Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches

[holy_moly]

Firstly, it’s not as though indults have been given for abortion or gay marriage for starters! These are behaviours that are not EVEN permitted by the Church under any circumstances. The comparison fails right there.

Secondly, if I thought with any sort of conviction that my teenager doing their homework over the weekend was really worse than their doing it on Friday, or my spouse spending money on themselves was really worse than their spending it on me, I would BOTH express my disapproval AND not give permission (assuming permission lies within my power) for either.

I wouldn’t be a good parent or spouse if I misused my authority by permitting them do something that was seriously offensive or that I thought was genuinely wrong. That’s WHY indults have never been given for abortion or gay marriage, that’s why the Church has never felt the urge to ‘test our love’ in those areas - those are issues that the Chur?ch feels strongly about

Shouldn’t this post be directed at supercatholic…:? coffeeread:

 

[soflochristmas]

Isn’t it a bit over the top to compare receiving in the hand w/ abortion & gay marriage SC? You are right about it not being a ‘feeling’ however; reverence in any form can never be reduced to such superficiality…

The acts weren’t compared…the thinking that justifies them was.

 

[LilyM]

Communion in the hand is not intrinsically evil, like abortion or gay marriage; I don’t think any of us ever meant to claim that it was. This is why the Church gave an indult permitting. It is, however, unworthy of the dignity of the Blessed Sacrament and** a profanation of It**, which is why the Church has never full-heartedly approved it either.

The comparison with a teenager doing homework on Friday seems to me to be a perfect analogy; some parents would in fact be that lenient (especially if their child is pushy and difficult to manage, as we sinners are), and the Church - prudently or imprudently - also granted us that lenience.

So CITH is not intrinsically evil, yet in the next breath you call it a profanation. Meaning that every single person who receives CITH in fact commits the mortal sin of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament? In what parallel universe does that not make CITH in fact intrinsically evil?

And according to you the church in fact permits the vast majority of us to mortally sin in this way? What sort of Holy Spirit do you worship that would allow the Magisterium to open up the floodgates to mortal sin in this fashion?

"Woe to you when you call evil good, and good evil’. Sure, many evils occur in the Church, but when the Magisterium calls mortal sin permissible then the gates of Hell have truly prevailed, my friend.

And to suggest that it is doing so in order to be lenient to sinners … well, witness the Church’s well-known track record of leniency to those who want to sin via contraception, those who want to sin via abortion, via remarriage without annulment, via gay sex or gay marriage and so on …

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Profane does not equal evil, Lily. “Profane” merely means ‘something that isn’t holy.’ “Evil” means ‘the opposite of holy.’

Your hands are profane. They are not holy. But they aren’t evil.

Tiny particles of Jesus fall into your hands when you take Communion in the hand. Then you brush your hands on your skirt and Jesus falls to the floor.

Communion in the hand does not afford Jesus the same kind of respect as Communion on the tongue.

If you can prove there are no particles, you win. If you can’t, you have no argument. End of story.

 

[LilyM]

Profane does not equal evil, Lily. “Profane” merely means ‘something that isn’t holy.’ “Evil” means ‘the opposite of holy.’

Your hands are profane. They are not holy. But they aren’t evil.

Tiny particles of Jesus fall into your hands when you take Communion in the hand. Then you brush your hands on your skirt and Jesus falls to the floor.

Communion in the hand does not afford Jesus the same kind of respect as Communion on the tongue.

If you can prove there are no particles, you win. If you can’t, you have no argument. End of story.

But CITH wasn’t merely called profane in a general sense, it was called a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament specifically. Significant difference in terminology.

Now profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, however it occurs, is a grave/mortal sin. So by Cecilianus’ logic, all instances of CITH, being profanations of the Blessed Sacrament, ARE grave/mortal sins. No way around that. Yet the Church permits these instances of grave/mortal sin.

Particles? we’re talking extremely light particles of bread. Ever dropped something small and seen how far it travels? Particles almost certainly go flying all round the sanctuary, regardless of method of distribution, or fall on the priest’s clothing and thence to the floor.

And are trodden on (profaned) by the mere act of the priest transferring them from one ciborium to another, and probably the mere act of he and the altar servers moving from altar to communion rail to tabernacle and back. Let alone while communion is being distributed. Yes, some places use cloths but we’re talking significant distances here.

