Rorate Caeli

The Consecrated touch what is Consecrated

Postquam autem venerunt ad aream Nachon, extendit Oza manum ad arcam Dei, et tenuit eam: quoniam calcitrabant boves, et declinaverunt eam. Iratusque est indignatione Dominus contra Ozam, et percussit eum super temeritate: qui mortuus est ibi iuxta arcam Dei. (From the Roman Breviary, 2nd-3rd readings of Matins for Thursday within the fifth week after the Pentecost Octave, II Kings/II Samuel vi, 6-7: "And when they came to the floor of Nachon, Oza [Uzzah] put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it: because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and he struck him for his rashness: and he died there before the ark of God.")

Now as to the use of this holy sacrament [the Most Holy Eucharist], our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.
Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent
Session XIII (October 11, 1551)
Chapter VIII

40 comments:

Gratias said...

Since pope Benedict only offers communion on the tongue, I no longer accept it in the hand, or from our lay ministers, in the NO parish I have to attend every other week. A few others do the same. Cross to the other line.

Long-Skirts said...

YOUR HAND I'D KISS

Your hand, I'd kiss
But not for this,
The mundane games
Men play.

Your hand, I'd kiss
For doing this,
Absolve my sins
Away.

Your hand, I'd kiss
But not for this,
That any man
Can do.

Your hand, I'd kiss,
For doing this
God's strong,
His choice, the few.

Your hand, I'd kiss
But not for this,
Like any
Virile male.

Your hand, I'd kiss
For doing this,
Place Him between
Lips, pale.

Your hand, I'd kiss
But not for this,
Your strength
Exudes each pore.

Your hand, I'd kiss
For doing this,
Your prayers,
I do implore.

Mr. Ortiz said...

Terrific. I love the documents from Trent. They are clear, rich, and full of surprises too--ie, one may reasonably chose to marry one woman over another--all things being equal--on account of her personal beauty, wealth, or distinguished family!

No Puritanism there.

Anonymous said...

Would this argue against extra-ordinary ministers of Communion or Communion in the hand? Or both?

Jordanes551 said...

A bishop is making a big step in the right direction:

http://www.scdiocese.org/files/Guidelines_and_Norms_for_Holy_Communion.htm

God speed the day when we no longer see Unnecessary Ministers of Holy Communion at Holy Mass.

M. A. said...

There is a local parish here where not Trent nor any other dogmatic pronouncement will trump "GIRM"! I was told by a couple of people who attend there, that the pastor has been running for 4 weeks straight, the GIRM directives for receiving Communion-which of course instruct on how to receive in the hand. Highlighted was a paragraph giving notice that while Communion will not be denied to those who kneel, that those who do, will need to be catechized.

When a complaint was made to him, his reply was that those were the directives for the Church and that "obedience is better than sacrifice."

Joe B said...

"Cross to the other line."

Did that. So the old priest in Abilene, Texas, seeing what I did, sat down - stopped offering Communion. So I left the line and sat down, too.

I once looked around his church after mass and found a dirty Host on the floor under a pew. I tried the other masses in the area, but there wasn't much difference. One parish had their lay Eucharistic ministers sipping the Blood of Christ as if it were a wine tasting party after mass, another sent me to diocesan classes taught by a notoriously lib sister (enneagram classes and other insulting activities).

But everybody there loved their priests, so I started driving to Dallas for the TLM.

Give me SSPX over any Novus Ordo parish. If you're Novus Ordo for any reason other than absolute necessity, you're part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

A bishop is making a big step in the right direction:>

Do you want the elimination of "unnecessary" EMHC or the total elimination of EMHC?

Anonymous said...

IMO there is absolutely no reason for the laity to receive communion under both species nor is there any reason for Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion except that the modernists desire to cloud the vision of the ministerial priesthood and the fact that so many ordained priests have left their vocations.

This would have been roundly condemned by priests and laity alike before Vatican II. Now, it seems we need a legal discourse from the local Ordinary to set forth the "norms" for these practices. There 'ya go - it's the new springtime after all.

PEH

Anonymous said...

What about receiving communion from deacons? Aren't they allowed to distribute communion too?

Anonymous said...

"What about receiving communion from deacons? Aren't they allowed to distribute communion too?"

Only in the New Rite.

Jordanes551 said...

Do you want the elimination of "unnecessary" EMHC or the total elimination of EMHC?

So-called "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" are more accurately called "Unnecessary Ministers of Holy Communion." Very, very, very rarely are EMHCs ever needed, but almost everywhere they are a regular feature at Mass, even when there are just 10 or 20 people coming up for Communion. (There's a Franciscan-run parish in our diocese where the Franciscans never distribute the Precious Blood and thus never use Unnecessary Ministers -- if only we had more such parishes.) It's especially bad at my parish, where six women loiter with chalices and clutter up the front of the church, making it necessary to bob and weave as you try to make your way back to your pew. At the end of Communion, these women must to consume the remaining Precious Blood, and there is always remaining Precious Blood because there are always too many chalices.

At least its not as bad as it used to be a few years ago, when the Unnecessary Ministers in our parish would casually mozy on up into the Sanctuary during the Agnus Dei and loiter behind the priest until he had received Communion. Now they are made to kneel on the steps before the Sanctuary until Father and the Deacons receive, and only then may they come up. But things won't be right until we restrict Unnecessary Ministers to, say, Christmas and Easter, when the church is packed and there might be some genuine need. We need to make Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion as rare as the bishops would like the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite to remain.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, once you cave in on the principle of "the consecrated for consecrated hands" you've already lost the battle and the war.

Jordanes551 said...

The Church has always allowed unconsecrated hands to handle the Host in emergencies. That's what we need to return to: genuine emergencies, real need. In almost all Masses there is no need for the laity to help distribute Communion.

Anonymous said...

Speaking about finding Hosts...

In our parish, two were found on the grounds of the Church on Easter Monday. Presumably they were left there after the Easter Sunday Mass. Our Pastor put a little note in the bulletin telling one and all how horrified, yes horrified!, he was at finding this. I thought this was an excellent opportunity for him to "catechize" the faithful in the pews as to the reverence and respect due Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. However, not a peep was heard from the pulpit.

I have a hard time believing that he was truly horrified.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

"The Church has always allowed unconsecrated hands to handle the Host in emergencies."

One of the earliest stories from Church history taught to me as a kid in Catholic school was the account pf St. Tarcisius. Never in a million years did we think it would become the norm -- where the great majority of Catholics receive Holy Communion from laity rather than a priest.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 21 July, 2011 15:16 said:
"What about receiving communion from deacons? Aren't they allowed to distribute communion too?"

Anonymous 21 July, 2011 15:21 said...

Only in the New Rite.

Anonymous #2 you are incorrect. Deacons are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and can do so in the absence of a priest or necessity (large numbers of faithful to receive). The same goes for solemn baptism. They can also preach.

Anonymous said...

St. Mark's (Plano, Texas, Dallas Diocese) offers the Latin Mass OF each Monday at 7:00 P.M.

Last Monday about 70 people were in attendance at said Mass.

Three EMs (all women) distributed the Sacred Hosts as Father administered the Chalice.

The EMs, of course, had overrun the Sacntuary.

Three EMs to distribute Holy Communion to about 70 people...on top of that, during a Latin Mass.

The Novus Ordo situation is hopeless.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Let's be clear about one thing - the formation of deacons according to the pre vs the post Vatican II norms in the Church is marKedly different. Before Vatican II the diaconate was the final step before ordination to the priesthood. In the years just prior to the Second Vatican Council, the only men ordained as deacons were seminarians who were completing the last year or so of graduate theological training, who received the order several months before priestly ordination.

Following the recommendations of the council (in Lumen Gentium 29), in 1967 Pope Paul VI issued the motu proprio Sacrum Diaconatus Ordinem, restoring the ancient practice of ordaining to the diaconate men who were not candidates for priestly ordination. These men are known as permanent deacons in contrast to those completing their training, who were then called transitional deacons.

This was done out of pastoral necessity, we are led to believe, but the fact remains that deacons today with all their weighty responsibilities of family and employment many times are caught between the rock and a hard place when it comes to time and training. Yet, they are empowered by the Church to act as deacons and many do so with fervor and resolve. The only question that remains is what happened to the priesthood during the "new springtime"?

PEH

LeonG said...

Reading Samuel and Daniel strakly admonish the modern church today - if you mess with Sacred Tradition and the divinely mandated hierarchy of ecclesiastical affairs then you can expect to reap a bitter harvest. It is astonishing that few pay any attention at all to these two books. We live in such an epoch with the very same consequences unfolding before our eyes.

Anonymous said...

Speaking about novus ordo Deacons, I always had the sneaking suspicion that they were started to soften the people up to a married priesthood. I find it incongruous to be hearing a "homily" from a Deacon who keeps referring to his wife. Frankly, I don't care about his wife.

Delphina

Larry said...

I wondered if someone might mention the St. Mark situation. I thank Tom for doing so. What Tom did not mention, is how this situation came about. This NO Latin Mass started on June 13. It is described as 'experimental.' At the 2nd such Mass, June 27, the laity had figured out which side the priest distributed Communion on, and sat overwhelmingly on that side. During distribution, the woman also distributing the Hosts looked upset when her line ran out quickly, and Fr. came to her defense, ordering people into her line. A few obeyed. Since then, to teach us (not really) rad-trads a lesson, he refuses to distribute the Hosts and only distributes the Chalice. That has occurred at the last two NO Latin Masses there.

When we first started this Latin Mass, we had around 120 lay persons assisting. Now, we are down to 70 and dropping because of this ridiculous situation. The 'experiment' was to see how much interest there would be in this Mass. It appears that the priest-celebrant and pastor at this parish are lukewarm at best in their desire for it to succeed.

I converted to the Church in '99. I was basically still a CINO until about 2006. I came in through a 'large, suburban parish,' so the Novus Ordo was all I knew. Since then, I've really caught fire thanks to the Grace of God. I am rapidly coming to Tom's conclusion. Tonight - FSSP. I will assist at FSSP as often as I can.

Anonymous said...

Poor Oza. He thought the ark was going to fall into the mud when put his hand out to steady it.

Slick said...

Thanks for the good article. There is also good commentary on this and Catholic issues at http://www.catholicurrent.com/#/.

Anonymous said...

Larry

It has been my experience, at least in my diocese, that they are set up to fail. Sounds to me like they chose the right prelate for your "Latin Mass experiment".

Delphina

Anonymous said...

"I wondered if someone might mention the St. Mark situation. I thank Tom for doing so.

What Tom did not mention, is how this situation came about. This NO Latin Mass started on June 13. It is described as 'experimental.'

At the 2nd such Mass, June 27, the laity had figured out which side the priest distributed Communion on, and sat overwhelmingly on that side.

During distribution, the woman also distributing the Hosts looked upset when her line ran out quickly, and Fr. came to her defense, ordering people into her line.

A few obeyed. Since then, to teach us (not really) rad-trads a lesson, he refuses to distribute the Hosts and only distributes the Chalice.

That has occurred at the last two NO Latin Masses there.

When we first started this Latin Mass, we had around 120 lay persons assisting.

Now, we are down to 70 and dropping because of this ridiculous situation.

The 'experiment' was to see how much interest there would be in this Mass.

It appears that the priest-celebrant and pastor at this parish are lukewarm at best in their desire for it to succeed.

I am rapidly coming to Tom's conclusion. Tonight - FSSP. I will assist at FSSP as often as I can."
---------------------------------

Thank you for that additional information.

Following years of mediocre liturgy at St. Mark's(not that many parishes in the Dallas Diocese are any better), I had moved on from said parish.

By chance recently, I had read that St. Mark's had initiated the OF in Latin.

Thrlled, even though it was the Nouvs Ordo, I assisted last Monday night at Saint Mark's.

However, I was shocked at what I had encountered.

Finally, durng Holy Communion...having witnessed the three EMs who distributed the Sacred Hosts as Father held the Chalice...I was certain that the Mass had been manipulated.

How sad!

I will likely abandon the Latin Mass "experiment" at St. Mark's it is impossible there to worship in the Latin Church's Liturgical Tradition.

Our rights as Latin Catholics have been trampled.

For Dallas-area Latin Church Faithful who favor Holy Tradiiton, we must support by all means the FSSP parish in Irving, Texas.

Tom

Anonymous said...

Since pope Benedict only offers communion on the tongue, I no longer accept it in the hand...

But isn't the option of receiving Communion in the hand part of each Mass that the Pope celebrates?

Anonymous said...

I liked you poem Longskirts- lovely. Consecrated hands that bring us Our Blessed Lord and Saviour are most worthy of our reverent kisses.

I read that the wide-spread practice of commumion in the hand came as a result of an indult to the French (and then the Dutch)episcopal conferences by Pope Paul VI AGAINST his better judgement.

Communion in the hand and EMHC's are part of that "unbecoming familiarity with the sacred" that Von Hildebrand refers to in "The Devastated Vineyard".

DEVASTATING PRACTICES!

These practices have unquestionably had a "devastating" effect on the sacred role of the priest and his very identity as "alter Christus" - a man set apart for the administering of holy things to the faithful.

I dislike these 2 things most intensely and shudder at the "devastation" of faith that these and other cheap practices in the N.O. have contributed to - what devastation!

Please dear priests, give us the Sacred as only you have been ordained to do!

Barbara

John Kearney said...

At the Last Supper Jesus would have been going from Apostle to Apostle giving out the bread..In JOhn 13 when asked who would betray him Jesus said "Tho one to whom I give the morsel of bread after I have dipped it". So afterward the President would have been the priet doing the same. Receiving Communion is receiving from the priest who is there `in pesona Chrstus`. Hence we are fed by Jesus. Never in the Early Church was the eucharist fingered by the laity. When received in the palm the head bowed down to consume the holy species. Such was he belief in the real presence though that the question of crumbs falling were seen as much Jesus as the whole host which is why Communion on the Tongue rapidly spread. IN the East they do not allow this `fingering` and so attest to the practice of the early Church.

LeonG said...

How can a minister be extraordinary when she is being used all the time?

LeonG said...

When liare read the conciuliar documents we do not need to discuss almost every sentence for meaning as this is clear and unambiguous. How contrastive, thus, the modernist conciliar counterparts of the 1960s. New church, new language.

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous #2 you are incorrect. Deacons are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and can do so in the absence of a priest or necessity (large numbers of faithful to receive). The same goes for solemn baptism. They can also preach."

(1) Under discussion is distribution of Holy Communion -- NOT baptism and preaching.

(2) In the New Rite, Deacons (including Permanent Deacons) are ORDINARY MINISTERS. They are not in the Old Rite.

Distinctions are important in Catholic theology.

Anonymous said...

In the traditional rite deacons are allowed to distribute Holy Communion as necessary. As for baptism and preaching, a deacon in the traditional rite can function as required such as being authorized by the pastor of the place for any reason. For example: at a Sunday Mass when more that one minister is required to distribute Holy Communion a deacon can do this week in and week out. Now, if you mean that a deacon in the new rite distributes while the presbyter sits or something of the sort, that's just another example of why things are the way they are...

Personally, I have no use for the new rite, but do understand the traditional role of deacons in the Church. Unfortunately the problem goes much deeper than deacons distributing...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

The point is an important one: in the New Rite Deacons are Ordinary Ministers. In the Old Rite they are Extraordinary Ministers. In the traditional Rite the priest was the NORM for distributing the Eucharist. That is NOTT the case in the New Rite.

The role of the diaconate is a long and varied one in the Church. But to connect it with the distribution of the Eucharist is simply historically incorrect.

Jordanes551 said...

Actually for most of her history, the Church's deacons have been involved in helping to distribute the Eucharist. That role is implicit in the Book of Acts when the Order of Deacons was instituted by the Apostles, and the early Fathers attest to the role of the Deacon in getting Communion to those who weren't able to assist at the Divine Liturgy. Helping to distribute Communion is a natural function of their sacramental charism, and before any layperson or laypersonette is called on the help, it's the deacons to whom the priests should turn for help. But of course if things are done right (whether in the reformed Roman Rite or the traditional Roman Rite), the priest shouldn't have to call on anyone to help distribute Communion during Mass.

Anonymous said...

"laypersonette" ????????

Jordanes,

Why couldn't you just say laywoman?

Barbara

Jordanes551 said...

Just spoofing modern politically-correct feministspeak, Barbara. It was just a bit of gratuitous silliness.

Anonymous said...

Disagree, Jordanes. Describing what may have been a practice in the early Church ignores the long developmental history of the diaconate -- almost an appeal to the dreaded antiquarianism spoken of by Pius XII.

Why it's SO difficult for some on this board to see the distinction between Extraordinary in the Ancient Rite and Ordinary in the New Rite (as if the fact was of no significance) is mystifying.

Jordanes551 said...

Describing what may have been a practice in the early Church

I obviously was doing far more than merely describing what undeniably was the practice in the early Church and for most of the Church's history (keeping in mind that the Latin Church is only the largest part of the Catholic Church, not the whole Catholic Church).

Why it's SO difficult for some on this board to see the distinction between Extraordinary in the Ancient Rite and Ordinary in the New Rite (as if the fact was of no significance) is mystifying.

It does not appear that any of the commenters in this discussion are unaware of that distinction, nor fail to see that the distinction is significant. Has it not occurred to you, O Anonymous Nonentity, that awareness of that distinction and its significance might have something to do with opinions that I have expressed in my own comments?

Anonymous said...

Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.

Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent
Session XIII (October 11, 1551)
Chapter VIII

Seems pretty clear to me that consecrated hands should be the only ones touching what is consecrated. The ones that changed the rules ought to be the ones to explain themselves.

PEH