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.
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.
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.
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.
So I recently (and somewhat randomly) have came across lists of supposed times that Paul either quotes pagan philosophers or gives statements extremely close to what they did (some lists will count things from others from the New Testament, but Paul gets top billing for these so he'll be focused on). The reasons for these lists vary--some are trying to argue for pagan influence on Christianity or on Paul, while others just think the similarities are interesting but do not mean any attack. Unfortunately, the problem is a whole lot of these are false.
I won't be going through every single one I've seen. Most of these supposed parallels resemble each other only superficially or they are such general moral ideas that parallels would be expected. In such cases, those predisposed to accept these as Paul taking ideas from the pagans will accept them in spite of the difficulties, while those not so predisposed would find them to be major stretches. There is little I can say about such cases because it is unlikely I could influence people's judgments. I should additionally note that because there were a ton of writings by pagan philosophers, by the simple law of averages we would find some similarities.
I also will only be going through ones that have a clear enough citation to check. Some give a vague citation, or no citation at all. Such cases I cannot give any credence to if they cannot tell me exactly where the parallel is.
First, though, I should address a few cases where Paul does appear to be quoting a pagan. As some Bible translations like the NIV will note in footnotes, Acts 17:28 has Paul quote from Epimenides (Cretan philosopher) and Aratus (Cilician Stoic philosopher). And indeed, some have noted that Paul's speech in Acts 17:22-31 has some considerable parallels to Stoicism, a Greek philosophy. But one should note the context; Paul was speaking to a bunch of people who would have been familiar with, and perhaps adherents of, Stoicism (indeed, Acts 17:18 has him debating with Stoics). Paul seems to assume they were Stoics, saying "As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’" In this he is quoting from Aratus, a Stoic philosopher. Aratus was from Cilicia (in modern-day Turkey), not Athens which is where Paul was. So why does Paul say "as some of your own poets have said"? Most probably he is referring to Aratus being a Stoic. Again, the point is to try to frame things in their own terms; he had probably done some research as to their beliefs ahead of time in order to do this.
The other two cases often cited are Titus 1:12, quoting Epimenides' Cretica in referring to the Cretans as being liars, and 1 Corinthians 15:33, possibly quoting Menander with "Bad company corrupts good character". Paul does not specify who he was referring to in Titus 1:12, merely saying "one of their own prophets." This apparently comes from a work called the Cretica, which we actually have no surviving copy of, and only know this is apparently the source because some later Christians mentioned it. The point here of this quote here, however, is not to make use of any kind of pagan philosophy, but merely to make the point that a Cretan makes such an accusation. Lastly, in regards to 1 Corinthians 15:33 and its statement of "bad company corrupts good character", it is not even clear if Paul is explicitly offering a quote from Menander. The quote seems to originate from Menander's play "Thaïs", though as Paul does not explicitly say he is quoting from anyone, it is entirely possible that the phrase had simply made its way into being a popular expression. Even if Paul is quoting it directly, it should also be noted that Menander was a playwright, not a philosopher.
So I do not think these quotes prove any kind of undue pagan philosophical influence on the theology of either Paul or Christianity. The ones in Acts are used in an attempt to appeal to Stoics so it makes sense to try to emphasize points of commonality, the Titus quote has nothing to do with theology as Paul uses it, and Corinthians is a quote from a playwright rather than a philosopher; further, it is not clear if Paul was even appealing to him specifically.
With those out of the way, let us look into some of the claims online I have seen, and if they match up with the facts.
Let's take them one at a time. Here are the cases that are claimed (this is a compilation from several sources):
"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV) vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta (Buddhist scripture) "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do" Euripides by Hippolytus "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV) vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1
Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who
contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only
“through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their
working effects." Phaedo by Plato "For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not
the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me –
the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato
Some of these gave more specific citations for their sources, which I'll get to in the more in-depth explanation of them. The short version of these: The first one is just a general Greek expression and is unlikely to be taken directly from the work in question, the second is an inaccurate quote, the third and fourth are just straight up false, while the fifth and sixth are translated in a way to make them sound more biblical than they originally were.
"Kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14 (KJV) vs. "Kick against the pricks" Agamemnon by Aeschylus
As this was a general Greek expression, it is unlikely that it was specifically appealing to this work. While the specific case I am referring to appealed to Agamemnon by Aeschylus, I saw another person try to find this as a parallel to Euripedes' work Bacchae, which also uses it. However, the response is the same to either, that it was just an expression. But as Agamemnon is the specific one here, I'll start with that. The citation was given to page 255 of The Agammenon of Aeschylus published in 1831, which can be found here. This does mention how the Greek in the New Testament for this phrase is almost (but not exactly) the same.
The first problem we see here is that this quote has nothing to do with theology. Not only is Agamemnon a work of fiction rather than one of philosophy, no real philosophy is being expressed by Paul here.
But more importantly, let's stop and look at the phrase: "Kick against the pricks." (modern translations render it "kick against the goads") This was a Greek expression that meant to struggle futilely. But this is an expression, not a quotation. It can be found in various Greek literature. As noted, even those who try to claim Paul was using this phrase refer to different works, usually Agamemnon or Bacchae. But this is found in more than just those. As stated by the NET Bible's footnote for Acts 26:14:
"Sayings which contain the imagery used here (kicking against the goads) were also found in Greek writings; see Pindar, Pythians 2.94-96; Euripides, Bacchae 795."
Another one is Prometheus Unbound (note some translations render it figuratively rather than literally). It was not even exclusive to Greek, as it can be found in Latin (for example, Terence uses it in Act 1 Scene 2 of Phormio, with the translation rendering it as "kick against the spur").
If I use the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" it doesn't mean you can point to a specific usage of the phrase and then say I was quoting that. No, I was just making use of the expression. Even if an expression was created or popularized by a particular work, it can enter the general lexicon while losing any connection to it. So it is a considerable assumption to claim that this phrase was specifically going back to some pagan work that used it, as it was a popular expression.
One thing someone might ask is why a Greek phrase is being used here, if as stated in Acts 26:14, the voice who said it was speaking Hebrew (or Aramaic, depending on how you want to translate Acts 26:14). There are two possibilities. The first is that this expression had made its way into Hebrew/Aramaic from the Greek;
while it is true we don't have recorded instances of it being used in
the language, we're missing a lot of material and thus it could have been used and simply not mentioned in the works we have. The second is that Paul, when describing it in Greek, decided to translate it using an
idiom. One would not translate the Spanish phrase "eso es el colmo"
literally into English, because its literal meaning ("that is the
height") does not properly carry the meaning. Instead they would use
something like "this is the last straw" as that, while having a
different literal meaning, maintains the meaning of the idiom.
So while this theoretically could have been a citation, it is a considerable assumption to think that using a particular expression is a reference to a specific work that used that expression. But at least this one does have the words. That is better than we can see in our next two examples, which rely on misquotes.
"Work
out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phillipians 2:12 (KJV)
vs "Work out your own salvation with diligence" Mahaparinibbana sutta
(Buddhist scripture)
This is a mangled and paraphrased version of something Buddha said. The specific source given for this is actually not a direct source to the Mahaparinibbana sutta, but rather page 89 of a work called "Buddhism, Taoism, and Other Far Eastern Religions" by J. Isamu Yamamoto. It offers the following quote:
"Be lamps unto yourselves. Be a refuge unto yourselves. Do not turn to any external refuge.... Work out your own salvation with diligence" (Mahaparinibbana-sutta 2:33; 6:10; from the Pali Canon)"
The context here is it is comparing and contrasting Buddhist beliefs with those of Christianity. Rather unfortunately, it is unclear what the "2:33" and "6:10" are supposed to mean (I assume the second is in view, as the ellipses indicates they were from separate sections). But if one searches through this Sutta, one sees "salvation" nowhere, at least in the translations I consulted. A search online for the phrase in question has some sources claim it was Buddha's last words, which are recorded in this Sutta. But the last words are rendered quite differently in the translations I have looked at. For example, this translation renders it as "persist with diligence." While the word "diligence" is found there, there is nothing about salvation.