I’d LOVE an equally thorough investigation to be done on the floor of the sanctuary as it has been on the hands of communicants.Let’s talk when that has been done.

And that profanation too could be avoided by, for instance, covering the whole floor of the sanctuary (or indeed the church) with special cloths that get changed and washed after every Mass. After all, we’re talking Our Lord here, and nothing is too good for him, right?

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

But CITH wasn’t merely called profane in a general sense, it was called a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament specifically. Significant difference in terminology.

Now profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, however it occurs, is a grave/mortal sin. So by Cecilianus’ logic, all instances of CITH, being profanations of the Blessed Sacrament, ARE grave/mortal sins. No way around that. Yet the Church permits these instances of grave/mortal sin.

Particles? we’re talking extremely light particles of bread. Ever dropped something small and seen how far it travels? Particles almost certainly go flying all round the sanctuary, regardless of method of distribution, or fall on the priest’s clothing and thence to the floor.

And are trodden on (profaned) by the mere act of the priest transferring them from one ciborium to another, and probably the mere act of he and the altar servers moving from altar to communion rail to tabernacle and back. Let alone while communion is being distributed. Yes, some places use cloths but we’re talking significant distances here.

I’d LOVE an equally thorough investigation to be done on the floor of the sanctuary as it has been on the hands of communicants.Let’s talk when that has been done.

And that profanation too could be avoided by, for instance, covering the whole floor of the sanctuary (or indeed the church) with special cloths that get changed and washed after every Mass. After all, we’re talking Our Lord here, and nothing is too good for him, right?

My eyes almost rolled out of their sockets!

I wasn’t referring to anyone else’s discussion of those terms. Just mine.

And with regard to the protections against losing pieces of the Blessed Sacrament, you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme- a logical fallacy. I’m fairly certain that the protections in the EF form are sufficient.

 

[LilyM]

My eyes almost rolled out of their sockets!

I wasn’t referring to anyone else’s discussion of those terms. Just mine.

And with regard to the protections against losing pieces of the Blessed Sacrament, you’re taking it to a ridiculous extreme- a logical fallacy. I’m fairly certain that the protections in the EF form are sufficient.

Well others than yourself HAVE discussed those terms. For their sake and mine the clarification is necessary.

Sure, the protections in the EF form are sufficient. As is CITH - yet people constantly point out that our faith isn’t merely about doing the sufficient, as this thread itself shows.

I hope you’re not suggesting that the protections in the OF form aren’t. It’s not up to you to decide what is sufficient and what isn’t.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Well others than yourself HAVE discussed those terms. For their sake and mine the clarification is necessary.

Sure, the protections in the EF form are sufficient. As is CITH - yet people yell and scream that our faith isn’t merely about doing the sufficient but offering the best possible protection and worship to God, no?

I hope you’re not suggesting that the protections in the OF form aren’t. It’s not up to you to decide what is sufficient and what isn’t.

No - I don’t think that Communion in the hand is sufficiently reverent or sufficient for the preservation of tiny particles of the Host.

And YES, it IS up to me to decide what is sufficient. Because I can CHOOSE how to receive. Because I have that choice, my opinion on the subject is, actually, the ONLY opinion that matters.

 

[LilyM]

No - I don’t think that Communion in the hand is sufficiently reverent or sufficient for the preservation of tiny particles of the Host.

And YES, it IS up to me to decide what is sufficient. Because I can CHOOSE how to receive. Because I have that choice, my opinion on the subject is, actually, the ONLY opinion that matters.

Sure, like St Peter decided that it was insufficiently reverent, respectful, what have you, to eat with Gentiles and so refused? No. The most you can do is decide what you deem to be sufficient for yourself, and impose those standards on yourself. Sometimes, as with St Peter, you cannot even do that.

In terms of what other faithful can do, it’s the pastors and bishops who are our guides, not you.

You cannot tell others that what they deem to be sufficient in fact isn’t - not in a case when the Church has gone to the trouble of specifically providing guidance for the faithful by allowing them to do what they do, by means of indult.

