Another Citation Examination

It's time again to take a look at a quote that gets posted around the Internet.

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that he is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." -Robert Bellarmine, On the Authority of Councils, Volume 2: 266.

An alternate version of this is:

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." -On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

This is therefore used to claim (either by implication or by the person posting it explicitly making the claim) that all the names, including things like "Son of God", are applied to the pope. Unlike many of these sorts of quotes, however, a citation is provided, and actually a decent enough one, particularly the latter (far too many of these sorts of copied and pasted quotes would just say something like "Bell. 2.17"). This means it can be looked up.

However, even in the context of the above quote, this seems a bit exaggerated--Bellarmine does specify the titles are "by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church". In other words, it is only those titles that are in question, not all titles. So even before looking it up, this is a questionable quote to attack Bellarmine or Catholicism with. But what about in context?

The work is in Latin. However, someone has recently published an English translation. I am using "De Controversiis Tomus III On the Church, containing On Councils, On the Church Militant, and on the Marks of the Church" which was published in 2017 and was translated by Ryan Grant. The applicable chapter begins on page 205, which is also where the quote is found, which here is translated as "It is proven from reason, and founded in the scriptures; for all the names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures whereby it is certain that he is above the Church, all the same are attributed to the pope."

But what are the names in question? Well, first, for a bit of context, this chapter is entitled "The Supreme Pontiff is absolutely above a Council" and he is arguing about how the pope is of higher authority than a general council of the church. All ellipses and italics are in the work being quoted. Here is the applicable portion, typed up as best as I can:

"It is proven from reason, and founded in the scriptures; for all the names which are given to Christ in the Scriptures whereby it is certain that he is above the Church, all the same are attributed to the Pope. First, Christ is the householder in his house, which is the Church, the Pope in the same house is the supreme steward, i.e. in the place of Christ the householder: Who is a faithful steward, and prudent, whom the Lord constituted above his household, etc." (Luke 12:42) Here, by steward, or oeconomon, as it is in the Greek text, the Fathers understand a Bishop. Ambrose, as well as Hilary and Jerome (in cap. 24 Matth., where a similar sentence is contained) understand this passage in the same way. And although the Fathers do not speak expressly about the Roman Bishop, nevertheless, without a doubt the teaching of that Scripture is: as particular Bishops are supreme stewards over their Churches, so the Roman Bishop is in the universal Church. Wherefore, Ambrose, on 1 Timothy 3. That you would know how you ought to be preserved in the house of God, etc., he says: "The Church is called the house of God, whose ruler today is Damasus." And Chrysostom, in lib. 2 de sacerdotio, near the beginning, cites this passage: "Who is a faithful servant," etc., explaining that it is about Peter.

However, the supreme steward is over the household, and he cannot be judged and punished by it, as is clear from the same passage, for the Lord says: "whom the Lord constituted over his household ... But if the servant would say in his heart: 'the master delays his coming', and would begin to strike the servants and the maidservants, to eat and drink and be drunk, the Master will come on a day in which he hopes not, and divine him and place his lot with the infidels." There you see the Lord saves that servant for his judgment and does not consign him to the judgment of the household. The use of all household teaches the same thing; for there is no household in which it would be lawful for inferior servants to punish even when gathered together, or expel the steward, even if he were the worst, for it pertains to the Lord of the household alone.

The second name of Christ is shepherd, "I am the good shepherd, etc." He shares the same with Peter in the last chapter of John: "Feed my sheep." It is certain, however, that a shepherd is so in charge of the sheep that he cannot be judged by them."

The third is "head of the Body of the Church," (Eph. 4:15-16), and he shares the same with Peter, as we have it in the Council of Chalcedon, act. 3, where the legates pronounce sentence against Dioscorus, and in the epistle of the Council to Leo. Moreover, that the head would be ruled by the members and not rather rule them is against nature, just as also it is against nature for the members to cut off their head when it is gravely sick.

The fourth is husband, or bridegroom (Ephesians 5:25), "Men, love your wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for it, etc." The same agrees with Peter, for in the general Council of Lyons, as it is found in c. Ubi periculum, de electione, in Sexto, the Council speaks on the election of a Roman Pontiff: "Let a useful provision make haste for the necessary things of the whole world, for a suitable bridegroom to speedily be given to the Church." But it is against the Apostle in Ephesians 5:25 as well as against the order of nature that the bride would be in charge of the bridegroom, and not rather subject."

After this, Bellarmine moves onto other arguments on why he believes popes are above councils, but the above is everything concerning titles. I did have to type the above up manually so I apologize if I made any typos. Whatever one thinks of the above arguments, it is abundantly clear that Bellarmine's statement of applying the names refers only to the specific titles above: Householder/steward, shepherd, head of the Body of the Church, and husband/bridegroom. Trying to turn this quote into some kind of claim that it was Bellarmine claiming the Pope held titles like "savior" or "God" is just silly when one reads him in context (or, quite frankly, even out of context).

The Council of Mâcon and Women

Supposedly, there was a church council in Mâcon (I'll write Macon for simplicity) which debated whether women had souls or whether women were human (depending on the source). The supposed year this council occurred also depends on the source; I've seen 581, 584, and 585 given. Some who refer to it go even further with this claim and assert that women were declared human by only one vote.

Naturally, sources are virtually never given for this claim. The actual decrees of the council are available at the link in Latin, and while my Latin is rudimentary, as far as I can tell there is no mention of any issue of women's souls or humanity at all.

So what is the truth? Well, it's made up; there wasn't debate about whether women were human or whether women had souls to begin with, much less vigorous debate decided by a single vote. This article (also available here) called "The Myth of Soulless Women" from the magazine First Things goes into some depth about it. See also here, a similar article by the same author. The short version is that the whole thing comes down to a misunderstanding of an account of a council (which may not have even been the Council of Macon). This account comes from Gregory of Tour's work "A History of the Franks" and is found in Book 8 Chapter 20. From the 1927 translation by O.M. Dalton (volume 2, page 345), we see:

"At this council there was a certain bishop who defended the opinion that women could not be included under the general description ‘man’; but he accepted the reasoning of his brethren, and said no more. Their arguments were as follows: The holy book of the Old Testament teaches that in the beginning, when God created man, He created them male and female, and called their name Adam, which, being interpreted, means earthly man; even so He called the woman Eve; of both He used the word ‘man’. And the Lord Jesus Christ is therefore called Son of man, because He was the Virgin’s son, which is to say, the son of a woman. To her He said, when He was about to change the water into wine: ‘ Woman, what have I to do with thee?’ and that which follows. They brought other convincing testimony, and there this matter rested."

And that's it! A simple question about the meaning of a word; this was much more a matter of grammar than theology. One has to stretch a lot to make it into a question of whether women were human or had souls. Even worse for those who try to claim it was settled by one vote (or was even a contested question), what is actually described is one bishop brought up the subject, the other bishops explained how he was wrong, and he accepted it and did not press his case. All of this is well explained in the linked article, which has been online since at least the year 2000 so it is not like the information could not be found, meaning people who propagate this false claim are with even less excuse.

Why does this blog post exist, then, if all the information is already in an online article presently available? Well, there are a few points not mentioned in it I wanted to note. While the above article goes into the original source of this error about a council arguing whether women have souls, it doesn't talk about where the even more inaccurate claim that it was decided by one vote came from. The farthest I have traced that back is a 1973 book called "The Rape of the APE" (APE stands for "American Puritan Ethic") by Allen Sherman, best known for his comedic song "Hello Muddah, Hello Fadduh". While this might not be the original source of the "decided by one vote" claim, it seems to be the one that popularized it. This book makes the following claim on page 181, italics original:

"In the year 584, in Lyons, France, 43 Catholic bishops and 20 men representing other bishops held the Council of Macon, which included the most peculiar debate since the world began, a discussion which, for nonsensical content; surely exceeded the Mad Hatter's tea party. The subject of the debate was a serious world problem of the time: Are women human? After many lengthy arguments, a vote was taken. The results were: 32 yes, 31 no. Women were declared human by one vote."

Yes, that semicolon did come after the word content despite the fact it should be a comma. Absolutely no source is made for this. Indeed, this chapter of the book, which is about various alleged mistreatment of women in the past, is filled with other inaccurate or exaggerated claims, almost all given without any citation whatsoever. Perhaps people should not uncritically take information about history from a man whose main claim to fame was making goofy novelty songs.

It's not as if people didn't know, even back then, that the claim was false. It was pointed out how the Council of Macon never debated the humanity of souls or women back in a 1916 issue of The Atlantic (January 1916, in the letters section).

But perhaps someone would object to the above counterarguments on the part of bias. After all, First Things is Christian magazine. And perhaps the person who wrote the letter to The Atlantic had their own biases also. But the requirement of evidence should be on the side of the person making the claim that there was any serious debate on whether women were human, meaning even if the sources I cited were the most biased people ever, it still wouldn't solve the issue of the lack of any primary source ever offered for the Council of Macron debating whether women are human or have souls.

However, to let the matter be decided hopefully beyond all doubt, let's check a source that cannot be accused of bias of wanting to make Christianity or Catholicism look good in regards to its treatment of women. Specifically, I refer to "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" by Uta Ranke-Heinemann. Now, this book has a lot of problems, making some claims that don't seem backed up by its citations or claims made without a citation I can't find verification for. For example, take this claim from it (page 187) which I have seen repeated online. Referring to Thomas Aquinas, it claims:

"And he knows what this inconvenient situation can lead to: "Because there is a higher water content in women, they are more easily seduced by sexual pleasure" (Summa Theologiae III q. 42 a. 4 ad 5). Women find it all the harder to resist sexual pleasure since they have "less strength of mind" than men (II/II q. 49 a. 4)."

Summa Theologiae III q. 42 a. 4 ad 5 has not the slightest thing to do with women, water content, or sexual pleasure (its topic is about whether it was correct or not for Jesus to leave the writing of the Bible to others). And Summa Theologiae II/II q. 49 a. 4 also says nothing about women either and is discussing the aspects of prudence.

Also, I feel that this review from the New Oxford Review also brings up some valid points, even if it must be accepted that it is from an explicitly Catholic source which is therefore biased. Now, someone can find positive reviews in popular magazines, but actual historians and scholars tend to be less positive. For example, the review of it from the journal "History" concludes:

"[I]f it were presented simply as a personal document it would doubtless command respect. But as supposedly historical argument it is lamentable; the anachronistic assumptions and value-judgements which fill every page would barely gain a pass-mark for a first-year undergraduate essay."
("History" Volume 78, Number 252 (February 1993), pages 65-66)

Okay, so why am I spending a bunch of time criticizing the source I'm citing as evidence? It's because of those problems that it serves as an especially strong source here. "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" is a rather polemical work about poor treatment of women by the church and it is willing to seize onto various questionable claims to argue its thesis. So, what does this work, which has every reason to use the Council of Macon as an example of how poorly esteemed women were by the church, have to say? Here's what it says on page 190-191:

"We may note in passing that as bad as this degrading of women by the Church was, it must be made clear that the worst accusation–that the Church doubted women had a soul or were human at all–is untrue. One often hears and reads that at the second Synod of Mâcon (585) the participants disputed whether women had souls, but that never happened. Souls were not the issue. Gregory of Tours, who was there, reports that a bishop raised the question, "whether woman could be called 'homo." Thus it was a philological question (though raised because of the higher value that men placed on themselves): homo in Latin means "person" as well as "man," as do cognate words in all the Romance languages, and as "man" does in English. The other bishops, Gregory reports, referred the questioner to the story of Creation, which says that God created man (homo), "male and female he created them," and to Jesus' title "Son of Man" (filius hominis), although he was the son of a virgin, and hence the son of a woman. These clarifications settled the issue: the term homo was to be applied to women as well as to men (Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum 8, 20)."

This work--which, again, is all about how badly the church treated women, and is willing to engage in questionable arguments to prove that point--still says this claim is totally wrong. That really should clinch it. Maybe you don't trust Fox News because of its conservative bias, or MSNBC because of its liberal bias, but it's exactly because of that bias that if Fox News is defending a liberal from an attack, or MSNBC is defending a conservative from an attack, that's a pretty good sign that the attack in question is without merit. And that's the case here. If even "Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" is willing to say this claim is false, that should close the case shut.

Thus, this whole claim about the Council of Macon debating whether women had souls is false, and even more absurd is any claim it was decided by a single vote. Yet people, most distressingly, have propagated this false claim despite there not being evidence for it and without providing any evidence for it themselves. And thus in this way are false claims spread, due to people not bothering to make any attempt at verifying the claims they make.

