Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus And as far as "the law" I have said from the very beginning and I will do so until the day I die:

Canon Law exists only to safeguard the good of the Church. It cannot be turned into a weapon to destroy, suppress and bury our Catholic Patrimony.

Unjust actions or prohibitions in the name of the law (especially in a clearly "occupied" Church) are not to be obeyed.

My …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus And as far as "the law" I have said from the very beginning and I will do so until the day I die:

Canon Law exists only to safeguard the good of the Church. It cannot be turned into a weapon to destroy, suppress and bury our Catholic Patrimony.

Unjust actions or prohibitions in the name of the law (especially in a clearly "occupied" Church) are not to be obeyed.

My position has never wavered once, and it is completely consistent and it will never change. It hasn't in 45 years.

And if you doubt such resistance and filial "disobedience" was and remains necessary, I will quote again how the Popes described the Catholic Church in the 20th Century:

1) "Auto-demolition of the Church" (Paul VI)
2) "Smoke of satan has entered the Church" (Paul VI)
3) "Silent Apostasy" (John Paul II)
Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus so....you can't answer the question how it's possible for SSPX Priests to regularly hear the Confessions of the 600,000 faithful in their chapels without rendering the Absolution invalid if attending SSPX Masses were truly sinful, schismatic and prohibited and these same faithful do not amend their lives by not going there any longer.

That's fine. Because, it's not sinfu…More
@Mathathias Maccabeus so....you can't answer the question how it's possible for SSPX Priests to regularly hear the Confessions of the 600,000 faithful in their chapels without rendering the Absolution invalid if attending SSPX Masses were truly sinful, schismatic and prohibited and these same faithful do not amend their lives by not going there any longer.

That's fine. Because, it's not sinful, schismatic or prohibited to do so.
One more comment from Ave Crux
Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus No, you have sidestepped the question and given a response that contradicts Canon Law in this matter.

Pope Francis has made these pastoral provisions and "solution" (see Bishop Schneider quoted earlier) for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" -- these are Pope Francis's own word…More
@Mathathias Maccabeus No, you have sidestepped the question and given a response that contradicts Canon Law in this matter.

Pope Francis has made these pastoral provisions and "solution" (see Bishop Schneider quoted earlier) for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" -- these are Pope Francis's own words.

Pope Francis did not stipulate "which faithful", with "what" permitted "reasons" -- such as only those with true necessity or emergency -- so as to proscribe it precisely within those bounds in order to ensure Absolution given to these Faithful by SSPX Priests is valid,

Pope Francis simply refers to those Faithful who "for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X"

It would patently dishonest to say that Pope Francis's intention was to specify only those who do so in emergencies and necessity. Why? Precisely because Pope Francis has never once said that! You did....

He refers only to "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X"

We are talking about 600,000 Catholics who attend SSPX Chapels all over the world, where there exists already thousands of Diocesan Catholic Churches and priests available; also FSSP Churches, ICKSP, Indult Masses and other Traditional Masses available.

No one is permitted, for example, go to a Greek Orthodox Rite because they don't like the Novus Ordo parish down the street.

In the same way, one could not choose an allegedly "schismatic" SSPX Mass over their parish church's Mass out of pure preference if SSPX were truly in schism.

No...the Canon Law you based you answer upon requires a physical or moral impossibility of having recourse to a non-schismatic, Catholic Priest before one may go to a schismatic minister -- especially if one does so habitually, weekly and exclusively, as the sole means of satisfying one's Mass Obligations, not by way of exception.

Canon 844: ง2 "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid."

In fact, if that was Pope Francis's intention, he would be duty bound in this Apostolic Letter to make that stipulation clear. But he does nothing of the kind....you do.

Having habitual and ongoing recourse to truly schismatic ministers and schismatic Masses when there are other Catholic parishes and Priests available does not exempt any Catholic at all from grave sin and sacrilege in receiving the Sacraments without amendment of life.

Those who do this can never be validly absolved unless they cease doing so.

Thus, it is clear that you have misapplied the exceptional provisions you refer to in Canon Law, to those Catholics whom Pope Francis addresses his Apostolic Letter.

