Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[pcoffey1]

Your argument is based on the earliest Christians and Eastern Catholics so that’s what’s not holding or carrying water here. My argument is whether it is proper - the most reverent. This isn’t a matter of personal preference as the CITH supporters make it out to be, it’s about receiving our Lord and Redeemer. Our modern day society with its “me” generation of instant gratification, short attention spans, ultra-choice, lack of consideration for others and overly extended sense of self-worth perfectly describe the mindset of those feeling equal enough to God to hold Him in their grubby little hands. Perhaps your references to water are symbolic on a psychological basis.

When Pope Paul VI bent to this modern novelty the word “reverent” was of clear priority:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

"The doctrine of transubstantiation remained intact. Yet, it no longer meant the same. Prior to the liturgical reform, this doctrine was dramatized by the repetitive stress placed on the ineffable sacredness of the Host. For in the wafer raised by the priest to the ringing of bells and the beating of breasts was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the spotless Victim that could not be touched by unconsecrated hands. A great part of the Tridentine liturgy assumed the form of progressive obeisance to a thing untouchable. A priest could raise the Host only with his canonical digits - the thumb and first finger - which had been consecrated for the purpose. After consecrating the bread, the priest had to keep his canonicals joined as he performed the other necessary functions. The paten and chalice, for example, had to be lifted with the third and fourth fingers.

Moreover, the priest constantly had to sweep his paten for unseen specks of the sacred bread. For each part was the whole, each crumb a communion in itself. When the priest administered communion to the faithful at the altar rail he was always accompanied by an altar boy who carried a special communion catcher - another paten, the one with a long handle. The acolyte carefully placed the catcher under the chin of each receiver the prevent the catastrophe of Christ falling from someone’s tongue to the floor. The thin wafers - so difficult to swallow - always stuck to the roof of the mouth. And it would be detestable - an unthinkable - sacrilege to scrape it off with one’s finger.

But with the sacramental changes, Catholics were permitted to do the unspeakable. Suddenly, in many progressive parishes, the sacred Body was placed in their unholy hands. Worse yet, in some instances it was even administered by laymen who dipped their unholy fingers into the sacred chalice. Though they cringed, horrified Catholics were told that it was permissible to chew it, to receive it standing instead of kneeling, even to drink from the chalice. Was Christ as truly present in the tangible bread as He had been in the untouchable wafer? Was this the same Body of Christ that they were allowed to chew?

No, the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never officially changed. But psychologically it never meant the same. The change in practice had produced a change in perspective. The sacred no longer seemed as sacred as it once was. Even the spotless Host had been sullied by human hands."

Paul Williams latin-mass-society.org/comsoc.htm

wonderfully accurate recounting and well done Paul - thanks- may i humbly add to your comment that ST. Isaac Jogues had his canonicals bitten and chewed off by the Iroquois who knew precisely what they represented-
and he had to get a dispensation from the Pope who gladly ’ approved one of Christs saints being able to confect without the use of canonicals- and the queen of france asked to see him =upon entering the court - she descended from the throne and kissed his hands and his digits- the generation has lost so much since Paul vi’s / Bugninni’s experiment

 

[drolla]

Can anyone honestly say that today’s practice of receiving communion in the hand is more reverant and efficacious than on the tongue and knees? To equate the proceedures (not the eucharist itself) is laughable.

 

[otjm]

Can anyone honestly say that today’s practice of receiving communion in the hand is more reverant and efficacious than on the tongue and knees? To equate the proceedures (not the eucharist itself) is laughable.

As far as equating the proceedures, reverence is not intrinsic to either method. Reverence is from the individual; the same act can be either reverent or irreverent based on the disposition of the individual.

Our parish happens to have 24 hour Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration. The large majority receive in the hand, a few on the tongue. Those who receive in the hand do so reverently; and there is a far greater connection between the two methods of receiving because this is a parish that obviously believe in the True Presence. And that has more to do with catechesis than anything, and the catechesis is exemplified in both the reverence shown in receiving and in the time that people spend in adoration.

You may not personally like receiving in the hand, and that is perfectly ok as the norm is on the tongue. The Pope himself in his writings has said that both forms can be reverent; so the dispute is really nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. Trying to make this some sort of badge of holiness is disresectful to the Eucharist, and to those who receive reverently, and those in history who received in the hand.

So to answer your initial question, one cannot say that receiving in the hand is “more reverent and efficacious”; and by the same token, one cannot say the reverse either.

One may feel more pious if one kneels and receives on the tongue; but true piety is not a matter of feelings; it is a matter of doing, and the attitude and demeanor with which one does.

 

[JaMc]

I haven’t read this thread for a while, but, even if Communion in the hand was allowed in the past, for me the question is, why did they do away with it? In other words, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, one shouldn’t tear down the fence until he learns why it was put up in the first place.

Actually, just this past Sunday, I saw someone take a consecrated Host back to the pew before consuming it. Right after a homily on reverence for the Eucharist, no less!! While I did see him consume it, it was certainly a “close call.” To me, it looks like the “fence was torn down” because someone found some evidence that it may not have been there 2000 years ago, now the “cattle are loose” and in the garden. While, granted, there are also possiblities of abuses with Communion on the tongue, it is not quite as easy to abscond with a consecrate Host as it is with Communion in the hand. If people get back into the mindset that, absent some sort of extraordinary circumstances, a non-ordained person just shouldn’t be handling a consecrated Host, period, IMHO, it would be a big step toward re-establishing greater reverence for the Body of Christ.

 

[Layman]

Reverence is from the individual; the same act can be either reverent or irreverent based on the disposition of the individual.

…

One may feel more pious if one kneels and receives on the tongue; but true piety is not a matter of feelings; it is a matter of doing, and the attitude and demeanor with which one does.

[My emphasis, above]

So reverence is determined by feelings, except it when it isn’t?

So individual feelings are what defines reverence in this public, communal act of worship and not outer symbolic actions?

Well, I’m sure glad most Catholics and priests don’t think this way, otherwise laypeople might start behaving and dressing casually but reverently in the new rite, showing the Host to their pals reverently, entering the sanctuary reverently, maybe trying to give out Communion themselves reverently, playing in a band up at the front reverently, speaking from the pulpit reverently and clapping and singing reverently, unlike the old TLM.

…]

…]

Oh wait …

 

[otjm]

I haven’t read this thread for a while, but, even if Communion in the hand was allowed in the past, for me the question is, why did they do away with it? In other words, to paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, one shouldn’t tear down the fence until he learns why it was put up in the first place.

Actually, just this past Sunday, I saw someone take a consecrated Host back to the pew before consuming it. Right after a homily on reverence for the Eucharist, no less!! While I did see him consume it, it was certainly a “close call.” To me, it looks like the “fence was torn down” because someone found some evidence that it may not have been there 2000 years ago, now the “cattle are loose” and in the garden. While, granted, there are also possiblities of abuses with Communion on the tongue, it is not quite as easy to abscond with a consecrate Host as it is with Communion in the hand. If people get back into the mindset that, absent some sort of extraordinary circumstances, a non-ordained person just shouldn’t be handling a consecrated Host, period, IMHO, it would be a big step toward re-establishing greater reverence for the Body of Christ.

I have seen that once in my parish; I went over to the couple and told them either they consume it or give it back to me. They gave it back. Come to find out, the guy was not Catholic (I never found out if she was or not), and he had no idea what he was doing and meant no harm or offense. My guess is that the person you saw was either not Catholic or only nominally so.

Of course, someone who intends evil can do so by reception in the hand. They can do the same, as they did before Vatican 2, by receiving and then removing it from their mouth.

In either circumstance, there is an extremely small chance that anyone will abscomb with the Eucharist. It is just not happening on a regular basis.

Reception in the hand was done away with because the Church decided it was proper to do away with it; whatver the problem was centuries ago was the problem centuries ago and that issue is long gone. The Church has decided to bring it back. Yes, I am aware of the bishops in Holland doing it without permission; and they can all go to Confession and deal with their disobedience. That was how many years ago? And we are still bringing it up? No one held a gun to the Pope’s head, nor to the head of any of the Cardinals involved with the decision. Let’s move on, shall we?

 

[Layman]

Your outer posture affects your inner disposition and vice versa. Personally, I want to send very clear and unambious signals to my heart (my subconscious) and to Heaven as to what I want from both.

It’s also a small sacrifice to God humble yourself to receive COTT, kneeling and it encourages humility, the opposite of the worst of the seven deadly sings, pride.

It’s sobering to read the Old Testament and see what God required of the Israelites for His worship and compare it to what’s happened to the Latin Rite since 1969.

 

[otjm]

[My emphasis, above]

So reverence is determined by feelings, except it when it isn’t?

You don’t like the word “attitude”? OK, then use the word “choice”. Reverence is not determined by feelings; I can feel any number of feelings but I can act reverent at the same time. Outer symbolic actions can be done irreverently, or reverently. I can genuflect in a haphazard manner, or in a reverent manner; it is how I do the act, not how I feel, that shows reverence. I may be feeling depressed, or elated, or terribly distracted; and I still can act in a reverent manner.

[Well, I’m sure glad most Catholics and priests don’t think this way, otherwise laypeople might start behaving and dressing casually but reverently in the new rite, showing the Host to their pals reverently, entering the sanctuary reverently, maybe trying to give out Communion themselves reverently, playing in a band up at the front reverently, speaking from the pulpit reverently and clapping and singing reverently, unlike the old TLM.

I have seen enough irreverence in the Mass said prior to Vatican 2 to last me a lifetime. I have seen it also in the OF. And I have seen reverence in both. You seem to think that the OF cannot be reverent, or as reverent as the EF; the current and the last Pope disagree with you. I will follow them. You may follow whatever guru you choose.
[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

Your outer posture affects your inner disposition and vice versa. Personally, I want to send very clear and unambious signals to my heart (my subconscious) and to Heaven as to what I want from both.

It’s also a small sacrifice to God humble yourself to receive COTT, kneeling and it encourages humility, the opposite of the worst of the seven deadly sings, pride.

It’s sobering to read the Old Testament and see what God required of the Israelites for His worship and compare it to what’s happened to the Latin Rite since 1969.

You are in the UK, so I don’t know what the rules are there; the standard way of receiving in the US is standing, not kneeling.

It is truly a constant source of amazement and amusement to find how many people who style themselves a conservative carry on at length when they perceive either a violation of the GIRM or what they think is a violation of it; and then are so quick to ignore the leadership of the bishops, that leadership they have just criticized as lacking, when the bishops lead in a way they don’t like.

That is just another variation of the cafeteria Catholicism they so roundly criticize the liberals for engaging in.

We all can figure out that there has been violations of the rubrics - although they seem to be less now than 10, 15, 20 or more years ago.

What is also interesting is that the majority of violations were caused by priests who were ordained pre-Vatican 2.

Go figure.

 

[pnewton]

It’s sobering to read the Old Testament and see what God required of the Israelites for His worship and compare it to what’s happened to the Latin Rite since 1969.

Yet throughout the OT we also see the overriding theme that obedience is better than sacrifice. I can easily see Micah preaching today:

6:6 With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow before God most high? Shall I come before him with holocausts, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with myriad streams of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my crime, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 You have been told, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do the right and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God.

It is not hard to see what external sacrifices can be subsituted.

 

[musicality]

I here this all the time. There was Communion in the hand before the receiving on the tongue. The thing is I can’t seem to find proof of this. I’ve looked and looked and looked. I am finding a lot of this:

…]

Any help would be nice.

Ok, so I didn’t really feel like taking the time to read through this entire thread (sorry ), but I think that you could probably just look to the last supper:
Matt 26:

26* Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; 28* for this is my blood of the * covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Mk 14:

22* * And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23* And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. 24* And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, * which is poured out for many.

Luke 22:

15* And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; 16* for I tell you I shall not eat it * until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17* And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves; 18* for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19* And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. *

1Cor 11:

23* * For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25* In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26* For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

Now, I don’t see a preference here, and I doubt fretting over the issue is going to do anything.

 

[simple_soul]

Your outer posture affects your inner disposition and vice versa. Personally, I want to send very clear and unambious signals to my heart (my subconscious) and to Heaven as to what I want from both.

