Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified ourfaith?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think you were reeled in by one of WhiteDove’s jokes (remember what day it is) What I find so hilarious is that her “logic” so closely resembles the arguements of some as to fool you.

Let’s put a postive spin on it. The results of Vatican II was the fall of communism in eastern Europe and an end of the cold war.

Yes, I realized this when I the next reply.

WhiteDove:

Dear Byz,
Eating bread also leads to drug abuse. It’s obvious, because 99.9% of drug abusers have first eaten bread. Duh…

I did think that was out of character for WhiteDove but I think I my reply served a purpose as there are a lot of users posting to this thread and this forum who think that way.

Such as their argument of the decline in vocations following Vatican II. But then that argument ignores the growth in vocations (and of the Church in general) today.

 

[beverly30]

Just a question…

If what is taught in the Council of Trent is different than what Vatican II teaches are we required to then go with Vatican II and ignore what was written prior?

 

[pnewton]

beverly30:

Just a question…

If what is taught in the Council of Trent is different than what Vatican II teaches are we required to then go with Vatican II and ignore what was written prior?

IN matters of discipline (which by its very nature can and will change) yes, you should. Although I that is not really ignoring things that happen prior as much as realizing that they are not applicable.

 

[beverly30]

pnewton:

IN matters of discipline (which by its very nature can and will change) yes, you should. Although I that is not really ignoring things that happen prior as much as realizing that they are not applicable.

My honest concern- I’m not trying to disagree, but it has been said that things the Pope can say can be fallible- then I can only assume that things Cardinals and Bishops say and think can be fallible. Since one Cardinal in particular had probably the biggest part of Vatican II, might I suggest that things thought to be not applicable anymore is also fallible? What right does any person have to change the teachings of the Catholic Faith? I can see adding something to it, but not changing the old. Might this be the same as saying that what Jesus taught is not applicable any more in this modern world?

Just a thought.

To bring this subject back to the original post so I don’t get off the subject- I’ll relate it back to why did we stop kneeling for Communion and why did we start being able to receive on the hand?

 

[BulldogCath]

Beverly-No matter what has been said AFTER the council, the Holy Spirit was NOT invoked at this council and hence the teachings are not exact, the doctrine not infallible nor do we need to feel that we are disobedient to question a pastoral document. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI have clearly stated the council was not infallible and was to be pastoral in nature. What has happended afterwards is many of the Modernist Bishops and Cardinals have stated that all councils are infallible and Vatican II teachings must be adhered to. This is not the case. Both Popes, possibly knowing what was happening after the council was called after being warned by many around them, realized that the council was being taken over by the Hans Kung’s and the like, quickly stated the council was pastoral only.

beverly30:

My honest concern- I’m not trying to disagree, but it has been said that things the Pope can say can be fallible- then I can only assume that things Cardinals and Bishops say and think can be fallible. Since one Cardinal in particular had probably the biggest part of Vatican II, might I suggest that things thought to be not applicable anymore is also fallible? What right does any person have to change the teachings of the Catholic Faith? I can see adding something to it, but not changing the old. Might this be the same as saying that what Jesus taught is not applicable any more in this modern world?

Just a thought.

To bring this subject back to the original post so I don’t get off the subject- I’ll relate it back to why did we stop kneeling for Communion and why did we start being able to receive on the hand?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

BulldogCath:

Beverly-No matter what has been said AFTER the council, the Holy Spirit was NOT invoked at this council and hence the teachings are not exact, the doctrine not infallible nor do we need to feel that we are disobedient to question a pastoral document. Both Pope John XXIII and Paul VI have clearly stated the council was not infallible and was to be pastoral in nature. What has happended afterwards is many of the Modernist Bishops and Cardinals have stated that all councils are infallible and Vatican II teachings must be adhered to. This is not the case. Both Popes, possibly knowing what was happening after the council was called after being warned by many around them, realized that the council was being taken over by the Hans Kung’s and the like, quickly stated the council was pastoral only.

