From Fr. Perricone's essay (emphasis mine):
Most theologians know well that this Common Doctor is the thick steel wall protecting the Faith against the seepage of Modernity. Tear it down, and the Faith is fatally exposed. That's not hyperbole, it's the Magisterium. After citing six hundred years of Pontifical praise for St. Thomas, Leo XIII concludes a section of Aeterni Patris with: " . . . while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'His teaching above that of others . . . enjoys such an elegance of phraseology, a method of statement, a truth of proposition, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dares assail it will always be suspected of error.'" (Aeterni Patris, #16)[Note: In the document I linked above, this quote is from #21.]
Fr. Perricone says the teachings of Aquinas as a protection of the Faith is part of the Magisterium. I will obediently follow his direction and that of Pope Leo XIII, Pope Innocent VI, and all of the other Popes (including John Paul II) who have praised the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. Do you think that previous Popes encyclicals were only true while they were alive? Does the Truth change or is it unchanging? Does it not make sense that only consecrated hands should hold the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?
You seem to be ... not following the Pope.
I don't how you arrived at that conclusion. I neither said nor implied any such thing. I said a Modernist proposed the return of Communion in the hand. Just because JPII may have given his approval does not mean that he would have suggested it to begin with. I do not think he is a heretic. Quite the contrary, I think he is solidly orthodox, an excellent teacher and evangelizer, and a very holy man.
While the reference to Aquinas is appreciated, you didn't answer my question. I am not being disobedient because Communion in the hand is not required for the New Mass. One can still receive Communion on the tongue in the New Mass. Since I regularly attend the Tridentine Rite, which doesn't allow Communion in the hand, it's a moot point. You also apparently failed to notice that my criticism of it is due to the potential for sacrilege. Is that not a valid concern? I don't see that concern in any way being connected to the idea of not following the Pope.
Do you think that previous Popes encyclicals were only true while they were alive?Of course not, and if you look above I indicate that some of Trent’s teachings are part of the Magisterium, which would seem to indicate I don’t have a problem with something simply because it is old.
Does the Truth change or is it unchanging?The truth about what? A matter of faith and morals is of course unchanging. A discipline is a prudential judgment that can change, depending on the needs of the times. This is why Pius XII recognized that
From time immemorial the ecclesiastical hierarchy has exercised this right in matters liturgical. It has organized and regulated divine worship, enriching it constantly with new splendor and beauty, to the glory of God and the spiritual profit of Christians. What is more, it has not been slow--keeping the substance of the Mass and sacraments carefully intact--to modify what it deemed not altogether fitting, and to add what appeared more likely to increase the honor paid to Jesus Christ and the august Trinity, and to instruct and stimulate the Christian people to greater advantage.[47]Do you consider how we receive Communion to be a matter of faith and morals, infallibly settled for all time? I think we would both agree its not, that it is discipline, and that the Church can change that discipline as it sees fit. This is not the first era that the non-ordained have touched the host. If you read the writings of certain fathers you would probably see some actions with the Eucharist that would leave you rather uncomfortable. Treatment for injuries and things like that. They aren’t disrespectful actions, but to one who believes only the ordained should touch it, they could bug you.
Does it not make sense that only consecrated hands should hold the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ?It is my preference that at Mass only consecrated hands hold the Eucharist. I have to recognize situations where that is not true, however. If you only have one priest for a vast territory, he cannot cover all of it. He cannot deliver the Eucharist to all of the sick throughout the territory, etc. For this purpose I have no objection to a Eucharistic minister delivering it. My view, however, is one of my own prudential judgment, and nothing more. I have no right to argue otherwise.
Well, (1) you stated you would follow Trent, and conspicuously left out the current hierarchy. (2) we are talking about your rejection of communion in the hand, a practice approved by the Pope, and your rejection of the modernists that brought it in, and (3) you only proposed two categories to follow, Trent or the modernists - given that the Pope allows communion in the hand it seemed you may have considered him more in the former, and (4) it is my understanding you have a preference for the SSPX, which is IMHO not in communion with the Pope (hashed out in detail elsewhere). This is why it “seemed” to me that might have been what you meant. Of course, by using the word “seemed” rather than a phrase like “are not following the Pope” I meant to be clear that it wasn’t clear to me what you meant, and this is why I asked you “Is this your view?” Please don’t take offense, but your words did leave that open question in my mind.You seem to be ... not following the Pope.I don't how you arrived at that conclusion.
I said a Modernist proposed the return of Communion in the hand. Just because JPII may have given his approval does not mean that he would have suggested it to begin with.This kind of seems to be splitting hairs. I don’t know of any change or any doctrinal statement that any Pope has adopted or any Council has adopted that wasn’t first proposed by someone else. This is how it always works, others suggest things and eventually a Pope may allow it or agree or whatever.
While the reference to Aquinas is appreciated, you didn't answer my question. I am not being disobedient because Communion in the hand is not required for the New Mass.I guess I didn’t understand whether you CAN receive on the tongue to be your question, but rather whether one can be “critical of a discipline.” Can you receive on the tongue is even a different question than can you be critical of the Church’s decision to allow reception in the hand.
One can still receive Communion on the tongue in the New Mass.Yes, I do.
You also apparently failed to notice that my criticism of it is due to the potential for sacrilege. Is that not a valid concern?It is a valid concern, but one for those with the authority to make the prudential judgment, not for you. You and I are laity, and unlike the modernists I suspect you are willing to recognize that you have a place (just as I do, I’m not trying to single you out.) It is a hallmark of modern thought that the layman thinks he has the right to judge actions properly within the authority of his superiors.
patent +AMDG