Communion in the Hand is MORE Traditional?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 жов 2024
- How did the early Church receive Communion? Did Pope Paul VI actually change the traditional practice? MASS CONFUSION - Ep 10: Featuring Timothy Flanders.
Bishop Laise, Holy Communion (PCP Books, 2018)
www.amazon.com...
Bishop Schneider, Dominus Est (Newman House, 2008)
www.amazon.com...
Christus Vincit (Angelico Press, 2019)
www.amazon.com...
“What the Catholic Church ACTUALLY Says About Communion in the Hand with Timothy Flanders”
www.youtube.co...
What Paul VI taught: onepeterfive.c...
Scientific Study of Lost Particles: onepeterfive.c...
+ WATCH EPISODE 3 IN THEATRES: www.latinmass....
Help us DOUBLE latin masses!
🎁 GIVE: latinmass.com/...
+ WATCH EPISODE 1: • MASS OF THE AGES: Epis...
+ WATCH EPISODE 2: • MASS OF THE AGES: Epis...
+ FIND A LATIN MASS NEAR YOU: tlmfinder.com
+ PRAY FOR US: Email film@latinmass.com to join our dedicated prayer team.
+ FOLLOW THE MASS OF THE AGES DOCUMENTARY
/ massoftheages
/ massoftheages
/ liturgyfilm
/ massoftheages
I think the best way to avoid dropped Hosts is with Communion on the tongue, in addition to Communion rails. Without the rail and the kneeler, it is awkward and rather risky to kneel on the floor and get up again, so the tendency is to stand. The old ways were better.
Every day at the Novos Ordo mass (except Sunday) I kneel to receive one knee upon receiving Him. It is true, that most people cannot kneel because the church has taken the help to away 😔
Holy Communion, on the toung, distributed by a priest, assisted by an altar boy holding a plate underneath the communicants chin so as protect Our Lord from accidental and irreverent dropping on floor.
@@KateKing217I also kneel and receive communion on the tongue at my church where there is no kneeler or communion railing.
Its called a Paten :) @@reveilleamerica3589
@@KateKing217 Great that you do that. I have, but when I'm juggling longer skirts and kids it's just a bit worrisome; getting up more so than going down. But Communion on the tongue standing also has drawbacks, especially if the priest doesn't "prefer" this form. We had it down pat before, but then they chose to "fix" something never broken to begin with.
We are not TRADS. We are authentic pre conciliar Catholics.
We also need to re-instate ad orientum across the board
Yup
Communion in the hand is not more traditional. It is an abuse.
Ego gets in the way of seeing what would otherwise be obvious
Also, a few years ago after receiving our blessed Lord, I was praying in the balcony. I saw the people receiving Communion casually, nonchalantly popping it in their mouths irreverently. I thought of all the particles dropped, knowing this is the body blood soul and divinity of our Lord, & in my imagination saw the church covered in blood around the altar steps where the priest and giddy women "Eucharistic ministers" handed out Communion, on the altar rails, pews - basically all over - blood and flesh of our Lord all over the floor being walked on. It was a horrible vision & it made me want to cry. But just imagine - every church is covered in the trampled body blood soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. It has to stop.
I was baptised and confirmed last Easter, I had no upbringing in any religion. A big conversion, believe me!
God led me to the Traditional Latin Mass, He always placed it upon my heart to only ever receive Holy Communion kneeling, on the tongue and to veil. I did all this in a Novus Ordo mass then I found the TLM Praise God!
Why do I say this? Just to highlight that I came in with no particular view leaning toward one way or the other, God just makes me do this lol.
Praise God.
Abuse!! Commuion on the tongue should be the only issue. I sit in Church and watch everyone in there brother go into the Tabernacle like getting cookies out of there closet at home, how awful!!!!!!!! Makes me shutter!
Your view is corrupted. They are receiving God.
Wnen i returned to the Catholic Church, l almost left it again due to all the abuses in the Holy Mass. The Novus Ordo was not the sacred liturgy of pre-Vatican ll. My local church seemed more
Protestant than Catholic.
