S
Sure
Guest
So, you are accusing Pope Benedict of IGNORING Redemptionis Sacramentum??? That’s a pretty bold charge.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion and Communion on the Tongue
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
I don’t have to ask the Pope—for it is there in RS–2004. Communion in the hand is to be withdrawn at the risk of profanation—yet it continues even after actual profanation. Our late Pope knew what was happening --but washed his hands of it by passing the buck to those below ---- which did no good. The truth of the matter is — communion in the hand opened a much greater avenue for profanation–and on top of that gives the horrible catechesis much–much more freedom to express itself.
So, you are accusing Pope Benedict of IGNORING Redemptionis Sacramentum??? That’s a pretty bold charge.
Nice try Sure — it is interesting how you turned this thread into a way to imply that anyone who resists communion in the hand is turning on Pope Benedict. It is under his papacy that now communion in the hand is being question and voice out loud --even by top member of the curia. So are you going to accuse Arch. Ranjith of turning on Pope Benedict too.
S
stmaria
Guest
=otjm;3268895]
The fact that Ranjith has floated a trial baloon is just that; the presumption that he did so at the behest of the Pope is speculation at its best, given what the Pope has had to say about Communion in the hand.
And given the length of time that was spent, as well as the energy, to get the MP in place, I seriously doubt this one is going forward without a whole lot of (name removed by moderator)ut
.
You are aware that the MP was delayed by one year because Cardinal Sodano. the secretary of state refused to release it. He said it had been abrogated. The MP was released shortly after Pope Benedict appointed Cardinal Bertrone to the position
It is an indult; I am not ignorant of the point. I am aware that the Pope has spoken about the need to not continue the process of constant change that has upset so many.
In my opinion it is not just communion in the hand. Removal of the Tabernacle, Laity giving communion, receiving standing instead of kneeling all contribute as well as a lack of catechesis.But going after Communion in the hand as some sort of solution to catechesis is swatting at symptoms, not causes.
Something else I recently came across. I go to the OF on Holy days. I go to different parishes hoping to find one that is reverent. The last one I went to there was no elevation of the host or chalice and there were no bells rung. Now you will say these are all allowed. But,come on, this will lead to lack of believe in the Real Presence.This makes it appear that nothing incredible has taken place. Nothing mysterious or sacred. People need the bells and whistles. Why remove them? That is the question.
L
LilyM
Guest
I absolutely agree that they may be - you, on the other hand, don’t seem to appreciate that their tongues may be every bit as unclean.Let me ask you this, do you think a persons hands that may be unclean?
Method of reception is way down on the list of important factors when it comes to reception of Communion.
EXPLICIT catechesis (actual words spoken from pulpit or in CCD classrom) about the Real Presence will do much more to bring about understanding than any amount of IMPLICIT catechesis. Elevation of the host, method of reception et al are important, but they are easily ignored or misunderstood by those who haven’t been explicitly told that the Eucharist is really and transubstantially the Body and Blood of Christ with all that entails.
S
Sure
Guest
You said: “it is there in RS–2004. Communion in the hand is to be withdrawn at the risk of profanation—yet it continues even after actual profanation.”
Nice try Sure — it is interesting how you turned this thread into a way to imply that anyone who resists communion in the hand is turning on Pope Benedict. It is under his papacy that now communion in the hand is being question and voice out loud --even by top member of the curia. So are you going to accuse Arch. Ranjith of turning on Pope Benedict too.
Pope Benedict distributes Communion in the hand all the time.
From what you said, it seems that you think he is violating RS.
I’m not sure how this is unclear to you.
Yes, it is being reviewed as all disciplines periodically should be. If the Church chooses to change the indult for receiving in the hand, I will be completely supportive. If they choose not to change it, I will support that also.
O
otjm
Guest
whether the MP was delayed by Sodano was not the point; the point was the obvious work that the pope did one on one and in groups with various bishops, and the revisions that are purported to have been amde along the way. Rome does not move quickly, and neither does the Pope. As to Sodano delaying it, is there any real evidence that he did so, or is this just a late rumor based on speculation that it came out after Bertrone replaced him? I have no credible evidence of such a delay..
You are aware that the MP was delayed by one year because Cardinal Sodano. the secretary of state refused to release it. He said it had been abrogated. The MP was released shortly after Pope Benedict appointed Cardinal Bertrone to the position
And I disagree that any of those things contribute to loss of reverence. Reverence is based in the heart and the mind, and is the reaction one gives to one’s belief. The Church didn’t have tabernacles at all for centuries; I believe it was in the ninth or tenth century that they started using them. If the Church managed to survive intact with belief in the Real Presence for centuries without evwen having a tabernacle, let alone one on the main altar, then it is going to be hard to convince me that the source of loss of understadning of True Presence is associated with moving it to a side chapel. The same goes for Communion in the hand..In my opinion it is not just communion in the hand. Removal of the Tabernacle, Laity giving communion, receiving standing instead of kneeling all contribute as well as a lack of catechesis.
Something else I recently came across. I go to the OF on Holy days. I go to different parishes hoping to find one that is reverent. The last one I went to there was no elevation of the host or chalice and there were no bells rung. Now you will say these are all allowed. But,come on, this will lead to lack of believe in the Real Presence.This makes it appear that nothing incredible has taken place. Nothing mysterious or sacred. People need the bells and whistles. Why remove them? That is the question.
You say it (communion in the hand, moving the tabernacle, EMHCs) is the cause of loss of belief. I say it (loss of belief) is because in the late 60’s the Baltimore Catechism got thrown out (typical baby-with-the-bath-water routine) in favor of “catechisms” (I use quotes because I refuse to dignify them with that name) that removed teaching dogma in favor of “faith experiences”. Dogma was “too hard”; didn’t “build faith”; the litany goes on. What we had was a watered down pablum bland enough to avoid insulting the “intelligencia” of the far left with anything so bold as a doctrinal foundation of faith. We still see an echo of this silliness in our approach to RCIA, but that is another thread.
No, I do not agree that these caused the problems of which Rajnith speaks.
In short, I belong to a parish that has 24 hour Perpetual Adoration. We also have a community that by and large receives Communion in the hand; we receive both species; we have what some herein would deem an excessive number of EMHCs (and one priest who is 72, and responsible for a 1000+ family parish and the first grade school to be built in 40+ years); and the tabernalcle is in the chapel. We are not having a problem with reverence, or belief in the True Presence. Why? REad the first sentance. It is obvious that belief in the True Presence is a major factor, a major focus, and is being taught. None of the other issues are a contributing factor to irreverance. They are not, of themselves irrevereant, nor do they cause irreverance or loss of belief.
They are not a factor. Period. The factor is failure to teach, and that has gone on for two generations. The fact that they occured at or near the time that the free-fall in catechesis occured is simply a factor of timing, not a cause of the problem. Niether are they a symptom of the irreverance.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
I would say the idea that the practice of communion in the hand was universal for nine centuries of the Church’s history is debatable, to say the least:
From “Rethinking Communion in the Hand” by Jude Huntz:
A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.
A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?
…So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.
In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.
…Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.”
…Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.
Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.
It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at least the fifth century.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
From “Rethinking Communion in the Hand” by Jude Huntz:
A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.
A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?
…So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.
In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.
…Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.”
…Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.
Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.
It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at least the fifth century.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
M
Miles_Mariae
Guest
Nice post. I found that article extremely convincing, though I will wait for Pope Benedict to speak more about this (if he chooses to) before really taking a side.I would say the idea that the practice of communion in the hand was universal for nine centuries of the Church’s history is debatable, to say the least:
From “Rethinking Communion in the Hand” by Jude Huntz:
A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.
A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?
…So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.
In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.
…Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.”
…Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.
Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.
It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at least the fifth century.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You said: “it is there in RS–2004. Communion in the hand is to be withdrawn at the risk of profanation—yet it continues even after actual profanation.”
Pope Benedict distributes Communion in the hand all the time.
From what you said, it seems that you think he is violating RS.
I’m not sure how this is unclear to you.
Yes, it is being reviewed as all disciplines periodically should be. If the Church chooses to change the indult for receiving in the hand, I will be completely supportive. If they choose not to change it, I will support that also.
I place my hope and offer my prayers that at some pt. before the end of Pope Benedict’s papacy — he will withdraw the indult for communion in the hand. That he will not wash his hands of it and end up passing the buck like our late Pope did.
B
Brennan_Doherty
Guest
It’s also interesting in what it has to say about the Last Supper:Nice post. I found that article extremely convincing, though I will wait for Pope Benedict to speak more about this (if he chooses to) before really taking a side.
6. 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 practiced 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’s 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.”
7. Take and eat . . .
Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, “Take and eat”? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
- Status
- Not open for further replies.