Thursday, April 19, 2007

Want To Know The Best Way To Get A Roman Protestant To Go Apoplectic?
Read 'em these quotes

Just to name one of the mant things they set the "progressives" all a titter, I'd say it was Communion in the hand. With that said, who said this concerning the Protestant inspired practice of recieving Communion in the hand?

'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'

Was it Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre of the SSPX? Nooooo....

Was it Cardinal Ottaviani of the famous Ottaviani Intervention? Nooooo....

Was it any of the contributors to The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen? Nooooo....
>
>
>
>
>
Get ready for this...
>
>
>
>
It was Mother Teresa of Calcutta.

And while I'm at it... one of the things that get the "progressives" skivvie drawers all in a wad is The Traditional Latin Mass. With that said, who was it that stated the following?

The Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings. But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging.

Was it Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre of the SSPX? Nooooo....

Was it Cardinal Ottaviani of the famous Ottaviani Intervention? Nooooo....

Was it any of the contributors to The Lair of the Catholic Cavemen? Nooooo....
>
>
>
>
>
Get ready for this...
>
>
>
>
It was Pope John XXIII in the Apostolic Constitution, Veterum Sapientia.

14 Comments:

Anonymous rjv said...

I like these quotes, too:

Pope John Paul II: On Communion in the hand: "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 !" (Nov. 1980, Germany)


Fr. John Hardon S.J.:"Whatever you do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God"


Pope Paul VI: In Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), the Pope recognized that Communion on the tongue was more conducive to faith, reverence, and humility.


Council of Rouen: (650 AD) "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths."

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."

5:50 PM  
Blogger Alexander said...

Good quotes. But it seems strange that Paul VI and JPII were not courageous enough to stop the indult of Communion in the Hand. JPII never allowed it in Poland though.

9:07 PM  
Blogger tara said...

Smart people, ohh, I guess a couple of them are or will be saints--I think we should listen!

9:41 PM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

One advantage of correcting the English translation of the original Latin in the "New" Mass is, "Lord, I am not worthy that Thous shouldst enter under my roof. Say but the word and my should shall be healed." Of course it is a paraphrase of the prayer of the Roman sodier on behalf of his servant. However, when I was a kid, the good Sisters always reminded us about Jesus coming under the "roof" of our mouth in Holy Communion. Maybe if the bishops dumped Communion on that had, the language of the Mass might help remind us of our unworthiness.

10:16 PM  
Blogger Leticia said...

I remember vividly the first time it was done in my parish, I ran to the back of the church and sobbed my heart out!

12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what's even better is when a person in line for the Holy Eucharist spats out their gum into their hand just before receiving Christ on the hand.

1:04 PM  
Blogger Alexander said...

I remember vividly the first time it was done in my parish, I ran to the back of the church and sobbed my heart out!

Yes it seems very sad. This was an abuse in many areas that persisted so long until the Vatican "legalized the abuses" (amoung other things like EMHC).

That is obviously no way to organically develop a liturgy or its forms - through abuses.

1:35 PM  
Blogger James said...

It almost breaks my heart to see lay people distributing Holy Communion, and to see people take it in the hand. Sadly . . . that is the norm. IMHO, the modernist practice of using EMHC's at every Mass--even during the week, for crying out loud--is not only a liturgical abuse and scandal, but an affront to the priesthood God has established for the faithful, and thus an affront to God. It is similar to the Israelites complaining that they were tired of manna--food that God provided--and asking for something else in its place. "Give us a turn to 'hand out' the Eucharist! It's not fair that only clergy get to do it!" How sad.

BTW, I am a layman myself, lest some accuse me of being a rancorous clergyman.

7:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Approaching do not come with thy palms stretched flat nor with fingers separated. But making thy left hand a seat for thy right, and hollowing thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, responding Amen. And having with care hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, take it, vigilant lest thou drop any of it. For shouldst thou lose any of it, it is as though thou wast deprived of a member of thy own body." "Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses"

St. Cyril of Jerusalem


Dr. Eric

8:36 AM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Dr Eric,

You might want to consider using St Cyril as a foundation in favor of Communion in the hand. That often quoted passage (by those in favor of Communion in the hand) fail to remember that when St. Cyril stated such, the belief in The Real Presence was still in it's infancy.

And besides, St Cyril was (for a very long time) a soft-core Arian. Example;

He belonged to the Semi-Arian, or Homoean party, and is content to declare that the Son is "in all things like the Father". He communicated freely with bishops such a Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (both strident Arians). He not only does not explain that the Holy Trinity has one Godhead, but he does not even say the Three Persons are one God. The one God for him is always the Father. "There is one God, the Father of Christ, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of the only God, and one Holy Ghost, Who sanctifies and deifies all things" (Cat. iv, 16). But he rightly says: "We do not divide the Holy Trinity as some do, neither do we make a melting into one like Sabellius" (Cat. xvi, 4). Cyril never actually calls the Holy Ghost God, but He is to be honoured together with the Father and the Son (Cat. iv, 16). There is therefore nothing incorrect in his doctrine, only the explicit use of the Nicene formulae is wanting, and these, like St. Meletius and others of his party, he fully accepted at a later date.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04595b.htm

11:59 AM  
Blogger Vir Speluncae Catholicus said...

Oops, that first sentence should have read "You might want to REconsider using St Cyril as a foundation in favor of Communion in the hand"

12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Caveman,

I was just offering a second opinion. ;)

It seems there were a few things he wrote that were a little off kilter.


Dr. Eric

11:27 PM  
Blogger Alexander said...

Quoting St. Cyril does little because that particular work has been cast in doubt of whether or not he is the author further we have organic development. Pius XII warned against going back to ancient liturgical customs. He too saw the danger. Reversing development can strike at many dogmas either implicitly or explicitly. In this case it is the Real Presence and in a lesser sense the sacramental priesthood. There is a great amount evidence that communion on the tongue was actually very common in the early Church as well.

While doctrine developed and so did the Mass it was better to have no lay person touch the Eucharistic under ordinary circumstances. This sends a single to all present at the Mass; the Eucharistic Species is so holy that it is more reverent not to touch. This better guards against error against the Real Presence and of course it helps to strengthen the notion of a real sacramental priesthood. St. Thomas even concludes in the Summa that the priest should be the only one to touch the Sacred Species in the ordinary circumstances.

11:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Eastern Churches (Byzantine Rite) the Priest gives the Eucharist (Body and Blood) in a spoon, so there is no way any one could touch the Eucharist without making a horrible mess.

Maybe this could be a legitimate development for the West as well.

Remember the Papal fistula?

Dr. Eric

9:06 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home