According to this, it's simply a fake quote, a mangled version of Buddha's last words. There's more information in the link, but the short version is:
"So here we have an interesting chain of events. Carus, bless him, mangles the Mahaparinibbana Sutta in order to make the Buddha’s words resemble the New Testament, and then Suzuki, quoting from memory during an interview, slightly simplifies Carus’ rendering. And then Suzuki’s version is plucked out of the interview and becomes a genuine Fake Buddha Quote."
So it's not a legitimate quote from any Buddhist text. Those who pass this around therefore have simply not bothered to actually look up the source to make sure it's there, which it is not. I can understand how, in decades past it may have been very difficult to check; but in our age of so much being online, there is little excuse for not doing proper checking.
"For the good that I would I do not: but the
evil which I would not, that I do." Romans 7:19 (ESV) vs "The good that
I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do"
Euripides by Hippolytus
The Euripedes quote is simply false. In the place where I saw this cited, it does not give a direct citation from our source as to where this was said in Euripides; instead we are told to look at the work "Luther's Aesop" by Carl Springer on pages 137-138 (the 2011 printing is cited). I was able to find a copy of this. Here is what is stated:
"Even after his conversion, Paul had to lament (Rom. 7:24): "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Despite his best efforts, he complains: "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Rom. 7:19), echoing the words of the conflicted Phaedra in Euripedes' tragedy Hippolytus, who has fallen in love with her stepson despite knowing it was a very bad idea: "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly, But we can't bring it to achievement."
We can see immediately that the person who offered the above quotes is misquoting Luther's Aesop. It is claimed that Luther's Aesop, quoting Hippolytus, says "The good that I would I do not; but the evil which I would not do, that I do." But the quote in Luther's Aesop is "We know the good, we apprehend it clearly. But we can't bring it to achievement." While there are some vaguely similar sentiments, the quotes are rather different.
But where was this quote given by Hippolytus? The citation that Luther's Aesop offers is "Hippolytus, lines 380-81."
We can read the applicable lines here. Regrettably it does not make it clear where individual line numbers end, only telling us when every 5 lines ends, so here's the entirety of 380 to 384:
"we know and understand what is noble but do not bring it to completion. Some fail from laziness, others because they give precedence to some other pleasure than being honorable. Life's pleasures are many, long leisurely talks—a pleasant evil—"
So that says basically the same thing as what was offered in Luther's Aesop. Again, it is hard to see Paul's statement as being a quote of any kind. But those are translations. Let us look at what the original Greek text said and see if they're that similar. We can find it here. Lines 380-381 are:
These are clearly entirely different statements. Thus this whole claim of Paul quoting from Hippolytus's work is flatly wrong. At most, someone can claim they express similar sentiments, but there is little reason to believe Paul took this specifically from Hippolytus.
"But if any widow have children or
nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home" 1 Timothy 5:4 (KJV)
vs "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to
show piety at home." Act IV of Andria, by Terence
The Terence quote appears false. This is a little vague, as only the act
is cited rather than anything more specific. Still, at least it's better
than just citing the play without anything more. However, no one who
cites this seems able to point to exactly where in Act 4 this statement
is made. So, Act 4 in English can be found here. Do
a search for "widow" and nothing pops up. Neither does "children"
("child" does appear but in a different context). Searching for "home" or
"piety" turns up nothing relevant either.
Of course, it could be a
matter of a different translation, but one would still expect one of
those words to show up. I did skim Act 4 to see if I could find anything
similar, but found nothing. Still, let us look at the original. Act 4 in its entirety in the original Latin can be found here, though if one would prefer to see the full play at once, go here.
