Posted on 07/05/2004 11:42:07 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
-------------
St. Basil (330–379 AD) considered Communion in the hand a “grave fault.”
The Council of Saragozza (380 AD): “It was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the Hand.”
Council of Rouen (650 AD): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths.”
Council of Constantinople (695 AD): prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves and decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who did so in the presence of a bishop, priest, or deacon.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274): “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament (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. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (Summa, Pt III Q.82 Art. 3)
Council of Trent (1545-1563): “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hands of the priest.”
Pope Paul VI, Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969): Communion on the tongue is more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility. Stated, “The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully submit to the law (Communion on the tongue) which is still valid and which has been confirmed.” (#16) Stated that Communion in the hand carries with it “the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
Pope John Paul II (Nov. 1980, Germany): “There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it..... neither will I recommend it!” Also said, “I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this….Hear, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!” Pope John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same. He also had a sign posted on St Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrate Mass in St Peter’s are to give Communion on the tongue.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910–1997): “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”
Fr. John Hardon S.J. (1914–2000): “Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.” Also, “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis, Argentina (1926– ): “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful…. Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”
Pope John Paul II (Nov. 1980, Germany): “There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it..... neither will I recommend it!” Also said, “I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this….Hear, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!”
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)"
Give it time, this will stop... have faith and pray
One question here --
At the Last Supper when Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, do you think he passed the loaf and cup to the apostles or did he place it on their tongue?
We are going back to our roots, no?
They were the first bishops/priests, so of course He passed the loaf and the cup ;-)
There is an old seminary saying, "Be not an archeologizer."
In other words, just because something MAY have been done one way at one time, it does not mean that was objectively better.
Such would be a denial of development of doctrine.
Hopefully, we have a more full understanding of the Real Presence today than 1800 years ago. St. Thomas Aquinas alone brought us lightyears foreward in our theological understandings. So today our practices of reverence towards the Holy Eucharist (hopefully) should be informed by 2000 years worth of development of doctrine and understanding.
It is not uncommon for 'traditionalists' to pass off earlier Church disciplines as uniform when they were not, and use this mythical "uniformity" coupled with their profound misunderstanding about what constitutes Tradition and what does not to complain about current practices in the Church that they do not like. This small paper will hopefully let the air out of their so-often insolent little balloons; however, not without pointing out a key point that indirectly benefits the 'traditionalist' case on this issue.
The controversy on communion in the hand started in Europe in the 1960’s and was actually practiced by dissidents before the practice was made licit by the Holy See. From this standpoint the 'traditionalist' has a point as far as objecting to the way in which this practice came about in recent times but of course they do not wish to proceed along that track which would indeed be a credible approach for them to take. No, the 'traditionalist’ chooses instead to construct a fictitious past with regards to communion in the hand as their means of fighting what they see as a great evil of our time. It stems again from the common ignorance of Church history and the 'traditionalist' feeling that the uniformity of worship, policy, devotions, etc. that prevailed after the Council of Trent was somehow the norm for Church history. In reality, the history of the Church in almost all of the realms where the 'traditionalist' gripes about was not as neat and tidy as they would like it to be. A few examples are the subjects of clerical celibacy, plural prayer forms, vernacular liturgies, active laity participation in the liturgy, sacramental norms of administration, and (of course) different procedures of communion reception. Among many other elements of note these to some extent varied from locale to locale without the strict uniformity that the 'traditionalist' insists is mandatory or "traditional".
For the rest of the story, read The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand.
Not very convincing...
Great links, thanks!
That's a bit arrogant.
We have a better appreciation of Christ's Presence than those who were with Him, in His Life, and continued His Church?
How do you know that?
Is it your contention that those who receive in the hand do not believe in Christ's Presence in the Eucharist?
LOL!! Predictable response.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta (1910–1997): “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”
Fr. John Hardon S.J. (1914–2000): “Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.” Also, “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Hmmmm...who to believe, who to trust. Difficult to discern here. (/sarcasm)
If you are not comfortable receiving in the hand, don't.
Do you understand the difference between appreciation and theological understanding/development of doctrine? Obviously not, or you wouldn't characterize my point as arrogant.
Oh well. Frankly, I've never found much those two have written to be very convincing. Their arguments seem sophomorish.
Yes.
Are you saying that JPII has no grasp of your "development of doctrine" regarding the Eucharist? He gave in the hand at his public Masses for the first 20 years of his papacy.
Thanks, I don't. But I've also convinced many others to stop the practice, and I will continue to do so here and elsewhere.
Just as you are free to receive in the hand and encourage others to do likewise, if you can put together a legitimate theological reason for doing so.
Pope John Paul II (Nov. 1980, Germany): “There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it..... neither will I recommend it!”
Also said, “I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this….Hear, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!”
Pope John Paul II gives Communion only on the tongue in his private Masses at the Vatican. Concelebrating priests are told to do the same. He also had a sign posted on St Peter’s Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrate Mass in St Peter’s are to give Communion on the tongue.
TAKE AND EAT...TAKE AND DRINK. The words of Christ Himself.
But, I'm not trying to convince anybody to do anything they don't want to do. However one receives is OK by me.
It's not about "winning" anybody to my side, Brian. It's not an us-versus-them thing.
The pope must have bought into the sophmoric arguements of Mother Theresa and Fr. Hardon. :o)
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.