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

[AJV]

I have a book, How Christ Said The First Mass, though I admit I haven’t gotten into it yet, though I do know it doesn’t support Communion in the hand. The book details Jewish rituals at the time of Jesus, but like I said, I haven’t read much of it at this time.

Fr. Meagher’s book is not a very good source. He superimposes the Traditional Mass on the Last Supper (with a great deal of supposition) and stretches things to fit an amalgamation of Jewish rituals

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I attended a very modern church in Mobile, with a very modern service, but was shocked to discover that there were two communion rails on the side of the sanctuary, and that people knelt there as communion began, were given the host and chalice at the rail, before the priest moved on to the queue of people standing.

Rather neat compromise, I thought.

Very interesting! This is the sort of situation that helps build up the church rather than tearing apart with the acrimony and righteous tyranny that Communion-on-the-tongue people usually seem to espouse.

The situation is gradual, and will succeed or fail depending on how well it is implemented. This seems more calm, more rational than the usual battles we are forced to engage in with the Communion-on-the-tongue people.

 

[latinmasslover]

Fr. Meagher’s book is not a very good source. He superimposes the Traditional Mass on the Last Supper (with a great deal of supposition) and stretches things to fit an amalgamation of Jewish rituals

Is this personal opinion or fact? Is there evidence that counters what he says? I haven’t gotten into the book yet, I’d like to know where the alleged (no offense) fallacies are before I dive in. Thanks.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Is this personal opinion or fact? Is there evidence that counters what he says? I haven’t gotten into the book yet, I’d like to know where the alleged (no offense) fallacies are before I dive in. Thanks.

I now understand why you are so strong in your opinions. That is shown by your positing positions on a book you have not read and defending your opinions about it. Most people would read it first before they talk about it. I think that might help.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[latinmasslover]

I now understand why you are so strong in your opinions. That is shown by your positing positions on a book you have not read and defending your opinions about it. Most people would read it first before they talk about it. I think that might help.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I clarified this on another thread. Your argument against me here might hold if I was basing my opinion on a statement I pulled out of that book. This is not the case. I have been “strong in” this opinion years before I even heard of that book.

 

[DustinsDad]

It is interesting to note the direction this thread has taken. Now we are discussing “open communion” - that is, giving Holy Communion to manifest public sinners and to non-catholics. Why is this interesting? It’s the same forces at work, the same methodology…only now the stakes are yet higher because this trancends practice and goes to Divine Law.

Yet now again, the modernists and liberals argue every which way they can to “get around” the issue, to “ok” the scandalous practice of open communion in obvious and blatant contradiction to Church and Divine Law. Violate it often enough and for a long enough duration of time, it is hoped, they’ll be able to change it.

Such is the reality of the times - one of the woes mentioned by Our Lord.
*Matthew 18:6-7
*But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.
Lord have mercy on us all.

DustinsDad

 

[JReducation]

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

This announcement is always made at a big liturgy such as these were.

That being said, the Pope and the Bishops feel that it is their responsibility to inform people so that they do not approach the Eucharist unworthily. They also feel it is not their responsibility to stand guard at the communion line. That’s a problem that the individual has to deal with God.

Benedict began this practice as Cardinal Ratzinger during John Paul’s funeral and has continued it. He believes very strongly that canon law says it all very clearly. Bishops have the right to dispense with this rule and he’s not backing down on this.

When he was challenged, after he was Pope for giving communion to Tony Blair, who was till Proteestant, his answerr was “mind your own business.”

He was more polite, but that’s what it added up to. His response was, “it was the charitable thing to do.” He refused to discuss it any more.

The question was raised by the lay people. Benedict has a very consistent practice of not responding when the laity question his actions or those of the Bishops.

My advice is to drop the subject and do whatever the Pope says is legal. This is one case that is allowed by Canon Law. Any Pastor (bishop) can overlook this if they feel they have a good reason to do so and do not have to explain it to the laity, nor do they want to do so.

I have learned to follow canon law and shut my mouth.

JR

 

[bobzills]

My advice is to drop the subject and do whatever the Pope says is legal.

The problem i see with dropping a subject is that they told me that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to embrace heresy. And Catholics have a serious responsibility to understand what is and what is not heresy. Otherwise, an unrepented mortal sin will send someone to hell. Now some might say that it is abdicating one’s responsibility to learn about Catholicism and to drop a subject and to advocate a position which some say may be heretical, such as for example, giving Holy Communion to someone outside of the Church by reason of a second or third marriage. And there is also the question of why for almost two thousand years Catholic Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians, Bible translators, said that the Blood of Christ was shed for many, but now it is said that the Blood of Christ is shed for all. And what is the implication of this change, except to reinforce support for open communion and for the doctrine of the apokastasis?

 

[MrS]

It is interesting to note the direction this thread has taken. Now we are discussing “open communion” - that is, giving Holy Communion to manifest public sinners and to non-catholics. Why is this interesting? It’s the same forces at work, the same methodology…only now the stakes are yet higher because this trancends practice and goes to Divine Law.

Yet now again, the modernists and liberals argue every which way they can to “get around” the issue, to “ok” the scandalous practice of open communion in obvious and blatant contradiction to Church and Divine Law. Violate it often enough and for a long enough duration of time, it is hoped, they’ll be able to change it.

Lord have mercy on us all.

DustinsDad

Yes it is interesting, but not unexpected. I had hoped many (not all) would see that here is a “norm” which not that long ago would have been considered both an abuse and a sacrledge.

This “norm” is being addressed in the book’s Preface by one with some degree of valid opinion.

But those who want or need the more “horizontal” in the liturgy become either concerned or downright upset that a decision may be reached on reason instead of emotion.

As to the liturgy… its music, its postures, its translations…

More of Him…Less of me. It is called worship. What we too often see is a self expression.

.

 

[MrS]

Malachi 3:3 talks of the refiner and his silver.

Most agree that the “silver” is the Church, and to a certain degree each of us.

Well a story is told about someone who wondered about the work of the refiner and went to a silversmith with questions…

Q: How do you refine the silver…

A: Well, the silver is exposed to the hottest part of the flame, and the impurites need to be burned away.

Q: Well, Malachi 3:3 indicates that the refiner (God) actually sits there and watches the process.

A: That is true. If I leave the silver in too long it will be ruined. So I must sit there and watch it until the refining is complete.

Q: How do you know when the silver (insert person, insert liturgy if you wish) is finished and perfectly refined?

A: Oh, that is easy. When the only image I can see in it is myself.

.

 

[JReducation]

There are some very interesting and important points in this post that can be addressed through reason, faith, mystical theology, ecclesiology, canon law and systematic theology. But they all have to work together to address these points. One without the rest, will only confuse or not answer the question.

The problem i see with dropping a subject is that they told me that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to embrace heresy.

This continues to be true. There is not change in this area.

What has changed is the Church’s understanding of heretic. The Church no longer accuses those who are born into the Reformation Churches to be heretics, even if they believe some of the heresies that the Reformation communnities belive. You’re not guilty by association. This is a better understanding ecclesiology than we had in the past. Because Luther was a heretic, doesn’t make Lutherans today heretics. Truth remains truth. However, the understanding of truth becomes broader and deeper, especially through the mystical life of the Church. The more we understand how the Spirit works within the soul, the better we understand what God expects of us and what our ministry should be.

And Catholics have a serious responsibility to understand what is and what is not heresy.

This is true and this is why the Church has published the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. The revised version is now available and is better than the original, because it is a direct translation from the Latin and has the accompanying notes, not just references which one had to go looking for. I highly recommend going to www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com and purchasing it. It’s not expensive.

Otherwise, an unrepented mortal sin will send someone to hell.

It’s funny that you should bring that up. The other day someone brought that up to Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Regis Scalon, TOR on a program on EWTN. They explained that one can never underestimate the seriousness of mortal sin. They also explained that one must look at the Book of Job. God agrees that he will not destroy the city if he finds just one just man. They pointed out that God’s mercy outdoes his justice. Therefore, the Church finds it difficult to say that one mortal sin will annul an entire life of Christian virtue. That would be the same as saying that one mortal sin outweighs all of the love, prayer, charity, penance and sacramental life of the individual. In essence, it’s like saying that one mortal sin annuls all of the graces that God has given you.

The great mystics all agree that God does not take away what he gives us. This does not mean that we go around commiting mortal sins and count on God’s mercy without any accountablity, much less repentence. It means that we have to put things into perspective so that we do not fall into the error of scrupulosity. Scrupulosity is a serious problem which can become a moral and a mental health problem.

Now some might say that it is abdicating one’s responsibility to learn about Catholicism and to drop a subject and to advocate a position which some say may be heretical, such as for example, giving Holy Communion to someone outside of the Church by reason of a second or third marriage.

St. John of the Cross wrote and the Church confirmed as correct that the moral responsibility is in the hands of the Church’s authority, not yours or mine. If the Church law says that a Bishop can give communion to a certain person under certain circumstances, then it becomes the moral responsibility of the Bishop, not the laity or even the person receiving the Sacrament.

By the way the Church does not teach that it is heresy to give communion to a person such as you describe. The Church says that such a person is unable to receive communion until they rectify their situation. Heresy is to teach a false doctrine. Breaking the law and teaching a false docrine are not the same thing.

No law says that you should give communion to someone who should not recieve it.

Canon Law says that an Ordinary can permit communion to a non Catholic who believes what we believe about the Eucharist. As to giving communion to say Juliani at the Papal mass, this is not written in the law. The Bishops were following the precedent established by the Holy Father. He preferred to do this than to create an uncharitable situation.

We can argue whether the Holy Father was right or wrong, but what’s the use? The deed is done and he is not interested in hearing anyone’s opinion on it. especially the laity’s. Pope Benedict is very traditional when it comes to separation between Bishops and lay people, clergy and lay people, religious and lay people. Why do you think he wanted a special mass just for religious and clerics? He considers them to be a separate group from the laity. Only invited lay people were allowed at that mass in St. Patrick’s. The religious and the clerics got their tickets by lotery.

And there is also the question of why for almost two thousand years Catholic Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, theologians, Bible translators, said that the Blood of Christ was shed for many, but now it is said that the Blood of Christ is shed for all.

The problem is that the wording the synoptic gospels, John and Paul do not agree. Mt and Mk say “for many”, Lk says “for you”, John and Paul say “for all”

This is where ecclesiology comes into play with eschatology. If Christ is truly the redeemer, then Paul’s argument at the Council of Jerusalem is correct. Christ died for all. Paul repeats himself in Rom 5, 8.

There is a valid point here, which allows for the word many. Not everyone who calls out Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. Only those who live by love of God shall be saved. See Mt 25, 31-46.

JR

 

[Jeanette_L]

The problem is that the wording the synoptic gospels, John and Paul do not agree. Mt and Mk say “for many”, Lk says “for you”, John and Paul say “for all”

This is where ecclesiology comes into play with eschatology. If Christ is truly the redeemer, then Paul’s argument at the Council of Jerusalem is correct. Christ died for all. Paul repeats himself in Rom 5, 8.

There is a valid point here, which allows for the word many. Not everyone who calls out Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. Only those who live by love of God shall be saved. See Mt 25, 31-46.

JR

It seems to me that common sense and reason in light of all of Holy Scripture and in light of the whole of the Catholic teaching throughout the Church’s life would help us to see that Christ did shed his blood for all, “that whosoever believes in him shall be saved”.

It was shed for all, but it is the response of the individual to whatever light and grace God gives him that procures that blood for his own salvation.