It was an ecumenical council. This “pastoral” council nonsense is a creation of those who wish to ignore the Church and the Pope.

Those people are no better than protestants as they are raising themselves above the Church and the Pope in authority.

As for the Holy Spirit not being invoked… What a joke. Is that another April Fools comment?

Beverly, you asked…

If what is taught in the Council of Trent is different than what Vatican II teaches are we required to then go with Vatican II and ignore what was written prior?

As with any discipline, the pope is not bound by the decisions of any other pope.

Nothing in Vatican II goes against Trent in the matters of dogma. All that changed was discipline.

As a Catholic we are bound to obedience to the Church and the Pope. The Holy Father is the last say in the matters of discipline.

 

[beverly30]

What should be most important is that we stay at peace with one another and this discussion doesn’t cause anger.

After having read and discussed on this forum for several months now, I have found one of the most confusing and frustrating aspects of it to be the many different types of Catholics there are. Before coming to this I had no idea…

There is part of me that just doesn’t think it right that two very faithful and loving Catholics can have such differing beliefs about very important issues. Wouldn’t it be so much better if a person could say “I’m Catholic.” and have everyone know what exactly they believed and how they practiced their faith, and what took place at their church and how they received Communion

I’m interested to know prior to 1965, if there were this many different types of Catholics. Or perhaps was it more united because the confusion (Vatican II) hadn’t taken effect yet.

 

[BulldogCath]

Not true at all

There have been posted here many of times the opening concil speech by John XXIII as well as other closing statements made by Paul VI. Lets not rewrite history.

And as far as unity-yes the church was united because we knew which way to go and the teachings were coherent-now it is wishy washy and what is wrong today is right tomorrow and it is a free for all. Pope Pius X condemned Modernism-and Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII have loved it and embraced it-putting man above God which we are reaping the wrath of God himself. Even the priest facing the laity instead of the altar in performing the holy sacrifice. It has now become “Communion” instead of “The Sacrifice of the Mass”. We can go on and on I am sure

ByzCath:

It was an ecumenical council. This “pastoral” council nonsense is a creation of those who wish to ignore the Church and the Pope.

Those people are no better than protestants as they are raising themselves above the Church and the Pope in authority.

As for the Holy Spirit not being invoked… What a joke. Is that another April Fools comment?

Beverly, you asked…

As with any discipline, the pope is not bound by the decisions of any other pope.

Nothing in Vatican II goes against Trent in the matters of dogma. All that changed was discipline.

As a Catholic we are bound to obedience to the Church and the Pope. The Holy Father is the last say in the matters of discipline.

 

[SnorterLuster]

beverly30:

I’m interested to know prior to 1965, if there were this many different types of Catholics. Or perhaps was it more united because the confusion (Vatican II) hadn’t taken effect yet.

I was only 18 in 1965, so my memories are the memories of a child. My belief is that the Church was a lot more unified in my childhood. Although I have lived in the same city for all my life, we did travel a lot and where ever we went to Mass, it was the same. I went to Mass all over the western U.S., Mexico and Canada and the Mass was the same. Only the sermon was in the venacular.

Back in those days, comedians would have “Catholic” jokes. Jokes about kneeling, or the number of children, or even no meat on Friday. Today you don’t hear those jokes. Probably partly because it is not PC, but I believe also because the Bishops have carved out too many exceptions for their diocese that comedians can’t find the common denominiator to joke about. We as Catholics, no longer have the common experiences that we once had.

 

[Exporter]

Originally Posted by beverly30
I’m interested to know prior to 1965, if there were this many different types of Catholics. Or perhaps was it more united because the confusion (Vatican II) hadn’t taken effect yet.

Were there Different types of Catholics before 1972? THE ANSWER IS NO !

I went to Masses from Texas to California and they were all the same. It was the Latin Mass. The people all behaved alike. IT WAS ONE CHURCH - the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Masses and the Catholics in 1965 were just like the Catholic 100s of years before.

 

[beverly30]

I was just guessing on the year. Did something specific take place in 1972? I wasn’t born yet, and I still have a lot to learn about the Catholic faith and history.

