Pushed to the SSPX

  • Thread starter Thread starter DorianGregorian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Steve,

Sometimes the Church excommunicates not because the offense is sacrilege, but because of disobedience. Look at Archbishop Lefebvre. Ordaining is not a sacrilege. Diosbedience is what got him excommunicated. When the Church threatens to excommunicate if a discipline is not followed, it does not mean that one commits a sacrilege. One commits a grave violation against obedience.

The Church is infallible when it comes to faith AND morals. She cannot allow sacrilege. It’s impossible. She cannot grant an indult or an exemption to commit sacrilege. That’s impossible.

You gave the ancient documetns. But I also tiold you that at the very time those documents were being written, the same popes were granting indults to different groups and exemptions to religious orders. The best example that I can give you is the ordination example, because it’s very publlic. Everyone who knows anything about Holy Orders knows that only a bishop can call forth for Holy Orders. Yet there is an exemption to Abbots, Priors, Guardians and Ministers. That exemption goes back to the 12th century. Yet, if you read theology it says, “Only a bishop can call a man to Holy Orders.” But if you read the exemptions it says, “the major superior has the ordinary authority to call a man to orders.” The major superior doesn’t even have to be a priest, much less a bishop.

My point is that there are exemptions and the Church cannot exempt one to commit sin. To believe that is in conflict with our faith that the Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
What was wrong yesterday, cannot be right today.
What do you mean by wrong? Immoral, sinful, prudent, stupid, or what. Also this little tritism assumes all things are equal. I put is right up there with “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever” being used to support various things which really has nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

History is not stagnant and things are never equal. Therefore what was prudent at one time may not have been prudent at another.
 
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!.
This is where we disagree. The Church has excommunicated people in the past for receiving Our Lord in their hands. Not because of simple disobedience, but because to do so was wrong. It is a serious offense against God for a layman to touch Our Lord in the Eucharist with unconsecrated hands without grave reason. It is a sacrilege. We are not giving God the honor and respect he is due. This practice also results in particles falling to the ground and being trampled on. Further sacrilege. Any priest before the Council would have easily told you that laypersons touching the Host without grave reason is sacrilegious.

What are the fruits of communion in the hand? The same fruits the Protestant heretics wanted from imposing this practice on their faithful. A reduced reverence and belief in the True Presence.

It most definitely is an evil practice and should be avoided. As I’ve pointed out, Pope Paul’s own criteria for allowing the practice was not met in the US. Nevertheless, a Church disciplinary law can conflict with the higher law of the faith. In these cases one must follow the Truth over the laws of churchmen.

Furthermore, this practice is tolerated, not mandated. The Church can never mandate an evil practice. However, it can permit it. If it should do so, we should never participate in it. In this time of crisis we look to Tradition and what was everywhere and always taught so we will not be fooled by any novel deceit.
 
Furthermore, this practice is tolerated, not mandated. The Church can never mandate an evil practice.
This is begging the question. The fact that the Church permits it is strong evidence that it is not evil. The fact that you post against it and call it evil, is not.
 
It most definitely is an evil practice and should be avoided. As I’ve pointed out, Pope Paul’s own criteria for allowing the practice was not met in the US. Nevertheless, a Church disciplinary law can conflict with the higher law of the faith. In these cases one must follow the Truth over the laws of churchmen.
It’s ironic that you insist that receiving Holy Communion in the hands is intrinsically evil and the work of Protestants, because the last sentence quoted above is exactly making yourself a Protestant by claiming to know better than the hierarchy what is true about Catholicism.

I do not mean this in a flippant way. Protestants separated themselves by deviating from the Church established by Christ. Yet they didn’t see it that way; they felt that the visible Church deviated and these reformers knew what’s best. We seem to have a similar situation being played out here.
 
Come on folks. This argument is bordering on the silly. The Church can no more legalize a sacrilege than she can deny the divinity of Christ.

Obvioiusly, the 20th century popes read these documents with a different nuance than they are being read on this thread. In the end, it’s their interpretation of these documents that is authoritative, not our own.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The words “sacrilege” “evil” “bad” “sinful” may be sincere sentiments but they typically only serve to distract the conversation into emotionalism and semantic definitions nobody will agree on.

Since both practices are currently allowed, I think it is fair to say that Catholics are free to make a decision as to which practice they think is more fruitful and efficacious. After all our current Pope, Pope John Paul II, and even Pope Paul VI made their preference clear. They preferred Communion to be distributed on the tongue. That said, I think we should follow their lead.

I think the following is a very good article supporting the Traditional practice of Communion on the Tongue from Fr. Markey writing for Catholic Online.

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=31755&section=Cathcom

Opinion: Fr. Markey on ‘Communion on the Hand’

I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the New Year.

…Do you remember last year here at St. Mary’s when we found a Host under one of the pews in the church? I know from other priests that this happens every once in a while in other parishes as well. These incidents remind us that it would certainly be more difficult for people to take the Host improperly if everyone were receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. As the Catholic Church teaches, “If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 92).

Many people born prior to the Second Vatican Council will remember when everyone received Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling. This has been the long held practice for thousands of years (although during certain periods of the early Church it did allow Communion in the hand). While many think that it was Vatican II that called for this change, it is important to note: Vatican II never called for Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand was the result of disobedience which forced the hand of the Church (no pun intended!).

After the Second Vatican Council some dioceses in the world started to make their own rules about receiving the Communion in the hand, disobeying the laws of the universal Church. Witnessing this practice without approval, the Vatican stated that it feared that this disobedience would lead to “…both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini).

Therefore in 1968 Pope Paul VI graciously sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world asking if there should be a prudent change in the Church’s practice on how Communion would be distributed. The poll numbers came back overwhelming against Communion in the hand. Hence the Vatican concluded: “The answers given show that by far the greater number of bishops think that the discipline currently in force should not be changed. And if it were to be changed, it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).

Nonetheless the disobedience continued and some of these dioceses petitioned Rome to officially permit Communion in the hand. A year later, in 1969, Pope Paul VI gave an indult to the French bishops permitting each bishop to decide the question in his own diocese (En réponse a la Demande). An indult is a special permission for a particular situation, rather than a universal norm. Nonetheless eventually the majority of dioceses in the world took advantage of the indult and simply permitted the practice.

Why did the Pope allow it? Perhaps it can be best summed up by the words of Our Lord about why divorce was allowed in the Old Testament: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8). Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.

Nonetheless some countries like Sri Lanka did not use the indult, and maintained the long held tradition of receiving only on the tongue. Recently there have also been dioceses around the world such San Luis, Argentina and Lima, Peru that have returned to the traditional practice and no longer permit Communion in the hand. This is an option fully supported by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Furthermore, if one does receive Communion on the hand, there is always the danger that particles may be remain in the hand. The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that Our Blessed Lord is truly present even in the particles as well: “If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema” (Chapter VIII, Canon 3). For this reason the priest always purifies his hands of particles at the end of Mass, and uses a corporal (a small white cloth meant to catch the corpus, or body, of Our Lord).

Finally another major event occurred this past year when Pope Benedict XVI asked that from now on, all who receive Holy Communion from him must receive It on the tongue and kneeling. I am sure that by insisting on this ancient practice the Pope is trying to foster a deeper respect for the Eucharist as well.

When Rome did give the indult to the French bishops in 1969 it stated, “The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice.” Therefore Communion on the tongue is still the common practice for the universal Church. While both practices are permitted in most dioceses, I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the New Year.
 
Since both practices are currently allowed, I think it is fair to say that Catholics are free to make a decision as to which practice they think is more fruitful and efficacious.

I think the following is a very good article

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=31755&section=Cathcom

Opinion: Fr. Markey on ‘Communion on the Hand’

I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the New Year.

…Do you remember last year here at St. Mary’s when we found a Host under one of the pews in the church? I know from other priests that this happens every once in a while in other parishes as well. These incidents remind us that it would certainly be more difficult for people to take the Host improperly if everyone were receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. As the Catholic Church teaches, “If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful” (Redemptionis Sacramentum, 92).

Many people born prior to the Second Vatican Council will remember when everyone received Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling. This has been the long held practice for thousands of years (although during certain periods of the early Church it did allow Communion in the hand). While many think that it was Vatican II that called for this change, it is important to note: Vatican II never called for Communion in the hand. Communion in the hand was the result of disobedience which forced the hand of the Church (no pun intended!).

After the Second Vatican Council some dioceses in the world started to make their own rules about receiving the Communion in the hand, disobeying the laws of the universal Church. Witnessing this practice without approval, the Vatican stated that it feared that this disobedience would lead to “…both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini).

