Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: Commuion in the hand  (Read 5889 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline C8Trad

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • Reputation: +21/-22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Commuion in the hand
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2023, 06:14:08 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Angelus on September 15, 2023, 03:15:44 PM

    Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?
    https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q82.A3.C

    I answer that, The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (A. 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Second, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Third, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, 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 else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

    Whether the species of sacrilege are distinguished according to the sacred things?
    https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q99.A3.C

    I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), the sin of sacrilege consists in the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing. Now reverence is due to a sacred thing by reason of its holiness: and consequently the species of sacrilege must needs be distinguished according to the different aspects of sanctity in the sacred things which are treated irreverently: for the greater the holiness ascribed to the sacred thing that is sinned against, the more grievous the sacrilege.

    Now holiness is ascribed, not only to sacred persons, namely, those who are consecrated to the divine worship, but also to sacred places and to certain other sacred things. And the holiness of a place is directed to the holiness of man, who worships God in a holy place. For it is written (2 Macc 5:19): God did not choose the people for the place’s sake, but the place for the people’s sake. Hence sacrilege committed against a sacred person is a graver sin than that which is committed against a sacred place. Yet in either species there are various degrees of sacrilege, according to differences of sacred persons and places.

    In like manner the third species of sacrilege, which is committed against other sacred things, has various degrees, according to the differences of sacred things. Among these the highest place belongs to the sacraments whereby man is sanctified: chief of which is the sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Wherefore the sacrilege that is committed against this sacrament is the gravest of all. The second place, after the sacraments, belongs to the vessels consecrated for the administration of the sacraments; also sacred images, and the relics of the saints, wherein the very persons of the saints, so to speak, are reverenced and honored. After these come things connected with the apparel of the Church and its ministers; and those things, whether movable or immovable, that are deputed to the upkeep of the ministers. And whoever sins against any one of the aforesaid incurs the crime of sacrilege

    just as I suspected. Nowhere does St. Thomas say communion in the hand is a sacrilege.

    In the first quote he says that nothing touches it but what is consecrated, and hence it is unlawful (against ecclesiastical law) for anyone to touch it but a priest except in the case of necessity.  Nothing about CIH being a sacrilege

    The second quote is irrelevant since all he says is sacrilege’s against the Eucharist are the worst kind of sacrilege, while never stating that CIH is itself a sacrilege. 

    But there’s another problem.  If nothing touches the Eucharist but what is consecrated, why is communion on the unconsecrated tongue permitted?  Is the tongue holier by nature than the hand? Is it cleaner than the hands?  Are less sins committed by the tongue?  Would you rather have the fat guy sitting next to you in mass touch your arm or lick your arm?  If an unconsecrated tongue can touch the host, an unconsecrated hand can touch it, unless, that is, ecclesiastical law deems it prudent to forbid unconsecrated hands from touching it for prudential reasons. 
     
    The reason communion in the hand was eventually forbidden (after nearly a thousand years) was indeed for prudential or practical purposes, namely, for greater reverence, as an effort to prevent particles from dropping on the floor, etc. 

    Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege today, it was not a sacrilege during the time of the church Fathers when that’s how everyone received it, and it was not a sacrilege at the time of St. Thomas.

    That’s why none of those who claimed the Angelic doctor  taught that CIH was Sacrilege were able to produce a quote from going m actually teaching it. Instead of one quote of him teaching it, they produced two quotes in which he didn’t teach it. 
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 48011
    • Reputation: +28368/-5306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #61 on: September 15, 2023, 06:18:15 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 15, 2023, 02:30:00 PM
    Matthew can verify it’s not me.

    Nice use of VPN :laugh1:
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13139
    • Reputation: +8283/-2564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #62 on: September 15, 2023, 06:26:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege today, it was not a sacrilege during the time of the church Fathers when that’s how everyone received it, and it was not a sacrilege at the time of St. Thomas.
    Wow.  Stunning and telling post from a novus ordo-ite.
    Logged

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 33417
    • Reputation: +29708/-615
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #63 on: September 15, 2023, 06:31:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • I'm not going to get involved in the argument. But looking at the big picture, 10,000 feet view, I only want to say this:

    Sean, you DO realize that this is VERY, VERY offensive to Trad ears, and everything the Trad movement stands for. It's offensive to the sensus Catholicus of MOST if not ALL Trads.

    So a random Catholic layman could touch the Blessed Sacrament, and not be committing a sacrilege, but he was merely "born too late" or some such? Seems like it would be sinful, to me. An objective offense against God and the Blessed Sacrament. After all, what motive could anyone have for thus violating the Blessed Sacrament? "Oh, I just can't get used to these new Church regulations! Because in MY day, back 1,500 years ago, we used to receive Communion in the hand!" Uh, there are no vampires. No one lives more than 120 years. We're talking about men and women living in the CURRENT age, since time machines are metaphysically impossible.

