Confiteor:
A little quick on the click, aren’t you? I might suggest you read the entire letter…as well as the other references…the Pope’s comment clarifies the special character of the hands of the ordained priest and it is pretty clear from the context as well as his own practices, in what manner Pope JP II preferred people to receive. If you’ve been “round and round on this” topic, you needn’t comment further though…
I feel the need to comment because of the pomposity and “holier than thou/more Catholic than the pope” attitude historically displayed by some (please note I said some) who go so far to say that it is Protestant to receive in the hand and so Catholics shouldn’t do it AND those who grudgingly allow it, but claim that it is somehow holier to receive on the tongue and who want to brow beat those of us who choose to receive in the hand as somehow lesser. I did read the entire letter. Communion in the hand was the practice of the patristic Church for a ALL, lay and ordained. The Church, exercising her rightful authority, decided to have the laity receive on the tongue. Centuries passed. She then decided to allow it. If she allows it, it isn’t an abuse. It isn’t clear that the context states that Holy Father was teaching that only consecrated hands could handle the Sacred Species. I note you didn’t quote this paragraph in toto:
"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to.
This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."
Here’s the entire paragraph, plus one, that you printed last:
"But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!
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."
All he’s saying is that care must be taken in the handling of the Sacred Species and that it is the responsibility of the ordained to see that it is. No where, in the context of this address, is reception in the hand called deplorable or even undesireable, though abuses certainly are. I have no doubt that the old Holy Father didn’t care for communion in the hand, but he obviously felt that bishops and their people could make a prudential judgement concerning it or he would have ended it. You just can’t prove that he felt like this using this address, not if you look at context (a skill in in being able to read critically). AND if you’ll note, my first post supported the right of the OP to rec. on the tongue.
