Receiving the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Happy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You’re right, it wasn’t an experiment but two councils and several Popes condemned the practice nevertheless. To revive a practice which has been specifically condemned amounts to antiquarianism and also has been condemned by Popes.
You can call it antiquarianism, but to the Church, it is restoring the Tradition.
Antiquarianism is holding onto medieval additions to liturgy and praxis instead of embracing the wisdom of the Magesterium in restoring the Roman Rite back to its more austere liturgical roots.
In saying what you say, you implicate Pope Benedict who allows this practice in the Latin Rite Church.
 
You can call it antiquarianism, but to the Church, it is restoring the Tradition.
Antiquarianism is holding onto medieval additions to liturgy and praxis instead of embracing the wisdom of the Magesterium in restoring the Roman Rite back to its more austere liturgical roots.
In saying what you say, you implicate Pope Benedict who allows this practice in the Latin Rite Church.
That’s a quaint story but unfortunately not how it happened.
 
As far as dropping Jesus is concerned, risk is risk. And if “risk” is an issue, every time Father Blind distributes Communion there’s a risk, so does that mean Father Blind should never give out the Eucharist? And anytime someone who is physically or mentally disabled receives there’s an increased risk, so they shouldn’t receive either?
Is this what they call common sense? :confused:
 
You can call it antiquarianism, but to the Church, it is restoring the Tradition.
Antiquarianism is holding onto medieval additions to liturgy and praxis instead of embracing the wisdom of the Magesterium in restoring the Roman Rite back to its more austere liturgical roots.
In saying what you say, you implicate Pope Benedict who allows this practice in the Latin Rite Church.
Falsehood restated time and time again.

So you think the Church introduced CITH in order to return to traditional roots ?
 
You can call it antiquarianism, but to the Church, it is restoring the Tradition.
And which Pope said this? And more to the point is there a Pope who said that reception of communion should be just like receiving bread in a bread line?
 
And which Pope said this? And more to the point is there a Pope who said that reception of communion should be just like receiving bread in a bread line?
yea, that’s the problem with the rad trads; they have these ideas and think that anyone familiar with the history and praxis of the Church who may disagree believes that communion is a bread line. of course, that’s a straw-man that i didn’t assert or infer, but it’s easier to knock down straw-men. i get that.
yea, i’ve read all the web sites. I prefer bonafide theology and the teaching of the Magesterium.
I know. everyone is a modernist heretic, unless you take the rad trad line.
yadda yadda yadda.
 
Is this what they call common sense? :confused:
People are so concerned about others dropping the Body of our Lord when they receive by the hand due to the risk involved of the Eucharist being dropped, I honestly want to know if laymen or priests who have disabilities shouldn’t receive due to the risk involved of our Lord’s Body being dropped.
 
Good Morning,
When I was growing up in the 50’s and early 60’s, everyone received communion on the tongue at the altar, on our knees. I believe this is the correct way to receive communion. God is our King and Lord,we need to be humble and respectful. Kathleen
 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem is SUCH an antiquarian.
“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) as cited by the *Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 *(c. 692 AD)
 
"The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].” This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

…]

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true. "

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
 
"What about St. Cyril? 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. Dr. 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 on to proposes 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 favour 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 last the fifth= century. Clericalism? Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even a priest, could do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his own hand: he received on the tongue form another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself. When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church. This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly."

communion-in-the-hand.org/index.php/mcdonald/
 
Ockham;7094291 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 said:
What I quoted was cited by the Council of Trullo in its 101st canon.
You can suppose that this is a forgery based on supposition, but then would have to also implicate Trullo as well. So you are taking this as some sort of proof?

Scorched Earth policy, eh?
 
"ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication."

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm
 
What I quoted was cited by the Council of Trullo in its 101st canon.
You can suppose that this is a forgery based on supposition, but then would have to also implicate Trullo as well. So you are taking this as some sort of proof?

Scorched Earth policy, eh?
I never claimed the quote is a forgery. It is the only quote by a pope, saint, or doctor of the Church promoting CITH. There are many more against it. If you are prepared to investigate the reception of Holy Communion with an open mind you’ll be surprised by what you learn.
 
St. Cyril of Jerusalem is SUCH an antiquarian.
“When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) as cited by the *Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 *(c. 692 AD)
Just like disclaims made against Mother’s Theresa, so there are disclaimers against St. Cyril’s quote.
 
If you are prepared to investigate the reception of Holy Communion with an open mind you’ll be surprised by what you learn.
I am, except I look at history not a peculiar selective way to get the outcome I want. The oldest liturgy of St. James had the praxis of receiving CITH, by the way.
No need to be afraid of Tradition. Both forms of reception have wide acceptance in the Church.
 
As the quotes I provided from popes and councils show CITH was banned in the Latin Rite Church for the vast majority of its existence. It’s modern resurgence originated in Holland during the tumultuous sixties out of defiance and abuse. Google Cardinal and/or Archbishop Bernardin of the USCCB to find out how it got in the US GIRM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top