Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

Communion In The Hand, And The Candidate's Girlfriend?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
90 replies to this topic

#1 Tridenteen

Tridenteen

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:10 PM

JMJ
I think the vidoe pretty much speaks for itself. Thank you Fr.Z...shall we think of up various punishments for the presidential candidate's girlfriend?

http://wdtprs.com/bl...on-in-the-hand/

#2 HisChildForever

HisChildForever

    "God alone suffices." - St. Teresa of Ávila

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 9,347 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:14 PM

She received in her hand and then placed the host in her mouth. This has more to do with her ignorance of the Eucharist than anything else, in my opinion.

#3 Veridicus

Veridicus

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,527 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:16 PM

yikes. :(

#4 Totus Tuus

Totus Tuus

    I Can Change My Own Title Now

  • Church Militant
  • 6,309 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 07:25 PM

When will the horror of Communion in the hand stop?


Far be it from us to say something like this about what the Church allows. When will the horror of frowning upon the pope stop?

Now for the video: I would venture to say that that was intentional disrespect, not just ignorance. She looked very triumphant and was very conspicuous about the way she did that.

Edit: In my humble opinion, it's so, soooo misguided to think that this problem comes from the allowance of communion in the hand. Why on earth would you think that she would not have done that had she received on the tongue?

Edited by Totus Tuus, 01 March 2010 - 07:27 PM.


#5 Veridicus

Veridicus

    PM Pham

  • Church Militant
  • 2,527 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:35 PM

Edit: In my humble opinion, it's so, soooo misguided to think that this problem comes from the allowance of communion in the hand. Why on earth would you think that she would not have done that had she received on the tongue?


If receiving on the tongue were the normative form of reception, the fact that the host ended up in her hand would have been more scandalous and noticed by those present I would think. While I agree with you that reception on the tongue does not in any way prevent someone from mistreating the host immediately afterward, I would imagine that communities where reception on the tongue is the norm are also areas where individuals are better catechized on the True Presence and thus there exists an overall greater reverence for the Eucharist.

#6 StMichael

StMichael

    PM Super Alien

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 986 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:44 PM

The reason it was put on the tongue for centuries and consumed in the witness of the Priest was because of issues like this. In the past, some would take the Host and bring it home to bury with their crops in the hopes that Christ would yield a better crop.

Simply disgusting.

#7 Resurrexi

Resurrexi

    Iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam.

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 14,963 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 08:56 PM

Far be it from us to say something like this about what the Church allows. When will the horror of frowning upon the pope stop?


Catholics don't have to accept blindly that every disciplinary decision, especially one that is merely permissive (like the indult for Communion in the hand) is prudent or beneficial to the faithful.

Edited by Resurrexi, 01 March 2010 - 09:17 PM.


#8 laetitia crucis

laetitia crucis

    Hai.

  • Catholic Religious
  • 3,993 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:15 PM

Wow... she received half of the consecrated host and then put the other half in her boyfriend's shirt POCKET.

:blink:

She put JESUS IN HER BOYFRIEND'S POCKET and then patted the pocket containing... JESUS.

Sorry. I'm a tad flabbergasted.

:furious:

#9 Totus Tuus

Totus Tuus

    I Can Change My Own Title Now

  • Church Militant
  • 6,309 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:21 PM

Catholics don't have to accept blindly that every disciplinary decision, especially one that is merely permissive (like the indult for Communion in the hand) is prudent or beneficial to the faithful.


There's a difference between accepting blindly and equating allowances of Holy Mother Church -even if they are indults- with "horror."
That's my .02.

Edited by Totus Tuus, 01 March 2010 - 09:22 PM.


#10 Resurrexi

Resurrexi

    Iudica me, Deus, et discerne causam meam.

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 14,963 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:23 PM

There's a different between accepting blindly and equating allowances of Holy Mother Church -even if they are indults- with "horror."
That's my .02.


I quite agree with good Father Z.'s description of Communion in the hand.

#11 Tridenteen

Tridenteen

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:29 PM

I quite agree with good Father Z.'s description of Communion in the hand.



JMJ
Everyone who like's Fr.Z, please raise your hand. ME!!! Now, who would like to think up various forms of public penance for this terribly dillusional woman?

#12 CatherineM

CatherineM

    New Mom in Training

  • Church Scholar
  • 23,354 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:31 PM

I wonder what I'd look like receiving communion on video?

#13 Tridenteen

Tridenteen

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:33 PM

I wonder what I'd look like receiving communion on video?



JMJ
I try to be careful with my tongue, becaue I don't want the priest vomiting on me. I barely stick my tongue out at all, actually. It's easier that way when an elderly priest gives Communion, and has shaky hands.

#14 CatherineM

CatherineM

    New Mom in Training

  • Church Scholar
  • 23,354 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:46 PM

I don't receive on the tongue, so I figured most of you would also view my reception as disrespectful.

#15 Totus Tuus

Totus Tuus

    I Can Change My Own Title Now

  • Church Militant
  • 6,309 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:51 PM

I quite agree with good Father Z.'s description of Communion in the hand.


And he quite agrees with calling communion in the hand a horror. So this is where we agree to disagree. Pax!

#16 Tridenteen

Tridenteen

    PM Pham

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 1,627 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 09:55 PM

JMJ
And we will go no further, I don't want a major arguement. We are here to talk about the candidate's girlfriend :-) Or we casn talk about how stupid boy's choirs are.

#17 Terra Firma

Terra Firma

    Living on sunshine and smiles

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 19,099 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 10:55 PM

JMJ
Everyone who like's Fr.Z, please raise your hand. ME!!! Now, who would like to think up various forms of public penance for this terribly dillusional woman?

So you're saying that worldwide condemnation from faithful Catholics isn't enough of a public penance?


I wonder what I'd look like receiving communion on video?

I was wondering the same thing.

About myself, not you, but still.

JMJ
I try to be careful with my tongue, becaue I don't want the priest vomiting on me. I barely stick my tongue out at all, actually. It's easier that way when an elderly priest gives Communion, and has shaky hands.

Wait. You don't want the priest vomiting on you? Has this happened to you before?

#18 tinytherese

tinytherese

    Liberal theology- it's so fluffy!

  • Church Militant
  • 5,917 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 11:08 PM

Was this woman even Catholic? Sometimes non-Catholics go up to Communion thinking that it's okay out of ignorance.



I remember a time when I had a fight with one of my high school friends because she received in the hand and put the eucharist in her pocket. She ate the host later. From what I was told by her, she didn't partake because of some medical reason. So she saved it for later. I almost lost her friendship for talking about how offended I was.

#19 Luigi

Luigi

    Am I right or am I right?

  • Church Militant
  • 3,233 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 11:19 PM

Millions of people receive communion in the hand daily, and do it reverently. The problem is with the individual, not with the mode of delivery.

It is a logical fallacy to blame an individual's action on a Catican Council that took place before she was born (from the look of her). Individuals did irreverent things before the Vatican Council, and they continue to do them after it. The particular name of this particular logical fallacy is "antes hoc, ergo propter hoc." I'll leave it to the Latin scholars to explain.

#20 Apotheoun

Apotheoun

    Phatmass Church Scholar Emeritus 2004-2006

  • Chummy Commoner
  • 22,350 posts

Posted 01 March 2010 - 11:34 PM

JMJ
I think the vidoe pretty much speaks for itself. Thank you Fr.Z...shall we think of up various punishments for the presidential candidate's girlfriend?

http://wdtprs.com/bl...on-in-the-hand/

That is pretty strange.