Is Communion on the Hand a sin?

[InquisitorGeneralis]

First time I have been called a troll.

 

 

  I don't believe that.
 

 

 

 

 

Usually the KJB Onlyists and the Eucharist haters want to get rid of me.

 

 

 

 

Frankly, I hope you stick around.  You  make a good whipping boy.  Besides, I think it's good, once every  few months, to pick up some neo-Catholic and just throw him against the  wall...
 

 

   

 

There is enough personal information in my profile and website that I could be found quite easily.........
 

 

 
  Yes, Ted, we all know we can find you in the Pastoral Region of Santa  Barbara. Unfortunately, however, I cannot find the appropriate vomit  smiley to go w/the words "Pastoral Region."
 

[InquisitorGeneralis]

The standard cut and  paste argument against CIH is that it was an obscure 3rd and 4th  cnetury practice. I apologise for jumping to conclusions. Had you used  another time frame for your examples I would have been able to tell  that you were not using a standard response.

 

 

  So that makes it acceptable?  Perhaps you should ask questions  about our positions before pouncing on us.  After all, you are a  newbie at this board.
 

 

Because  of my faith in Christ. I understand the Wheat and Tares, but I think  something that diabolical is beyond the Wheat and Tares. Also living in  the largest Archdiocese in the United Sates.........our Churches were  not ripped apart until the 1980s. In the 70s I was an altar boy with  communion rails, paten, incense, sanctus bells etc. The liturgy did not  fall apart with the flip of a switch.

 

 

  But, regardless, the liturgy managed to fall apart.  And you never  ask yourself why it happened?  For crying out loud, man, you live  in the Archdiocese of LA!  That's ground zero.  You live  under Cardinal Mahoney!  How could you even doubt that there are men w/truly evil agendas in the hierarchy of Holy Mother Church?
 

 

Well when you can demonstrate that Dante was Matt, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, Paul or Peter, then I will take note.  (I am an EENS kind of guy in a strict sense.)

-DF

 
  Dante's work was praised by several popes.  Furthermore, there are  other Fathers of the Church who have said that many bishops and priests  end up in Hell.  St. John Chrysostom said pretty much the exact  same thing.  So Dante was merely reflecting historical Catholic beliefs.
 

[Defensor_Fidei]

It was introduced SPECIFICALLY as a modernist innovation, "false archaeologism," to the detriment of the faith, by modernist prelates in the low countries of Europe, those most liberal pre-and-post Vatican II. Therefore, it is bad. The Pope should not have issued the "indult," in doing so, he capitulated to the modernist whims of these ecclesiastics who were, objectively speaking, in the wrong.

 

You are entitled to your opinion.  I understand your position, but you have not convinced me of the diabolical plot. 

 

 

If you feel that the Pope's endorsement of sacrilege is permissable because "The Holy Father said so," then start a new thread on the infallibility of the Pope at all times. (This is called "Papolatry," btw.) Otherwise, quit wasting your time and ours, because handcommunion won't sell here like it does in the Novus Ordo.

 

I am not selling CIH.  I pointed out that it is not a sin and I also clarified the history of reception by mouth and rection by hand. Do you have a problem with the development of both as I have presented it?  If so, then cite other sources for me to consider.  This is not an issue of infallibility.

 

-DF

[InquisitorGeneralis]

You are entitled to your opinion.  I understand your position, but you have not convinced me of the diabolical plot.

 

 

 

 

Well, the motivation is either false archaeology or modernism.  Which is it?  Neither option is good...
 

 

   

 

I  am not selling CIH. I pointed out that it is not a sin and I also  clarified the history of reception by mouth and rection by hand. Do you  have a problem with the development of both as I have presented it?

 

 

  We weren't debating the facts of the development of reception by the  mouth.  We were debating the motivations behind Communion in the  Hand.  None of the possibilities for these motivations are good.  Do you have some other possible motivation we've failed to consider?
 

 
 

[DominusTecum]

   

You are entitled to your opinion.  I understand your position, but you have not convinced me of the diabolical plot. 

 

How is it anything but diabolical to replace a venerable practice which has been the exclusive norm in the Church for 1000 years at least, and unquestionably the best and most devout way to recieve Our Lord, with a way that is objectively inferior, and was re-introduced out of liberal motives. (The protestants have handcommunion, it was introduced by them to diminish belief in the Real Presence.) Don't tell me that it's not diabolical because "The pope said so," because last I checked, he wasn't speaking ex cathedra when he issued his unfortunate "indult."

 

 

I am not selling CIH.  I pointed out that it is not a sin and I also clarified the history of reception by mouth and rection by hand. Do you have a problem with the development of both as I have presented it?  If so, then cite other sources for me to consider.  This is not an issue of infallibility.

 

 

On the contrary, you are indeed selling the practice of handcommunicating, by refusing to condemn it in this modern context. It IS a sin if it is performed today, when we "know better," though it was probably not a sin when done in the early Church, as they did not intend a false archaeologism, or blasphemy.

 

[Interestingly enough, though this is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, there is some question about the orthodoxy of Frs. Jungmann and Fortescue, and many trads believe that they may have been slight doctrinal modernists. As for the other fellow, he is not well known in the west. Your list of allies seems to grow thin.]

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Neo Catholic - Moi? 

 

I am closer to your positions that you will ever know.  The difference beween me and most of my brother Tradtionalists is that I don't swallow everything I am told hook line and sinker.  In fact I know very few real traditionalists, but I know a bunch of Neo-Traditionalists.

 

But, regardless, the liturgy managed to fall apart.  And you never ask yourself why it happened?  For crying out loud, man, you live in the Archdiocese of LA!  That's ground zero.  You live under Cardinal Mahoney!  How could you even doubt that there are men w/truly evil agendas in the hierarchy of Holy Mother Church?

 

Pre Mahony was before 1984/1985.  Funny how things changed about the time Roger took over.  But for some reason the Church here was unlike many of the reports of what pople think happened the day after VII was over. Or after 1971 when the Ordo was replaced.  I remember the jackhammers in the Church moving the altar from the front of the sactuary to the middle.  They left the communion rails in for another 10  to 15 years in most parishes. 

 

I am not sure if I would call them evil. I know they certainly do not see what is right infront of their faces.  It is so deep on so many levels that it like amnesia or something.  I have a pet theory that has to do with the BC Pill/ABC and the breakdown of the family which hammered local vocations.  The loss in local vocations has give rise to the over use of layity.  Once the layit were used to fill the gap, that was the begining of the end. 

Well when you can demonstrate that Dante was Matt, Mark, Luke, John, James, Jude, Paul or Peter, then I will take note. (I am an EENS kind of guy in a strict sense.)

-DF

Dante's work was praised by several popes.  Furthermore, there are other Fathers of the Church who have said that many bishops and priests end up in Hell.  St. John Chrysostom said pretty much the exact same thing.  So Dante was merely reflecting historical Catholic beliefs.

 

Praised by.....big deal, JPII kissed the Koran.  Since they were not outside the Church we should not speculate the condition of their souls at the time of their deaths. I highly doubt the last 4 Popes are in Hell, unless you have proof that they all died with unconfessed mortal sin on their souls.

 

-DF

[InquisitorGeneralis]

From the A Broken Clock Is Right Twice a Day Department:

Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.

[InquisitorGeneralis]

Neo Catholic - Moi?  

 

 

 

 

You're the very definition of a neo-Catholic.  You're only defending the last forty years, nothing else.
 

 

 

 

 

I am closer to  your positions that you will ever know. The difference beween me and  most of my brother Tradtionalists is that I don't swallow everything I  am told hook line and sinker. In fact I know very few real  traditionalists, but I know a bunch of Neo-Traditionalists.

 

 

  How, exactly, are you a traditionalist?
 

 
 

 

Pre Mahony was  before 1984/1985. Funny how things changed about the time Roger took  over. But for some reason the Church here was unlike many of the  reports of what pople think happened the day after VII was over. Or  after 1971 when the Ordo was replaced. I remember the jackhammers in  the Church moving the altar from the front of the sactuary to the  middle. They left the communion rails in for another 10 to 15 years in  most parishes.

I  am not sure if I would call them evil. I know they certainly do not see  what is right infront of their faces. It is so deep on so many levels  that it like amnesia or something. I have a pet theory that has to do  with the BC Pill/ABC and the breakdown of the family which hammered  local vocations. The loss in local vocations has give rise to the over  use of layity. Once the layit were used to fill the gap, that was the  begining of the end.

 

 

  I don't see what isn't evil about any of this.
 

 

Praised by.....big deal

 

 

 

 

Dante's statements were consistent w/what other Fathers of the Church had said.
 

 

 

 

JPII kissed the Koran.  Since they were not outside the Church we should not speculate the  condition of their souls at the time of their deaths. I highly doubt  the last 4 Popes are in Hell, unless you have proof that they all died  with unconfessed mortal sin on their souls.

 

-DF

 
  Kissing the Koran isn't a mortal sin?  And did he repent of  this?  You don't think JPII will have to answer to God for  allowing the use of female altar boys and Communion in the Hand?   These are all extremely grave matters.  And what about Paul VI  instituting the New Mass?  You don't think he will be judged for  this?
 

[InquisitorGeneralis]

Neo-Catholicism, as defined by members of this board:
 
 

 

 

Post-Vatican II

   

Since Vatican II, Neo-Catholicism has become a mildly derogatory term most often used by traditional Catholics to describe neoconservative  Catholics who they believe fully accept typical interpretations of  Vatican II documents that prescribe major changes to Catholic practice,  liturgical life, and presentations of Catholic teaching. They accuse  contemporary Neo-Catholics of having an exaggerated vieiw of Papal authority  and of being concerned with politics over liturgical and doctrinal  matters. For example, the typical Neo-Catholic might be actively  involved in the pro-life movement, but favor contemporary liturgical practices, such as folk guitar Masses, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, altar girls, and the blending of Protestant soteriology and eschatology with Catholic teaching. They would also likely be more in favor of ecumenism with conservative evangelical Christians and inter-religious dialogue with Jews.

   

[edit]

   

   

Trivia

   

Neo-Catholicism  is occasionally used to refer to all who might be classified as being  on the right of the Catholic theological spectrum, though this is not  the generally accepted meaning of the term.

   

[edit]

   

   

External links

   

 
• Conservative vs. Traditional Catholicism article concerning contemporary neo-Catholicism
• A Brief Defense of Traditionalism contrasts traditional Catholicism with neo-Catholicism
• The Great Facade
• Review: The Great Facade
 

 

 

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Post-Vatican II

We are all that, just by the fact that it is 2006.

Since Vatican II, Neo-Catholicism has become a mildly derogatory term most often used by traditional Catholics to describe neoconservative Catholics who they believe fully accept typical interpretations of Vatican II documents that prescribe major changes to Catholic practice, liturgical life, and presentations of Catholic teaching.

 

I am not sure what the "typical interpretations" are.  That is a very broad and loose terminology.  I am unaware of any interpreations that prescribe major changes.  I battle anti-Catholics regularly over Catholic teachings and if the teachings were changed even minorly let alone majorly as you suggest; I would not have a leg to stand on against these anti Catholics.  If you are correct that there have been major changes in Church Teaching, I might as well join up with the Mormons or JWs that knock on my door.

 

They accuse contemporary Neo-Catholics of having an exaggerated vieiw of Papal authority I would need and example of what you think is exaggerated   to better understandand of being concerned with politics over liturgical and doctrinal matters. For example, the typical Neo-Catholic might be actively involved in the pro-life movement, but favor contemporary liturgical practices, such as folk guitar Masses - Nope I do not favor this, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion - Nope I do not favor this, altar girls - Nope I do not favor this, and the blending of Protestant soteriology and eschatology with Catholic teaching - Nope I do not favor this. They would also likely be more in favor of ecumenism with conservative evangelical Christians - Nope I do not favor this and inter-religious dialogue with Jews  I dont have a problem with Jews and comments on this might be taken as anti semetic.

 

-DF