M
- Status
O
Ockham
Guest
By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.
olrl.org/misc/jones_stats.shtml
O
Ockham
Guest
What effect have these innovations had in your mind?
D
DaveBj
Guest
(I’m skipping a lot of posts in chiming in on this; if someone else has already pointed this out, then I apologize.)
Actually, what St. Paul wrote was “adelphoi,” which is the masculine plural, “brethren/brothers.” I believe his intention was not to exclude the female members, but if he had intended to write “brothers and sisters,” he would have written “adelphoi kai adelphai.”
DaveBj (Language Geek)
J
jmcrae
Guest
If he intended to mean “brothers and sisters” then it is not wrong to translate it as “brothers and sisters.” In our current culture, the term “brothers” refers to males, only. If St. Paul intended to mean males only, then it would be correct to translate it as “brothers” without including the sisters.
D
DaveBj
Guest
I prefer to stick with what’s in the Greek and/or Latin, with the understanding that in an English Bible translation, “brethren” means both brethren and sistern.
DaveBj
D
davymax3
Guest
And if you were the Pastor I would certainly respect that choice. I think both are valid. This is my point. A priest choosing the “brothers and sisters” line is not making any error, at least not an error serious enough to cause a lector to go ahead and just change it by his own authority.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
NB:
IT DOESN’T MATTER A FIG WHAT SAINT PAUL WROTE!
**The line in question is not part of St Paul’s writing – It is a deliberate addition to the
for use in the United States!**
IT IS WHAT THE USCCB, WITH THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE, INTENDS TO BE READ AT MASS!
*Sheesh *-- How hard is it to grasp this???
tee
IT DOESN’T MATTER A FIG WHAT SAINT PAUL WROTE! **The line in question is not part of St Paul’s writing – It is a deliberate addition to the
Code:
APPROVED LECTIONARYIT IS WHAT THE USCCB, WITH THE EXPRESS APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE, INTENDS TO BE READ AT MASS!
*Sheesh *-- How hard is it to grasp this???
tee
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
All of which jibes pretty well with the Catholics-in-the-pew vs Catholics-outside-the-pew view – I am told that each week the average parish collects envelopes from ~25% of its registered parishioners.
My :twocents: : Poor catechesis results in a population which understands neither the precept to assist at Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation nor the nature of the Eucharist.
(Nor, undoubtedly, a number of other truths)
tee
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe it was “bad” but it did work. A change in the text is still a change.
YES! You got it. More of the original Latin would not be a change and the integrity of Paul VI’s Mass and Vatican II would be preserved.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I think this is what people expected after Vatican II, not the ICEL.
N
need_to_know
Guest
What does it mean to 'assist at Mass’? Like, I am an altar server so obviously I assist the priest but not everyone at mass is expected to actually provide assistance, right?
D
davymax3
Guest
We are all assisting in the mass. The priest presides over the mass. We assist him in doing so through our prayers, our presence, singing, etc.
M
Matt33
Guest
I didn’t mean WYD sorry… I meant the trip by Holy Father to the US. My mistake.
the Catholic media made quite a fuss over the reception of Our Lord. I understand the Pope didd too. Hence, shortly after… The Pope expressing that he wishes people recieving from him do so kneeling and on the tounge.
O
Orogeny
Guest
OK, let’s see what your links say.
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=28788889&
"Thus, in the wake of an organic development, by at least as early as the 6th century, the Church began to give the Holy Eucharist directly into the mouth. "
Even at that point, the Church was distributing Communion into the hand to many. Your argument is not sustained.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM
“It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”
Supports my claim. Your argument is not sustained.
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm
“ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.”