It’s also a small sacrifice to God humble yourself to receive COTT, kneeling and it encourages humility, the opposite of the worst of the seven deadly sings, pride.

It’s sobering to read the Old Testament and see what God required of the Israelites for His worship and compare it to what’s happened to the Latin Rite since 1969.

Do you HEAR yourself? Talk about PRIDE. If you want to send an unambious signal to your heart try receiving Jesus, the Bread of Life, in your own hand knowing how unworthy you are to hold Him and tell me witch is more HUMBLING. Or is your pride so great that you could not sacrifice the idea that CITH might be a very Humbling experience?
Has anyone ever asked why CITH was allowed or do you just assume it was a bad idea? All I hear in the earlier posts by the majority of traditionalists is how much better it is the old way and how bad it is the new way. For myself the very thought of putting Jesus in my hands makes me so much more reverent and aware of God and who He is than just putting Him in my mouth.

Another thought Jesus is the New Covenant not the Old Covenant. Am I wrong?

I would sooner believe that the Church has diminished attendence not because of the way we show reverence to God directly but at the way we show reverence to God in each other

I also think the issue is much deeper than receiving CITH or COTT. If we keep on arguing over these petty things like who or what is more reverent than who or what is not, instead of seeing God in all His Glory 'not in our idea of His Glory" but in His Glory then we will keep going in circles and never really get to know Him. If Jesus can accept us for who we are why can we not accept each other for who we are? Maybe I just do not get it but when I watched the Passion the thing that struck me most was that after 2,009 years the basic heart of mankind has not changed. Will it ever?

Please Dear Jesus forgive me for ranting but I know you are crushed that we are arguing over who has the better idea of how to show you more reverence than the other and I know that all you want is reverence and that each of us needs to sing our own song of praise to You who knows our hearts best. Please help us to stop worrying about how each other should show reverence and help us, without contempt, to see each others reverence to Thee. Amen

 

[Layman]

I’d be happier about obeying our Bishops if they would obey the Pope(s). None of the novelties introduced post-Vatican II were mandated by the Council; they were introduced by bishops and clergy with a toothing for change.

Priests are not infallibile. Bishops are not infallible. Bishops conferences are not infallible.

The central irony of the ‘Spirit Of Vatican II’ lobby is that they will not, in obedience, ‘celebrate’ Mass as envisioned by that Council and then, when challenged on their experimentations, call for obedience.

You can’t have it both ways.

Let’s see: in forty years we’ve had CITH, vernacular, stripped churches, EMHCs, mundane music, unvested lay lectors, the ‘pro multis’ controversy, polka Masses and a vocations crisis. I wonder what the next forty would bring, with this rate and kind of change?

Given that this ‘spirit’ has not wrought the ‘new spingtime’ promised, I hope you’ll forgive me if I try the ‘tried and tested’.

Here’s how you’ll know if the jig is up: your priest may announce he’s taking on another parish. You may hear your parish is being merged. You may hear your priest bemoaning a vocations crisis, while Mrs. EMHC stands ready, in apparently equal dignity, beside him, to distribute communion and the young bucks in the congregation see her up there and think: ‘Nah’.

You may see kids showing the Host to their pals. You may see your church getting run down due to lack of money. Why? Falling congregations. Why falling congregations? Well, maybe families having one, two or three kids and then becoming mysteriously infertile might have something to do with it. Because they don’t know or don’t care that contraception is a sin. And still they go up to receive Communion. In the hand. From a neighbour. All very friendly. Because Jesus is Love and His Judgement is rarely mentioned.

Do the clergy think they’re doing people a favour by not scaring them with sermons on Hell and damnation? If there’s nothing to fear then you can handle the Host how you want, I suppose. Or stay at home entirely.

Time for a change, if not globally in the church, then individually, here and there, with people and priests finding their way back to a grand old rite.

 

[pnewton]

Priests are not infallibile. Bishops are not infallible. Bishops conferences are not infallible. .

They do not need to be infallible when it comes to disciplinary matters. In fact, infallibility is irrelevant. All they need to be is authoritative. All one can say about their decisions is either they are prudent or imprudent.

