Rorate Caeli

Australian Archdiocesan paper: Communion in the tongue is "unhygienic", disruptive and based on "over-emphasis on Christ's divinity"

The sanctuary of St. Stephen's Cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. Source.

The following is an excerpt from "Communion in the Hand", a short essay authored by Elizabeth Harrington, the education officer of the Liturgy Commission of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brisbane. Dated February 12, 2012, it is currently on the website of "The Catholic Leader", a newspaper published by the Archdiocese of Brisbane that claims to be Australia's "leading Catholic newspaper". "Communion in the Hand" is the latest essay in the "Liturgy Lines" series, which is promoted on the main website of the Archdiocese of Brisbane as providing "all you want to know about Catholic worship". (See the right side of this page.)


Receiving communion on the tongue when the majority receive in the hand disrupts the unity that uniformity of posture and practice at Communion symbolises and builds. It is awkward for ministers to give communion on the tongue to people who are standing, which is the recommended posture for communion in Australia, (and it is unhygienic because it is difficult for ministers to avoid passing saliva on to other communicants.  

Historical accounts make it quite clear that communion was received in the hand in the early Church. In the middle of the fourth century Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem gave this instruction to those who were about to join the church: “When you come forward for communion, do not draw near with your hands wide open or with fingers spread apart; instead, with you left hand make a throne for the right hand, which will receive the King. Receive the body of Christ in the hollow of your hand and give the response: Amen.” It was only later that over-emphasis on Christ’s divinity and on human sinfulness led to a ban on people receiving communion in the hand. In fact, people seldom received communion at all. (Our readers might want to read this debunking of the alleged quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Augustinus)

 We now understand that Christ is present in several special ways at Mass apart from in the consecrated elements, for example in the assembly which gathers. We “touch” Christ in these other manifestations, so it would be inconsistent not to be able to take Christ under the form of bread in our hands. The bread which becomes the body of Christ is described in the liturgical texts as “work of human hands”. There is nothing unworthy about our hands. (Yet another reason to get rid of the Bugnini Offertory? - Augustinus) After all, we use them to do Christ’s work. As St Teresa said, “Christ has no other hands but yours”.

78 comments:

New Catholic said...

This would be laughing matter if it were not so serious: if there is one thing that is not "overemphasized" in the world today, that is the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

thomas tucker said...

Truer words were nver written, NC. And I have to add, that crucifix in the picture is God-awful.

Francis said...

Yeah, but these heretics are in "full communion" with Rome, unlike those narrow minded trads in the SSPX who believe in transubstantiation and the real presence of Our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist. (sarcasm)

McCormack said...

It's people like this, who have a voice in the Dioceses, who lead the Faithful astray.

OVER-EMPHASISE THE GODLINESS OF GOD?! I'm sure that's a typo.

These people keep banging on about how standing to receive Communion is a sign of respect and reverence. Sure, it is! But kneeling is a sign of submission, lowliness and unworthiness. Even the most holy of men must never, as this woman suggests, presume for a moment they are worth to Receive Christ.

This woman also fails to note that while Communion in the Early Church was received on the hand, it was placed upon a cloth (called a dominica) with which communicants covered their bare hands, and ate therefrom. Never has the Church widely approved of unconsecrated hands, those not of a priest, touching directly the Body of the Creator of the Universe.

Demasi said...

I found it

"Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

In http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Kathleen said...

Someone should sent Miss Harrington a copy of Fr. Giuseppe's excellant expose of the Communion in hand deception kindly published here recently by New Catholic! Perhaps send a copy to a few other people down under as well!

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/10/great-catholic-horror-story-historical.html

They might also refer them to a website devoted to fighting the sacriledge of Communion in hand

http://www.communion-in-the-hand.org/

McCormack said...

@thomas tucker
The whole Cathedral of St Stephen in Brisbane is awful. No - I lie. The only thing good about it is the marvelous sandstone structure, seen from the outside, left largely untouched by the 'wreockvations'.
The whole interior has been gutted and whitewashed. The sanctuary is nothing but a table and the organ pipes, as you can see, with that truly awful-looking Christ. I'm not sure one could call it a crucifix, since it lacks a cross.

The tabernacle is hidden around the back of the organ in some sort of zen garden arrangement, complete with baptismal font flowing river feature, with translucent plain windows looking out to the offices behind.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

EXCOMMUNICATE EXCOMMUNICATE EXCOMMUNICATE. Makes me think of how the Arians were treated after there ungodly heresies were finally snuffed out and how St Nicholas of Myra dealt with them also. All the Saints, pray for the faithful hereupon Earth .

P.K.T.P. said...

