of the Gospels, and then go to Reconcilliation. There is ample commentary not only about judging but also about pharisaical attitudes in the Gospels.

Other comments about the differences in rubrics between the EF and the OF as to how the priest holds the Host are making a presumption that two fingers are holier than more than two, which is just silliness.

[/quote]

Great post!! You said exactly what I was thinking!:thumbsup:

I am studying Pastoral Ministry and Theology and last semester I took "Sacramental Theology". I came across the following from Louis-Marie Chauvet's The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body This is about the only thing I could add to your most excellent post!

It is the very nature of the church to confess that the sacraments it celebrates in faith in the name of Jesus Christ have a spiritual efficacy called "grace," a beautiful term. The most forceful expression of this grace is no doubt that extremely sparing one given to us in the dialogue of eucharistc communion: to the statement, " The body of Christ" Christians answer, not with the description of their feelings or the difficulties that their intellect might struggle with, but simply with the "amen" of faith. This amen comes from the mouth and the heart, of course, but also from the whole bodysince it is manifested by the opening of the hands into which the pure gift of God is placed.The gratuitous communion of God with the believers, such is the salient point of the sacraments. Any weaknening of this affirmation- provided it is correctly understood, as we shall see-would rob the sacraments of their essential originality.

Peace!:)

otjm,

Without taking anything away from other potions of your post and insightful observations regarding a (lack) of catechesis and that reverence may be had in both COTT and CITH, I'd like to respond with a possible counter argument on one or two points.

[quote="otjm, post:10, topic:188575"]
That there has been a lowering in reverance in general is without question. But saying it is due to Communion in the hand is ( . . .) partially post hoc, ergo propter hoc response.

[/quote]

But perhaps the argument isn't that communion in the hand is "propter hoc" but rather "post hoc", in other words that a lowering of reverence isn't the result of communion in the hand but that communion in the hand is a fruit of a lowering of reverence?

[quote="otjm, post:10, topic:188575"]
The Church in the Roman rite had Communion in the had to a greater or lesser extent well into the 10th century. If it was so terribly horrible, so indicative of lack of belief in the True Presence, so fraught with sacrilege, then one has to explain how the Church managed to survive intact. The short answer is that receiving in the hand was not so horrible, etc. It was simply the common way of receiving in many areas and for ages and ages.

[/quote]

I'm a bit dubious of this line of argument. Isn't it also possible that there was a development in Eucharistic doctrine over time and a concomitant increase in devotion to the Real Presence? The question wouldn't be, then, how the Church survived with communion in the hand but, rather, why did the Church develop communion on the tongue and normalize it, and is this the right time to change that back.

[quote="otjm, post:10, topic:188575"]
The Church survived for centuries without using the term and belief in the True Presence managed to survive.

[/quote]

Likewise, the above. It doesn't seem to me to be a question of how the Church survived without the term "transubstantiation" when the term wasn't even developed yet, but rather the question should be how well would the Church survive if she were to repudiate the term now.

I'm questioning what seems to be an unspoken assumption that because something was done in the past that it ought to be done in the present. 1) Sometimes this isn't the case, for instance if there has been authentic progress. 2) Other times it is the case, when there has been a deviation from a proper course. 3) Sometimes circumstances change and one thing suggests itself as more prudent than another thing.

The example that come to my mind is the gradual increase in Eucharistic adoration. Certainly the Church survived when such a thing was nascent . . . but I'd be loath to say that because this was so it doesn't matter if we were to shift away from Eucharistic adoration now.

VC

[quote="michaeldaniels, post:1, topic:188575"]
I was thinking about something today...it came to me and I mentioned it in a previous post, but believe it deserves its own thread. What I am talking about is the handling/touching/reverence of The Most Blessed Sacrament. I know in the TLM, the pirest, out of reverence for the body of Christ keeps his thumbs and forefingers of each hand pressed together until they have been washed over the Chalice after Holy Communion, which prevents any unecessary crumbs (Which are still The Body of Christ from accidentaly falling and being desecrated.

My issues/questions are this:

1) Was this practice abrogated? Because I don't ever see priest doing it.
2) If it was not abrogated, why is it not being followed with strict adherence?
3) I know for a fact the EMHC do not do this...which is troublesome to me

With all of those questions/issues in my mind, it has made me think. Has the modern Catholic Church, or at a least a great number of Catholics today in The Church...including clergy, lost belief in The Real Presence????? Because if we have always believed in The Real Presence and this is a practice that was found in the Traditional Latin Mass, then why would it EVER be abolished, or not practiced...and if there was some rogue priest not doing it, then why on God's green earth is their Bishop not reprimanding them and making them do it. And finally, just 40+ years ago, every Priest would do what I described above at every Mass....now we have non-ordained people...regular lay people touching The Most Blessed Sacrament indiscriminately...not taking anywhere close to the same precautions.

Does anyone else see this as a problem? Why such a huge and drastic shift in the way we view, revere, and handle Christ in our Churches???

[/quote]

It is my personal opinion that, since Vatican II, much of the Church is in apostasy from the Faith, including many cardinals, many bishops and many priests. Not all, mind you, but many. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist. I believe that it is only through the proper implementation of Vatican II will the Church find itself again. And the Church is returning to its traditional roots, beginning in the pontificate of John Paul II and continuing under Benedict XVI. I believe that the Church is being purified by the Holoy Spirit. All of the chaff will be burned away eventually. Jesus will never forsake His Church, or us.

[quote="michaeldaniels, post:7, topic:188575"]
Wanted: Proponents of CITH that can logically and theologically respond to this thread!!!!

