Until quite recently - beginning in the 1960s - ONLY the Ordained Sacred Ministers could touch the Sacred Species.
Pope Sixtus I
Pope Sixtus I was born in Rome, Italy. His father was a Roman pastor and therefore he was brought up in a Christian family. Pope Sixtus I was the pope of the Roman Catholic Church between 115 and 124 A.D.
. His predecessor was Pope Alexander I and his successor was Pope Telesphorus. According to the chronicles of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Sixtus I was the sixth pope after St. Peter. On the other hand, the oldest documents of the Catholic Church state that the name Xystus was used for the first three popes. This has also raised some dispute about the use of the name Sixtus. In Greek, the name Xystus means “shaved” and some sources that Pope Sixtus I was also called Xystus as a reference to his unusual style of shaving his head or face.
The name originated in Rome during the reign of Emperor Hadrian who brought back the fashion of full beards.
During his reign as the Roman Catholic Pope, Pope Sixtus I contributed greatly to the administrative aspect of the church. According to the “Liber Pontificalis”, Pope Sixtus I passed the following three ordinances: The first ordinance was that none but sacred ministers are allowed to touch the sacred vessels; The second was that bishops who have been summoned to the Holy See shall, upon their return, not be received by their diocese except on presenting Apostolic letters. The third ordinance stated that after the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people.
Not much is known about Pope Sixtus I especially because during his reign, there was documentation about the matters of the Catholic Church was scarce. However, it is agreed that he was among the first Roman popes who did not have any clashes with the leaders of Italy or other churches. In fact during his papacy, he made great contributions in the day to day running of the administrative matters of the church; some of these are still in use until today.
Nevertheless, some historians have argued that some of the contributions attributed to Pope Sixtus I were not really his and that they were only attributed him to complete the history of the Roman Catholic Church. They claim that the attributes were used a way of showing the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church in the ancient days and that the information concerning Pope Sixtus I is not real or accurate.
The feast of Pope Sixtus I is celebrated on the 6th of April. He died in c.124 and was buried in the Vatican, next to the tomb of St. Peter. His relics are said to have been transferred to Alatri in 1132 although there have been claims that the relics are still in the Vatican Basilica. On the other hand, Butler states that Clement X gave some of Pope Sixtus I’s relics to Cardinal de Retz, who put them in the Abbey of St. Michael in Lorraine.
From 124 A.D. until 1969 is 1845 years - ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE YEARS - and that was the span of sacred time in which touching the Sacred Species was reserved, by law, to the Sacred Ordained Ministers of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and, wouldn't you know it, it was in the execrable 1960s that this ancient and permanent praxis had the sacramental of defenestration applied to it and since the initial permission for the laity to handle the Sacred Species, all hell has broken loose.
Well played, Satan; well played.
And notice how Pope Saint John Paul II identifies the egregious lawlessness - It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. - but doesn't do a damn thing about it.
It is always the same in the Shadow Church (a shadow lacks substance); some novel permission is granted, usually owing to some scandalously schismatic practice that will not be met head-on with determined action, including excommunication, and that novel permission, at first an exception to the universal and constant rule, soon becomes the new norm, the new rule, and the once permanent sacred orthodox practice is suddenly forbidden and those defending it are labeled Pharisaical.
Lord have Mercy.
What a damn joke.
For a less polemical look at the descent in sacredness and solemn decorum, read Prof. K
St. Thomas Aquinas :
The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the 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. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is 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
The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the 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. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is 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
LETTER
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST
All these actions have a meaning of their own. Naturally, scrupulosity must be avoided, but God preserve us from behaving in a way that lacks respect, from undue hurry, from an impatience that causes scandal. Over and above our commitment to the evangelical mission, our greatest commitment consists in exercising this mysterious power over the body of the Redeemer, and all that is within us should be decisively ordered to this. We should also always remember that to this ministerial power we have been sacramentally consecrated, that we have been chosen from among men "for the good of men."(66) We especially, the priests of the Latin Church, whose ordination rite added in the curse * of the centuries the custom of anointing the priest's hands, should think about this.
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
Catholic Dictionary;
PRIVILEGE. A concession, more or less permanent, made against or beyond the law. The popes have granted privileges at least since the eighth century. They are acquired orally or in writing, by direct concession or by communication. Personal privileges are granted to a person; real privileges are attached to things. A personal privilege need not be used and is not lost by lack of use. A real privilege is lost by destruction of the object. Privileges are perpetual unless otherwise stated.
* Yes, Virginia, that error appears in the text at the Vatican Website and, no, ABS does not think that is an unintentional mistake (Where are the other typos?) ; ABS thinks some Tradition hating sodomite changed the word from "course" to "curse."
People err in thinking sodomitic revolutionaries are not subversive rats.
Catholic Dictionary;
PRIVILEGE. A concession, more or less permanent, made against or beyond the law. The popes have granted privileges at least since the eighth century. They are acquired orally or in writing, by direct concession or by communication. Personal privileges are granted to a person; real privileges are attached to things. A personal privilege need not be used and is not lost by lack of use. A real privilege is lost by destruction of the object. Privileges are perpetual unless otherwise stated.
OK, heads-up everybody, listen to me. It is a privilege of the ordained to touch the sacred species but it is also obvious the church can extend that privilege to everyone, even those who are not ordained, and so now the word privilege no longer has any meaning.
From the Vatican, February 24, First Sunday of Lent, in the year 1980, the second of the Pontificate.
From 124 A.D. until 1969 is 1845 years - ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY FIVE YEARS - and that was the span of sacred time in which touching the Sacred Species was reserved, by law, to the Sacred Ordained Ministers of the One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and, wouldn't you know it, it was in the execrable 1960s that this ancient and permanent praxis had the sacramental of defenestration applied to it and since the initial permission for the laity to handle the Sacred Species, all hell has broken loose.
Well played, Satan; well played.
And notice how Pope Saint John Paul II identifies the egregious lawlessness - It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. - but doesn't do a damn thing about it.
It is always the same in the Shadow Church (a shadow lacks substance); some novel permission is granted, usually owing to some scandalously schismatic practice that will not be met head-on with determined action, including excommunication, and that novel permission, at first an exception to the universal and constant rule, soon becomes the new norm, the new rule, and the once permanent sacred orthodox practice is suddenly forbidden and those defending it are labeled Pharisaical.
Lord have Mercy.
What a damn joke.
For a less polemical look at the descent in sacredness and solemn decorum, read Prof. K