Eucharist on the tongue

[itsjustdave1988]

Actually, Communion on the tongue now enjoys the status of a venerable custom…

I’ve heard this as well, but another venerable custom was Holy Communion given to infants. It too was a venerable custom, even in the Latin Rite, practiced for the first 1200 years of Latin Catholicism. Yet, if what you say above is true, then the Church did not have the authority to make such a venerable custom illicit in the Latin Rite. But it did.

 

[AlexV]

Nothing Basil wrote about Communion reception etiquette has relevance to the Roman Rite.

There is no evidence that infants were receiving Communion in the west as late as the 12th century. Peter the Lombard (c. 1170) talks about how “infantes”, which he explains means those who cannot speak (Latin in–fantes), do not receive.

He taught theology at Paris.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

I located an ancient document from St. Basil that showed the early church did receive communion in the hand, at least in the fourth century.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.xciv.html

And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

This sentence was interesting, where the faithful were encouraged to partake on a daily basis. From books I’ve read, the church later withdrew this privilege and restricted the frequency. Some saints had to obtain extraordinary permission to frequent the sacrament. We see the change in discipline throughout the years, from often - to seldom - to twice daily at this time.

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ.

Great post. I’d like to re-add this to it:

From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal

Manner of Receiving Communion

#160:2: The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and, still less, hand them to one another. The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. **When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence **and received the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

 

[AlexV]

What’s your point? The USA has an indult for reception in the hand. The normative method of reception in the Roman Rite is on the tongue. Next point?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I think we can discern the validity of negative infallibility from Acts 15, where the apostles issued a letter, after deliberating on the discipline of circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law for the Gentiles.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

The former disciplines were nullified and the Gentiles were under no further requirement to observe these. I have a feeling the pharisees were not too happy about that, but nevertheless, the decision was made under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and honored by the new converts. Maybe those who desired it could practice the former laws as a personal devotion, but they were absolved of all obligation to do so.

It appears to me that some are in the same position of the pharisees in that chapter, requiring the church to abide by their perceptions of how disciplines should be carried out. As in those days, it caused a lot of heated and needless controversy before the matter was finally decided, and since we presently have a statement from the Magisterium, that should be the end of the wrangling. Yes?

Yes.

However, I believe it is the right and duty of Catholics to manifest their opinion when it comes to the good of the Church.

Disciplinary infallibility does not mean a guarantee of prudence. Circumstances change. For instance, the prohibition from the Book of Acts to avoid the meat of strangled animals no longer applies. It was infallible (indirect and negative – that is free from being intrinsically dangerous or harmful to the faith), but not immutable. At least by St. Augustine’s day, it was no longer normative to abide by this disciplinary norm, promulgated by the Apostles themselves. It was at one time prudent to prohibit eating meats of strangles animals and consuming blood, but by Augustine’s day, this was no longer normative discipline, perhaps because it was deemed no longer a prudent discipline for the contemporary situation.

I personally do not believe it is prudent for the Church to allow receipt of Holy Communion in the hand. And so I too would advocate to my lawful pastors that they return to distribution of communion, kneeling, to be received on the tongue.

However, like Kirk I’m not not prepared to call the current approved ecclesiastical discipline of the Church dangerous or harmful to the faithful, as this would be contrary to a Jansenist proposition already condemned by Pius VI in the 18th century.

In other words, I don’t need to cling to or propose Jansenist claims when I manifest my opinion that receiving on one’s knees, on the tongue ought to the the practice in the Latin Rite, to include my parish, as a matter of prudence.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…There is no evidence that infants were receiving Communion in the west as late as the 12th century…

From Quam Singulari (1910), approved and promulgated by St. Pius X …
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10quam.htm

The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. … done at Baptism UNTIL THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY …This practice later died out in the Latin Church, and children were not permitted to approach the Holy Table until they had come to the use of reason and had some knowledge of this august Sacrament. This NEW PRACTICE, already accepted by certain local councils, was solemnly confirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran, in 1215 …

My question remains, did the Church have the authority to make illicit this venerable custom of the Latin Rite, which as St. Pius X says has its roots "“even from the beginning…done…UNTIL THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY?” Appearantly so.