[/quote]

Jesus' command at the last supper was "...take it, this is my body", Mk 14:22

i am a proponent of receiving in my hand as people typically take things with their hands. with fear of using a word that has become ugly with misuse, both manners of reception are appropriate 'choices' with the key being how the received Eucharist is understood. when i receive the Host in my hand i do so with complete faith It is Jesus. i once read a critique of Catholicism that said if Catholics truly believed they were receiving God they should be crawling to the altar to receive Him. should we crawl to demonstrate reverence? God knows what is in my heart, i bow before receiving Him, take Him into my hands, then into my mouth, knowing It is truly God; both my posture and attitude are reverent

[quote="phrederik, post:15, topic:188575"]
Jesus' command at the last supper was "...take it, this is my body", Mk 14:22

[/quote]

To those who would have the power to consecrate the bread.

i am a proponent of receiving in my hand as people typically take things with their hands.

If you think that communion is typical food, then I guess I would have no problem with that statement.

i once read a critique of Catholicism that said if Catholics truly believed they were receiving God they should be crawling to the altar to receive Him.

Many Catholics don't bother to kneel or genuflect, yet they receive communion and claim they receive God. Perhaps they should start kneeling or "crawling" as you suggest? ;)

Jesus' command at the last supper was "...take it, this is my body", Mk 14:22

Mal: And he was speaking to The Apostles not laity.

i am a proponent of receiving in my hand as people typically take things with their hands. with fear of using a word that has become ugly with misuse, both manners of reception are appropriate 'choices' with the key being how the received

Mal: But the Difference being that the BODY of CHRIST is being given not only to you. When Jesus multiplied the Loaves and Fishes what did he command be done with those particles leftover? Do you think the people had "the choice" to thow the leftovers in the garbage? Just wondering .

Eucharist is understood. when i receive the Host in my hand i do so with complete faith It is Jesus.

Mal: And does every other person as well and treat the Body and Blood of our lord accordingly? Thats the question .

i once read a critique of Catholicism that said if Catholics truly believed they were receiving God they should be crawling to the altar to receive Him. should we crawl to demonstrate reverence?

Mal: Would you laugh at someone who did? If so why? At Our Lady of Guadalupe's Basillica in Mexico City - Catholics crawl up the Steps on their knees. Or in Rome the Scala Santa at St John's Lateran? You can witnesss this 365 days a year. Go to either.

God knows what is in my heart, i bow before receiving Him, take Him into my hands, then into my mouth, knowing It is truly God; both my posture and attitude are reverent

Mal: But the question really isnt about you is it. Its about the Body of Our Lord and all the Particles being descrated. Feel free to prove this doesnt occur if you can.

The Holy Gospel according to St John

6:7. Philip answered him: Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them that every one may take a little.

6:8. One of his disciples, Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, saith to him:

6:9. There is a boy here that hath five barley loaves and two fishes. But what are these among so many?

6:10. Then Jesus said: Make the men sit down. Now, there was much grass in the place. The men therefore sat down, in number about five thousand.

6:11. And Jesus took the loaves: and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were set down. In like manner also of the fishes, as much as they would.

6:12. And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost.

6:13. They gathered up therefore and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which remained over and above to them that had eaten.

Yes - he fed the masses. And yes you say you ate. the question remains - what about 6:12 ? We have the Choice to disregard that?

[quote="ProVobis, post:16, topic:188575"]
To those who would have the power to consecrate the bread.

[/quote]

and nowhere does Scripture say for them to do it differently, Jesus' command is "do this in memory of me" Lk 22:19

[quote="ProVobis, post:16, topic:188575"]

Many Catholics don't bother to kneel or genuflect, yet they receive communion and claim they receive God. Perhaps they should start kneeling or "crawling" as you suggest? ;)

[/quote]

and many bow as i do. if others state belief they're receiving Jesus who am i to doubt them? is it the posture that actualizes the belief?

please understand, i'm not supporting a casual manner of reception, it must be done with a reverent heart and body, but to believe that the only way to demonstrate reverence is by receiving on the tongue seems extremely legalistic and reminds me of the pharisees

[quote="phrederik, post:18, topic:188575"]
it must be done with a reverent heart and body, but to believe that the only way to demonstrate reverence is by receiving on the tongue seems extremely legalistic and reminds me of the pharisees

[/quote]

Pharisees, shmarisees. Was it reverent when they defied the sin of sacrilege and started the practice of CITH? Was it reverent when they fixed the episcopal vote count to bring the sacrilegious practice into the US? Is it reverent to receive CITH in the manner most of them are doing it? (I bet 95% aren't even following proper instructions on this.) Is it reverent to receive in a sloppy manner, without even a paten to catch the tiny particles of Christ? The sooner the Church bans CITH altogether, the better.

[quote="ProVobis, post:19, topic:188575"]
Pharisees, shmarisees. Was it reverent when they defied the sin of sacrilege and started the practice of CITH? Was it reverent when they fixed the episcopal vote count to bring the sacrilegious practice into the US? Is it reverent to receive CITH in the manner most of them are doing it? (I bet 95% aren't even following proper instructions on this.) Is it reverent to receive in a sloppy manner, without even a paten to catch the tiny particles of Christ? The sooner the Church bans CITH altogether, the better.

[/quote]

With all due respect, ProVobis, whether you like it or not, CITH is an option.

Here are some wonderful words form Fr. Paul Scalia (full article here)

but this quote says it all,

"In various areas the Church grants certain options and leaves the choice to our prudential judgment. We may find certain practices preferable. Yet we cannot insist on them, because the Church does not. On the other hand, we may dislike certain practices. Yet, again, we cannot fault others for doing what the Church permits. We stray from militant to belligerent when we mandate what the Church does not, or forbid what the Church permits."

So, if you and others do not want to receive CITH, don't.
But please do not tell me that I cannot.

BTW,
isn't there something in the* "rulebook"* about not judging others...:D

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.