“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MrS said:
So is the sin yours for discounting it as no problem,

The Pope’s for declining to rebuke in public,

or the person committing the act?

.
Click to expand...
These are simply observations of what had happened at a papal Mass. If the Pope gives Communion in the hand at a Papal Mass and if at the papal Mass there appears to be in place a policy of “open communion,” then what is supposed to be made of this situation which holds in the Church today? True, you can condemn me for mentioning that this is what happened and that it has been reported publicly, but it seems silly to condemn me because the Pope has given Communion in the hand at a Papal Mass, or because there appears to have been in place a policy of “open communion.”
 
non_cognosco said:
And the cause for poor catechesis has to do with the descent into chaos that is our modern life. If we really want to remedy many of the problems associated with the church, we have to go outside of it–into the culture. There is no way that the church–already beleaguered as it is–can withstand the now unrelenting onslaught of values and ideas that are inimical to its existence. Church officials can impose restrictions all the like, but there will always be resistance to their decrees, as long as their is a culture outside the church that operates according to beliefs not in line with church teaching. This is the burden of being the last truly Conservative institution left in the west. Conservatism is order; liberalism is chaos. When it comes down to it, people much prefer a chaotic society, because it is easy, casual, relaxed, and hedonistic. It takes work, struggle, and effort to uphold any standards, as well as a reason to uphold them.

In our society, there is little reason to uphold standards in any endeavor, since there is very little negative consequence associated with it. God will not punish us; for if He even exists anyway He is all love and no judgment. Therefore, we don’t have to worry about our actions since their is no retribution for anything we may do to offend the spiritual or physical well-being of our neighbor or ourselves.

So to end this rambling post, I think if we continue down this road toward complete hedonism, there is little the church can do. Maybe I’m being a bit bleak here, but I only think this will continue . 😦
Click to expand...
Let me say, I am not LDS, but a Cradle Catholic who likes some of the changes in society and some I don’t. Having said that, I DO like the attitude toward family values that have been preserved by many in the LDS church. Family first. The values are high. So when it comes down to it, I think the family, as first teacher, is responsible for much of the breakdown in society today. There is a lot of confusion in the family unit today which would be erased if parents would understand and take the time to implement structure in the lives of their children. Some do NOT seem to understand that kids need boundaries beginning at a very young age, or they will not understand them when they are older in Grade, Middle, and High School. If a parent hasn’t inculcated in the child that there are RULES in society by the time that child is six, then forget it. After that age, the RULES will be given to them by their peers and look what a mess that has gotten us in to. 🙂 Peace.
 
non_cognosco said:
I doubt the Pope actually condones their pro-choice stance; I think the problem is a sense of powerlessness on his part to do anything about it. He may be head of the church, but I’m afraid he no longer has any of the power that was once vested in that role.

All he can really do now is issue condemnatory statements that do little but anger the liberal elements within church, causing them to rebel even further. They push forward, he resists. It’s like watching a father deal with an out-of-control daughter.

The real problem is that no one fears any consequences for their actions. Who is there to punish them? The Pope could threaten excommunication, but so what? Will these “Catholics” really feel that much different if they no longer practice? Hell is no longer a real place, divine punishment no longer exists. He can talk until he’s blue in the face about mortal sin, but no one will listen. Remember, God does not punish; he only grants wishes and fills us full of good feelings. Should we have any compunctions whatsoever about receiving communion while adhering to a pro-abortion position? Nah. It’s be all right in the end. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am taking what you said about God not punishing as an exploration into cynicism?? You are right, the public at large has no fear of punishment because none is dealt, they take no responsibility for their actions because none are held responsible.
 
I_Believe said:
That’s a good point. Also, what about protestants being given Communion ?

That is what leads me to become a bit harsh sometimes. Folks who don’t understand why traditionalists are always upset. I just can’t understand why someone does not see that confirmed catholics are taught one thing, and then we see a double standard applied.

I mean really, just because someone is famous, does it trump the requirement that one be a confirmed catholic with a soul in the state of grace, in order to be worthy of receiving Communion ?

Many cradle catholics must wait until they go to Confession, have a marriage issue resolved, etc., in order to receive. But folks like Bill Clinton can just waltz right up and receive. And do so from someone who surely knows better to allow it.