I’m not convinced of the claim that “once a disciplinary custom is long-standing, it becomes immutable.”

 

[AlexV]

Well apparently we have a conflict. Peter the Lombard says it wasn’t happening in Paris in 1170. Then again, the manuscripts of Peter that were available in the Patrologia Latina in Pius X’s day were…to say the least…horribly inadequate, uncritical editions.

This whole recurring issue becomes tedious. Some of you think the pope can do whatever he wants. Others of us disagree. Some of you view everything as equally binding; others of us disagree.

It’s interesting to note that a careful, CRITICAL reading of the passage you quoted doesn’t say a pope ORDERED the practice to stop. It says it “died out”. That implies an ORGANIC development…not a decision taken one day by fiat. As is the TRADITIONAL view of authority in the Catholic Church, the council in 1215 merely RATIFIED what was already happening organically.

On the day a pope orders jumping jacks at the Consecration, I guess some of us will do them, and others not.

 

[Rykell]

Dave:

I’m not convinced of the claim that “once a disciplinary custom is long-standing, it becomes immutable, even by they pope.”

If that was the case, then the long-standing custom of the NOM would prevail, and the Pope would not be able to issue the long-awaited Motu Proprio. Some selectively pick and choose which statements of the Popes are valid for them to observe, and which are not.

However, in the example of the permissions needed for some saints to receive the Eucharist more frequently, if they were denied because of the current discipline being in place, they submitted and did NOT rebel, saying to themselves, “This was the custom of the ancient church, therefore I am permitted to disobey my superiors.”

It did not happen, and we need to follow their example, obeying those which are set forth by the Holy See, until such time as they are changed. And I agree, Dave, that one can raise questions about any particular discipline, which is exactly what some saints did. The end result, whichever way our questioning turns out, is obedience.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Well apparently we have a conflict. Peter the Lombard says it wasn’t happening in Paris in 1170. Then again, the manuscripts of Peter that were available in the Patrologia Latina in Pius X’s day were…to say the least…horribly inadequate, uncritical editions.

Oh, to now Pius X is suspected of error on this matter? O brother. Anything to save face, huh?

Bottomline: the Church herself KNOWS and St. Pius X had published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis that she KNOWS that the ancient practice of infant communion lasted for over 1000 years, but then was made illicit by the Church. Your quibbling over the matter, notwithstanding.

Some of you think the pope can do whatever he wants…Some of you view everything as equally binding…

I don’t know anybody who has made such a claim, so I don’t know who you could be referring too. Sound’s rather like a “strawman” attempt to me.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

What’s your point? The USA has an indult for reception in the hand. The normative method of reception in the Roman Rite is on the tongue. Next point?

The point is, is that the norm is uncommon not only in the US. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[AlexV]

Actually, the so-called (inaccurately) “Tridentine” Mass was never abolished, so no, the NOM doesn’t automatically get to replace it because it’s been around since 1970. Besides, 37 years is hardly “immutable custom” in the Church’s view.

As for “obedience”: as Aquinas taught, obedience isn’t good or bad IN SE. In itself. In fact, it can lead to both great good AND great evil.

No cafeteria Catholicism in my posts. Rather, authentic Catholic tradition…not some of the strangeness that has accompanied Catholicism in the last few years.

 

[AlexV]

Look “Dave”, I happen to be an academic, and I have a manuscript I have been editing for publication of the Latin works of Peter the Lombard, theology professor at Paris in the late 12th century, and he notes that infants, once communicated in the West, were no longer being communicated in his day “in hoc tempore”. He died in 1170.

Were some infants being communicated in the West in 1170? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But not in Paris, as Peter - who was also BISHOP in Paris for the last year of his life - makes clear.

Pius’s letter proves the point that the custom was dying out - NOT by papal fiat or edict. The Lateran Council merely ratified what was already happening by organic development in the West.

Incidentally, a Dominican who edited Lombard before me notes on this particular text that in Britain they were NOT communicating infants in the TENTH century. So that’s another bit of evidence.

 

[AlexV]

“KatholikosMercy”: doesn’t matter how many people follow the universal norm, and how many follow the indult.

