Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
The Sacrament of the Eucharist
Topic Started: Wednesday, 27. September 2006, 23:23 (1,483 Views)
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 02:01 PM
Quote:
 
Satanists wanting consecrated hosts could receive them on the tongue, and retain them in their mouths until they had gone down the aisle and out of the door.


Why would they want to receive the Body of Christ on their tongue, being Satanists, when they can just receive in the hand and put the Host in their posket/bag?


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.

Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
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'.

;)
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated" said St. Thomas Aquinas.

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!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Oct 8 2006, 02:15 PM
Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 02:01 PM
Quote:
 
Satanists wanting consecrated hosts could receive them on the tongue, and retain them in their mouths until they had gone down the aisle and out of the door.


Why would they want to receive the Body of Christ on their tongue, being Satanists, when they can just receive in the hand and put the Host in their posket/bag?


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.

Rose,

Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
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'.


Was a clarification of the 'sacrilege' in

Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 AD to put an end to widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Helen

Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 02:14 PM


Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
Communion in the hand was condemned by the Synod of Rouen in 650 AD to put an end to widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

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?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

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
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Rose of York
Oct 8 2006, 02:19 PM
Patrick
Oct 8 2006, 01:19 PM
"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated" said St. Thomas Aquinas.

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."

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)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gerard
Oct 8 2006, 09:05 AM
Back when? 1,900 years ago? No. 1900 years ago it was normal to pass the Consecrated Bread, The Eucharist, round hand to hand as was done at the Last Supper. Jesus was OK with this so why should not we?

Gerry,

Everyone at the Last Supper was ordained.

;)
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PJD

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
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gerard

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).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
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.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
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!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Gerard

Patrick,

Quote:
 
reintroduced


clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap,

Gerry


(can we get a get a clappy" smilie? :pl: )
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
CARLO
Member Avatar

Gerard
Oct 8 2006, 08:25 PM
Patrick,

Quote:
 
reintroduced


clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap,

Gerry


(can we get a get a clappy" smilie? :pl: )

And I would like a 'happy clappy" Smiley please!

Judica me Deus
Judge me O God


CARLO
Judica me Deus
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Gentlemen,

You mean like this: Posted Image ?
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Patrick
Oct 9 2006, 01:17 AM
Gentlemen,

You mean like this: Posted Image ?

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.

Posted Image

This is me:

:sotc:
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic »
Locked Topic