I don’t judge Popes or Clergy, but when I see a double standard, it’s very unsettling.

Traditionalists are not the problem. We are simply the ones who know a problem when we see it.
Click to expand...
The double standard has not changed in my lifetime. About 45 years ago when I was married, I wanted the Ave Maria played, or sung at my wedding. I was told, “it just wasn’t done”. When I pointed out that Jacqueline and JFK had it played at their wedding, I was told, “that was a different circumstance”. Not a big thing, but still a double standard.

Betcha it wouldn’t be denied me in this day and age.
 
holdencaulfield said:
Because they were great Christians. :mad: Probably one of the worst presidents we have had. Sorry liberals.
Click to expand...
Humpf!! Do not demean “MY” President. He is my hero!!! I was an impressionalble 25 and believed ALL of the Camelot myth. Sorry Conservs.😛 Peace.
 
bobzills said:
Well, this is all very nice, but it forgets the fact that the Pope himself gives Holy Communion in the hand. And it omits the fact that priests at the papal Mass give what some have labelled “open communion”. In other words, there was no problem in receiving Holy Communion at the papal Masses for well known Catholics publicly divorced and publicly remarried outside of the Catholic Church and in favor of abortion rights.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you watched the Papal masses on EWTN. EWTN gave a very good explanation of this.
  1. The reception of communion by those who should not receive it becomes the moral responsibility of the receiver not the minister.
  2. When Tony Blair, before he became Catholic and Brother Roger, Superior General of Taize, who was Lutheran, asked for Communion, Benedict XVI personally gave them communion recalling the teaching of the Church that says that in some circumstances an ordinary (Bishop or Major Religious Superior) can authorize the reception of the sacrament to someone who is not in communion with the Church as long as the person believes in the Eucharist as Catholics believe.
  3. Pope Benedict had also established a precedent that said it was better not to cause a conflict during the distribution and reception of the liturgy.
  4. The rule in the Sacramentary says that those attending a mass must be warned before the mass begins the conditions for receiving communion. Once those rules have been stated to the congregation, the minister is no longer responsible if someone violates the rule. That’s up to the individual and God to sort out.
  5. As to protecting the Sacrament, Dr. Scott Hahn explained that the Bishop has to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecratioin. Unworthy reception of communion does not fit the theological definition of desecration.
JR 🙂
 
@JReducation:

I agree with you in that Pope Benedict XVI may give Communion how he wants. I don’t agree with Communion by hand, however this is still acceptable. I would appreciate it if he didn’t give it this way, however it’s not for me to say.

However I don’t agree that Communion should be given to those outside of the Church, except if the threat of death is near. Otherwise I believe that this should be forbidden. The Church is One, and thus those outside of the Church should not Licitly receive it. Just my opinion however, it may be of note that this used to not be allowed.
 
holdencaulfield said:
…I don’t agree that Communion should be given to those outside of the Church, except if the threat of death is near. Otherwise I believe that this should be forbidden. The Church is One, and thus those outside of the Church should not Licitly receive it. Just my opinion however, it may be of note that this used to not be allowed.
Click to expand...
Who are you disagreeing with?
From the Compendium, with references to the CCC:
293. When is it possible to give Holy Communion to other Christians? (CCC: 1398-1401)
Catholic ministers may give Holy Communion licitly to members of the Oriental Churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church whenever they ask for it of their own will and possess the required dispositions. Catholic ministers may licitly give Holy Communion to members of other ecclesial communities only if, in grave necessity, they ask for it of their own will, possess the required dispositions, and give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding the sacrament.

Do you not know what the Church has declared to be licit and not, or do you think there needs to be a liturgy police to enforce the rules, even at papal Masses? You know, like putting a Secret Service detail on the Lord? Do you think the College of Cardinals should issue a reprimand when the Pope’s pastoral discernment isn’t up to snuff?

It is all very well and good (and I mean this) to proclaim what is licit and not. It is another kettle of fish to decide how it is possible to enforce those rules that are binding on the faithful in real time, during the Sacrifice of the Mass itself.

(Q: What’s the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist?
A: You can negotiate with a terrorist.)
 
holdencaulfield said:
@JReducation:

I agree with you in that Pope Benedict XVI may give Communion how he wants. I don’t agree with Communion by hand, however this is still acceptable. I would appreciate it if he didn’t give it this way, however it’s not for me to say.

