In regards to early practices we must all consider that dogma and tradition develop. I always find it a head scratcher when people attempt to plug thier opinions based on “the early church”. Have these people ever considered the early church needed its practices to develop?Why do people put down the Early Church using a term like ‘primitive’ and act like they have no reverence or understanding of the Sacrament- especially regarding this topic??
Or treat examples drawn from Eastern Rite as if it came from Mars?
Is the Latin Rite the center of the universe?
While over time, some traditions change, **doctrines **cannot. And through my experience in life, I have found that the traditions of our ancestors are traditions for a reason, they are right…but new generations always have to come along, and they always have to try and improve something that is perfect, then after awhile, they find that the way it was done before was right and proper, and for good reason. It happens time and time again in all facets of life.Yes, tradition develops…AND CHANGES…the problem is some seem to think tradition is the same as Tradition and that it MUST remain the same.
Great post.I see your point Yerusalyim, but to rip out 1500 years of tradition, whole cloth and virtually overnight, is not the same as an organic change in tradition. That is the one element in this discussion that does not get full acknowledgement. It’s all well and good to say things have to change and what seems as a profound reluctance to change in my generation is really a hope to restore that which was taken away from us. That’s the other side of the coin. Tradition did not remain the same. I’m not mandating that everyone must kneel and receive on the tongue. But think about it - kneeling and communion on the tongue was the norm for 1500 + years. In the space of a decade (1970-1980) the communion rails were removed and then we moved to communion standing up and then in the hand. All of you who are vigorous proponents of communion in the hand, it was bad enough on me and my generation, do you understand the devastation it had on my parent’s generation?
I’m sorry, the wants and needs of those of us who wished to adhere to the way we were taught have been basically pooh-poohed - consistently. Some of you are taking what happened as divine right. Who speaks for those of us who simply want to return to the very recent past? Well within living human memory.
Yes, I am afraid that we will have to speak for ourselves. We were good Soldiers of Christ when all of this started and did not complain against HMC. Nor did our parents. Many of us voted with our feet. I don’t know what I would have done had I not found a reverent NO cathedral parish back in 83 which retained many of the traditional practices I had grown up with.Great post.
I guess we will have to speak for ourselves despite the mockery, ridicule, and resistance from those who despise traditon.
I for one have taken back my birthright, my Traditional Catholic Faith. I won’t be beaten down, I am firm in my faith and will defend it to the end…after all, we are the Church Militant.
Actually, I prefer “the priest who offers the Sacrifice of the Mass.” That says it perfectly. “Presider” smacks of Masonry. I just don’t like the term “celebrant.” It sounds too happy, like a party.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?)
Bringing up Pope John Paul II giving Communion in the hand shows one of two things: hypocrisy or (for lack of a better word) weakness. He stated that to touch the sacred vessels (not as holy as the Eucharist) is for the ordained, and *their *privilege, yet didn’t make the change. “Do what they say but not as they do.” These are the words of Jesus regarding those in authority.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.
Very, very nice post.Bringing up Pope John Paul II giving Communion in the hand shows one of two things: hypocrisy or (for lack of a better word) weakness. He stated that to touch the sacred vessels (not as holy as the Eucharist) is for the ordained, and *their *privilege, yet didn’t make the change. “Do what they say but not as they do.” These are the words of Jesus regarding those in authority.
I didn’t say the early Church had no reverence for the Eucharist, only that the understanding increased and with it the reverence we show to Him.
Communion in the hand was permitted because the bishops refused to obey Pope Paul VI when he said not to do it, so he (unfortunately) gave in.
“Pope Benedict has not abrograted it” yet.
I also am humble before God. The fingers of the priests have been consecrated and can therefore touch the Holy Eucharist. Our external should reflect our internal. Some leave it at externals, which is obviously wrong. We have an example to set for others, are not to cause scandal. This means that we should have a reverent posture when in His presence, a reverent attitude, and should receive Him in a reverent manner. The Protestant “Reformers” opposed Communion on the tongue because it made the priest appear to be above the laity, and also to scam the faithful into believing that the Eucharist is nothing more than bread. This has recently been permitted in the Church, with the same results.
To say one is worthy to receive Jesus is to say that the rubrics of both missals are incorrect. “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you…” We are not worthy because we’re sinners. To receive is a great grace and not to be seen as a “right.” The Mass isn’t a “communal gathering;” it is the time we take to worship our God who was severely beaten and crucified for our sins, each individual sin. He is on that cross for *every *sin, and to look at the Crucifix with the attitude that He owed it to us (which is what “I am worthy” says) is ludicrous:
1) Adoration,
2) Thanksgiving,
3) Atonement, and lastly
4) Impetration
Communal socializing takes place outside of the Mass, not during. The Sorrowful Mother, St. John, and the precious Magdalene were not socializing with each other, they were focused on Jesus and only Jesus. He told St. Brigit that next to the Father and His Mother, no one loved Him more than the Magdalene, and she (from what we know of her) would never say “I am worthy.” Her place was always at His feet in humility and adoration. She’s really the “perfect” example of how we sinners should behave in the presence of our God.
Well, it was the intention of the “reformers.” I can’t imagine how anyone would think history wouldn’t repeat itself, especially when this resulted from a caving in. Fortunately, the Lord is seeing that this is going to be changed, He won’t be mocked forever (unless, of course, that was just a “cultural” statement He inspired).I believe that the fact that many Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence is in large part a result of Communion in the hand.
If communion in the hand was abrogated it would be a start but, for me, doesn’t solve the issue of reverence. Now whenever I attend the OF I always get in the line where I know that I will receive from the Priest… I cannot bring myself to receive on the tongue from a lay person.Well, it was the intention of the “reformers.” I can’t imagine how anyone would think history wouldn’t repeat itself, especially when this resulted from a caving in. Fortunately, the Lord is seeing that this is going to be changed, He won’t be mocked forever (unless, of course, that was just a “cultural” statement He inspired).
Considering that the Church did not have tabernalces for centuries (it appears that they were started around the 9th century) and they were not on main altars for about another century, we are barl\ely past the point where it was done (tabernacle used) longer than it was not done. So perhaps someone is simply quoting the tradition they prefer. I have no clue what you are talking about with the comment as to whom the Mass is celebrated.Now on another note and time is my opinion ( which there is evidence to support in past traditions) the Tabernacle belongs at the front of the Church upon the Alter. To say that the Mass is celebrated to God not Jesus is to deny the Trinity for they are one.
If there is Consecrated Host in the tabernacle the God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all present.
Considering that it was practiced for about 9 centuries in the Church in the Roman rite, and is making headway towards half a century since wit was allowed again, that hardly seems to be a passing fad.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!
He’s actually a cleric possessing the indelible mark of the sacrament of Holy Orders, but the point about his hands not having been consecrated is taken. Still, since we know the deacon has been responsible for the cup since, dare I say, time immemorial, I think a more thorough historical study would be warranted to discern whether and when it may have been proper to the deacon to touch the host as well (for instance, did he ever handle the fermentum that he conveyed to other churches?).This is hypocritical but I could accept it, if I had no other choice, from the non-consecrated hands of a Deacon because at least I know that he is a dedicated lay person that has had several years of study.
I definitly agree that Communion in the hand being abrogated is only a start; other factors will kick in: the reverence shown by the priest, as well as his preaching, and the grace of the Holy Ghost.If communion in the hand was abrogated it would be a start but, for me, doesn’t solve the issue of reverence. Now whenever I attend the OF I always get in the line where I know that I will receive from the Priest… I cannot bring myself to receive on the tongue from a lay person.
I believe that only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch the host. I receive on the tongue out or reverence and to receive on the tongue from the non-consecrated hands of a lay person seems to contradict the idea of reverence. EMHC are here to stay.
This is hypocritical but I could accept it, if I had no other choice, from the non-consecrated hands of a Deacon because at least I know that he is a dedicated lay person that has had several years of study.
Don’t get too comfortable with that thought. God will root out the abuse, in His time. Approving Communion in the hand is the equivalent of an adult saying “I don’t have to kneel in the presence of God because I didn’t have to do it when I was two.” It’s the most lame excuse I’ve ever heard, and even Rome is starting to acknowledge that allowing this was rather, for lack of a better word, stupid.Considering that it was practiced for about 9 centuries in the Church in the Roman rite, and is making headway towards half a century since wit was allowed again, that hardly seems to be a passing fad.
I would be more impressed with your predictions if you would give a date. Otherwise I don’t know if to give it the credence of a horoscope or credit it to wishful thinking, just like calling communion in the hand an abuse.EMHC aren’t here to stay, this abuse will be done away with, just a matter of time. Keep faith!