Communion in the Hand

[Lynn_Suer]

The calling of crusades and the verdicts of the Inquisition judges are not papal teaching on faith and morals. Hence they are not covered by the doctrine of infallibility.

BTW, the crusades were called in response to the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim’s destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and to safeguard Christian pilgrims who were under attack by Moslems on their journey to the Holy Land. As for the Inquisition, its courts were conducted much more justly than other courts of the times. The pope protested against abuses that crept in, as when figures of authority attempted to use the courts of the Inquisition for their own purposes but he was often ignored. The Vatican sponsored Galileo’s work and asked him to wait before publishing his as yet unproven theory.

 

[saint_rafael]

I don’t follow your argument. Are you being cynical? Popes don’t make errors when speaking on faith and morals to the universal church. If you are maintaining they do, please give an example.

No. Vatican I taught the Holy Spirit only protects the Pope from error on faith and morals when he uses Papal infallibility. Outside of an Ex-Cathedra statement he can err and even fall into heresy.

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic over Monothelitism.

In recent modern times, the Conciliar Popes have made errors in ecumenism, liturgy, death penalty, sexual ethics, and other such things that touch on faith and morals.

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Vatican I taught the Holy Spirit only protects the Pope from error on faith and morals when he uses Papal infallibility. Outside of an Ex-Cathedra statement he can err and even fall into heresy. Pope Honorius was declared a heretic over Monothelitism.
In recent modern times, the Conciliar Popes have made errors in ecumenism, liturgy, death penalty, sexual ethics, and other such things that touch on faith and morals.

Let me repeat the quote I used earlier from the Documents of Vatican I:
“By divine and catholic faith everything must be believed … that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.” (emphasis mine)

“Solemn decree” refers to ex cathedra statements but we must also believe the ordinary magisterium, such as Humanae Vitae and the statement that it is impossible for the Church to ordain women priests.

Pope Honorius was exonerated in 640 by Pope John IV, who clarified the meaning of Pope Honorius’ statement on the one will of Christ. Pope Honorius was referring to the human will of Christ as being faultless, as humans were before the fall. He did not believe that Christ lacked a human will and was not a monothelite. It was the condemnation of him by the Third Council of Constantinople which was in error. (See Robert Spencer in the Sept.1994 edition of This Rock)

As for the death penalty, the Church teaches that if a criminal can be reliably and safely incarcerated so it is impossible for him to do further harm, then he should not be executed. If he cannot be so incarcerated, then he may be put to death by the state. I don’t see where the error is here. In previous ages, such incarceration was not possible. Indeed, it may not always be possible now. Politicians tend to let such people go free several years later, when all the fuss has died down, so society may not be safe, even with modern prisons.

As for ecumenism, liturgy, sexual ethics and “other such things,” please explain where the error is.

 

[saint_rafael]

"Pope Honorius was exonerated in 640 by Pope John IV, who clarified the meaning of Pope Honorius’ statement on the one will of Christ. Pope Honorius was referring to the human will of Christ as being faultless, as humans were before the fall. He did not believe that Christ lacked a human will and was not a monothelite. It was the condemnation of him by the Third Council of Constantinople which was in error. (See Robert Spencer in the Sept.1994 edition of This Rock)

As for the death penalty, the Church teaches that if a criminal can be reliably and safely incarcerated so it is impossible for him to do further harm, then he should not be executed. If he cannot be so incarcerated, then he may be put to death by the state. I don’t see where the error is here. In previous ages, such incarceration was not possible. Indeed, it may not always be possible now. Politicians tend to let such people go free several years later, when all the fuss has died down, so society may not be safe, even with modern prisons.

As for ecumenism, liturgy, sexual ethics and “other such things,” please explain where the error is.

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and excommunicated by a dogmatic Ecumenical Church Council. The Third Council of Constantinople did that. This was upheld by Pope Leo II. To this day, his excommunication has never been lifted. It is still on the books.

The Church has always taught that the death penalty is just and is just soley on the grounds of retribution. Whether or not society is protected is besides the point. Justice demands the life of a murderer and even if he could have been incarcerated for life. Pope John Paul erred on that.

Pope Pius XI taught as the Church did throught the centuries, that the only valid ecumenism was conversion to the Catholic Church. The concilliar Popes have erred for decades and do not believe that those in false religions need to convert.

In regards to sexual ethics, Pope John Pau II’s theology of the Body is not traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality.

 

[saint_rafael]

Let me repeat the quote I used earlier from the Documents of Vatican I:
“By divine and catholic faith everything must be believed … that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.” (emphasis mine)

“Solemn decree” refers to ex cathedra statements but we must also believe the ordinary magisterium, such as Humanae Vitae and the statement that it is impossible for the Church to ordain women priests.

Ordinary Magisterium:

“Ordinary infallible teaching by Pope, Bishop, or anyone with the proper authority to teach which illumines doctrine that has always been believed and accepted by the universal Church. Also called the “Universal Magisterium” or the “Constant Magisterium” and its exercise can be recognized when a teaching is one that is has been held “always and everywhere” by the Church”

fisheaters.com/101.html

Whatever a Pope teaches must be held “always and everwhere”. If the teaching is not, then it is error and not part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

Vatican I
Session 4 : 18 July 1870
Chapter 4.
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6

“6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”

A Pope cannot teach new doctrine. Anything that contradicts the Magisterium is error.

"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema."

A Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from error only when he speaks Ex-Cathedra.

 

[saint_rafael]

Pope Honorius was declared a heretic and excommunicated by a dogmatic Ecumenical Church Council. The Third Council of Constantinople did that. This was upheld by Pope Leo II. To this day, his excommunication has never been lifted. It is still on the books.

The Church has always taught that the death penalty is just and is just soley on the grounds of retribution. Whether or not society is protected is besides the point. Justice demands the life of a murderer and even if he could have been incarcerated for life. Pope John Paul II erred on that.

Pope Pius XI taught as the Church did throught the centuries, that the only valid ecumenism was conversion to the Catholic Church. The conciliar Popes have erred for decades and do not believe that those in false religions need to convert.

In regards to sexual ethics, Pope John Pau II’s Theology of the Body is not traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality.

 

[elts1956]

Let me repeat the quote I used earlier from the Documents of Vatican I:
“By divine and catholic faith everything must be believed … that is proposed by the Church as a divinely revealed object of belief, either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal magisterium.” (emphasis mine)

“Solemn decree” refers to ex cathedra statements but we must also believe the ordinary magisterium, such as Humanae Vitae and the statement that it is impossible for the Church to ordain women priests.

Pope Honorius was exonerated in 640 by Pope John IV, who clarified the meaning of Pope Honorius’ statement on the one will of Christ. Pope Honorius was referring to the human will of Christ as being faultless, as humans were before the fall. He did not believe that Christ lacked a human will and was not a monothelite. It was the condemnation of him by the Third Council of Constantinople which was in error. (See Robert Spencer in the Sept.1994 edition of This Rock)

As for the death penalty, the Church teaches that if a criminal can be reliably and safely incarcerated so it is impossible for him to do further harm, then he should not be executed. If he cannot be so incarcerated, then he may be put to death by the state. I don’t see where the error is here. In previous ages, such incarceration was not possible. Indeed, it may not always be possible now. Politicians tend to let such people go free several years later, when all the fuss has died down, so society may not be safe, even with modern prisons.

As for ecumenism, liturgy, sexual ethics and “other such things,” please explain where the error is.

Hello Lynn, On a couple of threads I have tried to find out where the document by Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint stands as being a solemn decree, or infallible? Do you know?

 

[japhy]

I have tried to find out where the document by Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint stands as being a solemn decree, or infallible?

The document itself is not “infallible”. The only infallible things about it would be statements in documents. Do you have any candidates for solemnly defined statements from Ut Unum Sint?

 

[benedictus2]

The Holy Spirit did lead the Church and it was done through the organic development of the doctrine.
**
By allowing it, Pope Paul VI opened the door for people to loose faith. His decision has made it look like the Holy Spirit was not guiding the Church for the last 500 years. That the Church was wrong in allowing Communion only on the toungue. In effect, Pope Paul VI was saying that we were not serious the last 500 years. It was just a joke and worse, that the Protestants are right about Communion in the Hand.**

I think more reading of the history of the mass needs to be done before you can pronounce Pope Paul VI being wrong. He was Christ’s vicar after all. Rubrics is not doctrine

So to go back to a previous mode of reception is not a devolution of doctrine since it was not a doctrine in the first place.

I personally prefer receiving Christ by the hand as I get a much longer time to meditate on Who it is I am receiving. After receiving the host, I stand aside for a while host in hand and ponder this great gift that the Father in His great love is giving me.

I am concerned though of the danger of desecrating the host which could happen and have happened in this way of reception. Eucharistic Ministers have to be really alert.

This would not be a problem were all to receive on the tongue.

I think this may have been the reason for the change from hand to tongue though I am not really sure about that.

 

[benedictus2]

Pope Honorius was declared a In regards to sexual ethics, Pope John Pau II’s theology of the Body is not traditional Catholic teaching on sexuality.

Have you read in full the Theology of the Body?