So… prior to coming over to the TLM…my wife’s multiple sclerosis was getting bad enough that she could not walk the communion line. In those days… she was not yet wheelchair bound…so we would sit in the front row…and both of us would receive… kneeling… on the tongue…interesting… my wife started to veil as well…(one of the VERY few women who veiled) …this was at the beginning of our transition to the TLM.
In my opinion if you take away communion in the hand you take away lay ministers of holy communion because one practice leads to another . Once you allow the laity to take the Sacred Host in their hand it’s not a far cry from then saying that a lay person can distribute the Sacred Host. As we can all see these 2 practices are nearly universal.
If your hand is not consecrated, then you can’t touch it. Period.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians Paul here is speaking to the whole community at Corinth. The very first Christians who were not ordained, broke and received on with the hands and also received the cup. Were the Corinthians wrong? no. We developed the Communion rails and so forth over time. Maybe we should return as a good practice, but not intrinsic. When you pick fights with fellow baptized Catholics over you being more reverent, then, idk
@@jacobreed5655Is don't care how it makes people feel. The practice was ended due to abuse of the Sacred Hosts.
@@jacobreed5655 I think it's 100% okay to disagree with the practice, but with respectful charity and in the suitable context.
Communion in the hand led us to where we are at now. It is and was the church leadership that first V2. Many lost the faith for a long time including me.
It doesn’t really matter! Get off that pew and do something!!!!!
Communion on the tongue is the right and proper way of the traditional teachings in receiving the Holy Eucharist. Truth doesn't change. But when the atheists, and Ecclesiastical freemasons infiltrated inside the Holy Church spread their errors, heresies, and lies, and modernize the Holy Catholic Church by their false new changes and false new reforms. The atheist do not believe in the existence of God, while the freemasons do not deny the existence of God, but their purpose is to mock God. There are so many sacrileges, outrages, and indifferences committed against the Holy Eucharist in receiving communion on hands, and in receiving the Holy Eucharist in the state of mortal sin. The repeated message of the Blessed Virgin Mary given to Her visionaries and mystics in Her apparitions in many places throughout the world about the sacrileges, outrages, and indifferences committed against the Holy Eucharist, but the modernists did not listen, and just ignored Her warning message.
Sorry, non-adoration of particles is not “heretical.” Heresy deals with dogma and doctrine. Practices can’t be heretical. Beliefs can be.
Further, some people have come to a mistaken conclusion on a well-meaning misreading of Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1377, which provides:
The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ207 (emphasis added).
However, it is not accurate to say that every fragment of a Host retains the Real Presence of Christ irrespective of size.
The Church’s traditional teaching is that when the consecrated elements no longer have the appearance of bread and wine, the Real Presence ceases.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
When the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain (ST III:77:4, emphases added).
Similarly, in 1972, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated:
After communion, the left-over hosts, as well as any particles that may have fallen from them and that still have the form of bread, are to be reserved or consumed with the reverence due to the eucharistic presence of Christ.
Further, with regard to any other eucharistic fragments, the prescriptions on purifying the chalice and paten are to be observed as they are given in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal nos. 120, 138, 237-239 and in the “Order of Mass” with a congregation no. 138 and without a congregation no. 31.
Hosts not consumed at once are to be carried by an authorized minister to the place where the blessed sacrament is reserved (see General Instruction of the Roman Missal no. 276) [emphases added].
The Congregation thus honors the traditional teaching by speaking of three things: (1) hosts, (2) particles of hosts that still have the form of bread, and (3) other particles (i.e., those that are so small they no longer have the appearance of bread). The Congregation indicates that (1) and (2) retain the Real Presence and so "are to be reserved or consumed with the reverence due to the eucharistic presence of Christ," while (3) are to be taken care of with the prescriptions for purifying the chalice and paten. Per Aquinas, they no longer have the Real Presence, but because they used to have the Real Presence, they are to be disposed of with proper ceremony (i.e., being dissolved in water and then the water consumed or-if it's the water used to wash a corporal-poured into a sacrarium).
You’re correct to demand the semantics be accurate. Therefore mal-practices would be sacrilegious.
Learning never ends. I dint know this
Thank you for the reference to Aquinas, very interesting detail. Many Catholics treat crumbs and particles of the eucharist as if Christ is still present in them.
