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

[laudamus_te]

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, Mgr. Benelli, Pope Paul VI’s private secretary, seemed to believe there was a difference. Here’s an exerpt from the exellent book “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. 1” by Michael Davies:

[exerpt from Msg. Benelli’s letter to Abp. Lefebvre]“The Holy Father charges me this very day to confirm the measure of which you have been informed in his name, de mandata speciali: you are to abstain, now, from conferring any order. Do not use as a pretext the confused state of the seminarians who were to be ordained: this is just the opportunity to explain to them and to their families that you cannot ordain them to the service of the Church against the will of the supreme Pastor of the Church. There is nothing desperate in their case: if they have good will and are seriously prepared for a presbyteral ministry in genuine fidelity to the Conciliar Church.”

Here we have it, then. Everything is clear at last. The only priests acceptable to the Vatican are priests prepared to make an act of “genuine fidelity to the Conciliar Church.” It is, therefore, not traditionalists who are making a distinction between the Catholic Church, the eternal Church, and the Church of Vatican II. This distinction is made by an official spokesman for the Conciliar Church. Since the seminarians at Econe have already promised their fidelity to the Catholic Church they cannot transfer it to the Conciliar Church.

Emphasis added.
And no, the priest traditionally is NOT a “presider.” That is the role given to the priest by VII.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

If the priest does not absolve you from the sin — you are still bound by the sin. The sacrament of Holy Orders confers the potestas sacra (sacred power) to absolve/retain sin — they have the potestas sacra to perform the Holy Sacrifice. This does not make them Gods --but thru the sacrament of Holy Orders --God has conferred the sacred power to bind/loose and to perform the consecration.

 

[pnewton]

The “Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre Vol. 1” by Michael Davies" is wrong and I appreciate you quoting this. In fact I would even go so far as saying is is ridiculous, disingenuine and faulty logic. There is no distinction made in the letter. None. It uses the phrase Concilliar Church but does not say it is distinct. No where. The only person who says the letter makes a distinction is Davies, not Benelli. Now since he was righting Lefebvre a distinction arises when he breaks away in disobedience and rebellion. I will agree there is a distinciton between the Concilliar Church, which is the Catholic Church, and the schismatic branch that Lefebvre founded.

Thank you for also pointing out that VII did give the name presider to the priest, as one of his titles. Therefore the priest is also a presidet, unless you claim that the Catholic Church was not the Catholic Church at the time of VII.

 

[piouswoman]

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.

I am correct and you are wrong. All material from “My Catholic Faith” is taken from the No.3 revised edition of the Baltimore Catechism and from the 1941 translation of the New Testament. Now, if you think that you know better than those two sources, then you are simply not Catholic. Please study a catechism of the Catholic Faith.

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3006/my-catholic-faith
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/4004/baltimore-catechism-number-3
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8175/the-new-testament

 

[pnewton]

And no, the priest traditionally is NOT a “presider.” That is the role given to the priest by VII.

Okay, you don’t like the term. Perhaps we could simply add the phrase, “the priest who presides” to avoid the noun form. It’s just that some of the Masses I have been to have more than one priest and it is convienent to have a term to designat the celebrant. (Is that term okay?)

 

[piouswoman]

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

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

It was not meant as an insult but as good advice…you should read, learn and grow, especially if that is your byline…I am sorry for the abrupt answer.

 

[piouswoman]

Okay, you don’t like the term. Perhaps we could simply add the phrase, “the priest who presides” to avoid the noun form. It’s just that some of the Masses I have been to have more than one priest and it is convienent to have a term to designat the celebrant. (Is that term okay?)

The practice of “concelebration” is another Vatican II thing that has problems. See here:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/March98/Offering.html

Contrary to what many think…it was not common before Vatican II. See here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concelebration

 

[pnewton]

The practice of “concelebration” is another Vatican II thing that has problems. See here:
catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/March98/Offering.html

Egads! I can’t believe a priest would receive a stipend for a Mass, something I have always thought strange, and then only mumble a concelebration. The cases I have always been at with more than one priest are when someone is visiting their home parish and concelebrate to allow another priest to distrubute communion.

 

[TMC]

I am correct and you are wrong. All material from “My Catholic Faith” is taken from the No.3 revised edition of the Baltimore Catechism and from the 1941 translation of the New Testament. Now, if you think that you know better than those two sources, then you are simply not Catholic. Please study a catechism of the Catholic Faith.

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3006/my-catholic-faith
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/4004/baltimore-catechism-number-3
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8175/the-new-testament

How about the actual catechism of the Church, the one the Pope approved, which says:

1441 Only God forgives sins.39 Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven."40 Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.41

The Church sometimes refers to the priest’s authority to dispense and perform the Sacraments as a power, that is true. But the Church is very careful to explain that the real Power is always God’s. The priest does not forgive, does not consecrate, does not instill grace. Those things are God’s. His authority is delegated to His Church. Priests have no divine power.

If the priest wills forgiveness, but God does not, is forgiveness granted? If God wills forgiveness, but the priest does not, is forgiveness given? Who has the power to forgive?

 

[piouswoman]

Egads! I can’t believe a priest would receive a stipend for a Mass, something I have always thought strange, and then only mumble a concelebration. The cases I have always been at with more than one priest are when someone is visiting their home parish and concelebrate to allow another priest to distrubute communion.

Here is some interesting information about stipends.
gpcom.net/stpatrickschurch/stipends.html

 

[piouswoman]

How about the actual catechism of the Church, the one the Pope approved, which says:

You are kidding right? What do you think the Baltimore Catechism is then? For your edification:

baltimore-catechism.com
catholic.net/baltimore_catechism/template_channel.phtml?channel_id=14
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Catechism

 

[Walking_Home]

How about the actual catechism of the Church, the one the Pope approved, which says:

The Church sometimes refers to the priest’s authority to dispense and perform the Sacraments as a power, that is true. But the Church is very careful to explain that the real Power is always God’s. The priest does not forgive, does not consecrate, does not instill grace. Those things are God’s. His authority is delegated to His Church. Priests have no divine power.

If the priest wills forgiveness, but God does not, is forgiveness granted? If God wills forgiveness, but the priest does not, is forgiveness given? Who has the power to forgive?

---

You have just undermine the sacrament of Holy Orders. If we don’t know if sins are forgiven after being absolved by a priest and/or retained — then the priesthood is of no relevance.

 

[Aramis]

---

You have just undermine the sacrament of Holy Orders. If we don’t know if sins are forgiven after being absolved by a priest and/or retained — then the priesthood is of no relevance.

No. What isn’t said explicitly is that the church, technically the bishops who collectively hold the power of the keys while in union with the Heir of Peter, have delegated this to a specific subset of priests, and that the Holy spirit works through them. Having heard from a priest of times when he felt the Holy Spirit nudge him to not grant absolution yet…

As to the question on the Baltimore Catechism: it was approved by the bishops creating it, not Rome, for teaching the American Tradition of the Latin Church. It never was, and never will be, the “official” catechism of the church as a whole.

 

[Walking_Home]

No. What isn’t said explicitly is that the church, technically the bishops who collectively hold the power of the keys while in union with the Heir of Peter, have delegated this to a specific subset of priests, and that the Holy spirit works through them. Having heard from a priest of times when he felt the Holy Spirit nudge him to not grant absolution yet…

As to the question on the Baltimore Catechism: it was approved by the bishops creating it, not Rome, for teaching the American Tradition of the Latin Church. It never was, and never will be, the “official” catechism of the church as a whole.

Quote=TMC
If the priest wills forgiveness, but God does not, is forgiveness granted? If God wills forgiveness, but the priest does not, is forgiveness given? Who has the power to forgive?​

Yes it is the Holy Spirit working with and in the priest to where he becomes Persona Christi who absolves/retains sins. It is thru the sacrament of Holy Orders that confers the power for the priest to be in Persona Christi therefore being able to grant absolution/perform the consecration.

I am not sure what your No is in reference to --but my response was to the above from TMC. If the priest takes the role of Christ to the point of becoming his very image — how can it be said that a priest can absolve–while God does not. How can it be said that a priest retains the sin - while God will absolve. That is like saying God is contradicting and working against Himself. The following deals with performing the consecration but holds true for the sacrament of penance.

newadvent.org/library/docs_df76ii.htm

1. The Ministerial Priesthood in the Light of The Mystery of Christ

Having recalled the Church’s norm and the basis thereof, it seems useful and opportune to illustrate this norm by showing the profound fittingness that theological reflection discovers between the proper nature of the sacrament of Order, with its specific reference to the mystery of Christ, and the fact that only men have been called to receive priestly ordination. It is not a question here of bringing forward a demonstrative argument, but of clarifying this teaching by the analogy of faith.

