Pushed to the SSPX

[TraditionRising]

No, not exactly. You haven’t been here. You do not know. He even missed how I grew up. Totally off base in his theories and assumptions. I know. I am me. I am here.

I could care less who you are. I was agreeing with his suggestion that those who know no other way may not understand the practice of Roman Catholicism as it was practiced before those at VII broke their Oath Against Modernism they took when they became priests.

 

[TraditionRising]

Aquinas’ position was indeed an official teaching of the Church. And what St. Thomas taught was merely Catholic Tradition… He did not make it up. The teaching pre-dated him,

The current method of standing, receiving communion in the hand and then self-communicating was never practiced in the Catholic Church, only by Protestant heretics.

See references below…

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.

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)

What do facts have to do with it ?

Excellent citations !

 

[FrancisMonica]

What do facts have to do with it ?

Excellent citations !

Being a convert, I’m no expert on these matters so I took a look at Dominicae Cenae, section 11 and it says that receiving Communion in the hand has received approval from the Apostolic See and goes on with further explanation/thought. You might like to read it for yourself:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

Pax,
FM

 

[JReducation]

Aquinas’ position was indeed an official teaching of the Church. And what St. Thomas taught was merely Catholic Tradition… He did not make it up. The teaching pre-dated him,

The current method of standing, receiving communion in the hand and then self-communicating was never practiced in the Catholic Church, only by Protestant heretics.

See references below…

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.

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)

All of these decrees had to do with self-communicating. The point that I was responding to was the argument that only consecrated hands can touch the host… These decrees and statements do not touch on that, except for Aquinas, as you can see. And Aquinas was wrong. Deacons do not have consecrated hands.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Thanks be to God! I think you will find a deeper sense of reverence receiving Our Lord on the tongue from the priest, kneeling if possible as Pope Benedict wishes…

What about receiving communion from a deacon? Would you discourage that? I notice that you mention priest, but even at papal masses, the deacons also distribute communion and it’s usually standing. And outside of the Vatican, communion is received kneeling and on the tongue from the Holy Father, because that is his preference. But he does not require those conferences that have the indult to distribute communion on the tongue, even when he presides at a mass. The rest of the clergy can distribute it on the hand. By clergy, we include deacons too, not just priests.

We have to remember that the Vatican clearly said that the ordained are the proper ministers of the Eucharist. It did not say priest. Your post sounds as if you were ignoring the role of the diaconate. I hope that is not the case and that you would clarify that for the faithful.

Also, receiving communion in the hand is not the same as self-communicating. Self-communicating is when you take the host from the sacred vessel or the patten. Even that, there are indults to religious men in solemn vows in their conventual masses to do so. Those orders of consecrated life who make solemn vows have these indults written into their constitutions and approved by papal bulls.

It cannot possibly be a sin, if it there are indults. The Church cannot grant indults to commit a sin.

We have to be careful here to be aware of the different between disciplines and sins. Just as you said before that Aquinas’ position was accepted by the Church, which is not the case, becaues Aquinas ignored the deacon in his statement, we have to be careful to undestand when the Doctors say something and when the Church accepts what they say as consistent with revealed truth and when the Church takes what they say and turns it into a discipline. A discipline and a revealed truth are not the same.

It can be a mortal sin to disobey a discipline. If you say that, you are very correct. In those cases where an indult is granted from the discipline, there is no sin, because there is no disobedience. As I posted before, our Poor Clare nuns always had the indult to give communion to the dying nuns when a deacon or a priest was not available, which in the past was quite often. They still have an indult to expose and repose the Blessed Sacrament for adoration. The abbess does not need a priest or deacon to do that, since most Poor Clare houses are autonomous and have no clerics attached to them.

These are the points that we’re making. When there is an indult, there is no disobedience; theefore, there is no sin.

I wish that people would put as much energy and time into writing about the Gospel of Life and the protection of the vulnerable as they do into arguing about disciplines and indults. At least, the Gospel of Life is dogma that we must embrace and promote others to do the same.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stevusmagnus]

As for self-communicating, that is what communion in the hand is. The communicants take the host from their hand and place it in their own mouths. As for deacons, see below.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion3.htm

…It can be pointed out that in some regions at least, the deacon’s hands WERE consecrated-----as the 6th century Epistle of Gildas and the 8th century Pontifical of Egbert of York prove. While some instances of deacons administering the Host can be adduced from the early centuries, the connection of the deacon with the Eucharist has traditionally been associated with the chalice. This is made clear in the citation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who clearly rules out the possibility of the deacon administering the Host under normal circumstances. The Catholic Encyclopedia testifies:

"The care of the chalice has remained the deacon's special province down to modern times. Even now in a High Mass the rubrics direct that when the chalice is offered, the deacon is to support the foot of the chalice or the arm of the priest  . . . As a careful study of the first Ordo Romanus shows, the archdeacon in the papal Mass seems in a sense to preside over the chalice, and it is he and his fellow-deacons who, after the people have communicated under the form of bread, present to them the calicem ministerialem with the precious blood."...

[CE (1913) vol. iv, p. 649, col. 2. ]

 

[stevusmagnus]

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion6.htm

…Communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Catholic Church as an act of rebellion soon after Vatican II. It began in Holland as an arbitrary act of defiance of legitimate authority. Mandatory liturgical norms were defied and Communion was distributed in some Catholic churches in what had been, since the Reformation, the characteristically Protestant manner. It was an abuse and should have been dealt with by the bishops immediately and effectively. Priests who refused to conform to the law of the Church should have been suspended. Such action was not taken, and the practice spread to Germany, Belgium, and France. In these countries the Bishops also betrayed their office and allowed the abuse to go unchecked. Thus a practice which had already been made unacceptable to Catholics because of its adoption by Protestants to symbolize their rejection of Catholic Eucharistic teaching, was made doubly unacceptable when it became a symbol of the rejection of ecclesiastical authority by Liberal clerics.

 The consequences of this rebellion became so serious that the Pope consulted the Bishops of the world, and, after obtaining their opinions, promulgated the Instruction Memoriale Domini, in 1969. This Instruction is included [click link above or refer to contents page of this section (back button below)] and will be referred to from time to time. The principal points contained in it are:

 1. The Bishops of the world were overwhelmingly against the innovation.

 2. The traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion must be retained.

 3. It is a sign of reverence which does not detract from the dignity of the communicant.

 4. The innovation could lead to irreverence, profanation, and the adulteration of correct doctrine.

Therefore:

 "The Apostolic See strongly urges bishops, priests, people to observe this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church."

 However, a calamitous error of judgment then followed. It was agreed that wherever the practice "has already developed in any place" a two-thirds majority of the episcopal conference could petition the Holy See for permission to legalize the abuse. Quite clearly, the phrase "has already developed" meant by that date, May 28, 1969. Countries where the practice had not developed by that date were obviously excluded from the concession-----and all the English-speaking countries come into this category. Liberal priests in certain countries had found that if they broke the law then the Holy See would amend the law to conform with their disobedience. Liberals in other countries presumed that, if they followed suit, the Vatican would continue to surrender. Their judgment was correct, and not simply as regards Communion in the hand. However, there was one important difference in the situation before and after Memoriale Domini. The Bishops who, since May 1969, first tolerated, then approved, and are now trying to impose the abuse, are acting in explicit defiance of the clear wishes of the Holy Father-----and yet these same men have the hypocrisy to cite loyalty to the Pope as an excuse for refusing permission for the celebration of the Mass of St. Pius V! In fact, a clear and consistent criterion has been applied by the bishops in respecting the wishes of the Pope: where his wishes are ignored in order to destroy the Faith, this is acceptable; where his wishes are ignored in order to defend the Faith, this is unacceptable....

 

[JReducation]

As for self-communicating, that is what communion in the hand is. The communicants take the host from their hand and place it in their own mouths. As for deacons, see below.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion3.htm

…It can be pointed out that in some regions at least, the deacon’s hands WERE consecrated-----as the 6th century Epistle of Gildas and the 8th century Pontifical of Egbert of York prove. While some instances of deacons administering the Host can be adduced from the early centuries, the connection of the deacon with the Eucharist has traditionally been associated with the chalice. This is made clear in the citation from St. Thomas Aquinas, who clearly rules out the possibility of the deacon administering the Host under normal circumstances. The Catholic Encyclopedia testifies:

"The care of the chalice has remained the deacon's special province down to modern times. Even now in a High Mass the rubrics direct that when the chalice is offered, the deacon is to support the foot of the chalice or the arm of the priest  . . . As a careful study of the first Ordo Romanus shows, the archdeacon in the papal Mass seems in a sense to preside over the chalice, and it is he and his fellow-deacons who, after the people have communicated under the form of bread, present to them the calicem ministerialem with the precious blood."...

[CE (1913) vol. iv, p. 649, col. 2. ]

This was never a universal practice. In the old rite of ordination and in the new rite, the hands of the deacon were not consecrated as a universal rule. This was a practice and is still in some rites.

As to the deacon being the minister of the chalice that is the role of the deacon when the preist holds up the sacred speceis. The priest holds the host and the deacon the cup.

As to commuion, deacons have distributed communion since the first century. Our own holy Father Francis was ordained a deacon three years before his death. He distributed communion to the brothers, because he was the superior general. While Brother Elias was a priest, he was only the Vicar. When Elias celebrated mass, Father Francis, distributed communion to the friars and to the nuns.

I’ll also mention this for the sake of historical clarity. Francis was the first and last permanent deacon we ever had. He founded the order in 1209 and he was ordained a deacon in 1223. He died three years later. Brother Bonaventure, who later became the Father General, had a clause added to the constitutions that no friar should ever become a permanent deacon again, because the rapid death of Francis after his ordination to the diaconate was a sign from God that the order was to be a lay order. Therefore, the only men who were to be ordained were to be ordained priests and only in small numbers so as to never out number the lay brothers, lest we offend God’s plan for the order. This has been in place to this day. Only 1/2 or less of the friars can be ordained and only if they are called by Christ through the superior, not even by the bishop.

I mention thas last example as a historical example of how disciplines all have their indults and their exceptions. According to the teaching of the Church, only a bishop can call a man to Holy Orders. This is still true today. Yet, in orders of friars with solemn vow, the indult is that only the superior can all a man to Holy Orders, not a bishop and the bishop must ordain those whom the superior calls forth. You can see how the discipline is exempted. This is just one of many that are exempted. Again, the Church would not make this exceptions if they were sinful.

The key is to remember that when the Church grants an indult or an exemption, it cannot be a sin and should not be presented as either a sin or less worthy. We can say that ordinarilly this is this way or that the norm is this, but we must always remember that disciplines are not dogmas or doctrines from scripture. The Church has the power and the authority to change or exempt from them. When Aquinas writes, he is ot writing for the exceptions that existed even among the Dominicans, he is writing for the general population. Therefore, he uses the discipliines as they are usually applied, not the extraordinary cases.

There are too many people who want to take Aquinas writings as if they were dogmas declared from the Chair of Peter. That is not what Aquinas had in mind. He would be horrified to learn that we are using his teachings to fight the Church. He loved the Church and was the most humble human being. Much of what he wrote was not accepted by his own order and he was fine with that. He obeyed the successors of St. Dominic. We have to learn from this great man about the theological truths of which he spoke, but also learn his humility and his acquiessence to the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

The current method of standing, receiving communion in the hand and then self-communicating was never practiced in the Catholic Church, only by Protestant heretics.

You realize your own dates show this to be false. The fifth century prohibition against it shows that it existed in some form 1000 years before the Reformation. Also, why did you describe Protestants as Protestant heretics and not just Protestants? Surely you do not mean to suggest that receiving communion in the hand is a heresy. You do not have the right hat or chair for that.

 

[pnewton]

As for self-communicating, that is what communion in the hand is.

No it is not. Saying it over and over will not make it so. Like I said, you do not have the right hat or chair to make such definitions. Self-communication is prohibited. Always. Period. Communion in the hand is allowed in some situations. This is done by the Catholic Church, the one in authority of such matters.

 

[stevusmagnus]

You realize your own dates show this to be false. The fifth century prohibition against it shows that it existed in some form 1000 years before the Reformation. Also, why did you describe Protestants as Protestant heretics and not just Protestants? Surely you do not mean to suggest that receiving communion in the hand is a heresy. You do not have the right hat or chair for that.

It was not Catholic practice. It was prohibited by the Church.

 

[stevusmagnus]

…we must always remember that disciplines are not dogmas or doctrines from scripture.

Exactly. And therefore certain disciplines, especially those merely tolerated, not mandated, by the Church (such as CITH) can therefore be erroneous, irreverent, and even sacrilegeous and to be be avoided. The Vatican is not infallible as regards these tolerated practices.

The citations I provided prove clearly the Church’s view of this practice for almost Her entire history. What yesterday was considered an excommunicable sacrilegious offense cannot today be holy and praiseworthy.

 

[pnewton]

It was not Catholic practice. It was prohibited by the Church.

How many Christian Churches do you think existed in the first four centuries? Church of Christ? They think they did. Maybe you agree? No, the Catholic Church was THE Church at that time.

 

[stevusmagnus]

How many Christian Churches do you think existed in the first four centuries? Church of Christ? They think they did. Maybe you agree? No, the Catholic Church was THE Church at that time.

Exactly. And the Catholic Church forbade CITH.

 

[JReducation]

It was not Catholic practice. It was prohibited by the Church.

But Steve, the key word is “was”. Once the Church makes an indult or an exemption, then those who take advantage of it are not committing a sin or acting as heretics. Even when it was prohibitted, it was not prohibitted for everyone. There was exemptions. Not everything that is in Church law is equally applied across the board, unless it’s a matter of faith and morals. When it comes to disciplines, the Church makes all kinds of indults and exemptions and always has.

I gave you two examples from the sacraments themselves.

1. deacons distributing the Eucharist
2. bishops callinig men to Holy Orders

Those have always been the discipline of the Church, but they were not applied to everyone. Yet, if we look at canon law, it does ot mention the exceptions. Those are found in private letters and documents between the Holy See and those invovled.

We have to be careful to say that something is ALWAYS this way. We may find one single person who can say, “not so” I have permission to do it differently. Then the word always does not apply. The better term, which is what the Church uses is the word, “ordinary”, which means “normally”. This allows the Church what I call "wiggle room’ to allow for exceptions, indults and exemptions.

For those who don’t know it, in Church law an exception and an exemption are not the same thing. An exception usually means an isolated occasion or event. An exemption means in perpetuity. When we say that a religious in solem vow is exempt from certain rules, we mean that this is always the case for this particular population. It’s in perpetuity and can only be recinded by a pope through a Papal Bull. Exemptions are granted through Papal Bulls. Only another Bull can retract it.

An exception does not need a Papal Bull. A pope, a bishop, an Abbot or a Guardian of an order of men in solemn vows has ordinary powers to grant exceptions to certain disciplines, remembering that exceptions are for single event or time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Exactly. And therefore certain disciplines, especially those merely tolerated, not mandated, by the Church (such as CITH) can therefore be erroneous, irreverent, and even sacrilegeous and to be be avoided. The Vatican is not infallible as regards these tolerated practices.

They are authoritative, though. No one else except the Church had the authority to declare this erroneus or sacrilegious, to stop it, to allow it. Everyone may have their opinion, but as you point out, it is infallible. Furthermore, such opinions lack the authority that the Chair of Peter possesses.

 

[surritter]

Big Steve,

Your last several quotes seem to me to be self-contradictory. If the Church’s disciplines can be sinful, the obvious question to me is: who determines which of them are sinful?

I presume you are also of the mindset that married priests would be sinful, and the Church just goofed for 1000 years…

You see what I mean? Does the Church get to decide what’s permitted, or not? And are you saying that some laypersons who are obsessed with tradition can call the Church out on those topics by simply pointing to previous disciplines?

 

[pnewton]

Exactly. And the Catholic Church forbade CITH.

(sigh) Well, the circle of reasoning is here for anyone to see, or not. These CITH/COTT threads always go in the same circle.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Big Steve,

Your last several quotes seem to me to be self-contradictory. If the Church’s disciplines can be sinful, the obvious question to me is: who determines which of them are sinful?

I presume you are also of the mindset that married priests would be sinful, and the Church just goofed for 1000 years…

You see what I mean? Does the Church get to decide what’s permitted, or not? And are you saying that some laypersons who are obsessed with tradition can call the Church out on those topics by simply pointing to previous disciplines?

Here we would be saying that the Church goofed for almost 2,000 years forbidding CITH and then was enlightened, allowing it in the 60’s.

The benchmark is what did the Church believe for all these years regarding the Eucharist and the proper method of receiving it. I’m not making this up, it is Tradition. That is the gold standard because the Church could not have been wrong for 2,000 years in forbidding this practice even to the level of excommunication. And now it is a-ok?

If one looks at the history I quoted of how CITH was legitimized one will see it is scandalous.

Nevertheless, if one wants to be technical, the US Bishops did not have the authority under Pope Paul’s decree to permit CITH in their dioceses. Their dioceses did not meet the criteria. Therefore one could say the Bishops are illegally permitting it, or else Rome ok’ed their request in flagrant violation of Rome’s own conditions. The whole thing is really a travesty on all levels.

What was wrong yesterday, cannot be right today.

Married clergy in the Eastern Rite has been Tradition from the beginning. Tradition, which is part of the Church’s ordinary Magisterium, is the key to discerning these issues in this time of crisis.

 

[surritter]

What was wrong yesterday, cannot be right today.

This statement seems to be your main error.

This statement is** only** true for things that are intrinsically evil, or for a defined dogma/doctrine.

CITH and COTT are merely vehicles for receiving Holy Communion. There is nothing intrinsically evil about receiving Holy Communion in the hand! We can debate if it is reverent or not, but that’s different that calling it “evil.”

Therefore, the Church as our Mother can make rules about how we may receive Holy Communion. Then, the sin lies in obedience to the rules, even if the rules are changed (which they can be).