@@mosesking2923 depends on the size of the crumb.
I don’t understand how you’ve concluded that (3) isn’t qualified as the real presence anymore, even if you cited Aquinas here. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding, but if the qualification of identity (real presence vs not real presence) is bound by the size of the substance, then this just falls back into some kind of pseudo-nominalistic conception that the identity of a thing is determined by something empirical.
It seems to me that the argument saying that Christ’s true presence isn’t bound by anything corporeal including the adherence to size doesn’t actually follow. Meaning, on one hand you want to say transubstantiation only takes place under certain conditions like what the priest says, and what the host or wine is made out of. Yet on the other want to it then doesn’t subsist beyond this, it merely disappears due to size. I don’t see how this works
I think in the early church there was a young saint that was given the Eucharist to deliver to Roman prisoners. He was captured and would rather die than hand at Eucharist over. He was not ordained.
This sacrifice was to show how much the early church reverenced the Eucharist.
Saint Tarcissus
I read about him in this very old-school novel called Fabiola. I actually have an old copy. It's about the persecutions of about the year 300.
He was St. Tarcisius! He’s my Confirmation saint!
He did not carry the Eucharist in his bare hands! He died to protect others from desecration the body of Christ.
@@Fiat.Voluntas.Tua22 True; we shouldn't use his story to justify Communion in the hand; he surely does not want that!
IT IS A SACRALEDGE TO RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION IN THE HAND. PERIOD
So we’re just gonna ignore the history that clearly shows otherwise?
Lobotomies are traditional, too. Or is there a reason psychiatrists no longer perform them?
Lobotomies are NOT traditional. They started about a 100 years ago by non-christian scientists.
Yes they rob the human of its humanity. Lobotomies were doomed to failure.
Why is it so bad to show even more love and reverence to our Lord? I would rather show as much respect and love as possible by kneeling, and taking the host in the tongue. This all
Leads to having the laity give the host and even now as far as children giving the host. We all need to go back to Traditional Latin Mass. Vatican II has destroyed the Catholic religion. A Freemason is responsible for the changes. So that should tell you everything.
Couldn't be more clear! God bless 🙏✝️
Godless catholics
Awesome presentation. Thank you
I absolutely agree with you on requesting an one-on-one meeting with the priest to discuss the meaning of the communion on the tongue
All Catholics must use the word Holy when speaking of Catholic things: Holy Communion, Holy Eucharist, Holy Bible, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Matrimony, Holy Rosary. Dropping Holy from our speech has a negative impact on our Faith. Thank you for another great video.
"Communion on the tongue gives the impression that the person is receiving not just ordinary bread, and that the man giving it is not just an ordinary man, but that he has some extraordinary powers"
(Martin Bucer, Germany, 1491-1551)
The 'reformers' had to convince Catholics that they were not receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ, so they removed the altar rails and forced people to stand and take the Blessed Sacrament into their hands.
This strategy worked in the sixteenth century and it still works the the twenty-first century.
Seventy percent of self-proclaimed Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of God in the Holy Eucharist!
The Novus ordo not only suppressed the priest’s holding together his canonical digits from the consecration of the bread to the ablutions, but also got rid of the consecration of the corporal, since the Host is no longer laid directly upon it. Nor is it to be stored in a burse. Instead, the purificator is blessed, as the Chalice is to be shared. In every way, the new rites show less respect to the Blessed Sacrament, and all the other Sacraments, truth be told. Also, at this point, bishops in the USA, at least, do not have the authority to ban Communion in the hand, as it has been raised to the level of “particular law” in the United States. It’s all very bad.
It is incorrect to call the Uniates rites. Each one is a separate church with separate priest bishops and patriarch. While they may be in communion with Rome, sadly, nonetheless, they are churches not rites more appropriately, they liturgies should be referred to, according to their name, such as the liturgy of Saint James.
No. Only through the consecrated hands of the priest, kneeling and by the tongue. Period.
Is there a rule in GIRM that says that a priest hast to keep his thumb and index finger together until the washing of the vessels?
I don’t know about the GIRM, but that is definitely the rule for the TLM.
It gets a lot easier once you realise tradition means "that which is handed down". Communion in the hand was certainly not what was handed down, whether people did it at some point or not.
It was in the ancient rubrics
@@stevechristie8549 That's the point. The bishops eventually figured it was a bad idea, so they didn't hand it down to their successors. Which makes it not traditional.
Which means under obedience we will follow the Bishops in their Development of Doctrine, especially since Vatican 1 the process continues. These things take place mainly because of abuse within the priesthood and the Hierarchy of the Church. Remember heresy comes from within the Church and Modernism this is the outcome of society influences that develop (altar girls) etc the list is quite extensive if you look back in Church history. These things happen because our Hierarchy allows these practices over time, the Church Fathers have the same arguments about what transpired in their time also. It has always been here. Yes there have been reformers within the Church throughout history but I feel in the period of time we need a get back to basics. I agree with you that Fathers of the Church have stood up for right practice but modernist seem to win out over time.
In india, even in the roman rite we receive both species in the tongue and only when host is distributed we receive in the hand. This is the norm here. When receiving both species the priest dips the host in the wine and given to the recepient in the tongue. In the case of only host reception, it is very reverent. Faithfuls have option whether to receive in the tongue or in the hand.
I want to preference this with I love the Latin Mass I find it spiritually superior for myself which includes receiving Communion on the tongue. However all this idiosyncrasies about particles and hyper-fixating on them just seems like a great way to drive someone mad. I'm sure Jesus naturally shed skin cells, hair, eyelashes, etc. as he walked the earth, are we really saying that, if we could, these should be treated with reverence if they were to be collected. That's how I see any natural particles that fall off of the Host. As long as you're treating the Host with respect and reverence and realize the real presence, that should be enough. I just have a hard time believing that God would want us to worry about making sure every single microscopic piece is accounted for.
To me this is more an issue between Phariseeical type Catholics whose faith focuses on doing the law for their salvation. Perhaps Catholics touching the body of Christ reverently as the woman washing the feet of Christ reverently with tears and oil is upheld by Jesus. Now I can't read hearts.and yes there are odds that many are irreverent in touching and perhaps in receiving on the tounge without faith in the presence of Christ. Ultimately only Christ knows and Christ judges. Our goal is to encourage reverence. To educate towards reverence without putting a heavy burden on those new to Christ. At the last supper Christ gave bread to the Apostles there. It was bread broken from one loaf. There is no focus in the Gospels if the apostles could take Christ in hand in one particular way. In fact Judas is present and most likely consumed Christ. A whole lot of nitpicking could happen around that. So to about priesthood and apostles state at super becoming one in partaking. All this reflecting is well beyond me. I read the scriptures especially Christ's words in the Gospel and the core message is come to me, be with me, join me fully and completely. I will show you the way the truth and the light. I'm human and a sinner and may be missing your point. If I am forgive me as I seek as best I know how.
There is NO communi0on since June 10, 2013!, This not a problem anymore , history. He is out of date.
Why not look at the Institution of the Eucharist by Our Lord himself? Isn't that the real old way, instead of 19th century ultramontanist practices that are mistaken for traditional?
In the early Church BREAD (ARTOS) WAS USED NOT WAFERS
Thumb and index finger held together as the Canonical Digits.
If I tried to educate my priest on anything I’d get a dirty look and a sharp rebuff
What Eucharistic Ministers (lay persons) do when the go up to the Altar to take the chalice to give out communion to the congregation is: they wash their fingers from a little bowl at the side of the Altar then they receive communion on the hand from the Priest which they put it in their mouth with the fingers that they are then going to distribute the host to the people!!. Where is there reverence, even hygiene in that??. Also before communion the Priest invites everyone to make the sign of peace and everyone shakes hands with one another then with their germ ridden hands they receive the holy host on their hands. No reverence shown whatsoever. Christ have mercy on our Souls for what we have done to his holy Body in the 'modern Church'.
Traditionally speaking, if we want to discuss how traditional the manner of receiving the Holy Communion it is in the days of Bible being written as Jesus lived through His History for us to learn about Him, the ones who received the Bread and Wine transubstantiating into His Body and Blood were His Disciples. And His Disciples were Biships. Jesus' Disciples were never laymen and laywomen. Mother Mary has always been the Tabernacle by design (The Will of God). St. John Paul II and Mother Teresa already told us, the greatest sins are Abortion and Communion in the hand.
Ye are saved by Grace through Faith
Hands denote works , the wages of work , communion is entirely out of his Grace for the reason it is not taken in the hand but directly , like a Child fed by his Mother,
Protestantism out of a rebellion sunk in Sodom and Divorce, underscored in Gnosticism 1John 2;19, going about in Christian names, unto its many thousands of sects where one does not agree with the other denotes the many parts that the body of Jezebel ended up torn by dogs, incidentally the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith by Faith Only, that James specifically says is not unto mis interpretation Paul (the reason why Martin Luther rejected James cause it was a hinderance to his erranous view of redemption) and the philosophies that arise out of the leavens becomes to another Christ another Gospel (a la Krisna/Egypt)
Protestantism & Protestantization the Trojan horse of the Apostasy,
The only reason for the 2nd temple was for the Messiah to enter it, finding it Corrupted made & used a whip to overturn the TABLES, the tables of the leavens of the Pharisees (Jews) & Herod (Gentiles) Unto his warning " Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees & Herod, the leaven of the LAW/FAITH resp ---
Are we to understand that when Jesus concentrated the bread and wine, He used a white, round host on the tongue? I thought it was a piece of unleaved bread that he tore pieces from or the individuals tore their own pieces. ? Our Latin rite church practices the Maronite method, where the host is dipped into a small chalice of the Blood, and distributed on the tongue. No one gets this in their hand., Might be a good idea to become a universal practice. Like the Eastern Rite, where the tincture of bread and wine is the only way of distribution. Just a thought. Amen
I was told years ago.the reason for the rails around where the priest is on the alter is to stop animals from going into that area it sounds mad I would love to know the reason for it .. Truth ❤🙏🙏🙏
It is called a corporal. It goes underneath the chalice and the paten. It is then folded up and placed in the burse
There have been married Bishops, ....mixed monasteries...
Thank you for publicizing the truth!
THE FATIMA CHILDREN RECEIVED ON THEIR KNEES AND IN THE TOUNGE
I adore the Blessed Sacrament: I receive my Eucharistic Lord by opening the palms of my hands and present this cup up to the priest who then places the `Host` into the palm of my hand. This is as safe as houses. I then instinctively bend my head forward and place my tongue upon the Host and receive Him into my mouth. This too is as safe as houses. I don't bite or chew at all but embrace Him in my mouth allowing moisture to soften the Host, after which I lovingly swallow the Blessed Sacrament. I also know that Carthusians, who pride themselves for never having undergone reform, receive the Host on the hand too.
Receiving Communion in the palm of the hand can be as reverently as on the tongue . In both cases the reverence is the current question
I have seen the minsters throwing the hast like a Frisbee on to the tongue
I admit that Communion on the tongue is counter culture but receiving in the hand if done properly can be as counter culture where Communion can reverently and devoutly revieved
From the hands of the Lord
After listening to this discussion I searched for what others have to say about communion in the hand. I find these articles:
1. Early Christian Communion in the Hand
By Elizabeth Klein - Scholar and Assistant Professor of Theology at Augustine Institute
2. Hands or tongue, kneeling or standing: there's no "best way" to receive Communion
By Christine Lenahan - a Joseph A. O'Hare, S. J. Fellow at America
Respectfully, both have an outlook regarding this issue to be more reflective of how the church stand on these matters between communion on the hand or on the tongue. They offer a good, reflective read, charitable and in my opinion more closely related to the heart of Christ in ways He would prefer us to receive Him.
The article has excellent arguments that points to a hermeneutic of continuity than to a hermeneutic of suspicion on how the church have reponded to challenges of the times. This is how the church and the faithful ought to grow in faith.
24:35 I will listen to what Pope Benedict said, respectfully.
@@michellemcdermott2026 that is perfectly fine. The church recognizes that both reception are reverent and that the right disposition of the heart is what matters as God knows what the heart intends when we go out to the world and live our faith as Christians. The humility of the heart and true reverence is not dictated by our posture but how we treat others in our daily lives when we are sent out after the mass.