I must 'hand' it to this woman: she is the very queen of ignoramuses, as she recycles previously answered false arguments.

To reduce sacrilege, what is needed this year is a ban on Communion in manu by the Pope. That is the answer to such nonsense.

P.K.T.P.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

Agree P.K.T.P. It is outright sacrilege and just damn right demeaning to the Divinity of Our Lord who is truly PRESENT. We Catholics do not do as the heretics do in believing in 'consubstantiation'. I seem to remember in the Old Testament, the Zealous Israelite who struck a man dead for blasphemy which had no forgive therein. I also seem to remember St Thomas Aquinas on this matter at Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13 specifically dealing herewith. It sends me mad when such inward and fleshful men are so in love with themselves that they think they can reduce Christ to a mere meal.

Timbo said...

The "crucifix" of Brisbane Cathedral says all that's needed about this diocese. Please tell me I am misinterpreting the photograph and that is not a representation of Our Lord completely naked? PS It is not by Michelangelo.

A'Esquecida said...

That is the most offensive crucifix I have ever seen.

jasoncpetty said...

Link to the de-bunking is bad--it's to "oratecaeli"--that's all.

St. Rafael said...

Excellent site with numerous articles and quotes refuting Communion in the Hand:

http://communion-in-the-hand.org/

Jacobi said...

This is just a piece of partial propaganda!


1.Risk of infection can be eliminated by placing the Host top edge down on the tongue and allowing it to settle, the standard practice of all competant priests.


2.What is suspect, from an infection transfer point of view, is the chalice. This inevitably allows a transfer of mouth fluid from each communicant to the contents of the chalice as well as a deposit on the lips of the chalice contents.

Modern diagnostic techniques being what they are, I am sure that the DNA, bacterial and viral species of virtually all communicants could theoretically be detected in the chalice at the end of Communion - and on the lips of the last communicant!
This deposit is diluted but not elininated by wiping.

It is however a very very remote risk and should only be called into question when there is known danger of widespread infection, in which case distribution into the hand would also be suspect.

Lee Lovelock-Jemmott said...

What Latin Rite Catholics need is an Office of Fidelity in regards to all areas of The Catholic life and then a separate one for Liturgy and it should be given the strictest mandate to readily dispense with any heretical or aberrations that cause offence to Our LORD. Also the reinstatement of The Syllabus of Errors and Oath Against Modernism should be enacted under the pain of severe penalties if not followed ! Latin Rite Catholicism cannot be allowed no more to self-destruct and thus give the detractors all the ammunition needed to shoot down the most visible rite of Christianity and thus Our Lord upon Earth !!

lms rep said...

I can think of nothing less hygienic in a liturgical context than reception of Holy Communion from the chalice be you kneeling, standing or sitting down.

Niantic said...

It sure is good to know that Elizabeth Harrington, the Education Officer of the Archdiocese of Brisbane, is in good standing in the Church. What could be wrong?

Long-Skirts said...

PILLARS
OF
SALT

Our leaders don't lead anymore
Our heroes aren't valiant anymore
Our fathers aren't home anymore
Our mothers won't birth anymore

Our churches don't awe anymore
Our futures aren't safe anymore
Our past no roots anymore
Our present not ours anymore

The truth glossed o’er anymore
But hang a cross anymore
They'll all appear anymore
Outraged at faith anymore

They share their lusts and explore
They're seasoned whores to the core
They're salt of the earth they implore
Sodomed-souls at Hell’s door

Andrew said...

This is laughable. I wonder what this "expert" makes of the Eastern Orthodox and how they receive Holy Communion.

I guess all the ancient branches of Christendom were wrong for almost 2000 years. What arrogance this "expert" shows. Until Vatican II no ancient liturgical rite (Roman or Orthodox) had communion in the hand. How can she dismiss the liturgical Tradition of all the ancient branches of Christendom in such a glib manner? She has no idea what she is talking about.

I am not a traditionalist, but garbage like this makes me think that the concerns of my brother traditional Catholics were right all along.

There is not a TLM near me, but I live almost next door to an Eastern Rite parish. Maybe its time to switch. I've had it!

Andrew said...

One more thing...unhygienic?!?!?

The Church has been distributing Holy Communion this way since her inception.

In 2000 years the Church has seen every disease known to man and we survived.

Notice no one bemoans hygiene when it comes to the part of the Mass where everyone shakes hands, then has the Body of Christ put in the same filthy hands, then consumed.

If hygiene is the issue then this "expert" should be arguing that shaking hands at Mass should be banned. But no, she will not. Thus suggesting her opposition to Holy Communion on the tongue has more to do with her weird theology than it does hygiene. Not only are these people's arguments bad, but they aren't even honest.

Septimbler of Bimblers said...

If one says this:

"Vatican II must be accepted in the light of Tradition"

one is saying that it must be accepted conditionally, that is, in the light of Tradition.

But how to read notorious Catechism of Vatican II passages like the following in the light of Tradition? It's impossible.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." (LG 16; cf. NA 3.)

Matthew said...

Although others have addressed it, I cannot contain my incredulity at how one might "overemphasize the Divinity of Christ." Precisely as New Catholic writes, that lack of emphasis is exactly the problem both inside and outside Holy Mother Church today. One simply cannot "overemphasize" Our Lord's Divinity: it is not as though He is 50% Divine and 50% human, such that to "push the pendulum" creates theological difficulties; rather, Our Lord is 100% Divine and 100% human. Thus, emphasizing His Divinity in no way injures the truth of His humanity.

Dave said...

This is blasphemy and sacrilege.

pab said...

Abominable as what the "Catholic" Leader reports is, the good news is that Catholics in Brisbane and environs have access to a thriving SSPX presence: three resident priests;daily Mass; regular Sunday Masses in the rest of the state (Queensland); and a primary school (P-7) now expanding to secondary.

Humbo said...

Perhaps this woman was also a student at the "Pontifical University" in Rome where the liturgy professor taught me that Transubstantian was a "medieval construct" that we had "thankfully left behind" at Vatican II. At the same "Ponifical University" we were also told that celibacy was also a "medieaval invention" that had no basis in apostolic tradition and which, de facto, had be shown to be unviable in the world of today. Let's get real, dears, and not blame these misguided souls who are in reality victims of a manipulative and malevolent system. Surely responsibility for the promotion of these positions ultimately lies with the individual who acquiesces in such institutions retaining the title "pontifical"?

Tramtrist said...

Wow Humbo.. Reading things like that makes me wonder if we don't need a full inquisition within the Church!

Really though .. if the Bishops cannot police or are actively promoting this kind of unholy behavior perhaps there needs to be a seperate body 'educate' correctly and have power to stop people who spread lies....

Jordanes551 said...

Matthew, one can indeed overemphasise Christ's Divinity -- as in the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies.

But this stupid woman probably doesn't understand that if she thinks the Church was heretically overemphasising Christ's Divinity, she could be betraying heretical Nestorian or Arian tendencies (for those are the heresies that underemphasised or denied Christ's Divinity). Her comments might also betray a disbelief in the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.

Jason said...

I wonder if someone might inform us of how the Divinity of Christ can be over-emphasized...

I'm sure this woman educator can find nothing "unhygenic" about passing around glass goblets, giving a half turn after each sip, along with a quick pass by an already contaminated cloth...

Joe John said...

How could placing a Host on the tongue be unhygienic since the priest's hand does not touch the tongue (and also saliva)? It's not as if the communicant is going to slurp off the priest's hands or something. Sheesh!

John Fisher said...

At present the Archdiocese of Brisbane is without a bishop. Bishop Geoffrey Jarrett is administrator. Toowoomba where the Pope removed the bishop and Archbishop Batherby is now retired. It was he who was responsable for the wreckovation. Oh Lord deliver us!

Miles Dei said...

I have a lot of doubts about that the earliest practice was in the hand. Look at this text:

Armenian Food: Fact, Fiction & Folklore by Irina Petrosian y David Underwood (2006)

In the book they narrate the food folklore of the armenians taking quotes from Abovian (an armenian novelist of XIX century)

Abovian had a European education, and his wife was German. He expressed his distaste at the way his countrymen enjoyed their meal. In particular, he didn't care for the common custom of drinking wine out of a single cup passed down the table.

"A servant will give the cup to a guest. The guest will drink and pass it to the person next to him. No one pours wine into a cup by himself. Even if you have 20 people sitting at the table, they share the wine from a communal cup. Sor the cup gets to the last person, his throat parched with thirst, and by then the first person does not have a trace of saliva left."



Abovian's description reveals that the ancient Middle Eastern method of showing respect and gratitude by sharing your own dish with another, or by putting a piece of food from your plate into your guest's mouth, was the common etiquette. It was also the customary way to give a tip for good service. He documented this habit in his description of the drinking custom:

"Now and then a servant will open his mouth, and guests will put a piece of roasted meat into hia mouth with their own fingers".


This practice of showing respect through hand feeding goes back to medieval times. Ancient historians use the word zabel, "put into the mouth", in their accounts of princely feasts. Kings would honor the nobles by feeding them a few bites. One of the nobles, Ashot Voghormats (The Merciful) was described as showing his hospitality and charity by inviting the poor to dine at his table, then drinking the leftover wine from his guests' cups.

