Do you really want to go back to the early Church practices?

  • Thread starter Thread starter latinmasslover
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
latinmasslover said:
“That does not of course mean that it should always be so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly.” But that was in 1978. He himself has matured since then, seen the beautiful results of the practice, and will make a wise decision in time, I have no doubt.

To say the practice is okay to do is the same as an adult saying he should be able to go to the bathroom during the Consecration at Mass because, after all, the children do it and mean no offense. He shouldn’t have to kneel because he didn’t as a child. He shouldn’t have to pray more than one Pater, Ave, and Gloria because, again, children manage with this just fine.

Children aren’t irreverent with the “little” they do for God, but as our understanding increases, so does our responsibility. The Church changed the practice for a reason, and to go back because it’s what the Church did in the beginning of her existance (which I’ve yet to see *proof *of) is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You make a bad analogy here. I don’t think Pope Benedict is advocating that we all should act like little children and I’m not sure why you would insist that he spout such nonsense.

He remarks quite validly, that a practice that was used for hundreds of years cannot be bad and that we should focus on interior preparation rather than particular postures.

It’s silly for you or I to speculate whether or not he “means” this or not. Even if he decides to change the indult, it does not mean that it was an “evil” indult. It just means that he believes that pastorally the best thing for the Church is to remove the indult. Or he may decide, the best thing is to leave the indult as is and promote orthodx catechesis. Whatever he decides I will trust will be what the Church needs now. After all, he is given the wisdom to decide what disciplines are needed by the Church, not me.
 
snowfly said:
Then I’ve heard of the Host being trampled under foot in the aisles, and being use at black masses.
Click to expand...
And of course there was never any such thing as a Black Mass (complete with consecrated Host) ever held anywhere before the 1960s :rolleyes:

Sadly but true, those who have wished to procure consecrated Hosts for such purposes had, you can be sure, no more problems doing so before Communion in the Hand was reintroduced as after.

I’m sure people have always been permitted, for example, to take the Eucharist to those who are housebound and ill. Easy enough, it would seem, for someone to manufacture a sick relative and so gain possession of the Sacred Host.

As for your Protestant friend - all you can do is keep explaining and keep praying, especially to Our Lady and St Michael the Archangel, for their soul.
 
LilyM said:
And of course there was never any such thing as a Black Mass (complete with consecrated Host) ever held anywhere before the 1960s :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes but why make it easy for them, and by the way I resent rolling eyes, I find them offensive.
 
LilyM said:
And of course there was never any such thing as a Black Mass (complete with consecrated Host) ever held anywhere before the 1960s :rolleyes:

Sadly but true, those who have wished to procure consecrated Hosts for such purposes had, you can be sure, no more problems doing so before Communion in the Hand was reintroduced as after.

I’m sure people have always been permitted, for example, to take the Eucharist to those who are housebound and ill. Easy enough, it would seem, for someone to manufacture a sick relative and so gain possession of the Sacred Host.

As for your Protestant friend - all you can do is keep explaining and keep praying, especially to Our Lady and St Michael the Archangel, for their soul.
Click to expand...
I was reading a book (I can’t remember the name of it) on Eucharistic miracles and the author described how sometimes people would take the host out of their mouths and put it in a hankie or something and take it home for their own personal devotions. This is not difficult to do. I once saw a young mentally-challenged boy of about 12 take the host, put it in his mouth, and then take it out and put it in his pocket on his way back to his pew. I told our pastor, who then took care of the matter. (I don’t think the boy sinned, I think he just did not understand the gravity of the matter). Communion on the tongue does not prevent such abuses, nor does it predict the reverence a person has toward the Eucharist. That is a matter of interior disposition. Such abuses have occurred throughout the history of the Church, no matter how Jesus is received.
 
CB_Catholic said:
I was reading a book (I can’t remember the name of it) on Eucharistic miracles and the author described how sometimes people would take the host out of their mouths and put it in a hankie or something and take it home for their own personal devotions. This is not difficult to do. I once saw a young mentally-challenged boy of about 12 take the host, put it in his mouth, and then take it out and put it in his pocket on his way back to his pew. I told our pastor, who then took care of the matter. (I don’t think the boy sinned, I think he just did not understand the gravity of the matter). Communion on the tongue does not prevent such abuses, nor does it predict the reverence a person has toward the Eucharist. That is a matter of interior disposition. Such abuses have occurred throughout the history of the Church, no matter how Jesus is received.
Click to expand...
Nobody denies that abuses didn’t occur before Communion in the hand. A question is: why make it easier? Communion being received on the tongue while kneeling is a reverent posture. In the hand is not. We’re not even supposed to genuflect, just a dinkly little nod and “amen.” Abuses can happen either way, but the example of receiving the King of kings while kneeling is more appropriate, wouldn’t you agree?🙂
 
Was the intent of the question only the Eucharist? If so I’d say yes. If the question includes all practices of the early Church I’d say no as some things we’ve grown beyond in Christ.
The host placed in hand may be allowed but it’s not the best manner.
 
latinmasslover said:
Nobody denies that abuses didn’t occur before Communion in the hand. A question is: why make it easier? Communion being received on the tongue while kneeling is a reverent posture. In the hand is not. We’re not even supposed to genuflect, just a dinkly little nod and “amen.” Abuses can happen either way, but the example of receiving the King of kings while kneeling is more appropriate, wouldn’t you agree?🙂
Click to expand...
No, I don’t agree, because I don’t believe receiving Communion in the hand is irreverent. The irreverence comes from the disposition of the receiver, not the posture. And I don’t make a “dinky little nod”, either. But then again, I go by what the Magesterium of the Church teaches. I am not above that. If the Church says Communion in the hand is fine, then it’s fine. If it says on the tongue, that is fine with me. If it says I have a choice, then I make that choice, and don’t judge others by what they choose. You can as much irreverence receiving on the tongue as in the hand. I don’t see where one makes you holier than the other. One may LOOK holier, but that is not indicative of the state of their heart, which is something I am not privy to.
 
To be perfectly honest, I am SMILING as I go forward for Communion. I am HAPPY to be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. Just like that nun who wore pants and makeup …(paraphrased from another post elsewhere).

Scripture says “This is the Day the Lord has made. Let us REJOICE and BE GLAD in it.”
 
latinmasslover said:
I thought I’d post this question since every other time it is asked on another thread it’s never answered.

BTW - give an answer before posing your opposing view/question (you know who you are!)

For those of you who say that Communion in the hand should be permitted and/or encouraged because (allegedly) this is the way it was practiced in the early Church, do you also want to penances of the early Church? The **public **confession, the **public **and **severe **(sometimes long) penance?

Please think hard about what this would mean before giving an answer.
Click to expand...
YES!! YES!!! AMEN AMEN:D
 
Martyrdom at any moment was an ever-present reality in the Early Church. (Oddly enough, it still is where Christianity originated.)

Does anyone on the blogs want to go back to that?
 
Maybe if we went back to communion rails the church wouldn’t use Euchartistic Ministers anymore.
 
Wedgewood said:
Maybe if we went back to communion rails the church wouldn’t use Euchartistic Ministers anymore.
Click to expand...
What about all the old folks who can’t kneel or get up afterward?

One thing that is overlooked, is that folks are living a lot longer than they used to. Lots of frail 75+ year olds aren’t in much shape to be kneeling and getting up at a rail.
 
If I remember correctly from my younger days of Latin Mass and Communion rails, there were older people who did stand at the end of the Communion rail who were unable to kneel.

My point was more to do away with EM than the Communion rail. I just don’t believe the Eucharist was meant to be given out by anyone other than a priest.
 
Brother_John said:
What about all the old folks who can’t kneel or get up afterward?

One thing that is overlooked, is that folks are living a lot longer than they used to. Lots of frail 75+ year olds aren’t in much shape to be kneeling and getting up at a rail.
Click to expand...
At my church, everyone who can kneels for Communion, while those who are too frail to kneel at the altar rail simply stand, or even sit in a wheelchair. In a similar fashion, at the churches without altar rails everyone who can stands for Communion, while some individuals,who have disabilities which preclude standing, sit.
 
latinmasslover said:
No, he wouldn’t. He’s not stupid, he’s very aware of the giant hissy-fit that will be thrown he sets it right. He’s likely waiting, and praying, trying to figure how the heck to forbid it with the least amount of people throwing tantrums.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but I understand your point of view. I guess, in my image of who the Pope is, he would stop any irreverence right away. But, it may not be as simple as that. I guess the thought that I could be irreverent to Jesus, present in the Most Holy Sacrament, bothers me. I would hope, for my own well being, the Holy Father would stop me immediately. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, have a great day!👍

God Bless,

YACatholic
 
This entire thread was begun and has been sustained by personal speculation on what the Holy Father thinks and feels, and what he “probably” intended, and what he would do if it weren’t for politics, etc. That’s all nonsense. When what he has actually said and wrote was quoted, it was basically ignored. Sure already posted this in #15 so I’ll just link y’all back to it.

In my view, I don’t care which way you receive (since both are allowed)-- If your heart is full of judgement and petty irritation at what others are doing, you are in no way being reverent to our Lord. Just let it go, please.
 
ac_claire said:
This entire thread was begun and has been sustained by personal speculation on what the Holy Father thinks and feels, and what he “probably” intended, and what he would do if it weren’t for politics, etc. That’s all nonsense. When what he has actually said and wrote was quoted, it was basically ignored. Sure already posted this in #15 so I’ll just link y’all back to it.

In my view, I don’t care which way you receive (since both are allowed)-- If your heart is full of judgement and petty irritation at what others are doing, you are in no way being reverent to our Lord. Just let it go, please.
Click to expand...
:blessyou:
 
I would love to go back to early church practices. I also think that public penance would be great!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top