St. Catherine of Siena quote source?

[itsjustdave1988]

---

We went off on an tangent of communion in the hand—when I responded to JKirk.

I see that using the “early Church” continues. Kinda makes me wonder who you have been hanging around with.

Ps. This is my last post dealing with communion–since we have already been adviced to take it to the other thread.

Of course I study and follow the early Church…ya see Jesus and the apostles were among the early Church, as were many saints and martyrs. The early Church is were we find the Tradition made explicit as adversarial claims arose. Yet, I don’t see any early Church objections to St. Chrysostom’s Catechectical Lectures. Furthermore, the Holy See cited this source when approving communion in the hand. So I see how “early Church” and current Church are ONE and the same Holy Church.

 

[Walking_Home]

Of course I study and follow the early Church…ya see Jesus and the apostles were among the early Church, as were many saints and martyrs. The early Church is were we find the Tradition made explicit as adversarial claims arose. Yet, I don’t see any early Church objections to St. Chrysostom’s Catechectical Lectures. Furthermore, the Holy See cited this source when approving communion in the hand. So I see how “early Church” and current Church are ONE and the same Holy Church.

---

If as you say the Holy See sited the source—how else would he have justified approval for an act that gained life and grew thru disobedience. What the Holy See in assence did—was undermine his own authority. He justified the tool thru which to this day undermines the authority of the papacy. All the bishops have had to do–is introduce an innovation—get the people used to it—and use the people to manipulate Rome.

 

[TNT]

The larger overarching question should be:
Does a Eucharistic practice increase Eucharistic devotion and faith in the Real Presence?

 

[TNT]

The Chiurch Fathers should certainly be witnesses for what the Early Church BELIEVED. They are not however, the last or highest word on the best liturgical PRACTICES of the Catholic Church either then or now.
Here are the higher authorities that give the decisions as well as the reasons:

PIUS XII: Mediator Dei, 1947:The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity. More recent liturgical rites are also worthy of reverence and respect, because they too have been introduced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is with the Church in all ages even to the consummation of the world . . .the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from the liturgical colours, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches . . . This attitude is an attempt to revive the ‘archaeologism’ to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of ‘the deposit of faith’ entrusted to her by her Divine Founder has rightly condemned.

Pope Paul VI: Holy Communion received on the tongue “signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist … provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence…is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility… It [Communion in the hand] 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.” (in his instruction Memoriale Domini, May 29, 1969)

---

Studied Educators:

**Dietrich von Hildebrand: There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular… Why—for God’s sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it." (article entitled “Communion in the Hand should be Rejected,” November 8, 1973. **

**
Fr. John Hardon, S.J.: "Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence… Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”(November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference, Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.)

**

 

[BobP123]

The larger overarching question should be:
Does a Eucharistic practice increase Eucharistic devotion and faith in the Real Presence?

Does almost losing the faith completely count?

 

[TNT]

For anyone bent on abusing or disgracing the elements, it is not determined by how that element is received. So it’s no argument for or against the method of reception. It’s nothing more than an emotional plea.
IMHO, the NOM should receive any way they want to.
At least half (including the presider) don’t believe it’s the Real Presence defined by Transubstantiation anyway.
And I tend to agree with them.

In the TLM, receipt on the tongue is part of that liturgy and that’s it. They do this practice BECAUSE they believe, not necessarily because it encourages them to believe, except for edifying their offspring or converts. They do outwardly what they already believe inwardly. On the tongue is their way of best expressing that belief.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.