Some traces of the old custom live on. At an Armenian table, a fellow guest or the host mil peel a fruit and then offer it to you. But don't expect them to place the fruit directly into your mouth as would have been done in the past.




You have a record of the official custom of give the friends the meal in the mouth. Our Lord said in Last Supper: "I do not call you servants, but friends". The symbolism of the communion in mouth have been misundertood by all the bugninians who missed the real cultural and human context that Our Lord choose for the sacraments. So I convinced that is not so clear the earliest practice just as this woman says.

Tradical said...

As I scanned this posting a thought occurred to me.

When (not IF) the SSPX is regularized, there will be the equivalent of a civil war within the Church.

Every move that the Holy Father has made towards the SSPX has made the 'organizational fault lines' clearer. The lifting of the excommunications were (IMO) but a tempest in a teacup compared to what we are about to experience.

Definitely need to persevere in pray and penance.

Miles Dei said...

This old custom explain too the act of Our Lord with Judas in Jn 13,26-30. Is the same act of friendship as we found after who Jesus offers Judas knowing he is going to traison him.

For the apostles Our Lord putting a bit in the mouth of Judas will be seen as an act of friendship love and trust. They didn´t know that really he was to traison that who offered all his love for them.

I guest that this is the appropiate historic context of that passage.

In Catena Aurea, Saint Thomas select this reading of St. Augustine for the moment:

Not as some careless readers think, that then Judas received singly Christ's body. For our Lord had already distributed the sacraments of His body and blood to all of them, while Judas was as there, as Luke relates; and after this He dipped the sop, as John relates, and gave it to the traitor; the dipping of the bread perhaps signifying the deep dye of his sin; for some dipping cannot be wasted out again; i.e. when things are dipped, in order to receive a permanent dye.

So to reject the gest of the bit that is given to Judas signify the sin of Judas. All is iluminated by the old Middle East custom of put the bit in mouth as sign of friendship.

Come Bugninians to explain better otherwise. I expect them.

Miles Dei said...

The old custom of put the bit in the mouth of the guest illuminates too the apostolic tradition quoted at the Council of Trent:

As regards the reception of the sacrament, it has always been the custom in the Church of God that laics receive communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves, which custom ought with justice and reason to be retained as coming down from Apostolic tradition.

If Christ is the ones which offers the privilege of friendship and all his love to their disciples. The sign commands that a person who acts "in persona christi" must give communion to himself. The laics must commmunicate always from priests, because the sign is that Christ is the host at the "Coena Domini" and we are the guests. Is Christ who make the "zabel" with us. The importance of a consecrated hands is here too.

So in the folk level that is so grateful to bugninians they have too missed all the proper sign for their yaerning of novelty.

Augustinus said...

The "debunking" link has been fixed. My apologies.

Gratias said...

When I must go to the NO mass always take communion on the tongue. Unhygienic? What about sharing the wine? I think TLM has it exactly right.

They should allow us to kneel while receiving the Host, like our Pope does.

Yianni said...

I'm sorry - stupid me. I don't get the "unhygienic" part. Is this the Body and Blood of Christ, or not?

I'm Eastern Orthodox. We receive Holy Eucharist (in both kinds) from a spoon, dipped in the chalice and placed in the communicant's mouth by the priest. The same spoon is used by every communicant. This happens all over the world, and Communion has been served in this way since the 9th Century at least, due to fears that the Eucharist might otherwise be dropped or profaned in some way. Hundreds may receive the Holy Eucharist in this manner at a liturgy in rural Africa, for example, where communicable disease can be a real issue. The priest consumes the remaining contents of the chalice after Eucharist has been distributed, with the spoon having been in each communicant's mouth, then returned to the chalice. Our priests should be dropping like flies, I suppose, but nothing of the sort happens. Another day, another miracle.

Certainly, there can be an element of fear in receiving the Eucharist - am I adequately prepared? Have I forgiven my brothers and sisters? But no one appears to fear lack of "hygiene" as we encounter the Living God. What this person in Brisbane has written is simply bizarre. Over-emphasis on Christ's Divinity? The idea of taking the Eucharist in my own hands is as unthinkable as sauntering up to Him and giving Him a hearty slap on the back and a high five.

A Canberra Observer said...

Mrs Harrington has been in this role for a long time. She has enormous influence. Briabane is the principal see of Queensland and so the heteropractic and heterodox emanations spread inexorably.
No doubt this is a response to the peition from 2 priests in another Australian diocese to have communion in the hand restricted.

I would add however that my experience of a lot of younger priests distributing communion in the EF is that they have very bad technique and that tongue touching is frequent. That doesn't make the argument any easier I'm afraid.