The
word "widow" in Latin is viuda. So do a search for "viuda". Nothing
pops up. Now, in Latin words can take different forms based on how it's
used in a sentence. I would think this would be in the nominative form (which
would be "viuda") but just in case, I did a search for "viud" on that
page, as all forms of the word begin with that (for example viudae,
viudam, viudarum). No matches. Trying to search for the Latin
equivalents of other words we see here turns up nothing either. So this
one seems simply made up.
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1
Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) vs. "I am very far from admitting that he who
contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only
“through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their
working effects." Phaedo by Plato
The Plato quote is translated inaccurately. Supposedly the usage of "through a glass darkly" by Paul is being taken from Plato, but it's actually the other way around; namely, the translation of Plato is taking it from Paul.
One can see the quote from Phaedo here. The page does not state the translation, but from some research I see it is from a translation by Benjamin Jowett. Now, at first glance this seems very powerful. But even simply seeing the above, one wonders "wait, why is "through a glass, darkly" in quotation marks there?" The answer is that it's because that's not actually in the text, but rather a paraphrase. This is presumably the translator showing that they were paraphrasing it according to the New Testament. Why they chose to do that I am not sure, but perhaps they simply liked the phrase.
We can verify this by tracking it down in another translation. First, slightly more context for the quote offered above:
"I dare say that the simile is not perfect - for I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existence through the medium of ideas, sees them only "through a glass darkly," any more than he who sees them in their working and effects."
Now let us consult the translation at perseus.tufts.edu. It is split across two pages, however, but they are here and here. This translation reads:
"Now perhaps my metaphor is not quite accurate; for I do not grant in the least that he who studies realities by means of conceptions is looking at them in images any more than he who studies them in the facts of daily life."
"Perhaps though my analogy is not quite exact since I am not at all certain that he who examines realities in logic does not do so in mere images and thus is no better off than someone who examines them in their deeds."
Thus we can see this is the same quote, but obviously a different translation. But one notices that rather than "through a glass darkly" we instead see just "in images" or "in mere images."
But what of the underlying Greek? Thankfully, pulling it up is fairly easy. As we accessed it in the Perseus Tufts website we know that it is in sections 99e-100a, so we can pull that up in the Greek! It is here and here, again split into two pages:
This appears to be the Greek sentence that is being translated in the above quotes:
I bolded the portion that reads out as "through a glass darkly". One need not know any Greek to note the fact that neither this phrase nor anything resembling it is found in the Greek of Plato. Thus, it is clear that the usage of "through a glass darkly" was simply a translator paraphrasing Plato's actual words to insert a famous biblical phrase into it. Therefore, Paul took nothing from this section of Plato, but the translator who translated this section of Plato took it from Paul!
Thus this similarity comes completely due to a a problem with the translation. I should notice something else; in some of these lists I have observed, the quotations from Plato are from translations by Benjamin Jowett, the same person who did the above translation. If Jowett was willing to essentially rewrite a statement in order to make a biblical reference, it makes one wonder how many other times he may have rendered something to sound more biblical. So be cautious trusting any parallels that come from a Jowett translation unless you have checked the Greek or at least another English translation. Our last statement examined with be another example of Jowett doing this.
"For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not
the gospel!" 1 Corinthians 9:16 (KJV) vs. "But necessity was laid upon me –
the word of God I thought ought to be considered first." Apology by Plato
Like the above, only looks similar because of the specific Plato translation. We can see Plato's Apology (Benjamin Jowett's translation) in full here and indeed the quote is there. In greater context, it says "Then I went to one man after another,
being not unconscious of the enmity which I provoked, and I lamented and
feared this: but necessity was laid upon me,—the word of God, I
thought, ought to be considered first. " Now, the first part of the quotes about necessity being laid up is essentially the same except for the change in tense, and the second portion, while more different, is still similar sentiments. The problem is that this similarity exists only because Jowett, intentionally or not, has skewed the wording to sound more like something from the Bible.
Let's compare another translation. Henry Cary also translated this, which can be found here:
Cary's rendition says:
"After
this I went to others in turn, perceiving indeed, and grieving and
alarmed, that I was making myself odious; however, it appeared necessary
to regard the oracle of the god as of the greatest moment, and that, in
order to discover its meaning, I must go to all who had the reputation
of possessing any knowledge."
Another translation, by Harold
Fowler, is found here:
"After
this then I went on from one to another, perceiving that I was hated,
and grieving and fearing, but nevertheless I thought I must consider the
god's business of the highest importance. So I had to go, investigating
the meaning of the oracle, to all those who were reputed to know
anything."
These alternate translations are much more different from Paul's writing. The similarity of "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes, and "god's business" or "oracle of the god" is a much poorer match for "the gospel" than Jowett's "word of God" translation.
But what of the Greek? Well, the Greek can be found
here. It seems not to have the final portion, but includes the initial part, and it has:
Here the "necessity is/was laid upon me" vanishes especially when we compare the text. "For necessity is laid upon me" was, in the original Greek of Corinthians, ἀνάγκη γάρ μοι ἐπίκειται. You may notice that this construction is not found in Plato's work. And, of course, the rest is rather different from what Paul says also. Thus the similarity is really only there thanks to Jowett making it sound more like something from the Bible; not only does he use the same verbiage, he also uses "word of God" despite that not being what Plato says.
So again, if you see any proposed similarity between something Plato wrote and something Paul wrote (or anything in the Bible), be sure to check with another translation because Jowett has a tendency to make things sound more biblical than they did in the original text. There are other examples I have seen of this, but I think the examples shown far are sufficient.
Conclusion
The five quotes examined here are false; the ones that aren't simply made up come from inaccurate or highly paraphrased translations. Again, I have not looked through every such quote I have come across, only the ones where they actually looked similar and in which the citation was clear enough for me to look up (I also felt it unnecessary to do more with the ones coming from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato, for as shown he can skew the text to sound more Christian than it did).
Sometimes you will see supposedly "anti-women" quotes by notable Christians, sometimes in a list. Now, it is beyond dispute that there have been various genuine quotes of this kind throughout history. However, many of these quotes, especially the extreme ones, are inaccurate or misrepresented. This post will discuss some of those alleged quotes. Some of these quotes are presented in different versions; in cases where I have seen multiple ones, I will quote the differing versions.
Quote #1:
This one is attributed to Martin Luther:
"If they become tired or even die, it does not matter. Let them die in childbirth — that is why they are there."
An "extended" version of this is the following:
"Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing.
If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem.
They are made for that."
These are often given without any citation at all. However, I actually did find one site that gave a citation, but the citation was in German and the quotation was initially confusing to figure out. It turned out to refer to a German collection of Luther's writings, so I had to find that, turn to the page to figure out what it was. Then, since I don't know German, I had to figure out where I could find the work in English, then find the exact quote in the English to see how it was rendered. It was a bit of an odyssey, but in the end I discovered it.
This quote can be found in English in Volume 45, Page 46, of "Luther's Works" as
part of an essay called "The State of Marriage." Occurring towards the end, here is the full
paragraph:
"Physicians are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is
forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and
becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty,
and foul-smelling. That which should have issued in fruitfulness and
propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is
terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot
take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we know how
weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are
healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves
weary–or ultimately bear themselves out–that does not hurt. Let them
bear themselves out. That is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health."
The underlined portion is the quote in question, though obviously with different phrasing due to being a different translation. The problem is that when we see this in context, Luther is actually prescribing what he views as health advice. His statement that women should have children even if they die is given in the context of saying that it is preferable because they would be healthier, and a healthy shorter life is preferable to a long one in poor health. Whatever one may think of the actual medical value of Luther's statement, to use this as some kind of staunchly anti-women quote is really not correct.
Now, you may have noticed that in the full context, the phrase "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing" is nowhere to be found, despite the fact that the other version of the quote said, "Take women away from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem.
They are made for that." So where does that come from?