However I don’t agree that Communion should be given to those outside of the Church, except if the threat of death is near. Otherwise I believe that this should be forbidden. The Church is One, and thus those outside of the Church should not Licitly receive it. Just my opinion however, it may be of note that this used to not be allowed.
Click to expand...
Holden, you are right on several counts.
  1. Communion in the hand is not for the laity to decided, except for oneself, not for the rest of the laity. Sometimes, the laity on CAF tends to speak as each were a bishop with episcopal authority, forgetting that we are not bishops. Whether we like it or not, the bishops are the legitimate successors of the Apostles. Just like the Apostles, they are not perfect. Nonetheless, God is not very picky about whom he employes, otherwise he would have chosen John to be the first Pope, not Peter. Afterall, John was a mystic, a theologian and celibate. Let’s not forget that he was the only Apostle at the foot of the cross. But God works in mysterious ways. If one does not like communion in the hand, one should not take it that way. But let’s not assume that we have such authority as to demand or correct the bishops. The fact is that we do not.
  2. Canon law does allow for communion to be given to those outside the Church. It is based on a teaching that came from Pius X. The theology says that if the person believes the same as a Catholic about the Eucharist, the bishop or the major religious superior (if it’s in a chapel or institution adminstered by a religius order) can authorize it.
  3. The regulations also say that the burden of conscience is on the receiver, not the minister. The law about non Catholics or Catholics in a state of sin no receiving communion was created not to protect Catholics, but to protect the person who receives unworthily. The Church is trying to help them avoid committing a sacrilege. However, the Church puts the rules in place to help these people, but it will never take a universal stand on this. It allows for the Bishop or Major Religious Superior to decide in each instance what they believe is the right way to do things.
  4. As I cited before, the Pope himself has given communion to non Catholics and has said that he did it because it was the charitable thing to do. He believes that charity flows from the Eucharist. You cannot believe in the Eucharist and be uncharitable at the same time. It does not work that way. The Eucharist is the greatest sign of God’s charity. Therefore, man has not right to be less charitable and more judgemental than God.
We saw this at the papal masses in Washington and NY. The diocesan bishops were following the Pope’s example on previous occasions. They left the matter between the individual and God.

At the funeral mass for Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to Brother Roger of Taize who was a Lutheran. What was the technicality that allowed this? Brother Roger was the founder and Superior General of a religious order that is ecumenical to which the Church gave approval and a papal bull. There are only four orders in the Church that have ever received a papal bull: Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians and now the Brothers of Taize. In fact, their current Superior General is a Catholic.

It would have been difficult to explain why Ratzinger denied communion to the Superior General of a religious order recognized by the Church. Sometimes the Bishops have to think in bigger pictures than we lay men and women do. They have insights into rules and regulations that we do not. They also have insights into things that can do harm to the mission of the Church.

In such situations, they leave matters to the conscience and God.

As long as they explain the rules for receiving communion, the Church has fulfilled its moral and pastoral duty.

JR 🙂
 
However I hope Protestants who do this don’t because they feel “left out”. It’s not a good thing to do.
 
