J
JReducation
Guest
The discussion is interesting. But you must all be very careful not to say things that are not accurate.
Communion in the hand existed long before the Reformation Communities
The anathemas and excommunications only applied to specific sectors of Roman Church, not to the universal Church.
Even within the Roman Church, there were populations that were never required to received communion on the tongue, but for whom it was an option, because there was a greater good at stake. For example, in many religious communities of men it was allowed because communion on the tongue created a distinction between the ordained religious and the lay religious, which was to be avoided as a sin against charity and disobedience against the rule of the order. Certain religious orders, to this day, do not allow the ordained religious to singularize themselves.
Before the schism between East and West, there was communion in the hand in many Eastern Churches. That was gradually replaced by communion by intinction in the East and communion under one form in the West.
In the late 20th century, communion in the hand was introduced in some European dioceses. It was introduced without permission. This is true. What is not true is that the Vatican surrendered. The Vatican has never surrendered to evil. The Vatican surrendered to the argument that this was not evil and was consistent with ancient practices. That’s a big difference. The Vatican may have reluctantly surrendered, just as Peter reluctantly surrendered to doing away with circumscision. It was a matter of discipline, not a matter of dogma.
Because communion on the tongue remains the ordinary manner of receiving communion in the Latin Rite, the bishops have the authority to deny communion in the hand. But they do not have an obligation to do so, unless the Holy Father changes the canon.
Neither bishops nor lay people can change the canons. Only popes can do that. This is where the decrees of excommunication came into play. Because this was the law, the popes had the power to excommunicate anyone in violation of the law. The excommunication was really attached to the law. Without starting up the old SPPX debate again, let us look at an example from that. There was no law that prohibited bishops from ordaining other bishops until the second millenium of the Church. Ambrose ordained Augustine without the permission of the pope. Once it became law that you had to get permission, then the excommunication for violating the law came into play. The same was true with communion in the hand. Once it was prohibitted. Those to whom the law applied, were excommunicated for violating the law. But the law never applied to all Catholics. What we have is an expansion of a very old custom that never disappeared in the Roman Church.
We can debate whether the expansion is purdent or not. But let’s not argue it using information incorrectly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Communion in the hand existed long before the Reformation Communities
The anathemas and excommunications only applied to specific sectors of Roman Church, not to the universal Church.
Even within the Roman Church, there were populations that were never required to received communion on the tongue, but for whom it was an option, because there was a greater good at stake. For example, in many religious communities of men it was allowed because communion on the tongue created a distinction between the ordained religious and the lay religious, which was to be avoided as a sin against charity and disobedience against the rule of the order. Certain religious orders, to this day, do not allow the ordained religious to singularize themselves.
Before the schism between East and West, there was communion in the hand in many Eastern Churches. That was gradually replaced by communion by intinction in the East and communion under one form in the West.
In the late 20th century, communion in the hand was introduced in some European dioceses. It was introduced without permission. This is true. What is not true is that the Vatican surrendered. The Vatican has never surrendered to evil. The Vatican surrendered to the argument that this was not evil and was consistent with ancient practices. That’s a big difference. The Vatican may have reluctantly surrendered, just as Peter reluctantly surrendered to doing away with circumscision. It was a matter of discipline, not a matter of dogma.
Because communion on the tongue remains the ordinary manner of receiving communion in the Latin Rite, the bishops have the authority to deny communion in the hand. But they do not have an obligation to do so, unless the Holy Father changes the canon.
Neither bishops nor lay people can change the canons. Only popes can do that. This is where the decrees of excommunication came into play. Because this was the law, the popes had the power to excommunicate anyone in violation of the law. The excommunication was really attached to the law. Without starting up the old SPPX debate again, let us look at an example from that. There was no law that prohibited bishops from ordaining other bishops until the second millenium of the Church. Ambrose ordained Augustine without the permission of the pope. Once it became law that you had to get permission, then the excommunication for violating the law came into play. The same was true with communion in the hand. Once it was prohibitted. Those to whom the law applied, were excommunicated for violating the law. But the law never applied to all Catholics. What we have is an expansion of a very old custom that never disappeared in the Roman Church.
We can debate whether the expansion is purdent or not. But let’s not argue it using information incorrectly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
