Reacting to novelties in the Church

Reposted from March 2016

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

LMS Pilgrimage to Our Lady of Caversham. Come on in.

It must be a perennial truth about the Church, that to every issue some people will criticise what you do - whatever it is- as too 'soft', and others as too 'harsh'. Since Vatican II, this has gone from being a parlour game to a major industry, as those who have wanted to maintain the Faith in its integrity cheer themselves up by criticising each other for being either too accommodating of novelties, or too suspicious of them.

The 'circular firing squad' this easily becomes is not helpful to the cause, but the question, of how suspicious or accommodating one should be, is an important one and does need to be addressed seriously. Which new initiatives, new theological perspectives, new structures or new forms of worship, are perfectly ok, and which are not? Of the latter, which need to be criticised, where possible evaded (by not using them), or repudiated? Each initiative should in principle be treated on its merits, though the scale of the avalanche of new things since 1960 is itself open to critical assessment.

(Anyone afflicted by the thought 'Anything the Pope says must be ok' should, of course, read my posts about Papolatry, but can still follow the argument in this post by considering examples where the Pope had not actually mandated anything. In a number of cases Popes have condemned novelties, which have still spread through the Church, such as routine use of EMHCs, or General Absolution.)

The difficulty in most cases has been that the problem presented by the new things has been not that they contradict the teaching of the Church in a propositional way - only in seminaries and certain academic institutions have Catholics actually been asked to deny the faith in as many words. Rather, where the old version of whatever it is pointed towards the teaching, the new one points away. They are typically accompanied by official documents which are worded in such a way that they can be read, perhaps with a little effort, in accordance with the Church's teaching, and also read, with a little effort, in accordance with a new view which is not compatible with the teaching of the Church (although this may depend on ignoring some of the document in question).

The Manner of Receiving Communion

The FIUV Position Paper on this subject - how we receive kneeling and on the tongue in the Extraordinary Form, and why - I published a while ago on Rorate Caeli. Like all the position papers, excluding the footnotes I kept it down to less than 1,600 words. Here's a 4 minute video on the subject.

 

Lies, damned lies, and Patristics: Part 2

In my last post I promised to give arguments in favour of Communion on the tongue that actually work.

The problem with the arguments from the Church Fathers is that the issue had not been settled in the early centuries of the Church. This is a common phenomenon. The Church Fathers are important, but they won't settle for us the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, for example: it wasn't settled in their day. For a slightly different reason, they didn't settle he arguments of the 16th and 17th Centuries about Free Will and Grace, because these arguments turned on distinctions which the Fathers did not make. Trying to squeeze definitive statements out of the Fathers on subjects which they simply did not address, or on which they had not come to a consensus, is the path to poor scholarship. Unless we are going to say that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church at some point in the process, the statements of later authorities, who continued the Fathers' theological tradition, must be given weight, such as this from St Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, IIIa Q82 a3 c)

…out of reverence towards 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.

There is something going very wrong when a developed position like this is rejected in favour of a undeveloped position like that of St Cyril of Jerusalem. It is perfectly evident the Aquinas' position is a natural resolution of the tensions inherent is the situation described by St Cyril: Communion in the Hand combined with a tremendous concern for the fragments which might be lost, and elaborate rubrics designed to prevent that.

The best statement on how we should regard the early liturgy of the Church, in current debates about liturgy, is that of Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei (1948):

The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savour and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[Matthew 28.20] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.


So here are my three knock-down arguments in favour of Communion on the Tongue.

1. The Communion in the Hand practiced in the early Church is not like Communion in the Hand today: it was much more ritualistic and reverent. So much so, in fact, that most people would regard it as impractical. Jungmann, for example, talks about special fountains being installed in front of St Peter's so that people could wash their hands before Communion. In some places a cloth was placed over the hands (of women, at least), like a houseling cloth. St Cyril makes it clear that you don't pick the Host up: you put it in your mouth directly from your palm (having raised it to your eyes first). In some places there was a ritual washing of the hands after Communion. Reception on the tongue begins to look like a sensible alternative, doesn't it?


2. Communion on the Tongue spread throughout the Church, from the 9th Century onwards, in the context of a concern for the fragments which might be lost. The concern with fragments is not some late-medieval scruple, it is anticipated in Scripture (John 6.12) and found throughout the Fathers, including St Cyril of Jerusalem: hence his concern about reception being done with enormous care. This concern finally found a practical and reverent outlet in the different practices adopted in East and West. In the West, with unleavened bread being used, Communion directly on the tongue makes particular sense. This is the judgement of the Church, in her wisdom, having considered and experimented for many centuries; this judgement is then universally accepted and practiced for a millennium. What more straightforward example of the guidance of the Holy Spirit could you ask for?

3. The judgement of the Church in the Middle Ages is reiterated in the law of the Church as currently in force. Pope Paul VI in Memoriale Domini (1969), said that the practice should NOT be changed, because of the issue of reverence towards the Sacred Species. Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) 92, tells us that, even when it has been permitted by a special indult, Communion should NOT be given on the hand if there is a 'risk of profanation'. And that, of course, is all the time, everywhere, outside an enclosed religious community.

For a fuller treatment, see the FIUV Position Paper.

Lies, damned lies, and Patristics, Part 1

Everyone knows that the internet is not a good scholarly source, but the misinformation out there can be shocking. I've spent plenty of time criticising liberals, so here's a warning: traddy website can lead you astray too. The internet encourages uncritical reproduction of claims presented as facts, and if enough people do it they start generating so many Google hits that the truth can be drowned out. That's where websites with some claim to authority come in handy. Wikipedia? Not exactly.

Take the debate about Communion on the Tongue vs. in the Hand. There are lots of website and blogs slogging it out, with more zeal than knowledge. I'm no Patristics scholar, but it seems worthwhile to point out that a number of commonly cited authorities on the subject simply don't prove anything either way.

Here are two classic quotations used in favour of Communion on the Tongue.

Leo I (d. 461), Sermon 91.3:
'For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen who dispute that which is taken.'

But this is not inconsistent with Communion in the hand. Leo mentions the mouth because it is with the mouth that heresy is spoken. It is perfectly possible that he's talking about taking Communion in the mouth having been handed it in the hand.

Gregory the Great (d. 604), Dialogues 3,c. 3
'And, as he [Agapitus] was travelling through Greece, a dumb and lame man was brought unto him for help. ... he offered sacrifice in the sight of almighty God: which being ended, he came from the altar, took the lame man by the hand, and straightways, in the presence and sight of all the people, he restored him to the use of his legs: and after he had put our Lord's body into his mouth, that tongue, which long time before had not spoken, was loosed. At which miracle all did wonder, and began to weep for joy: and forthwith both fear and reverence possessed their minds, beholding what Agapitus could do in the power of our Lord, by the help of St. Peter.'

This appears to be a stronger indication at first glance. This is certainly a case of Communion given on the tongue. But it is not necessarily inconsistent with a general practice of Communion in the hand: the man was clearly severely handicapped, and the point of mentioning the mouth is that the man was cured of his inability to speak. In other words the holy man applied the medicine of salvation directly to the affected part.

These quotations simply don't answer the questions: was communion given in the hand or on the tongue in the time of these Popes? That simply cannot be established with certainty.

Another thing I've discovered is attempts to show that the classical description of Communion in the Hand by St Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386) is some kind of forgery.

Now the five follow-up lectures are highly debated and may not be authentic. In other words, they may have may been added by someone other than Saint Cyril. In fact, there exist manuscripts that do not attribute these five lectures to Saint Cyril. Hence, it is not entirely responsible to quote these last five lectures as a valid authority. The five later lectures are questionable. 

