What did St. Cyril mean by this quote

[CatholicOf94]

“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.”

I think it is because of this quote many Parishes now condone Communion in the Hand. I do not believe in communion in the hand, so why did he say this. Was it literally? Symbolically? What did he mean by this quote.?

 

[Ockham]

This is the one quote used by some to justify CITH. Compare it those against it:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

Also, here is a video on the topic: gloria.tv/?media=54586

 

[CatholicOf94]

This is the one quote used by some to justify CITH. Compare it those against it:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

Also, here is a video on the topic: gloria.tv/?media=54586

EXACTLY!!! I seriously do not know why he said this
There are more Saints in the Catholic Church who warn us and told us the we MUST receive the sacred species on our TOUNGE! It is common sense when you think about it.

 

[puzzleannie]

“Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body.”

I think it is because of this quote many Parishes now condone Communion in the Hand. I do not believe in communion in the hand, so why did he say this. Was it literally? Symbolically? What did he mean by this quote.?

if means literally that in his time and place reception of communion in the hand was the accepted practice and he is fullfilling his pastoral duty in instructing the faithful in the proper way to do this. Too bad in too many areas where this is accepted practice today, similar instruction has not been carried out.

What are the date, place and context of the quote? that will answer your question

with respect that advice also applies to all of the great quotes offered above. some are speaking specifically of self-communication, not of reception from the ordained minister of the host in the hand. context, context, context. Until the indult to do so is universally removed (too bad they have left it so late) and wouldn’t introduction of the missal revisions be a great time for this, since there is catechesis going on, it is permitted where it is permitted.

of course, this is not the practice in parishes with TLM or EF, so this discussion properly belongs on liturgy and sacraments.

 

[Ockham]

of course, this is not the practice in parishes with TLM or EF, so this discussion properly belongs on liturgy and sacraments.

It gets locked there.

 

[puzzleannie]

It gets locked there.

now why would that be, could it be because it is a banned topic, setting the hostility meter to find out how quickly this thread degenerates to name-calling and attacks on dead popes, the norm for this forum

 

[Ockham]

now why would that be, could it be because it is a banned topic, setting the hostility meter to find out how quickly this thread degenerates to name-calling and attacks on dead popes, the norm for this forum

I’m not sure why it is banned there but it is unfortunate as many people when presented with the facts quickly see the truth. The conspiracy theorist in me thinks the Progressives don’t want the truth to get out there so they get these threads locked by instigating hostility.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

I am very curious about this quote and attribution.

Can anyone show us where the Council of Trent said this?

VC

 

[Ockham]

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist
It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands.

The Laity Prohibited To Touch The Sacred Vessels
To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion.

Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer or receive the Eucharist.

catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I am very curious about this quote and attribution.

Can anyone show us where the Council of Trent said this?

VC

Despite the quotation marks, this doesn’t seem to be an actual quote. In fairness, Trent did say something *sort of *similar, but if you look at the context, you’ll see that it isn’t really on-point. The critical text is from Session 13:

“Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.”

As you may know, after stating the Faith affirmatively, the Council then proceeded to condemn specific errors. The errors condemned help us to understand what is meant by the affirmative statements. In this case, the language above corresponds to “CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.” So the Apostolic Tradition being preserved is that the celebrating preist can communicate himself – *that *was what was being attacked.

There’s **nothing **in the session about the priest’s “consecrated hands.” That’s where the “quotation” goes from a bad paraphrasing to some thing more troubling. I’ll stop short of saying that the person who originated the quote was lying (not Ockham, mind you), but the whole list of quotes is pretty suspect.

To take another example,it quotes Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11 for the proposition that “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” In fact, this is only half the sentence, and the rest of the paragraph undermines it being used to suggest that only the ordained may touch the Host or distribute Eucharist:

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

So what’s being addressed is **distribution **of the Eucharist, not reception. But besides that, Dominicae Cenae allows this, at the Church’s discretion, to be extended to acolyes and other lay people. Now, Dominicae Cenae does deal with reception in the hand, in the very section being quoted from (section 11), but the list of quotations ignores, apparently intentionally, what is said:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

So what the encyclical actually says is that Communion in the hand is valid (with an indult, which the US has), and that it’s possible to receive the Lord Jesus in the hand “with profound reverence and devotion,” although we should guard against abuses.

Personally, I don’t receive in the hand, and I think that for a lot of reasons, that preference can be defended as more respectful (although I agree with Pope John Paul II that many who commune with reception by hand do so with the utmost reverence). But I’m very troubled at the notion of supporting the concept with a list of dubious quotes: particularly since I’ve seen that done so poorly in assaults upon our Faith.

 

[Ockham]

The source I posted should clean itself but it’s quite handy (no pun intended) for this topic. The Council of Trent clearly taught against CITH as did the Magisterium for centuries. There is no historical or doctrinal evidence I know of to support CITH other than rebelliousness and disbelief in the Real Presence (Luther).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

But I’m very troubled at the notion of supporting the concept with a list of dubious quotes: particularly since I’ve seen that done so poorly in assaults upon our Faith.

Yes, I agree. I think it is very problematic. It is one thing to quote-mine, and another to take quotes out of context, and another to selectively quote in order to make a point . . but then it is quite another thing altogether to make up quotes out of whole cloth!

That Trent quote should be excised from the list post-haste in my opinion.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate . . .%between%

Ockham,

I think you are aware, but I’ll point it out anyway, that these quotes are taken from the Roman Catechism and not the Council of Trent.

I was wondering about the quote from the Council of Trent.

VC

 

[Ockham]

Thanks for the catch, actually I thought it was the Catechism of Trent.

Anyway, the bottom line is the Church has taught for centuries that CITH is wrong. It is only permitted today by indult as a result of rebelliousness. The proper manner for receiving Holy Communion is on the tongue while kneeling.

I haven’t researched it but I have seen other people disputing the St Cyril quote’s authenticity.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

The source I posted should clean itself but it’s quite handy (no pun intended) for this topic. The Council of Trent clearly taught against CITH as did the Magisterium for centuries. There is no historical or doctrinal evidence I know of to support CITH other than rebelliousness and disbelief in the Real Presence (Luther).

Here’s why I’m hestitant about how you’re presenting this. While I prefer reception on the tongue, to say that Communion in the hand is against Apostolic Tradition, against the doctrines articulated by the Council of Trent, and against centuries of Magisterial teaching suggests that on an issue of faith and morals, the Catholic Church now teaches incorrectly. It doesn’t matter what the issue is, or how dearly held. If the Catholic Church teaches error on any issue of Faith and Morals, She’s not the True Church.

I also don’t think that the evidence supports that radical of a conclusion. Trent never “clearly taught against CITH,” because CITH wasn’t one of the errors (or possible errors) which it was dealing with. Applying language used to address a specific heresy (in this case, the heresy that priests couldn’t self-commune – which is more than receiving in the hand) to a situation which wasn’t being addressed can be pretty dangerous. In the early Church, for example, a lot of the language affirming the dual nature of Christ was taken by the Nestorians as support of dyophysitism, as they ignored or misunderstood the distinction between Christ having two natures yet only one substance. So just because Trent condemned one error (that priest’s can’t self-commune) it doesn’t mean that they taught that only priests can receive in the hand. There just doesn’t seem to be any language which goes so far.

Far better to say that it is an ancient and venerable custom within the Church to receive on the tongue under ordinary circumstances (since the early Church allowed Communion in the hand under extraordinary circumstances), and that this custom had strong practical benefits and reflected a healthy theology. This is more in keeping with the evidence, and doesn’t reject the modern Church as teaching heresy.

 

[CatholicOf94]

if means literally that in his time and place reception of communion in the hand was the accepted practice and he is fullfilling his pastoral duty in instructing the faithful in the proper way to do this. Too bad in too many areas where this is accepted practice today, similar instruction has not been carried out.

What are the date, place and context of the quote? that will answer your question

with respect that advice also applies to all of the great quotes offered above. some are speaking specifically of self-communication, not of reception from the ordained minister of the host in the hand. context, context, context. Until the indult to do so is universally removed (too bad they have left it so late) and wouldn’t introduction of the missal revisions be a great time for this, since there is catechesis going on, it is permitted where it is permitted.

of course, this is not the practice in parishes with TLM or EF, so this discussion properly belongs on liturgy and sacraments.

Well this is indeed strange. St. Cyril of Jerusalem was born around 313 Ad, and died in 386 AD.

And during his lifetime Popes and great Saints have denounced this practice.

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

These three great saints and this very council condemned it.

Here a Link that gives some insights on this quote.–>>wf-f.org/StCyril.html

 

[Ockham]

Good point Belloc and I will find a more accurate source. That one is easy to find which is why I use it. The Church does not teach CITH it is only permitted by indult with conditions. Unfortunately I rarely see anyone conforming to the conditions. Do you dispute the other quotes in that post?

 

[Anna_jane]

Did we ever find out the source of the St Cyril quote? I’m presuming this is St Cyril of Alexandria, by the way?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks for the catch, actually I thought it was the Catechism of Trent.

I apologize, because I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. The Roman Catechism is the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

What I meant to convey was that it was the catechism that came from Trent and not quotes from the Council of Trent itself.

God bless,
VC

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Good point Belloc and I will find a more accurate source. That one is easy to find which is why I use it. The Church does not teach CITH it is only permitted by indult with conditions. Unfortunately I rarely see anyone conforming to the conditions. Do you dispute the other quotes in that post?

To be honest, I stopped after researching the two big ones, JPII and Trent (since they struck me as wrong when I first read them). Given that they’re 0 for 2 so far, I figured I’d take more of an “I’ll believe it when I see it” approach to the validity of the other quotes, But since you asked, I checked it out, and here’s what I found:

Good Quotes
It seems that the Synod of Rouen quote is accurate. The specific abuse there was pretty shocking: priests would consecrate the Eucharist, and then would “hand over the chalice of the Lord to women who have made offerings for their Masses, or to some lay persons who cannot discern the Body of the Lord.” So we’re talking about something more like “priestess” than “Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.” Still, the Synod concluded that “A priest should not put the holy Eucharist into the hands of any lay person or woman, but only into their mouths.” That quote, incidientally, is supported by this pro-women’s ordination site (womenpriests.org/traditio/can_rou.asp), and it’s hard to imagine them making up a quote which disproved their legitimacy so thoroughly, so I’ll buy it.

Bad Quotes
The quotation to *Inaestimabile Donum *is incredibly misleading. Again it cuts a sentence in half and removes context. What follows is all of sections 9-10. I’ve underlined the part which they cited to:

1. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.
2. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long.(20) Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave the task to the laity.

So citing to this for the proposition that the laity aren’t allowed to touch the Eucharist is dishonest: section 10 immediately proceeds to describe specific circumstances in which they can not only pick up the Host, but act as EMHC. What was being barred in section 9is some sort of insane everyone gives the Host to the next person disgrace, not CITH.

Irrelevant Quotes
The third group of cases are ones which seem to not prove the point, even if true. For example, I’m assuming the citation to Pope Paul VI is accurate, yet he’s not calling for exclusive Communion on the tongue, as his pontificate made clear. He’s just saying that the practice of Communion on the tongue must be retained… and it has been.

Non-Quotes
Besides that, most of the “quotes” in that post aren’t quotes: they’re claims about the teaching of individual saints. For example:

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

It would be virtually impossible to disprove this, since it would require proving a universal negative (unless, of course, I found some unambiguous evidence that he permitted CITH).