I haven't seen this quote given with a source, but a work called The Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant (specifically, the volume on the Reformation) puts those two quotes next to each other, though it is clear from the usage of quotation marks and separate footnotes that they are separate quotes. However, I am not sure if that the source for the above, because the way he renders those quotes are:
"Take women from their housewifery, and they are good for nothing." "If women get tired and die of bearing, there is no harm in that; let them die as long as they bear; they are made for that."
(footnotes omitted) Quote is available here. As we can see, the translation is different from the quote I saw. Now, the citations for these are "Maulde, Women of the Renaissance, 467" and "Werke X-2, 301, in Maritain, 171." We already have the latter so there is no difficulty, but what of the first citation of Women of the Renaissance? Unfortunately, having looked it up, it gives no citation. The full quote it offers is (ellipses original):
"Talk of household concerns is women's affair," said Luther: "they are mistresses and queens there, and more than a match for cicero and the finest orators . . . But take them from their housewifery and they are good for nothing . . . Woman is born to manage a household; 'tis her lot, her law of nature: man is born for war and polity, to administer and govern states."
But, again, there is no citation available, so it is impossible to judge the accuracy of this quote, either in terms of the text itself or if there is mitigating context.
In any event, the quote from Luther about women dying in childbirth is taken out of context. The other portion of the quote (only in the "extended version") I have been unable to trace back to Luther.
Quote #2:
This is another one attributed to Martin Luther. This quote comes in several versions; I'll give all the ones I have seen.
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than women, who have but small and narrow breasts, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
or
"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."
or
"Women ... have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
The quote comes from Table Talk, and can be viewed here (page 299). Here is how it is rendered there:
"Men have broad and large chests, and small narrow hips, and more understanding than the women, who have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children."
The problem here is where the quote is found.
"Table Talks" is a collection of sayings that Luther made to his various
students, often at the dinner table, hence the name. While such quotes
can be interesting, the fact they were not written down by him, but were
written down by his students, means there was likely some level of
paraphrasing. Furthermore, in Table Talks these quotes
are presented without context. And these quotes are, by their nature,
unrehearsed off the cuff remarks, and I'm sure anyone would have some
very embarrassing quotes if someone else were to write them down. Remember
these were compiled after Luther's death, so he had no opportunity to
expunge any he felt were poorly expressed.
So this quote is found in Table Talks and attributed to Luther, but due to the aforementioned considerations it should not be used against him.
Quote #3:
This one is attributed to Thomas Aquinas. I will give two versions I have seen:
"Woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist."
or "Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."
However, context is all important; not merely the context of the work it is in, but the context of how reproduction was understood at the time.
So, the format of Summa Theologiae, which this comes from, is to pose a question, give objections to the yet-to-be-given answer, give the actual answer, defend it, and then respond to objections. Now, the question here is "Whether the woman should have been made in the first production of things?" and the answer of Aquinas is to say that, yes, God should have and was correct to do so.
One of the objections given to Aquinas's conclusion is "It would seem that the woman should not have been made in the first production of things. For the Philosopher says (De Gener. ii, 3), that "the female is a misbegotten male." But nothing misbegotten or defective should have been in the first production of things. Therefore woman should not have been made at that first production." ("the Philosopher" refers to Aristotle) Aquinas rebuts this argument with the following:
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2). On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."
Notice the important qualifications that are not given in the quote that gets thrown out. Aquinas's statement of "women is defective and misbegotten" comes immediately after the qualification of "as regards the individual nature." Also, he subsequently asserts "as regards human nature in general, women is not misbegotten."
Someone may still be confused, and for this, we need to understand scientific context. In today's world, we understand conception as working in this way: During sexual intercourse, the sperm of the man reaches the egg of the woman, which fertilizes it, and it over the course of nine months will gradually develop and then be born. A child's physical gender is decided by whether the sperm had an X chromosome or a Y chromosome.