Can you tell me which part of Theology of the Body is not in accord with Catholic teaching?

 

[Lynn_Suer]

On a couple of threads I have tried to find out where the document by Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint stands as being a solemn decree, or infallible?

I consulted with my dear pastor on this, and received an answer from him in accord with what I have learned from Father John Hardon. This encyclical is not a solemn decree (ex cathedra) and its teachings are not dogma. It was issued, however, as part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and hence is the infallible teaching of the church. As such, it must be believed by all Catholics.

 

[japhy]

This encyclical is not a solemn decree (ex cathedra) and its teachings are not dogma. It was issued, however, as part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and hence is the infallible teaching of the church. As such, it must be believed by all Catholics.

The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, among individual Bishops (including the Pope), is non-infallible, but requires religious submission of intellect and will. The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, among Bishops proposing definitively, dispersed, but in unison and in union with the Pope, is infallible. (That is, an teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible.)

It is the extraordinary Magisterium which is always infallible.

 

[saint_rafael]

I think more reading of the history of the mass needs to be done before you can pronounce Pope Paul VI being wrong. He was Christ’s vicar after all. Rubrics is not doctrine

So to go back to a previous mode of reception is not a devolution of doctrine since it was not a doctrine in the first place.

I personally prefer receiving Christ by the hand as I get a much longer time to meditate on Who it is I am receiving. After receiving the host, I stand aside for a while host in hand and ponder this great gift that the Father in His great love is giving me.

I am concerned though of the danger of desecrating the host which could happen and have happened in this way of reception. Eucharistic Ministers have to be really alert.

This would not be a problem were all to receive on the tongue.

I think this may have been the reason for the change from hand to tongue though I am not really sure about that.

There was development in doctrine. The doctrine that developed was the Eucharist. The Church grew in a deeper understanding of the doctrine of the Eucharist. That is why the Church went from Communion in the Hand and the primitive liturgies to reserving the Eucharist for benediction and having Eucharistic processions.

The discipline of receiving always followed the development in the doctrine of the Eucharist itself.

There was a reason why for 1,000 years Communion in the Hand was forbidden.

Pope Paul VI made a huge blunder. Pope Pius XII has already decalared that going back to the primitive or early Church was the error of antiquarianism that he wrote about in his encyclical “Mediator Dei”. The church grows organically and one can never contradict this organic growth and the tradition that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Protestants changed Communion in the Hand forever. It can no longer be used by Catholics because Communion in the Hand is now a Protestant practice that is used on purpose to deny the real presence. They believe it is only bread and a symbol. and that is what Communion in the Hand is meant to convey.

 

[Lynn_Suer]

The ordinary Magisterium of the Church, among individual Bishops (including the Pope), is non-infallible, but requires religious submission of intellect and will.

Because the ordinary magisterium requires such submission, it must also be infallible since Christ cannot require submission to error.

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Whatever a Pope teaches must be held “always and everwhere”. If the teaching is not, then it is error and not part of the Ordinary Magisterium.

A Pope cannot teach new doctrine. Anything that contradicts the Magisterium is error.

This hinges very much on semantics (what is “new” and “everywhere”?) and seems to me to come very close to feminists’ rejection of Humanae Vitae on the grounds that the Holy Father may have taught it but his teaching wasn’t “received” by the people. On the other side are my Greek Orthodox friends who don’t believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven, although they admit it was possible that God could have done it.

Let me quote from Father John Hardon’s archives, chapter 9 on papal infallibility: “Actually, however, this consent of the Church can never be withheld. As we believe that the pope is objectively infallible by divine assistance, we thereby believe also that the subjective assent of the Church can never be wanting to these definitions. For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church can fail.”

I’d like to add that passage I quoted on the requirement for belief of everything proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, “either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal Magisterium” can be found on the EWTN website you cited, under the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, session 3 in “On Faith,” chapter 3, #8.

Another addendum: The teaching regarding the use of the death penalty as legitimate defense can be found in #2265-2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

The calling of crusades and the verdicts of the Inquisition judges are not papal teaching on faith and morals. Hence they are not covered by the doctrine of infallibility.

BTW, the crusades were called in response to the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim’s destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and to safeguard Christian pilgrims who were under attack by Moslems on their journey to the Holy Land. As for the Inquisition, its courts were conducted much more justly than other courts of the times. The pope protested against abuses that crept in, as when figures of authority attempted to use the courts of the Inquisition for their own purposes but he was often ignored. The Vatican sponsored Galileo’s work and asked him to wait before publishing his as yet unproven theory.