@@shepherdson6189
God first,the rest comes naturally
In our parish we find Hosts thrown on the ground and in the pews and people walk out with Jesus in the hand
Why even allow it?
It's totally unnecessary and Protestant
@@michellemcdermott2026 those incidents really needs to be addressed by the parish and it can be done. But to suggest that the practice is heretical or patterned to the Protestants like what is mentioned in this video is just an inappropriate claim that undermines the spiritual guidance of the church on this matter. When in fact the practice have already existed during the early church.
Just to share the best practices in addressing this abuses, the parish I belong to makes solemn announcements before the lining up of the people was to begin saying that the Holy Eucharist must be consumed immediately upon reception of the Host. Also, the priests and lay ministers are aware and keen on these kinds of incidence. One time the parish priest himself went after a person who did not consume the Host right away upon reception. These are just a few of the actions that can be done by the parish.
@@shepherdson6189 No need if we give Jesus the physical adoration due to Him.
Humble ourselves and stop self communicating.
I believe that Communion in the hand was anathematized at the council of Saragossa in 380 AD.
It wasn’t! We see communion in the hand throughout the entirety of Church History
@@TCM1231
Google it. You will find that it is true.
@@TCM1231
I have found many references that say it is true. Do a little research.
@@josephcillojr.7035 I have found many references that show it is a historical practice. Look at St Cyril of Jerusalem who said it was good and that we should make our hands into temples for God.
Do a little research.
I have.
Communion in the hand in ancient times was done with a veil in the hand. The Host was placed on the veil and the recipient would pick it up with his tongue and close the veil to prevent any particles from falling on the floor.
So, his hands never touched the Host.
You got that from bishop schneider right?😁
Did you know that it was just in 1 place & only for women and not men?
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319
WHAT HORRIBLE NONSENSE
@@alexpanagiotis4706 statements are not arguments Mr. Trad
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 Really apostate?
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 The Council of Saragossa (380AD) declared “anathema” anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo (589AD) declared likewise. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680AD) forbade the faithful from placing the Host in their hands, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Mass of Confusion
denying the laity the blood of Christ has been a disaster for all of Christendom
It is possible for the priest to administer the Body and Blood to the Faithful by way of intincture; otherwise, allowing the non-ordained to arrogate this privilege to themselves is a disaster for all of Christiandom.
The flesh has blood. Enough.
It has both. Stop with the heretical interpretation.
God Bless.
"We know that under the appearance of bread we receive also Christ's blood and under the appearance of wine we receive also Christ's body; because in the Holy Eucharist we receive the living body of Our Lord, and a living body cannot exist without blood, nor can living blood exist without a body." (Baltimore Catechism)
"Christ is so contained, whole and entire, under either species, that, as under the species of bread are contained not only the body, but also the blood and Christ entire; so in like manner, under the species of wine are truly contained not only the blood, but also the body and Christ entire." (Catechism of the Council of Trent)
"Augustine says in a sermon (Gregory, Sacramentarium): 'Each receives Christ the Lord, Who is entire under every morsel, nor is He less in each portion, but bestows Himself entire under each.'" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church and "greatest theologian in the history of the Church”)
"If any one saith that the precept of God or by necessity of salvation all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist: let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)
"If any one denieth that in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)
"If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire - the fountain and author of all graces - is received under the one species of bread; because that - as some falsely assert - He is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)
"If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to layman and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema." (Council of Trent)
"The holy council, guided by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of godliness (see Isa. 11:2), and following the custom and the judgment of the Church itself, teaches and declares that the laity and clerics who are not celebrating are not bound by any divine command to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species. And faith leaves no possibility of doubting that Communion under one species is sufficient for salvation." (Council of Trent)
"We know that under the appearance of bread we receive also Christ's blood and under the appearance of wine we receive also Christ's body; because in the Holy Eucharist we receive the living body of Our Lord, and a living body cannot exist without blood, nor can living blood exist without a body." (Baltimore Catechism)
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 1 Corinthians Did the Corinthians celebrate Mass in Latin? No. Did they have Communion rails? No. Paul's letter is addressing all the Corinthians. The priests would break the bread and pass it to the Corinthians on their hands. All would receive the Chalice. Not just "ordained" hands.
Over time we developed certain practices, but they are NOT intrinsic, but maybe a best practice. I know we need to return to orthodoxy and tradition, but you using strawman arguments won't get us there. Don't compare me, a baptized practicing Catholic, who believes in the true presence of Christ in the most Holy Eucharist, to a heretical protestant. I receive on the hand because that is what I was taught, being born and raised Catholic. And I'm conscience of every particle. The day the Church goes back to Communion rails, I'm in. No matter the method, Particles of the most Holy Eucharist will be lost. Christ knew this. No one is EVER WORTHY to receive. It is a gift.
I want to like the Rad-Trads, but you guys come across as smug and arrogant and holier than thou. So you will never prevail, unfortunately.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)
St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.
The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)
Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11)
How sad that you would accuse those who fight for the right of the Christs body to have the highest respect of us minions on this Earth. I can assure you it is not 'Rad-Trads' as you like to refer to those who prefer to worship Christ in a manner that has been the tradition of the Church for almost 2000 years, but it is yourself that is smug and arrogant. I would prefer to receive Christ on my knees and on the tongue out of complete reverence to his presence in the very Eucharist that he left for us just before he also died for us. You are entitled to receive whichever way you decide but that does not make it right but thankfully God gave us the right to choose freely, but we will all know how he wanted us to respect what his Son left for us when we stand in judgement.
If you are so conscience of every particle how do you not see the Eucharist straight on the tongue(where it sticks) with the gold patent underneath the mouth to catch every precious part and clean properly back at the altar as the MUCH more efficient way than hand to hand to pick up with hand and put in mouth without any barrier to the floor?
@@rachelpops9239 Do you realize how many particles were lost at the Last Supper when our Lord Himself broke the bread??? At every Mass, Latin or otherwise, particles are lost. This is OCD. When Jesus walked the earth he would have shed skin cells and hair. He became one of us. He knew the risks. Calm down please.
@@townsin11 I have nothing against you receiving our Lord on your tongue on your knees. I never said anything to make one think that. It's the RadTrads, as they often call themselves, who condemn me. My point is that how one receives is not intrinsic, but a matter of binding and loosening by the Authority of the Church. If Holy Mother Church tomorrow returned to Communion rails on the tongue, I'd quickly obey.
The Council of Saragossa (380AD) declared “anathema” anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo (589AD) declared likewise. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680AD) forbade the faithful from placing the Host in their hands, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
Wrong.
@@TCM1231 Not wrong
@@alexpanagiotis4706 okay provide receipts please 🙏 because I’m pretty sure that’s not true thanks God Bless
@@TCM1231 My dear everyone who is a littlebit educated knows this.
@@TCM1231 Why do you crazy guys think in ALL ORIENTAL CHURCHES AND ORTHODOX CHURCHES A CHALICE SND SPOON IS USED?
There's no official Church document affirming that receiving in the hand is improper.
Everything against it is only a convoluted historical-development case (far more flawed than any similar investigation that the Church may conduct under her authority to do it).
I understand that receiving in the tongue is generally superior, but not necessarily.
Something that has been universally accepted in the Church for this long can only be called abusive by schismatics. Please exercise caution.
Question: Should a priest of a certain community deny communion to someone who offers their hands to receive it?
If that so, they are as faulty as those that deny people who want to receive in the tongue in a church used with receiving in the hand.
"I understand that receiving in the tongue is generally superior, but not necessarily..."
If you believe that it truly is the Body and Blood of Christ that you're receiving, wouldn't you be determined to receive in the 'superior' manner?
Isn't God worthy of the very best you can offer?
Timothy, Please learn how to speak with a non nasal non strained voice. Also, stop using the term TRAD! It’s not about being ‘traditional’ for the sake of tradition itself. It’s about being an AUTHENTIC Catholic. I would like to forward your video but the above issues are obstacles to others receiving it with an open mind. Improve your public speaking if you want to continue speaking in public!
Fine - but did this REALLY need 40 minutes? I’ll not non be inflicting this long-winded video on anyone - sorry.