Sixupman said...

This encapsulates the entire SSPX problem - which of the two are actually Catholic, not the Brisbane controlling [lay]Curia I would suggest!

mcgod said...

Seeing this description makes me nearly ashamed to be an Aussie. Thank God for FSSP in Adelaide. My own sinful life journey was only kept in perspective by a lifetime belief in the Real Presence. Without that I wd have given the whole game away years ago. Now I'm back. Oh bishops take the courage to take a stand on this garbage

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

I do wonder about these people, why even bother pretending to be Catholic when you so clearly are not?

As for 'over emphasis on the divinity of Christ', well all I will say is that she clearly does not love God for if she did she would know there is no such thing. I've never heard a more scandalous and rash statement!

vexilla regis said...

Anyone familiar with the Church in Australia knows that Elizabeth Harrington is a laughing stock. Her earlier pieces of idiocy are a proposal that weekday Mass times in Parishes should be staggered so that Parishoners could NOT go to daily Mass, but should be forced to consider the Divine Office (being the Official Prayer of the Church) instead of Mass and Communion; or that kneeling at receiving Holy Communion is inappropriate; or that Priests should not worry about proper vestments because she believed Priests didn't wear them in Wartime on the battlefield ( evidently she can't even use Goole Images). The list goes on and on. The matters are among many abuses covered in detail at :http://vexilla-regis.blogspot.com.au/in many posts, including correspondence to and from the retired Archbishop.Harrington is a Protege of Father Tom Elich of the old ICEL infamy. She will obviously be for the high jump when a serious new Archbishop is appointed . For the moment, hr ravings need only be treated with the disregard intelligent people accord them

O Resistente said...

Jordanes,

Monothelism and monophysitism do not over-emphasize Christ's divinity. They under-emphasize Christ's humanity.

Et Expecto said...

I would like to suggest that the contributors to Rorate Caeli have a fresh post urging people to sign the petition about receiving Communion on the tongue started by two Australian priests.

It needs more support.

Ecclesia Militans said...

These heretical views are just fruits of the conciliar education, as Humbo mentioned.

Countless heresies are preached and taught in so-called "Catholic" seminaries and "Catholic" universities, e.g. a seminarian told me how a few years ago a seminary professor (priest), during a lesson in oriental meditation, taught them that there was no hell.

With such views not only heard from the pulpit, but also in schools, seminaries and universities, no wonder that many poor souls who hear this have no notion of the Catholic Faith.
What they are taught to believe is more similar to the more radical protestant sects.

Both the Church and the world are in serious need of a major chastisement, followed by a complete renewal of the Immaculate Faith, spread to every corner of the world.
The fact that the corruption has been allowed to be so general and grave is an indication that the renewal will indeed be majestic.

"Be not deceived, God is not mocked." (Gal 6:7)

"Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore came from heaven: I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." (Jo 12:28)

Nicolas Bellord said...

I wonder what she thinks about Christ using spittle in to-day's Gospel?

Knight of Malta said...

What's surprising? A small fraction believe in transubstantiation. And I would venture that most Novus Ordo Catholics are Bishop Sponge-esque in praxis vis-a-vis the Divinity of Christ.

Barona said...

"Education officer"? .... is this how the widow's mite is being spent? This type of situation is replicated all over the world with millions in donations being diverted to paying large salaries etc. to lay bureaucracies....

How to stop all this? Just simply stop donating ... there is only one thing these people love more than heresy - and that is money. Nothing will force the bishop's hand more effectively than cutting off his money ticket.

Brian said...

Jordanes wrote:

Matthew, one can indeed overemphasise Christ's Divinity -- as in the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies.

Jesus is fully God and fully man. It is not the case that these two natures need to be kept in balance so that an emphasis on one, detracts from the other. The error of the Monophysites and Monothelites is that they did not sufficiently recognize the Jesus was fully man - they under-emphasized his humanity.

Jesus is fully God. I agree with Matthew; that Truth cannot be over-emphasized.

Barona said...

The Archdiocese of Winnipeg is also teaching heresy on the Real Presence.

http://torontocatholicwitness.blogspot.com/2012/02/archdiocese-of-winnipeg-teaches-heresy.html

Ted Maysfield said...

The Brisbane writing brims with the kind of tyranny against true diversity that Pope Paul VI imposed when he derogated the Tridentine Mass. Now they’re trying to eliminate another practice that is centuries old. Tyranny!

However, is there any scholar who can seriously argue that in the very first years of the Church of 50 and 75 A.D. communion was not taken by bare hands?

What happened at the Last Supper?

