Is this the beginning of the end for communion in the hand?

[Alexios]

LilyM,

But those women who touched Our Lord’s cloak KNEW Who they were touching, and weren’t throwing Him underneath the feet of idiotic communicants to trample all over Him.

And, King Henry VIII didn’t try to even touch the issue of Transubstantiation during his reign, so engrained was this belief in the faithful of England (and even in his own heart, really).

AND there are plenty of studies out there that show that pre-Vatican II, the vast majority of Catholics attended Mass weekly AND believed in the Real Presence.

 

[pnewton]

LilyM,

But those women who touched Our Lord’s cloak KNEW Who they were touching, and weren’t throwing Him underneath the feet of idiotic communicants to trample all over Him.

No one throws the Blessed Sacrament on the ground for communicants to trample on.

 

[Alexios]

My point, Newton, is that Our Lord is often trampled upon at NO Masses due to negligence.

 

[pnewton]

My point, Newton, is that Our Lord is often trampled upon at NO Masses due to negligence.

I was responding to what you said, not what you meant. Still, I have never seen him trampled either. Just touched.

 

[Sure]

Sigh…well I guess I should post this again:

“If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion. We find a particularly fine passage in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, from the fourth century. In his catechetical homilies he tells the candidates for baptism what they should do at Communion. They should make a throne of their hands, laying the right upon the let to forma throne for the King, forming at the same time a cross. This symbolic gesture, so fine and so profound, is what concerns him: the hands of man form a cross, which becomes a throne, down into which the King inclines himself. The open, outstretched hand can thus become a sign of the way that a man offers himself to the Lord, opens hands for him, that they may become an instrument of his presence and a throne of his mercies in this world. **Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. **We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.”

-Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop of Munich, 1978

 

[Brother_John]

Sigh…well I guess I should post this again:

Thank You

:tiphat:

 

[stmaria]

That is what Cardinal Ratzinger believed in 1978. I doubt that Archbishop Ranjith is a loose canon. I am sure that Pope Benedict appointed him to his position because he agrees with Ranjith. when he argues, an “established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.” and it is “high time to review” the policy."

 

[Sure]

That is what Cardinal Ratzinger believed in 1978. I doubt that Archbishop Ranjith is a loose canon. I am sure that Pope Benedict appointed him to his position because he agrees with Ranjith. when he argues, an “established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.” and it is “high time to review” the policy."

That is true. And it is well within the power of the Holy Father to review any discipline of the Church. If he sees fit to change this discipline, that is absolutely fine. Earlier in the same sermon he said: “We have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.”

So, even if the discipline is changed it does not mean that the indult for Communion in the hand was wrong. It just means the Supreme Pontiff has exercised his legitimate authority to change a discipline.

 

[stmaria]

So, even if the discipline is changed it does not mean that the indult for Communion in the hand was wrong. It just means the Supreme Pontiff has exercised his legitimate authority to change a discipline.

But doesn’t it bother you that communion in the hand began right after the *Constitution on the Liturgy *was passed. Immediately Bishops began the practice, without approval, and refused to stop even at the request of Pope Paull? Even after Pope Paul clearly stated his position in Memoriale Domini the practice spread. After about 8 years of unapproved use Pope Paul gave in and allowed it. Just like the reformers knew he would. The same tactic was used with altar girls which first appeared without approval in 1966.
The idea of forcing a change by doing something illicit then making sure that it spreads out of control until it is declared licit is simply not right. These groups that want women priests have tried the same tactic but Pope John Paul put a stop to it.

 

[Sure]

But doesn’t it bother you that communion in the hand began right after the *Constitution on the Liturgy *was passed. Immediately Bishops began the practice, without approval, and refused to stop even at the request of Pope Paull? Even after Pope Paul clearly stated his position in Memoriale Domini the practice spread. After about 8 years of unapproved use Pope Paul gave in and allowed it. Just like the reformers knew he would. The same tactic was used with altar girls which first appeared without approval in 1966.
The idea of forcing a change by doing something illicit then making sure that it spreads out of control until it is declared licit is simply not right. These groups that want women priests have tried the same tactic but Pope John Paul put a stop to it.