So I ask again: How can SSPX validly absolve 600,000 Catholics throughout the world who come to their Masses weekly, habitually and exclusively if doing so is sinful, prohibited or schismatic when there is no real necessity or emergency?
Ultraviolet
"with such intensity of conviction that I feel compelled to highlight, etc." The "Heavy Headline" scam always appears when you're losing, @Ave Crux
Ultraviolet
It's got zip to do with "intensity of conviction". It's a visual attention grab, nothing more. LOOK AT THIS! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACTS DISCREDITING MY SSPX CHEER-LEADER ROUTINE!
Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus Alright, fair enough....maybe that explains why we don't see eye-to-eye on this. You aren't able to read what I'm typing with such intensity of conviction that I feel compelled to highlight, etc.!!! 🤭 😂

Here is the question -- and the point -- without it:

@Mathathias Maccabeus: that is exactly the point: no prohibition, i.e. no censure is mentioned. Instead, Pope …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus Alright, fair enough....maybe that explains why we don't see eye-to-eye on this. You aren't able to read what I'm typing with such intensity of conviction that I feel compelled to highlight, etc.!!! 🤭 😂

Here is the question -- and the point -- without it:

@Mathathias Maccabeus: that is exactly the point: no prohibition, i.e. no censure is mentioned. Instead, Pope Francis grants SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties precisely to provide for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X".

Do you understand the teaching of the Church on Confession and what makes absolution invalid?

>>>> Please explain
how it would be possible for SSPX Priests to absolve the sins of Catholics who will not repent of the alleged "habitual sins" of regularly attending Masses in the "churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" -- which would certainly be a sin if prohibited or allegedly "schismatic". <

Your explanation should be interesting.

If regularly attending Masses in "churches officiated by priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" {Pope Francis' own words] were sinful and prohibited [UPDATE: and schismatic] as you continue to insist, then granting the SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties to absolve the sins of the very Catholics who allegedly "sin" by going to SSPX Masses at their churches would be an absurdity, since it is impossible to absolve from sin those Catholics who do not repent of habitual sins they need to be absolved from.

If these Catholics are sinning -- SSPX Priests and Faithful alike -- the Canonical Faculties for Confession that Pope Francis grants them is of no purpose and to no effect; indeed it would be the occasion of ongoing sacrileges.

**** If you are sincere in your concern, then please explain how SSPX Priests can absolve the Faithful in Confession who regularly attend Mass in their churches to fulfill their Mass obligations, if doing so is sinful and prohibited and there is no amendment of life in this regard?

Thank you.
Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus As I was saying -- before I was falsely accused of falsifying a quote, when I applied italics to the point I was making as my own emphasis - you know....people do that?

Notice how I use quotation marks with my italicization in the ACTUAL quote of Pope Francis?

Do you see quotation marks (i.e. " ") anywhere in the passage you refer to -- you know....like "Lorem …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus As I was saying -- before I was falsely accused of falsifying a quote, when I applied italics to the point I was making as my own emphasis - you know....people do that?

Notice how I use quotation marks with my italicization in the ACTUAL quote of Pope Francis?

Do you see quotation marks (i.e. " ") anywhere in the passage you refer to -- you know....like "Lorem Ipsum, etc.".......? That would have been a real good clue I was quoting something, not just emphasizing something; especially as I am known for really using a lot of techniques (bold, color, italics) to emphasize what I am saying when it doesn't seem to be getting through... 🤔

As I was saying @Mathathias Maccabeus: that is exactly the point: no prohibition, i.e. no censure is mentioned. Instead, Pope Francis grants SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties precisely to provide for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X".

Do you understand the teaching of the Church on Confession and what makes absolution invalid?

Please explain how it would be possible for SSPX Priests to absolve the sins of Catholics who will not repent of the alleged "habitual sins" of regularly attending Masses in the "churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" -- which would certainly be a sin if prohibited or allegedly "schismatic".

Your explanation should be interesting.

If regularly attending Masses in "churches officiated by priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" {Pope Francis' own words] were sinful and prohibited as you continue to insist, then granting the SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties to absolve the sins of the very Catholics who allegedly "sin" by going to SSPX Masses at their churches would be an absurdity, since it is impossible to absolve from sin those Catholics who do not repent of habitual sins they need to be absolved from.

