SSPX NOT in Schism

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tpraines:

ByzCath,

I am impressed!

I have not posted on this forum in a while and I quickly under estimated the level of discussion!

You are ABSOLUTELY right! The Eastern churches were more nationally based and the use of the local vernacular was common. I also agree that receiving in the hand is found in the history of the church. I was speaking more toward my opinion on why the Church in America has seen a bit of confusion in the pews. Vatican II was a change. I did not say unprecedented change, but change none the less. To speak to the original post, SSPX did not appear to like the changes and tried to hold on to the traditions. They just went about holding on to the changes in manner that later found them outside the church. I cannot find that Vatican II ever explicitly banned the Tridentine Mass, Latin, Communion Kneeling, Altar Rails, Kneeler, Statues, Ornate Altars, etc. And it did not say that americans must build their parishes in a auditorium style seating and install a rock band! My point here is that I am not attacking Vatican II. I cannot attack Vatican II and still be a catholic. But I can be a little bit on the traditional side and prefer to use those traditions still available to me.

It appears in America that we have seen a dramatic (not really dramatic considering the history of the church) shift in views. We have what I believe is a crisis in faith in America. I am not blaming Communion on the Hand or English on the cause. I am only saying that maybe there was too much change, too quick. Too much unregulated change that allowed Vatican II to be abused. I hear that many catholics were confused and fell away or simply do not believe anymore. That is why we have Catholic Answers today! EWTN has regular shows explaining the faith. The core of Catholicism never changed, but many people think so and fell away. I am merely trying to discern why and do my part to spread the Word and foster a personal relationship with Christ!
I do not believe the early Church lacked a belief in the Real Presence and that the existance of the Eastern Churches wounds the unity of the Universal Church. I was baptize, confirmed and attended the Byz Church before moving away from Birmingham, AL so I certainly do not believe Eastern Churches wound the unity!

Again, I am impressed and humbled…

tpraines,

Thanks for the reply. After this I understand what you meant in your reply that I replied to. While I may not agree fully with what you have said, I do agree somewhat.

For me, tradition is found in union with Rome. To allow the dislike of a change to lead you out of union with Rome is not traditionalism, is if schism.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pbm:

There seems to be two schools of thought on this issue:

Novus Ordo: The pope determines schism and you must accept his decision.

Traditional: Schism has a definition and the pope’s statement can be questioned.

Why do you denote your “two schools of thought” on this matter with the terms “Novus Ordo” and “Traditional”? I know many who attend the Latin Mass who believe that the SSPX are in schism.

The Easter Orthodox Church has been known to be in schism for
many years. It was well established. They did not accept the pope and created a hierarchy of their own. Now that is truly schismatic.

I skiped your diatribe on disagreeing with and questioning the pope as it has no bearing on this matter.

The pope is the final arbiter on canon law. What he says go. You can disagree with it, but that doesn’t change the fact that his word is law in those cases. Just like in the USA. You may disagree with the Supreme Courts ruleings but they are the law. Your disagreement does not change that.

Now on to the Orthodox Schism. No one can be born into schism as stated in the Catechism.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

On the issue of excommunication … Pope John Paul II said
Archbishop Lefevbre “has incurred the grave penalty of excommunication” by his actions. The pope did not say,
“I excommunicate you”.

No need to say it as Lefevbre was excommunited by his action.

Why did A. Lefevbre incur excommunication??

For disobeying the Pope? NO. An archbishop does not
need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops.
This is what canon law says.

An archbishop has every right to consecrate bishops if he thinks
it is a necessary. This is in canon law also.

When saying things are in canon law it would be good to reference them.

Actually it does say that a bishop must have papal approval to ordain a bishop unless there is an emergency. As there was no emergency, Lefevbre’s act was disobedience and incured excommunication.

There was no emergency because the pope had said that he would allow the archbishop to have a bishop but at a later date. Becuase he wanted three, of his choosing, at a sooner date does not constitute an emergency.

The SSPX are in schism as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Only those involved in the schism think otherwise.

 

[Lorarose]

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again.
If you read More Catholic Than The Pope by Patick Madrid, it will clear up any confusion anyone has regarding this matter.

It isn’t about who is a dummy or a liar (or perhaps - full of pride?)
It isn’t about who feels they have a right to question the pope.

It comes down to the authority of the Church and the Canon Law that the priests, bishops, and cardinals must recognize in order to remain inside the Church.
It is very much about the fact that the Pope is the final and supreme interpreter of this law. Not any old bishop who thinks he has different ideas, not Michael Davies, and not Cardinal Hoyos.

This is the “tradition” of the Church…that the pope has final say on interpretation of canon law.
So called “traditionalists” who pretend this is not so are following in the footsteps of Luther.

 

[pbm]

Actually it does say that a bishop must have papal approval to ordain a bishop unless there is an emergency. As there was no emergency, Lefevbre’s act was disobedience and incured excommunication.

There was no emergency because the pope had said that he would allow the archbishop to have a bishop but at a later date. Becuase he wanted three, of his choosing, at a sooner date does not constitute an emergency.

The SSPX are in schism as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Only those involved in the schism think otherwise.

The above is not correct and misleading.

It’s not a question of who thinks SSPX is in schism. It’s a
question of what happened and what does Canon Law say.
Anyone can judge, whether in SSPX or out. And you can
prove that Pope John Paul II was NOT correct.

Archbishop Lefevbre felt that it was a state of emergency.
Whether you thought it was a state of emergency or not has
no bearing. Even if there was no state of emergency or not
has no bearing. But there was certainly a state of emergency.
History proves this, unless you are blind.

The reason the archbishop thought (knew) it was an emergency
is because he had been experiencing Vatican II first hand. Also
seminarians had been coming to him and telling him that the
seminaries were no longer teaching Catholic truths and they
wanted to be taught the truth and tradition.

Archbishop had already objected to the Vatican II idea of
Religious Liberties and another one (I can’t remember).

Stop saying he incurred excommunication for disobedience.
This is a lie. One has to perform an act deserving excommunication. Disobedience alone does not qualify.
He did nothing wrong, except for possible disobedience and he
had a darn good reason for that too. Read the canon laws first, before you say such lies.

This is explained at drbo.org/masses.htm

Also at: http://sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm

I

It is very much about the fact that the Pope is the final and supreme interpreter of this law. Not any old bishop who thinks he has different ideas, not Michael Davies, and not Cardinal Hoyos.

This is the “tradition” of the Church…that the pope has final say on interpretation of canon law.
So called “traditionalists” who pretend this is not so are following in the footsteps of Luther.

The above is just a bunch of baloney. The Pope only makes
infallible statements when speaking on Faith and Morals in a
formal way.

The Pope is not a dictator. The Pope is not the supreme court
of the Catholic Church.

Read the story of St Athanasius !!!

Anyone with a good understanding of the doctrines and laws
of the church can question the Pope.

You people who keep repeating these lies, think the Pope
has some divine powers and is no longer human. As if the
Pope cannot possible make a mistake.

Then why does the Church say that a Pope who preaches
heresey is no longer the pope? If the Pope is incapable of
preaching heresey, then we don’t neet this law.

I guess I’m waisting my time here. I just have to keep repeating
the same thing over and over again.

I’m sure someone will answer my response with the statement:

The pope is the final authority and you have to obey the pope
and Lefevbre was excommunicated, because JP II said so.

Hey, read the canon laws at the above links, before you open
your mouth.

 

[RobNY]

pbm:

It’s not a question of who thinks SSPX is in schism. It’s a
question of what happened and what does Canon Law say.
Anyone can judge, whether in SSPX or out. And you can
prove that Pope John Paul II was NOT correct.

JPII, as the Supreme Legislator and author of the Canon Law, has the prerogative of interpretation of the canon law-- and guess what, he found that Levebvre excommunicated himself by the act.

 

[pbm]

JPII, as the Supreme Legislator and author of the Canon Law, has the prerogative of interpretation of the canon law-- and guess what, he found that Levebvre excommunicated himself by the act.

BS, Not true.

Did you read the Canon Law?
What does it say?

 

[Redbandito]

pbm:

BS, Not true.

Did you read the Canon Law?
What does it say?

The only thing that separates SSPX from Protestants is timing. It’s the same basic deal. You take yourself outside of the Church by being disobedient to it. Say whatever you want there Chief, but the Archbishop went outside of his authority which he was given by Christ THROUGH HIS CHURCH. SSPX is really sad to me. I understand the intent is good. Some say Luther intended good too. That doesn’t mean he went about it the right way. Separating yourself from the Church is just not the way to go. With all the orthodoxy the SSPX claims to hold to over matters such as women’s head dress, it is shocking how little they actually know about Church authority.

 

[RobNY]

pbm:

BS, Not true.

Did you read the Canon Law?
What does it say?

Quoting freely from JKirkLVNV in another thread:

Can. 16 (CCL, 1983): “Leges authentice interpretatur legislator et is cui potestas authentice interpretandi fuerit ab eodem commissa.”

“Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.”

AND

Can. 331 (ibid): “Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopus, in quo permanet munus a Domino singular Petro, primo Apostolorum, concessum et successoribus eius transmittendum. Collegii Episcoporum est caput. Vicarius Christi atque universae Ecclesiae his in terris Pastor;qui ideo vi muneris sui suprema, plena, immediata et universali in Ecclesia gaudet ordinaria potestate, quam semper libere exercere valet.”

"The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office, he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he can always freely exercise."

 

[Redbandito]

That would seem to be the clinching argument there Rob. He asked for the Canon Law, you gave it to him. You think he’ll concede the argument now?

 

[bear06]

pbm:

Here are the arguments claiming SSPX is in schism:

The argument goes like this:

1. Pope John Paul II said SSPX is in schism.
2. Pope John Paul II alone has the authority to declare who is in schism.
3. Catholics cannot doubt the Pope on this matter.

Here are the arguments claiming SSPX is not in schism:

Here is a quote from Cardinal Hoyos made recently:

Here is a quote from Bishop Williamson made recently:

On the Latin Mass, here is another quote by Hoyos:

And quoting Williamson:

Here is another quote on the excommunication of Archbishop Lefevbre:

So the argument boils down to:

The pope said it. You have to believe that SSPX is in schism.

So is Cardinal Hoyos a dummy or a liar ???

Does Bishop Williamson know what he is talking about?
He should know the position of SSPX, for sure.

More later …

Excuse me but I think you missed the whole cannonical study I posted. After this you can revert back to the whole 1,2, 3 argument. JPII didn’t excommincate him out of thin air. Lefebvre blew it (see canonical study you skipped) and then he was excommunicated. Yes, once the excommunication occurs, you must go back to Pastor Aeternus to see who has jurisdiction over this excommunication and it ain’t you.

 

[bear06]

stanley123:

Might we ask who are these people who have set up this site and are so strongly opposed to the SSPX? The site quoted gives an article by a Mr. Pete Vere, and the site itself appears to be run by a Mr. William P. Grossklas, both of whom were themselves members of the SSPX for several years. Why did they join SSPX in the first place and why did they leave? Another site against the SSPX is http://www.sspx-schism.com

Actually, if you go to the Grossklas site it gives the testimonies of both Pete and Bill. It doesn’t have to do with a topless beach.

 

[bear06]

Traditional: Schism has a definition and the pope’s statement can be questioned.

No, I think this is actually a radical traditionalist take on it. Besides that, if you were the poster that Kirk quoted, you don’t have the proper definition of schism. (the one I gave you was actually pre-VII which still holds true today).

I was never taught in Catholic schools that the pope is a dictator
and should never be questioned. History shows that some saints
questioned the pope and openly disagreed with him – St
Athanasius is one. There were others.

You’re making the wrong connection in history. You need to look at the Jansenists. They are more of a parallel to the radical traditionalist than Athanasius.

If the pope can never be questioned the what is faith?
Faith in the pope? No, that is not faith. Faith is belief in the
doctrines of the Catholic church, which never change. Faith
is greater than obedience. Archbishop Lefevbre concecrated
the four bishop because he understood this principle.

Did you even read Pastor Aeternus? That’s a pre-VII document too!

This whole argument boils down to one thing – the “disobedience”
of Archbishop Lefevbre. Because of the “disobedience” he was
said to “have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication”.

Because of excommunication he and his bishops are in schism,
because Pope John Paul II said so.

No, actually they put themselves into schism and JPII excommunicated and declared them to be so.

If you do not question Pope John Paul II you are a wimpy Catholic, a sheep, blindly submitting to the pope.
Look what kind of dilema that creates.

What kind of dilemma does it create. Let’s see, if blindly follow the pope in anything I don’t know to be a sin and it is wrong, the blame is his. If I blindly follow the pope in anything I don’t know to be a sin and he is right then I’m a happy camper. If I don’t follow the pope and he is right I’m in big trouble. I can’t lose blindly following the pope.

The Easter Orthodox Church has been known to be in schism for
many years. It was well established. They did not accept the pope and created a hierarchy of their own. Now that is truly schismatic.

The Jansenists didn’t do that and guess what? They were still wrong.

All the while SSPX is accepting the Pope.

What? How can you be accepting of the pope and be rejecting his authority?

We Catholics certainly have the right to question and even the
duty to question what is going on in our chures. We have a duty to know our Faith !!! Faith is greater than obedience. Read the book by Father Drexel.

Read Pastor Aeternus. I think that trumps Fr. Drexel!

Why did A. Lefevbre incur excommunication??

For disobeying the Pope? NO. An archbishop does not
need the Pope’s permission to consecrate bishops.
This is what canon law says.

Uh, would you like to quote that canon for me? Once again, read the canonical study.

An archbishop has every right to consecrate bishops if he thinks
it is a necessary. This is in canon law also.

Again, can you quote these canons because, as i recall at least with this one there are conditions.

The real argument is whether there was a crisis in the church,
which required the consecration of bishops. JP II did not think
there was a crisis in the Church. A Lefevbre did.

And again, the Pope, per Pastor Aeternus a Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution states that the Pope is the arbiter, not Lefebvre.

No you don’t have to blindly accept the teachings of Vatican II.
You can have a mind of your own. But you have to know the
Faith first.

Last time I checked, it was an ecummenical council.

 

[bear06]

Lorarose:

I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again.
If you read More Catholic Than The Pope by Patick Madrid, it will clear up any confusion anyone has regarding this matter.

It isn’t about who is a dummy or a liar (or perhaps - full of pride?)
It isn’t about who feels they have a right to question the pope.

It comes down to the authority of the Church and the Canon Law that the priests, bishops, and cardinals must recognize in order to remain inside the Church.
It is very much about the fact that the Pope is the final and supreme interpreter of this law. Not any old bishop who thinks he has different ideas, not Michael Davies, and not Cardinal Hoyos.

This is the “tradition” of the Church…that the pope has final say on interpretation of canon law.
So called “traditionalists” who pretend this is not so are following in the footsteps of Luther.

Just so you’re not completely ignored, it was a good book.

BTW, I’ll be gone for a few days. Don’t say anything fun until I get back! Yes, I’m kidding. I know you can’t help yourselves!

 

[bear06]

The above is just a bunch of baloney. The Pope only makes
infallible statements when speaking on Faith and Morals in a
formal way.

Could you please give us a quote on this?

The Pope is not the supreme court
of the Catholic Church.

Again, did you read Pastor Aeternus? Here’s the link again. ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm#6 You’re right. He’s not a court. It’s only him and he’s the “supreme judge”.

Read the story of St Athanasius !!!

Read Church documents!

Anyone with a good understanding of the doctrines and laws
of the church can question the Pope.

You seem to like to talk about canon law and documents and yet never actually quote any. Can you give me quotes?

You people who keep repeating these lies, think the Pope
has some divine powers and is no longer human. As if the
Pope cannot possible make a mistake.

Please, please, please don’t bring up food here. I wish I could remember who used to do that.

Then why does the Church say that a Pope who preaches
heresey is no longer the pope? If the Pope is incapable of
preaching heresey, then we don’t neet this law.

Could you quote the law you are referring to?

I guess I’m waisting my time here

.

You haven’t actually repeated any of the canons or the documents so you still have some uncharted territory!

The pope is the final authority and you have to obey the pope
and Lefevbre was excommunicated, because JP II said so.

I don’t recall anyone saying that he was excommunicated simply because JPII says so. Here’s the link to the canonical study - again! sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

It appears the canons you are talking about are from the article. That said, the one thing the authors of the article fail to tell you is that the pope is the arbiter of necessity. Lefebvre was also warned that this was not a case of necessity. He chose not to obey this determination.

 

[bear06]

pbm:

BS, Not true.

Did you read the Canon Law?
What does it say?

The canon has already been quoted. In addition, this is what Pastor Aeternus, VI Dogmatic Consitution says:

8.Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that **in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment ** [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

How do you spin this?

 

[USMC]

tpraines:

I also think that we decrease the faithful’s belief and acceptance in the Real Presence when we allow communion in the hand!

ByzCath:

How can this be when the Church recognizes the fact that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice of the Church?

Please refer to the document MEMORIALE DOMINI.

In it, it says, “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”

ByzCath,

Did you read Memoriale Domini? In that encyclical the Pope was warning against the dangers of communion in the hand, which is the same thing that tpraines was doing. The quote you provided did not show the context of the encyclical; it fact, it was contrary to the context.

In the quote you provided, the Pope was admitting that communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church, before proceeding to declaring how dangerous it would be to return to that practice.

In fact, the Pope’s warning was much stronger than that of tpraines, who you disagreed with. Among other things, the Pope warned that communion in the hand presented "the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine".

He went so far as to suggest that communion in the hand would lead to “adulteration of doctrine”. Isn’t adulteration of doctrine rampant in the Church today? It appears that the warnings of the Pope regarding the dangers of communion in the hand were accurate.

The following is part of the encyclical, beginning with your quote.

: "It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence…

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose…

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist…

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord…

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

"When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

continue

 

[USMC]

The encyclical is a warning against communion in the hand and the dangers that will result from it.

Unfortunately, at the end of the encyclical, the Pope made, in my opinion, an imprudent move by allowing those diocese that had disobeyed the church teaching regarding communion in the hand (Holland, for example), to continue in that practice. It was this “exception”, allowed by the Pope, that resulted in the entire Catholic world following the example of disobedeince to the Pope and allowing communion in the hand.

The fact of the matter is that communion in the hand is an abuse that was, unfortunately, allowed to continue. It began as an act of disobedience, and spread through out the Church. The warning of the Pope, regarding the danger of communion in the hand, turned out to be extremely accurate.

Tpraines had the insight to see matters just as the Pope did.

 

[Melanie01]

Rand Al'Thor:

Peace be with you!

The pope does not have to be speaking ex cathedra to be right about something. Do you think that the pope doesn’t know Canon Law as well as yourself and Michael Davies? Overseeing the Church is his job. JPII was a scholar as well, meaning that he knew Church doctrine darn well, and was backed in this by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I would venture to say that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger knew Canon Law better than anyone. If they say the SSPX are in schism, then the SSPX are in schism.

Also, one does not have to deny that the pope is the Vicar of Christ to constitute schism. To deny his AUTHORITY, and that of the Magesterium, over the Church is also schism. If someone simply chooses whether to do what they are told by the pope, and by doing so violates Canon Law (and the illicit ordination of bishops is an EXTREME violation), they are excommunicated and therefore in schism.

And the Jews and the Muslims did not at one point accept the authority of the pope, so that is a different issue entirely. The SSPX denies the validity of an INFALLIBLE Church council (VII). No schism there?

In Christ,
Rand

How can a church council be infallible???

 

[thistle]

USMC:

The encyclical is a warning against communion in the hand and the dangers that will result from it.

Unfortunately, at the end of the encyclical, the Pope made, in my opinion, an imprudent move by allowing those diocese that had disobeyed the church teaching regarding communion in the hand (Holland, for example), to continue in that practice. It was this “exception”, allowed by the Pope, that resulted in the entire Catholic world following the example of disobedeince to the Pope and allowing communion in the hand.

The fact of the matter is that communion in the hand is an abuse that was, unfortunately, allowed to continue. It began as an act of disobedience, and spread through out the Church. The warning of the Pope, regarding the danger of communion in the hand, turned out to be extremely accurate.

Tpraines had the insight to see matters just as the Pope did.

Whatever your interpretation may be receiving in the hand is not an act of disobedience, abuse, or innovation.
See GIRM:

161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

 

[USMC]

thistle:

Whatever your interpretation may be receiving in the hand is not an act of disobedience, abuse, or innovation.
See GIRM

Communion in the hand is allowed today; however, the practice emerged in the 1960’s as an abuse against Church teaching.

In the 60’s and for well over 1000 years, communion in the hand was considered a sacrilege. During the 60’s some diocese began to implement this practice - that is, they began to commit was was then considered a sacrilege. The Pope came out with the encyclical addressed above to warn against the dangers of this practice.

Unfortunatley, rather than correcting the abuse of those who committed the sacrilege (remember, at the time communion in the hand was a sacrilege), the Pope allowed them to continue. This resulted in other diocese following the original diocese in disobedience to the Pope. Eventually the entire Church began to implement communion in the hand, in direct oposition to the Pope. Today this abuse is the norm.

That is the way the liberals operate. They commit an abuse. When they are confronted they say to the Holy Father: But your Holiness, it is now the custom in our diocese; we can’t stop it. The Pope then caves in and allows the disobedient to get their way. Seeing this, the other liberal Bishops follow suit. Finally, the “abuse” becomes the norm.

And that is how communion in the hand came about in recent years.