That was heinous, absolutely awful. Do you imagine that that was the first time the Host had been secreted away for nefarious purposes? Do you imagine that it wasn’t secreted away prior to the establishment of the Indult for Communion in the hand?
Wonder if it was eventually consumed and whether it was given in the hand or on the tongue before consummation?
They also hold hands during the Our Father now too. I always seem to have a cold when I attended the NO MassSinful 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!
The approval was only for regulating, the Pope didn’t agree with it. The Pope allowed me to continue taking Communion in the Mouth He was saying I don’t have to agree to Communion in the Hand if I disagree I can take Holy Communion in the mouth.
I wish it disappeared before it got placed in unordained hands…something to prayer about…Wonder if it was eventually consumed and whether it was given in the hand or on the tongue before consummation?
But, hey, look at the bright side. Doesn’t the Real Presence disappear after a period of 2-3 weeks, when it dries up?
You don’t get it. The Pope’s personal opinion was against Communion in the hand. He set that personal opinion aside (as has Pope Benedict XVI, apparently) and in his role as Supreme Pontiff, permitted the Indult (and contrary to your assertion in your posting of John Paul II’s quote, in the address in which it appears, the old Holy Father does admit that people can and do receive Communion in the hand reverently and that his remarks were not aimed at them). Also, if you read the posts with even a MODICUM of care, you’ll notice that A) no one has stated that Communion on the tongue was wrong or B) that you shouldn’t receive Communion on the tongue or C) that the Pope wasn’t allowing you to receive Communion on the tongue. In all of thes posts on this thread, the only person who stated that you couldn’t receive Communion on the tongue was the OP’s RCIA director. That’s it, the only one, nada mas, zip, no one. The issue has since become whether or not Communion in the hand is a sacrilege, as some posters either assert or seem to assert. Once again, any discipline of the Church is protected by disciplinary infallibility, ie, it cannot lead the faithful into impiety, it cannot, by definition, be a sacrilege. That’s the issue.
That is your issue…I don’t know of any catholic other than liberals that would agree with your overstretch use of infallibility.
Trouble with your argument, is that its’ actually quite an old, old, OLD Catholic teaching, older than you or I. Liberals don’t like it either (so you have something in common with them) because that means that THEY, in turn, can’t heap abuse on the Latin Mass or Communion on the tongue, etc. (all equally protected by the same disciplinary infallibility). Liberals have an equally mistaken view of infallibility (ie, the only infallible dogmas are the dogma of infallibility itself, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Mother into Heaven). Whether you like it or not, whether you like the discipline in question or not, whether you like the color of the pope’s shoes, is all irrelevant. The fact remains that it is Catholic teaching that the Church cannot propose to the faithful any discipline that can lead the faithful to impiety. It was clearly stated by the Council of Trent and it has an anathema attached to it. So, you see, Uxor, it’s a little bigger than simply being my issue. It goes to the authority of the Church.
Not in the least. It is a negative infallibility. It simply means that it cannot contradict divine law, cannot lead the faithful into impiety. It is NOT a commentary on the prudential wisdom of allowing it. It also does not mean that disciplines cannot be altered.
The authority of the Church says I can take Holy Communion in the Mouth…so there is not a problem.
Let me guess, Vegas. You’re a lawyer.
Memoriale Domini…Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion…Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship May 29, 1969
No, I’m not a lawyer.
This one is simple. I tell my children that we are going to eat dinner at 5:30 sharp every day because it’s better to eat ealier rather than closer to bedtime. This is the discipline in our home. Softball season rolls around and I move it to 7PM because we aren’t at home at 5:30 because we’re out getting our exercise in and getting into shape while the weather is good. Both are excellent and best for the family at the time and place we are in. This is similar for disciplines in the Church. They are the best for the time we are in and neither contradict Divine Law.
On the contrary, Uxor, because it is a discipline of the Church, promulgated or permitted by the Supreme Pontiff, it is by definition NOT impious nor a sacrilege. This is Catholic teaching. At one point, the majority of bishops in the Church had lapsed into the Arian heresy. The Holy See did not. That of course was a dogmatic matter, but again, this discipline enjoys at least a negative infallibility. Also, you have no objective proof that that the practice HAS lead to any impiety (if it could). Certainly, people can do impious things within the context of a discipline, but that does not render the practice impious or responsible FOR their impiety.
I guess traditonalists today could be called the St. Thomas Aquinas followers.
St. Thomas is the Angelic Doctor of the Church and his teachings are indispensible. However, the Popes and the bishops (when they teach in union with the popes) hold the charism of infallibility and the authority of the magisterium, not any of the saints. Of course, the infallibility of disciplinary measures is only a negative one and disciplines are not immutable, ie, they can change. While they are in effect, however, they cannot lead the faithful to impiety.
Do you honestly believe, I guess you do that God is going to approve of anything that was done out of disobedience and underhandedly?
Uxor: I believe that Christ gave authority to His Church to determine such things. Trying to second-guess what God approves in this instance is a waste of time, given that. It is, in fact, a thoroughly Protestant activity.