But this again simply misses the point. The description could hardly have been inserted into St Cyril's writings if it was not accurate, as a record of what happened. Regardless of who wrote it, if it was happening in St Cyril's day, then St Cyril was presumably happy about it. And anyway, the debate doesn't necessarily turn on what St Cyril thought about it, but about what was the practice of the ancient Church. This was the practice of the Church of Jerusalem in the 4th Century: that's an interesting historical fact.

Then there is the Council of Rouen, which forbids Communion in the Hand and mandates Communion on the Tongue. Nice and clear, and this is indeed the earliest source for a clear ruling against Communion in the Hand. Now when was that? A quick internet search gives the date 'c.650' on a large number of site, including Wikipedia. But the great liturgical scholar Joseph Jungmann says it took place c. 878, 228 years later. I know who I believe.

Claiming that this particular Council of Rouen took place in the 7th Century is particularly foolish, because that means it was contradicted less than 50 years later by the 'Council in Trullo' (which took place in Constantinople), in 692, which recommended Cyprian-style reception with hands crossed over each other. Although it must be said that this was a rather dodgy Council...


Those who want to defend Communion on the Tongue, as I do, need to exercise self-discipline: using bad arguments and dodgy quotations is ultimately self-defeating. There are three arguments in favour of Communion on the Tongue which I regard as decisive. I'll give them in my next post.

'Restore Comunion on the Tongue Alone'

A couple of Australian priests have started an online petition to the Holy Father for the restoration of the practice of receiving communion on the tongue for the whole Latin Church. They should be supported: why not go over there and sign up?

http://communiononthetongue.blogspot.com/

Bishop Athanasius Shneider and Cardinal Burke have already signed up! Bishop Shneider's book 'Dominus Est' is an excellent intriduction to the arguments.

Pope Paul VI allowed communion in the hand only as a concession, limited to places where the abuse was already established. It has become clear that the original arguments in favour of communion in the hand - historical, theological, pastoral - were spurious and it is time this permission was withdrawn.

We need also to make reparation for the countless acts of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament which have been facilitated by this practice.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

PCED: no communion in the Hand at the Traditional Mass

The question of communion in the hand at the Traditional Mass has long been unclear. It was not permitted in 1962; it is permitted now (albeit with great reluctance, as a concession to a condemned abuse). Is it permitted now for all forms and rites? Or should those using the 1962 Missal be bound by the rules in force in 1962?

The latter has long seemed the more sensible opinion to the Latin Mass Society, and to most people attached to the 'earlier liturgical traditions'. To adopt into the 1962 Mass customs permitted in the context of the 1970 Mass undermines the integrity of the rite. Each Missal has its own liturgical law, both written and unwritten.

Not all issues are on the same level, however. The question of when Catholics are obliged to go to Mass, and how long they must fast before Communion, are set by canon law (in the first case in the context of decisions made by ordinaries). What is obligatory under the latest Code of Canon Law is obligatory for all Catholics subject to that Code, ie the Code for the Latin Church covers the whole Latin Church. By contrast, liturgical law is specific to the form or Rite.

The common view has been confirmed by the Pontifical Council Ecclesia Dei, as this letter makes clear. These clarifications are to be welcomed.

One may ask: what should a priest do faced with someone insisting on receiving in the hand? The clarification itself, and priests' explanation of the situation, should make this a less frequent occurance. But as with all attempts at inappropitiate behaviour at Mass, priests must respond in a sane way with pastoral sensitivity. There is no legislating for such such cases.

Translation:

"Dear Mr. XXXX

In reference to your letter of 15. June, this papal commission would like to point out that the celebration of Holy Mass in the extraordinary form envisages the reception of Holy Communion while kneeling, as the Holy Host is laid directly on the tongue of the communicant. There is no provision for the distribution of Holy Communion on the hand in this form of the Holy Mass.

With blessings,"

See Fr John Zuhlsdorf: http://bit.ly/ddgzIb











- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone