Monday, July 20, 2009

Thou Shalt Not Kneel...


I've read in a couple of places (most recently Portugal), that some dioceses or individual parishes are mandating communion in the hand, to combat the spread of the Swine Flu. In some areas, to me, that sounds reasonable, especially if they also suspend the Sign of Peace (Portugal). I know in my own parish, during flu season, the priest will invite us to give one another a "nod" instead of pressing the flesh and back slapping one another.

Maybe it's just the cynical side of me, but doesn't it seem like (yet) another backdoor way to mandate communion in the hand altogether?

This is how the destroyers of the Faith work. They seize on any opportunity to make it work towards their ends.

First, communion in the hand was introduced. Then, after the horses were out of the barn, it was approved.

Then, when Tradition begins to push back, they mandate standing as the "norm" to receive communion. Was there really some need to mandate standing? Other than spite?

Will communion in the hand be mandated soon, based on some backdoor "need"? Naturally, they'd say "Well, we understand those who like to receive on the tongue, but due to (insert excuse here), we need to have everyone receive in the hand.

Here's a link to an article (I don't know anything about the writer, so don't take this as some sort of endorsement. It appears to be just a general Catholic column):

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2009/05/02/swine-flu-and-communion-in-the-hand.htm

24 comments:

Kenneth said...

While they're at it they should prevent multiple hands from coming in contact and to prevent the spread of disease they should just have communicants take the wafers from the baskets or the tabernacle itself (note: heavy sarcasm).

Kathy said...

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
--Rahm Emanuel

Enbrethiliel said...

+JMJ+

It has happened in the Philippines, too, and I've been abstaining from Communion when I am at Mass with certain priests, because the look on their faces when I stick my tongue out is bad for both of us. If I had the courage of my convictions, I'd print out your latest cartoon and leave a copy where I know they'd find it.

Paul Nichols said...

--Rahm Emanuel
--------------------
I had this in mind as I was writing the post up, Kathy. I'm sure the usurpers are thinking the same thing. It's a great opportunity for them to codify modernism into the rubrics.

Even while the Pope is picking up some of the scattered bricks of Tradition, the Modernist Sledgehammers toil away.

Jean-remy Duboc said...

Paul,
you're over-reacting.
Communion in the hand was used way before Vatican II, and it has very valid meanings for many of us. Personnaly, I take it in my hands because it reminds me that it is a gift from God, and I receive it like a beggar receives his food from his benefactor.
I think it should never be a problem to take communion either way, and that all parishes and priests should respect that.
That said, it's no reason to say that those who favor taking communion in the hands are "destroyers of the Faith". How do you expect any love and understanding in the Church if you use that kind of talking ?
Would Jesus want you to spread that kind of hatred? So is xhat you are doing truly christian ?

Paul Nichols said...

That said, it's no reason to say that those who favor taking communion in the hands are "destroyers of the Faith". How do you expect any love and understanding in the Church if you use that kind of talking ?
=======================
Don't get me wrong - the "destroyers" are not simply those who take communion in the hand. I was instructed to do, along with the rest of my class, in grade school.

The "destroyers" are those who promote CIH and any other innovation which leads to a "dumbing down" of the Faith and the teachings of the Church.

I'm sure you've seen the lack of reverence by many with regards to communion these days, which I believe was the intent of the "innovators" from the 60's & 70's.

And I'm aware of the fact that VII didn't usher in CIH - but it (VII) sure has been the great big "window to the world" which, instead of blessing the world, has allowed the world to infect the Faith.

Is there a connection between CIH and lack of faith in the Real Presence? Sure seems that way to me.

I don't hold the pewsitters in disdain on this - they're no different than me, in that they've been taught the modern, watered-down version of Catholicism.

And this is still what we're fed today. There are pockets of the Traditional Faith breaking out, but by and large, the destroyers are still in charge.

Anita Moore said...

How do you expect any love and understanding in the Church if you use that kind of talking ?
Would Jesus want you to spread that kind of hatred? So is xhat you are doing truly christian ?


Here is my answer to this.

tamtam said...

paul, it could be far worse. in my orthodox church, we recieve communion by spoon. yet, nobody's raises a fuss in the orthodox church for doing this. but then again, the orthodox church doesnt really put much emphasis on communion and basically, we are told that if you don't want to get sick, don't take communion.

kiapokspika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kiapokspika said...

I had made also a commentary about this issue.

http://kiapokspika.blogspot.com/2009/06/commentary-on-churchs-happening-close.html

I repeat: In the Church, nobody is allowed to stop or add any new practices, unless it affects the orthodoxy of the rite of the Mass.

kiapokspika said...

Also, to Jean-remy Duboc,

if we do not speak out for the Holy Tradition of the Roman Church, that will truly allow those merciless modernists to destroy the faith of our fathers.

If you say if that is christian,

Then imagine.. Christ stood out and rebuked the Pharisees and scribes a lot of times in the bible.

Many martyrs died in the course of the early Church, and as well up to today, to profess their belief in a heroic way (when Christianity always contradicts the evil of the world)

kiapokspika said...

2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established....3. Therefore, no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

from V for Victory blog's post on Vatican 2 http://v-forvictory.blogspot.com/2007/01/betcha-didnt-know-vatican-ii-said-this.html

Paul Cat said...

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, the church father who lived during the 4th century, said

"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."

The whole argument about which is holier or which is more proper or which is more orthodox really is an issue that is doing nothing more than sapping energy and distracting church members from the issues of more important.

I was taught that is was acceptable to receive either way hand or mouth.

Though, you do miss some of that symbolism that is often found molded on many tabernacles, that being the pelican feeding his flesh directly into the mouth of its children, by receiving in the hand.

Jean-remy Duboc said...

Thank you Paul Cat !
Receiving communion in the mouth is a recent tradition, and it makes sense to go back to older practices.

Anita Moore said...

it makes sense to go back to older practices.

Cool. Let's go back to public penances, and penances of 100 days and 2 years and 10 years, etc.

(That, incidentally, is what was referred to when indulgences were measured in terms of days and years. It didn't mean that the indulgence would knock 100 days off your term in Purgatory, but that the indulgence was the equivalent of 100 days of penance.)

Jean-remy Duboc said...

"Cool. Let's go back to public penances, and penances of 100 days and 2 years and 10 years, etc. "

For crying out loud !!!
I think I made an effort to reach out to you guys, I come forward trying to be understanding, and THAT is what I get in my face: people who mock my arguments, pretending not to understand what I am trying to say.
I have to say, I am angry at that kind of behavior.
When I say "it makes sense to go back to older practices", I obvioulsy mean it in our current context (receiving communion). It is authorised by the church, it makes a great deal of sense from a faith perspective (Paul Cast's quote of St Cyril tells it all), and it is widely practiced throughout the world (sometimes not properly, but often with the respect that is due to the Holy Host).
I tried to be positive, to start bridging gaps in the church, but you guys have no intention of doing that, so I give up.
It make me very sad.

Anita Moore said...

I tried to be positive, to start bridging gaps in the church, but you guys have no intention of doing that, so I give up.
It make me very sad.


Bye.

P.S. My guess is that "returning to older practices" doesn't include the widespread revival of the usus antiquior, or religious habits, or kneeling for Holy Communion, or guitar-free Masses.

Anita Moore said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anita Moore said...

P.P.S. I don't accept your premise that Communion on the hand is a venerable tradition ruthlessly suppressed until after Vatican II.

Bill Hoog said...

"Will communion in the hand be mandated soon, based on some backdoor "need"?"

I recently heard something on the radio about the H1N1 aka "Swine Flue" causing more Catholic Churches to go to communion in the hand. Way too scary

Paul Nichols said...

it makes sense to go back to older practices.
------------------
With all due respect, this argument is always used to justify some new novelty. The Church has grown since her inception, and and codified practices over the centuries that best foster the Faith.

Going back to "antiquity" is a canard used by those who don't like the Church prior to Vatican II.

But even if you accept that premise, I'd argue that all of the novelties ushered in after Vatican II have dumbed down the Faith. I'd argue that we only need to restore the practices we had a mere 50 years ago.

The question that should be asked before something new is introduced is "Is it good for the Faith?".

Anonymous said...

The great encyclical (highly prophetic in retrospect) "Mediator Dei" written by Pope Pius XII comes to mind in this whole Communion in the Hand argument. A few excerpts come to mind as this discussion carries on

"The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man."

The Pontiff continues...

"But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device."

The Holy Ghost has guided the Church to the beautiful practice of administering our Lord on the tongues of each of the faithful. At the same time, the pontiff carefully states

"Let everything be done with due order and dignity, and let no one, not even a priest, make use of the sacred edifices according to his whim to try out experiments..."

Do we not see this "experimentation" in so many of our churches?

kiapokspika said...

"For crying out loud !!!
I think I made an effort to reach out to you guys, I come forward trying to be understanding, and THAT is what I get in my face: people who mock my arguments, pretending not to understand what I am trying to say.
I have to say, I am angry at that kind of behavior.
When I say "it makes sense to go back to older practices", I obvioulsy mean it in our current context (receiving communion). It is authorised by the church, it makes a great deal of sense from a faith perspective (Paul Cast's quote of St Cyril tells it all), and it is widely practiced throughout the world (sometimes not properly, but often with the respect that is due to the Holy Host).
I tried to be positive, to start bridging gaps in the church, but you guys have no intention of doing that, so I give up.
It make me very sad."


Sorry Jean, but the Church Councils before Vatican II said it all, so, please follow my suggestion, buy yourself a copy of the Baltimore Catechism or the Catechism of the Council of Trent. That will solve it... (maybe being a N.O. person is not good at all)

kiapokspika said...

Remember,

Communion in the hand leaves a lot of fragments of Hosts, especially because nobody checks their hands when they do so.

Where is it then thrown? on the floor!

If you do not want to step down on a Host, follow the venerable way!

"There are several very common ones. Especially and namely this: When a person receives Communion in the hand there is a very high probability that some Fragment of the Host will break off or come loose and remain in the hand after the communicant has put the Host in his mouth. Whereas there is little or no danger of Fragments breaking off and falling to the ground if he receives on his tongue. Now after some time the Fragment will fall off his hand and onto the ground where It can be trampled underfoot.

We know from the defined Dogma of the Catholic Faith that each and every Fragment which breaks off from the Host is "The Body of Jesus Christ - really present." So to drop a Consecrated Fragment on the ground is the same as dropping the Consecrated Host on the ground. Even if only done through negligence it is still a sin of sacrilege.

This danger of irreverence then is to be avoided by Divine Law. Not even the Pope can change this law. The Vatican document by including here the necessity of avoiding danger of irreverence is only reminding us of this Divine Law.

It is again the personal responsibility of the minister of the Sacrament be he the Pope, a Bishop, a Cardinal or a Priest or Deacon or an Extraordinary Lay Minister to see to it that all danger of irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist be avoided.

He cannot say the bishop commanded me or everyone else is doing it ... Before God he must answer for each and every act of administering the Holy Eucharist.

If he knows that the people receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand do not look in their hands to see if there are any Fragments left after they consume the Host then he can be certain that some of the people will most likely have Fragments on their hands which will sooner or later be dropped. In which case for him his responsibility is clear - he cannot give Communion in the hand even if the bishop or Pope should order him to do so. "

- fatimacrusader.com