Posted on 05/25/2022 10:44:21 AM PDT by one guy in new jersey
Yes, that’s the only passage referencing “apostolic tradition” in connection with the Eucharist AFAIK.
Nobody but a priest with his consecrated hands should be touching the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar with their hands or fingers. There really is no arguing this, consistent with having and displaying due reverence for God the Son.
Please check out this short video.
A priests helpfully explains and discusses Ad Orientem.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gsX9gJC1otc
That’s fine. We don’t need to be writing our down our own words, putting them in quotation marks, and attributing them to the magisterium.
I should also add that I am not an apologist for communion-in-the-paw at all (I think it should be abolished), but I don't believe your statement above was completely true prior to the Council.
Deacons were licit ministers of Holy Communion prior to the Council. They were considered "extraordinary" ministers, but it was permitted for them to be deputized by a priest to distribute the Eucharist. Also -- as far as I have been able to determine -- deacons' hands were not anointed or consecrated during their ordination. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that point; I do not have the 1962 Pontifical Missal and have not found the 1962 rite of diaconal ordination online.)
pre-council, during-council, post-council, regardless of when it was or is done in the modern era, or how, or by the authority of whimsoever, unconsecrated hands touching the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar was, or is, outside of a very narrow set of unusual curcumstances, an abomination, a desecration, and the height of irreverence to God the Son. Protestants love it because Catholics should hate it but many don’t!
Barnhardt on an early roll.
Dynamite stuff.
Boy howdy, did she ever “Go There”...!
Some prose of Barnhardt from the piece of hers that you cited (which, as you can probably guess, I did read at the time, and have never forgotten):
“The priest puts his elbows down on the altar because the altar is A MARRIAGE BED, and the act of consecration is the consummation of the nuptial union between God and man, but in that moment the condescension of God is so utterly complete that God becomes, just for a moment, the feminine responder to the masculine initiating action of man who says the words of consecration. The priest lovingly holds the Host in his hands beneath him atop the supernatural marriage bed of the altar, leans over, looks intently at the Host and whispers, “HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM / This is My Body,” and then with the Chalice, “HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI / For this is the Chalice of My Blood.” And then, in the hands of and lying completely vulnerable to man in the supreme act of loving response, is Our Lord, physically present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
“So, for the sake of clarity, YES, the consecration of the Host and Chalice in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a direct analogue to sexual intercourse between husband and wife. There. I said it. That wasn’t so difficult, now was it? Goodness. In fact, the consecration is the GREATER REALITY, and the marital act between husband and wife is the LESSER REALITY which reflects and points to the greater reality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And, it works both ways. After the consecration, Our Lord goes right back to being the masculine initiator and the priest and the faithful become the normal relative feminine in relation to God in our nature as human beings as we RECEIVE Our Lord by taking Him physically into our bodies in the Eucharist, of which the marital embrace is also an image, only with the gender roles the other way. The nuptial nature of the Mass was known immediately to the Apostles at the Last Supper. In the ancient Jewish tradition, at marriage feasts, the husband and wife would each take a piece of bread, and each would take turns holding the bread up, saying, “Eat this. This is my body,” and then hand-feeding the piece of bread to the spouse. Where do you think the tradition of the bride and groom feeding each other a piece of the wedding cake at the reception comes from? Thus when Our Lord said, “This is My Body,” the Apostles all instantly understood the mystical nuptial act that was going on, because they had seen it before at their own weddings and/or weddings they had attended.
“Do you now see why sexual morality is so utterly, critically important, and why the Church has always, and must continue to always preach the extreme importance of sexual morality? Do you now see why sexual perversion is so damaging to mankind? Do you now see why marriage is truly, truly SACRED and not a mere point of civil contract law? Do you see why divorce is evil? Do you see why divorce and remarriage is intolerable? Do you see why sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful? Do you see why masturbation is gravely sinful? Do you see why sodomy and all of the other sexual perversions are so evil that they literally destroy entire civilizations? Do you see why contraception is evil?”
(The "narrow set of unusual circumstances" is that the priest couldn't be available to take Communion to the sick that day, so he sent the deacon to do it.)
pre-council, during-council, post-council, regardless of when it was or is done in the modern era, or how, or by the authority of whimsoever
If Tridentine Catholicism isn't your model or authority, then what is? Sounds solipsistic to me, shades of "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!!"
Under ordinary curcumstances, I do not distinguish between a deacon and a so-called Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist. I receive from a priest or not at all. I will switch from one to another procession without a second thought to facilitate this if necessary. I will wordlessly drop to my knees to receive on the tongue regardless who the Novus Ordo priest or prelate is, or what their personal attitude is about the practice. Regardless of whether there was/is a local rule banning reception on the tongue, I would/will not change a whit what my practice has been/is in terms of receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Non-negotiable.
My strenuous objection, what I consider an abomination, a desecration, the height of irreverence, is lay Catholics receiving in the hand.
The longer this practice has been in my personal rear-view mirror, the more I am revolted by it.
The deacon issue? No dog in that fight at this point. What I can say is that, under ordinary circumstances, I would never receive the Eucharist from one.
And Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist? They may as well be ghosts to for all the attention I pay to them.
To prevent further desecration, for example, or in extreme circumstances, such as, if communication is otherwise impossible due to an emergency situation, a lay Catholic has traditionally been permitted to handle the Holy Sacrament of the Altar with his or her hands.
Those are the narrow set of circumstances to which I was referring.
“(The “narrow set of unusual circumstances” is that the priest couldn’t be available to take Communion to the sick that day, so he sent the deacon to do it.)”
That is YOUR narrow set of curcumstances.
The set of circumstances YOU had in mind.
Not mine or me!
“Over-the-top”
“solopsistic”
Your opinion, to which you are welcome.
According to my opinion, protestant-inspired so-called “Communion in the hand” is a disgrace that needs to end, post haste
She’s a convert
converts often put us cradle Catholics to shame.
Like they have to make up for lost time or something.
7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.