|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 26, 2020 20:01:36 GMT -5
Pacelli said:
I agree with you. In your opinion then, would you red-light Eastern Catholic parishes like the one in the video or any Eastern Catholic parish that practices “Communion in the Hand”? I have looked at others (including Maronite, Chaldean or Armenian) and their practice is indistinguishable from the NO-sect i.e. the communicant just picks up the host and sometimes even brushes their hand.
Thank you you for the excerpts from Frs. O’Brien and Fortescue. I have checked Kozma and Fortescue and others and the “proof” for Communion in the Hand always comes down to references from St. Cyril, St. Augustine, Tertullian and St. Cyprian. On a side note, it would be interesting to see and read the original sources and determine what other Catholic scholars have written on these specific sources.
BTW with respect to Fr. Fortescue, I am personally reticent in using him as a source because of his modernist inclinations and personal animosity towards St. Pius X. His liturgical history was also askew, if you remember, with respect to kneeling during the reception of Holy Communion by Ruthenian Catholics.
Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 27, 2020 0:11:50 GMT -5
Pacelli said: I agree with you. In your opinion then, would you red-light Eastern Catholic parishes like the one in the video or any Eastern Catholic parish that practices “Communion in the Hand”? I have looked at others (including Maronite, Chaldean or Armenian) and their practice is indistinguishable from the NO-sect i.e. the communicant just picks up the host and sometimes even brushes their hand. Thank you you for the excerpts from Frs. O’Brien and Fortescue. I have checked Kozma and Fortescue and others and the “proof” for Communion in the Hand always comes down to references from St. Cyril, St. Augustine, Tertullian and St. Cyprian. On a side note, it would be interesting to see and read the original sources and determine what other Catholic scholars have written on these specific sources. BTW with respect to Fr. Fortescue, I am personally reticent in using him as a source because of his modernist inclinations and personal animosity towards St. Pius X. His liturgical history was also askew, if you remember, with respect to kneeling during the reception of Holy Communion by Ruthenian Catholics. Merry Christmas! I wouldn't partake using communion in the hand. I am not certain that the justification for temporarily using the practice in some eastern rites is warranted, and I remain unsure of the manner in which it is being used, and the matter really needs the judgement of Rome to resolve it, but you and I know that isn't happening anytime soon. I haven't been to mass at any church that is using this practice or the burning of the liturgical spoons and will not. I actually did spend many hours trying to find a parallel historical case in which a plague was spreading and how the Church handled it, and could not find anything. I'm not saying that I buy the official line that this is a plague, but the eastern Catholic hierarchies certainly do believe that, from what I see. Regarding Fortesque, I also do not care for his private, but now published thoughts on St. Pius X. His issue, from my reading, that brought about this opinion, was the matter of what he considered to be too much centralization in the Church, not doctrine. I would not go so far as to think he had modernist implications in his doctrine. That would have to be proven to me by seeing the statements or other evidence which led you to think this about him which support the inclination of modernism accusation against him. On standing in the Ruthenian rite for communion, O'Brien states the same thing as Fortesque . I am not sure when it changed from standing to kneeling, but both assert that standing was the norm, so the questions I have are: when did the change happen, and how that change happened, and did it happen simultaneously and universally or was it found only in the diaspora, and if it was found only in the diaspora, when did it become the universal norm for the rite? The answers to those questions may help to better understand Fortesque and O'Brien's assertions on the matter. I doubt we'll find the answers, but if we do, it may shed some light on this. Merry Christmas to you as well.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 28, 2020 9:26:32 GMT -5
Pacelli stated:
Yes, I agree. I would also like to add that the danger of trodding over particles from the Sacred Host would also present a problem. If you view any online video of an Eastern Church like the Chaldeans who have permitted communion in the hand for many years, brushing one’s hand after Communion, for example, is commonplace. Even when the Covid scare is over, how many of these Churches (Syro-Malankara, Syro-Malabar, Ethiopian etc ) who have just started this practice will cease and return to only Communion on the tongue.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 28, 2020 9:29:25 GMT -5
Pacelli said (above): For readers unfamiliar with this topic, please see URL below for our previous discussion on kneeling for Holy Communion (about half way down including scans of source material). URL: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1888/changes-eastern-rites-acceptable?page=3There were two major schisms in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, orchestrated by the Russians, in the 19th century. The first schism occurred mainly in the Volyn Eparchy in 1839 while the second schism occurred in the Kholm (Polish name is Chelm) Eparchy. Pope Pius IX even approved of the Latin practices that the Ukrainian Catholic Church had adsorbed into their Liturgy over the centuries. From Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Omnem Sollicitudinem- On the Greek-Ruthenian RiteURL: www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9omnems.htmIn both events, the schismatic architects (i.e. at first they posed as sincere Catholics but later apostatized after Rome spoke on the issue) sought to remove perceived “Latinizations” including kneeling for Holy Communion. In fact Metropolitan Sheptytsky is quoted (in his official biography) in describing the Catholics of Kholm : BTW, this fact and the support by Pius IX of the Catholics’ resistance towards removal of these practices justifies people in opposing the post-VII changes in the Ukrainian Liturgy, but we have discussed this before. Of course we must adhere to the Recension books published under the auspices of Pope Pius XII in the 1940s, but what we are discussing here was never abrogated in those books. If you look at the old thread, the thesis by Professor Lencyk confirms that the “ Ruthenian people” had practiced all these Latin practices (including kneeling) since at least the early 1600s. I therefore find it rather surprising that any historian could miss such important facts in the history of the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy. Not even a footnote in Frs. O’Brien or Fortescue’s books. The Ukrainian Church in the diaspora, which was practically non-existent in the USA and Britain in the mid to late 19th century would have followed the Mother Church even more so, since their environment was almost totally Latin.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 28, 2020 10:41:47 GMT -5
Pacelli said in a previous thread:For readers unfamiliar with this topic, please see URL below for our previous discussion on kneeling for Holy Communion (about half way down including scans of source material). URL: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1888/changes-eastern-rites-acceptable?page=3There were two major schisms in the Ukrainian Catholic Church, orchestrated by the Russians, in the 19th century. The first schism occurred mainly in the Volyn Eparchy in 1839 while the second schism occurred in the Kholm (Polish name is Chelm) Eparchy. Pope Pius IX even approved of the Latin practices that the Ukrainian Catholic Church had adsorbed into their Liturgy over the centuries. From Pope Pius IX’s encyclical Omnem Sollicitudinem- On the Greek-Ruthenian RiteURL: www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9omnems.htmIn both events, the schismatic architects (i.e. apostates from the Catholic Faith) sought to remove perceived “Latinizations” including kneeling for Holy Communion. In fact Metropolitan Sheptytsky is quoted (in his official biography) in describing the Catholics of Kholm : BTW, this fact and the support by Pius IX of the Catholics’ resistance towards removal of these practices justifies people in opposing the post-VII changes in the Ukrainian Liturgy, but we have discussed this before. Of course we must adhere to the Recension books published under the auspices of Pope Pius XII in the 1940s, but what we are discussing here was never abrogated in those books. If you look at the old thread, the thesis by Professor Lencyk confirms that the “ Ruthenian people” had practiced all these Latin practices (including kneeling) since at least the early 1600s. I therefore find it rather surprising that any historian could miss such important facts in the history of the Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy. Not even a footnote in Frs. O’Brien or Fortescue’s books. The Ukrainian Church in the diaspora, which was practically non-existent in the USA and Britain in the mid to late 19th century would have followed the Mother Church even more so, since their environment was almost totally Latin. You have a good point, and unfortunately they are not alive to ask about why they stated what they did. I would certainly take Met. Sheptytsky as a reliable source. The only thing that stands out to me is that they could have been referring to other rites than the Ruthenians and Ukrainians. and were not aware of this fact in regards to them. I would like to know what led them to that assertion, though, before making any judgement on their scholarship in general, or drawing any other conclusions. These books by Fathers O'Brien and Fortesque have stood the test of time and are highly regarded and cited works on the history of the liturgy. You are the first person, that I have ever been aware of, to find a fault with their scholarship. Even in our times, the SSPX sells Fortesque's work on the mass. With that said, if they made a mistake on this point, then so be it, you have caught a mistake. What we do not know is why they stated what they did, what were their sources that led them to this conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 29, 2020 23:23:29 GMT -5
Pacelli said:
There is another important issue within Fr. O’Brien’s book -page 331. And it was first pointed out by Patrick H. Omlor in his 1997 book “The Robber Church”.
emphasis is mine
I will quote from Mr. Omlor’s book (p.43 from my PDF version). For what it’s worth, I agree with his conclusions. I quote him below:
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 30, 2020 14:55:33 GMT -5
Below are the scans from the book by St. Alphonsus:
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Dec 31, 2020 18:36:46 GMT -5
Wenceslav,
Thanks for the scans, but as I am sure you know, we have no disagreement on this issue. It would be like me posting scans to prove to you that there are truly three persons in the Holy Trinity.
I wish you a happy New Year.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Dec 31, 2020 21:26:54 GMT -5
Happy New Year, Pacelli!
Sorry, I meant no offence. It’s for lurkers on this thread. Since Mr. Omlor did not leave an exact citation (i.e. page no., vol. etc. for St. Alphonsus’ treatise on the Holy Eucharist) in his excellent book, I wanted to provide that so there would be no doubt about what Benedict XIV (and St. Thomas Aquinas) did actually say. Hence, Fr. O’Brien’s incorrect conclusions about the “for many” vs. “for all” controversy would be manifestly evident.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Jan 1, 2021 12:48:50 GMT -5
Happy New Year, Pacelli! Sorry, I meant no offence. It’s for lurkers on this thread. Since Mr. Omlor did not leave an exact citation (i.e. page no., vol. etc. for St. Alphonsus’ treatise on the Holy Eucharist) in his excellent book, I wanted to provide that so there would be no doubt about what Benedict XIV (and St. Thomas Aquinas) did actually say. Hence, Fr. O’Brien’s incorrect conclusions about the “for many” vs. “for all” controversy would be manifestly evident. No offense taken, Wenceslav. Yes, he did bungle that. I didn't read that section when I read the book years ago. I read him to learn more about the eastern rites when I was a young ignorant Latin rite Catholic who fled the Novus Ordo who stumbled into this new world of the eastern Church that I had never heard of and knew existed. There was no internet back then, so we had to use only books, something that people today probably don't grasp. He should have stuck to history, clearly theology was not his strong point. I am surprised no one noticed this until the 1970's considering his book was published in 1884! Enjoy your New Year! I hope this year will be better for all us.
|
|