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

[TMC]

The Catholic church according to TMC…it is time for people to stop making up their own fanciful ideas and rules about the faith to fit their own agenda. Modernism is evil, liberalism is a sin.

What part of my post is modernistic? is the idea that Christ died for me personally modernistic? The idea the Christ calls us to stand in a familial relationship with God?

What part is making up my own rules? The Church’s rules say that Communion in the hand is allowed. I am not the one that wants to change the rules to fit my own agenda.

 

[latinmasslover]

I wouldn’t slap the Pope on the back, but if he reached out his hand to me I wouldn’t fear to take it. At some points, the Church has decided that touching the Eucharist was a privilege it would reserve to its priests. At other time, the Church has not done that. The Church can make up liturgical rules, that is one of the things the Church does. If it goes back to that one I will follow it. But my priest is no more or less loved by Christ than I. I am not unworthy of touching my Lord.

John Paul II disagrees.

“I am not unworthy of touching my Lord.” A rather presumptuous statement, don’t you think? He humbles Himself under the appearance of bread and some seem to think that means we don’t need to be humble? He’s still our God and King! What saint or pope or council supports such an arrogant statement? I really would like to know.

To say it was done way back when (before reverence grew) means I can do it now has been condemned already as a modernist ERROR. It’s like saying that I don’t have to genuflect when passing the Tabernacle because, after all, I didn’t do it when I was two. Ridiculous!

 

[piouswoman]

I saw nothing in the post indicative of modernism. I was unaware that liberalism is a sin. You are the first person (other than Rush Limbaugh) I have heard make such a statement.

Take your own advice to “read, learn, and grow”:

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/394/keywords/liberalism+sin/

 

[pnewton]

Take your own advice to “read, learn, and grow”:

I will be more specific since you are given more to insults than substance, which don’t usually fly here, since you are also new. I stated you are the first person to make such a statement. I did nothing to deserve condescending snot. If you are unable to provide anything better than an ad and rhetoric, then I will look elsewhere.

 

[piouswoman]

I wouldn’t slap the Pope on the back, but if he reached out his hand to me I wouldn’t fear to take it. At some points, the Church has decided that touching the Eucharist was a privilege it would reserve to its priests. At other time, the Church has not done that. The Church can make up liturgical rules, that is one of the things the Church does. If it goes back to that one I will follow it. But my priest is no more or less loved by Christ than I. I am not unworthy of touching my Lord.

I really have a problem with this quote, especially the part that I bolded. This is from A Manual of Religion “My Catholic Faith”:

Why should Catholics show reverence and honor to the priest?

-Catholics should show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself, and the dispenser of His mysteries.

1. The dignity of a priest is higher than any earthly dignity, for he is the representative of God. He has power that the most powerful civil rulers do not possess. The humblest priest by his word can call down God upon the altar and convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. He can say to the sinner, “I absolve thee,” and the sinners’ soul is saved from hell. What earthly dignity can compare with this? Not even the Blessed Virgin possessed the power to forgive sins, to grant absolution that erases the very guilt of sin.

The priest is NOT a presider as the conciliar church would have you believe today…he is an alter Christus-another Christ.

To have a flippant and “we’re all equals” attitude is just wrong.

 

[TMC]

John Paul II disagrees.

“I am not unworthy of touching my Lord.” A rather presumptuous statement, don’t you think? He humbles Himself under the appearance of bread and some seem to think that means we don’t need to be humble? He’s still our God and King! What saint or pope or council supports such an arrogant statement? I really would like to know.

To say it was done way back when (before reverence grew) means I can do it now has been condemned already as a modernist ERROR. It’s like saying that I don’t have to genuflect when passing the Tabernacle because, after all, I didn’t do it when I was two. Ridiculous!

Communion in the hand was allowed while John Paul II was Pope, are you suggesting it was not? On at least some occasions he distributed communion in the hand.

As for your argument that reverence has grown since ancient times - are you saying you are more reverent than the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers? Are you saying they did not believe in the Real Presence?

When has the Church said Communion in the hand was a modernist error? Pope Benedict has not abrograted it.

As for humilty, I am humble before my Lord. Are the priests not humble because they handle the Host? There is a difference between humility, which is a matter of the heart, and excess piety. Great shows of external piety have nothing to do with the way one approaches God in his heart. Perhaps I spoke too boldly and without proper explanation, but let me make myself clear. Christ says to me “take this and eat it.” I am worthy to answer that call, not because of any merit I have, but because He has called me. Frankly, to be lectured on humility by someone that claims the early Church did not understand the Eucharist, or understood it but did not revere it properly, is odd, to say the least.

 

[pnewton]

The priest is NOT a presider as the conciliar church would have you believe today…he is an alter Christus-another Christ.

To have a flippant and “we’re all equals” attitude is just wrong.

Are the two mutually exclusive? The priest does preside. He is also called the celebrant. And by conciliar Church, do you mean the Catholic Church?

 

[TMC]

I really have a problem with this quote, especially the part that I bolded. This is from A Manual of Religion “My Catholic Faith”:

Why should Catholics show reverence and honor to the priest?

-Catholics should show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself, and the dispenser of His mysteries.

1. The dignity of a priest is higher than any earthly dignity, for he is the representative of God. He has power that the most powerful civil rulers do not possess. The humblest priest by his word can call down God upon the altar and convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. He can say to the sinner, “I absolve thee,” and the sinners’ soul is saved from hell. What earthly dignity can compare with this? Not even the Blessed Virgin possessed the power to forgive sins, to grant absolution that erases the very guilt of sin.

The priest is NOT a presider as the conciliar church would have you believe today…he is an alter Christus-another Christ.

To have a flippant and “we’re all equals” attitude is just wrong.

I am sorry, you are wrong, and whatever document you are quoting is poorly formulated.

Priests are important and deserving of our respect. They have duties and responsibilities and are given commensurate authority. They have no “powers” whatsoever. They have the authority to grant absolution, but only God forgives sins. We know the absolved are forgiven because that is what Christ promised, not because priests have divine powers. Priests do not “call down” God like some pagan diety bound to service by a mystical ritual. The very idea is offensive. Christ offers Himself to us in the Mass, He is not summoned by the priest. The priest has been given the authority to celebrate the Mass. All the power in the Mass comes from the Spirit, it is not supplied by the priest.

 

[AlexV]

Umm, I hate to break the news to you, but the priest does indeed have powers. Given to him by God, sure, but God chose to make the priest the agent of his sacramental actions on earth.

 

[stmaria]

I saw nothing in the post indicative of modernism. I was unaware that liberalism is a sin. You are the first person (other than Rush Limbaugh) I have heard make such a statement.

Pope Leo XIII Libertas
"Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license. The end of all this it is not difficult to foresee, especially when society is in question. For, when once man is firmly persuaded that he is subject to no one, it follows that the efficient cause of the unity of civil society is not to be sought in any principle external to man, or superior to him, but simply in the free will of individuals; that the authority in the State comes from the people only; and that, just as every man’s individual reason is his only rule of life, so the collective reason of the community should be the supreme guide in the management of all public affairs. Hence the doctrine of the supremacy of the greater number, and that all right and all duty reside in the majority. But, from what has been said, it is clear that all this is in contradiction to reason. To refuse any bond of union between man and civil society, on the one hand, and God the Creator and consequently the supreme Law-giver, on the other, is plainly repugnant to the nature, not only of man, but of all created things; for, of necessity, all effects must in some proper way be connected with their cause; and it belongs to the perfection of every nature to contain itself within that sphere and grade which the order of nature has assigned to it, namely, that the lower should be subject and obedient to the higher.”

 

[Yerusalyim]

Daily Mass, 30-40 attending, 3EMHC… wrong
Daily Mass, less than 100 attending, 5EMHC… wrong
Sunday night mass, approx 800 attending, 11EMHC… wrong
One would have to be a rather incompetent observer to think that communion MUST be finished in 10 minutes or less so the people can hurry up and get to breakfast, dinner, or the mall.
As the priest said this morning…
“… I wish more were as dedicated to God as they are the Super Bowl, or golf, or their bbq…”

First, what makes you a competent authority to state this is wrong? Until the Church defines otherwise the pastor defines the need.
Second, are you insinuating that those of us who have taken an oppossing view to a mandatory return to kneeling and recieving on the tongue are any less dedicated to God than are you?

One of my concerns about returning to a view of priests as UBERSPECIAL is that this is, in part, what made the sex abuse scandal we’ve suffered so prevelant.

Look, I’m a 4th degree Knight, I have the utmost respect for our clergy. During the Eucharist they act in the person of Christ the Head. However, it is only in his role as presider of the Eucharist that he acts in the person of Christ…all his other actions, important as they are, do not elevate the priest to that level…not even absolution. We owe our priests our support, thanks, and educated obedience…but not worship…and not to be treated as above all other men.

 

[pnewton]

Pope Leo XIII Libertas
"Hence, these followers of liberalism deny the existence of any divine authority to which obedience is due, and proclaim that every man is the law to himself; from which arises that ethical system which they style independent morality, and which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license.

That is an interesting definition of liberalism. I thank you for the quote, though. Considering the dating, this is a case where the term has evolved. I had been reading about what was called Catholic liberalism and its kinship to modernism. This is different than tradtional theological liberalism and the way the term is normally used today.

In light of what you said, there was nothing in TMC’s post that matched this definition that I could see.

 

[TMC]

Umm, I hate to break the news to you, but the priest does indeed have powers. Given to him by God, sure, but God chose to make the priest the agent of his sacramental actions on earth.

No, he does not. But maybe semantics are intruding. Are you saying that when you go to confession the priest is the one that forgives your sins? He is not. Are you saying that the priest has been delegated the authority to perform the Sacrament of Reconciliation and that through this Sacrament, of which the priest is an instrument, the Holy Spirit forgives sins? That is correct. That is not the same as him forgiving sins. It is sometimes called ‘power’ but that would mean it is an ability found within the priest. It is more properly an authority, the right and duty to call upon the power of another. The priest does not cleanse your soul of sin. The priest does not restore you to grace. Only the Spirit can do those things.

The same is true of all the Sacraments. The priest is an instrument of the Holy Spirit, which is a wonderful and great thing. He does not have the power to do anything on his own. He cooperates with the Holy Spirit. He has the authority to perform the Sacraments, which Christ has promised us have certain effects. Priests do not have divine power; they are not godlings.

 

[Walking_Home]

Are the two mutually exclusive? The priest does preside. He is also called the celebrant. And by conciliar Church, do you mean the Catholic Church?

---

Actually Card. Arinze in emphasizing the correct translation of liturgical texts —does call into question the use of “presider”.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20061111_gateway-conference_en.html

…
A language spoken by millions of people today will undoubtedly have many shades and variations. There is a difference between English used in the Constitution of a country, that spoken by the President of a Republic, the conversational language of dock workers or students and the conversation between parents and children. The manner of expression cannot be expected to be the same in all these situations, although all are using English.

What form should liturgical translations adopt? No doubt liturgical vernacular should be intelligible and easy to proclaim and to understand. At the same time, it should be dignified, sober, stable and not subject to frequent change. It should not hesitate to use some words not generally in use in everyday conversation, or words that are associated with Catholic faith and worship. Therefore, it should say chalice and not just cup, paten and not plate, ciborium and not vessel,** priest and not presider,** sacred host and not consecrated bread, vestments and not dress.

Therefore, Liturgiam Authenticam says: “While the translation must transmit the perennial treasury of orations by means of language understandable in the cultural context for which it is intended,… it should cause no surprise that such language differs somewhat from ordinary speech” (n. 47).

 

[stmaria]

That is an interesting definition of liberalism. I thank you for the quote, though. Considering the dating, this is a case where the term has evolved. I had been reading about what was called Catholic liberalism and its kinship to modernism. This is different than tradtional theological liberalism and the way the term is normally used today.

In light of what you said, there was nothing in TMC’s post that matched this definition that I could see.

Wouldn’t you say that liberals today adhere to the principle of an an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics? They also believe in a total separation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order. Has the term really evolved?
Look at your liberal politicians. They all favor abortion, gay marriage, removal of prayer from schools, rights of poronography etc. They will give lip service and preach on how they love children and God yet their actions are just the opposite. The liberal Catholic politicians are the worst. They should all be excommunicated.
When a liberal says one should follow their conscience, they could care less if it is fully formed. Liberalism is a sin.

 

[mangy_dog]

I pray for abrogation of communion in the hand and of the novus ordo.

Ditto!!

Tradition - bring it on baby!!

 

[Ailina]

I really have a problem with this quote, especially the part that I bolded. This is from A Manual of Religion “My Catholic Faith”:

Why should Catholics show reverence and honor to the priest?

-Catholics should show reverence and honor to the priest because he is the representative of Christ Himself, and the dispenser of His mysteries.

1. The dignity of a priest is higher than any earthly dignity, for he is the representative of God. He has power that the most powerful civil rulers do not possess. The humblest priest by his word can call down God upon the altar and convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. He can say to the sinner, “I absolve thee,” and the sinners’ soul is saved from hell. What earthly dignity can compare with this? Not even the Blessed Virgin possessed the power to forgive sins, to grant absolution that erases the very guilt of sin.

The priest is NOT a presider as the conciliar church would have you believe today…he is an alter Christus-another Christ.

To have a flippant and “we’re all equals” attitude is just wrong.

The trouble is that some priests have not acted in a Godly manner of late…I’m thinking of the ones who have been involved in sexual abuse scandals. Those priests are NOT other Christs.

 

[MrS]

Second, are you insinuating that those of us who have taken an oppossing view to a mandatory return to kneeling and recieving on the tongue are any less dedicated to God than are you?

One of my concerns about returning to a view of priests as UBERSPECIAL is that this is, in part, what made the sex abuse scandal we’ve suffered so prevelant.

Look, I’m a 4th degree Knight, I have the utmost respect for our clergy. During the Eucharist they act in the person of Christ the Head. However, it is only in his role as presider of the Eucharist that he acts in the person of Christ…all his other actions, important as they are, do not elevate the priest to that level…not even absolution. We owe our priests our support, thanks, and educated obedience…but not worship…and not to be treated as above all other men.

are any less dedicated to God I have no idea, or concern, or reason to question your dedication, Besides, this thread is more about reverence. When I see that one will settle for what, IMHO, is less reverence I speak up. It does appear though that the ones who opt for less or alternate reverence have the most objections

UBERSPECIAL is that this is, in part, what made the sex abuse scandal we’ve suffered so prevelant
I assume that is a new word. I think all priests are special. Regardless of their sin or sins, their hands are consecrated and mine are not. The sex scandal we’ve suffered… while married clergy have this problem four to six times greater than our priests. And the cover up was also a great problem.

Your answer, implying that you are hesitant to hold a priest in a level of esteem is very telling.

4th degree Knight
so what… that and $4 gets you a StarBucks

We owe our priests our support, thanks, and educated obedience…but not worship…and not to be treated as above all other men

We only worship God, the only High Priest.
And if what you say is correct, then Fr McGivney is no big deal.

I would rather treat all priests as very special. For their priesthood, not their manhood.

No priests, no Eucharist. No Eucharist, no Church.

.

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t you say that liberals today adhere to the principle of an an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics? They also believe in a total separation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order. Has the term really evolved?

No, I wouldn’t say that at all. A person can support many issues considered liberalism and not adhere to a shred of modernism. There were many ways in which Christ was a liberal. He was definitely an agent for change and challenged many entrenched ideas. Christ on one occasion told a rich man to sell all he had. The early church shared resources. Even beyond liberalism, Christ’s teaching was radical and revolutionary. There is nothing inherent in desire for change or challenging what is established that mandates one also renounce belief the divine or defy authority.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Ditto!!

Tradition - bring it on baby!!

Thus the issue, it’s tradition not Tradition. There is a HUGE difference. Some on the other side of this discussion don’t seem to recognize that.

When I see that one will settle for what, IMHO, is less reverence I speak up

And it your opinion, not the Churches. I have every single bit as much reverence receiving in the hand as one does receiving kneeling and on the tongue. Body position does not denote reverence, the hearts position does.

The sex scandal we’ve suffered… while married clergy have this problem four to six times greater than our priests. And the cover up was also a great problem.

No doubt, and I don’t propose married clergy to “fix” the sex abuse issue. However, it is unquestioning loyalty and obedience that has contributed to the problems we’ve been battling on this issue. I saw it myself when a priest was reported…the person the priest was reported to said, no, it’s not possible, Fr. X is a priest of God and a good man, he would never do such a thing…until he later admited his guilt…several years and several children later.

4th degree Knight
so what… that and $4 gets you a StarBucks

I bring up being a Knight because the values and respect I have for the priesthood is that which the Knights as an organization has. To include a reverence for Fr. McGivney, to whom I have a private devotion and for whose canonization I pray. I agree, priests are special, but not above men.

Again, I have no problem with those who want to kneel and recieve on the tongue, I’ve done it myself. Where I have an issue is with those who think this is the ONLY WAY ANYONE should receive…tradition and Tradition are quite different.