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

[EasterJoy]

It appears that the Holy Father, the present Pope does not agree with this declaration, since I see that he gives Holy Communion in the hand to people standing.

What does the declaration say? “The hour has come to review and, if necessary, abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”. It doesn’t say “we should abandon the practice”. It says “we should look at this practice and be ready to abandon it.” That is a big difference.

Reviewing practice is a legitimate thing to do. I prefer receiving in the hand to the time when I received on the tongue, but I do not have any problem with the practice being reviewed. That the Pope still distributes Holy Communion in the hand does not imply that he is opposed to reviewing the practice, either.

 

[pnewton]

It appears that the Holy Father, the present Pope does not agree with this declaration, since I see that he gives Holy Communion in the hand to people standing.

Or he agrees and just hasn’t implemented it yet. Who knows any of this stuff. The communion on tongue faction are drawn in groupthink to blogs and books that carry no authority, but they agree with, for assurance in their beliefs. I could care less which way the Vatican decides, I will go with the flow either way. It is way outside my pay grade.

 

[rwoehmke]

What did they do when kneeling was the custom for, oh, centuries?

As I recall no where near the number of people at Mass received at every Mass. In grade school outside of Sunday we usually received only on First Fridays.We marched over to confession as a group during the week of that event.

I don’t remember what the infirm and old would do. Never noticed I guess because we were so focused on our own reception of Our Lord.

 

[rwoehmke]

How is it that we automatically assume that receiving Communion in the hand leads to irreverence? There may be some correlation, but it doesn’t logically follow that it should be held solely responsible.

Correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, many things have changed since Vatican II. Society as a whole is less respectful.

Educational standards have fallen, and with them the standards in catechesis.

My opinion would be that the lack of reverence has more to do with poor catechesis and the general decline in good manners and respect then it has to do with reception in the hand
.

 

[pnewton]

What does the declaration say? “The hour has come to review and, if necessary, abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”.

BTW - I think this is something that every Catholic should do in private, as long as both forms of reception are acceptable. I studied the issue shortly after becoming Catholic myself. An examination of the issue is never a bad thing. My decision was to continue to receive in the hand, except when I am carrying my son, then I receive on the tongue, as my hands are full.

 

[I_Believe]

I really find it hard to stand by and hear our bishops referred to as “wolves” or the Curia referred to as “bullies”, particularly from people (which may not include present company) who repeatedly call for similar tactics to be used to enforce the disciplines they like. I hear such talk from both liberals and conservatives, and I’d like to go on record as saying that it seems out of place and unnecessary to communication of disagreement.

Well, you’ve implied I said what I didn’t say. I didn’t say our bishops are wolves, and I didn’t say the Curia are bullies. There are those in the Curia I dearly love. What I said is right there for the whole world to read. Please reread it.

I wasn’t focusing on CITH, I was offering thoughts on the situation of Bishop Ranjith. Have you read his statements ? If so, have you read the article Dustin’s Dad mentioned ?

I_Believe : Yes, the truth of what has happened is sad.

Just as those in the Curia want to bully anyone who rejects error and irreverence, so has this forum seen the same recently. One of the ones who has taken it upon himself to “set the record straight”, has even went as far as starting a thread a few days ago, complete with his own “rules” which prohibit anyone posting anything other than what he wants to hear. Sad as well.

God Bless Bishop Ranjith. He preaches rock solid catholicism. He deserves our prayers, as does Pope Benedict XVI. Our Holy Father will have to deal with this howl of the wolves when he returns to The Vatican.

I recant nothing in that post.

I am interested in your thoughts on the focus of my post. The situation of Bishop Ranjith. It’s very relevent to the topic of the OP.

Please allow me to ask one question. Do you believe there is division in the Curia, and if your answer is yes, then don’t you think we should be able to discuss it ? Especially when a Pope himself has spoke of the "smoke of Satan… ".

 

[pnewton]

Do you believe there is division in the Curia, and if your answer is yes, then don’t you think we should be able to discuss it ? Especially when a Pope himself has spoke of the "smoke of Satan… ".

I Believe… that you asked two questions.

Of course there is division in the Curia. There is always some division when you have more that two people involved in anything. I do not think the division is a bad thing, as long as it is handled charitably and with the goal of discerning truth, when doctrine is at issue; and prudence, when discipline is at issue.

I also think discussion is always allowed (unless expressly forbidden). I do believe that often discussion is fruitless, though when done at a level without influence. Heck, I discuss politics at work all the time, but it is not like I have a vote in Congress.

I will shut up now and let Easter Joy give you her answer.

 

[elt1956]

How is it that we automatically assume that receiving Communion in the hand leads to irreverence? There may be some correlation, but it doesn’t logically follow that it should be held solely responsible.

Correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, many things have changed since Vatican II. Society as a whole is less respectful. There is less respect of the young for the old, less respect for government and government officials, less respect for the law, and, as a matter of fact, less respect for the dignity inherent in the office of bishop…just as examples. I would like to add that this lack of respect hardly confines itself to the liberal end of the opinion scale!

Educational standards have fallen, and with them the standards in catechesis. Again, this cannot be traced directly back to the mode by which Communion is received.

Now, if our cardinals were to decide for whatever reason that a return to a more formal way of receiving Communion is in order, I would live with that. If they were to decide that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist needed to be done away with, I would live with that, even if the parishes had to move all their 10:30 Masses to 11 o’clock to accomodate the change. If they changed the standards of church architecture, I would live with that. Whereever these things are currently defined and not observed, I do not think they need to refrain from issuing admonishments and enforcing compliance. Likewise, if it is their decision to approach problems in observance in other ways, for pastoral reasons, I will defer to them on that. It is fully within their authority to decide these things. I’d like to add that the bishops tend to raise these questions with each other in a far more respectful manner than what I’ve seen the laity do, even when the bishops are being very forceful in making their points. In this, they have my admiration.

I really find it hard to stand by and hear our bishops referred to as “wolves” or the Curia referred to as “bullies”, particularly from people (which may not include present company) who repeatedly call for similar tactics to be used to enforce the disciplines they like. I hear such talk from both liberals and conservatives, and I’d like to go on record as saying that it seems out of place and unnecessary to communication of disagreement.

Can we please agree that whatever mode is allowed, we are bound to show respect to those in rightful authority within the Church, no matter what we think of them or what they teach? If you can’t be patient, kind, and respectful, you have blown the second great commandment already. That is a failure of a fundamental kind.

I’m not just saying, “Hey, play nice.” Jesus said that the world would know us as his disciples by how we loved each other. If you read the Gospel of John, you appreciate how fundamental mutual love and respect among the brethren is to our fidelity to the Gospel. We are commanded to do it, that is the truth, and no excuses.

Yes. The very early Church was known by others not of the faith by the love its members were showing one another. A common statement was, “See how the Christians love one another”. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

How is it that we automatically assume that receiving Communion in the hand leads to irreverence? There may be some correlation, but it doesn’t logically follow that it should be held solely responsible.

Correlation does not imply causation. Indeed, many things have changed since Vatican II. Society as a whole is less respectful. There is less respect of the young for the old, less respect for government and government officials, less respect for the law, and, as a matter of fact, less respect for the dignity inherent in the office of bishop…just as examples. I would like to add that this lack of respect hardly confines itself to the liberal end of the opinion scale!

Educational standards have fallen, and with them the standards in catechesis. Again, this cannot be traced directly back to the mode by which Communion is received.

Now, if our cardinals were to decide for whatever reason that a return to a more formal way of receiving Communion is in order, I would live with that. If they were to decide that extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist needed to be done away with, I would live with that, even if the parishes had to move all their 10:30 Masses to 11 o’clock to accomodate the change. If they changed the standards of church architecture, I would live with that. Whereever these things are currently defined and not observed, I do not think they need to refrain from issuing admonishments and enforcing compliance. Likewise, if it is their decision to approach problems in observance in other ways, for pastoral reasons, I will defer to them on that. It is fully within their authority to decide these things. I’d like to add that the bishops tend to raise these questions with each other in a far more respectful manner than what I’ve seen the laity do, even when the bishops are being very forceful in making their points. In this, they have my admiration.

I really find it hard to stand by and hear our bishops referred to as “wolves” or the Curia referred to as “bullies”, particularly from people (which may not include present company) who repeatedly call for similar tactics to be used to enforce the disciplines they like. I hear such talk from both liberals and conservatives, and I’d like to go on record as saying that it seems out of place and unnecessary to communication of disagreement.

Can we please agree that whatever mode is allowed, we are bound to show respect to those in rightful authority within the Church, no matter what we think of them or what they teach? If you can’t be patient, kind, and respectful, you have blown the second great commandment already. That is a failure of a fundamental kind.

I’m not just saying, “Hey, play nice.” Jesus said that the world would know us as his disciples by how we loved each other. If you read the Gospel of John, you appreciate how fundamental mutual love and respect among the brethren is to our fidelity to the Gospel. We are commanded to do it, that is the truth, and no excuses.

What did they do when kneeling was the custom for, oh, centuries?

Complained a lot, I am sure.

 

[Joannm]

Or he agrees and just hasn’t implemented it yet. Who knows any of this stuff. The communion on tongue faction are drawn in groupthink to blogs and books that carry no authority, but they agree with, for assurance in their beliefs. I could care less which way the Vatican decides, I will go with the flow either way. It is way outside my pay grade.