Here is the thing: Back in the 13th century AD when Aquinas wrote (to say nothing of the 4th century BC when Aristotle wrote) people didn't know all of that. They knew that sperm went into the woman and pregnancy resulted. And they knew that there was about a 50/50 chance of the child being male or female. There were various theories as to exactly how things worked; the belief Aristotle had, and which Aquinas echoes, was that the "male seed" would somehow interact with the menstrual blood to try to create another male, but this would sometimes fail and instead create a female. Thus, since a female resulted from a failure of the male seed to create a likeness of itself, it could be seen as "misbegotten."
This is the argument Aquinas is responding to, because if women are misbegotten, then that is an argument against Aquinas's position that God was correct to create women. He addresses this argument by saying that even if each individual woman is "misbegotten" in the sense that the male seed failed in its goal, the fact this happens in general is deliberately intended. Hence in the "individual sense" women are misbegotten, but "as regards human nature in general," women are not misbegotten.
Had Aquinas had modern medical knowledge of conception, all he would have to say is that Aristotle's idea of women being misbegotten was based on inaccurate scientific knowledge and move on (or more likely, he would not have bothered responding to it to begin with).
One may also see this post which covers many of the above points.
Quote #4:
This one supposedly comes from Tertullian:
"Woman is a temple built over a sewer."
I have only seen one place give an actual citation for this, which only ambiguously credited it to "De Cultu Feminarum", in English "On the Apparel of Women." While Tertullian does make some remarks concerning women in that work (found here) that would hardly be considered politically correct nowadays--such as the next quote under examination--I see no mention of anything similar to the above quote. Indeed, someone asked about this over here and no one was able to find it. One user there speculated it might be a bad translation of "tu es arboris illius resignatrix" (roughly, "you are the unsealer of that tree"). Until such time as a more clear citation is given, I will regard this one as wrong. Indeed, some have attributed this to other writers entirely, generally a good sign that a quote is dubious.
Quote #5:
This is another one from Tertullian, which I have seen in several versions:
"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die… Woman, you are the gate to hell."
or
"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God -
on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily
live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the
forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."
or
"God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs
down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the
forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man.
And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."
We can find the following quote in the aforementioned On the Apparel of Women:
""In pains and in anxieties do you bear (children), woman; and toward your husband (is) your inclination, and he lords it over you." And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die."
(note the first sentence is a quote from Genesis)
Unlike the above ones, there is some merit to this one. That said, there are a few things to note. I should note that some sources giving these quotes, when referring to
Tertullian, declare him to be the "father of Latin Christianity" as if to try to hold up his opinion as especially important. This
seems questionable to me. Tertullian was a prolific and influential
writer, but later on in his life he got into a dispute with the church
and was apparently cast out. He could be understood as being the "father" only
insofar as he is, to my knowledge, the earliest Latin Christian writer
we possess many works of.
But we should also note that the quote, when distributed, is sometimes translated it in a way to make things look a little worse. Additionally, for greater context of this in Tertullian's writings, see here.
One final thing to note. I have no idea where the "woman, you are the gate to hell" is supposed to come from. It is certainly similar to the confirmed statement of "you are the devil's gateway" but it was listed separately in the first of these quotation versions.
So this one has some merit to it, even if it is overstated a little, especially in the first version.
Quote #6:
This one is alleged to come from John Chrysostom. There are two versions I have seen, though only slightly different:
"Amongst all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"
or
"Among all savage beasts none is found so harmful as a woman"
There are two problems with this. First, this wasn't said by John Chrysostom, but a Pseudo-Chrysostom text; that is, a work claiming to be by Chrysostom, but not actually by him. More importantly, however, it is mistranslated. There's an important qualifier that is missing in the above quote: It does not say "a woman" but "an evil woman" (or rather, "evil women" as it is plural in the original).
Obviously, there are other quotes that are thrown around of this type. Some are true, some are false, some are in-between. However, hopefully this examination has been of a little help for the above specific quotes. If you take anything from this (outside of better information about the above quotes), you should be wary of trusting any quote you see online that does not have a citation. And even if there is a citation, you should (if possible) check it for context before you start distributing it.