Communion in the hand...END IT!

[spn82756]

What on God’s green earth are you talking about? Do you and some of the posters on here actually believe the words that are coming out of your mouths? On one hand there is you, saying that people such as myself claim the Novus Ordo or Ordinary Form is invalid and will not satisfy your Sunday obligation…on the other hand, there is a heretic who does not believe in Church teachings, but feels no shame or hypocrisy in being an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion and feels everyone is equal to the Apostles in regards to authority…and all of if is completely asinine. I have never met ANYONE who believes the OF is invalid…everyone I know simply has a love and preference for the EF…this is simply an unsubstantiated lie. Furthermore, it appears I am the only one that has a problem with non-practicing Catholics serving on the Altar, much less as an EMHC…excuse my language but this is all a damn shame.

Like I stated earlier, with “Catholics” like this, there is no wonder we have a crisis in our Church…there needs to be some clear instruction and ultimatums from Rome…If you deny The Catholic faith, it is either time to accept it or pack up and move on. These people walk amongst us as wolves in sheeps clothing…Saint Pius X warned us about this happening…and the biggest shocker to me is the indifference of good Catholics that know right from wrong…not having a problem as they try to destroy and dismantle our Church from within.

Wake up folks…ROME IS BURNING

I should have been more careful in how I stated that. I was referring to SSPX and should have been more specific. I was not referring to you or Catholics that attend the Traditional Mass. My apology. I hadn’t had my coffee yet.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I guess one of the points is that an indult is okay if some of the posters think it is. If CITH is sacreligious or wrong then the pope can demand that it be stopped. Since he has only said that he prefers receiving on the tongue…and that receiving in the hand indult continues…it has to be okay. As a matter of fact it has to be fine with God. If it’s not…then all the popes that have allowed it are misleading the flock. We know what happens to people that mislead the flock. They sure can’t be canonized! And if the indult remains…or ever was…then it can’t ever be wrong! It can be rescinded…but it can’t ever be wrong. That would mean the popes have knowingly allowed sacrelige.

Bingo! You summarized it PERFECTLY.

Anyone who disagrees with that, is disagreeing with fundamentals of the faith.

 

[Layman]

I did not say that. Churchmen can make serious errors. Look at the Arian heresy or Jansenism. **The Church will sail on; some members may jump overboard during the voyage. **

What you seem to be saying is that Bishops and Popes cannot err. CITH started, not at the request of an approved apparition or an acknowledged living saint but as a strange act of rebellion by a Belgian bishop.

I’m still waiting to see hear how changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice brings any spiritual benefit. Especially considering the arguments against it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I did not say that. Churchmen can make serious errors. Look at the Arian heresy or Jansenism. The Church will sail on; some members may jump overboard during the voyage.

What you seem to be saying is that Bishops and Popes cannot err. CITH started, not at the request of an approved apparition or an acknowledged living saint but as a strange act of rebellion by a Belgian bishop.

I’m still waiting to see hear how changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice brings any spiritual benefit. Especially considering the arguments against it.

Are you saying that the official Church is allowing the faithful to do something that is not correct?

 

[Layman]

I am saying the Church is allowing Bishops to mandate something that is not in the best interest of the Faith or the Faithful. The Church says that COTT is the norm; many have chosen to ignore this.

The past 40 years have been a time of decadence in the Roman Catholic Church. We have had an iconoclasm.

 

[spn82756]

An observation…

The overwhelming majority of churches us wafers for consecration. There is very little in the way of particles to fall off. I’m not saying that there are none…but very little. They fall off the priest’s hands also. They are missed during the most careful ablution also. But again…there is a minimal amount…and yes it is the sacred Body of Christ…but it happens even in the most careful cases.

Many years ago I don’t know if wafers were used to for consecration. I would imagine that unleavened bread (leavened in much of the east) was used. If that is the case then there was much greater risk for a large number of pieces to break off and fall to the floor.

Perhaps we need better education on receiving CITH. Perhaps it should be the focus of a homily from time to time. Perhaps homilies should discuss many things that are not discussed or taught.

Just more of my thoughts…how irrelevant they may be.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

adstrinity:

If it makes you feel any better, I kinda think all EMHC are not the best practicing Catholics because they often aggrandize themselves to the delusion that they are needed and not extraordinary. They often do not dress appropriately and it’s a wonder what they believe.