Doesn’t change reality. The normative reception of Communion in the Roman Rite is on the tongue. Indults exist for reception in the hand. Doesn’t change the norm.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…And I agree, Dave, that one can raise questions about any particular discipline, which is exactly what some saints did. The end result, whichever way our questioning turns out, is obedience.

Amen! The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium no. 37 states:

"By reason of the knowledge, competence, or pre-eminence which they have, the laity are empowered—indeed sometimes obliged—to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church. If the occasion should arise, this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose, and always with truth, courage, and prudence, and with reverence and charity toward those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ. ***The laity should, as all Christians, promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds, since they are representatives of Christ as well as teachers and rulers in the Church. ***

Many Catholics claiming obedience to the Roman Pontiff simply re-propose a Jansenist claim already condemned by Pius VI. Traditional Catholics ought not to be convinced by such claims.

 

[Walking_Home]

Great post. I’d like to re-add this to it:

From the General Instruction on the Roman Missal

Manner of Receiving Communion

#160:2: The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and, still less, hand them to one another. The norm for the reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the USA is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. **When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head as a gesture of reverence **and received the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand at the discretion of the communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

---

Again—the universal norms supercede indult norms. The universal norms are still in force.

 

[AlexV]

I suppose that when the cardinal archbishop of a certain large American archdiocese announces, in writing, that flagons can be used in the liturgy and that lay ministers can continue pouring the “consecrated wine” (sic) out of them, his subjects should respond in obedience. After all, he’s the chief liturgist for his territory.

 

[Walking_Home]

I suppose that when the cardinal archbishop of a certain large American archdiocese announces, in writing, that flagons can be used in the liturgy and that lay ministers can continue pouring the “consecrated wine” (sic) out of them, his subjects should respond in obedience. After all, he’s the chief liturgist for his territory.

---

Add to that—those bishops who still allow the laity to cleanse the communion vessels —against the decision from Rome.

 

[AlexV]

Yeah, that’s where this topic gets rather thorny…after all, the bishop is the chief liturgist of his diocese…and when the pope does nothing to make clear that bishops can’t do certain things, and when, on the contrary, such bishops are allowed to continue to be liturgical czars for their territories and sometimes are even advanced to larger Sees…well, it does get thorny indeed.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Look “Dave”, I happen to be an academic…

Well I’m not. I’m “just Dave.” But I do read a lot. And I think St. Pius X’s words on the matter have more authority.

Were some infants being communicated in the West in 1170? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But not in Paris, as Peter - who was also BISHOP in Paris for the last year of his life - makes clear.

Well, that’s a bit different than your prior “no evidence” stance.

Yet, my original point had nothing to do with particular local practices in Paris or elsewhere, but referred to the long-standing custom which did indeed became illicit universally in the Latin Rite, as confirmed by St. Pius X.

Pius’s letter proves the point that the custom was dying out - NOT by papal fiat or edict.

Correct. Kinda like the custom of women wearing head coverings at Mass has “died out” within the Latin Rite. Yet, for some, this custom continues despite it having “died out,” generally speaking. So it appears there is more than simply citing “venerable custom” as though by that very fact alone, it supposedly becomes immutable norm.

 

[AlexV]

Whatever, Dave.

Pius X notes correctly that the practice began to die out…I note, not by papal edict…and that finally, in 1215…some 45 after Lombard, I might add…it was finally declared illicit…in other words, what was already happening organically was ratified.

Pius X’s letter doesn’t make Lombard wrong. Lombard’s evidence, and the evidence uncovered by other scholars about British practice in the 9th century, shows that by 1170 the practice was RARE. Just as I originally stated. The British weren’t doing it in the 9th century, Paris in the 12th. Not exactly bywaters of Western Christendom. In fact, there’s no evidence that babies WERE receiving Communion in the West in the 12th century. That figure of “13th century” comes only from the date of the declaration it was illicit. Doesn’t prove anyone actually still did it as late as 1215.

Let’s not pretend that overnight, in 1215, babies suddenly stopped receiving Communion in the west. That’s false.

As for women wearing mantillas…again, you display a tendency to make everything of equal weight. That issue is utterly irrelevant, and on another plane of existence, from Communion age reception practices.