Touching the Host- Sacrilege?

[JKirkLVNV]

## OTOH, can a practice not become a sacrilege, if there is a ruling by an authority in the Church with sufficient competence to legislate on such things, to this effect ? Can’t something be a sacrilege in one part or time of the Church Universal, and not another ?

After all, something can acquire the character of a mortal sin. An example - appealing from the Pope to a General Council is a crime and a sin: and it is both, because that is what particular canons say it is; because a legislator (in this case, the Pope) has ruled that it is.

It used to be a mortal sin to eat certain foods at particular times in the Church’s year - but that has changed. So it was mortally sinful to eat a steak in Lent in 1950 - but not in 2000. Which means there were opportunities for damnation available in 1950, that are available no longer: which does seem pretty odd ##

If that can happen - why can’t something not sacrilegious, acquire a sacrilegious character ?

ISTM that this excessively canonical approach is what one gets if one relies on laws as a motive for Christians to act - a legal approach doesn’t show why what it legislates for is important; it has no ability to emphasise the gracious & mysterious character of revelation in Christ. So it too readily gets worried over trivia. Law needs a sense of proprtion in those who apply it - without that, it becomes tyrannical, or silly, or inhumane. ##

You could substitute “tradition” (with a small t) for “laws” in the above and it would be equally true.

I doubt the Church could officially say that reception in the hand was a sacriledge, simply because there is an precedent for it. She may deem it inadviseable, or prohibit it for a time, but she normally doesn’t anathematize entirely what that for which there is a precedent (hence, people who persist in kneeling during communion cannot be denied It, though they are encouraged to stand).

 

[kleary]

I was taught in Catholic School mind you back in the late 70’s that it is sacreligious for anyone’s hands but the consecrated hands of the priest to touch the Sacred Host.

I was also taught that the priest’s hands were annointed for the purpose of touching the Sacred Host.

Then when they introduced Communion in the hand the liberals said that “This is done to express our own priesthood of the laity”.

Ken

 

[thistle]

kleary:

I was taught in Catholic School mind you back in the late 70’s that it is sacreligious for anyone’s hands but the consecrated hands of the priest to touch the Sacred Host.

I was also taught that the priest’s hands were annointed for the purpose of touching the Sacred Host.

Then when they introduced Communion in the hand the liberals said that “This is done to express our own priesthood of the laity”.

Ken

You could be right because the Second Vatican Council in its document the Dogma Constitution on the Church taught that the baptised are consecrated as the “common priesthood of the faithful”. This differs from the ordained priesthood, but is a real participation in Christ’s priesthood. According to the Council, the faithful exercise their priesthood by joining in the offering of the Mass and sacraments, by prayer, and by the witness of a holy life.
It means that Catholics come to Mass not just as spectators but as people who offer their lives with Christ to God.

 

[Petergee]

Gottle of Geer:

It used to be a mortal sin to eat certain foods at particular times in the Church’s year - but that has changed. So it was mortally sinful to eat a steak in Lent in 1950

No it wasn’t. I can’t think of any circumstance in which eating meat on a day of abstinence would of itself be enough to damn a person. I remember a preist telling of a lady (pre V2) who confessed to him that she had taken a bite of a meat sandwich but then suddenly remembered it was Friday so she threw the rest away. He told her “your waste of food was a worse sin than eating the meat would have been”.

Which means there were opportunities for damnation available in 1950, that are available no longer: which does seem pretty odd

Not at all. Every age has plenty of opportunities for damnation. You could damn yourself today by murdering thousands of people with the press of a button, which opportunity wasn’t available before.

 

[SnorterLuster]

Petergee:

Not at all. Every age has plenty of opportunities for damnation. You could damn yourself today by murdering thousands of people with the press of a button, which opportunity wasn’t available before.

Just a small point, one murder will get you to hell just as thousands will. Same crime, same damnation.

Maybe a better example would be pornography, which is MUCH more available than it was in previous times.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Gottle of Geer:

ISTM that this excessively canonical approach is what one gets if one relies on laws as a motive for Christians to act - a legal approach doesn’t show why what it legislates for is important; it has no ability to emphasise the gracious & mysterious character of revelation in Christ. So it too readily gets worried over trivia. Law needs a sense of proprtion in those who apply it - without that, it becomes tyrannical, or silly, or inhumane.

Well said, Michael!

The less people know about the law, the more inclined they are to use it as a weapon when it is intended to be a safeguard and a tool rather than an end in itself. Or at the least, the well intentioned but overly zealous or inappropriately scrupulous get fixated on straining the gnat while swallowing the camel. Those who discount it run the risk of losing sight of the principles and values behind the law and falling into an idiosyncratic approach to lots of things. Both ends of the spectrum are dangerous.

The proper use and interpretation of law presumes that whole context you mention and more, since the ultimate law of the Church is the salvation of souls, and the law is not intended to replace charity or mercy. It is only a servant that reflects the Church’s self understanding of its identity and mission, tries to clarify rights and duties that persons have, and to protect certain central values of the Catholic faith. By these means, the legislator intends to promote those conditions which foster growth in our communal and individual lives in Christ. Detached from that kind of communion, the law has little value.

I should note though, that law is concerned with the external forum rather than the internal forum, i.e. that of conscience.

Canon law does not address the sinfulness of a recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops (c. 1372). Neither the present nor the former law spoke of sin in regard to abstinence. In any proper discussion of the law, what needs to be discussed in both cases is to surface the values behind the law: either the unique role of Petrine ministry in maintaining the communion of the Church or the divine precept to do penance. That takes us away from minutiae to the momumental.

 

[thistle]

Petergee:

No it wasn’t. **I can’t think of any circumstance in which eating meat on a day of abstinence would of itself be enough to damn a ** person. I remember a preist telling of a lady (pre V2) who confessed to him that she had taken a bite of a meat sandwich but then suddenly remembered it was Friday so she threw the rest away. He told her “your waste of food was a worse sin than eating the meat would have been”. Not at all. Every age has plenty of opportunities for damnation. You could damn yourself today by murdering thousands of people with the press of a button, which opportunity wasn’t available before.

Its my understanding that intentional failure to fast or abstain on appointed days is a mortal sin (Third Commandment).

 

[paramedicgirl]

thistle:

Its my understanding that intentional failure to fast or abstain on appointed days is a mortal sin (Third Commandment).

The commandment to fast is the second commandment of the Church, and the rationale is so we can control the desires of the flesh, raise our minds more freely to God, and make satisfaction for our sins. Disobedience to the Church is disobedience to God, who gave the Church the power to enforce the Commandments of the Church. Whether it’s a mortal sin or not, though, to break this commandment to fast would be something to discuss with a priest.

 

[MarthaMartha]

SnorterLuster:

According to the Felician Sisters who taught at my grade school in the 1950’s and 1960’s, it is a sacrilege. The lesson was often reinforced to us by our parish priest.

Even as late as 1976, the Carmelite priests that my wife took instructions from considered it a sacrilege for unconsecrated hands to touch the Host. They were adamant that communion in the hand was a horrible abuse that would soon be set right by the Holy Father. Little did they know.

When I was a kid in the '60s, I remember our priest accidentally dropped a communion wafer. He wouldn’t retrieve it from the floor with his bare hands, so he sent an altar boy to get a cloth with which to pick it up. While he was waiting for the altar boy, the erstwhile communicant stooped, picked the wafer up himself in his fingers, and handed it to Father – who almost had a heart attack on the spot.

 

[otm]

## OTOH, can a practice not become a sacrilege, if there is a ruling by an authority in the Church with sufficient competence to legislate on such things, to this effect ? Can’t something be a sacrilege in one part or time of the Church Universal, and not another ?

After all, something can acquire the character of a mortal sin. An example - appealing from the Pope to a General Council is a crime and a sin: and it is both, because that is what particular canons say it is; because a legislator (in this case, the Pope) has ruled that it is.

It used to be a mortal sin to eat certain foods at particular times in the Church’s year - but that has changed. So it was mortally sinful to eat a steak in Lent in 1950 - but not in 2000. Which means there were opportunities for damnation available in 1950, that are available no longer: which does seem pretty odd ##

If that can happen - why can’t something not sacrilegious, acquire a sacrilegious character ?

ISTM that this excessively canonical approach is what one gets if one relies on laws as a motive for Christians to act - a legal approach doesn’t show why what it legislates for is important; it has no ability to emphasise the gracious & mysterious character of revelation in Christ. So it too readily gets worried over trivia. Law needs a sense of proprtion in those who apply it - without that, it becomes tyrannical, or silly, or inhumane. ##

Well, the issue of eating meat was not the eating of the meat itself, but the disobedience to the Church as lawful authority to bind us under pain of sin to not eat it.

It is possible that at some time there was a canonical rule that one could not touch the Host under pain of sin, but I do not know of any such rule. The issue there would be, again, an issue of disobedience, not of sacrilege, as sacrilege is an act with the intent of dishonoring either the person, place or thing.

 

[paramedicgirl]

otm:

Well, the issue of eating meat was not the eating of the meat itself, but the disobedience to the Church as lawful authority to bind us under pain of sin to not eat it.

It is possible that at some time there was a canonical rule that one could not touch the Host under pain of sin, but I do not know of any such rule. The issue there would be, again, an issue of disobedience, not of sacrilege, as sacrilege is an act with the intent of dishonoring either the person, place or thing.

That is exactly what I was wondering when I posted this thread. There has been lots of statements that priests and nuns considered it such, but where was it ever written? I was also always under the impression that it used to be a sacrilege. Were we misinformed?

 

[otm]

kleary:

I was taught in Catholic School mind you back in the late 70’s that it is sacreligious for anyone’s hands but the consecrated hands of the priest to touch the Sacred Host.

I was also taught that the priest’s hands were annointed for the purpose of touching the Sacred Host.

Then when they introduced Communion in the hand the liberals said that “This is done to express our own priesthood of the laity”.

Ken

The difficulty is that the subject matter was being taught to children, often by teachers who were not necessarily overly well educated in all of the points of the Church. They meant well, but if asked to provide the source of their information that they taught, they would not have an official source to drect the questioner to.

There was a degree of disagreement as to exactly what constituted ordination; some held that the blessing of the priest’s hands was either the conferring of the sacrament, or inherent to it. That was subsequently resolved when Rome defined it as the laying on of hands (on the head). So the issue was not exactly right or wrong, as it had not been difinitively decided.

I am not sure if the priest’s hands are still anointed; I don’t believe they are; and I seem to recall that the hands were bound together either before, or just after anointing them; I do not recall seeing that at the last ordination I attended.

As to your last statement about why we receive Communion in the hands, I suspect that also could not be sourced to anything official. We have returned to allowing Communion in the hand as it was practiced in the Church for many centuries, both because of the practice itself and what it symbolizes; being fed as Christ fed His apostles.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

otm:

The difficulty is that the subject matter was being taught to children, often by teachers who were not necessarily overly well educated in all of the points of the Church. They meant well, but if asked to provide the source of their information that they taught, they would not have an official source to drect the questioner to.
.

I once had a friend who said the nuns told her that French kissing would make you pregnant. Not “can lead to pregnancy” (which would be a defensible position if you looked at it objectively), but “***will ***make you pregnant.”

 

[paramedicgirl]

JKirkLVNV:

I once had a friend who said the nuns told her that French kissing would make you pregnant. Not “can lead to pregnancy” (which would be a defensible position if you looked at it objectively), but “***will ***make you pregnant.”

Now* that * sounds like a scare tactic!