JReducation said:
I don’t know if you watched the Papal masses on EWTN. EWTN gave a very good explanation of this.
  1. The reception of communion by those who should not receive it becomes the moral responsibility of the receiver not the minister.
  2. When Tony Blair, before he became Catholic and Brother Roger, Superior General of Taize, who was Lutheran, asked for Communion, Benedict XVI personally gave them communion recalling the teaching of the Church that says that in some circumstances an ordinary (Bishop or Major Religious Superior) can authorize the reception of the sacrament to someone who is not in communion with the Church as long as the person believes in the Eucharist as Catholics believe.
  3. Pope Benedict had also established a precedent that said it was better not to cause a conflict during the distribution and reception of the liturgy.
  4. The rule in the Sacramentary says that those attending a mass must be warned before the mass begins the conditions for receiving communion. Once those rules have been stated to the congregation, the minister is no longer responsible if someone violates the rule. That’s up to the individual and God to sort out.
  5. As to protecting the Sacrament, Dr. Scott Hahn explained that the Bishop has to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecratioin. Unworthy reception of communion does not fit the theological definition of desecration.
    JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Good response JR. Judgment is God’s, not ours.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
JReducation said:
  1. Canon law does allow for communion to be given to those outside the Church. It is based on a teaching that came from Pius X. The theology says that if the person believes the same as a Catholic about the Eucharist, the bishop or the major religious superior (if it’s in a chapel or institution adminstered by a religius order) can authorize it.
  2. The regulations also say that the burden of conscience is on the receiver, not the minister. The law about non Catholics or Catholics in a state of sin no receiving communion was created not to protect Catholics, but to protect the person who receives unworthily. The Church is trying to help them avoid committing a sacrilege. However, the Church puts the rules in place to help these people, but it will never take a universal stand on this. …4. As I cited before, the Pope himself has given communion to non Catholics and has said that he did it because it was the charitable thing to do. He believes that charity flows from the Eucharist. You cannot believe in the Eucharist and be uncharitable at the same time. It does not work that way. The Eucharist is the greatest sign of God’s charity. Therefore, man has not right to be less charitable and more judgemental than God.
We saw this at the papal masses in Washington and NY. The diocesan bishops were following the Pope’s example on previous occasions. They left the matter between the individual and God.

At the funeral mass for Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger gave communion to Brother Roger of Taize who was a Lutheran. What was the technicality that allowed this? Brother Roger was the founder and Superior General of a religious order that is ecumenical to which the Church gave approval and a papal bull. There are only four orders in the Church that have ever received a papal bull: Benedictines, Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians and now the Brothers of Taize. In fact, their current Superior General is a Catholic.

It would have been difficult to explain why Ratzinger denied communion to the Superior General of a religious order recognized by the Church. Sometimes the Bishops have to think in bigger pictures than we lay men and women do. They have insights into rules and regulations that we do not. They also have insights into things that can do harm to the mission of the Church.

In such situations, they leave matters to the conscience and God.

As long as they explain the rules for receiving communion, the Church has fulfilled its moral and pastoral duty.

JR 🙂
Click to expand...
I am having a difficult time making sense out of what you say about giving Holy Communion to Protestants, because Catholic priests have been suspended for failing to show remorse for admitting a Protestant to Holy Communion during a Mass. For example, this occurred in July 2003, in Berlin, when Bishop Reinhard Marx suspended Father Gotthold Hasenhuettl for violating canon law and for failing to show remorse for admitting a Protestant to Holy Communion.
 
bobzills said:
I am having a difficult time making sense out of what you say about giving Holy Communion to Protestants, because Catholic priests have been suspended for failing to show remorse for admitting a Protestant to Holy Communion during a Mass. For example, this occurred in July 2003, in Berlin, when Bishop Reinhard Marx suspended Father Gotthold Hasenhuettl for violating canon law and for failing to show remorse for admitting a Protestant to Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
Canon law says that only Ordinaries can make such a decision. An Ordinary can be either a bishop or in the case of a religious house the Major Superior is the ordinary, even if he is not a bishop.

Anyone who is not an ordinary does not have this authority.

A deacon or priest can give communion to a non Catholic, without permission from an ordinary in case of danger of death, if the person requests it.

Hope this helps.

JR 🙂
 
JReducation said:
…The reception of communion by those who should not receive it becomes the moral responsibility of the receiver not the minister.
Click to expand...
As ArchBishop Burke explained in The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin, you confuse the norm of can. 916, which applies to the self-examination of the individual communicant, with the norm of can. 915, which obliges the minister of Holy Communion to refuse the Sacrament in the cases indicated.
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
(source)
ArchBishop Burke explains this further, citing Pope John Paul II:
…Pope John Paul II then proceeded to discuss the case of grave public sin, relating the self-judgment of unworthiness to receive to the refusal of Holy Communion to the person remaining in manifest grievous sin. He declared:
The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to the situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.Pope John Paul II made it clear that the norm of can. 915 is required by the Church’s teaching on the respect due to the Most Blessed Sacrament and her concern to avoid scandal in the community.
(source)
​
(Continued…)
 
JReducation said:
When Tony Blair, before he became Catholic and Brother Roger, Superior General of Taize, who was Lutheran, asked for Communion, Benedict XVI personally gave them communion recalling the teaching of the Church that says that in some circumstances an ordinary (Bishop or Major Religious Superior) can authorize the reception of the sacrament to someone who is not in communion with the Church as long as the person believes in the Eucharist as Catholics believe.
Click to expand...
“As long as the person believes in teh Eucharist as Catholics believe” is only a part of it. There has to also be danger of death or grave necessity, and the non-catholic has to be without access to a minister of their own religous group:
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord,** provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed**.
Neither of those you mentioned were in danger of death, neither were unable to approach their own ministers, and at least one (Blair) was not properly disposed for his public promotion and support of legalized abortion.

