Eucharist on the tongue

[AlexV]

Have I said Communion in the hand is impious IN SE?

Nope. End of discussion.

Now back to the real world…or the next time you can trot out your pet issue of “negative infallibility” when you think some schismatic or heretic is daring to come close to questioning it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home

newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

V. DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY
…To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform.

Your’e not getting it. Reread it. It’s saying that disciplinary infallibility doesn’t mean immutability. No ones has said that it does. All we’re saying is that ***at the very least ***it cannot lead the faithful to impiety, cannot be impious of itself. That’s all we’re saying: “at the very least.”

---

I read it and got it. You on the other hand—are applying positive infallibity in place of the negative to the exceptions.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And, in the end, WHO CARES???

We live in the real world. Not the world of a classroom where we can nod solemnly and say “In and of itself this cannot be impious”.

THAT’S the extent of this repetitious thread. No more.

I care. I care very much when people who avail themselves of a legitimate choice given them by the Church are brow beaten (as has happened in other threads on the same topic, if not this one) and attempts are made to coerce their consciences (that’s “real world”). I care when error is taught, whether it’s liberal, progressivist error or something on the lines of Jansenism. I care very much when “traditionalists” get the Tradition wrong (last I checked, Trent was pretty traditional).

 

[BobP123]

The end result, whichever way our questioning turns out, is obedience.

What’s obedience got to do with receiving in either form? Did I miss something? Did anyone MAKE you go to communion in the first place?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

I read it and got it. You on the other hand—are applying positive infallibity in place of the negative to the exceptions.

I am not. Again, at the most, we’re talking about negative infallibility. What you cite simply asserts that that negative infallibility does not mean immutability (ie, the assertion that disciplines cannot change, which we all agree cannot happen). There is no mention of “exceptions.” And in this instance, it wouldn’t be a exception, it would a re-institution of an Apostolic practice. Can Apostolic or patristic practice by regarded by a more enlightened Church as impious?

 

[BobP123]

i would think the mentality is that the particles that may be unseen on the hand are not significant enough to cause an uproar.

:banghead: uch: :nope:

Again, if we treated unseen newly-fertilized eggs the same way, there would definitely be an uproar.

 

[AlexV]

Nope, there is no historical proof it’s an Apostolic practice. At the Last Supper, in any case, the Apostles were bishops.

As for what THEY did after the Last Supper, in the first century AD, we have NO historical evidence.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not. Again, at the most, we’re talking about negative infallibility. What you cite simply asserts that that negative infallibility does not mean immutability (ie, the assertion that disciplines cannot change, which we all agree cannot happen). There is no mention of “exceptions.” And in this instance, it wouldn’t be a exception, it would a re-institution of an Apostolic practice. Can Apostolic or patristic practice by regarded by a more enlightened Church as impious?

---

It goes deeper than saying disciplines can change. You apparently missed the part on error below. There can be error in adapting a law.

To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Nope, there is no historical proof it’s an Apostolic practice. At the Last Supper, in any case, the Apostles were bishops.

As for what THEY did after the Last Supper, in the first century AD, we have NO historical evidence.

It was a very early parctice at least in parts of the Church (and where it wasn’t, communion on the tongue isn’t mentioned as the alternative, except in the Churches where intincition was practiced) and it continued for centuries, until it was ended by the competent authority.

And the apostles as bishops in this context is a red herring. You’re attempting to apply a fact (they WERE bishops, with apostolic authority) to a theory (therefore, ONLY they were permitted to handle the Sacred Species). Since we don’t KNOW what happened at the Last Supper or in first century AD, we don’t KNOW that that theory obviously flows from that fact. What we do know is that the competent authority at one point altered the practice. The question is, did that authority HAVE the authority? The liberals and progressivists (like your nun teachers), desiring to harken back to the ancient Church, would probably say no, it was an apostolic practice. Some in these threads seem to say yes, the Church eventually knew better. Still others (and this is the line of thought I subscribe to) think that yes, the competent authority had the authority to alter this discipline and still has that authority. That doesn’t mean that the supressed practice was impious when it was practiced by the ancient Church or that the Church Militant knew better, and it doesn’t mean that whatever new discipline imposed in place of it is either more pious or less pious (objectively), in fact, the disciplines of the Church at the very least cannot be impious. How do we know? Because an ecumenical council said so.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

It goes deeper than saying disciplines can change. You apparently missed the part on error below. There can be error in adapting a law.

To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform

Didn’t miss it. The “law” is the Church’s total teaching on a particular subject, in this instance, it’s teaching about the Mass, etc. The adaptation is the discipline that can change, but which cannot, whatever the discipline is, be impious. Read the whole section you provided in your link. It clearly says that the Church’s displines cannot be (ie, are incapable of being) at odds with her laws.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t worm your way out of this.

You said it was Apostolic.

I (correctly) noted there is ZERO evidence it was an Apostolic practice.

Remember your line about truth and error?

The TRUTH is, it can’t be called Apostolic without any evidence. And there is none. Apostolic means until the death of John, traditionally c. 96 or thereabouts.

It IS a fact, however, that the apostles were consecrated as bishops at the Last Supper.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Don’t worm your way out of this.

You said it was Apostolic.

I (correctly) noted there is ZERO evidence it was an Apostolic practice.

Remember your line about truth and error?

The TRUTH is, it can’t be called Apostolic without any evidence. And there is none. Apostolic means until the death of John, traditionally c. 96 or thereabouts.

It IS a fact, however, that the apostles were consecrated as bishops at the Last Supper.

I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m worming.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Also, where is there proof that because the Apostles were bishops, only they handled the Sacred Species?

 

[AlexV]

You called it Apostolic. That means a practice of the first century A.D.

There is no evidence that Communion in the hand was the practice of the Apostles.

None, zero.

You were wrong. Time to move on, lest we cling to error.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You called it Apostolic. That means a practice of the first century A.D.

There is no evidence that Communion in the hand was the practice of the Apostles.

None, zero.

You were wrong. Time to move on, lest we cling to error.

Okay, mea maxima culp for my error, but did the Early Church just suddenly come up with the idea on their own. These disciples of the disciples of Our Lord? Or if you wish, the disciples of the disciples of the disciples of our Lord? Did you read the link?

 

[AlexV]

I don’t need to read links on the web to get my Catholic education.

The point is, is Communion in the hand Apostolic. You claimed it is. There is no evidence to support that. None whatsoever.

 

[Walking_Home]

Didn’t miss it. The “law” is the Church’s total teaching on a particular subject, in this instance, it’s teaching about the Mass, etc. The adaptation is the discipline that can change, but which cannot, whatever the discipline is, be impious. Read the whole section you provided in your link. It clearly says that the Church’s displines cannot be (ie, are incapable of being) at odds with her laws.

---

A discipline cannot be opposed to Divine law—that is not the issue here. We are not speaking of the Chalice. We are speaking of a discipline–that has been associated by our late Pope to “deplorable lack of respect” and by RS-2004 to “profanation”.

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law; the most remarkable instance of this being the suppression of the chalice in the Communion of the laity. This has often been violently attacked as contrary to the Gospel. Concerning it the Council of Constance (1415) declared (Sess. XIII): “The claim that it is sacrilegious or illicit to observe this custom or law [Communion under one kind] must be regarded as erroneous, and those who obstinately affirm it must be cast aside as heretics.” (See ROMAN CONGREGATIONS.)

 

[AlexV]

I think it’s instructive to note that when Paul VI finally did grant permission, in 1977, it was CONTINGENT on their being NO danger of disrespect to the Holy Eucharist.

Quite a high bar, eh?

Of course it’s also deplorably ambiguous…just what constitutes a danger of disrespect…but how rarely we hear about that little codicil. The whole indult depends on there being NO danger of disrespect…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I don’t need to read links on the web to get my Catholic education.

The point is, is Communion in the hand Apostolic. You claimed it is. There is no evidence to support that. None whatsoever.

Alright, to all readers, unless some more knowledgeable person knows of evidence to contrary, I stipulate to Alex’s assertion that there is no evidence to support the opposing assertion that there is proof of communion in the hand as an Apostolic practice. In a word, unless someone can come up with that proof, I was wrong and I apologize for any offense I might have given.

That said, Alex, do read what the writer wrote. If it is in error, you as a Catholic should be concerned that it is being propagated. Incidentally, the writer agrees with you about Apostolic origin. I tend to believe it’s Apostolic origin because it makes sense in light of the rest of what the author says. Maybe you can help me out with that? Because wasn’t it at least a Patristic practice? Did, as the Mormons and some Baptists assert, some “Great Apostacy” occur?

 

[AlexV]

I don’t worry about every website in existence that purports to teach Catholic history. Talk about a cesspool of scholarship.

I advise others not to seek their Catholic educations on the web.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

A discipline cannot be opposed to Divine law—that is not the issue here. We are not speaking of the Chalice. We are speaking of a discipline–that has been associated by our late Pope to “deplorable lack of respect” and by RS-2004 to “profanation”.
**The old Holy Father did not say that communion in the hand was an impious practice of itself and stated that he was not addressing those who piously received in that manner. He noted with alarm that there was abuse concurrent with the practice. Since he was addressing bishops, I assume he was making a plea for better catechesis so that concurrent abuse would be diminished (I’m sure he was too much the realist to assume that it would end altogether, since abuse of the Sacred Species was not exclusive to the contemporary Church). **

From the disciplinary infallibility of the Church, correctly understood as an indirect consequence of her doctrinal infallibility, it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law;

Emphasis mine.