National Catholic Register Deletes Article Urging Pope to Reconcile With SSPX
#11

This is a quote from an article I read a while back, and I don't know how to put it any better,

"If the Eucharist is God, then why are we touching Him? Moses could not come within ten feet of the burning bush without taking off his shoes; the haemorrhaging woman crawled up to Jesus and barely grazed the hem of His garment; the saints have extolled the utter profundity of receiving the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the mysticism, the beauty, the awesomeness of God are all present. We must, we absolutely must, remember this when we approach Him at Mass. We should never forget that we owe everything to Him, and if we do not receive Him respectfully out of sheer reverence, then we should at least do so out of gratitude."
Reply
#12
(02-26-2014, 05:21 AM)GodFirst Wrote:
(02-26-2014, 12:38 AM)loggats Wrote:
(02-26-2014, 12:36 AM)ThomasTheDoubter Wrote: Does communion is the hand give people the idea that they are receiving the Lord of the Universe?

Does communion on the tongue? Being fed doesn't necessarily = awesomely holy thing entering my mouth. They both require appropriate catechesis.
Our Lord's words illustrate that it does. Please read Matthew chapter 18.
Note that Christ supplied "catechesis."

Re. The flowery stuff above this post - it's all well and good, but this sort of rhetoric can't be elevated to doctrinal status.
Reply
#13
(02-26-2014, 07:24 AM)CaptCrunch73 Wrote: This is a quote from an article I read a while back, and I don't know how to put it any better,

"If the Eucharist is God, then why are we touching Him? Moses could not come within ten feet of the burning bush without taking off his shoes; the haemorrhaging woman crawled up to Jesus and barely grazed the hem of His garment; the saints have extolled the utter profundity of receiving the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the mysticism, the beauty, the awesomeness of God are all present. We must, we absolutely must, remember this when we approach Him at Mass. We should never forget that we owe everything to Him, and if we do not receive Him respectfully out of sheer reverence, then we should at least do so out of gratitude."

I'm inclined to agree with loggats on this point. Your quote, Capt Crunch, displays faulty logic for a very simple reason: if it is irreverent to touch God with our hands, why should it be reverent to touch Him with our tongues? Both are part of the human person. Both were assumed by the Lord in the Incarnation. Both were redeemed by the Cross. Both were chrismated and then baptized. Both were anointed at Confirmation. What is proper to one part of the whole man is proper to all parts of the man.

Either way the reception goes, the faculty of the intellect is excited by the sense of touch. The Body & Blood & Soul & Divinity of the Lord comes into direct contact with the nervous system. If our very touch itself is somehow unworthy when exercised through the hands, why should the sense of touch when exercised by our tongues be worthy? I am not going to give credence to the old cliché "most of us sin more with our tongues than with our hands"... but to make a distinction between hands and tongues as less-spiritual and more-spiritual, or irreverent and reverent, is to create a sort of gnosticism. Either the human spirit, soul, and body can receive Christ, or it cannot do so fully.

The only reason communion in the hand is seen as irreverent is because it was used irreverently beginning in the 1960s in order to change with the established practice. Had communion on the tongue not been canon law for 1000+ years, there would be no reason to see communion in the hand as inherently irreverent in the 1960s and beyond. Mere emotional associations and changing discipline are not Tradition.

FYI, these thoughts do not come from any sort of catechesis I received... the word is a joke in the novus ordo. I am just coming up with these out of the blue. I believe myself that we ought to encourage or even require communion on the tongue for a little while these days because people have been taught to treat communion in the hand like the taking and eating of a potato chip. Even if communion on the hand were changed so that people didn't receive on the left palm and pick Him up with the right fingers - but rather,  received in the palm and brought the palm directly to the mouth - there would be some improvement in Eucharistic piety.

Ironically, Benedict XVI forced everyone to receive on the tongue during the later Masses of his pontificate. I believe he was the last good chance for the SSPX to come back in... not because of the SSPX, but because of Benedict's successor. Francis doesn't even really seem to care about the liturgy all that much, so in a way he's like JP II. Thankfully he was 76 when he was elected, not 59, so... as cruel as it sounds, we hopefully don't have to wait long for another Benedict. Even then, we need a pope who doesn't give into Teilhard de Chardin's cosmic theology as well as keeps to the ancient Mass. It'll be a long time, friends - the next few pontiffs will have been ordained in the 1960s-1970s. The SSPX will have to wait.
Reply
#14
I would agree that the SSPX will never reconcile under Pope Francis. If they didn't under Benedict XVI they won't under Francis. In general the Church since the Council is willing to dialogue and do joint statements with almost everyone except for the SSPX and Sedevacantists. This current Pope along with many neo Catholics bend over backwards to dialog with protestants of all stripes yet there is little interest in the SSPX or, come tothink of it, the Orthodox. The SSPX and the Orthodox are far closer to "full communion" than ANY protestant group save the most Catholicized high Church Anglicans who still have absolutely no holy orders. I think there are still many in high places in Rome that literally want to BURY the Church's patrimony and so they want nothing whatsoever to do with traditional (ie normative ) pre Conciliar style Catholicism.
Reply
#15
It seems to me there is just as much dialogue with th Orthodox, etc.

The reason the SSPX is treated differently, is their leaders have been personally involved in the practical separation and they are actively going around condemning the Church (although, they actually seem to be doing that a lot less lately, at least publically).  With the other groups, you have centuries old divisions in which the current separated members were not personally involved.  These groups have also expressed an openness to work for unity and generally have not simply said "we will never compromise, Rome must convert to the true faith, etc." like the SSPX have.

It the SSPX turn into a real schism, and if they last for a few centuries, and then express an interest in trying to work out their differences, then I'm sure they'll be treated like other separated groups in that kind of situation.

That being said, I think Benedict was smart to buck the more traditional approach to a new schism or potential schism (harsh condemnation and excommunication), because such acts tend to harden the separation so that it lasts for centuries and maybe forever (it is of course necessary sometimes, as a last resort).  The problems raised by other rebel groups that were not punished and expelled in such a way, have been more likey to work themselves out over time (like the Jansenists, the re-baptizers, Easter controversy participants, etc.).  Benedict seemed to want to avoid the situation hardening into a permenant separation.
Reply
#16
If we accept that each and every particle of the holy Eucharist is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ it makes sense to receive Communion kneeling, on the tongue with a paten under our chin or standing by intinction with a cloth under our chin but still in our mouth. Communion in the hand, while not evil in itself, does lead to particles of the Holy Eucharist falling on peoples hands and can easily lead to one doing a sleight of hand trick and pocketing Him for later desecration. Communion in the hand is, in my opinion, not appropriate considering the understanding of the Eucharist the Church has developed over the centuries. Could Communion in the hand be reverent, and given only by a priest? Yes, but there still would be particles if the sacred species left on hands and falling to the floor. That's unacceptable in light of the more developed understanding of the Eucharist we have today. On another note,Communion kneeling, on the tongue had become the norm for centuries and it just seemed imprudent to change what was a beautiful, theologically rich way of receiving.
Reply
#17
Why are people debating communion in the hand on this forum, the matter has already been decided... Communion on the tongue and kneeling is the proper way to receive in the Latin rite. Communion in the hand is an exception that was granted due to disobedience and is only allowed by way of exception.
Add to this that the Church had already condemned communion in the hand years ago, for what appears to be serious reasons, both doctrinal and practical.

Thus we can safely lump communion in the hand with the pile of other novelties that were prohibited or condemned but have reimerged due to the modernist influence on Church leaders.

Clearly if there is ever to be a restoration, the first step will have to be to abolish communion in the hand.
Reply
#18
(02-26-2014, 12:36 PM)winoblue1 Wrote: Why are people debating communion in the hand on this forum, the matter has already been decided... Communion on the tongue and kneeling is the proper way to receive in the Latin rite. Communion in the hand is an exception that was granted due to disobedience and is only allowed by way of exception.
Add to this that the Church had already condemned communion in the hand years ago, for what appears to be serious reasons, both doctrinal and practical.

Thus we can safely lump communion in the hand with the pile of other novelties that were prohibited or condemned but have reimerged due to the modernist influence on Church leaders.

Clearly if there is ever to be a restoration, the first step will have to be to abolish communion in the hand.

Yeah, what the heck? This isn't something that would even have been debated on here when I started posting 4 years ago except as an extreme minority position.
If it really needs to happen, maybe it should be it's own thread.  Communion on the hand is the way I learned in the Lutheran church, and that's reason enough for me to not do it now.

Back on topic: Great article! I wonder why it was taken down? It makes me wish Mother Angelica was still at the helm. Does Mr. Archbold regularly contribute to the NCR?
Reply
#19
I wasnt here back in the day when "crunchies" were supposedly bullying everyone. What Ive seen is quite a bit of talk on how the NO is just fine and oh it is okay to prefer TLM if that is "your thing" but dont go rocking the boat about it because its all pharasaical dont you know. Now communion in the hand, too. Really? I know these are not Vox's positions or the official positions of her forum but this is the direction I am seeing from posts.
Reply
#20
This came today in an email from ChurchMilitant.TV:

And don't miss our radio show on the internet, Mic'D Up - TONIGHT Wednesday 26th February at 8PM Eastern - when (as well as talking about the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood) we will have Patrick Archibold talking about the SSPX and his recent article!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)