(continued…)
 
JReducation said:
Pope Benedict had also established a precedent that said it was better not to cause a conflict during the distribution and reception of the liturgy.
Click to expand...
When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, Number 6)
JReducation said:
The rule in the Sacramentary says that those attending a mass must be warned before the mass begins the conditions for receiving communion. Once those rules have been stated to the congregation, the minister is no longer responsible if someone violates the rule. That’s up to the individual and God to sort out.
Click to expand...
Source please.
JReducation said:
As to protecting the Sacrament, Dr. Scott Hahn explained that the Bishop has to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecratioin. Unworthy reception of communion does not fit the theological definition of desecration.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you feel this way. I’ll just finish with more words from ArchBishop Burke - I encourage you to read his document on the matter.
…it is clear that Church discipline places an obligation on the minister of Holy Communion to refuse Holy Communion to persons known, by the public, to be in mortal sin. The discipline, faithful to the teaching of Saint Paul, safeguards the recognition of the most sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist, preventing public sinners from inflicting further grave damage upon their souls through the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist and safeguarding the faithful from the inevitable confusion regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament, which is caused by the admission of manifest and grave sinners to the reception of Holy Communion.
(source)
Allow me to ennumerate these reasons for the obligatory refusal of admitting public sinners to reception of Holy Communion, just for clarity’s sake. It…

  1. *]Safeguards the recognition of the most sacred nature of the Holy Eucharist.
    *]Prevents public sinners from inflicting further grave damage upon their souls.
    *]Safeguards the faithful from the inevitable confusion regarding the sacredness of the Sacrament.

    Peace in Christ,

    DustinsDad
 
😃
JReducation said:
I don’t know if you watched the Papal masses on EWTN. EWTN gave a very good explanation of this.
  1. The reception of communion by those who should not receive it becomes the moral responsibility of the receiver not the minister.
  2. When Tony Blair, before he became Catholic and Brother Roger, Superior General of Taize, who was Lutheran, asked for Communion, Benedict XVI personally gave them communion recalling the teaching of the Church that says that in some circumstances an ordinary (Bishop or Major Religious Superior) can authorize the reception of the sacrament to someone who is not in communion with the Church as long as the person believes in the Eucharist as Catholics believe.
  3. Pope Benedict had also established a precedent that said it was better not to cause a conflict during the distribution and reception of the liturgy.
  4. The rule in the Sacramentary says that those attending a mass must be warned before the mass begins the conditions for receiving communion. Once those rules have been stated to the congregation, the minister is no longer responsible if someone violates the rule. That’s up to the individual and God to sort out.
  5. As to protecting the Sacrament, Dr. Scott Hahn explained that the Bishop has to protect the Blessed Sacrament from desecratioin. Unworthy reception of communion does not fit the theological definition of desecration.
JR 🙂
Click to expand...
Hello JR, I posted on this forum ranting and raving about some of our PUBLIC government reps. having received communion at the very public Mass in Yankee Stadium . I think they gave Scandal to the Church because they have publically given support to abortion rights, but still received communion at this very public place. What has happened to what was one time a very big sin of giving Scandal, or giving misrepresentation of the teachings of the Church to many who deem the Eucharist sancrosanct? I don’t think the Pope, Bishops etc. should have made a public display of this being unacceptable, but I didn’t hear anyone reminding those same officials they were taking their souls in their own hands by receiving Communion. We may very well not judge the state of the souls of those doing this, but wanna bet they will keep right on doing the same thing, because the Church didn’t take a switch to them? And I wonder how many other Catholics and Protestants will be misinformed because of this??? Although I watched the Mass on EWTN, I didn’t turn on the TV in time to hear what was said about this?? Tome, tome, tome?? 😃 Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top