If these Catholics are sinning -- SSPX Priests and Faithful alike -- the Canonical Faculties for Confession that Pope Francis grants them is of no purpose and to no effect; indeed it would be the occasion of ongoing sacrileges.


**** If you are sincere in your concern, then please explain how SSPX Priests can absolve the Faithful in Confession who regularly attend Mass in their churches to fulfill their Mass obligations, if doing so is sinful and prohibited and there is no amendment of life in this regard?
Ultraviolet
No, @Ave Crux The "point" is once again you fabricated a false quote. Pope Francis' Apostolic Letter doesn't contain the "clear provision" quote you listed. This is a repeat of the "express permission" you previously claimed Pope Francis gave to Bishop Huonder. The "express permission" you STILL can't quote verbatim because Pope Francis never expressed it. :D
Ave Crux
@Mathathias Maccabeus: that is exactly the point: no prohibition, i.e. no censure is mentioned. Instead, Pope Francis grants SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties precisely to provide for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X".

Do you understand the teaching of the Church on Confession and what makes …More
@Mathathias Maccabeus: that is exactly the point: no prohibition, i.e. no censure is mentioned. Instead, Pope Francis grants SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties precisely to provide for "those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X".

Do you understand the teaching of the Church on Confession and what makes absolution invalid?

Please explain how it would be possible for SSPX Priests to absolve the sins of Catholics who will not repent of the alleged "habitual sins" of regularly attending Masses in the "churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" -- which would certainly be a sin if prohibited or allegedly "schismatic".

Your explanation should be interesting.

If regularly attending Masses in "churches officiated by priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X" {Pope Francis' own words] were sinful and prohibited as you continue to insist, then granting the SSPX Priests Canonical Faculties to absolve the sins of the very Catholics who allegedly "sin" by going to SSPX Masses at their churches would be an absurdity, since it is impossible to absolve from sin those Catholics who do not repent of habitual sins they need to be absolved from.

If these Catholics are sinning -- SSPX Priests and Faithful alike -- the Canonical Faculties for Confession that Pope Francis grants them is of no purpose and to no effect; indeed it would be the occasion of ongoing sacrileges.


**** If you are sincere in your concern, then please explain how SSPX Priests can absolve the Faithful in Confession who regularly attend Mass in their churches to fulfill their Mass obligations, if doing so is sinful and prohibited and there is no amendment of life in this regard?
Ultraviolet
@Ave Crux In Misericordia et Misera Pope Francis clearly acknowledges the fact that SSPX Priests are not in communion with the Catholic Church.

Pope Francis is "trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church" -which means they don't have it now. And that's what schism is.
Ultraviolet
..and Pope Francis takes precedence. But since you're fond of cherry-picking your clerical suborindates, Cardinal Burke says the SSPX is in schism, In fact, he says, the SSPX "are not part of the One Roman Catholic Church throughout the world" corroborated by Pope Franics' comments. Cdl. Burke's opinion (2017) is at least ten years more recent than your "latest" source (2007) claiming otherw…More
..and Pope Francis takes precedence. But since you're fond of cherry-picking your clerical suborindates, Cardinal Burke says the SSPX is in schism, In fact, he says, the SSPX "are not part of the One Roman Catholic Church throughout the world" corroborated by Pope Franics' comments. Cdl. Burke's opinion (2017) is at least ten years more recent than your "latest" source (2007) claiming otherwise.
Ave Crux
In Misericordia et Misera Pope Francis clearly acknowledges the fact that SSPX Priests have a worldwide apostolate and network of Chapels where they offer Mass regularly, and which Chapels Pope Francis is clearly aware the Faithful also attend regularly to fulfill their Mass Obligations.

In Pope Francis's words: "....those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the …More
In Misericordia et Misera Pope Francis clearly acknowledges the fact that SSPX Priests have a worldwide apostolate and network of Chapels where they offer Mass regularly, and which Chapels Pope Francis is clearly aware the Faithful also attend regularly to fulfill their Mass Obligations.

In Pope Francis's words: "....those faithful who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X."

It is precisely this demographic for whom Pope Francis provided when he granted Canonical Faculties with the assurance that those Sacraments which require faculties (Confession & Matrimony) would be valid for Catholics who attend these Chapels.

If offering these Masses and attending these Masses were sinful and prohibited, then granting the SSPX Priests the power to absolve their sins would be an absurdity, since it is impossible to absolve from sin those Catholics who do not repent of sins they need to be absolved from.

As Bishop Schneider said in the interview cited below -- such a scenario would be outlandish and absurd.
Ave Crux
For Gloria.TV Readers: Pope Francis -- in his Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera -- made clear provision for the spiritual well-being of the Faithful who regularly attend the SSPX Chapels for Mass.

Without any censure or prohibition whatsoever that these Faithful continue to attend Mass regularly at SSPX Chapels, nor any prohibition that their Priests continue this Apostolate among the …More
For Gloria.TV Readers: Pope Francis -- in his Apostolic Letter Misericordia et Misera -- made clear provision for the spiritual well-being of the Faithful who regularly attend the SSPX Chapels for Mass.

Without any censure or prohibition whatsoever that these Faithful continue to attend Mass regularly at SSPX Chapels, nor any prohibition that their Priests continue this Apostolate among the Faithful, Pope Francis went even further by granting Canonical Faculties for Confession and Marriage to SSPX Priests in the exercise of their ongoing ministry throughout the world by removing any doubt concerning the validity of these Sacraments when the Faithful attending their Chapels receive them.
One more comment from Ave Crux
Ave Crux
FOR GLORIA.TV READERS who may have missed the facts posted elsewhere and would like to hear the facts of the matter from those of considerable ecclesial authority -- like Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos while he was President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and Bishop Schneider who was asked to do a Visitation of SSPX and report back to Rome:

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos – during the …More
FOR GLORIA.TV READERS who may have missed the facts posted elsewhere and would like to hear the facts of the matter from those of considerable ecclesial authority -- like Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos while he was President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and Bishop Schneider who was asked to do a Visitation of SSPX and report back to Rome:

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos – during the time he was President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (2000–2009) clarified on three separate occasions that SSPX is not in schism:

1) In 2005, regarding the 1988 consecrations done without pontifical mandate, [Cardinal Hoyos] stated that it created a “situation of separation … even if it [the SSPX] was not a formal schism.” (“Rapprochement by unhasty stages, but not too slow either”)

2) Again in 2005, that in a 2004 meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and Bishop Fellay (then Superior General of thea SSPX), it was stated, in Castrillón Hoyos words: “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. … They are within the Church…” (“They are within the Church”)

3)
Then, in 2007, Castrillón Hoyos stated that the SSPX priests and adherents “are not schismatics” (“The President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, Cardinal Hoyos hopes for reconciliation with the Society of St Pius X”). [Cited at Canonical situation of the Society of Saint Pius X - Wikipedia]

---------------------

Archbishop Schneider: Pius X Priests Not Suspended and Not in Schism
(from Taylor Marshall Interview linked below):

SSPX Priests Not suspended:
About the status of the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, Schneider said that they could have been considered suspended in the past. However, that no longer applies today. Francis gave them jurisdiction for confession and marriage.

For Schneider, it would be outlandish to assume that a Pius X priest is not suspended when hearing confessions and celebrating a wedding but is suspended for all other sacraments.

--------------

Archbishop Schneider: SSPX Is Not In Schism

(From Edward Pentin Interview linked below):

"Pope Francis considers the SSPX as Catholic, and has expressed this publicly several times. Therefore, he seeks a pastoral solution, and he made the generous pastoral provisions of granting to the priests of the SSPX the ordinary faculty to hear confessions and conditional faculties to celebrate canonically marriage."

"The more the doctrinal, moral and liturgical confusion grows in the life of the Church, the more one will understand the prophetic mission of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in an extraordinary dark time of a generalized crisis of the Church."
Ultraviolet
@Ave Crux Loads O' Bold SSPX Falsehoods = "Unchanging Norm". :P

"ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE = "Punished for preserving Unchanging Norms,..."

Fact Check: Abp. Lefebvre excommunicated himself. His "preserving Unchanging Norms" excuses came after the Pope refused him to appoint obnoxious loud-mouth bishops like himself.

POPE BENEDICT = "Lifts alleged 'Excommunications' for defending and preservin…More
@Ave Crux Loads O' Bold SSPX Falsehoods = "Unchanging Norm". :P

"ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE = "Punished for preserving Unchanging Norms,..."

Fact Check: Abp. Lefebvre excommunicated himself. His "preserving Unchanging Norms" excuses came after the Pope refused him to appoint obnoxious loud-mouth bishops like himself.

POPE BENEDICT = "Lifts alleged 'Excommunications' for defending and preserving Unchanging Norms

Fact Check: The excommunications weren't alleged, they were confirmed by Pope John Paul II. They were for violating Canon Law by appointing bishops without permission. Those clowns weren't defending and preserving anything...

POPE FRANCIS = "Grants SSPX Canonical Faculties for defending and preserving Unchanging Norms

Fact Check: Pope Francis granted faculties "for the pastoral benefit of these faithful..." (his words) -not- because the SSPX is preserving or defending anything.
Ultraviolet
Surely you aren't implying the SSPX cheer-leader deliberately misrepresented the extent of the SSPX's abilities to bolster their "Catholic" legitimacy. ;-)
chris griffin
Mathathias Maccabeus you are a slime ball liar of the highest degree. You should be put out and relegated to the out house where you belong.
Ave Crux
TRADITION = "Unchanging Norm"

DOCTRINE = "Unchanging Norm"

TRADITIONAL MASS OF THE AGES = "Unchanging Norm"

COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE = "Unchanging Norm"

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE = "Punished for preserving Unchanging Norms, Tradition and Doctrine during Auto-Demolition of the Church"

POPE BENEDICT = "Lifts alleged 'Excommunications' for defending and preserving Unchanging …More
TRADITION = "Unchanging Norm"

DOCTRINE = "Unchanging Norm"

TRADITIONAL MASS OF THE AGES = "Unchanging Norm"

COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE = "Unchanging Norm"

ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE = "Punished for preserving Unchanging Norms, Tradition and Doctrine during Auto-Demolition of the Church"

POPE BENEDICT = "Lifts alleged 'Excommunications' for defending and preserving Unchanging Norms, Tradition and Doctrine during Auto-Demolition of the Church"

POPE FRANCIS = "Grants SSPX Canonical Faculties for defending and preserving Unchanging Norms, Tradition and Doctrine during the ongoing Auto-Demolition of the Church"

It's wonderful how some of the greatest crimes against the Church's Unchanging Norms, Tradition and Doctrine -- and the heroically faithful Priests who safeguard them -- can be corrected by the very churchmen who surrendered to the Auto-Demolition of the Church.... even during our lifetimes (i.e. our present reality)!

Yes, time marches on and grave injustices can be redressed -- even by Modernists, now -- when God's All-Powerful Providence intervenes.

God is Good...! ....and Ominipotent! Amen! We will see even more miracles when God comes to punish the wicked and cleanse His Church of the hirelings.
Ultraviolet
"See the Vatican's documents below on this unchanging norm." See @Ave Crux opinions on an "unchanging norm" -when it suits them!
"You keep citing ancient history from decades ago as though we live in a time warp."
-&-
Catholics LIVE IN THE PRESENT REALITY IN WHICH WE ARE SITUATED...
-&-
TIME MARCHES ON... WE LIVE IN THE PRESENT, NOT IN YOUR PAST...
CAPS LOCK, Loads O' Bold, Yammering…More
"See the Vatican's documents below on this unchanging norm." See @Ave Crux opinions on an "unchanging norm" -when it suits them!
"You keep citing ancient history from decades ago as though we live in a time warp."
-&-
Catholics LIVE IN THE PRESENT REALITY IN WHICH WE ARE SITUATED...
-&-
TIME MARCHES ON... WE LIVE IN THE PRESENT, NOT IN YOUR PAST...
CAPS LOCK, Loads O' Bold, Yammering Yellow, and Ranty Red -all as in the originals. If Ave Crux remains true to type, the next defense will be... "Bawww... UV took my words outta context!" I didn't. GTV's SSPX-Cheer-Leader turns their love for an "unchanging norm" on and off like a light switch.

When Pope John Paul II condemned the SSPX as a schism, oh noes! Ave Crux takes that "unchanging norm" and rebrands it "ancient history from deades ago" . In truth, that Papal condemnation is an "unchanging norm". It has never been rescinded and is still in effect today.

When Pope Francis extended that merry band of schismatics the faculties to minister to real Catholics (while emphasizing the SSPX needs to recover full communion with The Catholic Church), look how quickly the modernist praise appears, eh? Time marches on, we live in the present... Catholics are live in the present reality and an "unchanging norm" can go hang. :P
Ultraviolet
Ave Crux
@chris griffin (cc: @Just me ) Our "praxis" as Catholics should never be what we personally prefer, but rather what the Church has always taught -- and still teaches -- in this matter for nearly 2,000 years.

See the Vatican's documents below on this unchanging norm.

Holy Communion on the tongue began in the first centuries of the Church as attested to by the Church Fathers as being a …More
@chris griffin (cc: @Just me ) Our "praxis" as Catholics should never be what we personally prefer, but rather what the Church has always taught -- and still teaches -- in this matter for nearly 2,000 years.

See the Vatican's documents below on this unchanging norm.

Holy Communion on the tongue began in the first centuries of the Church as attested to by the Church Fathers as being a necessary discipline to protect the sacred species from profanation (see paragraph 2 of Vatican document OFFICE FOR THE LITURGICAL CELEBRATIONS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF excerpted immediately below): Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling)

-------------------
"The most ancient practice of distributing Holy Communion was, with all probability, to give Communion to the faithful in the palm of the hand. The history of the liturgy, however, makes clear that rather early on a process took place to change this practice.

"From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist."

--------------------

Thus, Holy Communion on the tongue is still the Universal Law and norm of the Church, and Communion in-the-hand is merely "tolerated" as a result of the disobedience within the Church which led to its widespread practice after Vatican II. And again, Communion-in-the-hand is still discouraged to preserve a supernatural faith among the Faithful, and to protect Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from profanation.

Vatican Document on Communion received on the tongue and while kneeling

EXCERPTS:

"From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

"From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: "Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration" [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter "This Congregation" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].

"John Paul II, in his last Encyclical, Ecclesia de Eucharistia ("The Church comes from the Eucharist"), wrote in n. 61: “By giving the Eucharist the prominence it deserves, and by being careful not to diminish any of its dimensions or demands, we show that we are truly conscious of the greatness of this gift. We are urged to do so by an uninterrupted tradition, which from the first centuries on has found the Christian community ever vigilant in guarding this ‘treasure.’ Inspired by love, the Church is anxious to hand on to future generations of Christians, without loss, her faith and teaching with regard to the mystery of the Eucharist. There can be no danger of excess in our care for this mystery, for ‘in this sacrament is recapitulated the whole mystery of our salvation.’”

"In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling."
____

And elsewhere:

"Reception on the tongue is not only a right, it is a Universal Norm, the expected manner of reception for the whole of the universal Church. Reception on the hand, however, is only granted by indult. So, although one has the option to receive in the hand, the universal Church both prefers and expects reception on the tongue.
-----------------------


"Pope Paul VI, in his document Memoriale Domini (1969), explained that:

“Communion [on the tongue] must be retained ... not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist ... This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in ‘ordinary bread and wine’ that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord.” [and yet, tragically, despite these words, he went on to permit Communion-in-the-hand in many parts of the world during his Pontificate after nearly 2 Millennia of only permitting Holy Communion on the tongue]


"Since then, the Church has affirmed this right of the Laity on at least two occasions. On March 25, 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued an Instruction called Redemptionis Sacramentum (n. 92), which dealt with certain abuses that had arisen in prior decades. Regarding reception on the tongue, it states, “…each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue…”
_____

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT
INSTRUCTION


Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

______________

On how it became necessary to issue an Indult in the United States following the unauthorized introduction of Communion in the Hand:

