In my recent post "Who Am I", some Junglewatchers took offense at that post, which I find interesting. That post showed the goodness in Tim Rohr. After all, there is some goodness in all of us as we are all created in God's image and likeness. However, it is interesting that some people took offense at that post. I cannot help but wonder what were they scandalized about? Were they offended because it came from Tim Rohr or were they offended because of the 11 good things that Tim Rohr stated? Those 11 things that Tim observed are true.
There was nothing negative that Tim Rohr wrote in that 2008 letter. The six issues he listed also were not negative to the Way. In fact, Tim stated that those six were his personal issues and personal preference. As a matter of fact, this is what Tim even said in regards to the Novus Ordo Mass, which most of us attend (the bold is my emphasis):
4. I am DEEPLY attached to the Traditional Latin Mass. Even at the Novus Ordo I do not touch the host. Communion in the hand was conceived in disobedience and allowed because the disobedience was so wide spread that it was deemed to cause more damage to stop it, so it was allowed. (Look it up yourself.)............
Tim Rohr has a personal issue of receiving the Body of Christ by hand as most Catholics in the Novus Ordo Mass practice. He felt that receiving the Body of Christ was conceived in disobedience and only allowed because disobedience was so widespread. This is actually false. Receiving the Body of Christ by hand was also done by some of the Early Christians. According to St. Cyril:
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.” (Catechesis mystagogica V, xxi-xxii, Migne Patrologia Graeca 33)
Therefore, it was NOT conceived in disobedience. This practice later became even more common when the swine flu epidemic hit the United States and worldwide. To keep the disease from spreading, the Church allowed receiving the Body of Christ by hand and also prevented parishioners from shaking hands during the sign of peace. According to the following website:
http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu219.htm
Now, let us take a closer look at the 11 things he stated in his post:
1. The NCW is teaching people the truth about sex. Thank God for that! I know women in the NCW who have gotten their tubes untied and many who have gotten off birth control. I know people who were living lives contrary to the teachings of the church as regards sex and who are now living in conformity with those teachings. The teaching of the NCW is heroic in this regard.
This is definitely true. We teach that married couples should be open to life, that the husband is the head of the household, that fornication, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, polygamy, same-sex marriage, and adultery are wrong...just as the Catholic Church teaches.
2. The NCW is getting people to pray, especially the liturgical prayer of the Church. I was luck to have been exposed to it many years ago, but since then I have never been encouraged to pray the Liturgy of the Hours.
This is most definitely true. We pray the Morning Prayers found in the Liturgy of the hours every convivience and even in the home. The father leads the prayer. If the household has no father, then the mother leads the prayer, and the children participate in the prayers.
3. The NCW is teaching people to be givers…AND they are succeeding. I see NCWs contributing in large ways, especially financially.
This is true. Now, everyone in the jungle has this desire to know how much money we are contributing and where it is going. Apparently, Tim has observed our contributions in large ways. We do not make our contributions public; however, sometimes people talk.
4. The NCW is producing vocations. And I know that the seminarians are learning Latin and Gregorian Chant in conformity with the true wishes of Vatican II. I don’t see that happening anywhere else.
This is true. English is not the seminarian's first language, but they are also learning to speak it.
5. I see NCW priests wearing their clerics. They are visible to the community. God Bless them for that.
6. I was sitting with Fr. Ivan and Fr Eric Forbes when Fr. Ivan asked Fr. Eric if he would teach the seminarians how to say the Traditional Latin Mass. Fr. Eric responded positively and also offered to teach them the theology of this beautiful Mass. This is in conformity with the wishes (if not command) of the Pope in his recent Moto Proprio. I don’t see anyone else rushing to embrace the Pope’s desires in this regard.
7. The NCW is teaching people to study their faith. They are studying the Scriptures, the Catechism, and the Early Fathers. It’s wonderful to see.
In every retreat we attend, we always bring our Jerusalem or New Jerusalem Bible. During the Youth Scrutacio, the youths also bring their Bible. During the celebration of the word, we have themes and words in which we scrutinize. Some of those themes or words are "Rock," "Abraham", "Vatican II", and the list goes on.
8. I understand that the NCW is also active in the prison. I used to teach in the prison for GCC and saw how active non-Catholic groups were with the prisoners. The majority of the prisoners are Catholic. Where is the Catholic ministry? The NCW is now there.
There is now a community in the prison.
9. I see the NCW going out 2 by 2, knocking on doors and inviting people back to the Church, in other words, doing exactly what Christ commanded. The only other group that I know that does this is the Legion of Mary, so good for them too.
Members of the NCW go out in 2 by 2 or evangelize in the public square. The RMS priests REALLY go out in 2 by 2 the way the Holy Bible describe, taking nothing with them other than their Bible and passports. Some of their stories are very inspirational. In fact, I find Father Michael Jucutan's "pizza story" very inspirational.
10. Most of all I am moved by the politeness, the kindness, the general charity of those I know in the NCW, especially the priests and seminarians, but essentially most everybody I know personally who is connected with it.
There are also some people in the Way who are not so nice. You will find people of all walks of life with different attitudes in the Way. It is the same anywhere you go.
11. I should also mention that I have been asked on many occasions to order the book The Pope’s Armada which as you may know is not very favorable towards the NCW and other ecclesial communities. I only placed one order for it and that was before I knew what it was. When I am asked now I politely let the person know that it is not a book that I would recommend. I don’t say this because of the negative it has towards the movements, but because the book calls into question the wisdom and the authority of John Paul II. And I’m a fanatical Pope defendant.
The book "The Pope's Armada" is anti-Catholic, which is regrettable. The author of the book raised the possibility that Roman Catholicism may soon cease to exist, which only goes against what Christ said. The Catholic Church was not built by human hands. It was built by Christ who promised to always be with His Church until the end of time. Furthermore, the census shows that Catholicism has increased especially in the continents of Asia and Africa. The number of Catholic priests and seminarians have also increased.
Diana,
ReplyDeleteAfter Vatican II, Communion in the hand WAS a result of disobedience.
As for the quote attributed to St. Cyril...... "Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen."
There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: "Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them." This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint's successor who wrote it.
It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.
The above is taken from Rethinking Communion in the Hand by Jude Huntz.
Dear Anonymous at 1:46 pm,
DeleteSt. Cyril spoke about receiving the Body of Christ with the hand.
As for the Blood of Christ....that is what the passage is speaking about. In that passage, St Cyril was not referring to the Body of Christ, but to the Blood of Christ. When a person drinks the Blood of Christ, some of the blood remains just outside of the person's lips. St. Cyril was instructing the faithful not to wipe the blood of Christ with their hands or with the sleaves of their shirt. They are to touch their lips and pass over their hand over their senses to sanctify it. It is the senses that experiences the evil. Thus, the phrase......See no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil."
The Vatican allowed "receiving by the hand," not because of disobedience, but because they knew their history and saw nothing wrong with the faithful receiving the Body of Christ by hand. The Church would never "cave in" to disobedience because Christ is the Head of the Church, and Christ would never "cave in" to disobedience. The Catholic Church never caved in to the Great Schism or to Martin Luther and the Reformation regardless of how many Catholics left the Church at that time; therefore, Christ (who guides His Church leaders) would not "cave in" to anything that He felt is an abuse.
Please read the article I mentioned - Rethinking Communion in the Hands by Jude Huntz. The Church DID see things wrong with Communion in the hand.
DeleteYou say St. Cyril was speaking of the Blood of Christ; but, the quote specifically says " Sanctify your eyes with the contact with the Holy Body."
When we receive the Host, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ; and, when we receive the Precious Blood, we receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
St. Cyril further counsels great care for fragments which might remain in one's hands, since just as one wouldn't let gold dust fall to the ground, so should one take even GREATER care when it is the Body of the Lord.
You say St. Cyril was instructing the faithful not to wipe the blood of Christ with their hands, yet, you say they are to touch their lips and pass over their hand over their senses - totally makes no sense - you are touching, you are using your hand. You are spreading Jesus????? Makes no sense because St. Cyril apparently also said to handle more carefully than gold dust.
If every tiniest fragment or drop is wholly Jesus, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity - we must realize that every tiniest fragment or drop that is not consumed, every fragment or drop that is wiped into the church pews or books or clothing, etc. is "literally" abusing the Body of Jesus. Is this what the NCW want? Actually, is this what most parishes want? Most of us are guilty of this; that is why we should rethink communion in the hand.
Is this the way we treat our Lord?
In "some" of the NCW masses, "crumbs" on the floor were totally ignored; and when one person was concerned enough to try pick them up, he was ushered out.
Dear Anonymous at 3:57 pm,
DeleteYou stated: "The Church DID see things wrong with Communion in the hand."
I disagree with this statement. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ leads His Church into all truths; therefore, the Church did not see anything wrong with Communion in the hand. If they did, they would not have approved it. Below is what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says. The quote was taken from St. Cyril. If the Catholic Church believes St. Cyril was wrong, it would not be in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and they would have said so:
21. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
22. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm
As you can see, it was also referring to the Blood of Christ. This quotes came from St. Cyril, and some of the Early Christians were receiving the Body of Christ by hand; therefore, it was never done in disobedience.
Then you stated: " In "some" of the NCW masses, "crumbs" on the floor were totally ignored; and when one person was concerned enough to try pick them up, he was ushered out."
This passage is found in the book "The Pope's Armada", which is anti-Catholic. The author of the book raised the possibility that Roman Catholicism may soon cease to exist, which only goes against what Christ said. In fact, Catholicism has increased worldwide especially in the continents of Asia and Africa.
This is an important discussion. Please read the following: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm
DeleteNote the following:
"Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:
1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
Yes: 597
No: 1,233
Yes, but with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20
2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes, 70
3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128
From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful."
I wonder what the NCW were doing at this time (1969)?
By the way, I would like to add....wiping away the Blood of Christ with your hand is not the same as touching the Blood of Christ. St Cyril was instructing the faithful not to wipe away the Blood of Christ with their hands or even with the back of their hands or the sleeves of their shirt but to touch and pass it to your eyes, ears, or lips to sanctify your senses.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:23 pm,
DeleteThank you for sharing the website. The first question caught my eye. It read (Capitalization is my emphasis):
1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above THE TRADITIONAL MANNER, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
The Catholic Church recognized that receiving Holy Communion on the hand was a very ancient rite. According to that website that you provided, it further stated:
"At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth."
The rite of receiving the Body of Christ on the hand was an "ancient usage". The Early Christians practiced this rite as St. Cyril described it. Also, despite that a majority of the bishops voted against receiving the Body of Christ on the hand, in the same year (1969), Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy (See the weblink below in EWTN):
https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
According to the above website in EWTN, it stated:
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter "En reponse a la demande," to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.
In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must therefore be respected.
Because receiving Holy Communion on the hand was an ancient rite practiced by the Early Christians, this rite is certainly not a liturgical abuse. The main concern of the Vatican was whether introducing back this ancient rite would cause some shock to the faithful and the lack of reverence on the faithful's part due to their misunderstanding of this ancient rite.
The Neocatechumenal Way was started in 1964. Kiko Arguello was aware of the ancient practices of the Early Christians because that is how the NCW was mainly set up to be. Therefore, they would be receiving the Body of Christ on the hand when they started.
Dear Diana,
DeleteBelow quote taken from "Is eliminating communion in the hand the next change to the Mass - January 3l 2012 by
Catholicism Pure and Simple: (please google and read whole informative article)
Why did the Pope allow it? Perhaps it can be best summed up by the words of Our Lord about why divorce was allowed in the Old Testament: “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives” (Matthew 19:8). Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.
Dear Anonymous at 2:25 am,
DeleteJesus never allowed divorce. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ was correcting what Moses had done. Moses allowed the divorce because of their hardness of heart, but God never allowed it. Christ said, Moses allowed divorce because of your hardness of heart......but since the beginning, it was not so.
The Catholic Church, today, still do not condone divorce. They can seek an annulment, which is acceptable to the Church. But divorce has never been acceptable. The Church always counsels the couple to work out their problems rather than divorce. The Catholic Church followed Christ's correction on Moses.
This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about divorce:
CCC 2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery, and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.
Now, regarding the ancient rite of receiving communion by hand.......what was the disobedience? The weblinks that some posters provided showed that over time, some parts of the liturgies in the Church changed. The Church has changed with time.
However, some Churches have decided to bring back this ancient rite. The question is why? Tim Rohr claimed that it was "conceived in disobedience." In the first place, one cannot even label this ancient rite a liturgical abuse because this was the rite that Christ and His Apostles started themselves. Over time, it has changed. Is it not possible that the reason some of these Churches went back to this ancient rite was because they were hit hard with influenza in their region? Reverting back to an ancient liturgy for the safety of the flock would not be disobedience. The shepherds of the Church were looking out for the safety and health of their flock. When the US was hit with the swine flu, which is worse than influenza, many changes were made in the liturgy including the sign of peace. At that time, the Blood of Christ was not even offered to the faithful for fear of spreading the disease.
I'll probably make "junglewatch headlines" with this comment but Tim believes that everything about Vatican II was conceived in disobedience. This is why he will not rest in any debate, conversation, dialogue. He believes that everyone has wrongly interpreted the reforms that resulted because of Vatican II.
DeleteIn any case, what matters the most, is that proper catechesis is given at all levels and in all situations. This ensures that the faithful are afforded the opportunity to understand the whys, hows , whens etc. of how the church moves, breathes and has its being.
This promotes an adult faith.
I have come to admire this about the NCW. Contrary to what most think, everything that I am encouraged to do in the NCW is first introduced with a catechesis.
RE:
ReplyDeleteThen you stated: " In "some" of the NCW masses, "crumbs" on the floor were totally ignored; and when one person was concerned enough to try pick them up, he was ushered out."
This passage is found in the book "The Pope's Armada", which is anti-Catholic. The author of the book raised the possibility that Roman Catholicism may soon cease to exist, which only goes against what Christ said. In fact, Catholicism has increased worldwide especially in the continents of Asia and Africa.
I know nothing of the book, all I know is that in this situation the Way was not cautious about the fragments. Pointing this out does not make for anti-catholicism. Pointing out this error in charity is actually it is very pro-catholicism.
Dear Anonymous at 2:43 am,
DeleteI have the book "The Pope's Armada" and I remember reading that passage from the book or something similar to it. I will look up the book again to see if I can find that passage. I have been in the Way for 8 years, and in all that time, there were no crumbs on the floor. The only few small pieces I saw were on the paten, but these were all paced into the chalice and consumed.
Dear Diana,
DeleteRe your catechesis on divorce - I concur with you - God never favored divorced; but as I previously said, Christ DID say Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. Matt 19:8 It is this hardness of heart I am concerned about and not the issue of divorce.
Their disobedience had reached such a point that it would have been difficult to have them return to the traditional practice.
The practice of communion in the hand was re-introduced throughout the world BEFORE the Pope ever gave indults to some. (There was no influenza) This practice of communion in the hand BEFORE the Pope's indults is the "disobedience" which the writer compares to the hardness of heart in Moses' time.
Again, divorce is not the issue; but, thanks for the catechesis on this - hopefully it will benefit someone.
Dear Anonymous at 1:36 pm,
DeleteReceiving the Body of Christ on the hand came first before receiving it on the tongue. I hope you are not saying that receiving it on the tongue is the disobedience. The Church teaches that both ways are acceptable. Comparing divorce with the changes in liturgies is like comparing apples and oranges. In the first place, divorce was never condone by God and was considered a sin. The changes in liturgies was never viewed sinful. There was no hardness of heart. As the weblink pointed out, some of the liturgies of the Catholic changes with time to meet the needs of the people. For example, changing the mass to vernacular was done to meet the needs of the people. This does not mean that the Traditional Latin Mass was wrong. It simply means.....it is time for change. It is Christ who directs and guides his Church into all truths.
So, when Tim Rohr stated: Communion in the hand was conceived in disobedience and allowed because the disobedience was so wide spread that it was deemed to cause more damage to stop it, so it was allowed."...........this is very uncharacteristic of the Catholic Church. Since when has the Catholic Church ever stoop to disobedience? The Church has always stood for the Truth. When one says the Church allowed this disobedience, what does that say about Jesus Christ, who guides HIs Church? Christ would never guide His Church into allowing disobedience.
Also, as you can see, the Church does not condone divorce. They had no problem going back to "no divorce." However, there are some Catholics who wish to change the Church. They hope that the Catholic Church would change their stand on divorce, homosexuality, same sex marriage, pre-marital sex, and many other things.
Your reference to "Memoriale Domini," excludes important details:
ReplyDelete".................At the same time a full sharing in the celebration of the Eucharist, expressed through Sacramental communion, has recently stirred up in some places the desire to return to the practice by which the Eucharistic bread is placed in the hand of the faithful who communicates himself by putting it in his
mouth.
In some communities and localities this rite has even been performed WITHOUT OBTAINING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE AND OCCASIONALLY WITHOUT APPROPRIATE PREPARATION FOR THE PEOPLE."
" It is true that, according to ancient usage, it was once permitted......."
........" IN THE FOLLOWING PERIOD, AFTER THE TRUE MEANING OF THE EUCHARISTIC MYSTERY, ITS EFFECT, AND THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN IT had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy Sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicants.
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion MUST be observed,........... for the MOST FRUITFUL RECEPTION of the Lord's body. (6)
This reverence is a sign of communion not in "common bread and drink" (7) but in the Body and Blood of the Lord. By it "the people of God shares in the blessings of the paschal SACRIFICE, renews the new covenant once made by God with man in the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope prefigures and anticipates the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father." (8)
(At this point, it would be helpful to realize the inerrant belief the initiators of the NCW had of the "Sacrifice" of the Mass. - This is not to criticize, but to correct)
" In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives MORE EFFECTIVE assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence....."
.... "On this account, since some FEW episcopal conferences and individual bishops had asked that the usage of placing the consecrated bread in the hand of the faithful be admitted in their territories, the Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion...........
........ After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" (11) the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, THE SUPREME PONTIFF JUDGED THAT THE LONG RECEIVED MANNER OF MINISTERING HOLY COMMUNION TO THE FAITHFUL SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED.
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to OBSERVE ZEALOUSLY THIS LAW, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.
If the CONTRARY usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, ...........
Dear Anonymous at 8:40 am,
DeleteThe last unfinished paragraph is very important. This is what it says:
If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation, THE APOSTOLIC SEE ENTRUSTS TO THE CONFERENCES THE DUTY AND FUNCTION OF JUDGING PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANDS, IF ANY. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.
http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm
In other words, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced and this practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences for some difficult circumstances that they see in their country. The Holy See entrusted these conferences to make these judgments.
Dear Diana,
DeleteHave you read "Dominus Est - It is the Lord!" by Bishop Athanasius Schneider? In the Foreword it states: "When Communion-in-the-hand was being proposed (and practiced ILLICITLY) in the mid-1960s the argument was proffered that this was merely a return to the "ancient" usage of the Church, one that would enhance the faith-life of the Church. With the publication of Memoriale Domini in 1967, it was abundantly clear that Pope Paul VI did not accept such a view, nor did the world-wide episcopate, who resoundingly opposed any change in the method of Communion distribution. Mysteriously, though, the door was opened for the change."
Pope Paul VI, St. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, and Pope Francis did not/do not favour Communion in the hand. How did it mysteriously come to be? Hardness of heart? Ignorance of the Real Presence? Threat of Schism? I don't know. Millions following the lead of "who?" (I am reminded our fight is not against people, but satan.)
This tiny book has a big message.
Cardinal Arinze, as Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship, stated: "I have read the whole book with delight. It is excellent."
Malcolm Ranjith, as Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments said: I think it is now time to evaluate carefully the practice of Communion-in-the hand and, if necessary, to abandon what was actually never called for in the Vatican II document Sacrosanctum Concilium nor by the Council Fathers but was in fact, "accepted" after it was introduced as an ABUSE in some countries. Now, more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful renew a living faith in the REAL PRESENCE of Christ in the Eucharistic Species....
(MY EMPHASIS IN CAPS)
It is also alleged that the Initiators of NCW did not believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist; and, that the Eucharist was NOT a sacrifice but strictly a convivial moment of spiritual nourishment.
This is problematic.
Check again the last paragraph of Memoriale Domini:
"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation, the apostolic see entrusts to the conferences the DUTY and function of JUDGING PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY. They may make this judgment PROVIDED THAT ANY DANGER IS AVOIDED OF INSUFFICIENT REVERENCE OR FALSE OPINIONS OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.
I'll end this saying, If you google Bishop Athanasius Schneider you can get his researched info on "how" the early church received Communion in the hand. You will be very surprised.
Dear Anonymous at 3:11 pm.,
DeleteIn the first place, how can you call it "illicit" when this liturgy was started by Christ and His Apostles?
Secondly, the Memoriale Domini was not published in 1967, as you say. It was published on May 29, 1969. In that same year (1969), the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship issued a letter regarding the issue of receiving Holy Communion on the Hand, which I mentioned in my previous comment. According to that letter:
SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter "En reponse a la demande," to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.
In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.
It was in 1969 that the Vatican allowed Holy communion on the hand, and it had nothing to do with hardness of heart. Receiving Holy Communion on the hand came first. It was practiced by the Early Christians. Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue came later. Both has nothing to do with hardness of heart because there was nothing sinful in receiving the Body of Christ.
In the third place, Bishop Athansius Schenider favors the Traditonal Latin Mass and also has the same personal issues as Tim Rohr despite the fact that the Catholic Church has allowed receiving Holy Communion on either the hand or the tongue.
Finally, research shows that receiving Holy Communion on the hand came first. Receiving it on the tongue came at a later date. According to the weblink below:
"So according to St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Basil the Great, the Synod of Trullo, St. John Damascus, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, communion by hand was not at all uncommon in the early Church. In fact, it was a recommended manner of reception in many places. Unless these Fathers and Doctors (and all but Tertullian are saints) were thus "sacrilegious" or promoting a "lessening of respect for the Eucharist", the self-styled 'traditionalist' who denigrates this practice in and of itself has some serious explaining to do. Communion by hand was accepted in the first millennium. Nor for the most part was it considered irregular. However, it was not a uniform practice or universal so the liberals who claim it was are lying about this. However the 'traditionalist' who tries to make communion by mouth into an Apostolic Tradition is just as guilty of blatant lying as the liberal who revises history to suit their personal agendas. This is the problem that 'traditionalists' put themselves in when they make these kinds of ill-informed arguments."
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html#[6]
As you can see, St Cyril of Jerusalem was not the only one who mentioned receiving Holy Communion by hand.
Jesus by his own actions handed the bread to his disciples. Isn't this enough?
ReplyDeleteYou do not understand. As the Church understood more of what the Eucharist is, it evolved from communion in the hand to communion on the tongue. This evolution doesn't mean that communion in the hand was wrong during THAT particular period, it means that there is a much better way to receive communion NOW. Again, Pope Paul VI, St. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus and Pope Francis ALL favour(ed) communion on the tongue. See how Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus expected those receiving communion from him would kneel and receive on the tongue. And, Pope Francis is doing the same.
DeleteI sometimes wonder, if the Pope were to revoke the indult for communion in the hand, how many would partake of communion on the tongue? How many would humble themselves to receive in this manner?
The fact that I typed 1967 instead of 1969 is not important; the content of Memoriale Domini is.
The writer called communion in the hand "illicit" FOR the period communion on the tongue was supposed to be practised. No permission from the Pope had been given for the practice of communion in the hand at that time.
I know communion in the hand is acceptable if received with appropriate reverence and caution; however, what the writer is trying to convey, is that there is a "better" way.
Dismissing Bishop Schneider as someone who favors the Traditonal Latin Mass and also having the same personal issues as Tim Rohr does not mean that he is wrong.
To Anonymous Oct 6, 5:13 PM Re your:
Delete"Jesus by his own actions handed the bread to his disciples. Isn't this enough?"
Slaves were acceptable in Jesus' time too. Does this give people TODAY the same privilege?
No, we know better NOW.
Dear Anonymous at 11:39 p.m.
DeleteYou stated that receiving communion on the tongue now is BETTER??? Communion on the hand was first established by Christ Himself and the Apostles. Are you saying that the Church today knows BETTER than Christ and the Apostles? Nowhere in Church teaching or doctrine does it say that one is better than the other. Nowhere does it also say that communion on the hand was illicit. God never made communion on the hand illicit.
Where in the Memoriale Domini does it say that receiving Holy Communion on the hand is illicit? I do not see the word "illicit" anywhere."
Dear Anonymous at 5:13 pm,
DeleteIt was Jesus who first established the communion on the hand in the first century. So, what you are saying is that you know better than Jesus.
By the way, Jesus never established slavery.
Dear Diana, is it possible for a member of the faithful to receive communion on the tongue at the NCW Eucharist?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 11:42 am,
DeleteNot unless they want to choke to death. You see, the Body of Christ in the NCW does not dissolve in your mouth. It can come in a big piece that sometimes it will not fit in your mouth.
Dear Diana at 12:54. Is it true that the Church has said explicitly that all the faithful are not to be deprived of the choice to receive communion on the tongue? How do you reconcile this, then, with the NCW Eucharist?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 1:13 pm,
DeleteWe have not encountered that problem in the NCW. Why? Because obviously, people in the Way do not have a "PERSONAL" issue with receiving it on the hand or on the tongue. Apparently, the ones who have a "personal" issue with it are those who think that receiving it on the tongue is BETTER than receiving it on the hand. Others like me see it as equally good and do not have a "personal" issue with it.
Dear Diana at 2:00. Thankyou for your response, but that is not the point. If the Church makes it clear that no-one should prevent the faithful from having the opportunity to receive on the tongue, even if they choose not to, do you not feel that the NCW Eucharist violates that principle? Even if no-one has a "personal issue", as you say.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:07 pm,
DeleteIf the person is really going to make this an issue, they can always go to the regular mass. We are not going to argue with anyone over the Eucharist when the Church already made it clear that receiving the Body of Christ either by hand or tongue is acceptable. When I go to the regular mass, I do not make it an issue.
