Posted on 05/25/2022 10:44:21 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Okay, but I thought the point of this mandate is that he wouldn’t any longer do that?
Your quick search is mostly correct; when we (Catholics) say “Tabernacle”, we’re either referring something the ancient Hebrews used or to the “gold” (usually, polished brass) box usually found front and center in a Catholic church.
I understand that you’re Protestant, and that your theology of the Eucharist is different from ours. I don’t wish to have that argument here; it has been done to death on this forum.
From our (Catholic) perspective, the consecrated host IS Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the appearance of unleavened bread. The same is true of the consecrated wine. Some of the consecrated host is kept in the Tabernacle after Mass; the consecrated wine is always consumed. Therefore, from our perspective, to face the Tabernacle is literally to face God Himself. For this reason, we Catholics (should) always make a gesture of reverence toward the Tabernacle when entering a Catholic church, and it is appropriate for the Priest, along with the congregation, to face the Tabernacle during Mass.
Not only that, but...
St. Sixtus 1 (c. 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.
Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did).
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.
Rouen (650): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but *only in their mouths.”
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.”*
Above is a video of the Mass, offered in Latin, last Sunday May 22, 2022.
I don't expect that you will or should watch the whole thing, but if you fast forward through it you'll see the Priest mostly facing the Altar/Tabernacle/Crucifix, and sometimes facing the congregation.
Most of the Mass consists of "Prayer", that is the Priest (and congregation) speaking worship, praise, thanksgiving, and honor to God. At those times, the Priest faces the Altar etc. When he is reading the Scriptures, preaching, or blessing the congregation, he faces them.
The topic of this thread is a mandate to do what the priest in that video is doing.
Maybe we can first hypnotize Bergoglio into requiring the Syro-Malamar Catholics to revert to reception on the tongue as well. After that we’ll snap-reform the Novus Ordo back to the dark ages!
Bergoglio would say it’s “reverting” back to the dark ages. But the so-called bringers of light have done the opposite.
1-10 above is either the truth or it isn’t. If the church wasn’t teaching truth during all of that time period, or if truth changes, then why bother listening to the church now?
If the theologies are that different, so different that the new rite excludes the old, then it’s certainly not the mass of Catholic Tradition that’s in error, otherwise the Catholic church was never the true church.
The TLM, existing long before even the 6th Ecumenical Council, was bolstered by the infallible and binding 6th and 19th Ecumenical Councils and the popes then. Francis and his cohorts have declared they can abrogate the Latin Mass - not change it but abrogate it - when it has been infallibly ruled from 1545-63 that it cannot be abrogated.
Then they declare that their abrogation is irreversible acting as if no other popes or councils but they and Vatican II are somehow irreversible (as if the church only began in 1962) thereby attempting to reverse Ecumenical Councils and the popes back then with shills for Francis and Vatican II entering the fray declaring that Francis is somehow more pope than innumerable previous popes.
But this pope is all over the map saying he wants one mass for all Roman Catholics when one strains to find two Novus Ordo masses that are the same even in the same state.
The moment one starts picking away at the ancient 6th Ecumenical Council the door is opened for the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea to be picked away at and tinkered with. But we know the 1st, 6th, and 19th Ecumenical Councils are solid because they are all based upon previous Sacred Scripture and Tradition, don’t conflict with them, innumerable popes then and afterwards bolstered them, and so on. They are eternal.
And many people are unaware that receiving on the tongue goes back to the beginning, whereas the disciples were allowed to touch the host because they were consecrated.
We can see that what St. Sixtus spoke of was already established before his time.
And much of the TLM goes back to 400 AD, before the “dark ages” with alot of the TLM originates before then. Bur there are Eastern Rites established going way back to Thomas’s time and others like him elsewhere and the church hasn’t had a problem with them.
Have a good one and see you around!
CUL8R.
Bonus...
That made me think of the following:
Saw a sweet Corvette the other day (it was in front of me in traffic, which I think was the point) with the vanity plate: ITLXLR8.
It definitely did.
What they actually said:
As regards the reception of the sacrament, it has always been the custom in the Church of God that laics receive communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves,[38] which custom ought with justice and reason to be retained as coming down from Apostolic tradition.
What they are describing as "coming down from Apostolic tradition" is that only the priest communicates himself. Everyone else receives the Sacrament from a minister. The passage isn't discussing whether or not receiving on the tongue as opposed to in the hand is of Apostolic origin.
(Just to be clear, I am no defender of communion in the hand, I just don't like sources to be quoted incorrectly.)
“when I was growing up there was a mike there”
Mike likely retired. Maybe they can find another Mike.
microphone
But as I’ve pointed out before you are misleading and omitting.
Given the church has always taught that only those consecrated are allowed to touch sacred objects, it has also always taught that the transmission was from the consecrated holding the sacred object and dispensing the the host to the mouth of the recipient.
Now your job is to find evidence from the time of St. Sixtus where non consecrated (those not bishops, priests, etc) were allowed to touch sacred objects.
Secondly, your job is to prove the church allowed the opposite of this from then until Trent:
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.”
Again, truth doesn’t change. If their reasoning wasn’t based in truth then the truth changes and the truth isn’t found in the church.
:-)
smartypants!
And while I see you are no defender of it, not saying you are, but please don’t omit the key points that Bergoglio and the revisionist modernists are pushing: that it is acceptable to receive in the hand as it seems you were helping him this.
Anyway, God bless and have a good day!
I don't have any "job" like that at all. If you're going to quote Trent, then quote Trent. Quote their actual words from a reasonable translation of the original Latin text.
If you want to argue that Trent really meant X, Y, or Z, argue all day long, but don't put what you think Trent said, or meant, or should have said, in quotation marks like this: "", as though it's their ipsissima verba.
The relevant passage from Trent does not contain any word in English or Latin meaning "hands" and it certainly doesn't contain the lame undergraduate English mis-construction "the fact that".
I'm on your side. You will be more persuasive if you don't misrepresent what your sources said.
Like the recent denunciation of the Novus Ordo by Abp Roche, we can only say that this bodes well for the future!
I find the above quote to be highly improbable. Roche hates the TLM, why would he denounce the Bogus Ordo?
I found this on Reddit from May 14th:
Via CatholicCulture.org, I read today on the website of the Spanish Catholic magazine Omnes an interview which it published on Monday with Abp Arthur Roche, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, which contains this rather surprising statement.
“At this moment, the liberalism, the individualism that exists in this society are a challenge for the Church. ... It is easy to think of my personal preference, of a specific type of liturgy, of a particular expression of celebration, of this priest rather than this other priest; but this individualism is not of the character of the Church.”
I think this is the text from Chapter 8 of 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.
It does mean East in this case.
Hmm....the Great Circle Route for much of the USA would be quite a bit north of east.
I passed by a mosque in Washington DC many years ago and they were facing Mecca — very much to the north of east.
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.