From Fr. Perricone at Crisis:
One need not be a trained phenomenologist to appreciate the importance of symbolic acts in man’s self-disclosure. Insouciance in the presence of the Holy Eucharist is a damning sign—not only of the total absence of rudimentary piety, but of a withered belief in the doctrine itself. One flows from the other as certainly as day follows night. If a Catholic shows as much attention to the Holy Eucharist as he does to collecting his order at Starbucks, something is awry.
The American bishops seemed to have noticed this alarming anomaly in the past year. Odd that they should have detected this doctrinal collapse so recently, since it has been glaringly evident for over a half-century. It is rather like a man being bitten by a shark and only screaming an hour later.
[...]
The esoteric ruminations of faux Catholic scholars would have collected dust on university/seminary shelves unless they were translated into praxis by the instruments of liturgy and catechesis. This is exactly what was done with impressive and sweeping results. In the case of catechesis, the old Baltimore Catechism anchored the Faith firmly in the minds of the young; its successor leaves young Catholics adrift in a sea of passé Sixties flotsam. And all of this has taken place over the past sixty years under the unwatchful eyes of pastors and bishops. Or, shall we say, watchful eye.
So thorough was this transformation of Eucharistic theology that well-meaning Catholics now confidently call the Mass “a meal” and the Holy Eucharist “bread of fellowship.” Under this logic, it is quite hostile, to say nothing of actionable, to refuse any man or woman access to the Holy Eucharist. Not a few bishops growl at a priest even publicly repeating the traditional requirements for reception of Holy Communion. So very “unwelcoming,” you see. This alarming doctrinal breakdown entrenched itself so deeply that it even dictated new architectural forms for churches, confirming the Marshall McLuhan principle: the medium is the message. (Read more.)
From EWTN:
In an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could be argued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that all that is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the Last Supper... Someone else may even say that holding the host in their hands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimate relationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesus in their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. The consecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorified Lord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to the privilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fitting relationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas who kneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or the encounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as related in the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once "was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloved disciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the present irreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.
We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini" where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Some bishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangers that it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of "insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." It is not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is any less or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate that receiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering down of our faith, as well as possible desecration.
Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint Thomas Aquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritatively and sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thus conclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was well established by then. When we search further back in history, we see that Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod of Rouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the Holy Father Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."
In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for taking communion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the hand during the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive the Eucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblical exegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priests when they received the Eucharist. (Read more.)
Here are quotations from saints, popes, and Church councils at Catholic Tradition:
St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."Share
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
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) (Read more.)
2 comments:
Mandating Communion on the tongue would certainly be a lot cheaper and more effective than the 28 million set aside for Eucharistic Revival. So would mandating that the opportunity for confession be available for at least a half hour before every celebration of the Eucharist. But, if that 28 million is really burning a hole in the bishops' pockets, it could be spent on restoring communion rails.
I so agree.
Post a Comment