No, it doesn’t bother me. I trust in the wisdom and authority of the Holy Father to determine disciplines for the Catholic Church.

 

[piouswoman]

You have tended to call many of us “not Catholic” or poorly taught. Your charity and ability to teach seems limited to making personal and derogatory comments. I will keep you in my “poorly” taught prayers that you become more charitable in you postings.

I have not called anyone “not Catholic”. Poorly taught, yes. Sometimes the truth hurts. And, it is charity to point out erroneous thinking. To let erroneous thinking go without correction is just plain wrong. From my viewpoint, many here could try practicing the virtue of humility, and when good advice is given, listen, rather than accuse the giver of making derogatory or personal comments. That is a poor excuse.

PRAY THAT CATHOLICS WILL EDUCATE THEMSELVES ON THE TRUTHS OF THEIR FAITH AND HOLD FAST TO TRADITION…

KYRIE ELEISON!

 

[stmaria]

No, it doesn’t bother me. I trust in the wisdom and authority of the Holy Father to determine disciplines for the Catholic Church.

Seems his "wisdom’ is being questioned.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11659

“Receiving Holy Communion in the hand "produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
The book’s title, printed by the Vatican Editing house, is “Dominus Est: Meditations of a Bishop from Central Asia on the Sacred Eucharist."
Archbishop Ranjith says in the preface that the Eucharist should be received “with reverence and an attitude of devout adoration,” and claims that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand “**was introduced in some places in an abusive and hurried manner.” **The Archbishop also highlights that the Second Vatican Council never promoted or legitimated such practice.
“I believe it is time to evaluate and reconsider such a practice, and if necessary, abandon it all together," Ranjith concludes.

 

[pnewton]

I have not called anyone “not Catholic”. Poorly taught, yes. Sometimes the truth hurts.

John Paul II gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Was he not Catholic because he new better than the Baltimore Catechism? And yes, you did say that any one who thought they knew better than that was not Catholic. Gee, where in Church traditionalism did you get either ignorance or arrogance as a grounds for excommunication? It is an old accusation from traditionalist, and even SSPX and sedevacantists, that anyone who does not agree with them is more ignorant than they.

That is the epitome of arrogance. I, for one, am tired of being called ignorant, uneducated or any other synonym like that for being a main stream Catholic. I am well aware of the claims of traditionalist on the subject of communion on the tongue and reject the arguement that it is more reverent. I am at least intelligent enough to recognize that attacks on the knowledge of those like me are nothing more than begging the question - a basic logical fallacy.

 

[Sure]

Seems his "wisdom’ is being questioned.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11659

“Receiving Holy Communion in the hand "produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider.
The book’s title, printed by the Vatican Editing house, is “Dominus Est: Meditations of a Bishop from Central Asia on the Sacred Eucharist."
Archbishop Ranjith says in the preface that the Eucharist should be received “with reverence and an attitude of devout adoration,” and claims that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand “**was introduced in some places in an abusive and hurried manner.” **The Archbishop also highlights that the Second Vatican Council never promoted or legitimated such practice.
“I believe it is time to evaluate and reconsider such a practice, and if necessary, abandon it all together," Ranjith concludes.

No, the Holy Father’s wisdom is not being questioned. The discipline of Communion in the hand is being reviewed. Big difference. Think of it this way…men and women used to be required to sit separately in church in some parts of the world. That discipline was changed. But that doesn’t mean that when it was a discipline it was wrong in any way. Just as the Holy Father notes that Communion in the hand could not have been practiced by the Church for 900 years if it was wrong. Disciplines change, but it doesn’t mean the previous discipline was incorrect or evil.

 

[stmaria]

No, the Holy Father’s wisdom is not being questioned. The discipline of Communion in the hand is being reviewed. Big difference. Think of it this way…men and women used to be required to sit separately in church in some parts of the world. That discipline was changed. But that doesn’t mean that when it was a discipline it was wrong in any way. Just as the Holy Father notes that Communion in the hand could not have been practiced by the Church for 900 years if it was wrong. Disciplines change, but it doesn’t mean the previous discipline was incorrect or evil.

Sorry I disagree. His wisdom is being questioned. He had the authority to change the discipline but was it wise to do so? That is what is being questioned. I didn’t say it is evil. But I will say it is less reverent to stand and receive in the hand then to receive kneeling and on the tongue.

 

[TMGallyon85]

I think the issue isnt just about not being as reverent as it is that people Pushed the practice without approval overnight. Even if it is an ok practice it shouldnt have been pushed on the laity that fast.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

No, the Holy Father’s wisdom is not being questioned. The discipline of Communion in the hand is being reviewed. Big difference. Think of it this way…men and women used to be required to sit separately in church in some parts of the world. That discipline was changed. But that doesn’t mean that when it was a discipline it was wrong in any way. Just as the Holy Father notes that Communion in the hand could not have been practiced by the Church for 900 years if it was wrong. Disciplines change, but it doesn’t mean the previous discipline was incorrect or evil.

I am going to repost this link to “Rethinking Communion in the Hand”. The idea that Communion in the Hand was the practice of the Church for 900 years is highly debatable, to say the least:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[piouswoman]

John Paul II gave us the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Was he not Catholic because he new better than the Baltimore Catechism?

The church did not begin with Vatican II, JPII was not the first pope. Think about what you have just said…JPII knew better that all of the popes, the bishops, saints, martyrs, apostles, and doctors of the church for almost two thousand years?

I think I will take the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church for near two millenniums…you can have your forty years of modernism and novelty.

PRAY FOR HOLY MOTHER CHURCH AND RESTORATION OF OUR TRADITIONS!

KYRIE ELEISON!

 

[otjm]

The church did not begin with Vatican II, JPII was not the first pope. Think about what you have just said…JPII knew better that all of the popes, the bishops, saints, martyrs, apostles, and doctors of the church for almost two thousand years?

I think I will take the teachings and traditions of the Catholic church for near two millenniums…you can have your forty years of modernism and novelty.

PRAY FOR HOLY MOTHER CHURCH AND RESTORATION OF OUR TRADITIONS!

KYRIE ELEISON!

I think if you go back and read Pnewton’s post, you will find he did not say what you infer. He was, I believe, referring to the fact that JP2 issue3d the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that Catechism is what trumps the Baltimore Catechism. I think even the good bishops who were behind the creation of the Baltimore Catechism would admit that.

Now, if you are implying that the CCC ignores the teachings of the last 2 milleniums, that would be another matter; but given that it footnotes rather extensively to prior teachings, I am sure you will not say that.

As to your comments about restoring the traditions, since you used all caps I do not know if you are referring to traditions with a small “t” or Traditions. The Church most certainly has not abandoned Traditions, as noted in Vatican 2. However, traditions are simply practices that occur over a relatively longer period of time; and new traditions can be started which have nothing to do with exisiting or prior traditions; if they last for a relatively long imte they then become traditions of the Church. They may be right; they may be wrong; or they may be neirhter right nor wrong byut sinmply exist. Or they may be a revival of a prior tradition that fell out of favor. From your posting it is not possible to tell what it is you seek.

 

[ProVobis]

“I think if you go back and read Pnewton’s post, you will find he did not say what you infer. He was, I believe, referring to the fact that JP2 issue3d the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that Catechism is what trumps the Baltimore Catechism. I think even the good bishops who were behind the creation of the Baltimore Catechism would admit that.”

Of more importance perhaps, are there contradictions between the two catechisms? If so, what are they? Or is the later one an overall clarification of the previous?