Did abuses exist pre-Vatican II?

[BobP123]

Never has Pope Benedict XVI ever even hinted at the notion that the Tridentine Mass is in any way better or more of a gift than the Pauline Mass – or vice versa.

More than a hint.

mysite.verizon.net/vze2rjke/Documents/UnaVoceDocs/Burke&Liturgy.pdf

 

[AJV]

Also, contrary to what many progressives believe, Communion in the hand was not absolutely “the norm” of the Early Church. By the mid-400s, St. Leo the Great tell us that communion on the tongue is an established norm. Note that in the 400 years in which we apparently see communion in the hand as common, we also see that there is no definitive canon of scripture, dozens of heresies popped up all over the Chrisitian world, and for more than three quarters of that period, the Pope himself had live in hiding because of the persecutions of Chrisitians.

While I’m not a proponent of CITH (for similar reasons about going back to the Early Church), the text from Pope Leo is not proof for Communion on the tongue- it does not preclude Communion in the hand.

Also I always thoguht the dipped bread given to Judas wasn’t the Communion. Was it?

 

[Daprato]

…Also, to suggest that the Apostles at that moment fully grasped the magnitude of the Last Supper would be naive. They probably weren’t thinking that since every particle of the host is all of Christ, they ought to be very careful with it, since our knowledge of the Eucharist is the product of hundreds of years of scholarship and relevation through the Holy Spirit…

:nope:

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

More than a hint.

mysite.verizon.net/vze2rjke/Documents/UnaVoceDocs/Burke&Liturgy.pdf

Great article, thanks for posting it.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Daprato;2944355:

Not exactly true. Communion-in-hand began with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper – “TAKE, eat, this is My Body…” QUOTE]

To go off-topic for a minute…
With all due respect, I never say that as a license to revive the practice. First of all, it is not explicitly said that Christ gave it to his Apostles in their hand. The word “take” does not necessarily mean “handle”, e.g. “I took some brandy with my supper.” Also, they easily could have taken it with their tongues. Also, Christ dipped some bread in wine, and gave it to Judas. It was have been rather messy to put that in his hand–combine this with the fact that it is a centuries old (before the time of Christ) custom in Near East to feed the first bite of meal to one’s guest.

This is not say that I am absolutely sure that the Last Supper saw communion on the tongue, just that it is altogether a possiblity

.

Second, the Apostles were themselves priests, and as Ordinary ministers of the Sacrament would then (as well as now) be perfectly allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament and place it on their own tongues.

Also, to suggest that the Apostles at that moment fully grasped the magnitude of the Last Supper would be naive. They probably weren’t thinking that since every particle of the host is all of Christ, they ought to be very careful with it, since our knowledge of the Eucharist is the product of hundreds of years of scholarship and relevation through the Holy Spirit.

Also, contrary to what many progressives believe, Communion in the hand was not absolutely “the norm” of the Early Church. By the mid-400s, St. Leo the Great tell us that communion on the tongue is an established norm. Note that in the 400 years in which we apparently see communion in the hand as common, we also see that there is no definitive canon of scripture, dozens of heresies popped up all over the Chrisitian world, and for more than three quarters of that period, the Pope himself had live in hiding because of the persecutions of Chrisitians. That said, I’m not sure that I want to return to the practises of the Early Church. The Holy Spirit guided Trent, V2, and every council in-between, and they all reaffirmed that communion on the tongue is the norm, and a pious practise.

I ought to finish up by saying that I am not strictly against communion in the hand. The decision, after all, is not mine to make. If for some reason, that stimulates in you a greater appreciation of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then good for you. I just don’t see why the Host has to go from the priest’s hand to my hand to my tongue when it can go straight from his hand to my tongue.

Wishing the communion-in-the-hand-gang all Blessings,

Mat.

One last bit about pre-V2 abuses. We’ve established that they indeed took place, but were often not as dramatic as today. I am too young to have experience of those days, but I dearly love the EF, and would like to know if those attended mass before 1965 if the sort of abuses affected consecration as often as they do today.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Pious Mat;2948715:

Yes, thumbs up also to the post quoted above by Pious Mat. Also thumbs up to Saint Gemma. This is off topic, but it’s interesting that the University of Chicago issued a book on Saint Gemma within the past few years.

 

[BobP123]

While I’m not a proponent of CITH (for similar reasons about going back to the Early Church), the text from Pope Leo is not proof for Communion on the tongue- it does not preclude Communion in the hand.

No, but several hundred years of non-use does.

Seriously, if it was such a great thing, why was this practice discontinued? Maybe because it produced bad fruits?