 

[pickguard1]

Ok, so I didn’t really feel like taking the time to read through this entire thread (sorry ), but I think that you could probably just look to the last supper:

Now, I don’t see a preference here, and I doubt fretting over the issue is going to do anything.

Regarding the various Gospel accounts of the last supper -

First - I dont’ have a dog in the COTT kneeling vs. CITH argument - they are both licit and both can be done reverently.

But…I think one of the main arguments of COTT proponents is that only a priest with consecrated hands should be allowed to touch the Sacred Host. The fact that the Apostles may or may not have received in their own hands doens’t really support any argument that the laity should also be able to do the same. (It also doesn’t NOT support it either - I’m just saying it’s not really relevant to the discussion, at least as far as the laity is concerned.)

 

[otjm]

I’d be happier about obeying our Bishops if they would obey the Pope(s). None of the novelties introduced post-Vatican II were mandated by the Council; they were introduced by bishops and clergy with a toothing for change.

So because some bishops on some things do not follow the rules, does that in teurn give you the right to choose which rules you will follow?

Priests are not infallibile. Bishops are not infallible. Bishops conferences are not infallible.

According to Vatican 2, when the bishops are working in union with the Pope, they share in the charism of infallibility.

The central irony of the ‘Spirit Of Vatican II’ lobby is that they will not, in obedience, ‘celebrate’ Mass as envisioned by that Council and then, when challenged on their experimentations, call for obedience.

You can’t have it both ways.

the discussion is not about the rebels. It is about the rules that Rome has given us. One does not need to have it both ways if one is following Rome, and Rome provided the rule that gives permission for CITH.

With the exception of the Vocation crisis, it would seem that everything you mention is permitted by Rome. As to mundane music, I am old enough to remember pre-Vatrican 2 that had some pretty mundane music; so that is not a Vatican 2 issue. Stripped churhces may be silliness personified, but given the excesses that some (not many, but some) churches had, it is not the end of the world. We go to worship God at church; statues of saints may help but are not intrinsic to the Mass. And as to the vocation crisis, materialism, hedonism, greed, secularism and the massive use of ABC by Catholics, including those who attend Mass regularly all have more to do with the vocation crisis than anything you mentioned. Rome did not give us the vocation crisis. We gave that ourselves.

the sad part is that you have lived through two Popes who have regualrly and repeatedly done a) what they can to deal with the “spirit of Vatican 2” and also to fully impliment Vatican 2 itself. Yet you simply reject their tireless and repeated efforts. Hmmm.


any “young buck” who thinks “nah” had no vocation to begin with, as they had no realyy knowledge of what vocation was about. And you are simply slandering all of the men who for the last 20 years or so have come into the priesthood because of the leadership of John Paul 2. Thank you so much for your fine support of all of those vocations.

Doesn’t happen. Our kids are properly catechized.

Our parish is growing; the dis seem like they are comniong out of the woodwork; we built the first Catholic grade school in 40 years, and we have 24 hour Perpetual Adoration. You will see what you want to see; we see what is and can become.

No, the clergy follwo the Gospels, and teach what Christ taught. Salvation is not about avoiding Hell, it is about following Christ and gaining Heaven.

It is n’t that grand old rite that will bring people back; it is following Christ. And unlike your point of view, it doesn’t have to do with the things that you mention - almost all legitimately practiced with Rome’s permission - it has to do with falling in love with Christ. And there are a whole bunch of people going to the OF who do that. Would that you would be less judgemental.

I have no bone to pick with those who prefer the EF, unless and until they play the “I am holier than you” card because they go to the EF. Get off your high horse. You are going to get a draft up there.

 

[otjm]

Regarding the various Gospel accounts of the last supper -

First - I dont’ have a dog in the COTT kneeling vs. CITH argument - they are both licit and both can be done reverently.

But…I think one of the main arguments of COTT proponents is that only a priest with consecrated hands should be allowed to touch the Sacred Host. The fact that the Apostles may or may not have received in their own hands doens’t really support any argument that the laity should also be able to do the same. (It also doesn’t NOT support it either - I’m just saying it’s not really relevant to the discussion, at least as far as the laity is concerned.)

However, the writings of the Fathers of the Church thoroughly support that the laity received in the hand. Those who argue about the Apostles are playing pick-and-choose with the history and literature of the Church.

 

[pickguard1]

However, the writings of the Fathers of the Church thoroughly support that the laity received in the hand. Those who argue about the Apostles are playing pick-and-choose with the history and literature of the Church.

I agree.

I think the crux of the matter is that in some places communion in the hand was (and as far as I know still is) the Apostolic Tradition, and at some point there were abuses, either through sacriledge, or a general falling in belief in the Real Presence, that led the heirarchy to institute COTT only, in order to combat such abuses/lack of faith. (This is not to say that there weren’t communities where this (COTT) was already the norm).

The fact of the matter is that it is up to the Pope and bishops to determine what is in the best interest of their flocks. If it is allowed by Rome, no one should be put down for exercising his/her right to receive in the hand. If you should see someone doing something sacrilegious, it should be immediately reported - no doubt. But the mere fact that someone, somewhere, might do something sacrilegious doesn’t give any of the laity the right to portray receiving the Eucharist in the hand as sacrilegious in and of itself. I personally receive only on the tongue, even at an OF Mass, because I feel that that is the most reverent way for me. I don’t think that someone is less reverent for receiving in the hand, though.

Are there people who receive irreverently? Of course there are. But it’s up to the authority (The Church) to determine the course of action to curb irreverence and increase faith. It’s up to the laity to continuously pray for the conversion of the world, and that includes ourselves, as well as those with whom we attend Mass. If we’re constantly judging whether Mr. so and so made a reverent enough bow before receiving communion, or whether he had his hands held in a prayerful gesture in the communion line, can we really say we’re in the right frame of mind oursleves?

 

[trish2009]

I really don’t want to get into this interminable (and now highly boring) argument, but it seems to me that the point is that “universal law” does not specify CITH. Let’s not play legal semantics: when taken down to it root, it means, for all practical purposes, it is an indult in the US and elsewhere. That does not change the fact that the practice is not universally accepted.

I recently read where Pope Benedict is trying to do away with Communion in the hand. This was on a website called Newsblast.com. Here is the info I copied. It is rather long but definitely worth reading.

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

**Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only
**
Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the Pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

The pope’s action is in accord with the Church’s 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing a true spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

Kneeling also coincides with the Church’s centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (Council of Trent)

It is for reason that Pope Paul VI in his May 1969 pastoral letter to the world’s bishops reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating that: **“This method on the tongue must be retained.” **(Memoriale Domini) This came in response to the bishops of Holland who started Communion in the hand in defiance of the centuries old decree from the Council of Rouen (650 A.D.) where this practice was condemned as sacrilegious. “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths.” This prohibition has never been overturned by any Pope, Bishop or legal authority. Unfortunately for us, within a few months, most Catholic communities throughout the world, especially here in America, followed Holland’s laissez faire disobedience.

Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have ‘abuse’ problems today it is because we’re abusing the Sacrament - it’s backfiring on us!

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse and we as members of Christ are called upon to assist him. For your encouragement we include the following quotation from Cardinal Llovera, the new prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments speaking to Life Site News on July 22, 2009: “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

Also worth considering is the recent decree from Cardinal Caffarra, the Archbishop of Bologna Italy, forbidding the practice of Communion in the hand: “Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue." (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

Technically all bishops and clergy are bound to follow the Holy Father’s directive on this issue, but don’t hold your breath. In the meantime the faithful are not obliged to wait for the approval of their bishop in order to kneel for God. The directives of the Holy Father are not subject to the veto or scrutiny of the bishops and therefore all pastors and laity have a right and duty to put these directives into practice for the edification of their communities.

Our Lady’s Workers of Southern California"

David Martin

jmj4today@att.net

“In the name of Jesus every knee should bend” - Philippians 2:10

(I have had to delete some paragraphs as the text was too long for this post).
I wonder how long it will take before the priests allow us to kneel in order to receive Communion. It will be impossible for us to follow the Pope’s wishes if we have to stand in line to receive, and we can’t just go up to the altar rail and wait for the priest to come to us.

I would imagine if this goes into effect, that this does away with Extraordinary Ministers since their hands are not consecrated.

Pat

 

[I_Believe]

Thank you Trish2009

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)