The Church’s constant teaching, repeated and clarified by the Second Vatican Council and again recalled by the 1971 Synod of Bishops and by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its Declaration of 24th. June 1973, declares that the bishop or the priest in the exercise of his ministry, does not act in his own name, in persona propria: he represents Christ, who acts through him: "the priest truly acts in the place of Christ’, as St. Cyprian already wrote in the third century. It is this ability to represent Christ that St.Paul considered as characteristic of his apostolic function (2 Cor. 5:20; Gal. 4:14). The supreme expression of this representation is found in the altogether special form it assumes in the celebration of the Eucharist, which is the source and centre of the Church’s unity, the sacrificial meal in which the People of God are associated in the sacrifice of Christ: **the priest, who alone has the power to perform it, then acts not only through the effective power conferred on him by Christ, but in persona Christi, taking the role of Christ, to the point of being his very image, when he pronounces the words of consecration. **

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

Don’t stick the tongue out like a lizard, just open your mouth and stick your tongue out as far as your bottom lip. Don’t show lack of humility by being stubborn and fighting the proper way to receive Our Lord, just because you are afraid or self-conscious.

Accepting the Blessed Sacrement in the form approved by the Church doesn’t show lack of humility or stubbornness.

The “Proper Way” as you put it, is YOUR opinion, not that of current Church practice, but rather shows stubbornness on your part.

 

[piouswoman]

Accepting the Blessed Sacrement in the form approved by the Church doesn’t show lack of humility or stubbornness.

The “Proper Way” as you put it, is YOUR opinion, not that of current Church practice, but rather shows stubbornness on your part.

No, it is not just my opinion. Communion in the hand is an indult. Permission was given, and through practice it has proved to be a mistake.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[piouswoman]

As to the question on the Baltimore Catechism: it was approved by the bishops creating it, not Rome, for teaching the American Tradition of the Latin Church. It never was, and never will be, the “official” catechism of the church as a whole.

You are misinformed.

The fathers of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore requested the Holy See to sanction the holding of a plenary council. The petition was granted and the pope appointed Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate to convene and preside over the council.

source:
**The fathers of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore requested the Holy See to sanction the holding of a plenary council. The petition was granted and the pope appointed Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate to convene and preside over the council.
**

You should have this link in with your others:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_Catholic_Church

And I have always understood that as the Roman Rite is the largest (for practical purposes, that is to say, the most universal) of the Catholic rites, that those born Roman Rite Catholics are discouraged from becoming Eastern Rite Catholics, although Eastern Rite Catholics may become Roman Rite Catholics.

 

[Aramis]

You are misinformed.

The fathers of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore requested the Holy See to sanction the holding of a plenary council. The petition was granted and the pope appointed Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate to convene and preside over the council.

source:
**The fathers of the Seventh Provincial Council of Baltimore requested the Holy See to sanction the holding of a plenary council. The petition was granted and the pope appointed Archbishop Kenrick of Baltimore as Apostolic Delegate to convene and preside over the council.
**

You should have this link in with your others:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_Catholic_Church

And I have always understood that as the Roman Rite is the largest (for practical purposes, that is to say, the most universal) of the Catholic rites, that those born Roman Rite Catholics are discouraged from becoming Eastern Rite Catholics, although Eastern Rite Catholics may become Roman Rite Catholics.

That the council was convened validly is not at issue.

That the resultant catechism is error free and fully valid is not, especially since the introduction of a formal Catechism for the Roman Church, which is posted at the Vatican Website under papal authority, and in some places they are not well aligned. Further, over 100 years of linguistic drift have resulted in frequent blurrings of meaning within the baltimore catechism due to formal language no longer used in English speech by Americans.

The wikipedia entry was poor, last I checked, and further, I’ve maxed out the characters for my sig.

And your understanding is wrong. It is all but forbidden to go from the ECC’s to the RCC, and actually mildly encouraged for those raised Latin but of eastern mindset, or marrying to an eastern catholic, to go to the ECC’s. See the Vatican II Post Concilar documents, specifically those from the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. No such restrictions made it into canon law, even tho the council suggested mandating them.

 

[pnewton]

No, it is not just my opinion. Communion in the hand is an indult. Permission was given, and through practice it has proved to be a mistake.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Can something like this even be proven? The article does not even try to offer anything like a logical proof. It admits to one logical fallacy (guilt by association) but says this is not necessarily false. Yes, it is. That’s why it’s a fallacy. A very poorly written proof, shot gun approach to the subject.

On the other hand, if you forget trying to prove anything and ignore all the non arguements, there is some good information and postive evidence for communion on the tongue. But is is hardly proof.

 

[lovesMary]

1-February-2008 – Catholic World News Brief
Vatican Official Suggests Reconsidering Communion in the Hand

Vatican, Feb. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand.

In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, 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.

In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is “high time to review” the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favor of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.

I hope this is the beginning of the end! Communion in the hand hopefully is a passing fad that will soon be stamped out for good!