| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Sacrament of the Eucharist | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Wednesday, 27. September 2006, 23:23 (1,483 Views) | |
| Rose of York | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 14:15 Post #16 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Patrick: Some guy called Patrick says Communion in the hand was abolished because of it's making the Host available to those who wished to profane the Sacred Host to 'legitimise' a 'Black Mass'. I took that posting to mean that reception on the tongue prevented Satanists keeping the hosts for misuse in black Masses. Have a word with the guy called Patrick. He might be able to explain what he meant.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 14:19 Post #17 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Was St Thomas Aquinas infallible? Oh please Patrick, don't do what a member of the Lower House did to me. I beg you not to reply: "No, Rose, and neither are you." |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 15:14 Post #18 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Rose,
Was a clarification of the 'sacrilege' in
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Helen | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 15:37 Post #19 |
|
Was the sacrilege to do with consecration of hands, or cleanliness of priests' (ie consecrated) hands? In the West Country it is usual to find a well close to an ancient church. The name of the village of Bridestowe in West Devon means "Brigid's Well"; Saint Brigid converted Bridestowe. Brigid's well is on the site of the original church. The reason for wells was the priest travelled on horseback. He travelled far; he would perspire. His hands and clothes could be dirty with manure and dust; his toilet needs would be dealt with outdoors. Before Mass the priest washed in the church, using water from the well. Peasant laity were dirty; they lacked facilities. One hundred years ago the Cornish town of Calstock had four privies, and about 2000 copper miners. The fresh water facility for drinking and washing was a stream at Drakewalls, poluted by arsenic. It was more than a mile away up a hill so people hardly ever washed. Water from the river was dirty with oil, manure, zinc, copper, tin and explosives so was poisonous. Was Communion in the hand sacriligeous because in jungles, forests, and towns, people could not wash their hands? |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 16:08 Post #20 |
|
I thought you explanation was excellent Gerry. Bit late posting this; my computor has been playing up; will go to chatter if it allows me. PJD |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 16:43 Post #21 |
![]()
Administrator
|
No Rose, St Thomas Aquinas was not infallible. However, he was a Doctor of the Church and is a Saint. Perhaps this lot were?: St. Sixtus I (circa 115) The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord. St. Basil the Great (330-379) The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution. The Council of Saragossa (380) Ex-Communicated anyone who dared continue recieving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo. The Synod of Rouen (650) Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman but only in their mouths. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681) Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with Ex-Communication. The Council of Trent (1545-1565) The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition. Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) This method [on the tongue] must be retained. ('Memoriale Domini') Pope John-Paul II 'To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained' (Dominicae Cenae, 11) |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 17:04 Post #22 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Gerry, Everyone at the Last Supper was ordained.
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 17:18 Post #23 |
|
Yes Patrick I appreciate all that can be said against Communion in the Hand. But I'm not sure all present at the Last Supper were other than the Apostles. Perhaps they were, but Our Blessed Lady wasn't an Apostle. Never mind, the reason I entered here - whilst it is going okay, the forum posting that is - was just to say that 'we in the pews do what we are told!' PJD |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 17:29 Post #24 |
|
PJD, Thanks for the kind things you said about my earlier post. Now, "we, in the pews, do what we are told". And we are told that we may receive the Host in our hands or on our tongues. It is wrong to suggest someone is irreverent for accepting Him in the alternative to the way we prefer personally. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 21:11 Post #25 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Well, well, well. Just been trying to find out who reintroduced Communion in the hand. It transpires that it was introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens - disobeying the rubrics of the Holy See. Apparently, Pope Paul VI, not wishing to rebuke a fellow bishop, decided to lift the ban on receiving Communion in the Hand - and left it to the discretion of diocesan bishops. |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 21:18 Post #26 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I first came across the practise of Communion in the Hand early in the eighties. Our parish priest of the time was a stickler for "rules" and would never have allowed it without Vatican approval. He was a Doctor of Canon Law, and kept up to date with Church developments. At the same time, the practise was introduced in the "next door" parish, whose pp was an elderly Monsignor, very wise man, Vicar General of the old school, and he broke NO rules. He even walked up and down the aisle before Mass having words with visitors who dared have conversations. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 21:25 Post #27 |
|
Patrick,
clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, Gerry (can we get a get a clappy" smilie? )
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| CARLO | Sunday, 8. October 2006, 22:04 Post #28 |
|
And I would like a 'happy clappy" Smiley please! Judica me Deus Judge me O God CARLO |
| Judica me Deus | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Monday, 9. October 2006, 01:17 Post #29 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Gentlemen, You mean like this: ?
|
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Monday, 9. October 2006, 01:21 Post #30 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Ask Gerry. He's happy and he knows it and he really wants to show it. When he's happy and he knows it he claps hands. ![]() This is me:
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







)
?
3:45 PM Jul 11