Eucharist on the tongue

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

What about it is incorrect? The gentleman (a former SSPXer) quotes St. Justin Martyr, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, Tertullian, the Synod of Trullo, etc.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t leap around.

I didn’t even look at the website. I could care less. I am well aware of evidence for Communion in the hand at certain points in history.

YOU said it was Apostolic, and it isn’t.

I don’t rely on websites, SSPX, ex-SSPX, or otherwise, for my knowledge of Catholicism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Don’t leap around.

I didn’t even look at the website. I could care less. I am well aware of evidence for Communion in the hand at certain points in history.

YOU said it was Apostolic, and it isn’t.

I don’t rely on websites, SSPX, ex-SSPX, or otherwise, for my knowledge of Catholicism.

Okay, but don’t make it sound like I’m President Reagan claiming that trees cause air pollution. I agreed, in the absence of possible subsequent proof, that there was no absolute proof. I linked to why I tend to believe that it was an Apostolic practice (there being no proof and no authoritative declaration otherwise, I assume I’m entitled to guess or surmise or make a stab at the possiblity it was an Apostolic practice, in light of the assertions made in the link I provided).

I’m not leaping around (said I to the man who keeps interjecting jumping jacks into the conversation).

It goes back to this: Can the Church impose or permit, alter or adapt her disciplines? If she can, do those disciplines, of themselves, enjoy at least negative infallibility or can they lead the faithful into impiety (the disciplines themselves)?

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Walking_Home
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.

---

The abuse did not happen without the practice. Our late Pope did not just notice the abuse to be concurrent with the practice–as if one did not have anything to do with the other. He made the connection of abuse to communion in the hand.

“In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist”.

 

[AlexV]

Paul VI said permission was given to the USA for this so-called “negatively infallible discipline” ON THE CONDITION that there be NO DANGER of disrespect.

Quite a high bar for permission.

I wonder…especially given what John Paul said less than three years later…if the condition was met.

If not…oops.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

---

The abuse did not happen without the practice. Our late Pope did not just notice the abuse to be concurrent with the practice–as if one did not have anything to do with the other. He made the connection of abuse to communion in the hand. **No abuse happens without an accompanying practice!!! The practice is the vehicle by which something is accomplished, either the infusing of grace to one’s spiritual good and salvation or the damnation of one’s soul, depending on disposition. **

“In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist”.

**He’s clearly warning the bishops that THEY are culpable for allowing this lack of respect. I assume their “vigilance” is what he wants increased. If he thought the practice was of itself impious, then he should have and (I believe) WOULD have stopped it. It is rumored that he himself didn’t care for the practice (I myself, after long thought, don’t care for the practice), yet the indult was extended just this past January by his successor (supposedly more conservative) to the country of Poland. Read that last sentence: “attitude of the faithful.” **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Paul VI said permission was given to the USA for this so-called “negatively infallible discipline” ON THE CONDITION that there be NO DANGER of disrespect.

Quite a high bar for permission.

I wonder…especially given what John Paul said less than three years later…if the condition was met.

If not…oops.

See my reply to Walking Home above.

I have to go wrap some presents.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

---

Up to this point–Rome hasn’t. But this still does not deny–how communion in the hand came to be and gain ground. And it does not deny—that the universal norms are communion on the tongue --kneeling.

Then why does the CIRM 2000 say that the norm is standing and bowing?

 

[Walking_Home]

He’s clearly warning the bishops that THEY are culpable for allowing this lack of respect. I assume their “vigilance” is what he wants increased. If he thought the practice was of itself impious, then he should have and (I believe) WOULD have stopped it. It is rumored that he himself didn’t care for the practice (I myself, after long thought, don’t care for the practice), yet the indult was extended just this past January by his successor (supposedly more conservative) to the country of Poland. Read that last sentence: “attitude of the faithful.”

---

In a way he did --and didn’t. Instead of taking the initiative himself–he passed the buck to those below.

RS-2204

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[KatholikosMercy]

It is most definitely un-Catholic to think that everything that the Holy Father does in correct. He has made mistakes, he is human. He is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, not whether receiving in the hand is good or not. I think that when the Holy See granted the indult to receive in the hand, they showed a definite lack of judgment. I believe that their granting of that indult has caused some “Catholics” to not believe in the real presence of the Our Lord in the Eucharist. If we want to help this crisis of unbelieve, we first must require all Catholics to receive Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

I tend to agree, however my concern is with the choice being removed. I would never presupose to second guess the Magisterium lest I become as a Pharasee.

Pax.

 

[AlexV]

The thread is about Eucharist on the tongue. If you have another topic, start a new thread.

The indult for the reception in the hand…and it IS an indult, as much as some might dislike that reminder…was given ON THE CONDITION that there be NO DANGER of disrespect to the Eucharist.

Quite a high bar. Paul VI’s 1977 condition has never been rescinded.

The NORM, universally in the Roman Rite, is reception on the tongue.

And since you like numbers, “Katholikos”, I’d wager…an opinion…that since 1977 more people have been told they can’t receive on the tongue (by liars) than have been told they can’t receive in the hand.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

As for “intellectualism”, if that means academic rigor, guilty as charged.

Hardly, as academic rigor entails exhibiting understanding of Christs charity. keep studing though. You might get it yet. I would suggest a bit more prayer and fasting though.

As for “presumptuous pride”, that’s quite a charge for someone merely stating facts.

Your presumption means pridefully and incredulously considering ones self correct. I suppose if St Peter himself told you to recieve in the hand you would digress and do as you wish. Orthodoxy lays with the teaching authority of the Magisterium. Not you. Its teaching says we should have a choice how to recieve. Thank God for their wisdom and mercy, and not the hard line of Pharasees.

So you count heads at Mass (time could be better spent, I’d argue, but I digress).

Go ahead and digress again, its seems to be where your true talent lays.

So from counting heads, you opine about universal practices?

If stating that the Magisterium has authority and not you is opining then so be it and amen!

No let me digress from your tone and tenor and wish you a wonderful Mass the next time you go.

Pax.

 

[AlexV]

Don’t call me a “Pharisee” and then lecture me about charity.

I stated the NORM for reception of Holy Communion is ON THE TONGUE in the Roman Rite.

I am correct. Are you disputing me? If so, prove me wrong.

I stated an INDULT exists, granted in 1977, for Communion on the hand in the USA. Other indults exist for other countries. The indult is contingent on there being no danger of disrespect to the Eucharist. Are you disputing me? If so, prove me wrong.

So far you’ve called me a modernist and a Pharisee. All I did was state the truth. Next lecture in charity?

 

[KatholikosMercy]

The thread is about Eucharist on the tongue. If you have another topic, start a new thread.

The indult for the reception in the hand…and it IS an indult, as much as some might dislike that reminder…was given ON THE CONDITION that there be NO DANGER of disrespect to the Eucharist.

Quite a high bar. Paul VI’s 1977 condition has never been rescinded.

The NORM, universally in the Roman Rite, is reception on the tongue.

And since you like numbers, “Katholikos”, I’d wager…an opinion…that since 1977 more people have been told they can’t receive on the tongue (by liars) than have been told they can’t receive in the hand.

The NORM is standing and a bow and as a EMHC I would recommend doing what you feel comfortable doing since the church allows both. If you ask what I recommend I would ask that you search your heart to do what you feel is most pleasing to Jesus alone and no one else.

If you come to communion on my line and kneel I will Gladly give you the Body of Christ.

Divine Mercy will prevail.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

So far you’ve called me a modernist and a Pharisee. All I did was state the truth. Next lecture in charity?

I called you no such thing. Wheres your evidence for such a false accusation?

 

[AlexV]

This thread is about reception ON THE TONGUE, not about standing, bowing, or the use of Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Stick to the thread.

As for your gracious apparent “concession” of what you would do if I came to you for Communion and knelt…though irrelevant to this thread, I will say you have no right to deny Communion to anyone who kneels. It’s not your choice. YOU don’t decide. Period.

 

[laudamus_te]

Perhaps if we could refrain from calling the disciplines the Church allows or imposes impieties, then this wouldn’t crop up. An important disctinction in the examples you give is this: the disciplines of themselves are not the cause of the impiety, the person receiving is the cause of the impiety.

The word in bold is the key one to keep in mind when talking about “negative infallibility” of disciplinary laws of the Church. In order to carry this infallibility, a law must be imposed upon the faithful. If it is merely a recommendation or permission, it is not imposed, hence error is not being imposed. Communion in the hand is a permission.

 

[KatholikosMercy]

This thread is about reception ON THE TONGUE, not about standing, bowing, or the use of Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Stick to the thread.

As for your gracious apparent “concession” of what you would do if I came to you for Communion and knelt…though irrelevant to this thread, I will say you have no right to deny Communion to anyone who kneels. It’s not your choice. YOU don’t decide. Period.

Exactly, now your beginning to understand. It is also no ones right to tell another communicate how they should recieve.

Its unfortunate that you were lied to as you claim but the fact remains the choice is in effect and if we waste time arguing over if we should have the choice then what are we missing?

By the way it wasn’t a concession. For me the indult is a concession. But a charitable one at that. Who am I do second guess it? (Lesson in humility).

 

[AlexV]

Spare me your arrogant tone. Spare me your condescension.

You spent plenty of time quibbling with those of us who pointed out the NORM is reception on the tongue, and the INDULT is reception in the hand.

And let’s remember…that indult was granted on the condition there be no danger of disrespect to the Eucharist. Quite a high bar.

 

[AlexV]

Laudamus te:

A good observation. Texts must be read critically and legalistically.

Also, note the 1977 permission insists there be NO DANGER of disrespect to the Eucharist. Otherwise, the permission isn’t granted.