K
kwitz
Guest
- Status
C
csr
Guest
HagiaSophia: “Whenever I see a thread like this I am reminded that in the early church of the martyrs even the Romans noted that Christians carry …”
Traditions that evolved over centuries are not random, and should not be re-engineered. Re-tooling traditions results in spiritual pandemonium.
The Augustinian: “As for the act of receiving Communion in the hand, it is not per se a sinful act, so it cannot be said to be the direct cause of venial sins or other imperfections which warrant purgation.”
Communion in the hand is part and parcel of desacralization in the western tradition, and has the effect of reducing the reverence of the recipient.
Deacon Ed: “That this is your opinion is clear. My opinion, as a cleric giving communion to people, is that both methods can be reverent. In fact, I personally find it more reverent to receive in the hand (mandatory in my Melkite parish…”
Being bi-ritual can put you at a disadvantage in that it renders you more indifferent to distinctions that exist among those of a specific tradition. I would not waltz into an eastern rite and demand that the intinction be done away with, for example. Or that now kneeling is mandatory for specific prayers.
Traditions that evolved over centuries are not random, and should not be re-engineered. Re-tooling traditions results in spiritual pandemonium.
The Augustinian: “As for the act of receiving Communion in the hand, it is not per se a sinful act, so it cannot be said to be the direct cause of venial sins or other imperfections which warrant purgation.”
Communion in the hand is part and parcel of desacralization in the western tradition, and has the effect of reducing the reverence of the recipient.
Deacon Ed: “That this is your opinion is clear. My opinion, as a cleric giving communion to people, is that both methods can be reverent. In fact, I personally find it more reverent to receive in the hand (mandatory in my Melkite parish…”
Being bi-ritual can put you at a disadvantage in that it renders you more indifferent to distinctions that exist among those of a specific tradition. I would not waltz into an eastern rite and demand that the intinction be done away with, for example. Or that now kneeling is mandatory for specific prayers.
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Here’s my thing. I don’t know abou this private revelation or weather its true. I do know that Communion in the Hand is NOT an indifferent practice. The universal NORM is ON THE TONGUE.
Here we have the greatest loss of faith ever recorded (only 30% believe in the Real Presence compared to those a mere 2 generations earlier) and I think the communion in the hand is a part of that. Communion in the hand is also only ‘allowed’ if it doesn’t lead to loss of faith.
I think its time we restore Communion on the Tongue in the USA and end this disobedience.
P
pnewton
Guest
If you reread Augustinian, he points to the basic principle that just because two items or correlated in time does not imply causality. There may be a common cause or no relation. Computing power has also increased as belief in the Real Presence has decreased. There is no causality.
Also it is not disobedient to follow that which Rome allows. Disobedience is in ignoring the Holy See.
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
St. Tarcisus is indeed one of our “Eucharistic” martyrs. The boys who accosted him meant to mock the Eucharist and so he chose to die rather than turn it over to them.
In my reading of Roman times, they were told when stopping someone who was suspected of being Christian, to look for this “bread” which they often carried to their members/
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
Then you need to take it up with the bishops of Vatican II who several times in their comments and in documents refer explicity to the desire of wanting to return to some of the earlier forms of traditional worship.
Unless you can offer undisputed proof that receiving on the tongue is in some way a more “sacred” system, no desacralization has occurred.
If anything, the state of catechesis, the continuing societal decline in standards and a great deal of poor implementation of the council declarations have conributed much more to the loss of the spiritual life of Catholics. In order to be a good Catholic it is in no way necessary to be more Catholic than the pope.
D
deaconswife
Guest
Amen! I thought I was the only one who had the same impression.
:clapping:
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Paul VI issued specific conditions that had to exist in order for the indult for Communion in the hand. I propose that those conditions do not exist in the USA.
And Philip…what if it can be shown that the issuance of Communion in the Hand in the USA was done in an act of disobedience and deception. The USA never petitioned the Holy See and the Holy See never ruled on the indult of the USA.
Therefore…we should be ‘obedient’ and follow the universal norm.
The fact that we have a massive loss of faith is concern. Each progression of breaches of Traditional practice have aided and abetted in the loss of faith. Its time to reverse this nonesense.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
And how do you propose to prove this claim?
Ah, but the United States did make such a petition, and it was granted on June 17, 1977. What makes you think this petition did not take place or that it was not granted?
But if your premise is flawed, i.e., if the indult was granted, then your claim is equally flawed for it is based upon the premise.
I might point out that there have always been periods of termoil after each of the major councils and this period in history is no different.
