Wimps to the Left of Me, Crazies to the Right

[ProVobis]

Then provide evidence, sources, quotes, documents, anything instead of your opinion.

Do you dispute the following:

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”)

“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

This doesn’t sound like the same Church which allows sacrilege today.

 

[ProVobis]

If they allow options, then canon law isn’t broken. The option is then part of the law.

Okay, let’s say the protection of customs isn’t part of canon law for the time being. So how does this show that the option to receive is part of American law?

References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm

Pope Paul VI established several hurdles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions:

(a) the indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom (i.e., disobedient abuse) in the country, and

(b) if “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” the episcopal conference petitions Rome,

(c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission,

(d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence), or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These conditions are outlined in “En réponse à la demande,” which is attached to the Memoriale Domini instruction.

(1) CITH had not been an established custom in the USA so the first condition was not met.

(2) Two-thirds of the episcopal conference did not approve of the practice.

(3) “Permission” was granted only by deceiving the Pope that two-thirds of the conference approved by getting retired and dying bishops to sign off on the petition.

As Fr. Alfred Kunz has pointed out, permission given under deceit is no permission at all.

(4) Next conditions after “permission” was granted:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then provide evidence, sources, quotes, documents, anything instead of your opinion.

Do you dispute the following:

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”)

“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

The issue of Communion in the hand vs. Communion on the tongue is a matter of discipline. It is not a matter of immutable truth. It touches on infallibility only to the extent that the Church cannot permit or establish a discipline that, of itself, is capable of leading the faithful to impiety.

It is perfectly fine to question the prudential wisdom in allowing it to happen, it is perfectly fine to say you believe we ought to do it differently, it is perfectly fine to say you don’t like it. What you cannot say is that it is irreverent or wrong (again, it was of Apostolic/Patristic practice. That isn’t an appeal to antiquarianism as to why we should keep the practice, it’s a demonstration of why the practice of itself, isn’t wrong). To do so is to say that the Church CAN, in Her disciplines, lead the faithful to impiety.

I receive Communion on the tongue and have for a number of years now. I think it is more prudent to receive on the tongue and it is an outward sign of a reverence that is difficult to duplicate in any other way. That said, I don’t like it when people A) question the authority of the Church in the ordering of Her disciplines and B) browbeat others and attempt to make them feel bad for exercising a liberty given them by the Church.

Here is something for your consideration:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Okay, let’s say the protection of customs isn’t part of canon law for the time being. So how does this show that the option to receive is part of American law?

References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm

(1) CITH had not been an established custom in the USA so the first condition was not met.

(2) Two-thirds of the episcopal conference did not approve of the practice.

(3) “Permission” was granted only by deceiving the Pope that two-thirds of the conference approved by getting retired and dying bishops to sign off on the petition.

(4) Next conditions after “permission” was granted:

Seriously? You’re quoting Bayside as authoritative?

The indult was extended by Benedict XVI to Poland as recently as 2007. Whether it’s eventually rescinded, it’s established fact NOW.

 

[ChurchTorch]

The issue of Communion in the hand vs. Communion on the tongue is a matter of discipline. It is not a matter of immutable truth. It touches on infallibility only to the extent that the Church cannot permit or establish a discipline that, of itself, is capable of leading the faithful to impiety.

It is perfectly fine to question the prudential wisdom in allowing it to happen, it is perfectly fine to say you believe we ought to do it differently, it is perfectly fine to say you don’t like it. What you cannot say is that it is irreverent or wrong (again, it was of Apostolic/Patristic practice. That isn’t an appeal to antiquarianism as to why we should keep the practice, it’s a demonstration of why the practice of itself, isn’t wrong). To do so is to say that the Church CAN, in Her disciplines, lead the faithful to impiety.

I receive Communion on the tongue and have for a number of years now. I think it is more prudent to receive on the tongue and it is an outward sign of a reverence that is difficult to duplicate in any other way. That said, I don’t like it when people A) question the authority of the Church in the ordering of Her disciplines and B) browbeat others and attempt to make them feel bad for exercising a liberty given them by the Church.

Here is something for your consideration:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Awesome posting!!

 

[Ockham]

To do so is to say that the Church CAN, in Her disciplines, lead the faithful to impiety.

In this issue it is the disobedient leading the faithful. How many people know the history of CITH? How many children are taught COTT when preparing to receive their First Communion?

 

[ProVobis]

To do so is to say that the Church CAN, in Her disciplines, lead the faithful to impiety.

Who told you this?

Assuming that CITH was legitimately allowed in the US (and I don’t anymore than the practice of sex abuse of minors or its coverups) where is the protection against this or any other practice of impiety? If it is true that, per Trent, the Church anathematizes anyone who believes its “outward signs” are “incentives to impiety,” then it also anathematizes anyone who believes the canon should be recited as loudly as possible and Mass should be said in vulgar only. In fact it anathmatizes any pastor of the church for creating new rites altogether. So if you believe that the faithful can’t be led to impiety, that means the Novus Ordo was also illegitmately promulgated but you’re not saying that, are you?

 

[JIKO]

Sorry, but I think you should look for another church to attend. God bless you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Who told you this? We’ve gone over and over this, ProVobis, look it up.

Assuming that CITH was legitimately allowed in the US (and I don’t anymore than the practice of sex abuse of minors or its coverups) where is the protection against this or any other practice of impiety? If it is true that, per Trent, the Church anathematizes anyone who believes its “outward signs” are “incentives to impiety,” then it also anathematizes anyone who believes the canon should be recited as loudly as possible and Mass should be said in vulgar only.Not so, not so! Read the documents of Trent. One isn’t anathematized for suggesting that it COULD be recited aloud, but rather for INSISTING that it MUST BE recited aloud. Likewise, one isn’t anathematized for saying the Mass COULD be celebrated int the vernacular, but for insisting that it must be (Trent itself did not condemn the vernacular, it simply said that it did not seem opportune at that time to offer it that way). In fact it anathmatizes any pastor of the church for creating new rites altogether. So if you believe that the faithful can’t be led to impiety, that means the Novus Ordo was also illegitmately promulgated but you’re not saying that, are you?

The anathema against new rites is PATENTLY about priests winging it or using anything other than the authorized Missal. It does not apply to the Pope promulgating and authorizing a new Missal.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Sorry, but I think you should look for another church to attend. God bless you.

To whom did you address this post?

 

[ChurchTorch]

The thread underscores one thing very clearly.

Some (nominal) Catholics will go through their entire lives bucking the Catholic Church by putting their own personal interpretation of Church documents ahead of what the Church actually directs to its people. CIH/COT is a perfect example.

That will lead them to frustration and anger and ultimately cause them to be bitter. Sadly along the way they’ll drag others into their cesspit of ignorance and arrogance.

Repent! Follow the Catholic Church and not your own man-made traditions and preferences!

 

[MariaTheresa]

This thread seems to lack charity. To compare anything having to do with the Eucharist to the sex abuse scandal is highly offensive to Catholics.

Assuming that CITH was legitimately allowed in the US (and I don’t anymore than the practice of sex abuse of minors or its coverups)

I attend a regular Catholic parish. I suppose you would call it an NO parish. I was perusing these threads because I was thinking about my daughters first Communion next year and was going to look for hints on some reverent videos to prepare her. Never mind.
My parish , where we LOVE the Eucharist, where we receive Him in the hand, where we don’t where veils, where we have Adoration, is kind and loving. No one checks your dress code, but they do check on you if you need help, or feed you if you are hungry, or bring you Communion if you can’t get to Mass. Our priest , Fr Jerry is the only priest due to the shortage and we have a school also. He works around the clock and has for years. He has gone gray over the years here. He was sent here with one days notice by the Bishop when our last priest up and left. Fr. Jerry obeyed. Got up and moved to our side of town the next day. He will come to your aide 24 hours a day if needed. Just about any parishioner will.

If pre-Vatican 2 which took place about 10 years before I was born was all about the letter of the law and condemnation as these traditional forums all seem to be. Thank the Lord for Pope John 23rd and Pope Paul the 6th. I feel like crying as I write this. I know the Church has been off track especially in catecheis. I had to learn everything I know on my own since during the 70s and 80s I wasn’t taught the faith ( in Catholic Schools). But you should hear yourselves. Maybe if you brought what you know and came back to us we could right the ship together instead of all the fighting.

