SSPX communique to Rome

[Marie5890]

Somewhere along the line he said that Aquinas’ method is self-serving. Trads took it as “Aquinas is self-serving.” That’s not what he said at all.

What he means is that the method that Aquinas uses compared to the method that Augustine and Bonaventure use is self-serving. Where is he going with this? He’s saying that in the end, Aquinas method proves that reason can prove faith.

Augustine and Bonaventure, on the other hand, use faith to enlighten reason.

Put into a diagram model, this is the way that Pope Benedict sees the two systems.

Augustine/Bonaventure: Reason <===== Faith <===== Grace

Reson is undestood through faith and faith is a gift of grace.

Aquinas: Reason <===== Faith <===== Reason

Reason is guided by faith, which is understood through reason.

Whether one agrees with his assessment or not is irrelevant. The question on the table is whether the man is a Modernist or was ever a Modernist. The answer is, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Once we settle that question, the next question is, must a theologian be a Thomist? The answer is, ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is neither a commandment of God or of the Church. The Church has always said that Aquinas’ work must be studied. She has never said that his work must be the only source of theological knowledge, nor has she ever said that his work is infallible. There are parts of his work that will remain on the shelves forever, because they are in error. There are other parts of the work that will remain on the shelves indefinitely, until someone has need for them, because they deal with subjects that the Church does not tackle every day. This reduces the amount of his work that we actually use.

There is another question. Must everyone who studies theology study Aquinas? Absolutely not. The mandates that regulate the study of theology apply only to secular priests. Priests, brothers and sisters who belong to religious communities are subject to the mandates the educational requirements of their respective communities, which is known as Proper Law. Only when the community does not have its own regulation regarding theological requirements, then do they follow the general instructions given in Canon Law and by the Conference of Bishops.

Conferences of bishops have no authority over religious communities or priests, brothers, sisters or mixed.

Neither Cardinal Ratzinger, nor those who follow the same line of thinking as he does, which are almost all of the mendicants except the Dominicans and most of the monastic communities are opposed to the person of Aquinas. They simply do not use his method.

Aquinas is venerated for being a heroic son of our Holy Father Dominic, a simple friar, a man of great prayer and penance. a contemplative and a man of incredible charity. He is respected as a theological genius and a masterful writer. Hence, he is called the Angelic Doctor.

Many people forget that Bonaventure is the Seraphic Doctor. They get upset when the Pope prefers the seraph over the angel. Go figure.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

Thank you.

That helps a lot put things in perspective for me.

 

[JReducation]

What are “Conciliar clergy”?

The only non-conciliar clergy are the apostles and those they (the apostles) made before the council of Jerusalem that took place in the book of Acts.

There is such such division, even between East and West or Catholic and Orthodox.

Clergy, clergyman or cleric is anyone who is ordained as a Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic and other groups that have apostolic succession.

The only difference that the Church acknowledges between the clergy are secular and regular.

Secular clergy: any ordained man who lives in the world.

I.E. Diocesan priests, SSPX, FSSP, ICRSS, Maryknoll, SOLT, Missiunhurst, Vincentians, Oratorians, Secular Franciscans, Secular Dominicans, Secular Carmelites, Secular Trinitarians and Secular Servites

Regular clergy: any ordained man who is first and foremost bound to a regula (rule of life).

I.E. monks, friars, clerks regular and diocesan hermits

Conciliar has been used since the Council of Jerusalem to describe the period before or after a council. For example, the Dominicans, Trinitarians, O’Carm and Franciscans were called “conciliar orders,” meaning that they were founded during the Lateran Councils. As time passes, the term is dropped.

Keeping it is as silly as calling a two-year old a newborn. He and a newborn are both infants, but that’s where the similarity begins and ends.

One has to be careful not to border on the silly and use any council as the historical line of demarcation for all time. The other silly option would be to call the entire Christian community “conciliar” since it exists post the Council of Jerusalem.

Br., why are secular clergy required to study Aquinas? Is it because he is the “generic” theologian to study?

Secular seminarians do not go through religious formation. Their spiritual formation is pretty broad and very basic. Just look at the FSSP, SSPX or ICRSS, Maryknoll, etc. Because they do not belong to a religious community, they do not follow a particular formation program in a defined school of theology and a defined spirituality. The advantage to that is that they can pick and choose their spiritual models for their personal life. On the other hand, since they don’t belong to any religious family, they don’t follow any particular school of theology either. They are bound by law to learn Aquinas.

There are religious communities who also follow Aquinas, because they don’t have their own theologians. The Trinitarian Friars, for example, would more than likely teach a lot from Aquinas. The Franciscans would mention Aquinas in passing. That’s because the Franciscans have more Doctors of the Church than any other religious order in history and we have the Seraphic Doctor, Bonaventure. We refer to Aquinas when there is something about which one of our own has not spoken or when we want to compare. It’s also good for double checking your comprehension. These guys use different methods, but they arrive at the same conclusions. Bonaventure’s Trinity is not going to have more persons than Aquinas’ Trinity. They difference is in how they explain the Trinity.

The Church gives the secular clergy a broad program of studies. With religious, the issue is much more complicated. Not all of us are going to be priests or theologians. Some are going to be science teachers, nurses, cooks, accountants, gardeners, spiritual directors, etc.

Religious communities follow a program of studies that prepares the individual to become a full member of the community. For example, in my community, you must go through 10 years of formation. During those ten years, 8 are in theology, 4 are in a secular discipline, you take as many years of study necessary to do the work that you’re assigned to do, and you take 10 years of Franciscan Spiritual Theology. You have to cram all of that into 10 years.

For example, you can be in your third year of formation where you can be working on an MA or an M.Div in theology, Franciscan Spiritual Theology, Rule and Constitutions and be in your first year of vows, when you would be taking a full course in Canon Law several hours per week. You would have a BA in Philosophy and a BS in Math behind you that you completed before you entered.

In addition, you and the community are discerning two separate questions at the same time.

1. Is God calling you to be a brother?
2. Is God calling you to be a priest?

He may be calling you to be both, to be one or the other or to be neither. You and the community prayerfully discern this for 10 years.

Secular seminarians don’t have to go through all of this study and all of this discernment. The studies are quite simple.

1. Complete four years of theological studies. The Church does not require a degree. The bishop may.
2. Adopt a Christian spirituality that works for you.
3. Is God calling you to be a priest?

There is only one question. The spirituality is up to you to find your niche. The studies are standardized.

There is nothing more, because you’re going from the lay state to the clerical state, but you’re not leaving the world. You are remaining a secular Catholic man. Whereas the man who enters the Dominicans is gong from lay to cleric and from secular to consecrated. He’s literally moving into another world/

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Justin_Swanton]

Conciliar has been used since the Council of Jerusalem to describe the period before or after a council. For example, the Dominicans, Trinitarians, O’Carm and Franciscans were called “conciliar orders,” meaning that they were founded during the Lateran Councils. As time passes, the term is dropped.

Keeping it is as silly as calling a two-year old a newborn. He and a newborn are both infants, but that’s where the similarity begins and ends.

One has to be careful not to border on the silly and use any council as the historical line of demarcation for all time. The other silly option would be to call the entire Christian community “conciliar” since it exists post the Council of Jerusalem.

Interesting. That puts Mgr Benelli’s use of the term in context. It is in this sense I used the word. It has unfortunately acquired the secondary meaning of ‘Newchurch’ in Traditional circles, i.e. a separate religious organism that effectively is no longer the Catholic Church. That will be the greatest challenge for SSPX members, clergy and laity: reacquiring a fundamental trust for the Church. Very difficult to do if one comes from a Traditionalist background.

 

[Dee_S]

Perhaps this might be helpful… not very sure myself.

"This Council represents, both in the opinion of the Roman authorities as in our own, A NEW CHURCH which they call themselves the “CONCILIAR CHURCH”.

“All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new “Conciliar Church”, as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25, and they enter into the schism.”

Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, of August 2nd, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.
strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1083

I just wanted to point out that in the original letter in French (see Justin Swanton’s earlier post) the word “conciliaire” does not have a capital letter, as it does in this English translation I quoted.

This further endorses that Mgr. Benelli used the word in the correct context, as pointed out by Brother

"Conciliar has been used since the Council of Jerusalem to describe the period before or after a council. For example, the Dominicans, Trinitarians, O’Carm and Franciscans were called “conciliar orders,” meaning that they were founded during the Lateran Councils. As time passes, the term is dropped.

Keeping it is as silly as calling a two-year old a newborn. He and a newborn are both infants, but that’s where the similarity begins and ends." BR JR
Thank you Brother for the very informative explanation

 

[JReducation]

I think that terms such as conciliar, orthodox and traditionalist or traditional have undergone the same negative metamorphosis as liberal and conservative.

I’m thinking back at the founding of the Franciscan family. Francis’ idea was considered a very liberal one at the time. What he proposed was a radical living of the Gospel, taking the religious tradition of the monastery outside of the cloister and focusing on the concept of brotherhood, not on ministry or contemplation. So that his community was not a monastic community, even though it observed all of the monastic hours and even some of the monastic disciplines, but it banned things like Gregorian chant, the priors and abbots, the choir monks and lay brothers, the possession of property and stability.

It was was not like the Canons of St. Augustine, a community of priests with a specific mandate to preach, while at the same time living within the structure of a religious community.

Francis and his men were a cross between monks and laymen. Priests who felt called to be brothers were welcome. They did not come to the order to be priests. Monks who felt called to be brothers were also welcome, but they did not come to the order to live a contemplative life either.

In those days, this was considered to be very liberal. It was different from what the Benedictines and the Dominicans lived, the Benedictines being monks and the Dominicans being priests who followed the Augustinian tradition.

Yet, today, those of us who have broken away from the large Franciscan communities to form reformed communities that live the Franciscan as it was lived by the first generation Franciscans are called “conservative.”

That’s why such terms as conciliar, traditionalist, orthodox, conservative and liberal don’t always work, because the meaning and the use has changed.

If I say that I’m the superior of a traditional Franciscan community, the Trads would say that I’m not, because we blur the lines between the ordained and the non ordained by having everyone called Brother and only the superior can be called Father, even if he’s not a priest. I’m not traditional, because we don’t have communion rails, kneelers or more than one or two statues in our chapels. But we did not have communion rails, kneelers and more than a crucifix in our chapels until we started taking over parishes owned by diocese, built to the specifications of the bishops. Our chapels continued to have none of these things. They never had them. However, in the past, our chapels were not accessible to the laity. The laity did not know what they looked look like.

Today, when we invite the laity and they see chairs instead of pews, no kneelers and no rails, they’re shocked. They’re even more shocked when they see the EF being celebrated with the brothers standing on either side of the altar so that they are looking at the celebrant and the altar from the side, not from the back. The reason is simple. In the 13th century, religious has choir stalls that faced each other, not the altar. Today, we simply set our chairs up on either side of the altar, just like the old choir stalls. Yet, this is not considered to be “traditional”.

Or when people visit a Benedictine house or one of the Benedictine reforms such as the Cistercians, Camaldolse, or Trappists and do not see a tabernacle in the chapel, they freak out. The truth is that the Benedictines always had the tabernacle in a chapel adjacent to the sanctuary.

To many people the traditional thing is to have the tabernacle front and center. This is not exactly true. This was a tradition started by the Franciscans and it spread. The Benedictine tradition did not spread as far and wide, because there were never as many Benedictines as there were Franciscans. Young men grew up with the Franciscan tradition. When they became priests, they implemented that tradition in their churches, not really knowing where it came from or why it started, like many traditions in life.

Who knows where the custom came from of brides throwing their bouquet into the crowd. We just do it and when it does not happen, we find that something is missing. For all we know it may have started with a bride who had hey fever and needed to get rid of those flowers. I don’t know.

That’s my reason for not liking such terms and objecting to how they’re used in the Trad movement. They don’t truly reflect what the Church or even scholars have in mind when they use them. A scholar writing about the Church in Rome, can call it a post-concilliar Church, referring to the Council of Jerusalem, which predates the Roman Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Dee_S]

Thank you Br.JR - my ‘learning curve’ is on an upward steep…:curtsey:. An example I can add here is that I recently read a book on the Mass in the early centuries of the Church, and discovered that Communion was received on the hand for the first 400 years Christianity! So much for the Right Wing’s criticism of ireverrance etc:yukonjoe:
(I can look up the name & author if anyone would like to verify)

These extracts from any interview with Archbishop Muller are of interest especially as shortly after his appointment the SSPX accused him of being a heretic. This may be found on their website sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_gaudron_responds_to_msgr_bux_ab_mueller_7-16-2012.htm
To date, they have not retracted that accusation…wonder where this is all leading?

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, speaks with CNA during a July 20, 2012 interview.
Rome, Italy, Jul 24, 2012 / 04:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).-

Although the new head of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is optimistic about reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, he says that the teachings of the Church – including the dogmatic content of the Second Vatican Council – will never be up for re-negotiation.

“The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council,” Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller told CNA July 20, “but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”

As prefect of the Congregation, Archbishop Muller is also the President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” the Vatican body responsible for dialogue with the Society of St. Pius X.

The commission is currently awaiting an official reply from the society to an offer of reconciliation that would give the traditionalist group Personal Prelature status within the Church. In return the society would have to accept a “Doctrinal Preamble” proposed to it by the Congregation, including full adherence to the dogmatic content of the Second Vatican Council.

In a July 19 statement, the society said it had “determined and approved the necessary conditions for an eventual canonical normalization” at its recent General Chapter, but added that it still rejected “all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors” as well as “the reforms issued from it.”

“The assertion that the authentic teachings of Vatican II formally contradict the tradition of the Church is false,” Archbishop Muller stated.

He added, however, that between various texts of the council there are “gradations” of teaching authority. By way of an example, Archbishop Muller drew a comparison between the council’s document on social communications, “Inter Mirifica,” which carries “less weight” than “dogmatic declarations” like the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium.”

“Whatever is dogmatic can never be negotiated,” he said, while still expressing hope that the members of the Society of Pius X “can overcome their difficulties, their ideological restrictions so that we can work together to proclaim Christ as the Light of the World.”

Although the 64-year-old German is new to his current post at the Vatican, Archbishop Muller has had extensive dealings with the Society of St. Pius X in the past. As Archbishop of Regensburg in the Bavaria region of Germany for the past decade, his diocesan territory included a seminary operated by the traditionalists group.

A key problem for Rome in recent discussions seems to be the perception that the Society of St. Pius X often speaks about errors in the conciliar texts themselves.

Instead, the Vatican believes a distinction should be made between what the Second Vatican Council actually said and the sometimes problematic interpretations and applications of its teaching.

“We can all come together and avoid ideological positions if we accept the Word of God present in the doctrine of the Catholic Church,” he said.
The Vatican’s willingness to continue dialogue was indicated last month with the deployment of a high-ranking American archbishop to the commission responsible for the discussions.

On June 26, Pope Benedict switched Rome-based Archbishop Augustine Di Noia from his post as secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship to vice president of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.”

Archbishop Muller, who took up office in Rome earlier this month, said he is fully committed to working for the reconciliation of all separated Christians.

“Our aim and our task is clear – to promote the unity of all the disciples of Christ in the one Church under the leadership of Jesus Christ and in communion with his vicar, the successor of St. Peter.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/vaticans-doctrine-chief-pius-x-society-must-accept-vatican-ii-teachings/

 

[JoeBowen7]

These extracts from any interview with Archbishop Muller are of interest especially as shortly after his appointment the SSPX accused him of being a heretic. This may be found on their website sspx.org/miscellaneous/fr_gaudron_responds_to_msgr_bux_ab_mueller_7-16-2012.htm
To date, they have not retracted that accusation]

I did not see that anyone was called a heretic in the interview.

 

[Lormar]

Interesting. That puts Mgr Benelli’s use of the term in context. It is in this sense I used the word. It has unfortunately acquired the secondary meaning of ‘Newchurch’ in Traditional circles, i.e. a separate religious organism that effectively is no longer the Catholic Church. That will be the greatest challenge for SSPX members, clergy and laity: reacquiring a fundamental trust for the Church. Very difficult to do if one comes from a Traditionalist background.

I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t.

 

[Lormar]

Thanks for your kindness folks.

I won’t be bothering you too much longer. We’re going through a quiet period right now. I’ll not be here much longer. Things are going to pick up next week and I’ll be disappearing again.

At the end of August, I’m going on retreat. If I can get permission from the house chapter, I may be attending my daughter’s wedding after that. I’m not scheduled to visit my family for another three years. We have no attachments to people, places or things.

My daughter wants me to give her away. I can’t go, because the constitutions says that I cannot do so. It takes a house chapter to clear it, even for a major superior. Goes to show you, none of us can do what we would like to do. All of this depends on my health cooperating. God always has a plan.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

I’ll keep you in my prayers, and please don’t forget to pray for us too. God willing, you will return soon.

Maybe when you come back you can do some of us a service - at least me - and I am sure there are others even if they only lurk. You can show us how, when either the SSPX or the sedevacantists say that our Holy Father held heretical ideas as a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, they are wrong. If you can dismantle their arguments, you can help many souls.

God bless you, Brother!

 

[TrueLight]

I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t.

Yeah. I guess the SSPX is a cult and one needs to deprogram.

 

[Lormar]

Yeah. I guess the SSPX is a cult and one needs to deprogram.

Yes, one does need to deprogram and, if there is any help out there, I haven’t stumbled upon it yet. And unless the person has “been there and done that” it is difficult for that person to help.

 

[TrueLight]

Yes, one does need to deprogram and, if there is any help out there, I haven’t stumbled upon it yet. And unless the person has “been there and done that” it is difficult for that person to help.

Yeah okay.

 

[Moore11]

Yes, one does need to deprogram and, if there is any help out there, I haven’t stumbled upon it yet. And unless the person has “been there and done that” it is difficult for that person to help.

I dont think this is a good way to talk about members of the body of Christ. No matter if they are separated or working on reconciliation. it certainly is not healthy for the discussion. It is not charitable and it cant be healthy for an individual.
The SSPX is attacked ad nausium and it is frankly more divisive than some of the SSPX beliefs.

 

[JReducation]

I did not see that anyone was called a heretic in the interview.

The comment was made, but not by this particular priest. The problem with their position regarding Archbishop Mueller is that they come within a hairline of accusing him of heresy by arguing that he contradicts dogma. The fact of the matter is that dogma does not specify the means by which Christ is born. Father says so in his interview.

The only correct thing is that the Church has not stipulated the exact particularities of what was different between the birth of Christ and the birth of other human beings, like, for example, whether the birth canal was widened or not, etc. Such indiscrete penetration of the mystery is not what the church wants to do. However, the painlessness of the birth, as well as the intactness of the hymen have always been proclaimed.

The dogma does not deny or affirm that Jesus descended via the vaginal canal. It defends the perpetual virginity of Mary. Just as light can pass through glass, there is no reason to deny that Jesus could not pass through the hymen. The argument that some are trying to defend is that he passed through the abdominal wall in order to preserve the hymen intact, as if he could not pass through the vaginal canal, which is the means that the Father created for mammals to be born and at the same time, leave the hymen intact.

Archbishop Mueller’s discussion is that there is no difference in passing through the abdominal wall or through the hymen without doing traumatic damage to either. God is God and can do as he pleases.

The concluding statement by Father Gaudron would have been shot out of the air by St. Bonaventure. To some extend this really goes against all logic. Bonaventure would argue that it is faith the enlightens logic, not logic that enlightens faith. If something goes against all logic, then drop the logic and apply the faith says St. Bonaventure. It means that human logic has not reach the ability to comprehend God’s activity. From Bonaventure’s point of view, it’s not always that something contradicts logic. It can be that logic is not mature enough. At that point, we must rely on faith.

I wonder if it will ever come about - the fundamental trust for the Church. Speaking for myself, I have yet to acquire it. The harm that I have done to myself and my way of thinking seems irreparable. I often think that perhaps it is part of my punishment for ever having doubted and that it is something I will have to live with until the day that I die.

If only there was some kind of former sede/SSPX rehabilitation site, or service, or help. But there isn’t.

One takes what is good and leaves behind what was not so good. We do this with every experience in life. They’re never totally forgotten. We just put them in the back pocket as we do with a wallet. Once in a while we notice that it’s still there. It’s like the death of a loved one. Who can ever forget that person? But we focus on the present moment. There are going to be moments when that loved one will be very present in our thoughts and the pain and sadness of having lost him will return. Then we go back to our daily life until the next episode. This is all part of a life of penance. We live with pain and suffering. We can complain about it or we can do the best we can to minimize it. The greater act of conversion is to work on it.

I’ll keep you in my prayers, and please don’t forget to pray for us too. God willing, you will return soon.

Maybe when you come back you can do some of us a service - at least me - and I am sure there are others even if they only lurk. You can show us how, when either the SSPX or the sedevacantists say that our Holy Father held heretical ideas as a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, they are wrong. If you can dismantle their arguments, you can help many souls.

God bless you, Brother!

Don’t worry. I’m not leaving the planet. I’ll just be busy for weeks at a time. But I’ll be here during the slow days. Also, I check my email and my PMs daily.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Lormar]

Yeah okay.

Do you have a problem with me, True Light? I am at a loss to understand your seemingly sarcastic reply.

 

[Lormar]

I dont think this is a good way to talk about members of the body of Christ. No matter if they are separated or working on reconciliation. it certainly is not healthy for the discussion. It is not charitable and it cant be healthy for an individual.
The SSPX is attacked ad nausium and it is frankly more divisive than some of the SSPX beliefs.

No comment.

 

[Iotaunum]

An example I can add here is that I recently read a book on the Mass in the early centuries of the Church, and discovered that Communion was received on the hand for the first 400 years Christianity! So much for the Right Wing’s criticism of ireverrance etc:yukonjoe:
(I can look up the name & author if anyone would like to verify)

I would like to know the name of that book. You can PM me if you don’t want to derail the thread. It was an invention of the left that Communion was received in the hand for the first 400 years. The idea that communion in the hand was the norm, then slowly in the 9th or 10th century the practice of receiving in the mouth was gradually introduced is not true. Pope Saint Sixtus I (115-125 AD) said; "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.” This was during this period where everyone was supposed to be getting communion in the hand. It is true Communion in the hand did happen sometimes, however if one reads the texts quoted from the Fathers in context they will see how it was tolerated in certain circumstances during the early persecution of the Church. For example when a hermit living in the wilderness has no priest he could administer it to himself, likewise laity under the persecution who took the sacraments in secret to their homes administered it themselves in a reverent manner. The writings of St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great show that Communion on the tongue was the norm. Most of the people who push for communion in the hand ignore all the texts and evidence for reception on the tongue and quote Saint Basil in the Catechesis mystagogica, which is dubious itself, on how to hold communion in the hand. They don’t quote where he says this practice is allowed under times of persecution where no priest is present etc. For the Latin Rite communion on the tongue was always the norm.
Anyway this is another matter – I don’t want to derail this thread so you can PM me the name of the book if you wish.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I would like to know the name of that book. You can PM me if you don’t want to derail the thread. It was an invention of the left that Communion was received in the hand for the first 400 years. The idea that communion in the hand was the norm, then slowly in the 9th or 10th century the practice of receiving in the mouth was gradually introduced is not true. Pope Saint Sixtus I (115-125 AD) said; "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.” This was during this period where everyone was supposed to be getting communion in the hand. It is true Communion in the hand did happen sometimes, however if one reads the texts quoted from the Fathers in context they will see how it was tolerated in certain circumstances during the early persecution of the Church. For example when a hermit living in the wilderness has no priest he could administer it to himself, likewise laity under the persecution who took the sacraments in secret to their homes administered it themselves in a reverent manner. The writings of St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great show that Communion on the tongue was the norm. Most of the people who push for communion in the hand ignore all the texts and evidence for reception on the tongue and quote Saint Basil in the Catechesis mystagogica, which is dubious itself, on how to hold communion in the hand. They don’t quote where he says this practice is allowed under times of persecution where no priest is present etc. For the Latin Rite communion on the tongue was always the norm.
Anyway this is another matter – I don’t want to derail this thread so you can PM me the name of the book if you wish.

Well said.

I don’t get why some people is so happy to read about a suppossed early custom for CITH.

Blessings!



P.S. Dee S… Right wing? I don’t think is very appropiate to use such terms.

 

[JoeBowen7]

An example I can add here is that I recently read a book on the Mass in the early centuries of the Church, and discovered that Communion was received on the hand for the first 400 years Christianity! So much for the Right Wing’s criticism of ireverrance etc:yukonjoe:
(I can look up the name & author if anyone would like to verify)

I don’t see how this would happen if people were receiving Holy Communion, body and Blood, from the spoon?

 

[CesarAugustus]

Yes, one does need to deprogram and, if there is any help out there, I haven’t stumbled upon it yet. And unless the person has “been there and done that” it is difficult for that person to help.

That is offensive.

But, if you want to speak about deprograming in the Church, I know about some relatively unknown cult like groups… groups in full communion.

Blessings!