Article on Communion in Hand by SSJV

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheGrowingGrape
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheGrowingGrape

Guest
This is a multi-topic post.
FIRST: This is addressed to those recieving Communion in the hand.
The Latin Catholic website has an interesting article on the current controversy regarding Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue. I agree with their thesis. We need to have greater respect for the Eucharist in America. (These traditionals are in full communion with Rome)

latincatholic.tripod.com/latincatholic/id7.html

SECOND: This is addressed to Society of St. Pius X.
Please goto the latin catholic homepage, here latincatholic.tripod.com/latincatholic/index.html

Scroll down. On your left you’ll find a list of Tridentene Latin Mass Societies in Full communion with Rome. Your society is NOT listed.

Latin Catholic provides a link latincatholic.tripod.com/latincatholic/id10.html to “Motu Proprio, Ecclesia Dei” by Pope John Paul II, which condemns the schism of SSPX. All SSPXers should read it!
 
40.png
TheGrowingGrape:
This is a multi-topic post.
FIRST: This is addressed to those recieving Communion in the hand.
The Latin Catholic website has an interesting article on the current controversy regarding Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue. I agree with their thesis. We need to have greater respect for the Eucharist in America. (These traditionals are in full communion with Rome)

Whoa! It’s quite interesting that they say that the 2 JPII quotes are a condemnation of Communion in the hand. Holy cow! One is taken completely out of context and the other one they redefine!! Read the docs not just the quotes out of context. If one looks at Dominicae Cenae they can see that the paragraph above talks of Communion in the hand. A little disingenuous, don’t you think?

Communion in the hand doesn’t appeal to me in the least but the Pope has the jurisdiction over disciplines.
Click to expand...
 
It is said that to get into Heaven, we are to be like little children.

Who are the most deserving of Heaven? The little babies! Of all of us, they are the closest to the Creator because of their Innocence, and because they’ve not yet reached the Age of Reason.

Ask yourselves this: How do babies eat?

They are SPOON FED by their parents! Babies open their mouths and then recieve.

And since we are God’s Children, that makes God the one holding the spoon.

This is why Communion on the Tongue is best. It makes us more like little children!
 
These are indeed confusing times. Look what a qhick search turned up. At least when I was in Rome for Corpus Christi 1991, such a practice would have been unthinkable.
 
40.png
PASCENDI:
These are indeed confusing times. Look what a qhick search turned up. At least when I was in Rome for Corpus Christi 1991, such a practice would have been unthinkable.
Click to expand...
That is because reception of the Eucharist in the Hand is optional. It is up to each bishop to decide if he will allow this in his diocese.

The bishop of Rome, who happens to also be the pope, has decided not to allow this practice in his diocese.

We are to be obedient to our bishop. If a bishop allows this in his diocese then it is ok to do so.

Neither, reception on the tongue or in the hand, is more reverent than the other.

It is a fact that the early church received in the hand.
 
Picture doesn’t seem to want to attach. Here’s the link ( a dubious source no doubt)

deceptioninthechurch.com/jp2.htm

As far as being optional. That’s true for the communicant (though some priests would like to think otherwise) but sadly, it’s not true for the priest.

As far as the old Church argument, I don’t think they were as irreverent about it, they veiled their hands for crying out loud. If you want to use the old Church argument, let’s going back to offering mass underground and not paying our clergy.
 
40.png
TheGrowingGrape:
I agree with their thesis. We need to have greater respect for the Eucharist in America. (These traditionals are in full communion with Rome)

latincatholic.tripod.com/latincatholic/id7.html
Click to expand...
I am sorry, but I could not get past the title “Grave Sin”. The church has not allowed a practice that is gravely sinful. I have a little more trust in the Holy Spirit than that. Any credibility I might have give to the article was blown in that little bit of kookiness.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I am sorry, but I could not get past the title “Grave Sin”. The church has not allowed a practice that is gravely sinful. I have a little more trust in the Holy Spirit than that. Any credibility I might have give to the article was blown in that little bit of kookiness.
Click to expand...
How true.

One thing must be noted, if this article was written by the SSJV, then one must know the facts.

The SSJV or the Society of Saint John Vianney in Campos, Brazil.

At one time this group was in schism and affiliated with the SSPX. I believe it was in 2002 that they were reconciled witht he Catholic Church.

So one must look to see when this document was written, was it written in their schismatic days or now?

After a quick scan of the article I see no reference to who wrote it or when it was written.

So I will take the Church’s teachings over this article any day.
 
With regard to the article in question, it perpetuates serveral myths. First, we have no extant writings of either Pope Sixtus or Pope Eutychian. These quotes are taken from the *Liber Pontificalis *which is known to be an invention for the early popes.

The reference to St. Basil is also corrupted. What he actually says is:
It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.
Click to expand...
St. Basil does not condemn communion in the hand at times other than during persecution.

As we continue through the article we get to the “refutation” of the traditional explanation of communion in the hand. The first citation is from Pope St. Leo the Great. The problem is, the author has changed the citation. What the pope wrote was
Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the LORD says, “unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,” you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ’s Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen who dispute that which is taken.
Click to expand...
Whether the Blessed Sacrament was placed in the hand or in the mouth is not clear from this citation.

Finally, the author also misdirects us with regard to the authenticity of St. Cyril’s directives on the reception of communion. The authenticity has been verified many times over. While there was, for a time, a question, that question was resolved years ago.

This article is, IMNSHO, a sophism.

Deacon Ed
 
“…the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand” ~Mother Teresa
 
PASCENDI said:
"…the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand" ~Mother Teresa
Click to expand...

And that is her opinion. If that quote is true, I have heard it said many times but have not seen any source to prove that she said it. And even if she did say it, she is not and was not infalliable and is not part of the Magestirum of the Church.

The Church can not teach error. I will stand by what the Church teaches.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
And that is her opinion. If that quote is true, I have heard it said many times but have not seen any source to prove that she said it. And even if she did say it, she is not and was not infalliable and is not part of the Magestirum of the Church.

The Church can not teach error. I will stand by what the Church teaches.
Click to expand...
Well, they can err in disciplines, not in areas of faith and morals, but the fact is that it is the Pope’s jurisdiction to set the disciplines it’s not ours to say that some discipline is wrong. If this Pope wants to come along and change his discipline or another comes along to ban the discipline, so be it. It’s his jurisdiction. If you KNOW the discipline is a sin (an incredibly bold statement which is why many allude to it but won’t say it) then you cannot submit. If you roll that dice and you’re wrong the sin is yours. If you submit to the Pope, even if he be wrong in matters of discipline, then the sin is not yours but his. You can only go wrong if you follow your view of the situation.

I highly recommend this article on obedience: home.earthlink.net/~grossklas/schism.htm

Here’s a little quote from it:
Padre Pio also accepted humbly the changes that came as a result of the Second Vatican Council. When his sister, who was a nun, left her order in opposition to liberal reforms, he did concede that she had valid grievances and that the changes of which she complained were certainly bad. Nothing, however, could excuse her breach of the precept of obedience. Speaking of the new liberal superiors, Padre Pio told her: “They are wrong and you are right, but still you must obey. You must return.” (Ibid, p. 297).
Click to expand...
Saying something is a discipline for 100’s of years and it must be a mistake to change it because it was a discipline for 100’s of years is nooooooooooo argument.
 
40.png
ByzCath:
How true.

One thing must be noted, if this article was written by the SSJV, then one must know the facts.

The SSJV or the Society of Saint John Vianney in Campos, Brazil.

At one time this group was in schism and affiliated with the SSPX. I believe it was in 2002 that they were reconciled witht he Catholic Church.

So one must look to see when this document was written, was it written in their schismatic days or now?

After a quick scan of the article I see no reference to who wrote it or when it was written.

So I will take the Church’s teachings over this article any day.
Click to expand...
They were never in schism. Irregullar,yes but never is schism. None of their marriages had to be convalidated, confessions reheard, and penalties for simony. Which meant that they had jurisidiction all along.
 
40.png
Iohannes:
They were never in schism. Irregullar,yes but never is schism. None of their marriages had to be convalidated, confessions reheard, and penalties for simony. Which meant that they had jurisidiction all along.
Click to expand...
Hellloooooooooooooooooooooo…you keep saying this but the fact is that the marriages had to be sanated by the Pope. You seem to think this is a made up word. It’s a canonical term that has been practiced whenever large groups have come back to the Church from schism. Just because you don’t buy it doesn’t mean that this hasn’t been a long standing practice in the Church!

Once again, from a canon lawyer who’s an expert on schisms (used to be in SSPX) and a Traditionalist:
The marriages were sanated by decree of the Holy Father, that is, retroactively made valid.
Click to expand...
Marriages after the reconciliation of the SSJV would be presumed valid by the Church.
Click to expand...
The same goes for confessions heard by the SSJV after their reconciliation. As for previous, presumably invalid, confessions; if the SSJV subsequently confess in good faith, these would
be wiped out by the priest’s absolution now that the priest has faculties
Click to expand...
.

If you go to the SSPX website you will even see them use the term sanated and they even give the canonical definition of it!!!
 
40.png
bear06:
Hellloooooooooooooooooooooo…you keep saying this but the fact is that the marriages had to be sanated by the Pope. You seem to think this is a made up word. It’s a canonical term that has been practiced whenever large groups have come back to the Church from schism. Just because you don’t buy it doesn’t mean that this hasn’t been a long standing practice in the Church!

Once again, from a canon lawyer who’s an expert on schisms (used to be in SSPX) and a Traditionalist:

.

If you go to the SSPX website you will even see them use the term sanated and they even give the canonical definition of it!!!
Click to expand...
Who is this anonymous Canon Lawyer?
 
40.png
katolik:
Who is this anonymous Canon Lawyer?
Click to expand...
Let’s see if you can guess? 😉 (I’m just guessing since I don’t feel free to divulge his name).I didn’t pay for his services so I don’t feel free to give out his name. I’m sure it’s bad enough with me asking for free advice. He’s a Catholic Traditionalist in good standing with the Church since his return from SSPX. He has written extensively on this issue. If you’re thinking I’m making it up, let me reassure you that I would not have pulled the word “sanated” out of thin air. Never heard of it until I asked him and looked up the term. Like I said, look it up on the SSPX Angelus site and you’ll even see the definition of the term provided at the bottom of the article. While it is used in the context of their fraternity in something they are trying to dispell, it is most often used in the context of marriage.
 
Bear is correct. Canon 1161 deals with the idea of a “radical sanation” in which an invalid marriage is declared valid without asking the parties for consent a second time. This is what was done for the marriages witnessed by the SSJV. It is called “radical” because it is retroactive to the time the marriage vows were exchanged.

Deacon Ed
 
Deacon Ed:
Bear is correct. Canon 1161 deals with the idea of a “radical sanation” in which an invalid marriage is declared valid without asking the parties for consent a second time. This is what was done for the marriages witnessed by the SSJV. It is called “radical” because it is retroactive to the time the marriage vows were exchanged.

Deacon Ed
Click to expand...
Mucho gracias! I have “Suprised by Canon Law” on my list of books to get someday!
 
You just made my point they are not schismatic, if the marriages were validated from the point of their celebration.

Yet you have not addressed the issue of confession and simony.

Bishop Fellay, SSPX himself said that Rome does not view the SSPX as schismatic. This is from Bishop Fellay himself, unless he is a liar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top