Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[Cluny]

Homosexuality is NOT the same thing as pedophilia.

Nor do those who work with pedophiles (and I’ve met a Christian psychologist who does and explained this) use the terms “homosexual pedophilia/pedophiles” or “heterosexual pedophilia/pedophiles.”

 

[I_Believe]

How appropriate; a Catholic making use of a clown on a CITH thread. That pretty much sums up the arguments presented over the last two pages. pnewton thinks there is no objective truth and history is irrelevant, cluny thinks if the Eastern Catholics do something then it’s automatically correct, and otjm remembers a pre-Vatican II priest saying Mass intoxicated and yet still under fifteen minutes so everything done in the "spirit of Vatican II’ is groovy. Everybody dance.

**I’m not sure what I Believe actually believes in **but here are the facts. The Catholic Church is in decline. The majority of Catholics are not Traditional, Progressive, or Neutral, they are Lapsed. The majority of people who actually attend Sunday Mass don’t believe in the Real Presence. Although I’m not aware of any surveys of Tradional Catholic belief in the Real Presence I’m willing to wager it is nearly if not completely perfect. If you can’t admit to the connection between Vatican II/Novus Ordo and our current state then you are either obtuse or harbouring an ulterior motive.

It’s sad that I thought of liturgical abuse the moment I saw this clown picture. Progressives will talk about abuse occuring pre-Vatican II with drunk priests and express Masses. I suppose alcoholism may be easier to hide in the EF than OF but this is a red herring isn’t it? If the tempo of the Mass is the worst abuse that occurred pre-Vatican II then I believe the clown mass trumps it. CITH is another liturgical abuse and its affects are clearly described in the above paragraph.

What I believe ? As Delmar said in O Brother Where Art Tho ?
"I’m with you fellers "

imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3488153881/


Seriously, I believe what you presented as facts are indeed facts, and I’ve even heard similar words from the pulpit of a diocesan parish, both by a diocesan priest and a visiting Redemptorist Missionary.

Every single time I’ve posted links in these CITTH vs COTT debates, of Bishops in full communion with the Holy See, presenting the same arguments as those “holier than tho” trads, the words and thoughts of these Bishops are ignored. I suppose so, to do so would silence the pounding of their gavels.

The overwhelming majority of the world’s Bishops said “no” when asked if the indult should be granted.

VII has become a total about face. Literally.

-The priest turning his back to the Tabernacle for most of the NO.

-CITH

-the new ecumenism

-Women in the Sanctuary

-Laity administering Communion

-liberal granting of annulments

-all vernacular Masses

-altar girls

-inter religious prayer services that sometimes include pagans

Ha, there’s more, but that’s enough right there.

 

[Cluny]

cluny thinks if the Eastern Catholics do something then it’s automatically correct

I don’t think this. I KNOW this.

Haven’t you learned that the practices of the Eastern Catholic Churces are by definition Catholic, and therefore automatically correct?

You don’t dare think they are WRONG, do you?

 

[I_Believe]

And another thing.

I love BXVI very much. And I try to embrace his words in his SP. I assist both forms.

But the fact is, two forms of the Latin Rite doesn’t cut it. Two ways of receiving doesn’t cut it.

Total contradiction of the word "Unity ". With two forms and the CITH indult, there can be no unity, only division. The indult has to go. And it will, one way or another.

And the NO has to go. The TLM will never be abrogated, because it can’t be. Nothing in the documents that accompanied the introduction of the NO protect it from being abrogated.

Whether by stroke of the pen, or by virute of our young priests embracing the TLM, the NO will be phased out. It’s doomed.

 

[pnewton]

Why is CITH regarded as an indult and not fully equal to COTT?

It is not the ordinary method, but allowable. I was also a believer in generous use of the TLM back when it was by indult, as well as respectful of those that choose to kneel to receive communion, even though that is not know the ordinary method. You may see a difference, but I don’t. Yet still I believe in generousity where the Church is generous, variety and freedom, where the Church allows it.

 

[pickguard1]

But the Catholic Church is not. Truth does not mean one thing to Latin Catholics and another to Eastern Catholics. The way other rites operate still provides data to confront those that see an objective “right” way to receive communion. If we acknowledge there is no objective right way, which is what I believe, then history is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what the Church requires at this time.

There is a right way to receive communion - in a state of sanctifying grace. Anything beyond that is disciplinary.

 

[pickguard1]

Originally Posted by pnewton
…Last I heard one could only receive on the tongue at the TLM. …

I don’t know where you got this idea.

I receive Communion on the tongue whenever I go to the Pauline Mass.

I’ve seen people receive thus on the daily Masses on EWTN.

I’ve even seen Pope Benedict himself give Communion on the Tongue in the Pauline Mass.

I think you misunderstand this statement - I think it meant that at a TLM, the only accepted form of reception of communion is on the tongue - not that the only rite in which it is acceptable is the TLM.

 

[Jimzz12]

I here this all the time. There was Communion in the hand before the receiving on the tongue. The thing is I can’t seem to find proof of this. I’ve looked and looked and looked. I am finding a lot of this:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. Also I believe he was speaking more so for the cloistered monks in a desert.
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)
POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Earlier this year on EWTN was an interview with a pre-eminent scholar on the matter. I want to say his name is Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda. My memory fails me so I will only recount the book he was pitching.

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/12/bishop-schneider-on-ewtn.html

newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/12/alcuin-reid-reviews-dominus-est.html

 

[Layman]

Homosexuality is NOT the same thing as pedophilia.

Nor do those who work with pedophiles (and I’ve met a Christian psychologist who does and explained this) use the terms “homosexual pedophilia/pedophiles” or “heterosexual pedophilia/pedophiles.”

[From memory] Paedophilia means those who like to have sex with children. Pederasty means homosexual men who like to have sex with young adolescent or near-adolescent boys. I’ve read that the most common sexual abuse commited by priests was pederasty, but because criticising homosexuality is now taboo in the media, these priests were called paedophiles instead. Or ‘hebephiles’, which I think is a neologism (new word) made up to cover up the unpleasant truth about this bestial practice; adult homosexuals preying on immature young men.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

Please keep the conversation on-topic and free of gratuitous swipes at each other and at bishops of the Church. Thank you.

 

[otjm]

Hypocrisy rising.

Trouble with your pompous attitude is that we have Archbishops making the same arguments as trads. But you will ignore that won’t you ?

Your # is 6 in the Hear no, Speak no, See no Truth club.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg

My pompous attitude? I am not the one questioning the Pope and the bishops in council. It would appear that you do not read very well, or only selectively. The attitude I was addressing was the naysayer about the OF - we have it and we have 24 hour perpetual adoration, and the vast majority of people receive in the hand. You really don’t get it, do you. We haev a pompous attitutde? Nope, we have 15 years of perpetual adoration. Get a clue. Contrary to preconceived notions based on nothing more than conjecture, we have an attitude of reverence and that is not in spite of the OF, but because of it. But then, because you already have your mind already made up, why would I want to go and confuse you with facts? Shame on me…

 

[pcoffey1]

Consecrated ‘Crumbs’ most certainly are the Body and Blood , Soul and Divinity of the Master - hence the Paten and the Pall - please check you facts on your comment and correct as needed. Aquinas is an excellent reference on this question. Further, Cyril is not the Magesterium… the previous writer has quoted the Highest Authority that we should receive " Food Indeed " on our tongues, kneeling, as being fed like children at the hands of ‘Persona Christi’: Communion on the tongue kneeling has been the tradition of the Roman church for centuries - and was never changed; but when the abuse crept in post Vatican 2 i.e. communion in the hand in Eurpoe first i recall, Rome Paulus VI] allowed it as an option for bishops conferences to approve. He left this reverential decision to the same folks who have given us bankruptcy, closed schools and churches homosexual assaults on our children and more recently Notre Dame!

May I correct myself and add the Corporal to the altar linens used to protect
losing any ’ crumbs’ and possible dis respect to the True Presence

 

[pcoffey1]

And another thing.

I love BXVI very much. And I try to embrace his words in his SP. I assist both forms.

But the fact is, two forms of the Latin Rite doesn’t cut it. Two ways of receiving doesn’t cut it.

Total contradiction of the word "Unity ". With two forms and the CITH indult, there can be no unity, only division. The indult has to go. And it will, one way or another.

And the NO has to go. The TLM will never be abrogated, because it can’t be. Nothing in the documents that accompanied the introduction of the NO protect it from being abrogated.

Whether by stroke of the pen, or by virute of our young priests embracing the TLM, the NO will be phased out. It’s doomed.

Or… there will be a melding of the 2 - BXVI has alluded to this in his discussions of hermeneutic … I agree with you the experiment in common ground with Protestants
A.K.A as NO is doomed…

 

[otjm]

And another thing.

I love BXVI very much. And I try to embrace his words in his SP. I assist both forms.

But the fact is, two forms of the Latin Rite doesn’t cut it. Two ways of receiving doesn’t cut it.

Total contradiction of the word "Unity ". With two forms and the CITH indult, there can be no unity, only division. The indult has to go. And it will, one way or another.

And the NO has to go. The TLM will never be abrogated, because it can’t be. Nothing in the documents that accompanied the introduction of the NO protect it from being abrogated.

Whether by stroke of the pen, or by virute of our young priests embracing the TLM, the NO will be phased out. It’s doomed.

By your logic, we would have to get rid of all the forms of the Eastern rite liturgies. You seem to be bothered by the two forms of the Roman rite; most people are not. Most people also have made little or no move to the EF, which shows nothing at all about its worthiness, utility, history, attractiveness to some, revenrence, tradition over time, sense of the sacred, emphasis on sacrifice, or anything else. The tremendous move to the EF which was widely predictied simply is not happening.

Further, you confuse the word “unity” with the word “uniformity”. The Church, starting with Pius 12th, has moved to encourage non-uniformity, if you will, in that it has pushed the Eastern rites to de-latinize their liturgies and return to their roots.

Anyone who is paying attention to what has been officially said from Rome can see that over time, there is a significant possiblity that both the EF and the OF may pick up some parts from the other; and anyone who pays attention to Rome can see that it will take a long time, as we measure time (as opposed to how the Church measures time) for this to occur.

People who prefer the OF are not going around and saying the EF has to go, or that it has to be modified. they simply don’t go to the EF on a regular basis, and most of them don’t go to it at all. And it is only some of those who go to the EF on a regular basis that seem to think that the vast majority of people are wrong, and that what they prefer needs to be done away with.

The TLM may never be abrogated, but there is also nothing anywhere that says that it cannot be modifed, and in fact over time it has been modified - and we will both grant that the modifications were nowhere near as long and wide as the change of the EF to the OF. Those who think that the EF is sacrosanctly cast in stone are simply fooling themselves.

 

[otjm]

May I correct myself and add the Corporal to the altar linens used to protect
losing any ’ crumbs’ and possible dis respect to the True Presence

And interestingly, there were no instructions for taking care of any minute particles that may have landed on it; if no discernable particles were observed, it was simply fliped over so that it hung on the sanctuary side of the altar rail.

 

[otjm]

The issue isn’t a matter of preference it is whether it is proper or not. CITH in modern times started as an abuse in Europe. Pope Paul VI acquisced and issued and indult to the dioceses hell bent on retaining it. Somehow the practice caught the attention of American bishops and soon after the indult was interpreted as valid here too.

Your opinion is showing through. Indults are not “interpreted as valid”. They are valid by their very nature. Communion in the hand in the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, is as old as the Church. And in the Roman rite it was in existence to some degree up into the 10th century.

Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour sacrificed Himself on the cross for our salvation. He asked us to receive Him in the Blessed Sacrament. Shouldn’t we do so in the most reverent manner?

Given that standing to receive, like Communion in the hand, has been practiced in the Catholic Church (as opposed to the Roman rite specifically) since time immemorial, it is only a matter of personal opinion, culture and taste that kneeling is more reverent than standing. The issue is primarily one of culture, not of any sort of absolute. You “feel” that it is more reverant, therefore you draw the conclusion that it is ontologically more reverent. But feelings are not ontological proof.

 

[AJV]

Your opinion is showing through. Indults are not “interpreted as valid”. They are valid by their very nature. Communion in the hand in the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, is as old as the Church. And in the Roman rite it was in existence to some degree up into the 10th century.

Just a nitpick (as usual) – that would depend on how broadly one interprets Roman rite since in Rome itself, though not everywhere outside Rome in Europe (as I say, it depends whether one considers them as using the Roman Rite or not, since Rome’s liturgy had not spread that much), it seems to have been present since the time of St. Gregory the Great.

 

[AJV]

And the NO has to go. The TLM will never be abrogated, because it can’t be. Nothing in the documents that accompanied the introduction of the NO protect it from being abrogated.

The TLM may have not been abrogated but it certainly can be. There’s nothing that prevents that either. The question, I think, revolves around the language used by Paul VI in imposing the NO-- it would actually be good to see an explanation of that.

 

[I_Believe]

Earlier this year on EWTN was an interview with a pre-eminent scholar on the matter. I want to say his name is Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda. My memory fails me so I will only recount the book he was pitching.

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/12/bishop-schneider-on-ewtn.html

newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/12/alcuin-reid-reviews-dominus-est.html

Yes, the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/03/as-bishop-i-cannot-be-silent.html

You can watch the interview.

the book Dominus Est by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary in Karaganda, Kazakhstan, published by the Vatican Press in which he argues for Holy Communion to be received on the tongue and kneeling.

The Vatican Press ? What on earth is happening ?

The New Liturgical Movement is more than some blog. There is a new Liturgical Movement in the Church Herself. And it’s gaining momentum daily.

Winter is over folks. It’s springtime

 

[otjm]

Why is CITH regarded as an indult and not fully equal to COTT?

Because each rite has its form and rules, and within the Roman rite the rule for centuries (but most definitely not all centuries) has been that in the Roman rite one received on the tongue. It is a disciplinary rule - that is, it is not a matter of faith and morals. An indult is an exception to the rule. Historically, the rules have changed, and for various reasons. There seems to be a presumption that if we have a rule, and it has been there for a long time, that anything other than the rule is wrong. However, the rule itself has a historical context and time period, and if one were to look at the majority of liturgical rules - rubrics - one would find that the rule had a starting point (before which it wasn’t the rule), and some rules came and went; that is, a rule was instituted at some point and at another point it was changed, dropped, revoked or otherwise altered or done away with.

There seems to be a mindset that rules once in place, by their very existence, cannot be changed. History shows otherwise.

Another example is kneeling. In the Byzantine rite per the Ukranians, one primarily stands, and secondarily sits; and one stands through the whole of the Eucharistic prayer. That is their tradition, and their tradition is no more and no less reverent than the tradition of kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer in the Roman rite; and by indult, we kneel for a longer time in the US than does the more universal rule within the Roman rite.