? about communion on tongue but 2 principles & 7 rules if on hand

[workinprogress]

Is this stuff true? Has it been changed? Since it comes from a post Vatican 2 Pope, I don’t think they would be taking it out of context.

The Fatima Crusader (Autumn 2002, issue 71 pg 48, 50) also states that in, 1966, Pope Paul 6 also wrote, in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, pgs 546 and 547 (AAS 1969) that comunion on the toungue is still the law of the land.
Nevertheless, it can be broken if these 2 principles (as well as the 7 rules) are covered–otherwise, mortal sin.

#1 The faithful must not be scandalized by the practice of Communion on the hand.

#2 There must be no danger of irreverence or sacrilege to the Sacred Hosts and Particles if Communion is given on the hand.

rule 3: the practice of Communion in the hand must increase that person’s faith in the Real Presence and the minister of the Sacrament must make that judgment on the spot. the Priest or (lay extraordinary Eucharistic) minister can refuse to offer Communion to the recipient if it does not strengthen the person’s belief in and reverence for Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament or if he/she does not want to administer Jesus on the recipient’s hand.

Rule #1 is that no fragment of the host may fall to the ground. It is on the recipient’s conscience as well that every bit of the Blessed Sacrament be in the mouth. Otherwise, it’s a sacrilege whether you allowed a particle to fall on the ground or not (though not necessarily a mortal sin on your soul if ignorant about the rule).

Pope Paul 6th wrote a decree on the subject in '69 called “Memoraile Domini”.

 

[workinprogress]

BTW that post was not quoted verbatim but paraphrased by me yet, nevertheless, leaving nothing technical or nor changing the meaning of what the contributor meant out.

 

[pnewton]

I tried to find that article in the Fatima Messenger. They skipped those pages on their internet table of contents. What you said they quoted is a disciplinary matter from 1966, so I await and see what other posters have to say. For now I can only trust our local ecclesial authorities on the matter.

 

[Catholic2003]

Here is the actual letter. In particular, norm #3 states:

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

 

[Catholic2003]

Norm #5 addresses the crumb issue:

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

Interestingly enough, it looks like back then the lay communicants could also take the host themselves from the ciborium or paten. (See norm #4.)

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I’m running out of time this morning, but wish to provide some brief answers:

1. 
   *]Communion on the tongue is the normative method of receiving communion in the Latin Church. Receiving in the hand is an *indult *or exception to the law provided by the Church for those countries that requested it in accordance with the norms laid down by Pope Paul VI.
   *]The option of the laity to take the Blessed Sacrament from the ciborium has been denied by the appropriate authorities in Rome. Self-communication is reserved to bishops and priests. Deacons and duly delegated Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion may self-communicate only in the context of a communion service in the absence of a priest.
   
   Deacon Ed

 

[workinprogress]

Thank you all who gave me (and everyone interested) the truth on that and the meat on all Fridays or penance question. It was irrelevant which publication brought this up but I wanted to cite the source for my questions. I look to EWTN for all the stuff I never learned that came before and after Vatican 2 and to the FSSP (and other obedient traditionalist groups) for all the stuff I missed out on not being raised before all the confusion in the '60s (though they do acknowledge whatever was truly intended and taught by the Council Fathers if it completely replaced anything taught before Vatican 2–which you would probably learn better from them than many novus ordo goers you meet each day, who, if they don’t watch EWTN, would think Vatican 2 eliminated altar rails and any Latin in masses) .