What did St. Cyril mean by this quote

[Ockham]

Nor should we forget that in ancient times the faithful, harassed by the violence of persecution or living in solitude out of love for monastic life nourished themselves even daily, receiving Holy Communion by their own hands when the priest or deacon was absent.65

We say this not in order that there may be some change in the way of keeping the Eucharist and of receiving Holy Communion which was later on prescribed by Church laws and which now remain in force, but rather that we may rejoice over the faith of the Church which is always one and the same.

Mysterium Fidei (Mystery of Faith)
Pope Paul VI​

Encyclical Letter of His Holiness promulgated on 3 September 1965.
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6MYSTER.HTM

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship​

Issued on May 29, 1969.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[Ockham]

In the U.S. the bishops didn’t directly rule against kneeling for reception of Holy Communion, but didn’t seem to like it:

“The norm for the reception of communion is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed by providing the communicant with a catechesis on the reason for the norm.”
usccb.org/liturgy/innews/092002.shtml

So the Vatican says the norm is to kneel and the USCCB says otherwise. What’s the average Catholic in the pew supposed to think?

 

[franklinf]

Here’s why I’m hestitant about how you’re presenting this. While I prefer reception on the tongue, too 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.

There isn’t an issue in that regards. There is a difference between teaching and permitting.

For the sake of argument, assume that CITH is wrong and falls under that category. The Church wouldn’t be permitted to teach that for the above reasons. However, the Church is made up of fallible men. These fallible men could permit it and allow. That is soemthing completly different than the Church speaking infallibly on the subject.

 

[franklinf]

“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.?

Could you please provide a source and the full context of this quote?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Could you please provide a source and the full context of this quote?

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

VC

 

[Belloc_Fan]

There isn’t an issue in that regards. There is a difference between teaching and permitting.

For the sake of argument, assume that CITH is wrong and falls under that category. The Church wouldn’t be permitted to teach that for the above reasons. However, the Church is made up of fallible men. These fallible men could permit it and allow. That is soemthing completly different than the Church speaking infallibly on the subject.

This is technically right, but we’re not talking about the Church simply permitting what She knows to be sin, nor are we talking about the private opinions of individual Catholics. Pope John Paul II, amongst others, has clearly described (in the quote addressed earlier in this thread) CITH as valid, in the course of Magisterial teaching. Certainly, he acknowledges that it accompanies potential theological risks, but he considers it expressly permissible. The reason it’s problematic is that Catholics owe deference even to non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium, and here, the Church would be teaching us that evil is okay.

Take an example of something which is intriniscally contrary to the Faith, like abortion. Infallibility doesn’t mean that there won’t be pro-choice Catholics, even high-ranking ones; nor does it mean that the Church will always do whatever it can to stop the evil of abortion. Sadly, both of these occurrences are beyond mere hypotheticals. But what the Holy Spirit **does **protect through infallibility is that we’ll never get up one morning to discover that the pope issued an encyclical talking about times and manners in which abortion is acceptable. It literally **can’t **happen if Matthew 28:20, John 16:14, and Luke 10:16 are true.

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

P PIUS XII, Humani generis, section 20.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

 

[Ockham]

The reason it’s problematic is that Catholics owe deference even to non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium, and here, the Church would be teaching us that evil is okay.

Yet the Church ruled against CITH and people disobeyed. A few years later the Church allowed CITH as an indult while stating the unversal norm is still on tongue while standing. The USCCB decides in hand while standing is their norm. How do you explain this discrepancy?

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Yet the Church ruled against CITH and people disobeyed. A few years later the Church allowed CITH as an indult while stating the unversal norm is still on tongue while standing. The USCCB decides in hand while standing is their norm. How do you explain this discrepancy?

Sure, the USCCB explains it:

The new edition of the General Instruction [of the Roman Missal] asks the Conference of Bishops in each country to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving.

The reason is simple enough: Communion on the tongue v. in the hand isn’t an unchanging part of the Faith. It’s an optional way in which we attempt to preserve the unchanging parts, and respect the Glory of God. Similarly, the Church could require a dress code to promote respect for Christ in the Mass. That dress code would affirm many of the same things as Communion on the tongue, and might be spiritually beneficial. .Then again, it might be an issue which proved unneccesarily divisive to the Body of Christ. It’s a moral issue related to prudential judgment. As such, as circumstances change, so might the calculation – the dress code in 1820s London might look different than the dress code in modern Ghana, for example, and the Church might decide to make the dress code either rigidly enforced, optional, or make decide to make no dress code at all.

We could debate the merits of each of these approaches: “is it a good idea for churches to have dress codes or not?,” etc. But to suggest that Apostolic Tradition only permits one answer - while admitting that the Church has taken two different approaches - is wrong, moreso when the Magisterium (even the Ordinary Magisterium, as here) has spoken on the issue.

Other issues, like the manner in which bishops are chosen or the pope is elected, the normative language spoken in Ordinary Masses in the Roman Rite, whether to permit married priests, and so on are all prudential judgments. The Church is free to take either approach guided by Wisdom in that time and place, and we’re bound to respect Her decision (cf. Acts 15:28).

• So absent a specific request from a nation’s Conference of Bishops, the normal posture is kneeling.
• The USCCB submitted a specific request and the Vatican approved it. Per that request, the normal posture is standing, with a bow before reception.
• That said, the ability to kneel and receive remains available in the Roman Rite.

One final note on kneeling for Communion. Kneeling was banned during Easter season in the early Church. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:

In the twentieth canon of the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) the fathers lay down (the canon, though passed over by Rufinus, is undoubtedly genuine): —

Because there are some who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost [the fifty days between Easter and Whit-Sunday]: that all things may be uniformly performed in every parish or diocese, it seems good to the Holy Synod that the prayers [tas euchas] be by all made to God, standing.

The canon thus forbids kneeling on Sundays; but (and this is carefully to be noted) does not enjoin kneeling on other days. The distinction indicated of days and seasons is very probably of Apostolic origin.

So mandatory reception of the Eucharist is emphatically not Apostolic Tradition, although the Enyclopedia then notes that St. Paul kneeled during Paschaltide in Acts 20:36 and Acts 21:5. If I’m not mistaken, this prohibition on kneeling is preserved in at least parts of the East.

 

[Ockham]

The USCCB’s GIRM instructs the priest to give someone a catechesis lesson if they wish to receive on tongue while kneeling. The don’t actually rule against it but certainly indicate they don’t wish it to be done.

This comes after Pope Paul VI’s clear instruction in 1969 that CITH is not allowed. Yet a few years later he changed his mind. The reasons seem clear: the people were disobeying so rather than risk losing them the Magisterium caved.

Apostolic Tradition is heirarchial and obedience. CITH became the norm out of disobedience therefore is not part of tradtion. Canon law is based on tradition.

 

[MIKE46]

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

It was in fact St Cyril of Jerusalem in a letter that he wrote describing how Communion was received in his particular Church during specific times. Remember the practice in those days in many areas was to receive a substantial size loaf rather than a wafer. A small piece was consumed at the Mass and the rest taken home for consumption during the week. A highly practical method for reception given the context of the times. Unfortunately it led to scandalous blasphemies such as private exhibitions at homes in some cases apparently wit admission being charged, being sold as an amulet or other things primarily as good luck charms. Before anyone jumps up and says such thing did or could not happen, lrt me remind you that there have been posts on this forum and others asking the proper way to disply the Host at home and whether of not it was all right to carry it around with you as a way to be close to Christ at all times.

So in his Church during those specific times Communion in the hand made perfect sense. However today there is not any good reason that I have ever heard brought up to justify the practice in any way shape or form.

Interestingly enough in the same letter he also said that after receiving the Precious Blood the communicants were to touch their fingers to their lips and place the Blood on their eyes, foreheads,and other senses, apparently ears, nose and hands. It amazes me that those who use his quote as justification for the practice always leave that part out.

 

[MMprn]

This is the rest of the quote-
“Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses” (Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22). We are to make the sign of the cross when we eat and drink, sit, go to bed, get up, talk, walk, in short, in every action (Cat. iv, 14). Again: “if thou should be in foreign cities, do not simply ask where is the church (kyriakon), for the heresies of the impious try to call their caves kyriaka, nor simply where is the Church (ekklesia), but where is the Catholic Church, for this is the proper name of this holy Mother of all.”

Th writings of St. Cyril can be found here-
newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm

 

[Canto]

“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.?

St Basil writing around the same time noted COTHand was only in times of perescution

Some have questioned St Cyril’s authorship

This is often quoted by those who support COTHand but he goes on to speak about recieving of the chalice noting we should wipe the blood on our eyes.

*“Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” *

So clearly he is not speaking about the norm or at least not the universal norm.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

St Basil writing around the same time noted COTHand was only in times of perescution

.

Please see this link:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[Canto]

Please see this link:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Thanks. I’ve read this link and others by the author. I enjoy some of his writing very much.

St Basil notes that COTHand was in times of persecution and when there were no priests and that it was a practice at Alexandria and in Egypt. So he is not speaking of recieving in the hand at Mass as some widespread norm.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thanks. I’ve read this link and others by the author. I enjoy some of his writing very much.

St Basil notes that COTHand was in times of persecution and when there were no priests and that it was a practice at Alexandria and in Egypt. So he is not speaking of recieving in the hand at Mass as some widespread norm.

That is addressed in the essay for which I posted the link. Your assertion regarding Saint Basil is dealt with in the second section. There is nowhere near universal agreement that St. Basil intended what you assert he intended.

 

[mardukm]

“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.?

He meant it literally. The instruction to receive in the hand is also present in Origen of Alexandria, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John of Damascus, and the Trullan Synod (692 A.D.). Admittedly, the Trullan Synod has no force among Westerns and Orientals, and is relevant only for the Easterns, but many of its canons are nevertheless noble traditions of the Church Catholic.

It is certainly not a universal custom, but it just as certainly cannot be regarded as sacrilegeous.

Blessings

 

[ProVobis]

I think it is because of this quote many Parishes now condone Communion in the Hand.

Most Catholics wouldn’t even know who St. Cyril is and I really doubt if those who chose to defy the sin of sacrilege before it was “approved” prayed to St. Cyril for guidance on the matter.

Plain and simple, the progressives/liberals/revolutionaries seized upon opportunity after opportunity to stab traditionalists/conservatives in the back in the 60’s. If it were an “Why not?” issue, they eventually got their way about it. After all, it was a new “welcoming” church; no morals required.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Most Catholics wouldn’t even know who St. Cyril is and I really doubt if those who chose to defy the sin of sacrilege before it was “approved” prayed to St. Cyril for guidance on the matter.

Plain and simple, the progressives/liberals/revolutionaries seized upon opportunity after opportunity to stab traditionalists/conservatives in the back in the 60’s. If it were an “Why not?” issue, they eventually got their way about it. After all, it was a new “welcoming” church; no morals required.

It cannot BE “sacrilege” if it is permitted by the Church in Her disciplines (as has been pointed out to you numerous times). To indulge in that mindset is to misunderstand the Church’s thought and teaching about Herself, and to cease to think with the mind of the Church.

 

[mardukm]

It cannot BE “sacrilege” if it is permitted by the Church in Her disciplines (as has been pointed out to you numerous times). To indulge in that mindset is to misunderstand the Church’s thought and teaching about Herself, and to cease to think with the mind of the Church.

Well said, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk