"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."
Pope John Paul II
(Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
Posted on 12/27/2004 4:49:51 AM PST by ultima ratio
To read this encyclical [Mortalium Animos] is to read a point-by-point condemnation of Assisi, and one gets the eerie feeling that Pope Pius XI was prophesying and simultaneously condemning with remarkable accuracy...
One supreme pontiff engaged in an act that was explicitly and in all points condemned by a previous supreme pontiff...Pope Pius XI condemned Assisi before it even happened - and why did he condemn it? Because Assisi is one of those events that is "founded... on that false opinion," namely, the false opinion that all religions are "more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule." (MA, 2)
Further, and perhaps the biggest reason why Neo-Catholics will never just admit that Assisi was wrong, Pope Pius stated that "one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." (MA, 2) Did you catch that? He just mentioned the "sin by accessory" concept again. "One who supports those who hold these theories."
Such a one is "altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion."
Finally, Pope Pius XI stated in no uncertain terms that, not only Catholics in general, but the "Apostolic See" in particular, "cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies." Why not? Why would Pope Pius XI never do what Pope John Paul II so gladly did? Because "if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ." (MA, 8)
(Excerpt) Read more at lumengentleman.com ...
Link won't work for some reason. Try this.
http://www.lumengentleman.com/index.asp
CCC 2072 Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.2110 The first commandment forbids honoring gods other than the one Lord who has revealed himself to his people. It proscribes superstition and irreligion. Superstition in some sense represents a perverse excess of religion; irreligion is the vice contrary by defect to the virtue of religion.
2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.
2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."
"2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history."
By posting this excerpt from the CCC are you saying that JPII stands condemned by his own Catechism for the idolatry and blasphemies that he invited people to indulge in at Assisi?
I must say this is still another example of this Pope saying one thing and doing another. He planned Assisi I and II and, by doing so, did more than just tolerate others' praying to false gods--he actually encouraged and sanctioned such prayers. He stands condemned therefore by his own teachings. How odd of you to have posted this.
Christ had something to say about that.
Mt 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
That's not the point. There's no chance most Catholics will want to follow suit. But what does this say about this pontiff?
Or how many of the Catholics of whatever persuasion on FR would want his own parish priest/bishop to preside in such ceremony? Would any of us want to be between our local bishop and mullah and shaman? Does this not tell all of us something?
Well, pray for him then.
The most troubling thing about Assisi is that John Paul wasn't being hapless or innocent. In a recent letter from him posted on FR concerning Assisi, he takes full credit and is very prideful regarding his roll in bringing both Assisi I and Assisi II about.
I did a search but couldn't find it. I remember reading it and feeling astonished and truly hurt by its content and tone.
IIRC, he was addressing it to some group with very leftist ties. The links they had on their site were truly atrocious.
"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."
Pope John Paul II
(Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
9. 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.
It's pretty obvious what it's referring to, LOTI - and it isn't communion in the hand. To suggest that it was intended to do so clashes with the literal sense of the text. In communion in the hand, the faithful don't "themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice". They receive the consecrated bread from the minister, as the Instruction states.
Clarification: this refers to the preceding quote: "given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose".
In the picture you show, the children are neither picking up the host themselves, nor are they handing either to others.
More semantic BS from you. I watched a Christmas Midnight Mass, early in John Paul II's pontificate, when he refused to place the Host in the hands of priest who offered them. The Pope gave the priest Holy Communion on the tongue.
STATEMENTS FROM POPES, SAINTS & CHURCH COUNCILS
St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated 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 times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening 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, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
The 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." (Memoriale Domini)
Every person I've ever seen receive Holy Communion in the paw picks it up from one hand with the other and places it in his mouth.
Do you all do it differently? Do you just palm It to the mouth like a handful of popcorn?
You are free to receive on the tongue at a Novus Ordo Mass.
I know of not a single altar boy who has ever gotten a patent while he was an altar boy. Plus, why would he want to be under your chin?
And, you are making up the "wincing" of EEMs when one wants to receive on the tongue, since you don't attend Novus Ordo masses.
Over a third of our EEMs in our parish receive on the tongue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.