And we cannot be the judge of what ultimately the response of each individual is in their total lifetime, only God is able to judge this from the richness of His own wisdom. We are best to leave it to Him as he commanded and trust that He is leading us, his Church, into the fullness of understanding as we grow in wisdom and grace as His Body on earth.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

JR & Jeanette,these were both very good responses.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[JReducation]

JR & Jeanette,these were both very good responses.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Thank you Rev. Deacon

 

[bobzills]

It seems to me that common sense and reason in light of all of Holy Scripture and in light of the whole of the Catholic teaching throughout the Church’s life would help us to see that Christ did shed his blood for all, “that whosoever believes in him shall be saved”…

Then I am a bit perplexed as to why for two thousand years before Vatican II, Popes, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, and theologians all declared that the Blood was shed for many? Were they wrong then?

 

[bobzills]

The problem is that the wording the synoptic gospels, John and Paul do not agree. Mt and Mk say “for many”, Lk says “for you”, John and Paul say “for all”

I wasn’t familiar with the synoptic gospel of Paul Perhaps you can direct me to the gospel of Paul, where in the Consecration of the wine, there is the statment for all?

 

[AJV]

Is this personal opinion or fact? Is there evidence that counters what he says? I haven’t gotten into the book yet, I’d like to know where the alleged (no offense) fallacies are before I dive in. Thanks.

Both. If you read, say, Fr. Fortescue’s book “The Mass” or the work by Fr. Jungmann or any relatively solid work on the history of the Mass and its ceremonies, it will become evident immediately. There are so many patently false statements therein that it would take another book to list them. For example, allegations on the colour of the cassocks, or seeing a the ancestor of the humeral veil being used at the Last Supper. Likewise several statements relating to deacons and subdeacons and their parallels with temple worship and the Last Supper

Let me offer one concrete example. Meagher writes:

While singing the Creed, James went to the credence table where with the wine and water rested on its cross the roasted lamb. He takes up the plate on which it rests, passes by where the Lord and his ministers are in the sanctuary, bows deeply down before his Lord and Master, and goes to the table in the middle of the Cenacle. On the table he spreads a linen cloth, on that lays the dish with the lamb, returns into the sanctuary, bows to the Lord, and sits in his place beside his Master. Today that very ceremony is seen at every High Mass while the Creed is sung. The deacon bows to the celebrant, goes to the credence table, takes the burse with its corporal, bows to the celebrant, goes and spreads the corporal on the altar, returns, bows to the celebrant and sits in his place.

Apart from the VERY apparent fact that he is superimposing here, there are several things wrong with this scenario:

• the supposition that James (a) did that (b) was a “deacon- antecedent”
• the Creed being introduced at much later date in Rome. Moreover when introduced elsewhere in the Catholic world it occurred at different places. Meagher comfortably assumes the Roman practice
• from the Ordines Romani and other Ordo’s, one can easily see that this ceremony (go to the centre, bow, etc.) was not present in the same way it is in the High Mass. It was different

 

[AJV]

Is this personal opinion or fact? Is there evidence that counters what he says? I haven’t gotten into the book yet, I’d like to know where the alleged (no offense) fallacies are before I dive in. Thanks.

Both. If you read, say, Fr. Fortescue’s book “The Mass” or the work by Fr. Jungmann or any relatively solid work on the history of the Mass and its ceremonies, it will become evident immediately. There are so many patently false statements therein that it would take another book to list them. For example, allegations on the colour of the cassocks, or seeing a the ancestor of the humeral veil being used at the Last Supper. Very conveniently, the Temple colours are those of the Roman sequence of colours for vestments- despite the fact that those took several centuries to develop. Likewise several statements relating to deacons and subdeacons and their parallels with temple worship and the Last Supper

Let me offer one concrete example. Meagher writes:

While singing the Creed, James went to the credence table where with the wine and water rested on its cross the roasted lamb. He takes up the plate on which it rests, passes by where the Lord and his ministers are in the sanctuary, bows deeply down before his Lord and Master, and goes to the table in the middle of the Cenacle. On the table he spreads a linen cloth, on that lays the dish with the lamb, returns into the sanctuary, bows to the Lord, and sits in his place beside his Master. Today that very ceremony is seen at every High Mass while the Creed is sung. The deacon bows to the celebrant, goes to the credence table, takes the burse with its corporal, bows to the celebrant, goes and spreads the corporal on the altar, returns, bows to the celebrant and sits in his place.

Apart from the VERY apparent fact that he is superimposing here, there are several things wrong with this scenario:

• the supposition that James (a) did that (b) was a “deacon- antecedent”
• the Creed being introduced at much later date in Rome. Moreover when introduced elsewhere in the Catholic world it occurred at different places. Meagher comfortably assumes the Roman practice
• from the Ordines Romani and other Ordo’s, one can easily see that this ceremony (go to the centre, bow, etc.) was not present in the same way it is in the High Mass. It was different

I do not say that everything in the book in wrong. But there is a great deal of inaccuracy mixed up in there.

Deacon EdB: Fr. Meagher does not say that the apostles received Communion on the tongue. He says they received in the hand and this was the way it was received in the early Church. He surprisingly notes that this is the way some of the Eastern Churches receive. Whether he was thinking of some of the Assyrians among whom it persisted, I don’t know…but I always thought that at the date of the book, it was practically universal in East and West to receive on the tongue

 

[AJV]

Is this personal opinion or fact? Is there evidence that counters what he says? I haven’t gotten into the book yet, I’d like to know where the alleged (no offense) fallacies are before I dive in. Thanks.

None taken.

Both. If you read, say, Fr. Fortescue’s book “The Mass” or the work by Fr. Jungmann or any relatively solid work on the history of the Mass and its ceremonies, it will become evident immediately. There are so many patently false statements therein that it would take another book to list them. For example, allegations on the colour of the cassocks, or seeing a the ancestor of the humeral veil being used at the Last Supper. Very conveniently, the Temple colours are those of the Roman sequence of colours for vestments- despite the fact that those took several centuries to develop. Likewise several statements relating to deacons and subdeacons and their parallels with temple worship and the Last Supper

Let me offer one concrete example. Meagher writes:

While singing the Creed, James went to the credence table where with the wine and water rested on its cross the roasted lamb. He takes up the plate on which it rests, passes by where the Lord and his ministers are in the sanctuary, bows deeply down before his Lord and Master, and goes to the table in the middle of the Cenacle. On the table he spreads a linen cloth, on that lays the dish with the lamb, returns into the sanctuary, bows to the Lord, and sits in his place beside his Master. Today that very ceremony is seen at every High Mass while the Creed is sung. The deacon bows to the celebrant, goes to the credence table, takes the burse with its corporal, bows to the celebrant, goes and spreads the corporal on the altar, returns, bows to the celebrant and sits in his place.

Apart from the VERY apparent fact that he is superimposing here, there are several things wrong with this scenario:

• the supposition that James (a) did that (b) was a “deacon- antecedent”
• the Creed being introduced at much later date in Rome. Moreover when introduced elsewhere in the Catholic world it occurred at different places. Meagher comfortably assumes the Roman practice
• from the Ordines Romani and other Ordo’s, one can easily see that this ceremony (go to the centre, bow, etc.) was not present in the same way it is in the High Mass. It was different

I do not say that everything in the book in wrong. But there is a great deal of inaccuracy mixed up in there.

Deacon EdB: Fr. Meagher does not say that the apostles received Communion on the tongue. He says they received in the hand and this was the way it was received in the early Church (noting the also that women covered their hands with a white cloth). He surprisingly notes that this is the way some of the Eastern Churches receive. Whether he was thinking of some of the Assyrians among whom it persisted, I don’t know…but I always thought that at the date of the book, it was practically universal in East and West to receive on the tongue

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I wasn’t familiar with the synoptic gospel of Paul Perhaps you can direct me to the gospel of Paul, where in the Consecration of the wine, there is the statment for all?

JR was not referring to a synoptic gospel of Paul, but to the synoptic gospels and Paul, i.e., his writings in his epistles… Hope this helps.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B