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

[BobP123]

I looked at your site no where do I see where the Pope addresses this particular site or gives His specific approval of itl. Whereas Unavoce, the Pope has said to UInavoce they have played an important role, they have been obedient to the Holy Father, it is a valuable service, and further He expressed His gratitude to its members and blessed them. So you want me to believe this author over the Pope?

This is what I don’t understand. If you have two alternatives and you’re absolutely sure of the sacredness and reverence of one of the two ways, why go with the other, which is at best controversial and at worst, sacrilegous, scandalous, and even a near occasion of excommunication?

Furthermore, we Catholics should stop using the word “approves” when we really should be using the term “tolerates up to a point.”

I’m sure the Holy Father doesn’t approve of communicants walking off with the consecrated Hosts at the papal Masses in their wallets and purses. But it seems these liberals will seek out as many websites as possible to plead their case for it.

 

[St_Isidore]

This website “Unavoce” is well-known for reflecting its —
In reading your last post which reprinted once again the teaching of Pope John Paul II’s Dominicae Cenae in a false light, I would have to agree with their “site review.” Rev. McDonald’s teaching may naturally appeal to you, but the rest of us have a higher source to whom we give our complete fidelity and assent.

Another blatant misrepresentation, misquote, mislead, etc., but the modernist movement against Catholics. That is not representative of UnaVoce. Please see post #99 and #102. As I have said before this becoming a common trend of the modernist Movement. In fact you are discrediting one that supports Vatican II and the Novus Ordo. Your credibility is null and void!:tsktsk:

 

[St_Isidore]

Further I don’t consider a site highly reliable that falsely accuses other sites of being schismatic when they are not. What is this site that is so highly reliable you read?. .

Exactly:thumbsup:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

To answer your first point, no one has said that reception in the hand is NOT by indult. We recognize that it is by indult. The point is, it is still permitted by the Holy See. Church discipline enjoys a negative infallibility (even if it’s “permitted,” per Cor Jesu claim). No one is saying that prudential judgement allowing such a discipline cannot be questioned. But it is the duty of the informed Catholic to defend the underlying principle of disciplinary infallibility. I’m only defending that principle and the right of the faithful to exercise a liberty that the Church has granted.

 

[St_Isidore]

You have been here a long time and know the many threads and posts that have discussed the Church’s permission for communion in the hand, regardless of which pope stated it or gave approval. It is approved. Period.

I cited 12 points that you can discuss. I have no clue what it is you are attempting to say

Your words are illusory, and I ask you to read the ENTIRE quote of Sect. 11 in Dominae Cenae again. I don’t believe I need to spell it out any further, for the context is entirely clear to anyone who reads it.

illusory?:hypno:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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).

Again, it is nonetheless NOW a discipline of the Church.

 

[bear06]

Exactly:thumbsup:

If you bothered to read the article you would notice that it didn’t say that they were schismatic. It said they have a tendency to lead people there. And based on the fact that my friend’s who now attend SSPX started right there, I’d have to at least say they do nothing to thwart people from following the schismatics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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

Once again, underlying principle: disciplinary infallibility.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Some more points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:

( by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)

As for this post, this is the author’s subjective opinion, except for the last: your author is the ONLY person I’ve heard question the authenticity of the instruction of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, this is the ONLY time this assertion has ever appeared. The Church accepts it as authentic.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

(continued)

(all points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)

As for Our Lord handing Judas the bread dipped in wine (which I believe the Douray-Rheims actually calls “sauce”), there is no clear indictation from Scripture that this was the Eucharist confected by Him at the Last Supper. All of the Gospel accounts differ slightly in their chronology. It isn’t even clear that Judas was present for the Eucharist. This has been discussed here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2036027&postcount=80

We don’t KNOW how the Apostles received. We do know that in at least some places in the Apostolic and Patristic Church, the successors of the Apostles allowed communion in the hand. The only dispute over this is this one priests assertion that the document was a phoney.

 

[japhy]

I don’t mean to sound snotty, but how else would you be able to consume the Body and Blood of Christ? It doesn’t have to touch your hands, so why? It isn’t like someone is forcing you to accept communion for you to be complaining.

As I said in post #59:

Whatever the grace of the Penitential Rite is, does it not have the same effect on our sinful tongues as it does on our sinful hands? Clearly, the Host must be consumed somehow, and the mouth is where it must end up. But does that, in itself, make the mouth “worthy”? What about a person with halitosis or gingivitis or some condition of the mouth due to poor hygiene? How would that compare to a person with dirty fingers?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

not sure if you got the memo (check new thread), Traditional Latin Missal sales are soaring in Italy. Amen.

Whether YOU believe it or not, I rejoice that the coming motu propria will grant a greater freedom for the TLM. That has nothing to do with the question of disciplinary infallibility (though it goes a very long way toward butressing my theory that the TLM would have more advocates and be more widely offered, but for the attitude displayed by some of the TLM’s devotees).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

That is a detour if I have ever seen one. Those are not my words you call illusory but Pope John Paul II’s…shame.

Nonetheless, Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict have permitted the continued expansion of the Indult for Communion in the Hand and as Catholics, we are bound to believe that such discipline cannot lead the faithful to impiety.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This is what I don’t understand. If you have two alternatives and you’re absolutely sure of the sacredness and reverence of one of the two ways, why go with the other, which is at best controversial and at worst, sacrilegous, scandalous, and even a near occasion of excommunication? **Because that’s not Catholic teaching. You may THINK it’s Catholic teaching, but it’s not. **

Furthermore, we Catholics should stop using the word “approves” when we really should be using the term “tolerates up to a point.” **Fine, as late as January, the Pope extended his “tolertation up to a point” to the nation of Poland. **

I’m sure the Holy Father doesn’t approve of communicants walking off with the consecrated Hosts at the papal Masses in their wallets and purses. But it seems these liberals will seek out as many websites as possible to plead their case for it. **Not liberals, Bob, simply orthdox Catholics defending one principle of the Church, ie, no discipline of the Church can lead the faithful to impiety. Goodness, we even quote TRENT! **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Exactly:thumbsup:

While you’re in a thumbs-up mood, Isidore, mind answering my question: Do you or do you not believe that Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and Blessed John XXIII are and were valid, legitimate popes?

 

[BobP123]

Whatever the grace of the Penitential Rite is, does it not have the same effect on our sinful tongues as it does on our sinful hands? Clearly, the Host must be consumed somehow, and the mouth is where it must end up. But does that, in itself, make the mouth “worthy”? What about a person with halitosis or gingivitis or some condition of the mouth due to poor hygiene? How would that compare to a person with dirty fingers?

Sinful hands, sinful tongues, what??? What’s this supposed to show or prove? I served a lot of Masses in pre-Vatican II days. First of all, the priest does wash his hands before every Mass so that should eliminate that fear. (I don’t know if I can say same for some of the EM’s that hand out communions.) I also held patens under literally thousands of communicants’ tongues. Halitosis? Most hold their breaths or inhale when receiving so I never keeled over because of bad breath (and I have a keen sense of smell.) Poor hygiene? Possible but don’t you come into close contact with people on buses, in elevators, etc.? And for far greater time period? And hasn’t science shown that colds, etc. are spread faster by touch of hands anyway? Since you’re so concerned with hygiene, I would stay away from that handshake of peace first if I be you. Then use a glove (preferably one without sin ) when receiving the Host later. Sheesh!

 

[Uxor]

Nonetheless, Pope John Paul and now Pope Benedict have permitted the continued expansion of the Indult for Communion in the Hand and as Catholics, we are bound to believe that such discipline cannot lead the faithful to impiety.

You need to study the history of how Communion in Hand came about. It was being carried out in the 70s underhandedly and by being disobedient. The same with Altar girls and now women deacons in Europe and even one in my diocease. So no I will never approve of anything that gets approval by being down underhandedly and by being disobedient.

 

[BobP123]

You need to study the history of how Communion in Hand came about. It was being carried out in the 70s underhandedly and by being disobedient. The same with Altar girls and now women deacons in Europe and even one in my diocease. So no I will never approve of anything that gets approval by being down underhandedly and by being disobedient.

Bingo. It’s called permission after the violation.

 

[Uxor]

we are bound to believe that such discipline cannot lead the faithful to impiety.

So how does that apply to the consecrated Host from a Papal Mass on Oct 18, 1998 in Saint Peter’s Square that was for sale on eBay?.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You need to study the history of how Communion in Hand came about. It was being carried out in the 70s underhandedly and by being disobedient. The same with Altar girls and now women deacons in Europe and even one in my diocease. So no I will never approve of anything that gets approval by being down underhandedly and by being disobedient.

You approval (or mine, remember, I receive on the tongue) is irrelevant. You and I are not the pope (that’s the problem with a great number on these fora: mini-popery). And I already know the antecedents of communion in the hand. The point is this, (and it is an important one): The Church’s disicplines, disciplines permitted or promulgated, whatever, cannot lead the faitful to impiety, cannot, by their definition, be sacriligeous. That’s why people on these threads need to watch what they say: it’s not merely a specific discipline that they are attacking, it’s the underlying authority.