The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed
Just me
@Ave Crux I had no idea you called me to this. I am glad I noticed it. Thank you for always making sure to cover everything. It is well appreciated. I have read or skimmed much. And will try to finish it up eventually. The old brain can only take in so much. 😊 I wish I had known you or someone like you in my life. GOD Bless you Ave Crux.
salliperson
@Chat Chartreux is this Masonic?
salliperson
I made my first communion 75 years ago holding my hands in this position.
Just me
@salliperson You had your hands across your chest? I was taught from a Catholic school, Nun and Priests to hold them as The Blessed Mother holds her hands. Together and pointing to GOD. I never seen that before. Nor ever heard of it. I know the no church allows u to hold your hands out to receive Holy communion. And as they all walk up to receive The Host, with their arms dangling at their side. …More
@salliperson You had your hands across your chest? I was taught from a Catholic school, Nun and Priests to hold them as The Blessed Mother holds her hands. Together and pointing to GOD. I never seen that before. Nor ever heard of it. I know the no church allows u to hold your hands out to receive Holy communion. And as they all walk up to receive The Host, with their arms dangling at their side. I never saw that in the old Church. Even my parents who are long gone also taught us to hold them together with our fingers pointing to GOD. Just as they were taught back in the early 1900's.
salliperson
@Just me I will have to ask our priest but from what I’ve read about it, is the practice seems to vary from diocese to diocese, according to the local bishop’s guidance. Our parish in the Milwaukee archdiocese had Marion priests and Franciscans nuns. We also were taught as your parents were, to hold them together with our fingers pointing to God.
Just me
@salliperson I never thought there was any other way. I guess when we are raised a certain way, we think it is for everyone? I am not sure. If you find out, let us know please? Thanks.
Ave Crux
Further to my comment below...the absolutely monstrous blindness of Paul VI as to the self-inflicted cause of the Church's "auto-demolition" when -- among other crimes, such as imposing the New Mass -- he approved Communion-in-the-hand as early as 1969, just a few years after the close of Vatican II....

Then he's puzzled about where the "smoke of satan" is coming from? Perhaps it's all …More
Further to my comment below...the absolutely monstrous blindness of Paul VI as to the self-inflicted cause of the Church's "auto-demolition" when -- among other crimes, such as imposing the New Mass -- he approved Communion-in-the-hand as early as 1969, just a few years after the close of Vatican II....

Then he's puzzled about where the "smoke of satan" is coming from? Perhaps it's all the sacrileges against the Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which the Angel of Portugal taught the seers of Fatima to make reparation for.

Oh, but Archbishop Lefebvre over-reacted? He should have just "obeyed" and let these criminals run roughshod over Our Lord Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, suppress forever the Sacred Mass of the Ages, rewrite our Catechisms and empty our seminaries, convents, monasteries and schools.

Archbishop Lefebvre referred to these crimes as an "unprecedented spiritual emergency" requiring extraordinary measures and resistance. That was an understatement, since Paul VI called it the "auto-demolition" of the Church.

Here's Paul VI's record on approving Communion-in-the-hand:

Belgium, 31 May 1969
France, 6 June 1969
Germany, 6 June 1969
Chad, 18 September 1969
The Netherlands, 18 September 1969
Bolivia, October 15 1969
Luxembourg, October 15 1969
North Africa, October 15 1969
Scandinavia, October 15 1969
Uruguay, October 15 1969
Monaco, 31 October 1969
Middle Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Djibouti, 6 March 1970
Jamaica, 12 March 1970
Japan, 27 June 1970
Upper Volta and Niger, 20 February 1970
Indonesia, 27 March 1971
Paraguay, 27 September 1971
Madagascar 2 March 1970
Yugoslavia, 1971
South Africa, 1971
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977
chris griffin
Ave Crux - I thank God for wonderful, inspiring, Last Supper like Communion in the Hand.
Just me
@chris griffin And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.

Can you show me where he said, he handed them the bread? Gave to them? As if He gave it to each.

And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

Can you show me where He said, he handed them the Chalice? Again! Gave…More
@chris griffin And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body.

Can you show me where he said, he handed them the bread? Gave to them? As if He gave it to each.

And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it.

Can you show me where He said, he handed them the Chalice? Again! Gave to them. as if He gave it to them each. Not that he handed it to them.

Given as in held it for them to sip from it? How did He give to them? Did he give it to them individually? No? Maybe handed it to them? After all they are Apostles, blessed and chosen by GOD. Which of course they are allowed. Or maybe not yet allowed. Maybe after The Holy Ghost came upon them. I just don't think He Handed anyone anything. Can you point it out for me please? My eye sight might be worse than I thought. I really would like to see how He handed them anything. Thanks. I don't want to miss interpret The Holy Bible or what Christ did. The last thing I want to do is speak for Christ or go against Tradition of The Holy Catholic Church. I think Christ is already much offended. But please show me where Christ handed them anything.
chris griffin
Just me "Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye". He gave it and told them to take it. It's pretty obvious.
Just me
@chris griffin Depends on how you want to look at it I guess. I still say, "NO" hands. Sorry. It is disrespectful and irreverent. Keep in mind that Priests have their hands in order to "Touch" Our Lord. A simple ridiculous nobody should ever touch Our Lord with unconsecrated Hands. Do you think they do that for fun? Or showing off? Or part of a play? No! It is in order to touch Our Lord.

Take …More
@chris griffin Depends on how you want to look at it I guess. I still say, "NO" hands. Sorry. It is disrespectful and irreverent. Keep in mind that Priests have their hands in order to "Touch" Our Lord. A simple ridiculous nobody should ever touch Our Lord with unconsecrated Hands. Do you think they do that for fun? Or showing off? Or part of a play? No! It is in order to touch Our Lord.

Take ye and, Hmmm I am in front of a Priest at the Altar. I am kneeling. The Priest says, take this ye and eat. Then places it on my tongue. Sounds about right to me. So you keep doing what you are doing. Let's see what Christ has to say when you are before him.

Think about that a bit. Do not be brainwashed. The modernist don't want you to know the truth. Can't you see that with everything going on in this evil world?
chris griffin
Ave Crux Jesus gave it to them and they took it with their hands as normally happens when someone gives you something and I follow Jesus words by “taking”, not being stuffed in my mouth.

Communion on the Tongue is not Sacred Tradition and not Catholic doctrine. You are certainly entitled to believe in Communion on the tongue you want to but you have no superiority in your position.

Communion…More
Ave Crux Jesus gave it to them and they took it with their hands as normally happens when someone gives you something and I follow Jesus words by “taking”, not being stuffed in my mouth.

Communion on the Tongue is not Sacred Tradition and not Catholic doctrine. You are certainly entitled to believe in Communion on the tongue you want to but you have no superiority in your position.

Communion on the tongue is a later invention of men, not of Jesus. You have confused “practice” with “dogma”. I prefer the “practice” of early Catholics that was practiced for the first 900 years of Catholicism.

Clearly and without doubt Communion in the Hand WAS the practice of the early Church. Anyone can argue the historical timing of and circumstances of some change but the fact remains that it was the early Church practice.

No Bible or theologian in the world translates “gave”, “take and eat” as meaning Jesus put the bread directly on their tongue or that they “received” the bread directly on the tongue. If Communion on the tongue was so important then Jesus would have made that clear for all eternity which he did not.

Nowhere in the New Testament is TONGUE Communion mentioned. By reason we can come to the conclusion that St. Paul certainly did not go to hundreds of early Mass’ stuffing bread into thousands of mouths.

Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention that the ordained are the only ones allowed to touch the host while receiving Communion. Jesus and the Bible never said ‘Only clergy hands can touch the Host during Communion”. That is a myth and entirely untrue.

If you want to believe in an invention of men rather than Jesus, go right ahead.

Just me you are the brainwashed one, not me.
Ave Crux
This is heart-rending....this and much, much worse happens everyday, everywhere in the "renewed" Church. Monsters have done this and continue to do so daily....until there is very little faith left in the Real Presence.

This is what tore at the heart of Archbishop Lefebvre and what made it clear that Catholics are duty-bound to resist, and to refuse to collaborate in the Church's unprecedente…More
This is heart-rending....this and much, much worse happens everyday, everywhere in the "renewed" Church. Monsters have done this and continue to do so daily....until there is very little faith left in the Real Presence.

This is what tore at the heart of Archbishop Lefebvre and what made it clear that Catholics are duty-bound to resist, and to refuse to collaborate in the Church's unprecedented crisis, calamity and "auto-demolition" (Pope Paul VI, 1972) and "smoke of satan" (Pope Paul VI, 1972) filling the Church with a "diabolical disorientation" (Sister Lucia of Fatima), and that this destruction was not to be surrendered to.

Note that Paul VI said these things only 7 years after the close of Vatican II. That's all it took to set in motion the auto-demolition of the Church's 2,000 years monolithic structure of Faith, Morals and Tradition.

Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonized.