“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that if you go to Redemptum Sacramentum, there is a distinction drawn between the communicant’s choice between kneeling and standing (the communicant may choose either) and between receiving on the tongue or in the hand (on the tongue having to be made available, as a right, and whether the choice of in the hand is to be made available or not being up to the congregation of bishops, with the blessings of the Holy See).

You misunderstand me. I for one, as an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, refuse it to no one, whether hand, tongue, kneeling or standing. I am talking about people picking what they believe and interpret, instead on looking to the Church for guidance.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[latinmasslover]

Maybe we should rephrase your question abit before trying to answer.

Why did the same Holy Mother Church, at a later time, change it to allow taking Communion in the hand?

Throughout this thread people, who see nothing wrong with taking Communion in the hand, have stated they would do however the Church decrees.

The Pope caved in here. Paul VI opposed it but finally gave up the fight because the bishops refused to obey.

 

[latinmasslover]

So as not to get into a round robin argument, is there any evidence to show that there is not. At a passover meal it was common for each person to feed himself or herself. Not for the host to put the food in each persons mouth. Everyone keeps saying, lets do it like the early Church. But when its pointed out that thats what the early Church commonly did, all of a sudden a specific, non provable (either way) is brought up. Smooth move if you can pull it off. As a passover meal, this was the most significant in our salvation history, as this was the passing over from the Old Covenant to the New.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

I have a book, How Christ Said The First Mass, though I admit I haven’t gotten into it yet, though I do know it doesn’t support Communion in the hand. The book details Jewish rituals at the time of Jesus, but like I said, I haven’t read much of it at this time.

My point with the last post was that I think it’s not entirely in line with truth to say, for sure, that Christ gave the Eucharist in the hand. But lets say He did, it was to the Apostles, the Bishops. As Catholics, we know that the rules for the bishops do not apply to the laity all the time. What really are the benefits of permitting this practice?

 

[JReducation]

I have a book, How Christ Said The First Mass, though I admit I haven’t gotten into it yet, though I do know it doesn’t support Communion in the hand. The book details Jewish rituals at the time of Jesus, but like I said, I haven’t read much of it at this time.

My point with the last post was that I think it’s not entirely in line with truth to say, for sure, that Christ gave the Eucharist in the hand. But lets say He did, it was to the Apostles, the Bishops. As Catholics, we know that the rules for the bishops do not apply to the laity all the time. What really are the benefits of permitting this practice?

Another question can be, who gives the laity the right to question or challenge what the Church approves? While it is true that we can all ask questions, they should be for the sake of understanding. There is a difference in questions that seek understanding and questioning the decisions of legitimate authority.

We, the laity, have no authority in the Church. Even those of us who work for the Church only have authority in our respective roles, not the same as the authority of the hierarchy.

The laity are not part of the hierarchy.

JR

 

[latinmasslover]

Another question can be, who gives the laity the right to question or challenge what the Church approves? While it is true that we can all ask questions, they should be for the sake of understanding. There is a difference in questions that seek understanding and questioning the decisions of legitimate authority.

We, the laity, have no authority in the Church. Even those of us who work for the Church only have authority in our respective roles, not the same as the authority of the hierarchy.

The laity are not part of the hierarchy.

JR

We have no authority in the Church, true, but we are still not obliged to practice or give the okay to a practice that has done harm to the Church. It was abolished for a reason, and permitted through weakness. Sad but true.

What saddens me is that if the Pope were to say that this practice is not good for the Church, and were to condemn it again, many would suddenly alter their opinions, thus proving the false idea protestants have regarding the papacy.

 

[DustinsDad]

Another question can be, who gives the laity the right to question or challenge what the Church approves?

The hierarchy of the Church evidently, not only of questioning but of blatantly thumbing their nose at the "rules. If this “non-questioning rule” was followed and/or enforced we wouldn’t be having this discussion because communion in the hand wouldn’t exist!

While it is true that we can all ask questions, they should be for the sake of understanding.

Which is exactly what this is for - understanding where, how and why, the prudential decision to “allow” the abberation of lay reception of Holy Communion in the hand came about.

Belly up to the trough of knowledge and slurrrrrp.

We, the laity, have no authority in the Church. Even those of us who work for the Church only have authority in our respective roles, not the same as the authority of the hierarchy. The laity are not part of the hierarchy.

No one claims we are part of the hierarchy - this is a totally irrelevant straw man argument.

In fact, we are discussing this in light of what a member of the hierarchy has recently written. We happen to agree with him - as do many.

DD

 

[JReducation]

We have no authority in the Church, true, but we are still not obliged to practice or give the okay to a practice that has done harm to the Church. It was abolished for a reason, and permitted through weakness. Sad but true.

What saddens me is that if the Pope were to say that this practice is not good for the Church, and were to condemn it again, many would suddenly alter their opinions, thus proving the false idea protestants have regarding the papacy.

What may be perceived as weakness may have been an action of the Holy Spirit. There is no rule for the Holy Spirit to operate.

Examine the Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops that went out with the Motu Proprio. He refers to the sanctity of the Ordinary Form.

Sanctity may come to us through many means. Even though the tools that put it together may have been weak and even though people may have misunderstood what the Spirit was trying to do, I wouldn’t rule out the operation of the Holy Spirit, especially when the Holy Father himself refers to its sanctity.

Just a thought.

JR

 

[elt1956]

The Pope caved in here. Paul VI opposed it but finally gave up the fight because the bishops refused to obey.

Hi lml. And how do you know this about the Bishops? I am beginning to see what you say about some of them, but I would like to read more about this. I like to gather all the info. I can, then make a decision. Thanks.

 

[elt1956]

The Pope caved in here. Paul VI opposed it but finally gave up the fight because the bishops refused to obey.

And looks can be deceiving. The fact that the Pope did nothing to prevent pro-abortion “Catholics” Kerry, Pelosi and Kennedy (who even had the Body of Christ brought to him in his seat) from receiving Communion must indicate that he approves of Catholics being pro-choice.

Did you actually see the Host given to Kennedy where he sat? People on anothre thread didn’t seem to see this. Thanks.

 

[DustinsDad]

Did you actually see the Host given to Kennedy where he sat? People on anothre thread didn’t seem to see this. Thanks.

I didn’t see it, but LifeSiteNews is reporting it based on some eyewitness account:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041817.html

DD

 

[DustinsDad]

Hi lml. And how do you know this about the Bishops? I am beginning to see what you say about some of them, but I would like to read more about this. I like to gather all the info. I can, then make a decision. Thanks.

Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View
(St. Catherine Review, May-June 1996 issue)

If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.

***The History
***The practice of communion-in-the-hand was “first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops” (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).

In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one’s hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled “progressive” parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.

Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful.

In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin’s last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco’s Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.
(more)
…
DustinsDad

 

[latinmasslover]

What may be perceived as weakness may have been an action of the Holy Spirit. There is no rule for the Holy Spirit to operate.

To say that God wanted Communion in the hand restored is the equivalent of saying that adult Catholics can go back to praying the once a day Ave because, after all, that’s what they did early on. As our understanding grows we have to apply that knowledge. If the early Christians received Communion in the hand, so what? Our understanding of the Eucharist has grown, and the Church did away with this practice. I never hear of anyone wanting public confession with long, severe, and often public penances because “that’s what the early Church did.” Pope Paul VI was opposed to Communion in the hand, and Pope John Paul II said that to touch the sacred vessels (less holy than the Eucharist) is a *privilege *of the ordained. The fact that Paul VI permitted it, and John Paul II made a statement like the above and still permitted Communion in the hand, shows weakness. Since we all know that the Pope is not perfect, this should not shake anyone’s faith.

Examine the Holy Father’s letter to the Bishops that went out with the Motu Proprio. He refers to the sanctity of the Ordinary Form.

Sanctity may come to us through many means. Even though the tools that put it together may have been weak and even though people may have misunderstood what the Spirit was trying to do, I wouldn’t rule out the operation of the Holy Spirit, especially when the Holy Father himself refers to its sanctity.

Just a thought.

JR

No argument there, I just don’t believe that everything the Pope says/does is a direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This has never been the teaching of the Church. Modern Catholic dictionaries, Bible commentaries, etc (from approved sources) even emphasize this point…that’s the only point I’m trying to make.

 

[pnewton]

The fact that Paul VI permitted it, and John Paul II made a statement like the above and still permitted Communion in the hand, shows weakness. Since we all know that the Pope is not perfect, this should not shake anyone’s faith.;

No problem with that shaking my faith either way. A weak Pope is a better vessel for the Holy Spirit than an arrogant Pope.

I Corinthians 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[sphilomena]

Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View
(St. Catherine Review, May-June 1996 issue)

If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.

***The History
***The practice of communion-in-the-hand was “first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops” (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).

In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one’s hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled “progressive” parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.

Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful.

In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin’s last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco’s Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.
(more)
…
DustinsDad

This is a good summary. When the Pope polled the bishops, not only was there no consensus, but they voted overwhelmingly not to allow Communion in the hand. (I have read that the disobedience began in Holland after Vatican II.) After polling the bishops the Pope wrote Memoriale Domini.

 

[bobzills]

This is a good summary. When the Pope polled the bishops, not only was there no consensus, but they voted overwhelmingly not to allow Communion in the hand. (I have read that the disobedience began in Holland after Vatican II.) After polling the bishops the Pope wrote Memoriale Domini.

Well, this is all very nice, but it forgets the fact that the Pope himself gives Holy Communion in the hand. And it omits the fact that priests at the papal Mass give what some have labelled “open communion”. In other words, there was no problem in receiving Holy Communion at the papal Masses for well known Catholics publicly divorced and publicly remarried outside of the Catholic Church and in favor of abortion rights.

 

[MrS]

Well, this is all very nice, but it forgets the fact that the Pope himself gives Holy Communion in the hand. And it omits the fact that priests at the papal Mass give what some have labelled “open communion”. In other words, there was no problem in receiving Holy Communion at the papal Masses for well known Catholics publicly divorced and publicly remarried outside of the Catholic Church and in favor of abortion rights.

So is the sin yours for discounting it as no problem,

The Pope’s for declining to rebuke in public,

or the person committing the act?

.

 

[EasterJoy]

You misunderstand me. I for one, as an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, refuse it to no one, whether hand, tongue, kneeling or standing. I am talking about people picking what they believe and interpret, instead on looking to the Church for guidance.
Prayers and blessings
Deacon Ed B

You are correct. I did misunderstant you! My apologies!

 

[EasterJoy]

So is the sin yours for discounting it as no problem,

The Pope’s for declining to rebuke in public,

or the person committing the act?

.

If the person receiving Communion is guilty, they are guilty, for it is within the pastoral perogative of the Pope, having clearly taught the conditions under which Communion may be received worthily, to allow those thus taught to examine their own conscience.

Were he to give Holy Communion to someone he knew to have been formally excommunicated, this would be another matter (IMHO).

 

[elt1956]

I didn’t see it, but LifeSiteNews is reporting it based on some eyewitness account:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08041817.html

DD

Isn’t that the pits? I have been trying to think of the name of the sin when one is misrepresenting what is the actual law. These people should be giving right examples in following the rules of the church as they are in the public eye. I don’t understand it. Peace.

 

[DustinsDad]

Isn’t that the pits? I have been trying to think of the name of the sin when one is misrepresenting what is the actual law. These people should be giving right examples in following the rules of the church as they are in the public eye. I don’t understand it. Peace.

As for those receiving - Lord have mercy.

As for those members of the hierarchy who allow such public scandal and sacrilige to go on - they need the Lord’s mercy even more, as they’ve been given more authority and will be held to a higher standard.

The whole situation is sad. Lord have mercy on us all.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad