More on Historicity (and a liturgical matter for my EF friends)

In my last post, I discussed the historicity—or rather, the lack thereof—of what I referred to as The People’s Catholic Church, the assumption underlying the idea that one can claim to be Catholic while rejecting the Magisterium and the Catholic hierarchy that has promulgated it. In this post I want to look a little further into historicity, especially as regards liturgy—specifically, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand, as is common in the Novus Ordo Mass.

            The practice of Wicca claims to be very ancient, even though it admits many—perhaps most—of its rituals to be of recent invention. Gerald Gardner, one of the first modern Wiccans, claimed to be passing on ancient secrets that had survived Christendom’s destruction of Europe’s witch cult--a lot of this stuff is very dubious scholarship—but most other Wiccans tend to say that because of this destruction (again, of rather doubtful accuracy), modern neopagans have had to re-invent their rituals. Therefore, I imagine they would say that the spirit of these rituals, though not the details of these rituals, connects them to the old pagan religions of Europe.

            I find that a refreshingly honest position compared to the adherents of The People’s Catholic Church. The latter make up stuff and attempt to pass it off as history. For instance, here’s Nancy Pelosi’s take on the Real History Of the Church, from an interview she did with Tom Brokow in 2008:

“PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And … St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe vs. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child — first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and — to — that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided.…”
BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it...
PELOSI: I understand that.
BROKAW: ...begins at the point of conception.
PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.

I won’t digress to discuss how grossly Pelosi misrepresented both Catholic history and Catholic doctrine here. Others have already done that—including, miracle of miracles, her own bishop (although in a rather mild way). This is an example of The Big Lie, and it isn’t the point of this point to refute the absurdities she uttered. But, by the way, isn’t it ironic how She Who Declares That Bishops Should Stay Out Of Government only all too happily jumps squarely into the middle of the bishops’ business of teaching the Faith? Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode of Nancy Pelosi, Master Theologian.

            Now, as to communion in the hand. The modernists of the last fifty years who have attempted—like the above Wiccans—to re-connect us with the early days of our Faith have gone most Wiccans one better. They, like Gardner, claim that Communion in the hand is actually an ancient practice, and therefore older and more correct than receiving Communion on the tongue. They quote an early Church Father, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, to prove their point. Here’s the quotation, taken from Catechesis Mystagogica V, 11-22: “Approaching [the Eucharist] therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’.”

            So far so good, right? Just like today’s practice. The problem is, the modernists have taken this quotation out of context. Here's the whole thing:

Approaching [the Eucharist] therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’. Then. carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?
Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say ‘Amen’. and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs. Finally, wait for the prayer and give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such mysteries.

So I ask you, as long as we’re being all early church and historical and are receiving Communion in the hand, why don’t we go the whole hog and rub the Host on our eyes and pour the Precious Blood all over ourselves? Answer: because the modernists don’t actually want to be historical. They just want to force everyone to receive Communion in the hand. They use history (sort of like some guys use prostitutes) to get what they want, and for no other reason.

            As for reconnecting with the Early Church: we already have that. It’s called the Catholic Church, and it is a natural extension of the early Church just as the mustard plant is a natural extension of the mustard seed from which it sprang. This idea of cutting out all the intervening stuff in order to get back to the REAL Church, well, there’s a name for people who believe that: “Baptists.” (Not slamming my Baptist friends here. If you want to be Baptist, fine, be the best Baptists you can. I hope and expect for a great many Baptists to go to heaven, while I fear for the souls of a great many Catholics. My qualm here is with Baptists who insist on passing themselves off as Roman Catholics, because I think they’re intellectual frauds who are misleading people by their fraudulence.)

            And, while I’m on it—isn’t it odd that bishops and priests have on the whole remained very quiet in the face of so-called “pro-choice Catholics,” and all but canonized Ted Kennedy at his funeral, and generally refuse to criticize them publicly at all, but when people have the effrontery to kneel for Communion—even though the Vatican says that’s OK—these bishops/priests deny them Communion and even sometimes threatened with excommunication? This denial-of-Communion business isn't a  characteristic of Catholics, but of insecure ideologues who are afraid that the revolution will fail.

            Harsh words? Probably. But there’s so much confusion these days about what Catholicism is and what it isn’t, that very clear language is needed.