Deacon Ed
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Deacon Ed:
It can be proven that the petition was made while not following the minimum guidelines set by Paul VI.
Why are you against following the universal norm that the Pope has said is most reverent and proper for recieving the holy eucharist?
Just to make sure you do teach that contraception is intrinsically evil correct?
Deacon…why do you defend a practice that is a novelty in the Latin Church? Why do you seem to defend all the Novus Ordo abuses?
It can be proven that the petition was made while not following the minimum guidelines set by Paul VI.
Why are you against following the universal norm that the Pope has said is most reverent and proper for recieving the holy eucharist?
Just to make sure you do teach that contraception is intrinsically evil correct?
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
I defend the Church from those who attack her, both those within the Church and those outside the Church.
Actually, it cannot be proven. The documents are quite clear that the bishops had the requisite number of votes, and that the Holy See granted approval. You can find them in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
I am following the directives of the Church which permit both forms of reception of communion in the United States. Why do you deny the authority of Rome to issue such an indult? Why do you deny the authority of the bishop to ask for the indult?
Who appointed you my judge? For the record, yes, I do. Don’t ever make the mistake of questioning my faithfulness to the Church again. It’s the height of hubris!
Deacon Ed
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Deacon,
If you actually read what was questioned you would have easily seen it wasn’t a judgment statement. By the way with the state of American Catholic and the widespread apostacy on the heresy of contraception (supported by weak and dissident priests, bishops and religious) do you really think that its not ‘proper’ to ask the question?
Believe me, I ask it more than you know. And to others in far more authority than you as well. You’re in good company…trust me.
Perhaps you should look at what Paul VI wrote of the indult and its permission and its limitations. The USA fits that the criteria for revocation to a “T”.
I have the duty and right to question what is being done to the Church. Not in disobedience like the angry dissidents but like that of a hurt member of the Church watching their family lead to loss of faith and lead away from Christ…from those purportadely within the Church. This is not good.
I’m sick of the indults where the exception becomes the rule and heterodoxy reigns supreme. I do believe, sincerely, that communion in the hand leads to the loss of faith. I do believe that litugical abuses also lead to loss of reverence and faith and give cause to the dissadents.
If you actually read what was questioned you would have easily seen it wasn’t a judgment statement. By the way with the state of American Catholic and the widespread apostacy on the heresy of contraception (supported by weak and dissident priests, bishops and religious) do you really think that its not ‘proper’ to ask the question?
Believe me, I ask it more than you know. And to others in far more authority than you as well. You’re in good company…trust me.
Perhaps you should look at what Paul VI wrote of the indult and its permission and its limitations. The USA fits that the criteria for revocation to a “T”.
I have the duty and right to question what is being done to the Church. Not in disobedience like the angry dissidents but like that of a hurt member of the Church watching their family lead to loss of faith and lead away from Christ…from those purportadely within the Church. This is not good.
I’m sick of the indults where the exception becomes the rule and heterodoxy reigns supreme. I do believe, sincerely, that communion in the hand leads to the loss of faith. I do believe that litugical abuses also lead to loss of reverence and faith and give cause to the dissadents.
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Yes, I do, especially as it was asked.
I am quite familiar with the requirements that Pope Paul VI laid down, and I am fully aware that the United States met the requirements and that the indult was granted in accordance with the wishes of the bishops.
The Second Vatican Council granted you the right to make your needs known, not to question the Church. You are granted the right to speak in areas where your competency lies, but not to question the legitimate authority of the Church.
But what you are “sick of” is what the Church permits. I agree that heterodoxy is a problem, but this is nothing new in the Church – it’s been with us for 2,000 years and will continue to be there until the parousia. Also, I disagree that the indult to receive communion in the hand has led us to this point. There are so many factors that enter into the current problems that simple answers simply aren’t answers at all.
Deacon Ed
S
SeekerJen
Guest
Huh. I read this as meaning that Hermenegild was killed after refusing to receive communion from the Arian bishop’s hands. There is no mention of whether or not Hermenegild would have received communion in his hands or on his tongue.
As for the rest of the matter: the Pope has issued an indult allowing the Eucharist to be received in the hand in this country. As the Pope and the magisterium are guided by the Holy Spirit, I accept this indult. And I wonder what makes people fuss so much over the manner in which someone else receives the Holy Eucharist. If receiving on the tongue is a way for you to be more reverent to our Lord, then do it! But don’t presume that those of us who receive in the hand are not reverent.
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Deacon Ed:
I question preist and bishops and lowly deacons as yourself because of the apostasy in the US.
Your right. There is a lot that is the cause of the loss of faith…here some examples…The ICEL non-translations, communion in the hand, english only hootinany masses (no latin or gregorian as V2 says should be there), priests no longer facing ad orientum, removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary to a closet, tolerance of heterodoxy, wreckovations, radical feminist nuns, homosexual priest, removal of crucifixes, rejection of Humanae Vitae, lay distributors, girl-altar boys (and I doubt one parish fits the condition for the supposed indult of this evil practice) and refusal to TEACH THE FAITH. These all are factors.
The US did not meet the requirement to even request such an indult. The Indult was initiated by Cr. Bernadin (who’s Bishops he’s consecrated and liturgists and friends) have been widely found to be homosexuals (i.e. Weakland).
I question preist and bishops and lowly deacons as yourself because of the apostasy in the US.
Your right. There is a lot that is the cause of the loss of faith…here some examples…The ICEL non-translations, communion in the hand, english only hootinany masses (no latin or gregorian as V2 says should be there), priests no longer facing ad orientum, removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary to a closet, tolerance of heterodoxy, wreckovations, radical feminist nuns, homosexual priest, removal of crucifixes, rejection of Humanae Vitae, lay distributors, girl-altar boys (and I doubt one parish fits the condition for the supposed indult of this evil practice) and refusal to TEACH THE FAITH. These all are factors.
B
Brendan
Guest
The requirement to request an indult is that the requestor be a validly ordained Bishop delegated as Ordinary to a Diocese.
A conference of Bishop’s or even a Bishop alone ALWAYS has the right to request an indult.
The Holy See makes the determining judgement on if the indult is to be granted, using whatever criteria the Holy See deems necessary.
It is part of the Universal, Complete and Ordinary Authority of the Holy See confirmed by Vatican I .
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
Your assertion that the “US did not meet the requirement to even request such an indult” does not cut it. Rome believes that there were sufficient bishops asking for the indult. All indult requests initiate with someone, and your scurrilous accustion is simply beneath contempt.
The ICEL translations were approved by Rome, so we have them to thank. While they were banal, they were not heretical. I haven’t heard of “hootinany masses” [sic] in over 15 years. The directives on the placement of the tabernacle are fairly precise, and a closet does not qualify (and I know of only one case where this happened, and it has been rectified). All the other things, with the exception of the rejection of Humanae Vitae have been approved by the Church. Therefore, it seems, you are protesting against the Church and Her legitimate praxis. We generally call people who do that Protestants – people who believe they know better that the Church what the Church should be.
I certainly don’t claim to know better. I simply honor the teaching authority of the bishop in my diocesee (to whom I have promised obedience) and of the Magisterium under the Holy Father. I also have sufficient faith that Jesus is still in charge of the Church and that He can take care of us.
Deacon Ed
A
Agomemnon
Guest
Deacon Ed:
How’s that WIDE AND GENEROUS application of Ecclessia Dei going in your diocese?? Is it wide and generous so that all that may go to the Tridentine Mass so that we can pray the Mass of our choice?
K
kwitz
Guest
Here’s where I always get confused during these discussions. Why is your indult for the Tridentine Mass acceptable but mine to receive Communion in the hand a mistake? While I personally have no desire to attend TLM, I absolutely would never tell anyone else that “my” Mass is the best and only way to go. The TLM has been allowed by the Church; therefore, it is acceptable for Catholics to attend (obviously I’m not speaking of schism). Communion in the hand is allowed by the Church; therefore it is acceptable. End of discussion.
Kris
A
Agomemnon
Guest
I don’t see how they are comparible. The NO Mass (that you and I attend…I don’t have a TLM to attend close) doesn’t say anything about recieving in the hand. That began as an abuse and than (like giving in to a ratty child…conceded) gave the supposed indult. The Universal Norm of the Church is on the Tongue. Paul VI didn’t intend for all the modifications and indults on the NO as it is now.
I’m saying that with the loss of faith in the Eucharist that receiving communion in the hand lends itself to that loss of faith. I think that communion in the hand also lends itself to desecration from carelessness (crumbs falling to the ground…people walking on them…etc.) I also think that its not an indifferent practice. Let us not forget that satanist use the consecrated Host (our Lord) in their sacriligious ceremonies. The distribution of communion the way it is now risks that desecration and evil against our Lord as well. Is recieving in the hand worth the possibility of desecration of our Lord? What do you think is ‘gained’ by such a practice???
- Status