Posted on 07/05/2004 11:42:07 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
One more honest question, which method of reception insures best against abuse such as that reported on the satanism thread? If the hierarchs believe in the Real Presence, why would they NOT guard against abuse?
Jesus Himself told His apostles to "Take and Eat." Reception in the hand was the common practice in the Early Church, for the first 400 years.
Why would I want a non-priest to place it on my tongue?
Again, in the early church, communicants were allowed to take the Eucharist home with them, for consumption during the week.
Why would I attend a mass that encouraged anything that intervened between the priest and my reception of the sacrament?
Don't understand the question.
Why would I not fall to my knees?
Kneeling is the practice during the Eucharistic Prayer, and after the Lamb of God.
Why wouold I attend a mass where kneeling was not encouraged or allowed?
It is allowed, and, indeed, even mandated, at certain times, during the Eucharistic Prayer and after the Lamb of God.
I think that there are a couple of issues at play here. One is the "form" of the Mass itself (for convenience, let's stipulate that there are two: the NO and the Old Rite.) In this discussion, the NO/Old Rite issue will not be directly addressed.
For umpty-ump years, manners were preserved and developed in most societies. These manners codified physical and verbal conduct in the presence of others. "Manners" in and of themselves did not make people more or less important--but properly practiced, manners protected and emphasized 'right conduct'--thus, proper respect of others.
In a similar fashion, the "manners" of conducting oneself at Mass protect and emphasize 'right conduct.' The nature of the Blessed Sacrament was not changed by the "manners" one uses in approaching It, nor in worshipping It---however, "manners" clarified "who is Who" in worship.
These "manners," then, while not being essentials, PROTECT the essentials--sort of like a fence or a moat protects property.
What Sinky and other liberally-inclined folks advocate is to focus on the essentials and not worry too much about manners. What the "trads" advocate, however, is more emphasis on "manners"--not at all to the exclusion of the essence, but as complements to focus on the essence.
Thus, "sacred time, sacred space, sacred language, sacred music" are viewed by ALL as "manners;" the real question is whether such "manners" are necessary, and to what degree.
Viewed this way, it's easy to see that this is more a cultural/civilizational thing than a religious thing. I think that most 'liberals' still understand essence and respect it (some don't, or do understand and STILL don't respect...) but this seems to be the cut-line.
If satanic abuse becomes widespread, or any other abuse becomes widespread, then, of course, a bishop or bishops should take steps to guard against that abuse.
But what evidence do you have that there is widespread abuse of any kind here in the United States?
Good distillation, ninenot, though I would say that it is distinctly possible and even probable that one can be reverential while standing, and receiving in the hand.
***the real question is whether such "manners" are necessary, and to what degree***
My eartly father expected and demanded good manners at the table, why should my Heavenly Father expect and receive less? Why bring a fast food mindset to the Table of the Lord?
Otherwise, let's do drive-thru communion. Confess at the first window, receive the sacrament at the second.
At the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Knights of Columbus perform this function. I've seen them actually pursue and confront people. Not often, but even once is memorable.
You have eyes but cannot see. Sacrilegous is as sacrilegous goes. Deny the Truths of the Faith, and you put yourself in a new faith. You'd do better to heed the Truth than to persist in pride and blindness.
John of St. Thomas spoke his true mind on the subject when he wrote that "as for the laws proposed to the whole Church, such as those drawn up by a General Council or incorporated in the Corpus Juris, granting the general approbation they enjoy, it is difficult to admit that they contain even prudential error ["difficilius admittitur etiam prudentialis error"], so that they are not to be waived without some special permission."[814] Thus, between the absolute assistance of the revealed precepts, and the fallible prudential assistance of particular precepts, one admits a prudential and infallible assistance for each of the precepts of general interest. These can never be imprudent nor even useless.[815] (Cardinal Journet, Church of the Word Incarnate)814 II-II, qq. 1-7; disp. 3, a. 3, no. 5; vol. VII, p. 311: As I have said, most theologians after Melchior Cano content themselves with expressly distinguishing on the one hand all that concerns the substance, the morality and the rectitude of laws proposed to the whole Church, which cannot, without heresy, be said to contain anything contrary to the evangelical or natural law; and, on the other hand, all that concerns the concrete application of these laws, their adaptation to the circumstances, their strictness, their sanctions, and so forth, in which error is always possible. cf. Suarez, De Fide, disp. 5, sect. 8, no. 7; John of St. Thomas, loc. cit., etc. Between these two extreme groups, the first of which contains the revealed and absolutely infallible precepts which cannot be denied without heresy, and the second the particular and fallible precepts, we must, I believe, find a place for canonical precepts of general applicability which are prudentially infallible. For we have seen St. Thomas (in Quodlibet IX, art. 16) recognize three kinds of decisions of the Church: those concerning faith, in which the Church is certainly infallible; those concerning particular facts in which she is fallible; and those that are intermediary, in which piety inclines to take the Church for infallible. There are other theologians who speak, at least in actu exercito, of intermediate decisions. St. Antoninus for example, following John of Naples, distinguishes decisions of the Pope on the particular concerns of private persons—just distribution of offices and benefices, judicial sentences etc.—in which the Pope can err through ignorance or passion; and decisions concerning the good of the whole Church, bearing either on matters of faith or of morals: constitutions, decrees, decretals, in which, if left to her own resources the Church might err, but in which she is in fact protected by the power of Christ (Summa Sacrae Theologiae, Juris Pontificii et Caesarii, III pars., tit. xii, cap. v III, 2). It looks as though there were only two groups here. Really there are three. For the decrees and decretals which St. Antoninus has separated from particular decisions, cannot, for all that, be included along with decisions concerning the faith. The text of John of St. Thomas, cited above, is very clear. Billuart, who does not seem to have seen it, is nevertheless of the same opinion: "After Suarez and Banez, John of St. Thomas adds that the Church can err as regards the circumstances, application and execution of the law, for example by issuing too many precepts and censures, and applying them too strictly. For, he says, all that seems rather to pertain to the prudence and surrounding modalities of the law than to its substance and morality. Cano thinks likewise.... However, when we are concerned with laws laid down for all Christians, it is only out of regard for these very learned men that their reservations are to be entertained: I should not dare to make them mine" (De Regulis Fidei, dissert. 3, a. 5). It may be remarked, however, that even when it is a question of laws concerning all Christians, their application and execution may belong to the domain of particular decisions.
815 St. Robert Bellarmine writes: "It could be maintained without absurdity that the Pope could go wrong when, for example, ordering things which, without being either good or evil in themselves, nor contrary to salvation, would be useless; or in forbidding something under over-heavy penalties" (De Romano Pontifice, lib. IV, cap. v). In the case of precepts of general interest I do not agree that they could be useless. As to those of particular interest I agree that they could be useless, too strict, and sometimes even worse, as we shall see.
Is there a universal law? Yes:
The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”. (CDW, "Redemptionis Sacramentum" 103)
Little more needs to be said: "the morality and the rectitude of laws proposed to the whole Church, which cannot, without heresy, be said to contain anything contrary to the evangelical or natural law".
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.
I can't disagree with that.
However, we both know that Ratzinger and some others are now past the 'evaluate the results' mode and into 're-form of the reform' mode.
Whether standing survives (or the stupid Liberace music,) or whatever....will be interesting.
Most likely the process of re-installing "manners" will look like the one utilized from the year 100AD through 1590--one step at a time, slow--all with the very best of intentions...
Standing? I was at a church that had (recently) ripped out the kneelers from the pews. I can't believe in 2004 they are still pulling these protestantizing "spirit of Vatican II" stunts.
"A few honest questions/observations:
If I believed in the dogma of the Real Presence, why in the world would I want to touch the Host with my hands?"
Why indeed? This was why the reformers introduced communion in the hand - because they did not believe in the Real Presence. Although I don't agree with Reformed teaching on the Eucharist (in any of its major forms), they were at least consistent in making their liturgical practice coherent with their beliefs.
The problem with most modern-day Catholic practice is that they are trying to harmonise Reformed liturgical practice with Catholic doctrine and it does not work.
One thing I have noticed is that if the deacon and servers receive on the tongue, more people in the congregation also start to receive on the tongue. (Our congregation has now progressed to about 45% receiving on the tongue from a negligible number previously.)
"Why would I want a non-priest to place it on my tongue?"
Bishops and deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist and consecrated as such by the grace of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and therefore, there is no reason why one of these should not place it on your tongue. However, any Mass at which you were prevented from receiving communion from the hands of an ordained minister should not be attended.
"Why would I attend a mass that encouraged anything that intervened between the priest and my reception of the sacrament?"
Indeed.
"Why would I not fall to my knees? Why wouold I attend a mass where kneeling was not encouraged or allowed?"
Because you may find it difficult to find such a Mass these days!!
***This was why the reformers introduced communion in the hand - because they did not believe in the Real Presence. ...they were at least consistent in making their liturgical practice coherent with their beliefs***
Well said, if yer gonna be Catholic be a consistent one.
***Bishops and deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of the Eucharist ***
True, my point was directed toward the extra-ordinary guys and gals. This could include a 16 year old girl according to these guidelines: http://www.dioceseofgfb.org/Outreach_team/extraordinary_min.htm
***Because you may find it difficult to find such a Mass these days!!***
If the white smoke drifts my way they will be much easier to find.
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.