Indults don’t happen by accident or negligence - this is actually something, as the wording shows, that the Magisterium very carefully thought about and then allowed. What God through the Magisterium has called clean you shall not call unclean.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Uh, no. You can decide what you deem to be sufficient for yourself, and impose those standards on yourself.

Uh, yes, Ms. Snark. Of course I don’t have the power to change how others take Communion. I never said a word about forcing others to take Communion on the tongue. But I firmly believe taking it on the tongue is infinitely better. And I apply that belief to myself.

 

[LilyM]

Uh, yes, Ms. Snark. Of course I don’t have the power to change how others take Communion. I never said a word about forcing others to take Communion on the tongue. But I firmly believe taking it on the tongue is infinitely better. And I apply that belief to myself.

I did edit that bit out, and I think put something a little more substantial in its place. It was uncalled for - and I apologise.

Yes, you apply that belief to yourself. And also lecture those who choose CITH on how irreverent they’re being while you’re at it. People who live in glass snarky-houses …

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

I did edit that bit out, and I think put something a little more substantial in its place. It was uncalled for - and I apologise.

Yes, you apply that belief to yourself. And also lecture those who choose CITH on how irreverent they’re being while you’re at it. People who live in glass snarky-houses …

Of course I lecture them about it. I believe it’s better, so I’m for sure going to share it with others. There’s nothing wrong with making an argument in favor of something you like.

 

[otjm]

The issue of particles of the Host residing in the hand is a legitimate issue. On the other hand, a bit of perspective is in order. There are some, no matter how small the microscopic size, are horrified with Communion in the hand. But the Church has not in the past treated it so.

If one is old enough, or perhaps has a church nearby which still has not only the Communion rail but also the cloth that used to be pulled over the top (from the sanctuary towards the recipents), then the following may be of some use.

Although the Church, pre-Vatican 2 had some fairly elaborate rubrics about the Host, one of the issues that was left untreated was what, if anything to do with the cloth that covered the Communion rail (and under which we put our hands).

The short of it was: nothing. The cloth was simply flipped back, to hang on the sanctuary side. Nothing was done to purify the cloth; nothing was done with whatever particles might have landed on it. If a Host landed on it, it was picked up and put (or put back) into the mouth of the recipient.

Even pre-Vatican 2, the Church did not concern itself with microscopic particles, those a human could not distinguish as having the form of bread.

It is also instructive to learn what woud have been done to a Host that, for whatever reason, was not going to be consumed at all. The instructions were to put it into a glass of water untill it “disassembled” (for lack of a better term) and then it was to be poured down the sacrarium.

If one were to look at the Host sitting in a glass of water and dissolving, one could still see matter; it might no longer have the form of the Host, but was clearly distinguishable from the water.

If a piece of Host is distinguishable in the hand, then it should be consumed; and itf it is not distinguishable as a particle of the Host, then God and the Church are both satisfied.

I do not mean to make light of the matter, and I most certainly do not intend that. However, some of the comments border on a far greater concern than the Church itself has. I don’t take it lightly; I don’t go each week for my hour of Perpetual Adoration because I am either casual or non-believing about the Host. But some get to the point of a hyper-religiosity about it when they approach the matter “holier than the Pope”.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

The issue of particles of the Host residing in the hand is a legitimate issue. On the other hand, a bit of perspective is in order. There are some, no matter how small the microscopic size, are horrified with Communion in the hand. But the Church has not in the past treated it so.

If one is old enough, or perhaps has a church nearby which still has not only the Communion rail but also the cloth that used to be pulled over the top (from the sanctuary towards the recipents), then the following may be of some use.

Although the Church, pre-Vatican 2 had some fairly elaborate rubrics about the Host, one of the issues that was left untreated was what, if anything to do with the cloth that covered the Communion rail (and under which we put our hands).

The short of it was: nothing. The cloth was simply flipped back, to hang on the sanctuary side. Nothing was done to purify the cloth; nothing was done with whatever particles might have landed on it. If a Host landed on it, it was picked up and put (or put back) into the mouth of the recipient.

Even pre-Vatican 2, the Church did not concern itself with microscopic particles, those a human could not distinguish as having the form of bread.

It is also instructive to learn what woud have been done to a Host that, for whatever reason, was not going to be consumed at all. The instructions were to put it into a glass of water untill it “disassembled” (for lack of a better term) and then it was to be poured down the sacrarium.

If one were to look at the Host sitting in a glass of water and dissolving, one could still see matter; it might no longer have the form of the Host, but was clearly distinguishable from the water.

If a piece of Host is distinguishable in the hand, then it should be consumed; and itf it is not distinguishable as a particle of the Host, then God and the Church are both satisfied.

I do not mean to make light of the matter, and I most certainly do not intend that. However, some of the comments border on a far greater concern than the Church itself has. I don’t take it lightly; I don’t go each week for my hour of Perpetual Adoration because I am either casual or non-believing about the Host. But some get to the point of a hyper-religiosity about it when they approach the matter “holier than the Pope”.

A great post! Jimmy Akin had on his website pictures of a person wearing black gloves and an unconsecrated host was placed in the person’s hands. When the host was picked up off the hands, noticeable fragments of the host remained on the gloves.

 

[otjm]

A great post! Jimmy Akin had on his website pictures of a person wearing black gloves and an unconsecrated host was placed in the person’s hands. When the host was picked up off the hands, noticeable fragments of the host remained on the gloves.

The Host that is most troublesome in terms of leaving fragments is the part that is fractioned from the large Host the priest consecrates. The small Hosts we use seem to leave little or nothing in the way of fragments that are observable on the hand. I pay attention, and I rarely find an identifiable fragment; nor do I have a bunch of “dust particles”. When there is one, I consume it too, and I can’t think of a time when it has not been from the fractioned one.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

All of this discussion can be categorized under “reasons why Communion on the tongue with a paten is superior.” Because, under those circumstances, these discussions are essentially moot.

 

[maurin]

I did edit that bit out, and I think put something a little more substantial in its place. It was uncalled for - and I apologise.

Yes, you apply that belief to yourself. And also lecture those who choose CITH on how irreverent they’re being while you’re at it. People who live in glass snarky-houses …

…what? can’t sleep when there’s a full moon? Have to shower in a bathing suit? have a hard time “using” the “facilities?” What? don’t you hate it when people don’t finish their thoughts?

 

[Cecilianus]

So CITH is not intrinsically evil, yet in the next breath you call it a profanation. Meaning that every single person who receives CITH in fact commits the mortal sin of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament? In what parallel universe does that not make CITH in fact intrinsically evil?

And according to you the church in fact permits the vast majority of us to mortally sin in this way? What sort of Holy Spirit do you worship that would allow the Magisterium to open up the floodgates to mortal sin in this fashion?

"Woe to you when you call evil good, and good evil’. Sure, many evils occur in the Church, but when the Magisterium calls mortal sin permissible then the gates of Hell have truly prevailed, my friend.

And to suggest that it is doing so in order to be lenient to sinners … well, witness the Church’s well-known track record of leniency to those who want to sin via contraception, those who want to sin via abortion, via remarriage without annulment, via gay sex or gay marriage and so on …

Who said anything about a mortal sin? That would seem quite dangerous - to suggest that the Church has granted an indult to a mortal sin. I apologize if my words were taken in that way. If there is not intent to profane the Host, then there is no sin of profanation - but, in regards to the material element of the act, the Host is profaned by unnecessary contact with your hands insofar as your hands are unworthy to touch the Blessed Sacrament. (And I don’t mean that as an insult to you - nobody’s hands are worthy to touch Him, except for the consecrated hands of the priest.)

That being said, I stand by my words. Something can be intrinsically evil without being a sin - war, for example, or the unfortunate times when the Host drops on the floor. As a further example, a couple of the early Greek Fathers would (incorrectly) consider marriage to be an evil and yet also a sacrament (Gregory of Nyssa, I think).

And even the end for which Communion was ordained requires some element of mingling of the profane with the Divine. The Tridentine Mass is full of admissions on both the part of the priest and the faithful of complete unworthiness to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament - so much so, in fact, that the Jansenist heretics (incorrectly) discouraged frequent Communion for this reason. We are not worthy to receive Communion until we are sanctified by It after the event, when the substance of the Host becomes incorporated into the substance of our bodies (through digestion); yet even then we are not truly worthy until our souls have been transformed by Its grace by the miracle of theosis.

 

[LilyM]

Who said anything about a mortal sin? That would seem quite dangerous - to suggest that the Church has granted an indult to a mortal sin. I apologize if my words were taken in that way. If there is not intent to profane the Host, then there is no sin of profanation - but, in regards to the material element of the act, the Host is profaned by unnecessary contact with your hands insofar as your hands are unworthy to touch the Blessed Sacrament. (And I don’t mean that as an insult to you - nobody’s hands are worthy to touch Him, except for the consecrated hands of the priest.)

Are you arguing that the Magisterium lacks either sufficient knowledge or intent to know that it is authorising grave, potentially mortal, sin, in your opinion, when it gives the indult for CITH? Something can be grave matter - and profanation of the Blessed Sacrament is ALWAYS grave matter - without being mortal sin in individual cases. But the Magisterium cannot be presumed to be either ignorant or lacking consent, and so it cannot possibly endorse actions which constitute grave matter!

That being said, I stand by my words. Something can be intrinsically evil without being a sin - war, for example, or the unfortunate times when the Host drops on the floor. As a further example, a couple of the early Greek Fathers would (incorrectly) consider marriage to be an evil and yet also a sacrament (Gregory of Nyssa, I think).

But a JUST war is NOT intrinsically evil. Quite the contrary, not evil at all. Hence the term ‘just’. ‘Intrinsically evil’ means ‘evil in all circumstances’. That which is just by its very definition cannot possibly be intrinsically evil or evil at all. Only an UNjust war could be intrinsically evil - and unjust war is not permitted by the Church! Just war, since it is NOT intrinsically evil, IS permitted.

Look at every single one of the actual ‘intrinsic evils’ - homosexual sex, contraception, abortion and so on - they are not permitted in any circumstances precisely because they are intrinsically evil! That’s what being intrinsically evil means - that no surrounding circumstance can remove their evil nature, and that for that reason they can never be permitted. Has the church ever given an indult or dispensation or other permission for contraception to be used - in any case ever? Or for an abortion to take place? Or for someone to enter a sexually active gay relationship? No.

There’s no circumstance in which the Church has said ‘xyz act is intrinsically evil but we’ll permit it anyway’. What kind of moral leadership would it be to permit something that is intrinsically evil - that is, evil through and through, evil in any and every circumstance?

So your argument is flawed. That which is permitted cannot possibly be intrinsically evil, that which is intrinsically evil cannot possibly be permitted in any circumstance.

 

[holy_moly]

Are you arguing that the Magisterium lacks either sufficient knowledge or intent to know that it is authorising grave, potentially mortal, sin, in your opinion, when it gives the indult for CITH? Something can be grave matter - and profanation of the Blessed Sacrament is ALWAYS grave matter - without being mortal sin in individual cases. But the Magisterium cannot be presumed to be either ignorant or lacking consent, and so it cannot possibly endorse actions which constitute grave matter!

But a JUST war is NOT intrinsically evil. Quite the contrary, not evil at all. Hence the term ‘just’. ‘Intrinsically evil’ means ‘evil in all circumstances’. That which is just by its very definition cannot possibly be intrinsically evil or evil at all. Only an UNjust war could be intrinsically evil - and unjust war is not permitted by the Church! Just war, since it is NOT intrinsically evil, IS permitted.

Look at every single one of the actual ‘intrinsic evils’ - homosexual sex, contraception, abortion and so on - they are not permitted in any circumstances precisely because they are intrinsically evil! That’s what being intrinsically evil means - that no surrounding circumstance can remove their evil nature, and that for that reason they can never be permitted. Has the church ever given an indult or dispensation or other permission for contraception to be used - in any case ever? Or for an abortion to take place? Or for someone to enter a sexually active gay relationship? No.

There’s no circumstance in which the Church has said ‘xyz act is intrinsically evil but we’ll permit it anyway’. What kind of moral leadership would it be to permit something that is intrinsically evil - that is, evil through and through, evil in any and every circumstance?

So your argument is flawed. That which is permitted cannot possibly be intrinsically evil, that which is intrinsically evil cannot possibly be permitted in any circumstance.

Good points Lily :clapping: