The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

[CathBoy1]

Again, though, communion in the hand is not a new practice.

I am not contesting that.

Communion on the tongue is actually the newcomer to the party.

Not 100% accurate.

CITH was re-established as a valid practice in the Church, not newly declared.

Yes under certain guidelines that were not met in the USA, a fact that you wish to ignore.

Has anyone posted the specific citations on CITH “must have been in wide practice at that time,”

You are more than free to read the document (Memoriale Domini) for yourself:

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

From the document:

If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.

In these cases, moreover, in order to govern this usage properly, the episcopal conferences should undertake the appropriate deliberations after prudent study; the decision is to be made by a two-thirds majority by secret ballot.

and absentee votes being illegal?

As for the absentee votes being illegal take a look at what a Canon lawyer had to say about it:

Canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz, has stated that obtaining votes from absent bishops absolutely invalidates the petition for an indult, making the indult non-void.

Furthermore a 2/3 majority is also needed to elect a new Pope, absentee votes (not present, retired, etc.) aren’t counted there either.
It’s pretty obvious that absentee votes aren’t counted as legal within the Church.

 

[puer.dei]

As for the absentee votes being illegal take a look at what a Canon lawyer had to say about it:

Canon lawyer, Fr. Kunz, has stated that obtaining votes from absent bishops absolutely invalidates the petition for an indult, making the indult non-void.

Furthermore a 2/3 majority is also needed to elect a new Pope, absentee votes (not present, retired, etc.) aren’t counted there either.
It’s pretty obvious that absentee votes aren’t counted as legal within the Church.

Granting an indult is not a papal conclave. What I’m asking for is the actual citation, not one person’s opinion. Is there a citation, or no?

 

[CathBoy1]

Granting an indult is not a papal conclave. What I’m asking for is the actual citation, not one person’s opinion. Is there a citation, or no?

None that I’m aware of, but it’s not simply a persons opinion it is the opinion of a canon lawyer…

… however if you are OK with the shady practices of Bishop Joseph Bernadin soliciting absentee votes to beef up the numbers so that he may pass his agenda, which was voted down three previous times, well then good for you…

…as for me I’ll stick with what the canon lawyers have to say.

Furthermore that still does not address the issue of it not being a wide practice within the United States at the time.

 

[puer.dei]

You are more than free to read the document (Memoriale Domini) for yourself:

A very interesting document, to be sure.
“The documents of history demonstrate that the ways of celebrating and receiving the holy Eucharist have been diverse. Even in our time many and important ritual changes have been introduced into the celebration of the Eucharist in order to bring it into accord with the spiritual and psychological needs of men today.”
Doesn’t seem to support the “anything but CITH is sacrilege” argument.

" If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place"
It says “has already developed,” not “must have been in wide practice at that time.”

“The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the entire Church, in order to promote the common good and edification and the increase of faith and piety which flow from mutual good example.”
Is the claim that the Holy See did not do this?

 

[puer.dei]

…as for me I’ll stick with what the canon lawyers have to say.

That’s fine. I’ll stick with what the Church says. And Holy Mother Church says that communion in the hand is a valid way to receive.

… however if you are OK with the shady practices of Bishop Joseph Bernadin soliciting absentee votes

Apparently the Vatican didn’t consider it “shady.”

 

[CathBoy1]

And Holy Mother Church says that communion in the hand is a valid way to receive.

And I never once said it wasn’t, I was merely pointing out that the way in which the indult was obtained for the USA was not up to par with the guidelines set forth for it…

…Bishop Bernardin circumvented the guidelines to achieve his goal, you seem to be ok with that, others may too…

…however I am not, and plenty of others aren’t either, that doesn’t mean that I’m saying CitH is invalid.

Apparently the Vatican didn’t consider it “shady.”

Because bishop Bernardin circumvented the guidelines (counting votes of elderly retired bishops on their deathbed, seems pretty shady to me) to achieve his goal and “beat the system” by getting his way, you think that makes it alright, A-OK, perfectly fine because he got away with it…

…there are those of us, myself included, that expect more of our priests and bishops, rather than to fall into such low, taboo practices…

…and thank the Lord the good and holy priests and bishops far outweigh the bad.

 

[pnewton]

Am I the only one that thinks this thread should be done with a tin foil hat?

In my experience, any article, book, or theory that starts out with the “true story” isn’t.

 

[otjm]

Absentee votes are illegal

Source, please from Canon law.

And in a subsequent post, you go from illegal, to “shady” should I presume you have no reference to Canon law and are backing down your first statement?

 

[otjm]

Am I the only one that thinks this thread should be done with a tin foil hat?

No, you are most definitely not alone.

 

[CradleRC58]

 

[otjm]

None that I’m aware of, but it’s not simply a persons opinion it is the opinion of a canon lawyer…

And that Canon lawyer gained absolutely zero traction for his opinion.

I hve no knowledge of him or his practice in Canon law. I do recall, however, another Canon lawyer, on a different topic. It happened to be a rather well known one, and the topic had to do with continence in a marriage by a deacon. The Canon lawyer was fairly insistent in a public discourse that deacons had to be continent; and finally, Rome waded in. Their response can be reduced to one word: “Nope.”

Or if one wants to add a bit of flourish to the response: “Nope. You are wrong.”

Unless and until Rome acknowledges a Canon lawyer’s opinion or it is presented in an ecclesiastical court and approved, it is just that - an opinion. And given Rome’s response (crickets) and other Canon lawyers’ agreement (apparently "crickets) and no ecclesial court ruling or response from Rome, that priest’s opinion is just exactly that - an opinion, upon which no one else in any aspect of authority or law has agreed.

…as for me I’ll stick with what the canon lawyers have to say.

So far you have onlyl shown one opinion which appears to have absolutely zero backing - now you are shifting to plural - lawyers - please reference them. Otherwise, you, like the Canon lawyer you cited, have an opinion, shared only by some of those who do not like CITH.

 

[Montrose]

Am I missing something?? What does absentee voting have to do with Communion in the hand??

 

[CathBoy1]

You must be missing something, if you wish to discuss it I recommend that you read posts spread earlier throughout this thread.

 

[otjm]

One of my favorite Cardinals. Also very interesting as to how he handled the question, e.g. of altar rails. Given they were removed in the 1970’s it is approaching 50 years after that was done; and we now have 5 Popes who have chosen to not address the issue, it remains.

The rest of his comments are fascinating, as he does speak in absolutes.

 

[OraLabora]

Why do liberal Catholics come to this traditional part of the forum
to rant and rave? Obsessed much?

Well, how would you describe a Catholic who receives in the hand by preference and believes it more reverent to do so, but attends an OF Mass with Latin/Greek Propers and Ordinary and French plain-chant for the rest? And who chants the post-Conciliar Liturgy of the Hours in Gregorian chant daily? And who is a chorister in a Gregorian chant schola that sings only at the OF?

The « Traditional Catholicism » forum, it was made plain many years ago, is not restricted to those who self-identify as « traditionalist » by simply rejecting anything that evolved from Vatican II.

It is meant as a place to discuss all traditions and Traditions of the Church, including things such as applying the rich patrimony of Gregorian chant to the modern liturgy.

It was not intended as strictly a self-congratulatory forum for EF and CoTT fans.

 

[otjm]

And again you have shown nothing other than your opinion, continue in your ignorance and have a nice day.

Actually, my opinions have been very well backed. You are playing pick and choose to support what you want. You just keep shifting away from my challenges and moving the target around.

'“My opinion” on Communion in the Hand is that of the Church - it is allowed, and you have shown a lack of knowledge of liturgical law, attempting to say that it was never to be granted except under the circumstances you cite, without understanding that the Church is not bound by the way you want the Church bound - it has given permission for CITH and that permission has been given by one Pope and not revoked by the next 4, contrary to your reading of how and to whom it was to be granted.

I don’t need to have an opinion - the Church has granted CITH and you are simply wrong; using an ad hominem attack on me as ignorant speaks for itself.

 

[pnewton]

From the speech, “Are the soldiers? Where is freedom?”

Advice for all who want to control what their fellow Catholics do.

 

[Montrose]

You must be missing something, if you wish to discuss it I recommend that you read posts spread earlier throughout this thread.

Very charitable!

 

[CathBoy1]

Very charitable!

Sorry, but I’ve had to repeat myself & repost multiple times throughout this thread.

Actually, my opinions have been very well backed.

No not really, your opinions are your opinions, I have gave you my opinions and others opinions and Canon lawyers opinions but you disregard all of that because you do not like what those opinions are.

You are playing pick and choose to support what you want.

Not really, I have provided you with quotes from Saints (would you either choose to ignore or decide to say I’m taking those quotes out of context, ok) I’ve provided you with documents from the Church stating what I am telling you, if you wish to refuse to believe it even with solid evidence presented to you that is your prerogative.

'“My opinion” on Communion in the Hand is that of the Church - it is allowed

And I haven’t disagreed with that I have said that it is allowed and valid.

How it became permitted in different parts of the world is an entirely different matter, and that is all I was talking about.

attempting to say that it was never to be granted

I never once said it wasn’t granted, you are putting words in my mouth, I said it was granted under false pretenses which I think I have well proven that it was, YMMV.

the Church has granted CITH

And again I haven’t once said that it wasn’t granted.

and you are simply wrong

Again you accuse me of saying things that I didn’t say and then tell me that I am wrong, you’re playing a childish game of “ I’m right you’re wrong lotta data dada“.

using an ad hominem attack on me as ignorant speaks for itself.

Wasn’t meant as an attack, also I think that you trying to put words in my mouth over and over again speaks to your character.

Look friend we’re not gonna see eye to eye this…

…but don’t put words in my mouth and don’t accuse me of saying things that I have not said…

…I spoke about how the indult was granted under false pretenses…

…I never once said that it wasn’t granted and I never once said that it wasn’t valid, perhaps you should reread my posts carefully.

With all that said I don’t think we’re going to get any further with this discussion so unless you have something to add I will say peace be with you friend.

 

[CathBoy1]

Very charitable!

To elaborate:

Absentee votes were illegally counted to obtain the indult (exception) to allow for communion on the hand in the USA.
That doesn’t even account for the fact that, according to the guidelines drawn up for allowance of it, one of the requirements was that it must be in (wide) practice in that area (USA) at that time (1969).

The indult was indeed granted, so I am not arguing against communion in the hand being valid…

…I am simply pointing out that the indult shouldn’t have been granted in the USA, according to the guidelines that were drawn up for allowing the indult.

So it’s a discussion of what should and shouldn’t be allowed and what actually was allowed, which are obviously two different things.

If you would like to study the topic for yourself, there are links earlier in this thread, again it was indeed uncharitable of me and I do apologize for being short with you earlier, it is just that I have had to repeat this quite a few times throughout this thread.