Sacred Heart of Jesus , I place all my trust in Thee.

 

[Anna2552]

Your parish sounds like lovely people, and it is good that you are happy with it. I also attend the ordinary English mass, I don’t wear prairie dresses, and I’ve been on the fence about headcovering. Since the parish doesn’t require it, I haven’t worried about it.

I have watched these forums for years and found them edifying. For whatever reason, as of late, non-traditionalists have decided that the disciplines of Traditional Catholicism are not done out of love for Christ, but out of pride. They appear offended at the piety of of these people. I am the first to admit that I do not display such piety, but I admire these people immensely and find them a source of inspiration. Where is the animosity coming from? In this thread, supposed Catholics have poked fun at the modest dress of women, the size of the families, and leaders who are purportedly intrusive and nosy (this is known even though all the OP has exchanged with him is a smile and nod???)

Didn’t someone post earlier about “prairie-dresses-r-us?” Har de har har. Seriously, are you 12? You are aware this is a Traditional Catholic forum, where many women maintain far more modest standards than society seek refuge? Do you kick stray puppies, too?

And it’s now proven to me that St. Paul was dead-on regarding headcoverings being a sign of submission by the dig-in-my-heels attitude regarding them I’ve seen here. If a fellow Catholic is unhappy because they feel my bare head is disrespecting Christ, what on earth is the big deal about putting a doily on your head? I promise, it doesn’t hurt. Except maybe pride.

Does nobody see the irony in making a point of coming to a forum especially for people who are particularly devout and repeatedly bashing them, judging them to be too judgmental?

And, as a woman, I am sorry if anyone “feels like crying.” Yet I find the immature self-centeredness appalling when women are so childish that they declare that decency demands that a conversation must end because it hurts their feelings. A forum is designed to expose our ideas to others and receive feedback: good, bad and ugly. I would hope that many of us learn a great deal from the disagreements. If you are too sensitive, there are many other more ladylike forums where discord is not permitted.

The practices of traditional Catholicism are done out of respect for Christ. Are you feeling like they make you look badly? Do you think they make you appear less-devoted Catholics? When we keep seeing ugliness in others, it is usually a reflection of what’s going on inside our own heads.

God bless,
Anna

 

[MariaTheresa]

Hello Anna,

Your post is confusing to me. I’m not sure if you are speaking only to me or not?
My post is the first one I have made here so I’m not really sure what some of your responses mean if they are directed to me. Sorry. I wasn’t making any comments about “prairie dresses or doilies” And the “kick stray puppies” line is kind of the perfect example of what I actually was talking about. Maybe I can put it another way.

We all know that the whole Church loves the Lord even if imperfectly. We all know that She is off track to a greater or lesser extent. Traditionalists ( and I am not one) have a great gift to give to the rest of us many of whom are spiritually starving to death and have been for so long we no longer feel the hunger pains (even though we are close to death). You know the faith, the history of the faith, the devotions, WHY certain traditions have existed in the Church even if they aren’t practiced anymore. Please, please stop the fighting, the vehement arguing over the color of mantillas, whether or not women can wear pants and yes Communion in the hand.
We have no priests, few go to Mass, few believe in the Real Presence and its not bec of CITH, our schools are closing, our Churches are locked up, our faithful are scandalized. No one knows the faith, no one knows what ANY of the basic teachings are after YEARS of Catholic school. And yet we cannot abandon the Church. We must work the restore Her. She is the Body of Christ. She is US. You are Us.
You have preserved or rediscovered these things more than most of the faithful in this country. We love the Lord but many of us live without the light of knowledge that you possess. When I see you fighting so much in these Traditional forums and there is such a lack of charity in them sometimes, it** is **upsetting.
“You are the salt of the earth. But what good is salt if it has lost its flavor? Can you make it salty again?” …

I think you are very important salt-please don’t spill it

Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in Thee!

 

[Anna2552]

The only part that was directed toward your post was the part about “feeling like crying.” Trads will explain to you why the things you appear to consider trivial to be of grave importance.

This thread, and more and more frequently the entire Traditional Catholic forum, is filled with disparaging, prideful and downright nasty remarks towards the very people for whom this forum was created, and those of us who enjoy learning from them.

 

[Khrystyne]

Wow, I didn’t expect this thread to look like this, it’s a bloody battle field with lace and banana hats all over the place. :slapfight:

kpeople: What’s going on here. No, what’s REALLY going on here?

Come on, the traditional community that I’ve been involved in never had such a spirit of combativeness.
:)

 

[Humbled1]

Wow, I didn’t expect this thread to look like this, it’s a bloody battle field with lace and banana hats all over the place. :slapfight:

kpeople: What’s going on here. No, what’s REALLY going on here?

Come on, the traditional community that I’ve been involved in never had such a spirit of combativeness.

     :)

I don’t see it so much as “combativeness” as being unwilling to budge on things that are important to them. I think this unwillingness was key in why the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” came into being.

It was a long battle, and hard fought for many, all for something that Pope Benedict XVI said was their right all along. A right that was being withheld from them.

 

[John_Pascendi]

To be a member of the RCC is to be a very disciplined person.Its taint easy neighbor to not be PC…do your own thing as long as it is acceptable to hollyweird. No church has ever been attacked as much as the RCC…and no wonder for it is the only belief system that can trace its roots directly back to Jesus…the others just pecked away at various teachings and ,as in Germany…gave the world…the left wing National Socialist party…later,when it attacked its fellow bandits in Russia,was called.Nazis…The RCC is not for everyone…some just cant self-discipline themselves enough thats all! Once in a while the non-catholic church leaders are ordered to endorse people or items that are outlandish…like when good ole Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani for president!!! Satan is having a field day but Jesus promised us the gates of hell wont prevail against His church…know your faith and be prepared to defend it…wolves in sheep clothing are everywhere and like termites they eat away at the ship of Peter. Squash them with logic and prayer…all the best.Pas

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry, but I think you should look for another church to attend.

On the contrary. A local priest has asked me to teach RCIA and, after reading what some converts are teaching here, I’m mulling over the offer.

 

[cecilia97]

I don’t see it so much as “combativeness” as being unwilling to budge on things that are important to them. I think this unwillingness was key in why the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” came into being.

It was a long battle, and hard fought for many, all for something that Pope Benedict XVI said was their right all along. A right that was being withheld from them.

Let me preface by saying that I have friends on both “sides” of this apparent fence that has grown up in the middle of Christ’s Church. My family has lived both sides of the fence. I attend the OF (at a superior-ly reverent parish, I’ll add) while receiving our Lord in Communion on the tongue and always wearing some sort of covering on top of my head. I do these things because they are personal, outward pieties I have felt called to by the Holy Spirit.

I do not disparage any Catholic’s chosen rite as long as it is currently approved by the Church. My own outward pieties are things I was slowly and quietly called to and I don’t assume that anyone else is called to them. I do not think I’m more holy than the ladies without covering next to me…I assume that they have not been called to it for some reason. I suspect that I need more lessons in humility and obedience than others!

So, my heart goes out to my traditional friends, but please remember that we on this forum were not the people who withheld any rights from you. And I have not seen much on this thread that has asked you to “budge on things that are important” to you. I’ve seen different opinions and thoughts, but I haven’t seen anyone saying “you need to stop attending the EF” or “women who cover their heads are bad Catholics”! I’ve always thought we were on the same “side” until I came to this forum and met a few (not all!) very angry people.

I understand the righteous anger of feeling that you’ve seen Jesus disrespected, believe me. I shudder when attending a noon Mass at another parish where people walk right past the Tabernacle without so much as a nod, let alone a genuflection and a prayer of thanksgiving for the One Who made them and then condescended to save them!

But please remember that many of us who attend the OF have nothing against the EF or those who attend it. We are not fighting with you, dear friends in Christ. Many of us admire your cause from a distance, and we pray for you. But when we see the snippyness of threads like this one, the distance grows.

Does the Church need a good cleanup right now? Yes.
Will finger pointing accomplish that? No.