Quick help needed - proving it's okay to receive on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cor_Jesu said:
Exactly

, JKirkLVNV…they enjoy a negative infallibility, meaning they cannot impose a discipline that would lead the faithful to impiety. This does not mean they cannot allow or permit such a discipline. LOOK…IT…UP!!! In case you’ve forgotten, your point originally was about communion in the hand; you tried to suggest that it enjoyed some sort of infallibility simply because John Paul II allowed it–well, you’re WRONG. Communion in the hand was simply permitted, never imposed, meaning it is not an infallible discipline as you suggested.

Where might you want Kirk to look it up? It’s interesting to note that the CE uses several different terms when it speak of the Church promulgating a discipline. It says impose, prescribe and introducing. Methinks that you might be making the meaning narrower than it is. Just because something isn’t imposed doesn’t mean it’s not a discipline.
it follows that she cannot be rightly accused of introducing into her discipline anything opposed to the Divine law
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Uxor:
The quote I gave came from a passage of John Paul II’s Dominicae coenae…You could of look up the document yourself…I didn’t get this off of any forum…this I obtained from EWTN…
Click to expand...
I did look the document up myself, Uxor, from the Vatican. The document was still misquoted in entire context, whether from EWTN or directly from the Holy See; it makes little difference.

Stating only the isolated sentence you posted gives a meaning that the Pope did not intend, i.e., to justify a belief that no person may receive in the hand or to distribute the Eucharist but the priest. One needs to be careful when quoting official documents to preserve the exact teaching of the Pontiff.
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.
(snip)
Click to expand...
(The following is the exact reading of the entire paragraph.)
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Cor_Jesu said:
P.S. I couldn’t help but notice, looking over your past posts, that you sure spend a lot of time in the Traditional Catholic forum for someone who does not consider themself to be a “Traditional Catholic” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Where the Truth lies, it attracts, even with negative reaction.
 
Though I cannot quote John’s exact words, I do support and encourage his continuance in this forum, which borders on the herioc, IMO …

He stated his purpose recently: to defend Church, and refute the misstatements continuously being made by many contentious people who spread false teachings in this forum. Undoubtedly, that will cause a few who would prefer unbridled license to undermine the faith of any who do not espouse the TLM, to react and attack him (and not only on this forum website, incidentally :mad: )

Good job, John! Stay the course! 👍
 
Cor_Jesu said:
Exactly, JKirkLVNV…they enjoy a negative infallibility, meaning they cannot impose a discipline that would lead the faithful to impiety. This does not mean they cannot allow or permit such a discipline. LOOK…IT…UP!!! In case you’ve forgotten, your point originally was about communion in the hand; you tried to suggest that it enjoyed some sort of infallibility simply because John Paul II allowed it–well, you’re WRONG. Communion in the hand was simply permitted, never imposed, meaning it is not an infallible discipline as you suggested.

Let’s be clear, I didn’t suggest that because it was permitted by John Paul II that it enjoyed some kind of infallibility. It enjoys that infallibility that prevents it from leading the faithful to impiety because it was permitted by the proper authority (the pope). And the difference between permitted and imposed MAKES no difference with regard to Church discipline (a discipline is a discipline). YOU make that assertion, it’s up to you to prove it. Do you have any citations?

A few “conservative” bishops here and there (which are really conservative only by NO standards) don’t make up for the fact that there were many more liberal, modernist bishops who did much to harm the faith who were knowingly appointed by John Paul II. **Again, look up how bishops are appointed. Then get back to me. **

P.S. I couldn’t help but notice, looking over your past posts, that you sure spend a lot of time in the Traditional Catholic forum for someone who does not consider themself to be a “Traditional Catholic” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So you think that people in the traditionalist forums should be permitted to make assertions that are groundless without being challenged?
 
Please stay on topic and refrain from posting personal attacks/comments. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Cor_Jesu said:
. You lay the blame at the feet of the bishop’s conferences…who appointed all those wonderful bishops, JKirk?
Click to expand...
Just because I had some time to kill, I went to this website:

catholic-hierarchy.org/ and did a quick study. There are currently 19 dioceses in Papua New Guinea. One of those was not erected until recently, so when John Paul II was there in 1984, there were 18. Of those 18, 9 bishops were appointed by the old Holy Father between the time he was elected and the time he made his pilgrimage. The others were appointed by Pope Paul VI, of happy memory (well, for most Catholics, anyway), and a couple were actually appointed by Blessed Pope John XXIII, of happy memory (again, for most Catholics). So, if we use your criteria (apparently, every faus pax made by an bishop or group of bishops can be directly blamed on the pope who appointed them), then I must admit:rolleyes: there’s a 50/50 chance that the breasts were Pope John Paul II’s fault.
 
Back to the topic at hand:

The best way to deal with the question of Communion in the hand is to exercise the liberty that the Church gives you: If you don’t want to do it, then don’t.
 
Some points to consider by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:
  1. The legal status of the two methods It is the law of the universal Church, in the Latin Rite, (to which most of us belong) that we receive communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult”, or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission. Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving communion: on the tongue. Thus, the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal. It must be further noted that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more reverent”. One will search in vain for any encouragement of communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful! 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 behaviour 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. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, 11) In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which accompanied the actual indult in each and every case, the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautiions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.(Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald).
 
Another point to consider by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:
( this one is very interesting)
  1. The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current practice of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case, that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and His Church, and of the reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical= authority. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s Faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion. When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.(Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald).
 
And Another point to consider by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:
  1. The Fragments… If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind: The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis). The Roman Catechism put it this way: Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each… the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.=20 Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc., etc. For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to communion in the hand: “What about the Fragments?” ( by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:)
 
Some more points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:
  1. Who promotes communion in the hand? (This argument might be accused of the logical fallacy of “guilt by association”. But that argument is not necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers) who promote communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of “the idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the= ultimate”. Well, these are the promoters of communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional manner of reception. Why?
Click to expand...
  1. “Communion in the hand” is a misnomer. To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved. It has been suggested that this practice ought to be renamed as “common manual self-communication”. 6. Communion in the hand is too casual. What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our “culture”, it is food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only withe them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
  1. **Its fruits… **We must be rigorously honest with ourselves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, greater love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord’s Body into our hands? At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgical reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer, at least, that communion in the hand must share part of the blame for the decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
  1. Was it universal? To show that communion in the hand was once a universal practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: this text is of dubious origin. In fact, it is more likely from Bishop so and so, a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have texts of Leo the Great… and Gregory the great… and St. Basil, as well as…
Click to expand...
( by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)🙂
 
(continued)
  1. The Last Supper But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the **Apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops. **👍 *But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practised in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. *And we have scriptural evidence👍 of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did He place this wet morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend”, the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own hand”.
Click to expand...
  1. Scriptural Considerations… In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows: And [the Lord] said to me: … “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it … And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat “And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” =97 Vulgate]. And he= said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV). It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened His mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven. In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us,=20 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it … But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “Iwill fill it,” not “fill it yourselves”. Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.
Click to expand...
  1. Authentic Inter-ritual and Ecumenical Considerations If we glance around the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask, “how do they receive Holy Communion?”. If the present writer is not wrong, they do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after. We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favour of communion in the hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to “childish”. And If we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask ourselves: “How do they receive Communion?” Further, is true Christian unity promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a significant part is communion in the= hand.
Click to expand...
  1. The Pope… and Mother Teresa of Calcutta It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of communion in the handIn his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. 👍 It was also illicit until recently in the Vatican Basilica. All of Mother Teresa’s sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue. And it has never been denied, and implicity reaffirmed that Mother Teresa, when asked what worried her most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”
Click to expand...
Conclusion St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch It. “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” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
Click to expand...
(all points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)
 
Cor_Jesu said:
Exactly, JKirkLVNV…they enjoy a negative infallibility, meaning they cannot impose a discipline that would lead the faithful to impiety. This does not mean they cannot allow or permit such a discipline. LOOK…IT…UP!!! In case you’ve forgotten, your point originally was about communion in the hand; you tried to suggest that it enjoyed some sort of infallibility simply because John Paul II allowed it–well, you’re WRONG. Communion in the hand was simply permitted, never imposed, meaning it is not an infallible discipline as you suggested.
Click to expand...
Excellent this is correct.
A few “conservative” bishops here and there (which are really conservative only by NO standards) don’t make up for the fact that there were many more liberal, modernist bishops who did much to harm the faith who were knowingly appointed by John Paul II.
Click to expand...
True
P.S. I couldn’t help but notice, looking over your past posts, that you sure spend a lot of time in the Traditional Catholic forum for someone who does not consider themself to be a “Traditional Catholic” :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
All are welcome to learn the truth. It is the duty of Catholics to make the Modernist movement understand their err.🙂

Cor Jesu, You must keep up your efforts and always increase them. :signofcross:
 
St_Isidore said:
Conclusion St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament.

(all points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)
Click to expand...
When was my tongue consecrated?
 
japhy said:
When was my tongue consecrated?
Click to expand...
The full passage was:
Conclusion St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch It. “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” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).
Click to expand...
From what you replied it can be seen that you mock St. Thomas Aquinas. Is this is the trend of the modernist movement now to belittle Saints and mock them? Is that all you have to say with regards to those 12 points? It is a growing trend that the modernist movement utilizes, unlike Catholics, to use partial quotes/passages etc., to prove their agenda. Let us stay on the topic of Communion on the tongue and stop the mockery of Saints. It would be appreciative to comment on those points in a positive manner and to try and explain your position, for or against, concerning Communion on the tongue.
Thank you.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top