Pope Benedict to celebrate AD ORIENTEM!

[GandalfTheWhite]

Communion in the hand was originally a Catholic practice.

Was it? I’m yet to see a prove of this claim. As far as we know no Apostolic Church (Western nor Eastern) have communion in the hand and I’m not aware of any historical evidence that would prove this claim.

 

[stmaria]

Eilish Maura;3232058]???

Do your question marks mean that you don’t believe that Luther and Cranmer added, “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.” to the Lord’s Prayer???

Do you know that the King James Bible added, " For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever" to the Lord’s Prayer and makes it appear that those words were spoken by Christ?

Communion in the hand was originally a Catholic practice.

If that is true, why was communion in the hand considered an abuse when it was introduced in 1964?

cathcon.blogspot.com/2007/11/sanctuary-as-place-of-confusion.html
The secretary of the Congregation Roman liturgy, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith interview.

Misused hand Communion

“As a negative example of Archbishop cited hand Communion. . It was introduced so as to be an abuse. Now despite harmful effects on the faith, it is maintained. The hand Communion, “in a certain way” has helped ensure that the belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist had waned”

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Do your question marks mean that you don’t believe that Luther and Cranmer added, “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.” to the Lord’s Prayer???

Do you know that the King James Bible added, " For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever" to the Lord’s Prayer and makes it appear that those words were spoken by Christ?

My question marks are reflective of my never remembering at any time that being part of the NO.

Communion in the hand has been noted by a bishop in what - the 4th century? I don’t have the specifics handy but I believe that was from way before Protestants were around. AS for some bishop in 1964 making comments about it - well everyone is entitled to their own opinion right?

 

[cam100]

Do your question marks mean that you don’t believe that Luther and Cranmer added, “For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever. Amen.” to the Lord’s Prayer???

Do you know that the King James Bible added, " For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever" to the Lord’s Prayer and makes it appear that those words were spoken by Christ?

The doxology (For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever) was used as a conclusion for the Lord’s Prayer by Catholics long before Luther, Cranmer, or the King James Version. It appeared in bibles (before Protestantism), sometimes in the margin and sometimes immediately following the Lord’s Parayer, but in different ink. In the KJV, it followed the Lord’s Prayer with no distiction between the original prayer and the doxology, so some users of that bible came to believe it was part of the original prayer. Modern Protestant bible scholars are aware, however, that the doxology is not part of Our Lord’s words.

 

[stmaria]

=Eilish Maura;3232599]
My question marks are reflective of my never remembering at any time that being part of the NO.

The liturgy of the Novus Ordo has many options. If the *Our Father *in your diocese doesn’t have, “For Thine is the kingdom…” that is because your Bishop has decided not to allow it.In the majority of Nouvs Ordo Masses it is allowed.

Communion in the hand has been noted by a bishop in what - the 4th century? I don’t have the specifics handy but I believe that was from way before Protestants were around. AS for some bishop in 1964 making comments about it - well everyone is entitled to their own opinion right?

The Bishop made that statement last year. he was appointed to his position by Pope Benedict.

Here is a statment on communion in the hand from Pope Paul VI.

Memoriale Domini
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

“Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced **without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed **the faithful to take this divine food **in their hands **and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. **Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence **towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.”

 

[stmaria]

The doxology (For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever and ever) was used as a conclusion for the Lord’s Prayer by Catholics long before Luther, Cranmer, or the King James Version. It appeared in bibles (before Protestantism), sometimes in the margin and sometimes immediately following the Lord’s Parayer, but in different ink. In the KJV, it followed the Lord’s Prayer with no distiction between the original prayer and the doxology, so some users of that bible came to believe it was part of the original prayer. Modern Protestant bible scholars are aware, however, that the doxology is not part of Our Lord’s words.

As I stated, the doxology appeared in either the first or second century so yes, it was used by Christians. But it was never used as part of the Lord’s Prayer in the Traditional Latin Mass.
It was made part of the Lord’s prayer by Luther and it was used in Cranmer’s Mass. Yes it appeared in Bibles before the King James but never as part of the Lord’s Prayer and certainly not as if these were the words of Christ as the King James Bible infers.
Did Bugnini put in into the Novus Ordo Liturgy at the request of the Luthern and Anglican observers? I think that is a real possibility for ecumenical reasons.

 

[AJV]

Luther removed the words, “Mystery of Faith” as did the Commission and Luther added " which is given up for you" which the Commission also added

Not exactly…Ltuher’s is taken from Luke and the NO from Corinthians…although rendered the sam ein Englsih there is a slight difference in the Latin.

I think you are familiar with Dom Vagaggini’s work “The Canon fo the Mass”? In it (before any Protestants) came on the scene, he advocates this change. Pg 102-103. I don;t have the time to type out the thign right now (will try later) but he advocates this based on:

• all the Eastern liturgies. He cities also the Paleo-Hispanic liturgy for “quod pro vobis tradetur” and a few ancient Canosn to prove the point that the liturgies continue with a variant on those words.
• the Consecration of the bread should parallel that of the wine…“quod pro vobis tradetur”…“quod pro vobis [et pro multis] effundetur”
• that it increases the sacrificial understanding of the Words. He says that “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” shows only that the Body is present whereas “*broken *bread signifies Christ’s Body broken for us for the remission of sins and the wine poured out means his Blood shed for us”

And of course, the omission of Mysterium Fidei for reasons I’m sure you’re acquainted with.

So I don’t think that the Protestants might have had anything to do with it…Catholic liturgists were advocating it (I’m not commenting as to the rightness) before Protestants reached the scene on different grounds

 

[bpbasilphx]

As far as we know no Apostolic Church (Western nor Eastern) have communion in the hand and I’m not aware of any historical evidence that would prove this claim.

Your knowledge is fragmentary.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem discusses receiving communion in the hand.

The rubrics of the Byzantine Liturgy of St. James strictly call for communion in the hand.

From what I’ve heard, communion in the hand (after holding them above the burning censer) is the norm in the Assyrian Church of the East.

 

[stmaria]

Not exactly…Ltuher’s is taken from Luke and the NO from Corinthians…although rendered the sam ein Englsih there is a slight difference in the Latin.

I think you are familiar with Dom Vagaggini’s work “The Canon fo the Mass”? In it (before any Protestants) came on the scene, he advocates this change. Pg 102-103. I don;t have the time to type out the thign right now (will try later) but he advocates this based on:

• all the Eastern liturgies. He cities also the Paleo-Hispanic liturgy for “quod pro vobis tradetur” and a few ancient Canosn to prove the point that the liturgies continue with a variant on those words.
• the Consecration of the bread should parallel that of the wine…“quod pro vobis tradetur”…“quod pro vobis [et pro multis] effundetur”
• that it increases the sacrificial understanding of the Words. He says that “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” shows only that the Body is present whereas “*broken *bread signifies Christ’s Body broken for us for the remission of sins and the wine poured out means his Blood shed for us”

And of course, the omission of Mysterium Fidei for reasons I’m sure you’re acquainted with.

So I don’t think that the Protestants might have had anything to do with it…Catholic liturgists were advocating it (I’m not commenting as to the rightness) before Protestants reached the scene on different grounds

Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that the changes to the words of Consecration are those made by Luther. But why make any changes? Pope Pius V in *De Defectibus *clearly states what the words of Consecration are. And why remove “Mystery of Faith” when it was said by Pope Innocent III that the words “Mystery of Faith” were given to the apostles by Christ?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Not exactly…Ltuher’s is taken from Luke and the NO from Corinthians…although rendered the sam ein Englsih there is a slight difference in the Latin.

Where in Corinthians?

 

[AJV]

Where in Corinthians?

1 Corinthians 11:23-24 which in the Vulgate reads

Ego enim accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis, quoniam Dominus Jesus in qua nocte tradebatur, accepit panem, et gratias agens fregit, et dixit: Accipite, et manducate: hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur: hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

 

[pnewton]

Rolling back to facing east, I just pulled up my parish church and found that the axis of the church runs north/south. That will make for some interesting decision if facing east became the norm again.

 

[stmaria]

Rolling back to facing east, I just pulled up my parish church and found that the axis of the church runs north/south. That will make for some interesting decision if facing east became the norm again.

Not a problem. In *The Spirit of the Liturgy *Pope Benedict says, “A more important objection is of the practical order. Are we really going to re-order everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the Liturgy than constant changes, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.
I see a solution to this in a suggestion I noted at the beginning in connection with the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man”, with the Cross, which announces Our Lord’s Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior “East” of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.”

 

[Aramis]

Was it? I’m yet to see a prove of this claim. As far as we know no Apostolic Church (Western nor Eastern) have communion in the hand and I’m not aware of any historical evidence that would prove this claim.

There are provisions in certain of the Eastern churches for communion in the hand; I’m not certain how far back they go. The Chaldean Catholics do use it, and the archaic form requires the communicant to hold his hand in the smoke of the thurible before reception…

 

[Aramis]

Rolling back to facing east, I just pulled up my parish church and found that the axis of the church runs north/south. That will make for some interesting decision if facing east became the norm again.

A great many churches have been built facing other than east… it is a non-issue when the needs of the property determine such a facing is required.

Holy Family Cathedral, in Anchorage, was built originally with the altar at the north, then rennovated to put it at the south end.

St. Nicholas of Myra (also in Anchorage) faces west, since the east end, when it was built, was on the major N-S roadway, and the property was (at that time) narrow. It was chosen to have the altar away from the street, so the entry doors could be seen from the street and traffic wouldn’t damage it.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

A great many churches have been built facing other than east… it is a non-issue when the needs of the property determine such a facing is required.

Holy Family Cathedral, in Anchorage, was built originally with the altar at the north, then rennovated to put it at the south end.

St. Nicholas of Myra (also in Anchorage) faces west, since the east end, when it was built, was on the major N-S roadway, and the property was (at that time) narrow. It was chosen to have the altar away from the street, so the entry doors could be seen from the street and traffic wouldn’t damage it.

Well, liturgical east is not necessarily true east.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Did you also know that protestants were invited to every general council since protestantism began? That includes Trent, Vat I & Vat II. As I recall, however, they refused to attend both Trent and Vat I.

This is one thing I found on protestants at Vatican Council I and all it states is that protestants were informed.

"The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07.

Vatican Council, First

1869–70, the 20th ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church (see council, ecumenical), renowned chiefly for its enunciation of the doctrine of papal infallibility.

…The Eastern Churches in schism were invited, and the Protestants were officially informed."

“The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XV. Published 1912. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.” From NewAdvent.org

“A special Brief, “Arcano divinæ providentiæ”, of 8 Sept., 1868 invited non-Uniate Orientals to appear. A third Brief, “Jam vos omnes”, of 13 Sept., 1868, notified Protestants also of the convoking of the council, and exhorted them to use the occasion to reflect on the return to the one household of faith.”

 

[Eilish_Maura]

**

The liturgy of the Novus Ordo has many options. If the *Our Father *

in your diocese doesn’t have, “For Thine is the kingdom…” that is because your Bishop has decided not to allow it.In the majority of Nouvs Ordo Masses it is allowed.

Over the time since Vat II I have attended mass at a number of parishes spread over three dioceses and never heard of this being done.

I have never heard this done in Ireland either when I go to mass there.

I am also correspond with several priests and have asked them about the use of this.

I found this in the Ask an Apologist section:

Why do Protestants end the Our Father differently than Catholics?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=65616**

 

[pnewton]

Well, liturgical east is not necessarily true east.

Thanks for the answers everyone. That makes sense. I am sure if we ever do have a change, our priest will explain it well.

 

[stmaria]

=stmaria;3232938]The liturgy of the Novus Ordo has many options. If the *Our Father *in your diocese doesn’t have, “For Thine is the kingdom…” that is because your Bishop has decided not to allow it.In the majority of Nouvs Ordo Masses it is allowed

.

Quote Eilish Maura
Over the time since Vat II I have attended mass at a number of parishes spread over three dioceses and never heard of this being done.

I have never heard this done in Ireland either when I go to mass there.

I am also correspond with several priests and have asked them about the use of this.

I found this in the Ask an Apologist section:

Why do Protestants end the Our Father differently than Catholics?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=65616

From your link, " Catholics do pray what is called the Final Doxology (“For thine is the kingdom…”) when praying the Our Father at Mass, but it is separated from the Our Father by an interspersed prayer (“Deliver us, Lord…”) in order to acknowledge that it does not properly belong to the Our Father as it was given to us by Christ."

Maybe I need to be more clear. At all of the Masses of the Ordinary Form that I have ever attended, the Our Father is followed by , “For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory etc…”.
The Apologist is correct. There is a short pause between the Our Father and , “For Thine is the Kingdom…” But nonetheless it is said. And over the past few years, the congregation holds hands during the Our Father and **then all raise their arms **while saying, " For Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory Forever Amen."
It pains me, but I admit I raise my arms…ever so slightly. When in Rome…!