Wow. Not only a rash and bigoted judgment, but one that you feel applies to “all” EMHCs. How does one judge that an EMHC is aggrandizing himself to the delusion they are needed? Further, how does one decide if they indeed ARE needed? The fact that they are extraordinary does not mean that they are NOT needed. As for dress, it is more a sample of how the dress code in one’s parish is taught and enforced for all participants in the Mass, rather than a reflection on EMHCs.

But the real reason I quoted was to illustrate the underlying reason for CITH. As long as EMHCs are needed, CITH will continue. It would be hypocritical and inconsistent to require COTT, if communion is distributed by EMHCs. The reason we had COTT, was because the norm was for the Priest or Deacon to distribute ALL communion. Until the Priest shortage ends, you will continue to see CITH.

And to reiterate, the early Church of the Fathers always distributed communion in the hand. It is not some sort of mistranslation, or mistake of history that this was “supposedly” done, but in reality wasn’t. We have ample and plentiful evidence that CITH was done in the early Church.

This is a Church discipline, something that can be changed at any time, for any reason, as the Church decides is right and fit. COTT is still perfectly valid everywhere. EMHCs are instructed that this is acceptable and how it should be done. So there is no reason to bewail CITH, just take COTT and concentrate on real problems faced by the church.

Lastly, I wonder how many COTT fanatics have no hesitation in taking the Sacred Blood of Christ at Mass? This was also not the norm in the Latin Church! How does one take the sacred vessel in one’s hands, with the Sacred Blood, and bemoan people who take CITH? That is inconsistent and prejudicial. In the Byzantine Churches, the lay congregation does not take the sacred vessel of the Blood of Jesus in their hands. They are given both by way of intinction on a spoon by the priest.

 

[ProVobis]

Lastly, I wonder how many COTT fanatics have no hesitation in taking the Sacred Blood of Christ at Mass? This is also not the norm in the Latin Church! How does one take the sacred vessel in one’s hands, with the Sacred Blood, and bemoan people who take CITH? That is inconsistent and prejudicial. Even in the Byzantine Churches, the lay congregation does not take the sacred vessel of the Blood of Jesus in their hands. They are given both by way of intinction on a spoon by the priest.

Good point.

 

[ProVobis]

Is CITH really allowed in the USA? Please follow me on this.

(References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm)

Pope Paul VI established several hurdles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions:

(a) the indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom (i.e., disobedient abuse) in the country, and

(b) if “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” the episcopal conference petitions Rome,

(c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission,

(d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence), or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These conditions are outlined in “En réponse à la demande,” which is attached to the Memoriale Domini instruction.

(1) CITH had not been an established custom in the USA so the first condition was not met.

(2) Two-thirds of the episcopal conference did not approve of the practice.

(3) “Permission” was granted only by deceiving the Pope that two-thirds of the conference approved by getting retired and dying bishops to sign off on the petition.

As Fr. Alfred Kunz has pointed out, permission given under deceit is no permission at all.

(4) Next conditions after “permission” was granted:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

After given all this information and you still persist in CITH, even as a valid option, then you’re taking some serious unneeded risks with your soul.

 

[ProVobis]

So you, indeed, ask a very good question. If communion in the hand was good enough for the original followers, why isn’t it good enough now?

It might have been good enough for the original followers, but it wasn’t good enough for the early councils. And that’s what counts in the long run.

 

[spn82756]

It might have been good enough for the original followers, but it wasn’t good enough for the early councils. And that’s what counts in the long run.

WRONG!!! What counts is that there is an indult. Therefore it was NEVER wrong!! And can never be wrong! The indult can be rescinded…but that doesn’t make it wrong. Unless of course you’re not a Catholic following the Holy See. Or unless recent past popes are in hell for allowing a sacreligious practice and not ordering it be stopped.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Is CITH really allowed in the USA? Please follow me on this.

(References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm)

After given all this information and you still persist in CITH, then you’re taking some serious unneeded risks with your soul.

This is just more fanaticism.

By claiming that Catholics who receive CITH are risking their soul, you are in effect saying that the Magisterium is putting our souls at risk, as Catholics are merely abiding by the current norms in their parish, diocese and church. Whether or not the practice is granted by indult, or was instituted in questionable circumstances, has no bearing on the issue. It is a matter of fact that the Magisterium has permitted this for Catholics, and Catholics are NOT risking anything by receiving CITH worthily, as required by the Gospel. COTT does not guarantee worthy receivers.

You are espousing a perception that the Church is not to be trusted in matters of the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and that COTT people are better acquainted with the situation than the Magisterium.

 

[spn82756]

This is just more fanaticism.