A person who attends the NCW mass can see that the Body of Christ they are receiving may not even fit in their mouth and does not dissolve. It allows one to chew on it.
Have you read "Dominus Est - It is the Lord!" by Bishop Athanasius Schneider?
ReplyDeleteEverything is the Lord.....why does this bishop need to write about what is the Lord?
Dear Anonymous at 1:15 a.m,
DeleteBishop Athanasius Schneider is not the Pope. The Holy See already said that receiving Holy Communion on the hand and on the tongue is acceptable. If Bishop Athanasius Schneider disagree with Communion on the hand, then he has the same personal issue that Tim Rohr has. Both of them need to deal with their own personal issues.
Anonymous October 6, 2014 at 11:43 PM
ReplyDeleteWhy change the subject; keep it focused on receiving the host. Jesus handed his disciples the host.
True of False?
The only slave present was a guy named Judas. Is this what you are referring too? What kind of slaves are you talking about?
Dear Anon at 5:19. How do you know that Jesus handed his disciples (apostles) the host?. What is the scriptural basis of this? We cannot know for certain but we can see in John 13:26 that
Delete"26Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot."
So, are you suggesting that Jesus dipped the bread and then put it in Judas' hand? That would seem to be unlikely.
In any case, the Apostles were Bishops, so even if we admit, however unlikely, that Jesus did in fact place the bread in the Apostles hands, the best that will do is give an example of how Bishops might receive the Sacrament.
Dear Anonymous at 11:14 am,
DeleteJudas did not eat the bread and Christ did not give any bread to Judas. The Scripture says:
Matthew 26:23 Jesus replied, “The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me.
Christ handed the bread (which He says is His Body) to His Apostles after Judas left. The Catholic Church believes that receiving the Body of Christ on the hand is an ancient rite that goes back to the Early Christians in the first century. Receiving the Body of Christ on the tongue came much later.
"Christ did not give any bread to Judas"
DeleteAre you saying that John's Gospel is a lie?
"26Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot." John 13:26
Dear Anonymous at 3:00 pm,
DeleteJudas did not receive thee Body of Christ. The bread that was dipped was not Body of Christ because Jesus did not bless the bread yet. Judas left and went to betray Christ ( see Luke 22).
Luke 22:17-23 "Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.[d] 21 But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table. 22 For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined, but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed!” 23 Then they began to ask one another which one of them it could be who would do this."
DeleteLooking again at verse 21: "But see, the one who betrays me is with me, and his hand is on the table." Indicating that Judas was present after the blessing of the bread.
Dear Anonymous at 6:06 pm.,
DeleteGo back further before Christ took the cup and gave thanks (before Luke 22:17-23). Look at the beginning of Luke Chapter 22:
Luke 22:1-4 Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve, And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
After Judas had dipped his bread into the cup with Christ, Christ told him that he was the one to betray him. Judas left to carry out his plans. He did not eat the Body of Christ because he was in a state of mortal sin. He was not in communion with Christ. In the Garden of Gathesemane, it was clear that Judas was not among the Apostles after they drank the Blood of Christ. Judas came with the soldiers. He identified Jesus with a kiss.
When the Church in the General Instructions of the Roman Missal tells us to make the bread for the eucharist to be like food, how does a wafer constitute what appears as 'food'. I understand that the host used at the mass is the exception and not the norm as the GIRM states that the bread for the eucharist is to be appearing as food. There is a reason for this. The church want us to recover the signs of the eucharist through which grace is transmitted. Whether the host or the unleavened bread is used, nevertheless in a valid eucharist, the grace is surely transmitted. The use of the host is certainly not illicit, nor does it diminish the true presence. But, since the church promotes the use of bread that is 'freshly baked, or,'recently made', that it is 'to appear as true bread', then we need to discover the reason for this. If all the Jungle detractors want to do is immediately deride the use of unleavened bread and place the use of the host a the ultimate paradigm of the liturgical sign of the eucharist, then they are acting contrary to the laws of the church which, through the General Instructions, urges us to to use unleavened bread which appears as true food.
ReplyDeleteI think Jesus finds it much more irreverent, if someone receives in the state of mortal sin... I have lived in a parish where people would hardly go to confess. I don't know, perhaps they went to confess to another parish (praise God if they did), but over there the priest was sitting in the confessional mostly by himself.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there was a letter of German priests and deacons who say they give communion to divorced and re"married" people and tell them to receive.
The big issue is not wether you receive on tongue or in hand. If only all Catholics cared to go to Mass and strived to receive the Lord in the state of grace frequently. Perhaps then we wouldn't need the NCW, but as it is, the NCW is helping many people to be a LOT more reverent toward the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteHave you heard about the alleged NCW Deception on their official website? Looks like the NCW official website is promoting the 2002 Statutes which is not approved. I read about it on Jungle Watch re the Neocatechumenal Way Mass October 2014. The 2002 unapproved Statutes should be removed immediately and replace with the "approved" 2008 Statutes which says to follow what's in the Roman Missal. Looks like the NCW Mass is being celebrated illicitly..
People in the NCW who love the Lord will not have a problem with obeying the approved 2008 Statutes.
Let's obey the Pope.
Dear Anonymous at 1:46 pm,
DeleteBelow is the Neocatechumenal Way official website. As you can see, they have BOTH statutes.
http://www.camminoneocatecumenale.it/new/default.asp?lang=en&page=statuti
so which one do you follow? You can't follow both because changes were made! how come amazon still sells the 2002 edition why not the revised and approved edition?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 10:33 pm,
DeleteWe follow the approved edition. In fact, the approved edition was for sale at the retreat for many people to buy. More orders are being put in because there are new communities being born and do not have the approved editions.
How can you say that the NCW follows the approved edition; when, the NCW Mass still exists with all the liturgical abuses. Liturgical abuses are when the instructions of the Roman Missal are dismissed in order to insert ones own ideas of what should and shouldn't be in the Mass.
DeleteSorry, although I agree with the NCW on many issues, this is definitely one that must be corrected.
And to say that the new 2008 was made available doesn't mean to say that all those with the 2002 edition are requested to get and follow the "approved" one because there is some serious errors in the 2002 edition......
Dear Anonymous at 11:55 pm,
DeleteThink about it. If we were truly committing liturgical abuses, why did Pope Francis ceased all investigations in the Neocatechumenal Way? Pope Benedict XVI started those investigations and nothing ever came of it. When Francis finally took over as Pope, he ceased all the investigations.
Pope Francis ceased all investigations, this is true. Apparently he had enough information; and, further investigations were not necessary, and not because he agreed with the NCW liturgy.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 10:11 a.m,
DeleteFurther investigations were not necessary because we were not guilty of liturgical abuse. All those allegations were unfounded. Pope Francis agrees with the NCW's liturgy. If he disagreed (as you claim) and felt it was wrong, he would have not ceased the investigations. Rather, he would condemn our liturgies and have the founders replaced if necessary.
Pope Francis felt uncomfortable with how the Charismatic Catholics Renewal say prayers, but he never said that the way they prayed was wrong or against Catholic teaching. He also never said that he disagreed with the way they prayed. It is simply not his way of praying.
It still comes down to the NCW NOT having approval to all their additions and deletions in their Liturgy. The "approved Statutes of 2008" of the NCW says that the NCW MUST follow the Roman Missal. Pope John Paul II (Saint) through Cardinal Arinze gave instructions that all alterations to the Mass MUST have written approval (recognitio). NCW members must start asking their leaders "where is the written approval for standing at the Eucharistic Prayer? Where is the written approval for sitting with the Eucharist in hand, and receiving/consuming at the same time as the priest who according to the Roman Missal is supposed to consume both the Body and Blood of Jesus before everyone else? ETC. ETC.
DeleteThey must ask their leaders "if changing the place of the Sign of Peace in the Mass is very clearly verified in written form, how is it that there ISN"T any written instruction on the NCW's method of adoring, and receiving/consuming our Lord and Saviour? This is much more important yet the NCW doesn't have any written documentation clearly verifying this. ?????? Ask your leaders about this.
In the story of St. Anthony and the mule, the mule knelt in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament rather than go for the food.(even though the mule had been starved for three days) This act of the mule brought about conversion.
ReplyDeleteIf the NCW members would kneel before our Lord (as per the Roman Missal instructions) more people would believe. Is that not reason enough?
Dear Anonymous at 1:49 pm,
DeleteIs that all it takes to convert.........to kneel????? What about the Eastern Catholics who do not kneel in their Mass? Are you saying that only those who attend the Latin Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass are the only ones who can be converted?
Oh brother. You really miss the point.
Delete