So the Caliph al Hakim destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre etc - that makes the sacking of cities and the massacres of of men women and children by the crusaders OK then? Possibly the procedings of the Inquisition were better than the norm of the time- perhaps so - but one would expect an institution guided by the Holy Spirit to have higher standards - some popes condemned the practices some popes actively encouraged them. If Galileo was encouraged by the Vatican why did they issue an apology recently for their persecution of Galileo?
I know none of he above instances have any bearing on the infallibility dogma when the pope speaks “ex cathedra” - I advanced them to counter the argument of those who maintain the Church is always right. The Holy Spirit guides but does not compel

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Originally posted by Kevin Driffield

So the Caliph al Hakim destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre etc - that makes the sacking of cities and the massacres of of men women and children by the crusaders OK then?

Of course not. I simply wanted to remind people that the Crusades were a response, and were not unprovoked. The preaching of some saints as part of the Inquisition undoubtedly saved many people from the physical and spiritual harm of heresies, especially heresies such as that of the Cathars, who taught that life and marriage were evil, and that suicide was a sacrament. The church tribunals found few people guilty, who were then executed by the state. During the Reformation, a lot of propaganda was put out against the Church on this subject, which unfortunately is still with us. By the way, did you know that Galileo remained on friendly terms with Pope Urban VIII, received an annual pension of 100 crowns annually from the Holy See, and that the Pope gave him Apostolic Benediction before his death? I just wanted to counter the arguments of people who think the Church is always wrong.

 

[saint_rafael]

This hinges very much on semantics (what is “new” and “everywhere”?) and seems to me to come very close to feminists’ rejection of Humanae Vitae on the grounds that the Holy Father may have taught it but his teaching wasn’t “received” by the people. On the other side are my Greek Orthodox friends who don’t believe in the Assumption of Mary into heaven, although they admit it was possible that God could have done it.

Let me quote from Father John Hardon’s archives, chapter 9 on papal infallibility: “Actually, however, this consent of the Church can never be withheld. As we believe that the pope is objectively infallible by divine assistance, we thereby believe also that the subjective assent of the Church can never be wanting to these definitions. For it is impossible that the whole body of bishops can be separated from their head or that the universal Church can fail.”

I’d like to add that passage I quoted on the requirement for belief of everything proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, “either in a solemn decree or in her ordinary, universal Magisterium” can be found on the EWTN website you cited, under the First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, session 3 in “On Faith,” chapter 3, #8.

Another addendum: The teaching regarding the use of the death penalty as legitimate defense can be found in #2265-2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Always and evrywhere has nothing to do with the laity or acceptance of the people. It is about the Magisterium.

It is talking about the hierarchy, clergy, and everything else that belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium. Always refers to the infallible traditions, doctrines, and teachings of the Church held throughout her history. **Everywhere **means that the whole universal Church accepted it which is all the Catholic bishops united to the Pope.

The Greek Orthodox are schismatics who are outside the one true Church of God. They need conversion to Catholicism for salvation.

The Pope is always the Pope and is always a valid Pope even if he errs and falls into heresy.

What you are saying is that everything the Pope teaches and says is the Ordinary Magisterium. I am saying anything a Pope teaches that is true, correct, and is verified by past Magisterial. teaching is the Ordinary Magisterium, but the moment he teaches an error and contradicts the Ordinary Magisterium, it is not the of the Ordinary Magisterium.

You make it sound like a Pope can never teach error or heresy. That is not true. They can and only Ex-Cathedra statements are protected and are infallible. A Pope usually reteaches what is already infallible teachings. The vast majority of dogma and doctrine is already settled. Each new Pope has much less leeway and room than the previous Pope.

 

[elts1956]

The document itself is not “infallible”. The only infallible things about it would be statements in documents. Do you have any candidates for solemnly defined statements from Ut Unum Sint?

Pope John Paul II’s explanation of Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, ie. explanation of what constitutes, “Church”.

 

[japhy]

Because the ordinary magisterium requires such submission, it must also be infallible since Christ cannot require submission to error.

Does that make every single teaching of the Church infallible? That’s ludicrous.
The Ordinary Magisterium is exercised when the Magisterium teaches without the guarantee of certain truth found in its infallible Sacred Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible, but its teachings have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the extent that the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium can only err to a limited extent. They cannot err to such an extent that the errors would lead someone away from the path of salvation. The teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium have the charism of salvific truth.

…

There are two types of teachings of the Magisterium, categorized by the function under which they are taught: the teachings of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the teachings of the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. Now in principle these are distinct, but in practice it can be difficult to determine, in every case, whether a teaching is infallible or non-infallible. Whenever it is truly not clear if a teaching has been taught infallibly or not, it should be considered a reliable but non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium.

Canon Law 749 §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

Read more]