Both forms are surely acceptable.

john-of-hayling said...

She should have really noted that it is people who are unhygienic.......... so let's eliminate them!
Whoops we seem to have nearly done that anyway - so another problem solved!

jadis said...

Note that this woman has connections to the Peter Kennedy scandal. How is she able to hold an archdiocesan appointment in these circumstances? Please would any readers in Oz take appropriate action.

http://stmaryssouthbrisbane.com/2011/09/story-of-the-revised-translation-part-two/

Roger Parkminster said...

She's got a point.

As a long-time altar server, I see priests fingers touching the tongue of communicants all the time. It happens.

I know one priest who kind of tosses or drops the host into the mouth to try and avoid it.

I've never bought the arguments that Communion on the tongue is better because it is more hygienic. It's simply not.

Gregorian Mass said...

Communicants seem to care little when saliva sloshes around in the Chalice while receiving the Blood. More is added each time another person takes a sip..I have seen quite a few take the whole brim of the Chalice between their lips. I think there is more mixing of different salivas and possible transfer of germs via the Chalice than could ever be from receiving the Host on the tongue. At least a careful Priest will hit the tongue with the edge of the Body of Christ and let go, allowing it to fall back onto the Communicants tongue without ever coming into contact with an individual tongue. But the Chalice contamination, completely unavoidable no matter how careful a Priest or lay person.

MKT said...

On hygiene ...
The priest has shaken hands, hugged and kissed how many? Oh a handful or two "eucharistic ministers or ministerettes", then places The Lord into your hands, which have likely touched pews, kneelers, shaken a handful of hands at the NO "rite of peace" ... presuming everyone whose hands you have shaken, haven't washed their hands in at least a couple of hours ... and have touched their car's steering wheels which are full of dried snot, faecal material, spored food particles and what not, maybe having handled a gas pump that itself was are laiden with people's unwashed hand bacteria, a credit card and PIN machine, perhaps a newspaper and some snack wrappers from the local gas bar, soiled diapers and who knows what else.

Well, that sounds like a veritable smorgasbord of viral filth, and that in the literal sense even before one considers the metaphorical and spiritual sense of the anti-Christ diatribe associated with these words.

Whereas, the holy priest who has simply handled washed chalice and other instruments of the holy sacrifice, carefully placing a Sacred Host on a few tongues (the few who have confessed sins and are in a state of grace and have refrained from eating for the stipulated period of time, and not the thousands of rockers, contraceptors, immodestly clad "crashers" and others) is factually and objectively far more hygienic than what Miss Know-it-all proclaims.

I say, tackle this nonsense on the objective medical facts alone particularly since these faithless apostates have very little sense of the spiritual to begin with.

And the argument will fall on its face very quickly.

PS There is a petition going around - Check the remnantnewspaper.com for details - to ask the Holy Father to permit only communion on the Tonge - join the chorus at http://communiononthetongue.blogspot.com/

Loyolakiper said...

Has anyone seen the interior of the Cathedral pre-wreckovation? It was magnificent, truely a work of art ment to lift the soul to our God. It can be seen here: http://thebesttraveldestinations.com/st-stephens-cathedral-wien/

Unfortunately they have to renovate the Church because it was not "conducive to the new liturgy." At least that is the reason the bishop gave...

Please view the link and see how far the West has come...the friuts of Vatican II. It is a crying shame.

Aged parent said...

The stupidities of this woman having been well and truly commented upon by the readers, I need not add my thoughts.

But that horror of a crucifix, or whatever it is, is a perfect illustration of what these liturgical free-for-alls ultimately lead to. The sooner the New Mass joins green leisure suits and bell- bottoms to the memory hole the happier I for one will be.

Long-Skirts said...

A'Esquecida said...

"That is the most offensive crucifix I have ever seen."

It's what is known as "Homeo-erotic" art with just a touch of the masochistic.

Igumen Gregory said...

it is rather telling of the lack of cohesion to the argument of Elizabeth that she would accurately quote St. John of Damascus, but then turn around and have the congregation receive in the left hand and then pick up the Host in the fingers of the right hand. Where did this bit of nonsense come from?

Mr. in Calgary said...

In our diocese the good Bishop Fred Henry also used the 'not hygienic' card with the H1N1 and quoted medical experts that concurred with his line of thinking. When the medical experts were contacted independently they all said the opposite, that communion on the tongue poses little health risk and is superior to communion on the hands from a hygiene perspective.

Mr. in Calgary

Jordanes551 said...

Jesus is fully God and fully man. It is not the case that these two natures need to be kept in balance so that an emphasis on one, detracts from the other.

It must be believed that Jesus is true God and true Man, the two natures united but not commingled or confused. It is not the Two Natures that must be kept in balance, but our belief in the Two Natures that must be whole and complete, without denying or deemphasising either of His natures.

The error of the Monophysites and Monothelites is that they did not sufficiently recognize the Jesus was fully man - they under-emphasized his humanity.

Whether one sees it as an underemphasis on His humanity or an overemphasis on His divinity, it amounts to the same thing -- denial that Jesus has a complete human nature or a true human will.

Jesus is fully God. I agree with Matthew; that Truth cannot be over-emphasized.

It can be if one denies or underemphasises that He is fully Man.

Texana said...

The photo and the article make me phsyically sick. No germs at the local NO cathedral--the priests, deacons, and "eucharistic ministers" all use hand sanitizer before and after communion.

Knight of Malta said...

@ Loyolakiper:

Has anyone seen the interior of the Cathedral pre-wreckovation? It was magnificent, truely a work of art ment to lift the soul to our God. It can be seen here:


here

What an utter travesty! It was absolutely gorgeous, and now there's an ugly modern organ where the altar should be, and a homoerotic flying-Christ over an avant garde white table.

The bread which becomes the body of Christ is described in the liturgical texts as “work of human hands”. There is nothing unworthy about our hands. (Yet another reason to get rid of the Bugnini Offertory? - Augustinus)

Indeed, Augustinus.

Msgr. Gherardini says the sacrificial nature of mass has been almost "silenced" in the Novus Ordo.

For a critical study of the difference between the Novus and Vetus Ordos, such as the fact that the Offeratory of Sacrifice was changed to a Jewish grace before a meal, please see The Problem of the Liturgical Reform.

McCormack said...

@Loyolakiper

Your link is to St Stephen's in Vienna, Austria.

This St Stephen's is in Brisbane, Australia.

Although we *wish* we had something as magnificent as the Stephansdom in Vienna, the Old St Stephen's in Brisbane used to look like this:

http://coo-eesfromthecloister.blogspot.com.au/2007/12/in-memoriam-st-stephens-cathedral.html

Knight of Malta said...

McCormack,

Thanks for the correction. But the St. Stephen's in Brisbane was certainly a more worthy worship space before the Modernist wreckovators--high on Vatican II--came in and sacked the altar, and replaced it with a 1970's pine-encrusted, protestantesque, modern pipe-organ.

You can fault him in some ways, but at least the "Warrior Pope" Julius II had taste (and a pair between his legs). Most modern prelates have neither.

Knight of Malta said...

Here is another example of the Jansenist (quasi-Iconoclasic) heresy reigning in our Church, by way of stripping our churchs of all religious symbols. This, of course, is the protestant influence that Paul VI and Bugnini so sought on the Catholic Church.

Paul VI, of course, wanted to impose an austere, Calvinistic, protestant, worship-style on the Catholic world in order to unite our "separated brethren". He succeeded in the Novus Ordo. But in doing so, he deprived Catholics of a proper sacrifice. Now we hand-hold, back-clap, have a meal together, and literally forget the sacrifice of Christ. It's all about the resurrection, just like the protestants.

Tramtrist said...

I've been to Stephensdom (just a couple months ago) in Vienna and it looks just like the pictures... A truly amazing example of what an amazing church should look like..

Absolutely nothing like the silly display in Australia...

Brian said...

Whether one sees it as an underemphasis on His humanity or an overemphasis on His divinity, it amounts to the same thing -- denial that Jesus has a complete human nature or a true human will.

Jordanes,

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with how you are saying it. I agree that the Monophysites and Monothelites in focusing on His Divinity, failed to adequately attend to His humanity, denied that Jesus has a complete human nature and true human will, and thereby fell into heresy. But I do not agree that recognizing and emphasizing his humanity entails the need to de-emphasize, or lessen the emphasis on His Divinity.

While being as fully human as you and I, Jesus is as fully God as our Heavenly Father. He is God, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Eternal God. We will spend eternity glorifying His Divinity. In fact, in our human nature we are utterly unable to adequately emphasize His Divinity. Only by His Grace can we, by Faith, begin to give His Divinity the emphasis that He deserves. God willing, not until we are in Heaven will we be able to emphasize His Divinity in a Just and Right manner.

Elizabeth Harrington would argue that in order for Catholics to embrace and fellowship with Jesus’s humanity during Communion, we need to tone down the emphasis on His Divinity, as if it there were some kind of rational, mathematical proportionality which needs to be maintained. This is an absurd impossibility. It is only because He is an Omniscient, Omnipotent God that he was able to incarnate as man, die on a Cross, rise again, and in our share in His human nature, give us a share in His Divine nature.

Jordanes551 said...

But I do not agree that recognizing and emphasizing his humanity entails the need to de-emphasize, or lessen the emphasis on His Divinity.

I don't agree with that either. I would only say that to deny or belittle His humanity would amount to an overemphasis on His divinity, an an improper understanding of, or denial of, the Incarnation.

But this pitiful woman's blitherings about respect and reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament somehow stemming from an overemphasis on Christ's Divinity betray her own lack of Catholic belief in the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union. To put it kindly, she simply has no idea what she's talking about, and the Archdiocese of Brisbane needs desperately to remove this embarrassing and gravely scandalous disquisition from its website.

Brian said...

this pitiful woman's blitherings about respect and reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament somehow stemming from an overemphasis on Christ's Divinity betray her own lack of Catholic belief in the Incarnation and Hypostatic Union. To put it kindly, she simply has no idea what she's talking about, and the Archdiocese of Brisbane needs desperately to remove this embarrassing and gravely scandalous disquisition from its website.

Agreed

Alsaticus said...

Here is the self portrait of Archbishop Batherby :

"Archbishop Bathersby is keenly involved in ecumenical affairs both nationally and internationally. He was a member of the International Catholic-Methodist Dialogue from 1989 -1995. He served as Co-Chairman of the Australian Catholic-Uniting Church Dialogue, concluding the co-chair role in 2009. In July 1997 he was appointed President of the National Council of Churches in Australia. He completed this appointment in July 2000. In January 2001 he was appointed Co-Chair of the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission Working Group concluding this role in 2010."

I think it explains the "quality" (sic) of those he appointed in the chancery.

However it's important to know that opposing bluntly the Magisterium, like this lady, is the standard in Europe.

When Rome is never disciplining deviant bishops, or so few, it is what happens.

Mar said...

To Kathleen,

There are Catholics in Brisbane who have been fighting abuses in the Church for a very long time with each and every means available and in difficult circumstances.

Believe me, they are acutely aware of the matters related to Communion in the hand, and have access to all the documents they need. No doubt Miss Harrington is also aware of these matters as are others of her ilk. But they have made up their minds about which side they are on - and it is not the side of the angels.

Mar said...

To Timbo,

No, it is not a representation of Our Lord completely naked. There is a diaphanous cloth which leaves little to the imagination. According to a reliable source when the sculpture was made - by a non-Catholic, does that surprise you? - a certain part of the body was so prominent that even the modernists who had commissioned it were afraid that the faithful might be scandalised, and it had to be modified. So if it seems bad now, it was worse before.

Behind the altar in the Blessed Sacrament chapel, which is so designed and furnished as to abolish any feelings of intimacy with Jesus that one might have, there is the Baptism basin which is like a bath and in which Baptisms are administered by total
immersion. Just next to it on the wall is a large sculpture in relief of a naked woman, or let's say an extremely thinly-veiled woman. Men friends have told me that it causes considerable temptation, although perhaps Christopher West would not be troubled by it. I think it is supposed to represent the Church, but who knows. One day a Protestant friend was with me when we visited the chapel and she remarked that the chapel did not seem very "Catholic" to her, and she was very surprised that Our Lady could be depicted LIKE THAT!

I shall leave for some other time the description of the monstrosity - I refuse to call it a sculpture - of St Mary McKillop, which resides in the old stone chapel next to the Cathedral, and which was actually the first Cathedral, before the big one was built.

Mar said...

To John Fisher,

No, it was not Archbishop Bathersby who presided over the wreckovation of the Brisbane Cathedral. It was his predeccessor, Archbishop Rush. The movers and shakers, who pushed the matter through, however, were two priests. One was Fr. Tom Elich whom vexilla regis has already mentioned in these comments as being Miss Harrington's mentor. The other priest left the priesthood shortly after the
wreckovation to go off with a woman.

Of course, Archbishop Bathersby was no angel either. One of the 'high points' of his career was when he took part in the installation of the Grand Master at a Brisbane

Masonic Lodge on which occasion he proposed the toast. This event was prominently reported in Brisbane's largest newspaper.

Mike F. said...

I recommend Michael Davies' booklet, "Privilege of the Ordained". He covers the entire history of how we got from the ancient posture to today's.

Mich said...

Communion on the tongue and kneeling down is the best way to give a respect to someone very special, not just special but to God. If people can kneel before the pope, kings and queens, then what is the problem in kneeling down and receving Jesus on the tongue who is our Lord?
No offence, but Elizabeth Harrington has shown a lack of respect and over emphasize the communion on the hand which is truely unhygienic, you touch your hands everywhere and on anything.
Their is no unhygienic than this.!!