    But even if certain things were technically true, one could nevertheless state that A) it is offensive to pious ears and B) there is no good that will come from shouting it from the housetops. NOTE: I'm passing over the question of "is it actually true" for purposes of my point. As the Thomistic scholars would say, "transeo".

    This is a very curious crusade you're on here, Sean. What is your motivation? It sure makes people think, oh I don't know, that you've been frog-boiled by your ongoing attendance at the SSPX this past 11 years, that you've absorbed some neo-SSPX Conciliar poison, and/or that you are an "Indulter" to quote a recent thread. I'm not saying any of these things are true -- but I would certainly understand why anyone would think such things! Let's be objective here.

    Assuming those accusations are NOT true, then what IS your motivation in defending CITH to *any* degree? Of all the things to spend your time on, all the possible crusades, all the hundreds of errors and cօռspιʀαcιҽs in the Modern World, this is certainly a MOST CURIOUS hill to die on!

    Please, help me out here.
    Logged
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #64 on: September 15, 2023, 06:39:26 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #65 on: September 15, 2023, 06:42:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on September 15, 2023, 06:31:38 PM
    I'm not going to get involved in the argument. But looking at the big picture, 10,000 feet view, I only want to say this:

    Sean, you DO realize that this is VERY, VERY offensive to Trad ears, and everything the Trad movement stands for. It's offensive to the sensus Catholicus of MOST if not ALL Trads.

    So a random Catholic layman could touch the Blessed Sacrament, and not be committing a sacrilege, but he was merely "born too late" or some such? Seems like it would be sinful, to me. An objective offense against God and the Blessed Sacrament. After all, what motive could anyone have for thus violating the Blessed Sacrament? "Oh, I just can't get used to these new Church regulations! Because in MY day, back 1,500 years ago, we used to receive Communion in the hand!" Uh, there are no vampires. No one lives more than 120 years. We're talking about men and women living in the CURRENT age, since time machines are metaphysically impossible.

    But even if certain things were technically true, one could nevertheless state that A) it is offensive to pious ears and B) there is no good that will come from shouting it from the housetops. NOTE: I'm passing over the question of "is it actually true" for purposes of my point. As the Thomistic scholars would say, "transeo".

    This is a very curious crusade you're on here, Sean. What is your motivation? It sure makes people think, oh I don't know, that you've been frog-boiled by your ongoing attendance at the SSPX this past 11 years, that you've absorbed some neo-SSPX Conciliar poison, and/or that you are an "Indulter" to quote a recent thread. I'm not saying any of these things are true -- but I would certainly understand why anyone would think such things! Let's be objective here.

    Assuming those accusations are NOT true, then what IS your motivation in defending CITH to *any* degree? Of all the things to spend your time on, all the possible crusades, all the hundreds of errors and cօռspιʀαcιҽs in the Modern World, this is certainly a MOST CURIOUS hill to die on!

    Please, help me out here.

    Matthew-

    What precisely do you find “very very offensive to trad ears?”

    Help me out here.

    Are you suggesting that for Tradition to be right, we need to flush 800 years of praxis down the memory hole, and falsify history??

    I’m not getting it.

    If someone finds history offensive, there’s a problem of honesty and/or disposition in play.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline C8Trad

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
    • Reputation: +21/-22
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #66 on: September 15, 2023, 06:55:44 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 15, 2023, 06:26:53 PM
    Wow.  Stunning and telling post from a novus ordo-ite.


    I’m not a Novus Ordoite and I don’t receive communion in the hand. I’m just one of the few traditional Catholics willing to face cold, hard reality, and deal with it.  You’re obviously not. 

    I’m sorry the truth offends you, but the fault is on you part. Still waiting for the quotes from the popes since the second century forbidding CIH,  along with a source where they can be verified. 

    And just some ‘friendly’ advice to save you from embarrassing yourself, don’t bother quoting the alleged quotes (or alleged teachings, since some of them don’t even provide actual quotes) of the early popes against CIH that have been cited in books and articles by fellow trads for decades, because I have already looked into them, and they are all - every single one of them -  either fake, or completely out of context.  
    Logged

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 15060
    • Reputation: +10006/-3163
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #67 on: September 15, 2023, 06:57:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 15, 2023, 06:42:48 PM
    Matthew-

    What precisely do you find “very very offensive to trad ears?”

    Help me out here.

    Are you suggesting that for Tradition to be right, we need to flush 800 years of praxis down the memory hole, and falsify history??

    I’m not getting it.

    If someone finds history offensive, there’s a problem of honesty and/or disposition in play.

    You say this “is a curious crusade you’re on.  What is your motivation?”

    Are you serious??

    There needs to be some ulterior motivation aside from a love of historical truth?

    It’s almost hilarious that so many posters on this forum behave like little kids who were just told Santa isn’t real, when confronted with indisputable proof that CITH was the norm for the early Church: 

    They actually RESENT being told the truth.  Why?  Has their religion been built upon lies and ignorance?  It certainly seems so!

    I’ll turn the question back on you:

    What is YOUR reason for defending so many stupidities, and the poisoner of minds (like your own), Loudestmouth?  Donations?  High traffic?

    Certainly, if you’re allowed to question my motives, I’m also allowed to question yours?

    If you want to make CI a fake “Catholic” forum, where every bizarre theory is welcome, but the truth is looked upon with suspicion, I’d put that back in front of you for further reflection.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13139
    • Reputation: +8283/-2564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #68 on: September 15, 2023, 06:58:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    I’m not a Novus Ordoite and I don’t receive communion in the hand.
    You're missing the forest for the trees, my friend.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13139
    • Reputation: +8283/-2564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #69 on: September 15, 2023, 07:15:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote
    St Cyrils' quote which "supports" C-i-t-H...

    “When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” (Catechesis mystagogica V, xxi-xxii, Migne Patrologia Graeca 33)
    Response online:

    If you only look at the selection made from St. Cyril's Mystagogical Catechesis V, On The Eucharistic Rite, paragraph 21, which is where the passage comes from, then yes indeed, you only see that which some cherry pickers wish you to see, what appears to be support for the controversial practice of the reception of the Eucharist in the hands of the non-ordained by a Doctor of the Church! Guess what folks? The passage above is a cherry picked so we will be fooled into believing something that isn't so.

    I have several different copies of the works of St. Cyril, some translations are actually a bit different, no surprise there. I got them to cross reference all of this nonsense just to be sure. I smelled cherry pie, so I did a little research and actually bought several different copies of the work cited. The answer lies in the preceding paragraphs and the paragraphs after.

    You have to take the work as a whole and in so doing, you find the intended audience are those who are ordained, or preparing to be ordained, not laypersons as is said by those who want the rest of us to receive on the hand. St. Cyril's instructions are meant for the priests and deacons serving the altar during a Mass. That is who is supposed to make his hands into a throne to receive the Eucharistic species from the hands of the Priest, the Deacon or Deacons assisting at that particular Mass.

    It is not as some wish, an instruction to the laypersons receiving. If you bother to read the entire docuмent from a reliable hard copy source, you will see exactly the truth: St. Cyril's instruction is meant for his deacons. And in that case, the true one, then he is fully compliant with his brother Bishops in not allowing the non-ordained to handle the sacred species. Please refrain from further disparagement of such a great Doctor of the Church in stating he allowed Communion in the hand for laypersons. He didn't.
    Logged

    Offline trad123

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2033
    • Reputation: +450/-96
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #70 on: September 15, 2023, 07:17:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on September 15, 2023, 06:57:50 PM
    What is YOUR reason for defending so many stupidities, and the poisoner of minds (like your own), Loudestmouth?  Donations?  High traffic?

    Certainly, if you’re allowed to question my motives, I’m also allowed to question yours?

    If you want to make CI a fake “Catholic” forum, where every bizarre theory is welcome, but the truth is looked upon with suspicion, I’d put that back in front of you for further reflection.




    Logged
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4 

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline AnthonyPadua

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2704
    • Reputation: +1361/-306
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #71 on: September 15, 2023, 07:32:13 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Matthew on September 15, 2023, 06:31:38 PM
    No one lives more than 120 years. 
    Job lived to 140.

    "And Job lived after these things, a hundred and forty years, "
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13139
    • Reputation: +8283/-2564
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #72 on: September 15, 2023, 07:52:04 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    You say this “is a curious crusade you’re on.  What is your motivation?”

    Are you serious??

    There needs to be some ulterior motivation aside from a love of historical truth?
    This is a total half-truth and deception.  You're hiding behind this "love of history" when none of your posts (to date) have condemned the practice.  You could've easily said, "It was the norm long ago, but it's the right decision now to stop this practice, as we have 1,000+ years of history to show it caused problems and led to abuses."

    But no, you won't condemn it.  Putting history aside, this is the problem.


    Quote
    It’s almost hilarious that so many posters on this forum behave like little kids who were just told Santa isn’t real, when confronted with indisputable proof that CITH was the norm for the early Church: 

    They actually RESENT being told the truth.  Why?  Has their religion been built upon lies and ignorance?  It certainly seems so!
    No, we resent partial truths, half-quotes and isolated incidents being put forth as "norms".


    Quote
    I’ll turn the question back on you:

    What is YOUR reason for defending so many stupidities, and the poisoner of minds (like your own), Loudestmouth?  Donations?  High traffic?
    You could've easily stopped all this nonsense by admitting that the practice is practically problematic and is/was rightfully stopped.  But you didn't.  So, by your own silence, you consent to the practice.


    Quote
    Certainly, if you’re allowed to question my motives, I’m also allowed to question yours?

    If you want to make CI a fake “Catholic” forum, where every bizarre theory is welcome, but the truth is looked upon with suspicion, I’d put that back in front of you for further reflection.
    This is the most catholic forum in existence.  It's too bad you are (increasingly) in disagreement with time-honored Trad values.
    Logged

    Offline Angelus

    • Supporter
    • ***
    • Posts: 1626
    • Reputation: +636/-127
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #73 on: September 15, 2023, 08:04:44 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: C8Trad on September 15, 2023, 06:14:08 PM
    just as I suspected. Nowhere does St. Thomas say communion in the hand is a sacrilege.

    In the first quote he says that nothing touches it but what is consecrated, and hence it is unlawful (against ecclesiastical law) for anyone to touch it but a priest except in the case of necessity.  Nothing about CIH being a sacrilege

    The second quote is irrelevant since all he says is sacrilege’s against the Eucharist are the worst kind of sacrilege, while never stating that CIH is itself a sacrilege.

    But there’s another problem.  If nothing touches the Eucharist but what is consecrated, why is communion on the unconsecrated tongue permitted?  Is the tongue holier by nature than the hand? Is it cleaner than the hands?  Are less sins committed by the tongue?  Would you rather have the fat guy sitting next to you in mass touch your arm or lick your arm?  If an unconsecrated tongue can touch the host, an unconsecrated hand can touch it, unless, that is, ecclesiastical law deems it prudent to forbid unconsecrated hands from touching it for prudential reasons.
     
    The reason communion in the hand was eventually forbidden (after nearly a thousand years) was indeed for prudential or practical purposes, namely, for greater reverence, as an effort to prevent particles from dropping on the floor, etc.

    Communion in the hand is not a sacrilege today, it was not a sacrilege during the time of the church Fathers when that’s how everyone received it, and it was not a sacrilege at the time of St. Thomas.

    That’s why none of those who claimed the Angelic doctor  taught that CIH was Sacrilege were able to produce a quote from going m actually teaching it. Instead of one quote of him teaching it, they produced two quotes in which he didn’t teach it.

    St. Thomas says,

    "...out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated..."
    https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q82.A3.C

    ...the sin of sacrilege consists in the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing..."
    https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.II-II.Q99.A3.C


    In syllogistic form:

    Only consecrated hands may touch the Eucharist reverently. (ST.III.Q82.A3.C)
    A layman's hands are not consecrated.
    Therefore, it is irreverent for a layman's hands to touch the Eucharist.

    Sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of a sacred thing. (ST.II-II.Q99.A3.C)
    The Eucharist is a sacred thing and it is irreverent for a layman to touch the Eucharist,
    Therefore, it is a sacrilege for a layman to touch the Eucharist.
    Logged

    Offline C8Trad

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 20
    • Reputation: +21/-22
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Commuion in the hand
    « Reply #74 on: September 15, 2023, 08:58:52 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on September 15, 2023, 06:58:02 PM
    You're missing the forest for the trees, my friend.

    In your analogy, historical facts and truth (trees) are preventing me from seeing the broader unified truth of the whole ( the forest). But that’s not the way the human minds works. 

    Facts and propositions that we believe to be true serve as a premises that logically lead to conclusions in a syllogism. Here’s an example:  


    a. Communion in the hand is intrinsically evil (error that PAC has embraced as true) 

    b. The true Church lead by a true pope could never allow something that is intrinsically evil.   

    Conclusion. The true church lead by a true pope could never allow communion in the hand. 

    The conclusions then becomes another premise that leads to other conclusions. Example:

    a. The true church lead by a true pope cannot allow communion in the hand.  

    b. The church and popes after V2 have allowed communion in the hand. 

    Conclusion: The church after V2 ( the conciliar Church) cannot be the true church, and the conciliar popes icannot have been true popes. 

    That conclusion then becomes another premise that leads to another conclusion. Example:

    a. The conciliar church is not the true church and the Holy See has been vacant for decades. 

    b. Theologians teach that if there are no more cardinals, the laity could elect a pope.  (Theory that is mistakenly embraced as a fact) 

    Conclusion: Since there are no more true cardinals, we traditional Catholics can elect a pope. 

    We know where that conclusion can lead.  



    One factual error (communion in the hand is intrinsically evil) is all it takes to set off a chain of errors that leads to a Pope Michael. As St. Thomas said, a little error in the beginning results in a big error in the end. 

    Now, considering the effect that one error, and the conclusions that logically follow from it, can have on the mind, is it more likely that historical facts and truth will distort a persons view of reality and prevent them from seeing the bigger picture, or is it more likely that they will help him see things more clearly, reason more soundly, and judge the reality of the bigger picture (the forest) as it actually is? 
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
    « previous next »