If the answer is no… Then would it be safe to mention that perhaps changing or ammending the Council of Trent was not a good idea if the purpose was to unify and strenthen our faith- Since that has not been the fruit from that action.

 

[Exporter]

WhiteDove:

Communion in the hand is directly responsible for the culture of death that is flourishing all around us as we speak. Since Communion in the hand became acceptable, look at the moral decay we see in the world. I doubt if the priesthood scandal would have occured if people were still only receiving on the tongue. If people received on the tongue, then they would be better people and be a light for Christ in the world.

---

Some of you like ByzCatholic will laugh at this. But, you are wrong!

It is not the actual touching the Eucharist with the grubby hand that caosed the change in the moral situation of the world. It was the reasons for having allowed the people to recieve by hand.

The laxness in the Bishop’s morals, the Bishops pulling away from Rome were the reasons for allowing such a disrespectful act. It was what led up to the relaxation of morals by Bishops that is now manefested as abortion, homosexuality and abuses.

As I heard it, some Bishops said it was OK to recieve by hand. Later Rome found out. What did Rome do? They backed down, they said go ahead and destroy what we have been doing for 1500 years. Now we have the result - a Culture of Death.

 

[romano]

Exporter:

Why is it that just lately some people have decided to throw out the centuries old method of recieving the Eucharist?

Yes,this is the real point. This is what everyone should be concerned about.

Just who ARE these people?

What is their real affiliation?

What are their true motives?

Should they be allowed to act on behalf of real Catholics?

Aren’t they in fact enemies of the faith and hence of civilization?

It is the Priests hands that have been sanctified during Mass that are to touch the Eucharist - not the defiled hands of laity.

Precisely!

 

[dcmac]

No.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

romano:

It is the Priests hands that have been sanctified during Mass that are to touch the Eucharist - not the defiled hands of laity.

Precisely!

Ah, but what about the deacon? The deacon has always recieved in the Hand. Even in the Eastern Churches.

Exporter:

Why is it that just lately some people have decided to throw out the centuries old method of recieving the Eucharist?

One could argue that they did so to return to a way of reception of the Eucharist that is centuries older.

The laxness in the Bishop’s morals, the Bishops pulling away from Rome were the reasons for allowing such a disrespectful act. It was what led up to the relaxation of morals by Bishops that is now manefested as abortion, homosexuality and abuses.

This has apsoultly nothing to do with reception of Communion in the Hand.

You also act like every Bishop is guilty.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I say it is our nation in general. All these bad things come out of this culture, and not each and every Bishop, or the CC for that matter. Any one of us could be a Bishop nowdays and do our best and we would still be lumped into the laxness/lazy crowd by reporters, media, etc. There are some solid Bishops who want to fix problems but are drowned out. Communion in the hand is one aspect of a larger problem.

 

[tuopaolo]

I heard Cardinal Arinze in an archived EWTN program say that Communion on the tongue is in a “way” more respectful. He also explained the current law of the Church and mentioned that priests are to watch the communicant who receives in the hand, making sure the Host is placed in the mouth immediately. He also spoke of how some people treat Jesus callously by allowing particles to fall on the ground and be trampled upon.

You can listen to the program here:
ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=wo_02112005.rm

 

[Pug]

tuopaolo:

He also spoke of how some people treat Jesus callously by allowing particles to fall on the ground and be trampled upon.

I think this may be simply a matter of catechesis. When I first was taught to receive, I was not taught to look for particles on my hand, and so I never did. Maybe all that is needed is occasional reminders to look from the pulpit.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

I’ve been reading through some of the other threads on this subject. Fr. JLT posted an informative response [post=243165]click here! [/post]

 

[James_2_24]

No, I think that communion in the hand is a bit disrespectful. Granted the Early Church probably allowed it. But I think we have come to a deeper understanding now.

Besides, we just get done with the sign of peace, handling money for the offering, and then we put Christ in our dirty hands? Most of us don’t even want to put ordinary food in our mouth after we’ve done such things!