How can I defend that communion in hand is not sacrilege?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tomo_pomo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OurLadyofSorrows said:
We dont know that and have no evidence for it. Given it was Passover , it is more likely to have been celebrated in Biblical Hebrew, the language of Worship.
Click to expand...
You’d better take that up with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. I learned it from him.

Rather than theological chest-bumping, my point is that Latin and reception on the tongue is an innovation. A long ago innovation I will grant you, but an innovation nevertheless.
 
po18guy said:
Rather than theological chest-bumping, my point is that Latin and reception on the tongue is an innovation. A long ago innovation I will grant you, but an innovation nevertheless.
Click to expand...
I totally agree it wont have been in latin but there is a very good argument for it having been Biblical Hebrew as that was the language of all the festivals and of the Temple.

As an aside I was at a Latin Mass for Candlemass , it was packed with young families and children, and pregnant women. I also see many of them at non Latin Mass too. One little toddler ran up the front of the isle, in an attempt to stand with the celebrating Priest and Altar servers, having escaped her parents, during Mass. The celebrating Priest had a big smile on his face as dad ran to retrieve her. The blessing of the Candles and celebration of the purity of Our Lady is a special space on the Calendar.
 
Last edited:
How to approach? I wouldn’t. Someone online has an opinion and is strident about it.

Obviously accepted practices in the church are not sacrelidge. The fact accepting communion in the hand is accepted and offeref by the church disproves that argument
 
Q: Would the uneducated fishermen at that first mass have understood liturgical Hebrew? I know Aramaic is a dialect, but every word that Christ uttered that is recorded verbatim is Aramaic.
 
po18guy said:
Q: Would the uneducated fishermen at that first mass have understood liturgical Hebrew? I know Aramaic is a dialect, but every word that Christ uttered that is recorded verbatim is Aramaic.
Click to expand...
Yes, Biblical Hebrew. They knew what was Hebrew was required for worship in the Temple and at Synagogue and to read scrolls. I would also question the term ‘uneducated’. Men would get up , as Jesus did, and read scrolls written in Biblical Hebrew in the Synagogue or Temple. Men would listen to the reading in that language while sitting in Synagogue or Temple
We should start a new thread as I would hate to bump tomo_pomo’s thread off topic.
Original language not the argument i hear for Latin Mass amongst people I know who attend, but it is a good question to ask them 🙂
 
Last edited:
of course, but my concern is they call themselves catholic too and for somebody like I was some time ago it would create a possible confusion and doubting the Church. It’s easy when it is protestant vs catholic, but this is catholic vs catholic. Very dangerous. I just can’t let it slide so easily
 
Do you refer to my other post? I should have put “traditionalist” in the quotes if I didn’t. Nothing wrong with normal traditionalism. What is wrong is saying that taking communion in hands is SACRILEGE.
 
tomo_pomo said:
Do you refer to my other post? I should have put “traditionalist” in the quotes if I didn’t. Nothing wrong with normal traditionalism. What is wrong is saying that taking communion in hands is SACRILEGE.
Click to expand...
Sacrilege means violation or misuse of what is sacred. Why are you paying attention to this person? How should you approach it, ignore it. I doubt anything you say will change his mind. It is our actions that people look at and even then, people see only what they want to see.
 
Back to the subject of the thread title. What the Church has declared is acceptable cannot be sacrilege. Disobedience and attempting to force one’s will upon others is much closer to sacrilege, if you ask me.

How much better, how much more lofty a focus on Who were are receiving and not how we are receiving Him.
 
I myself have no problem with CITH being chosen by those who are reverent and well-disposed, and no problem with COTT being chosen by those who are reverent and well-disposed.

But as far as ‘disobedience and attempting to force one’s will on others’–well, in the 50 years since 1969’s imposition of the OF, even though COTT is not only the ‘default’ position of the entire Church (CITH is an INDULT practice), I witnessed then, and still witness today, parishes where COTT is ridiculed, forbidden, never taught as an option, etc.

I have noticed of late years a practice on these forums where disobedience (anecdotally of course), and hateful remarks etc are attributed ‘traditionalists’ or rad trads. . . yet disobedience and hate are much more widespread by the "OF crowd’.

It’s almost as if there’s a strategy of ‘accusation’ made to weaken the EF position from the start. Because once one is loudly accusing a group of things, somehow people know, “It’s the TRUTH. That’s what I have always heard”, and any remarks to state, "No wait, it is the other group which has done this’ are met with, “Well, of COURSE you’re going to ATTACK”.

Diabolical? Of course. But hard to counter because, of course, there is always that pesky ‘grain of truth’. Even if I have never experienced the so-called rad trad personally (I have high suspicion of trolls and sock puppets), we are fallen humanity and since I see ‘rad OF’ words and actions exist, they surely exist in ‘trads’ somewhere too!

It just seems to me that at least here, the vast majority of us who comment from the position of “We like the Latin Mass” are a lot more ‘tolerant’ than, "Those EF people are SO terrible to us poor OF people who love Pope Francis and are totally obedient to everything and open to the Spirit and want to know what we hear and be able to see at Mass and how could anybody want to go back to being ignorant like the EF fools?. . .
And the vast majority of traditionalists, I repeat, do not call CITH sacrilege!
 
My question is “Why are you even trying to defend it?” You worry about your life and let him worry about his. I doubt God cares about his opinion that communion in the hand is sacrilege.
 
because its public, and other people see it. And I want to defend it for their sake.
 
po18guy said:
We dont know that and have no evidence for it. Given it was Passover , it is more likely to have been celebrated in Biblical Hebrew, the language of Worship.
Click to expand...
It is demonstrable that at times Jesus spoke to his disciples in Greek (probably the language he used also to speak to Pontius Pilate and the Centurion). Whether he did so at the last supper is impossible to say.

The format of the Pasch was very set, and classical Hebrew was normally used, at least in Judaea

It is arguable that the Last Supper took place according to a Galilean calendar which could support (but not strongly) the idea that Aramaic was spoken during some of the formal parts of that event but it remains the least likely language of use, after Greek and Hebrew.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
: Would the uneducated fishermen at that first mass have understood liturgical Hebrew? I know Aramaic is a dialect, but every word that Christ uttered that is recorded verbatim is Aramaic.
Click to expand...
The fishermen were not uneducated. Peter wrote in Greek and it is clear from the drop in quality of Greek in his later epistle that by this time he did so without any help.

Jesus’ relatives James and Jude also wrote letters in Greek which are included in the New Testament.

It is untrue that every word Christ uttered that is recorded verbatim is Aramaic. Sometimes he quoted the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew Bible, which he also quoted.

It is unthinkable that his long conversation with Pilate took place in Aramaic; it would have been in Greek or possibly Latin.
 
But are those not inferences? I repeat what I have been taught, trying to avoid, as much as possible, inferences. But, I fail at that.

As to the comments made by others, I do have a rather vivid imagination, but not as pertains to the unneeded OF vs EF sporting event.
 
I must point out that was not my quote, but was made in response to my comment. The quirks of this software being rather tricky to navigate.
 
We cannot ask Fr. Benedict Groeschel, but Fr. Mitch Pacwa can certainly be consulted. But, these men were fishermen, not teachers in the synagogue. A tax collector, not a Rabbi. A rebel not a scribe and so on. You can see how one can wonder about all of this.

As well, during their trial before the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:13) cit was perceived by educated men that these men, speaking so profoundly and eloquently were uneducated. This is the sole use of the term in the Revised Standard Version. I am wondering how this can be made to square with your assertion?

A curious point: Moderns tend to believe that the further they are from a given historical occurrence, the more they are able to know about it - more even than eyewitnesses. Does not entropy, as a principle, apply to knowledge of such things? And some of the methods of exegesis recently developed tend toward a decidedly novel take on the events.
 
po18guy said:
uneducated . This is the sole use of the term in the Revised Standard Version. I am wondering how this can be made to square with your assertion?
Click to expand...
The greek word is agrammatoi (“unlettered”).

From the point of view of a member of the Sanhedrin, almost anyone would have been considered unlettered if he were not one of themselves and their immediate class.

That doesn’t mean they were uneducated. It is in fact very difficult to see how an uneducated man could have composed John’s Gospel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top