By claiming that Catholics who receive CITH are risking their soul, you are in effect saying that the Magisterium is putting our souls at risk, as Catholics are merely abiding by the current norms in their parish, diocese and church. Whether or not the practice is granted by indult, or was instituted in questionable circumstances, has no bearing on the issue. It is a matter of fact that the Magisterium has permitted this for Catholics, and Catholics are NOT risking anything by receiving CITH worthily, as required by the Gospel. COTT does not guarantee worthy receivers.

You are espousing a perception that the Church is not to be trusted in matters of the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and that COTT people are better acquainted with the situation than the Magisterium.

Quiet…Pope PV will hear you.

 

[ProVobis]

By claiming that Catholics who receive CITH are risking their soul, you are in effect saying that the Magisterium is putting our souls at risk, as Catholics are merely abiding by the current norms in their parish, diocese and church.

Who exactly is the Magisterium? And are they going to stand with us before God when we’re being judged? I doubt it. They’ll be worrying about themselves, no doubt.

And who guarantees COTT will bring us to heaven? If we’re not properly disposed, then all bets are off.

and Catholics are NOT risking anything by receiving CITH worthily

Only if they’re totally ignorant.

 

[spn82756]

This is just more fanaticism.

By claiming that Catholics who receive CITH are risking their soul, you are in effect saying that the Magisterium is putting our souls at risk, as Catholics are merely abiding by the current norms in their parish, diocese and church. Whether or not the practice is granted by indult, or was instituted in questionable circumstances, has no bearing on the issue. It is a matter of fact that the Magisterium has permitted this for Catholics, and Catholics are NOT risking anything by receiving CITH worthily, as required by the Gospel. COTT does not guarantee worthy receivers.

You are espousing a perception that the Church is not to be trusted in matters of the reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and that COTT people are better acquainted with the situation than the Magisterium.

Notice the article that was presented quotes what I believe to be Bayside, NY. Something that was condemned by the church as not supernatural or worthy of belief! There you have it.

 

[spn82756]

Who exactly is the Magisterium? And are they going to stand with us before God when we’re being judged? I doubt it.

And who guarantees COTT will bring us to heaven? If we’re not properly disposed, then all bets are off.

Now you are completely confused. You apparently don’t trust the pope on this so you certainly can’t use the CC as a leg to stand on for anything. Several people have tried to explain that the Church cannot error on something like this. But you know better!

Pope ProVobis.

I here Bayside calling you.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Who exactly is the Magisterium? And are they going to stand with us before God when we’re being judged? I doubt it.

That is an excellent question. Obedience to one’s superiors, especially Church superiors (unless actual sin is being commanded) will never bring judgment against him. Nay, it is virtuous to be obedient to our superiors, even when they command us to do things we find repellent. CITH is not a command to sin, and to think it is would be very gravely wrong. However, if one’s personal spirituality is repelled by CITH (and that is perfectly understandable) then one should only receive COTT. But we should not try to define our spirituality as best for all Christians. That is for the Magisterium to decide (and answer for.)

 

[spn82756]

ProVobis…

You apparently think you are more Catholic than the pope. It’s a syndrome with fundamentalists. If the pope can err on this…perhaps he is erring on everything else the Church teaches or allows. Perhaps he’s erring on female ordination. Perhaps celebacy. Perhaps you can straighten him out on everything.

 

[spn82756]

That is an excellent question. Obedience to one’s superiors, especially Church superiors (unless actual sin is being commanded) will never bring judgment against him. Nay, it is virtuous to be obedient to our superiors, even when they command us to do things we find repellent. CITH is not a command to sin, and to think it is would be very gravely wrong. However, if one’s personal spirituality is repelled by CITH (and that is perfectly understandable) then one should only receive COTT. But we should not try to define our spirituality as best for all Christians. That is for the Magisterium to decide (and answer for.)

Reason will not work with him…and unfortunately I’ve resorted to sarcasm.

 

[Cristiano]

Who exactly is the Magisterium? And are they going to stand with us before God when we’re being judged? I doubt it.

You better tone it down because in your last posts it appears that only you or few elected ones can speak for God. That is gnosticism. I am quite sure that you do not believe in that, but the way you express your thought is going off the track.

You did a very good job in stating your position with your earlier posts, you should try to stay on that line of communication. The goal is to bring people close to the most reverent behaviors (an I am not picking one over the other) not to get in a fight with them. Hang in there, regroup and post again, I liked some of your earlier posts.

I am sorry if you are uncomfortable with this lecture.I have the impression that you want to change things for a good reason and that you do not want to fight. Just do not let frustration get the best of you.