Communion in the hand...END IT!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tradycja
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There were His disciples…like we are. 🙂
Click to expand...
Not me. I can’t consecrate bread and wine. But if you and your sidekick twitty can, more power to you. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Not me. I can’t consecrate bread and wine. Glad YOU can. 🙂
Click to expand...
Your’re not a disciple of Christ? Then you need many prayers my friend. A disciple of Christ is one who follows Christ. CCC 1816.

I’ll pray for you that will become a believer.
 
A disciple of Christ is one who follows Christ. CCC 1816.
Click to expand...
We were talking Apostles. Do you and your sidekick tweety call your priest a layman and just like you? I think you need prayers for disrespect of the Apostles.
 
ProVobis said:
We were talking Apostles. Do you and your sidekick tweety call your priest a layman and just like you?
Click to expand...
Sarcasm and BS are the weapons of a looser. I never said Apostles…I said disciples and you implied the same when you said you can’t consecrate bread and wine.

I have no sidekicks…don’t need them. I have friends and faith. You have a broken leg to stand on and revert to attempted insults. Typical avenue for a someone that has been shown to be incorrect.

Peace and goodnight.
I’ll pray that you become a disciple.
 
ProVobis said:
We were talking Apostles. Do you and your sidekick tweety call your priest a layman and just like you? I think you need prayers for disrespect of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
No one is disrespecting anyone. Believers are all Christs disciples.
 
tweetymom said:
No one is disrespecting anyone. Believers are all Christs disciples.
Click to expand...
How can you guys call yourselves Christian if you don’t believe in the Apostles upon Whom Christ built His Apostolic Church?

Meet your fellow disciple, St. Ignore.
 
ProVobis said:
How can you guys call yourselves Christian if you don’t believe in the Apostles upon Whom Christ built His Apostolic Church?
Click to expand...
Where do get that we don’t believe in the Apostles? You’ve become delusional. Actually…you need a good nights rest.
 
BEGUN IN DISOBEDIENCE
The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens** in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon** likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.
Click to expand...
tldm.org/news2/cih.htm
 
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;
Click to expand...
Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);
Click to expand...
St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);
Click to expand...
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;
Click to expand...
The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;
Click to expand...
The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;
Click to expand...
tldm.org/news2/cih.htm
 
SACRILEGE - LOSS OF FAITH
Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei quotes Origen with approval who says that if anyone dropped a Sacred Particle of the Host on the ground (through negligence) then that person would be guilty of sin: “In fact the faithful thought themselves guilty, and rightly so, as Origen recalls, if after they received the Body of the Lord in order to preserve it with all care and reverence, a small fragment of it fell off through negligence.” (Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI, taken from “In Exod. Fragm.” P.G. 12, 391.) At any given Mass there will be at least a few, if not many, who will drop the sacred Particles to the ground, thereby committing sacrilege and irreverence, though it may be only through negligence and thoughtlessness. The priest, however, is responsible to make sure that no irreverence is committed and is bound to take all necessary precautions to safeguard the honor and respect due Our Lord in the blessed Sacrament.
The late Fr. Alfred Kunz, a canon lawyer, had some very powerful statements regarding Communion in the hand: he maintained that by pastoral experience (his pastoral experience) he was morally certain that there would be loss of particles by placing Communion in the hands at any given Mass. This loss of particles is an act of irreverence by the priest and he is bound not to do anything that would violate his conscience. **This irreverence to God by losing particles is against the Divine Positive Law and therefore, regardless of its canonical status, cannot be done. ** And this is due to that fact that to drop a consecrated fragment of the Host to the ground is the same as dropping the consecrated Host to the ground. Even if done through negligence it is still a sin of sacrilege. The danger of irreverence is to be avoided by Divine Law. Not even the Pope can change this law. The Vatican document “En reponse a la demande,” 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-47 (French)] outlining the seven conditions “sine qua non”, without which you cannot, is merely reminding us of this Divine Law. It is the personal responsibility of the minister of the Sacrament to see to it that all danger of irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament be avoided. And for this reason there are priests who have decided in conscience that they cannot give Communion in the hand, because they are convinced that the danger of irreverence, sacrilege and loss of true faith is too great.
Click to expand...
tldm.org/news2/cih.htm
 
GOD’S LAW
There are those who will object that confronting this widespread abuse of Communion in the hand is disloyal to the Church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is not disloyal to say that in practice the majority of Catholics are in disobedience to the existing law of the Church regarding reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament and the prevention of potential sacrilege. It is the law of the Latin Rite that we receive in the traditional manner, i.e., Communion on the tongue. Communion in the hand is the exception, that cannot be done if (1) there is potential loss of particles; (2) it is instituted in exclusion of the traditional manner of reception; or (3) there is the danger of scandal and loss of true faith in the Blessed Sacrament as a result. So it is disingenuous to complain that such a discussion is disloyal. This article is meant to foster thoughtful, prayerful reflection, and to illustrate the contradiction between Church law and common practice. The dangers that arise with Communion in the hand are real, serious, and avoidable.** What is it called when sacred Particles of the Host fall to the ground or are lost through negligence? It is called a sacrilege. **
Click to expand...
Code: 
    Freedom not grounded in truth is a loose canon. Likewise, when words are no longer measured by the truth of reality, they become instruments of deception. **The faithful have been deluded by propaganda regarding Communion in the hand, and the appeal to “obedience”  (an “obedience” that is really divorced from the law of the Church) has been used to railroad the faithful into accepting the modernist agenda in many instances.** For example, the fact that Communion in the hand cannot be allowed if there is loss of Particles is certainly not known by the majority of Catholics, but this in fact is the true obedience required: that the higher law against irreverence and sacrilege be maintained and promoted. This has frequently not been done.
Click to expand...
Code: 
    If you do not have an understanding that there is a hierarchy to law (that some laws exist to promote and support higher, unchangeable laws of God), you will have priests and laity alike telling you that Communion in the hand is permitted and that’s the end of the story. But this is naïve and intellectually dishonest, because within the indult itself there are provisions to protect from sacrilege, scandal and loss of faith, which represents the higher law. If any of these provisions are broken, you do not have permission to give Communion in the hand. This is the truth, and if anyone will not submit to these provisions, it is they who are disobedient. The indult must serve to promote the higher law and if it does not, or a particular spin is put on the indult that makes it in practice opposing the higher law, then it is no longer a law, but a usurpation of a higher law. The indult for Communion in the hand is an ecclesiastical law that can be revoked, and was revoked in the past when it was determined to be failing to promote the higher law of reverence. Any true and correct interpretation of the indult must conform to and promote this higher law. Natural law will never change (reverence belongs to this category); ecclesiastical law can change, and the indult for Communion in the hand belongs to this category. A soul-searching question for many priests would be: If it was objectively determined that there was loss of sacred Particles, scandal, or loss of faith, what would the priest be obliged to do?
Click to expand...
tldm.org/news2/cih.htm
 
kage_ar said:
Tweety -

It is about respect for Christ in the Eucharist.

Let me guess, something ELSE you don’t believe in?
Click to expand...
It is disrespectablebecause I take CITH? Give me a serious break. At the last supper did Jesus give the disciples communion in the tongue?
 
tweetymom said:
It is disrespectablebecause I take CITH? Give me a serious break. At the last supper did Jesus give the disciples communion in the tongue?
Click to expand...
You are showing great disrespect to those who receive on the tougue. And at the Last Supper, no one had a video camera so we do not know.
 
ProVobis said:
Or why not keep the Host longer in your mouth and “cradle” Him there? Must your hands really need to get involved for you to becoming one with “your” Lord? Surely you wouldn’t trust your hands with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, would you?
Click to expand...
I used to that and the host would always stick to the roof of my mouth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top