SSPX in Schism? No. Michael Davies proves that the SSPX is a perfectly legal Society of Common Life for Clergy in the catholic Church. He demonstrates that the penalties announced by the Vatican in …More
SSPX in Schism? No.
Michael Davies proves that the SSPX is a perfectly legal Society of Common Life for Clergy in the catholic Church. He demonstrates that the penalties announced by the Vatican in 1988 are null and void.
This is part of a debate given in 1995 or so, with the the editor of "Fidelity" magazine, Dr. E.M. Jones. Davies wins hands down. His books are available from Angelus Press, and much is free on-line at www.sspxasia.com
When Davies died in 2004, then Cardinal Ratzinger praised his contribution to the history of the current crisis. Davies was the official biographer of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Get the whole debate via "www.keepthefaith.org"
Michael Davies proves that the SSPX is a perfectly legal Society of Common Life for Clergy in the catholic Church. He demonstrates that the penalties announced by the Vatican in 1988 are null and void.
This is part of a debate given in 1995 or so, with the the editor of "Fidelity" magazine, Dr. E.M. Jones. Davies wins hands down. His books are available from Angelus Press, and much is free on-line at www.sspxasia.com
When Davies died in 2004, then Cardinal Ratzinger praised his contribution to the history of the current crisis. Davies was the official biographer of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Get the whole debate via "www.keepthefaith.org"
There are many people I've talked with regarding receiving in the hands. Many there are who do agree and say, "I would rather receive on the tongue, because I think it is more reverent and that's how we were taught for centuries. Reason why they'll still receive in their hands? Because they want to be like everyone else. So if someone jumps off the cliff, you going to join them?
If any person who …More
There are many people I've talked with regarding receiving in the hands. Many there are who do agree and say, "I would rather receive on the tongue, because I think it is more reverent and that's how we were taught for centuries. Reason why they'll still receive in their hands? Because they want to be like everyone else. So if someone jumps off the cliff, you going to join them?
If any person who feels and believes that God would want to be received on the tongue and by consecrated hands only, then that's how they should receive. Not because the majority does it one way. People want to "blend" in with everyone else...Rather than do what they really believe is right. How sad. They're afraid of calling attention to themselves. Could you imagine if the Apostles felt that way?
How people choose to receive Our Blessed Lord is something they have to live with, like all the other choices they make.
A wonderful book by Venerable Mary of Agreda, called "The City of God" states that at the Last Supper when Jesus was giving His Body to His Apostles, an angel of the Lord gave this same Communion to Our Lady. When she receive It (Her Son) ON HER TONGUE, SHE IMMEDIATELY PROSTRATED ONTO THE GROUND! If we are suppose to be imitating this HOLY WOMAN, GOD's MOTHER, then why are people receiving in their hands and while standing?
Communion in the hand is not mentioned in a single document of the Second Vatican Council, nor was it mentioned during any of the debates during the council.
The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his great "Summa Theologica" bears this out. He explains:
"The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
"FIRST, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him."
"SECOND, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people."
"THIRD, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, 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. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency." (ST, III, Q.82,Art. 13)
References:
documents of Vat II.....Abbot Edition
Dominicae Cenae - Pope John Paul II.....2/24/80
The Great Heresies- Hilaire Belloc
Immensae Caritatis - Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship- 1/29/73
The Last Roman Catholic? - James W. Demers
Memoriale Domini - Pope Paul VI - 5/29/69
Summa Theologica - Saint Thomas Aquinas
Rev, I don't know what your definition of "absolutely necessary" is. If it means having to cross over the aisle to receive from consecrated hands, and you choose not to...how could anyone call that as "absolutely necessary?" I don't know your reason...but I do know, that ALL Catholics should Pay the UTMOST RESPECT AND REVERENCE DUE HIM! We are suppose to set the example as did the Apostles and Christ's Mother. Peace![🤗](/emoji/f09fa497)
If any person who feels and believes that God would want to be received on the tongue and by consecrated hands only, then that's how they should receive. Not because the majority does it one way. People want to "blend" in with everyone else...Rather than do what they really believe is right. How sad. They're afraid of calling attention to themselves. Could you imagine if the Apostles felt that way?
How people choose to receive Our Blessed Lord is something they have to live with, like all the other choices they make.
A wonderful book by Venerable Mary of Agreda, called "The City of God" states that at the Last Supper when Jesus was giving His Body to His Apostles, an angel of the Lord gave this same Communion to Our Lady. When she receive It (Her Son) ON HER TONGUE, SHE IMMEDIATELY PROSTRATED ONTO THE GROUND! If we are suppose to be imitating this HOLY WOMAN, GOD's MOTHER, then why are people receiving in their hands and while standing?
Communion in the hand is not mentioned in a single document of the Second Vatican Council, nor was it mentioned during any of the debates during the council.
The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his great "Summa Theologica" bears this out. He explains:
"The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
"FIRST, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him."
"SECOND, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people."
"THIRD, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, 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. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency." (ST, III, Q.82,Art. 13)
References:
documents of Vat II.....Abbot Edition
Dominicae Cenae - Pope John Paul II.....2/24/80
The Great Heresies- Hilaire Belloc
Immensae Caritatis - Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship- 1/29/73
The Last Roman Catholic? - James W. Demers
Memoriale Domini - Pope Paul VI - 5/29/69
Summa Theologica - Saint Thomas Aquinas
Rev, I don't know what your definition of "absolutely necessary" is. If it means having to cross over the aisle to receive from consecrated hands, and you choose not to...how could anyone call that as "absolutely necessary?" I don't know your reason...but I do know, that ALL Catholics should Pay the UTMOST RESPECT AND REVERENCE DUE HIM! We are suppose to set the example as did the Apostles and Christ's Mother. Peace