Our Lady of Akita & Communion on the Tongue

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul Folbrecht,
OK, I’m failing to see how Our Lady Of Akita, some how instructed us to stop receiving communion in the hand, but on the tongue.

Where did you get that? Nobody said that.

Still, if you can so easily brush off the evidence that is there, I have to shake my head.

According to the author of the book, who is of the traditionalist mind set, Sr Agnes reasoned that the stigmata was a sign that she was to start receiving communion on the tongue, but Sr Agnes nor the nuns actually state this as fact.

What does “of the traditionalist mindset” mean? The Latin Mass is not mentioned a single time in the book! If your definition of ‘traditionalist’ is someone who rejects modernism, I guess your comment is accurate.

Also, the Pope’s have been witnessing Catholic receiving in the hand, at all of the services the preside over. Only Pope Benedict, has stated that those receiving from him, shall kneel and receive on the tongue, yet he doesn’t force anyone else to do the same.

Er, Ok.

To me, this is a mistake by Pope Benedict. If receiving on the hand while standing is incorrect, then correct it. If not, then allow Catholics to receive as is allow, even when receiving from him.

The problem is that you’re not seeing that it’s not a matter of “correct vs. incorrect”, but something more like “more and less preferable, overall”.

This has brought more division and confusion over the issue than helped.

There would have been none if the practice of receiving on the hand hadn’t started - illegally - in the first place. It’s licit now because the Popes made it so. It was not at first. And there certainly isn’t a word about it in any of the V2 documents.

If my Bishop says, Communion must be received on the tongue, I will comply.

Until that happens, I see it as a unnatural way of receiving. Jesus said, take and eat, not stick out your tongue and let it melt in your mouth.

Catholics aren’t supposed to engage in self-interpretation of Scripture outside of Tradition. That’s basic. Furthermore, your last sentence is not only rather bizarre but offensive.

 

[CradleCath]

I just checked into “Memoriale Domoni,” and it is true that in this document Pope Paul VI said that communion should be on the tongue only. However, I did find out too that a bit later the pope issued a rescript suspending this rule and allowing communion in the hand. I wonder if you are aware of this (which I grant may simply be a simple mistake on your part).

Actually, Pope Paul VI didn’t issue a rescript (a re-writing of the the fact that Communion on the tongue is the norm in the Catholic Church). He issued an indult…a special permission, often temporary, to veer from the established norm. Therefore, COTT. is STILL the prescribed method for the reception of the Eucharist.

I also wonder if you are aware of the part that some of our liberal heirarchy played in introducing CITH. Cardinal Suenens of Belgium was the first priest to place the Sacred Host into a communicants hand…in direct disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Rather than disturb the laity with anymore confusion re the new authority of the hierarchy, Pope Paul let it go.

Here in the US., Cardinal Bernardin then began a long & merciless campaign to be granted permission to do the same… First, he lied & told the Pope that “everyone” here was already doing so…they weren’t. I know, I was there.
Through Pope Paul’s last couple of years on this earth, Bernardin hounded him about this issue. Pope Paul was sick, failing & worried constantly about a friend from his student days who had been captured & held by the Red Brigade…still Cardinal Bernardin was resolute in his efforts. He couldn’t even get his fellow members of the USCCB on board with this. They didn’t want CITH. & Pope Paul stood fast in his ruling…either the Bishops of this county voted for distribution of the Eucharist into the hands of the laity & this method was favored by a 2/3 majority, he would not even consider it. Cardinal Bernardin & his cronies (his “Boys Club”) called for a vote first in 1976. It failed. Again in 1977 & again it failed. Finally, in 1978 when Pope Paul VI’s heart finally gave up it’s fight to keep beating Bernardin called for a third vote. This time, he elicited votes from members of the American hierarchy by telephone, those who were sick & bed-ridden, those who were retired, those who, due to their health were unable to attend the meeting. He got his 2/3s majority in this way & the dying Pope relented & gave him his indult.

Even if I believed that self-communicating was good (& I don’t) I would want nothing to do with an indult that was attained in this manner.

From Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, a 19th century member of our hierarchy:
**My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil,
never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are
progress; to the night: you are light; to death: you are life.

Sanctify
yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the
disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and
your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray,
in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the
Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: Qui
adhearet Deo unus spiritus est (I Cor 6:17)**

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Paul Folbrecht;

Where did you get that? Nobody said that.

Its implied in the article and the title of the thread.

Still, if you can so easily brush off the evidence that is there, I have to shake my head.

The evidence isn’t supported by the Bishops, otherwise we would not be allowed to receive communion in the hand.

What does “of the traditionalist mindset” mean? The Latin Mass is not mentioned a single time in the book! If your definition of ‘traditionalist’ is someone who rejects modernism, I guess your comment is accurate.

Traditionalist are those who reject anything Post Vatican II as being from the devil.

The problem is that you’re not seeing that it’s not a matter of “correct vs. incorrect”, but something more like “more and less preferable, overall”.

No, its a matter of unity. Either receiving in the hand is correct or its not. If its not, then the Pope should stop it. Mandating that those who receive from him, must kneel and receive on the tongue, flies in the face what the Church as a whole allows.
No priest is allowed to refuse communion to those who desire to receive in the hand. But the Pope is in fact doing that.

There would have been none if the practice of receiving on the hand hadn’t started - illegally - in the first place.

Illegally? Once again, traditionalist interpretation.

Catholics aren’t supposed to engage in self-interpretation of Scripture outside of Tradition. That’s basic.

I’m not. I’m following what the Church instruction. There has been no mandate, prohibiting reception of Communion in the hand, by the Church. Until that happens, suggesting, which this thread does, that receiving in the hand is following the directives of the devil, is nothing more than religious fanaticism.

Furthermore, your last sentence is not only rather bizarre but offensive.

Sorry but its the reality. Jesus never instructed us to receive Communion any other way other than to take and eat, take and drink.

Jim

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Paul Folbrecht;
Its implied in the article and the title of the thread.

I really don’t think so, and nobody else jumped to that conclusion.

The evidence isn’t supported by the Bishops, otherwise we would not be allowed to receive communion in the hand.

“Evidence isn’t supported”? I don’t know what that means.

Traditionalist are those who reject anything Post Vatican II as being from the devil.

That’s good of you to pick your own definition of ‘Traditionalist’ that is far outside the commonly accepted one so that you can use it as a slur. You are really being astoundingly nonsensical and even offensive here. The author of this book most assuredly accepts Vatican II as a valid Church Council and is a loyal son of the Church. By your reckoning, I take it all tongue receivers and all Extraordinary Form goers are schismatics? (Don’t answer that; it’s entirely rhetorical.)

No, its a matter of unity. Either receiving in the hand is correct or its not. If its not, then the Pope should stop it. Mandating that those who receive from him, must kneel and receive on the tongue, flies in the face what the Church as a whole allows.
No priest is allowed to refuse communion to those who desire to receive in the hand. But the Pope is in fact doing that.

I’m not interested in your personal criticisms of the Pope.

The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. His formal decisions make Church policy, by definition. He’s issued no policy changes on this issue, but he’s made his personal beliefs clear, which is all that’s been talked about here.

It’s amusing that you can so openly oppose the Supreme Pontiff and then make the claim that you’re the one loyal to the Church, though.

Illegally? Once again, traditionalist interpretation.

It’s nothing of the sort - it’s a fact. When the practice first began, it was not approved. It became approved by indult after the argument was made that it was already too ingrained.

But that is a practical matter.

I’m not. I’m following what the Church instruction. There has been no mandate, prohibiting reception of Communion in the hand, by the Church. Until that happens, suggesting, which this thread does, that receiving in the hand is following the directives of the devil, is nothing more than religious fanaticism.

You’re quite obviously following certain churchmen and rejecting the teachings of the ones you don’t care for.

You’re also displaying irrationality and/or dishonesty in claiming that those quoted in this thread have said anything close to what you imply. Nobody could honestly read the material in this thread and conclude that somebody implied that “receiving in the hand is following the directives of the devil”! Very disingenuous of you.

Once again: receiving in the hand is valid & licit (because the Church has made it so) and there isn’t a thing wrong with it.

Sorry but its the reality. Jesus never instructed us to receive Communion any other way other than to take and eat, take and drink.

Once again, you’re arguing like a sola scriptura Protestant, and making a very naive and simplistic argument at that. It isn’t your job to interpret Scripture for yourself or anyone else.

This is my last reply to you here, which means you get to have the last word if you’d like.

 

[pnewton]

Paul Folbrecht;

Its implied in the article and the title of the thread.

I understood the difference and I tend to jump to conclusions. Consider this, as you are allowed to receive communion in your hand in the U. S. Just like you like to post the reasons you see for this form, others like to do the same for reception on the tongue. If one day this indult is ever lifted, it is always helpful to know both sides so we can have an understanding as to why Rome would do such a thing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

OK let me get this strait.

This thread and the article posted, isn’t implying that receiving communion in the hand is wrong?

Jim