It is not a declaration but a remark in a preface to a book. It is the opinion of the person writing the preface. Anyone can be asked to preface a text and write what he or he likes. It does not make it a “declariation” that is underconsideration or needs to be examined by the Vatican. It doesn’t matte who is writing it and what position he holds in the Church, it is still only an opinion.

 

[MrS]

It is not a declaration but a remark in a preface to a book. It is the opinion of the person writing the preface. Anyone can be asked to preface a text and write what he or he likes. It does not make it a “declariation” that is underconsideration or needs to be examined by the Vatican. It doesn’t matte who is writing it and what position he holds in the Church, it is still only an opinion.

So, if the Pope had written the Preface, would you feel the same?

The writer has some level of position…secretary to the very commission that will explain the postures in worship… for those who will listen.

 

[wow]

I watched the Pope celebrate Mass in New York this morning. I couldn’t help but notice that the majority of recipients received the body of Christ in the hand, from the Pope.

Just curious, I’d like to know your thoughts on this.

 

[bobzills]

I watched the Pope celebrate Mass in New York this morning. I couldn’t help but notice that the majority of recipients received the body of Christ in the hand, from the Pope.

Just curious, I’d like to know your thoughts on this.

It looks to me like the Pope approves Communion in the hand.

 

[laudamus_te]

It looks to me like the Pope approves Communion in the hand.

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.

 

[wow]

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.

I think the big difference is that the Pope did not say not to give politicians Communion but rather warned Catholics in general and Catholic politicians in particular not to receive Holy Communion unworthily. One has to hope and pray those who received, did so worthily.

He did however write a letter when he was a Cardinal stating, “…such politicians “must” be refused communion.”

Also, I read an article that stated Kennedy did not receive Communion.

 

[laudamus_te]

I think the big difference is that the Pope did not say not to give politicians Communion but rather warned Catholics in general and Catholic politicians in particular not to receive Holy Communion unworthily. He did however write a letter when he was a Cardinal stating, “…such politicians “must” be refused communion.”

Also, I read an article that stated Kennedy did not receive Communion.

That article was in error

 

[wow]

That article was in error

Thanks for the correction.

That still leaves us to wonder if the Pope hoped and prayed those receiving did so worthily.

The Mass at New York this morning was mostly clergy who received Communion from the Pope…and like I said, it seemed the majority received Communion in the hand.

 

[non_cognosco]

My opinion would be that the lack of reverence has more to do with poor catechesis and the general decline in good manners and respect then it has to do with reception in the hand
.

And the cause for poor catechesis has to do with the descent into chaos that is our modern life. If we really want to remedy many of the problems associated with the church, we have to go outside of it–into the culture. There is no way that the church–already beleaguered as it is–can withstand the now unrelenting onslaught of values and ideas that are inimical to its existence. Church officials can impose restrictions all the like, but there will always be resistance to their decrees, as long as their is a culture outside the church that operates according to beliefs not in line with church teaching. This is the burden of being the last truly Conservative institution left in the west. Conservatism is order; liberalism is chaos. When it comes down to it, people much prefer a chaotic society, because it is easy, casual, relaxed, and hedonistic. It takes work, struggle, and effort to uphold any standards, as well as a reason to uphold them.

In our society, there is little reason to uphold standards in any endeavor, since there is very little negative consequence associated with it. God will not punish us; for if He even exists anyway He is all love and no judgment. Therefore, we don’t have to worry about our actions since their is no retribution for anything we may do to offend the spiritual or physical well-being of our neighbor or ourselves.

So to end this rambling post, I think if we continue down this road toward complete hedonism, there is little the church can do. Maybe I’m being a bit bleak here, but I only think this will continue .

 

[wow]

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.

I wanted to add, I’m sure it’s not as easy as we as lay people think. If a person is known to be Catholic and comes for communion, the Eucharist minister has to assume the person is coming to receive worthily…afterall I haven’t heard of anyone that can see into another’s heart (conscience).

I think the same can be said of people who receive in the hand…who can see into those hearts and know if they are receiving without the proper reverence to our Lord or not? To assume they’re not is a bit judgemental, isn’t it?

 

[laudamus_te]

I wanted to add, I’m sure it’s not as easy as we as lay people think. If a person is known to be Catholic and comes for communion, the Eucharist minister has to assume the person is coming to receive worthily…afterall I haven’t heard of anyone that can see into another’s heart (conscience).

I think the same can be said of people who receive in the hand…who can see into those hearts and know if they are receiving without the proper reverence to our Lord or not? To assume they’re not is a bit judgemental, isn’t it?

No, it is not for us as laypeople to judge others and “make the call.” That is the job, however, of the Pope, Bishops and Priests. And with public sinners, such as these politicians whose record is public knowledge, the priests should do their job and refuse them Communion.