Examination of a Citation

It feels a little weird to do a post over just one quotation that goes floating around, but sometimes it's worth it. Α claim one can find sometimes on the Internet is the idea that the name "Jesus" comes from Zeus; the argument goes that in the original Greek (where it was Iesous, ιησους), the "sous" came from Zeus as a way to appease pagans. While various others have given reasons why this claim doesn't make all that much sense., there's a specific citation I've seen passed around that supposedly offers evidence of this that I want to take a look at.

This citation can take several different forms, and I'll list several examples of what I've seen:

Some authorities, who have spent their entire lives studying the origins of names, believe that “Jesus” actually means— “Hail Zeus!” For Iesous in Greek is “Hail Zeus.” That is, “Ie” translates as “Hail” and “sous” or “sus” is Zeus. Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend, J.C.J. Melford, 1983, p. 126.

"It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus." -Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend Professor J. C. J. Metford

"It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous which are phonetic pronunciations for the chief Greek god of Olympus - were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus." -Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend by Professor J.C.J Melfurd (1983, pg 126)

Greek name suffixes transliterated as -sus, -seus and -sous are phonetic pronunciations for the chief Greek god of Olympus—Ζεύς. These suffixes were appended by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as a means to honor their supreme deity, Ζεύς. J.C.J Melfurd. (1983). Dictionary of Christian Lore and Legend. p. 126.

Some of these present themselves as quotes whereas others are summaries. One oddity we can see in these is disagreement on how the author's name is spelled; we can see them cited as Melford, Metford, or Melfurd. It is, for the record, Metford.

But we also run into the question of why we should trust this claim simply on the authority of J.C.J. Metford. You see, if his German Wikipedia page is correct (surprisingly, there is no English one), J.C.J. Metford appears to have been a professor of Spanish. Him writing up an encyclopedia of Christian terms already seems out of his area of expertise, much less making statements concerning the origin of Greek names. But honestly, even if Metford knew more about Greek name etymology than anyone else in the world, it ends up not mattering, because the claim made isn't in his work.

One can see page 126 of this work here on the Internet Archive, though you may need to sign up for a free account and check it out to view it, as otherwise only a few pages can be viewed. It was published in 1983, by J.C.J. Metford, and it has the same name as the work being cited. Thus we absolutely know this is the right source. But someone can notice something quite obvious if you look at page 126: The claim about how Greek names ending with sus, seus, or sous coming from Zeus is nowhere to be found. Heck, Zeus isn't mentioned at all on the page. A search for "Zeus" turns up a few matches, but none saying anything like the above. So the whole citation is false! The work doesn't say that!

So much for that claim. The text that supposedly supports this... doesn't. It doesn't say anything at all about names in Greek ending with sous/sus/seus coming from Zeus. Were people just too lazy to look up the source to verify it? It was uploaded onto the Internet Archive back in 2013, so it's been available there for quite some time. And even before it was made available there, it's not a rare book, and is in a ton of libraries on WorldCat. There are multiple libraries within twenty minutes of where I live that have it. This is not a difficult book to check. So the "quote" and related claims about Ditionary of Christian Lore and Legend is nonsense.

While this post was only concerned with this specific citation, I suppose I should include links to people responding more generally to the claim of the supposed link between the name Jesus and the name Zeus. See here, here, here, here, or here for responses to it from several different sources and viewpoints. (Note: This is not an endorsement in general of any of the websites I point to, only the specific linked pages) 

So the lesson here, as is often the case, is not to just assume that a quote you see online is true. Here we have a bunch of people repeating this supposed claim from this work even though the work doesn't actually have it. All it would take is simply looking at this book (which is not actually that hard to get a copy of, to say nothing of the possibility of just looking at it online) to show it was false, but apparently none of the people who repeated this false claim bothered to do so.

Natural Born Citizens, The Law of Nations, and Emmer de Vattel

There is a claim that the term "natural born citizen" in the US Constitution refers only to people who were children of US citizens, and therefore anyone not born of a citizen--even if they gained their citizenship at birth--is ineligible for the office of the President. Although this argument has been applied to some individuals in the past, it seems to have gotten some attention again due to the claim it applies to Nikki Haley, which is why I'm choosing to make this post now. Much of the information here is actually things I discovered a few years ago when people were making this accusation of Kamala Harris, but given it has been brought up again, it seemed a good time to post the information to the blog. Granted, one can find this information elsewhere, but there seems no harm in adding one more post on it.

That said, the purpose of this post isn't to try to get into the general debate of the term natural born citizen, but rather to examine a specific quote. There is a particular quote that is extremely popular among those who argue this claim that natural born citizens need US citizens for parents, and indeed is normally the main argument usedo. What I allude to is a quote from a French writer named Emmerich de Vattel (or Emmer de Vattel), who is claimed to have stated in his work The Law of Nations that "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." And so the conclusion is that the usage of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution is supposed to correspond to the quote in question.

As not everyone wishes to read a lengthy post, the short answer is that Vattel never used the phrase natural born citizen at all in this section, nor any French phrase that obviously corresponds with it, and it first showed up in a British translation of his work about a decade after the Constitution was written. So anyone who tries to appeal to Vattel is appealing to something he never actually wrote and is showing themselves to not know what they are talking about. Now it's time for the long answer.

First, let's back up and discuss the basic issue. In Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution, we see the following statement:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

This establishes that anyone who is not a natural born citizen is not eligible to be President (another section specifies these restrictions also apply to the Vice President). This requirement applies to no other office. But what is a natural born citizen?

The normal interpretation is that it simply refers to anyone who gained their United States citizenship at birth and is contrasted with those who gained their citizenship later in life. But an interpretation some have raised is that it refers only to those who gained their citizenship at birth and were the child of a citizen (the specifics of that vary--some claim only one parent being a citizen is required, some claim the father being a citizen is required, and some claim both must be citizens). An alternate argument arriving at the same conclusion is that contrary to the standard interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, people don't automatically become citizens just for being born in the United States. I've written previously about how that claim is wrong and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States regardless of the citizenship of their parent (as well as regardless of whether their parent is legally authorized to be in the United States). However, with United States v. Wong Kim Ark as currently binding precedent that says people born in the United States--at least of parents that are permanent legal residents--some separate the two ideas and say that even if someone has birthright citizenship from being born in the US, it doesn't make them a natural born citizen, which they claim which requires birthright citizenship and to be the child of a citizen.

The main point of evidence raised for this is a quote from Emer de Vattel's work "The Law of Nations", which has the full title of "The Law of Nations: Or, Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns." This work was originally in French ("Le Droit des gens: ou, Principes de la loi naturelle, appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains"), and in a translation, the following remark is found in Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

If you're familiar with history and have looked carefully at the translation cited (or read my "short answer" a few paragraphs ago), you might have already noticed a major problem with this argument. The Constitution was written in 1787 and then ratified in 1789 or 1790 (it was ratified by enough states to be put into effect in 1789, but it wasn't until 1790 that every state agreed). Yet the translation in question is from 1797, years later; I cannot find any indication that this specific translation predated this year. And to top it all off, it wasn't even an American translation, but a British one.

There was a translation of The Law of Nations available in English prior to this one, but it renders this passage differently:

"The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

The phrase "natural born citizens" is not found here, only "indigenes". Consulting multiple printings of translations prior to 1797, they all render it as the above. Translations printed in 1760, 1787, and 1793 all use the word "indigenes" (note that as these are older printings, sometimes the s looks like an f). This is the translation that Americans would have therefore been familiar with; and this even continues after the 1797 translation was published, as the Supreme Court case The Venus from 1814 shows. While not really relevant to the question of natural born citizens, the opinion says:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

The translation used above is taken from the earlier translation, not the 1797 one. The writers of the Constitution, and the general American public, could simply not have been aware of a usage of "natural born citizen" in a translation that hadn't existed yet and apparently was not well known in America for a while even afterwards.

At this point the reader is probably wondering what the original French said. Did it use the French version of "natural born citizen" or something similar? It says the following:

"Les Naturels, ou Indigènes sont ceux qui sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens."

The word "Indigènes" is what was translated as "natural born citizen" in the later translation and "indigenes" in the earlier one. Examining dictionaries, one finds that it means native or indigenous person. This does not seem a match at all for natural born citizen, and it is hard to believe that the Constitution writers and ratifiers were trying in any way to invoke Vattel with such a phrase.

So the idea that the writers of the Constitution were invoking Vattel when they wrote "natural born citizen" falls flat. That wasn't how it was translated in English at the time, and even if they were looking at the French, "natural born citizen" isn't the association one would normally end up with for "Indigènes".

Someone could, I suppose, try to argue that the translator believed that natural born citizen meant being born in a country with a citizen father, and use that to advance the claim for that being the meaning of natural born citizen. The problem is, we have no idea who translated it (it is uncredited as far as I can tell) and thus no reason to believe they had any special insight into the subject. Even worse, that's not the argument people make about the Law of Nations and natural born citizen; virtually everyone I've seen who invokes The Law of Nations as evidence for this meaning never argues on the basis of the translator, but claims that Vattel was the one who used the term, or at least that the Constitution's framers were influenced by the English translation. As has been shown quite decisively, that claim is completely false.

Thus, Vattel's work is of little if any help in deciding the definition of natural born citizen; people should look elsewhere for what this term means. The point of this post was to correct the error regarding Vattel rather than offer a general argument on the meaning, but I would be remiss to not at least mention what seems a much more promising quote on the subject. Namely, one from Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, an extremely influential treatise on law that would have been familiar to any English speaking lawyer (in America or Britain) at the time. In Book 1, Chapter 10, he writes:

"The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it."

So to him, a natural-born subject is born within the country, and those that are not are aliens. Later on in the same chapter he discusses cases where children born abroad are also natural born subjects in cases where their parents were in allegiance to the king, which would not of direct importance to this post is at least of tangential importance. However, following that discussion, he gives this quote:

"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien."

Although in these quotes the term "subject" is used rather than "citizen," after the Revolutionary War people were obviously no longer subjects of the king, but rather citizens of the United States. This being the source and therefore definition for natural born citizen is highly plausible, particularly concerning there as far as I can tell was virtually no debate or questions on what the term meant when they were putting the Constitution together. Even if someone thinks this isn't the origin, it's certainly far more plausible than the idea that they somehow got the term "natural born citizen" out of Vattel despite the applicable translation not being published yet, and the translation that was published at the time used "indigenes".

So in conclusion, the idea that "natural born citizen" is restricted to children of citizens because Vattel supposedly said that was what the term means is simply ridiculous. Vattel never used that phrase, he used the French term "indigènes" which is not an obvious match for natural born citizen, and the English translation that rendered it as such wasn't even done until after the Constitution was written and ratified. If someone wants to instead appeal to an unknown British translator a decade later as evidence that this was the understanding of the term, that is certainly their right. But no one should claim that Emmer de Vattel used the phrase, because he didn't, and those who make such a claim end up looking silly in doing so.

On the Importance of Verifying Quotes

A very frustrating thing you can see online, or even in books, is the tendency of people to simply copy a quote or claim without verifying the source at all. Thus one ends up with people throwing around false or at least misrepresented quotes all the time. It's especially frustrating because nowadays it's so much easier to check on these things.

Let's take an example. I saw someone say that that Winston Churchill said "The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." They gave no source. But discovering that there seems no evidence he said that should have been easy. All you have to do is take the quote, put it into a search engine, and see what comes up. If you find sources, all well and good. If you just find people repeating it without a source, or find people saying it's not true, then that's an indication it's not a true quote.

In this case, what happens if you put it into a search engine? What turns up for me are a few sites giving the quote with no citation, and some other sites saying there's no evidence at all he ever said it, like this one. It would have been very easy for someone, prior to claiming Winston Churchill said it, do a very quick search and see what turned up. But unfortunately, people don't do that. Granted, someone can say the quote (irrespective of who said it) is accurate, but it's still wrong to attribute it to someone who never said it.

For a contrast, let's consider the quote "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" by Franklin Roosevelt. If you put that into a search engine, the top results immediately give you sources, saying it's from his inaugural address. Indeed, the text of said address can be seen here and therefore verified. In a case like this, you can be sure the quote is accurate.

So before you go around posting a quote attributed to someone, please do just a quick search online for it to try to verify it's true. If you find evidence it's real, go ahead! But if you just find people saying it without a source--and especially if you find people saying it's not true at all--you should hesitate before accepting it as true and repeating it.

This also applies to "quotes lists" that people sometimes use in arguments. That is, they'll give a big string of quotes from people or from books to make some kind of argument. Many times, these quotes are simply copied from other sources without any attempt at verification. Before you offer one of these sorts of "quotes list", try to verify the quotes.

Of course, sometimes things can be a bit more complicated. Sometimes people do cite a source, but just because a source is cited doesn't mean it's necessarily true or represented properly. If one is trying to use a quote in an argument of some sort, you really should if possible make a point to verify it. One doesn't even necessarily have to get a physical copy; sources like the Internet Archive (my personal favorite), Google Books, Project Gutenberg, and HathiTrust allow you to read a number of sources for free online, though only the first two tend to have anything that's still copyrighted. In some cases you still have to look at the physical book itself, but my point is that many times you can check in the comfort of your own home. And even if you can't, you can go to WorldCat to see if there's any libraries with it, and even if not, various libraries let you make loan requests in which you identify the book you want and they can see if another library will loan it to them temporarily you. In fact, if it's only a few pages you want, you may be able to request those, which will allow them to simply scan those pages and send them to you electronically.

Of course, sometimes people offer a source, but it is cited very confusingly and it's difficult to figure out what the citation even is. In cases like this, usually it means it's just copied from someone else without checking. In such cases, again you should be very cautious in trusting them.

So what is perhaps the takeaway from all of this? Just because you see a quote attributed to someone (or to a work) on the Internet does not mean it's necessarily true. Plenty of times people will constantly be sharing quotes that are false even though it should be easy to check them. Nowadays there is just not an excuse for not doing the minimum amount of work to make sure that a quote is accurate nowadays, especially if you're using the quote in the context of some kind of argument.

So, again, before you repeat a quote you saw someone attribute to a particular person or a particular work, try to verify it. Put a search for it online and see what comes up. If a source is given, try to check it if possible. If you can't find a source or all the sources listed are confusing and hard to figure out, maybe you shouldn't try to assert the quote in question as fact.

Maybe this blog post will have no effect whatsoever, even to those who read this, and is just me screaming out into the wind. But if it makes even just one person more cognizant of the fact they should try to verify things before repeating them, I suppose it will have done its part.

Something Completely Different

I want to correct a bit of an error I've seen sometimes claimed online. Some have pulled out the following quote from the Super Mario Bros. instruction booklet:

The quiet, peace-loving Mushroom People were turned into mere stones, bricks, and even field horse-hair plants, and the Mushroom Kingdom fell into ruin. (page 1)

This has led to some asserting that Mario is actually a villain because he goes around breaking bricks that are actually the Mushroom People. While these comments are generally meant in a facetious sense, it is still in error when one examines this portion later in the same instruction booklet. While discussing power-ups, it says:

Mario's Friends
If you come across mushrooms who have been turned into bricks or made invisible, they reward you by giving you a power boost. With each boost Mario changes into a different, more powerful Mario, as shown below. 

As it made abundantly clear by that quote, the "bricks" that the Mushroom People were turned into are the blocks that give you a power-up, i.e. the ? Blocks (visible or invisible). These are not destroyed when you hit them. So, no, none of the people turned into bricks are destroyed in the game by Mario. The question then comes why there are still suck ? Blocks after the curse is broken. I don't think there has been any official explanation, but if one wants a fan speculation, perhaps there were always ? Blocks with this function, and all that happened with the curse was there there were more created by people who were turned into them.

In any event Mario appears cleared of this accusation that he's breaking the bricks people were turned into and killing them. This is obviously a bit different than the normal kind of thing I write on this blog (hence the post title), but I thought I might as well put this explanation out somewhere.

An Anti-Communion in the Hand Claims List Examined

A debated issue amongst some Catholics is the issue of "communion in the hand" and "communion on the tongue", that is, whether communion in the hand should be allowed or if it should be restricted only to receiving on the tongue, as it had been in the past.

The purpose of this post is not to try to offer a general argument on the subject; there is little I could say that has not been said by others. Still, if someone is curious about my position, it is that I see little reason for communion in the hand. Nevertheless, that does not mean I cannot recognize that there are some very poor arguments against it, which is where this post comes in.

There is a "list" of claims I've seen posted in various places online that purports to show condemnation of communion in the hand from even the earliest centuries of the church, apparently meant to disprove the claims of advocates of allowing communion in the hand who say that it had a long history in the earlier church prior to being changed into communion on the tongue exclusively. However, a good number of the claims in this list have their sources cited vaguely or no sources are cited at all. As I have seen various people essentially copy and paste this list, I was curious about the validity of it and attempted to look into some of these claims. I felt people might benefit from seeing the results of this.

As is often the case with such lists of quotes, it is difficult to determine what its source is, especially as there are different versions of it I have seen. While their claims are generally the same (that is, they will point to a particular person or council as their evidence), some versions will offer more clear citations or at least further information where others did not. As a result, for many of these quotes or citations I list, I will list multiple ones because there are multiple versions of the list.

St. Sixtus I (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
or
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

False quote of Sixtus, and is not clear if it refers to the Eucharist anyway. Although no citation is given for this, the quotation from the Latin allowed me to find it. The problem is that this isn't an actual letter of Sixtus (also known as Xystus). Rather, this is one of the False Decretals, a series of letters supposedly written by popes of the early centuries, but actually forgeries put together in the 9th century. The author or authors of the forgeries is unknown, but they appear to have lived in France and are referred to as Pseudo-Isidore. The letter in question can be viewed here or here (also formerly here, but by the time I put this blog post up this page had gone offline). The statement in question is found early on: "Cognoscat vestra sapientia, carissimi fratres, quia in hac sancta apostolica sede a nobis et reliquis episcopis ceterisque domini sacerdotibus statutum est, ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus."

But as noted, this is not an actual letter by Sixtus, but a forgery from centuries later. Thus it is utterly irrelevant. The fact the False Decretals were false has been known and accepted for centuries, but apparently the person who included this quote on the list was unaware of that. Even worse, even if this was legitimate, it does not say Eucharist, but "Sacred Vessels" (sacra vasa). Thus even if the Eucharist was in mind, the more probable interpretation would be that the sacred vessels in question are the containers (vessels) for the Eucharist, like a cup or a bowl. But that clearly says nothing about communion in the hand or on the tongue.

Now, I should note that the Liber Pontificalis does say that Sixtus "ordained that consecrated vessels should not be touched except by the ministering clergy." (see here for an English translation) However, this runs into the same problem as above--namely it would seem to at best be reference to the Eucharist containers (vessels), not the Eucharist itself. However, while the Liber Pontificalis has use in regards to the lives of the later popes, it is seen as a dubious source for the lives of the popes of the early centuries, including Sixtus. I should note that the Latin phrase in question is "ministeria sacra" (the original Latin can be seen here) which would seem to translate more logically as "sacred ministries", referring to office or duties, not any physical vessel. If so, that makes it even more dubious as referring to touching the Eucharist. That said, I expect the people who performed the linked English translation know Latin far better than I do, so there may be a context I am missing. In any event, this fails as proof of Sixtus making any decree against communion in the hand, though at least it doesn't rely on an outright forgery.

Thus, this cannot be used for evidence of Sixtus declaring anything about communion in the hand or mouth.

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283): Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

No citation given, but seems extremely unlikely any valid source offers evidence. Unfortunately, unlike the above, this doesn't even offer us a citation or quotation.

But let's see if we can find information about Eutychian that might confirm it. The Catholic Encyclopedia bluntly tells us in their article on him that "we have no details on his pontificate". The New Catholic Encyclopedia echoes similar sentiments in their article on him, saying "Beyond the dates of his pontificate, no reliable reports on Eutychian are extant, and no documents ascribed to him are authentic." Now, they do both note the claims of the Liber Pontificalis, but say the claims concerning him are dubious. Even if we were to accept the Liber Pontificalis as accurate when describing his pontificate, it says absolutely nothing at all about him preventing anyone from "taking the Sacred Host in their hand". 

So what, precisely, is the evidence that Eutychian forbade anyone from taking the Sacred Host in their hand? We know nothing definite about his pontificate and even the Liber Pontificalis, our best source (even if it is dubious in regards to accuracy for the early popes) makes no statements on it.

Thus no evidence is offered by this list, and the evidence seems rather strong against there being any source that provides confirmation of it.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is ONLY PERMITTED IN TIMES OF PERSECUTION or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon.” (Letter 93) The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.
or
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

Actually appears to provide evidence of communion in the hand. The second gives us no information as to where it is from, but thankfully, the first version offers us a source and in fact provides a little more context. The problem is, when viewed in context, it seems something rather different than "communion in the hand" is in view here. The letter is short so I will quote the entire thing, with the portion quoted above underlined:

"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time."

When viewed in context, however, Basil is not discussing the question of communion on the hand versus the tongue. Rather, he is discussing taking communion from the priest and keeping it at home, then taking it yourself without them being present. The distinction he is drawing is therefore whether it is taken in the presence of a priest or not. This really has nothing to do with the issue of communion in the hand because when one takes it in the hand in church, they are doing so in the presence of a priest or minister.

Indeed, Basil's full statement includes "even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand" which appears to describe communion in the hand! Because of that statement, this letter is often used by those who defend communion in the hand. The list makes no mention of this, nor does it offer any alternate explanation for his words.

Thus the list's citation of Basil is not only inaccurate, it seems downright dishonest.

The Council of Saragossa (380) Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
or
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

These seem to be misrepresentations. The canons of the Council of Saragossa can be found here on page 13 of "Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti".

You'll notice this says "Concilium Caesaraugustanium Primum" but that is because it is the Latin name of the council. This can be verified by the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article "Councils of Saragossa" which mentions their Latin name was "Concilia Caesaraugustania Prima" (they end in -a instead of -um because this reference is in the plural). Now, the only one that seems to mention the Eucharist is canon 3, which says:

"Ut qui eucharistiam in ecclesia accipit et ibi non eam sumit anathematizetur*

Item legit: Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam in ecclesia non sumpsisse**, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet.

* accipunt . . sumunt anathema sint M.
** consumpsisse in m. M."

The footnotes presumably refer to alternate manuscripts, so I included them.

My Latin is far from perfect, but from what I can tell it is saying that those who take the Eucharist from the church without eating it are anathema. This is confirmed in "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church" on page 121 which describes the applicable canon as "Condemns to perpetual anathema those who are convicted of not having eaten the sacrament of the Lord's Body given to them in church."

This has nothing to do with communion in the hand. Rather, the condemnation is for those who take it out of the church without consuming it. In fact, when I was searching on this, I found a German site that cited this as proof that communion in the hand was being practiced. They write "Die Differenzierung zwischen Empfang der Eucharistie und ihrem Verzehr legt nahe, dass die spanischen Bischöfe die Handkommunion voraussetzen" which according to Google Translate says "The differentiation between receiving the Eucharist and consuming it suggests that the Spanish bishops presuppose communion in hand."

The Council of Toledo's citation is no better. There is only one mention of the Eucharist that I see, Canon 14. This canon (and the others) are available in English on page 420 of volume 2 of Hefele's "History of the Council of the Church" which can be seen here. It says "Those who do not really consume the Holy Eucharist which they have received from the priest, shall be treated as "sacrilegious."" That is the only reference to the Eucharist I see. This is confirmed in the aforementioned "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church" on page 152 at where it describes canon 14 as "Orders that any one who shall have received the Holy Eucharist, without eating it, shall be driven from the Church as guilty of sacrilege."

So Toledo's canon does repeat what was said in Saragossa. But like Saragossa, it said nothing about prohibiting communion in the hand, and could imply the opposite. Thus the list's claim that this forbade people to take communion in the hand is a massive misrepresentation of what was actually said.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful. “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith”
or
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
or
Pope St. Leo the Great is less well known for something very important to liturgical studies. He is one of the most ancient witnesses to the practice of Communion on the tongue. Notably, Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: “Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur” (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as:
This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith.
“Ore” is here in the ablative and in the context, it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.

Vague statement. This is the only one I've seen that has four different versions. Now, the final version listed (unlike the others) tells us that it's in Sermon 91, available here. This translation renders it as "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 it is clearly the same passage. 

However, this quote really says nothing concerning communion on the tongue versus in the hand, as all it says is that the communion goes into the mouth, which occurs even for communion in the hand because you then put it into your mouth. Now, if Leo did in fact explicitly say people should receive it on the tongue as list claims, that would be a point, but ultimately no source is given for that. The only source we get is for the quote which is a vague statement that does not provide evidence one way or the other.

Pope St. Gregory The Great (590-604) In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito had a miracle occur during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

Vague. The story about the miracle occurs here (it continues onto page 117), and it does mention he put communion into the man's mouth, though whether this was typical for him or was something he did for the specific circumstances is unclear. Still, it's the first one we've seen that unambiguously refers to the priest putting the communion into someone's mouth, so I suppose that is something.

The John the Deacon citation could clarify the matter if it does indeed say this was his manner of giving it, but the citation is too vague to verify. It is not even clear which John the Deacon it refers to, though it would probably be Johannes Hymonides as he did write a biography of Gregory the Great. It can be found in volume 75 of Migne's Patrologia Latina and runs from column 59 to 242 (it begins here). As no information is given as to where in the work this is found, I do not plan to look through all of it. Given the various misrepresentations and errors noted above, there is a reasonable chance that they are representing it accurately. Nevertheless, should anyone want to look for it, it can be viewed at the link I offered.

The Synod of Rouen (650) Condemned Communion in the hand to halt the widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Synod of Rouen says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths.”
or
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. 

This may qualify, but may be a mistranslation. We can find the decrees of this council in the same place we found those of Saragossa, namely the work "Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti" (page 268). Rotomagense is Latin for Rouen, so this should be the Synod of Rouen.

Now, my Latin's not all that good. But I don't see anything like this other than maybe the second canon, which reads (and I apologize for any errors in transcription):

II. Ut missam celebrans communicare non omittat
Dictum est nobis quod quidam presbyteri celebrata missa detrectantes ipsi sumere divina mysteria quae consecrarunt, calicem domini mulierculis quae ad missas offerunt tradant vel quibusdam laicis qui dijudicare corpus domini nesciunt, id est discernere inter cibum spiritualem atque carnalem, quod quantum sit omni ecclesiasticae religioni contrarium pietas fidelium novit: unde omnibus presbyteris interdicimus utnullus in posterum hoc facere praesumat, sed ipse cum reverentia sumat et diacono aut subdiacono qui ministri sunt altaris colligenda tradat, illud etiam attendat ut eos propria manu communicet, nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat: Corpus domini et sanguis prosit tibi ad remissionem peccatorum et ad vitam aeternam: Si quis haec transgressus fuerit, quia deum omnipotentam, contemnit et quantum in ipso est inhonorat, ab altari removeatur.

Now, in regards to the specific quote offered of "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths," the Latin text that appears to correspond with it is "nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat." This reads roughly "however, [the priest] puts the eucharist in the hands of no lay person or woman, but puts [it] only into his/her/its mouth with these words" (the words follow). However, although the translation in the list claims it says you put it "in their mouths" (plural), the Latin actually uses "ejus" (alternatively spelled eius), which means his/her/its (literally, "of him/her/its"). Notably, its form is is singular, whereas the word in plural ("of them" or "their") would be eorum or earum, depending on gender.

This, therefore, brings up a question: Who is the "his/her/its" here? Is it referring to a layperson or the priest himself? I'm far from an expert in Latin, so I can't say which is the more natural construction. However, if we look again into the "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church", this time on page 109, it appears to take the interpretation it refers to the priest putting it into his own mouth. This work simply says Canon 2 says "Orders that the priest that celebrates mass shall communicate himself." In this work's view, then, the purpose of the canon is to confirm that the priest should give it to himself. In other words, it is forbidding a layperson from giving it to the priest, and saying the priest must put it into his own mouth. Therefore, the issue according to that work is not communion in the hand, but self-communication.

In some fairness, the canon does seem to not be solely concerned with self communication of the priest, as at the beginning it complains about priests giving the chalice to women or laymen who "qui dijudicare corpus domini nesciunt" ("do not know how to judge the body of the lord") and says the priests should give it to the deacons. So it does seem to be critical of having lay people hand it out, but that is a different issue entirely from communion in the hand. The only portion that seems to relate to the issue of communion in the hand is the aforementioned "nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat" which as noted may not be referring to communion in the hand at all. Still, unlike various examples above, it isn't an implausible interpretation, so this one ultimately ends up ambiguous in my view. Perhaps someone more familiar with Latin would be able to better figure it out, though again the Manual of Councils work cited above appears to view the "ejus" as referring to the priest himself.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. The Council of Constantinople which was known as “in trullo,” (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.
or
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

I cannot find it in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the Council in Trullo (also known as the Quinsext Council, which is what I will use) appears to allow communion in the hand. Now, we'll take this one at a time. First, the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Where did the Sixth Ecumenical Council it do this? What canon was it? I see no mention of the eucharist, communion, or excommunication here. Is there more to the council elsewhere that is not at the link I cited? I tried looking elsewhere but could not find it. Again the citation is too vague to verify it.

The lengthier citation does also refer to the separate "In Trullo" council, also known as the Quinsext Council, which was held in Constantinople about a decade after the Sixth Ecumenical Council. You see, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and for that matter the Fifth) did not issue any disciplinary canons, the Quinsext Council did so. Perhaps all that is being cited is the Quinsext Council. However, it very clearly (even in the expanded version) writes "Sixth Ecumenical Council" and gives the dates for said council at the top, so it is misleading to put that in the heading if only the Quinsext Council was in mind. And if the Sixth Ecumenical Council was meant separately, nothing is cited from it.

With apparently nothing in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, we turn to the Quinsext Council. Its canons can be found here. What seems to be appealed to is canon 58, which reads:

"None of those who are in the order of laymen may distribute the Divine Mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be present. But whoever shall dare to do such a thing, as acting contrary to what has been determined shall be cut off for a week and thenceforth let him learn not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think."

This must be the one in question, as only two canons give the punishment as being of a week, and the other (Canon 27) is concerning clothes. So at least this one seems to actually be there. However, obviously nothing is explicitly said about communion in the hand, only the issue of giving it to yourself. Now, the list claims that giving Communion to yourself "is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant." But is it what happens? It could be interpreted instead as stressing the importance of receiving it from the priest, whether the priest place it in the hand or the mouth; if the priest puts it in your hand and you put it in your mouth, you still have received it from the priest. The canon itself, therefore, seems ambiguous on this specific matter. 

However, there is another canon that appears to clarify the issue and in fact strongly indicate communion in the hand was being practiced. Namely, canon 101:

"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."

The reference to "arranging his hands in the form of a cross" indicates that they are taking it in their hand. Indeed, it then criticizes those who "instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift". Thus, if we are to accept the Quinsext Council as a source, it appears to endorse communion in the hand. Indeed, its apparent simultaneous endorsement of communion in the hand while prohibiting laymen to distribute communion to themselves while a priest is present would seem to also go against the list's claim that communion in the hand counts as the faithful giving communion to themselves.

Now, it should be noted that the Catholic Church does not accept the council as authoritative (as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council"), so it doesn't really mean anything dogmatic. Nevertheless, the very source appealed to by the list strongly indicates the usage and acceptance of communion in the hand. Even more importantly, because this is the same council that gave the prohibition on self-communicating, that would also mean that the list's claim that self-communicating "is of course what happens" with communion in the hand is rejected by this council.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

Mostly accurate. One may view it here, which uses the same translation. For the most part this is an accurate representation--certainly, the quotation itself is accurate--but two things should be noted. First, what Aquinas is discussing is not communion in the hand vs communion on the tongue, but the question of who should dispense it, with him asserting that only the priest should do so. If a priest gives communion to someone in their hand and they take it, the priest is still dispensing it. Thus while Aquinas is coming down against a lay person being the one to distribute communion (aside from "necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency"), he is not directly saying anything about communion on the tongue or in the hand. That said, his reasoning could easily be used against communion in the hand, so I would not say it is wrong to cite it for evidence.

Second, the citation is in slight error. The part, question, and article are correct, but the quote comes not from a Reply to Objection 8 (there are only three objections), but the section beginning with "I answer that..."


The Council of Trent (1545-1565) “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

Does not seem to be about communion in the hand or communion on the tongue. First, even the quote given above would seem to not relate to giving communion in hand or on the tongue, but rather whether only the priest should be the one to give it to people. It does not seem to be about the issue in question about the tongue and hand at all.

But let us look it up. Now, the Council of Trent was a very long council with a lot of documents, would it be too much to at least tell me which of its over 20 sessions this is from? My guess is that it would be Session 13 (the session about about the Eucharist), and I can find something sort of similar there. From Session 13, Chapter 8:

"Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from the priests; but that the priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."

If this is in view, the quote offered is a considerable paraphrase. And the actual version is still not very applicable to the claim being advanced, as it says nothing at all about hands or tongues. Perhaps the intended claim is what was mentioned in the list's claims about the the Quinsext Council, that the statement of the laymen receiving communion from the priests is to be understood as on the tongue, because otherwise they would be communicating themselves. But is this what is in mind? The target of the quote seems to be less about the laity and more a verification that it is correct for the priest to take communion themselves rather than having to take it from another priest. I say this because of the anathemas issued by Session 13, the only one to say anything about the above subject is Canon 10, which reads:

"If any one shall say, that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself; let him be anathema."

As we can see, the focus here is on the ability of the priest to take communion directly himself, not anything about the laity; there is no canon or anathema on that subject.

So what is the conclusion? Well, nothing about tongues or hands seems to be said in Session 13 of Trent, only a statement about people receiving it from the priests and a solemn declaration that priests can take their own communion.


Pope St. Pius X When Pope St. Pius X was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

No citation given. Unfortunately, no sources are cited and I have not been able to confirm this. Now, if anyone does know of a source I would be interested, but note that any source should not only provide evidence he took it on the tongue, but also that he "was not allowed" to receive it in the hand.


Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) “[Communion on the tongue] rests upon a tradition of many centuries” and “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body. . . . “In addition, this manner of communicating . . . gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained. . . .“[Communion in the hand carries with it certain dangers.] They are a lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine.” Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, issued by the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship Pope Paul VI, May 29, 1969
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)
or
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

Taken out of context. Now, "Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion" is the same document as Memoriale Domini. It can be read here. Not quoted above, however, is the statement "It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves." Additionally, from context it is clear that the statement that communion on the tongue "must be retained" refers to how, in areas where communion in the hand is permitted (this is not the case for all countries), communion on the tongue must also be permitted. It is a declaration that communion on the tongue must be allowed if the recipient wants it, but not that it must be given to every recipient.

Pope John Paul II To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.(Dominicae Cenae, 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaest. Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
or
POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Taken out of context. There are two documents here, which we'll do one at a time. First, Dominicae Cenae. However, this quote is taken completely out of context. Here is its full paragraph:

"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."

As you can see, immediately after the quote, it goes on to say that the Church can give this ability to people who are not priests or deacons. So this has been taken blatantly out of context.

Now for the other one, Inaestimabile Donum. However, this cites it incorrectly. It says it's in sectioon 9; the quote is actually in section 10:

"Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." However, this must be understood in the context of what comes in the section immediately following: "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity."

Thus it does allow for lay people to distribute it; section 10 is therefore either criticizing when a priest leaves it completely to the laity, or is saying that it should not be done under the circumstances allowing for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. I am aware, of course, that some have (not without reason) snarkily referred to extraordinary ministers as "ordinary ministers" due to their constant use--but that is a separate issue. Also notice that the above is concerning not communion in the hand at all, but the issue of the laity distributing it.


The only ones to communicate always standing and with their hands outstretched were, from the beginning, the Arians, who obstinately denied the Divinity of Christ and who could not see in the Eucharist any more than a simple symbol of “union,” which can be taken and handled at will. 

No citation for the Arian claim, and seems to contain an error concerning their beliefs.  First, postings of this list will sometimes give what it claims are proofs from scripture for communion in the mouth towards the end, but anyone can of course look up scripture themselves, so there's no need for me to analyze that portion. However, the lists will also sometimes include the above claim, which warrants looking at.

No citation whatsoever is given for this claim that the Arians took communion always standing and with their hands outstretched. Given the issues we have seen in this list, in which things are taken out of context, mistranslated, or possibly even made up, I am therefore dubious of this claim. This is especially true when one considers it appears to misrepresent Arian beliefs, at least as far as I understand Arianism. It says that the Arians denied the divinity of Christ. But as far as I understand Arian beliefs, Arians did not deny the divinity of Christ. What Arians denied was that Christ (or the Son) was eternal like the Father; they claimed that Christ was created by the Father and therefore lesser, but they did not deny the divinity or even deity of Christ. For example, in a creed passed by by the Third Council of Sirmian (an Arian council), it is stated "and that the Son of God himself our Lord and God, as it is said, assumed flesh or body, that is man from the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel foretold." Thus, Christ is identified as "our Lord and God". This can be seen here (and I know, it's Wikipedia, but I have checked its source for the translation and it matches).

Thus, it seems its claim about Arian beliefs is wrong; why should I trust its claims that they were always standing with their hands outstretched? But even if Arians actually did deny the Divinity of Christ, what evidence is there that they took the Eucharist always standing and with their hands outstretched? None is given, and various inaccuracies previously seen in the list give me reason to doubt the accuracy of this claim.

CONCLUSION

As we have seen, most of these quotes are misrepresented, simply false, or are so vaguely cited it is impossible to determine their accuracy. A few are fine, to be fair, but the majority are not. This is exactly why people should not simply copy and paste quotes they see online without trying to verify or check on them. It just leads to issues like this where people make arguments based on inaccurate information. People who argue in favor of only giving communion on the tongue do their side no good by just copying and pasting lists of inaccurate quotes.

Hopefully, this has been of use to someone.