Therefore in 1968 Pope Paul VI graciously sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops of the world asking if there should be a prudent change in the Church’s practice on how Communion would be distributed. The poll numbers came back overwhelming against Communion in the hand. Hence the Vatican concluded: “The answers given show that by far the greater number of bishops think that the discipline currently in force should not be changed. And if it were to be changed, it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).

Nonetheless the disobedience continued and some of these dioceses petitioned Rome to officially permit Communion in the hand. A year later, in 1969, Pope Paul VI gave an indult to the French bishops permitting each bishop to decide the question in his own diocese (En réponse a la Demande). An indult is a special permission for a particular situation, rather than a universal norm. Nonetheless eventually the majority of dioceses in the world took advantage of the indult and simply permitted the practice.

Why did the Pope allow it? Perhaps it can be best summed up by the words of Our Lord about why divorce was allowed in the Old Testament: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8). Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.

Nonetheless some countries like Sri Lanka did not use the indult, and maintained the long held tradition of receiving only on the tongue. Recently there have also been dioceses around the world such San Luis, Argentina and Lima, Peru that have returned to the traditional practice and no longer permit Communion in the hand. This is an option fully supported by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Furthermore, if one does receive Communion on the hand, there is always the danger that particles may be remain in the hand. The Council of Trent infallibly teaches that Our Blessed Lord is truly present even in the particles as well: “If anyone denies that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each form and under every part of each form when separated, let him be anathema” (Chapter VIII, Canon 3). For this reason the priest always purifies his hands of particles at the end of Mass, and uses a corporal (a small white cloth meant to catch the corpus, or body, of Our Lord).

Finally another major event occurred this past year when Pope Benedict XVI asked that from now on, all who receive Holy Communion from him must receive It on the tongue and kneeling. I am sure that by insisting on this ancient practice the Pope is trying to foster a deeper respect for the Eucharist as well.

When Rome did give the indult to the French bishops in 1969 it stated, “The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice.” Therefore Communion on the tongue is still the common practice for the universal Church. While both practices are permitted in most dioceses, I encourage parishioners to give prayerful consideration to following Pope Benedict XVI’s lead by receiving Holy Communion on the tongue in the New Year.
This is sensible and I can agree with this. I cannot agree that the Church authorizes sacrilege. This article or letter, is well written and correctly describes how the whole thing came about. Thank you for sharing it. Just for an FYI, I’m one of those who receives communion on the tongue. But I respect the Church’s right to grant the indult.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
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:

Pax,
FM
I’d rather read Dominus est

gloria.tv/?media=2710

The indult was granted after illicit introduction of the practice. The initial response from the world’s Bishops was “no”. The indult was one of the darkest days in modern Church history.As was the dark day the one who granted it, discarded the Tiara.
 
I’d rather read Dominus est

gloria.tv/?media=2710

The indult was granted after illicit introduction of the practice. The initial response from the world’s Bishops was “no”. The indult was one of the darkest days in modern Church history.As was the dark day the one who granted it, discarded the Tiara.
**There was a time the tiara wasn’t used.

And there was a time that even, after its adoption, it didn’t have the three crowns.

The Church’s external practices and disciplines have NEVER been rigid.

And i notice from your statment “I’d rather read Dominus est” that apparently you pick and choose which Papal statements you will follow and agree with.**
 
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.
I am interested to know what Protestants there are who receive the bread on their hand from the clergyman, and then consume it. My personal experience is that, the plate of bread is passed from person to person (with ushers at each end of the row to ensure an orderly distribution), and each person takes from the plate itself - no one receives directly from the members of the clergy. After that, the trays of grape juice are passed from hand to hand, with each person taking a thimble-cup from the tray. Again, no one is receiving from the clergy. Last of all, the trays are brought forward to the Table of Holy Communion, and the members of clergy at last take their own bread and grape juice, and this signifies the end of the distribution of Holy Communion.

In other places, the plates of bread and trays of grape juice are left on the Communion table, and the people come forward to take a piece of bread and a thimble cup of grape juice off the table.
 
I am interested to know what Protestants there are who receive the bread on their hand from the clergyman, and then consume it.
That’s how we did it in the Episcopal Church here in the southern US.
 
That’s how we did it in the Episcopal Church here in the southern US.
I am under the impression that the Episcopalians continue to follow 15th century Catholic customs (pre-Tridentine, of course!)
 
I am under the impression that the Episcopalians continue to follow 15th century Catholic customs (pre-Tridentine, of course!)
🤷 All I know is what we did in my church. We knelt at the communion rail with our hands cupped, and the clergyman came down the line and placed the communion wafer in our hands.
 
**

And i notice from your statment “I’d rather read Dominus est” that apparently you pick and choose which Papal statements you will follow and agree with.**
It’s a book by a Bishop.

I’ll say this, you sure are consistent. Every thread with a topic concerning Roman Catholicism has you poking a thorn in it’s side. I think you are terrified that the Roman Catholic Church may actually appear Roman Catholic once again, due to the actions of H.H. BXVI.

And by the way, does your Church operative under double standards as ours has for nearly half a century ? If not, you have no clue as to what all the fuss is about. It would seem by your post count, you’ve been around here long enough to understand, but I guess you are too busy planning your next excursion of ridicule and contradiction.

You will be in my prayers.
 
I think the following is a very good article supporting the Traditional practice of Communion on the Tongue from Fr. Markey writing for Catholic Online.

catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=31755&section=Cathcom
.
This is an excellent and well-balanced article. One thing for sure about an indult, it might be rescinded tomorrow and all that preach obedience best be ready to do as we are instructed. It does help to know the history.
 
That’s how we did it in the Episcopal Church here in the southern US.
I can second that. I grew up Episcopal and we received in the hand. At the first Church we attended (early to mid 70’s) we walked up and received in the hand while standing. After we moved across town, our new church offered communion in the hand while kneeling at the altar rail.
 
I’d rather read Dominus est

gloria.tv/?media=2710

The indult was granted after illicit introduction of the practice. The initial response from the world’s Bishops was “no”. The indult was one of the darkest days in modern Church history.As was the dark day the one who granted it, discarded the Tiara.
The good thing is that this so called dark day was outshown the day the Evengelium Vitae was promulgated. I wish that people would spend as much energy and time reading and discussing the content of that decree than tiaras and communion in the hand. It would be even healthier for our spiritual lives if we spent time discussing how to live it.

Merry Christmas and prayers for all and their families.

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I am interested to know what Protestants there are who receive the bread on their hand from the clergyman, and then consume it. My personal experience is that, the plate of bread is passed from person to person (with ushers at each end of the row to ensure an orderly distribution), and each person takes from the plate itself - no one receives directly from the members of the clergy. After that, the trays of grape juice are passed from hand to hand, with each person taking a thimble-cup from the tray. Again, no one is receiving from the clergy. Last of all, the trays are brought forward to the Table of Holy Communion, and the members of clergy at last take their own bread and grape juice, and this signifies the end of the distribution of Holy Communion.

In other places, the plates of bread and trays of grape juice are left on the Communion table, and the people come forward to take a piece of bread and a thimble cup of grape juice off the table.
Since Protestants do not believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ they don’t see it as an issue.
However, when I was still Protestant I recieved Communion in an Episcopal church kneeling, on the tongue. I don’t know if that is common among Episcopalians.
 
I am interested to know what Protestants there are who receive the bread on their hand from the clergyman, and then consume it. My personal experience is that, the plate of bread is passed from person to person (with ushers at each end of the row to ensure an orderly distribution), and each person takes from the plate itself - no one receives directly from the members of the clergy. After that, the trays of grape juice are passed from hand to hand, with each person taking a thimble-cup from the tray. Again, no one is receiving from the clergy. Last of all, the trays are brought forward to the Table of Holy Communion, and the members of clergy at last take their own bread and grape juice, and this signifies the end of the distribution of Holy Communion.

In other places, the plates of bread and trays of grape juice are left on the Communion table, and the people come forward to take a piece of bread and a thimble cup of grape juice off the table.
You don’t have a terribly wide experience of Protestantism I gather?

Many groups receive directly from the minister or clergyman. As a child this was how it was done in the Lutheran church I attended - you went to the altar rail, knelt, received in the hand and consumed reverently and then received from the common cup. At some point they introduced individual glasses too.

Methodists also often do it this way I believe, and Presbyterians.

Anglicans also always receive the Body and Blood in the hand or on the tongue from the priest, usually at the altar rail. In recent years they sometimes receive in lines - a nasty habit they have picked up somewhere.🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top