If those are true, at least one Doctor of the Church was excommunicated (St. Cyril of Jerusalem) when he wrote (in what is considered, as noted in the Catholic Encyclopedia “among the most precious remains of Christian antiquity”) "Then come the “Sancta Sanctis” and the Communion. “Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it.” newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm
Regardless, it is clear that Communion was taken in the hand by many Christians. Your argument is not sustained.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/communion.htm
Link did not work.
geocities.com/cath_apolo/Comion.htm?20097
“It is often argued that for the first few centuries of Christianity, Holy Communion was received in the hand and so why shouldn’t it continue in this way. However this was due to the Fact that that the Christians were being persecuted and no real Councils could be held , yet under the Synod of Rouen in 650 AD Hand Communion was condemned as an abuse. Also as eucharistic doctrine developed and eucharistic abuses increased (using the sacred host for satanic rites, for example),the Church gradually withdrew the option, so that already in eighth- century Spain Communion on the tongue was mandated, and by the early Middle Ages that was the case for the whole Church.”
Your link supports my statement that many if not most received Communion in the hand. Your argument is not supported.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/Fathersoncom.htm
Same as the latin mass society link. I wonder why Pope Leo XIII named an excommunicated bishop a Doctor of the Church? Regardless, my point stands. Communion was taken in the hand by many if not most.
Your argument is not supported.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
Some of the same arguments as the other links. This one, however, even includes a discussion of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. After mentioning him, though, they just ignore his writing and act like he just made it up.
Your argument is not supported.
Now, you might argue that your point is that Communion in the hand is not allowed for whatever reason even though the Church does not agree with you. However, regardless of your feeling on the appropriateness of the action, Communion in the hand was common if not the norm prior to the Council of Trent.
Peace
Tim
O
Ockham
Guest
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. My argument isn’t CITH never occured, it is that it was ruled as an abuse. You said CITH went on for 1,000 to which I responded ‘not according to my research’ The quotes you provided support that. CITH was banned in the 6thCentury, not the tenth. Now it is allowed by an indult, an exception, as the norm is on tongue while kneeling. Why do you put such vigour into an indult? Do you not wish to show our Lord the greatest reverence when receiving Him in the Blessed Sacrament?
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Issued on May 29, 1969.
When the Church celebrates the memorial of the Lord it affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of him, Christ present in the sacrifice and given as food to those who share the eucharistic table.
For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man’s spiritual and psychological needs. Further, a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity’s participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced. It had once been common in the Latin Church too, but had subsequently been progressively abandoned. This state of affairs had become general by the time of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned and defended it by dogmatic teaching as being suited to the conditions of that time.[1]
These changes have made of the eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ’s command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.
Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.
However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]
Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Issued on May 29, 1969.When the Church celebrates the memorial of the Lord it affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of him, Christ present in the sacrifice and given as food to those who share the eucharistic table.
For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man’s spiritual and psychological needs. Further, a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity’s participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced. It had once been common in the Latin Church too, but had subsequently been progressively abandoned. This state of affairs had become general by the time of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned and defended it by dogmatic teaching as being suited to the conditions of that time.[1]
These changes have made of the eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ’s command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.
Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.
However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]
Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]
O
Ockham
Guest
Tim, you seem to be using historical examples of disobedience to prove your point. The fact someone was excommunicated for CITH actually supports my argument and defeats yours. Just because the Vatican issued an indult doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Perhaps we are like teenagers being given the latitude to make our own choices.
“A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion. In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist.” Pope Paul VI
“A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion. In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist.” Pope Paul VI
B
BayernAnhaenger
Guest
A handful of mentions from 1600 years ago trumps what Catholics have done for 500 straight years.
And Vatican “permission” of it, equates to full-hearted support of a practice (See: EMHCs, altar girls, CitH…).
Don’t you know that Ockham?
O
Orogeny
Guest
Was St. Cyril of Jerusalem excommunicated? Should Pope Leo XIII be considered excommunicated since he named the saint a Doctor of the Church (which would have been ludicrous had he been excommunicated)?
The fact that the Vatican issued an indult does make it the right thing to do. If the Church truly believes receiving Communion in the hand is wrong but OFFICIALLY allows us to do so, she is leading us into error. Is the Church intentionally leading us into error, Ockham?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Perhaps you and Ockham know better than the Church does. Maybe you should write to the Holy Father and point out that his lack of withrawl of the indult is leading Catholics in error. Let me know what he says.And Vatican “permission” of it, equates to full-hearted support of a practice (See: EMHCs, altar girls, CitH…).
Don’t you know that Ockham?
Peace
Tim
- Status