Divine mercy...

[SaintSebastian]

You also quoted an excommunication of the council of Trullo, as if that somehow undoes the practice that precedes it?  If you had quoted it correctly, it would have been illicit thereafter, but not before.  And, generally, actions aren't made excommunicable unless they were in practice prior to the ruling.  So if CITH was made an excommunicable offense, it would have had to have been a common practice before, yet you speak of it as if it was basically unheard of from the time of the Apostles on. 

Melkite, that Council did the opposite of what is being claimed--it excommunicated those who DID NOT receive in the hand (but instead used golden vessels). It affirmed CITH, it didn't suppress it. From my post above:

"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

[McNider]

Just looking at it:

1. It seems pretty clear that something extraordinary is going on here. Given the context, I wouldn't have immediately jumped to "this promotes CITH."

2. Even the reprobate are subject to Providence and the permissive will of God, Who draws forth a greater good from evil. This statement is not troubling in the least.

3. This struck me as perhaps a difference of type rather than degree. In other words, union providing her with a grace different from others as opposed to greater than others.

[Melkite]

Melkite, that Council did the opposite of what is being claimed--it excommunicated those who DID NOT receive in the hand (but instead used golden vessels). It affirmed CITH, it didn't suppress it.

Yeah, I know.  What I meant was, if TSaquinas was correct in his quote, it wouldn't have been proof as he seems to think, because it merely would have excommunicated someone for an action after a given point.  It would be completely useless as proof that the offense was not itself an apostolic practice and completely ok under other circumstances.

[Scriptorium]

Let us not misrepresent the text. The text says COTT is an apostolic tradition. It says it is a custom to be retained. It did not make any declarations about any other practices. The best we can do is deduce, and in that case we have possible conclusions about CITH based on Trent, not certain. Historical documents is where we'll find what was practiced.


... In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acciperent, sacerdotes autem celebrantes se ipsos communicarent; qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolica descendens jure ac merito retineri debet.

... It has always been a/the(?) practice in the Church of God in the reception of the Sacrament, that laypersons receive communion from priests, and that the priest-celebrants give communion to themselves. This practice, coming down lawfully and justly from apostolic tradition, must be retained.

-- Council of Trent, Sess. 13, chapter 8 (DS 1648/881).

Roughly the same thing was said in Memoriale Domini:

... consuetudo inducta est, ut per se minister panis consecrati particulam in lingua Communionem suscipientium deponeret. Hic sanctam Communionem distribuendi modus ... servari debet ...

... Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant. This method of distributing holy communion ... must be retained ...

-- Memoriale Domini, Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, May 29, 1969 (AAS 61 [1969], pp. 541-547)

[ecclesiastes]

... In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acciperent, sacerdotes autem celebrantes se ipsos communicarent; qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolica descendens jure ac merito retineri debet.

... It has always been a/the(?) practice in the Church of God in the reception of the Sacrament, that laypersons receive communion from priests, and that the priest-celebrants give communion to themselves. This practice, coming down lawfully and justly from apostolic tradition, must be retained.

-- Council of Trent, Sess. 13, chapter 8 (DS 1648/881).

That doesn't specify it has to be received on the tongue, just that a laity receives it from a priest. Could that not be received in the hand? (Or is that clarified elsewhere in that document?)

[TS Aquinas]

The Quinsext Council (aka the Council in Trullo) does the exact OPPOSITE of what you're claiming.  It excommunicates those who do NOT receive in the hand, but instead use golden vessels.

Interesting, it appears the common source misinterpreted the canon. Had I seen the canon before, I wouldn't have made the inference. I stand corrected here, thank you. Though it doesn't declare CITH only, but threatens with excommunication to those using inanimate objects for communion. All you can establish here is that CITH and COTT were side by side practices at this time and possibly apostolic times.

Is I mentioned earlier, it makes no sense that CITH with the priest present would be only an extraordinary measure in times of persecution, because if you're in a church and the priest is close enough to place the Host in your hand, he can place it on your tongue.

No, he is saying the same thing as the Quinsext Council cited above (which took place just a few decades before St. John wrote this).  He is obviously using that very canon as his guide since he describes the same practice--as an Eastern bishop at that time he would be obeying the decrees of that Council.

Fair enough.

To me, it seems ambiguous.  It could just as easily be referring to receiving from a deacon or lay minister rather than be referring to receiving directly from a priest into one's hand (as was previously done elsewhere)--even then exceptions have always been permitted, so it can be an irreformable dogma. Either way, this was not declared definitively. The entirety of an ecumenical Council is infallible per se (otherwise Vatican II would be), but only those definitive condemnations and proclamations.  If we can dissent in good faith from Vatican II, then the same can be said of portions like this from Trent.

Not so ambiguous if you read the Catechism of the Council of Trent,

"Only Priests Have Power To Consecrate And Administer The Eucharist

It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist. That this has been the unvarying practice of the Church, that the faithful should receive the Sacrament from the priests, and that the officiating priests should communicate themselves, has been explained by the holy Council of Trent, which has also shown that this practice, as having proceeded from Apostolic tradition, is to be religiously retained, particularly as Christ the Lord has left us an illustrious example thereof, having consecrated His own most sacred body, and given it to the Apostles with His own hands."

Anyway, my whole point with this is that the Divine Mercy revelations cannot be discredited on this point. Whether this practice should be suppressed again is obviously a whole other question.

I accept your argument.

[Scriptorium]

... In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acciperent, sacerdotes autem celebrantes se ipsos communicarent; qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolica descendens jure ac merito retineri debet.

... It has always been a/the(?) practice in the Church of God in the reception of the Sacrament, that laypersons receive communion from priests, and that the priest-celebrants give communion to themselves. This practice, coming down lawfully and justly from apostolic tradition, must be retained.

-- Council of Trent, Sess. 13, chapter 8 (DS 1648/881).

That doesn't specify it has to be received on the tongue, just that a laity receives it from a priest. Could that not be received in the hand? (Or is that clarified elsewhere in that document?)

I think COTT is implied strongly, because there is a distinction made between the two methods. I think it is quite an uphill battle to read "receive communion from priests" as CITH. The custom was well set in by this point. What may have been in question was not CITH, but communion administered by laypeople as eucharistic ministers. More research would have to be done for the context.

[ecclesiastes]

I think COTT is implied strongly, because there is a distinction made between the two methods. I think it is quite an uphill battle to read "receive communion from priests" as CITH. The custom was well set in by this point. What may have been in question was not CITH, but communion administered by laypeople as eucharistic ministers. More research would have to be done for the context.

I took it in the sense that last sense: that lay people should not administer communion, but that it did not specify how the priest would administer it. This is not to say that this was not clear to the audience, as you mentioned, but just that this passage does not prove that only COTT was accepted.

But maybe I am being too pedantic. 

[Melkite]

TS, for the record, I wasn't making an argument for CITH as being superior to COTT, or that COTT isn't of apostolic origin, or that the Church doesn't have the authority to forbid CITH.  I was merely arguing that CITH existed from the beginning as well, so can't be sacrilegeous.  Not sure if that changes your response any.

[INPEFESS]

.