Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion and Communion on the Tongue

[stmaria]

Eric,

Read what the Pope said on the matter…It was done for 900 years. It’s not a problem. What is a problem is lack of respect for the Eucharist.

You are missing the point. As the Pope said , “here again we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. **That does not of course mean that it should always be so. **For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an **expression of reverence, **and is well-founded.”

Communion on the tongue began in the Church as an expression of reverence as she began understanding the mystery “more profoundly”
What you are missing is that the Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli began communion in the hand to show that **there was no mystery. ** It was not deserving of reverence. The host was mere bread. Christ was not present. Cranmer also adopted communion in the hand.
For that reason alone the Catholic should not allow it. To do anything that the Protestant reformers introduced should be avoided. In my opinion communion in the hand and standing instead of kneeling has contributed to a lack of believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

It may have been the norm in ancient times but was done away with because of the very abuses we are seeing today.

here is a good link to the topic that I found

media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml?norewrite200612180936&sourcedomain=www.udallasnews.com

 

[Sure]

You are missing the point. As the Pope said , “here again we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. **That does not of course mean that it should always be so. **For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an **expression of reverence, **and is well-founded.”

Communion on the tongue began in the Church as an expression of reverence as she began understanding the mystery “more profoundly”
What you are missing is that the Protestant Reformer Ulrich Zwingli began communion in the hand to show that **there was no mystery. ** It was not deserving of reverence. The host was mere bread. Christ was not present. Cranmer also adopted communion in the hand.
For that reason alone the Catholic should not allow it. To do anything that the Protestant reformers introduced should be avoided. In my opinion communion in the hand and standing instead of kneeling has contributed to a lack of believe in the Real Presence.

First off, let me be clear, I have never received in the hand as it is not my preference to do so. What the Holy Father is saying here is that the development of kneeling and on the tongue is good, but also that receiving standing and in the hand is good and has a basis in tradition. He is not condemning either posture.

He does completely disagree with you on your assertion that it leads to a lack of belief in the real presence. He states:

“Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands.”

We ought not to be arguing about such things but accept that both can be good, neither posture is inherently flawed and that what is important is a “reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God.”

 

[Eric_Olsen]

more articles I found.

Communion in the hand…why?
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

Re-thinking communion in the hand.
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Some Considerations on Communion on the Hand
unavoce.org/cith.htm

 

[stmaria]

First off, let me be clear, I have never received in the hand as it is not my preference to do so. What the Holy Father is saying here is that the development of kneeling and on the tongue is good,

but also that receiving standing and in the hand is good and has a basis in tradition. He is not condemning either posture.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Communion in the hand…why?
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

If this is not refuted, then I am entirely convinced. Would the proponents of Communion in the hand answer the quotes on this page, please?

 

[Sure]

Communion in the hand also has a Protestant tradition. When it was re-introduced in 1964 it was an** abuse**. It was forbidden by Pope Paul. Why forbid something if it is good?

So why has Ranjith said that it started as an abuse. Why does he appear to be against it?

Insofar as it was disobedient it was an abuse. It was not an abuse because of the intrinsic nature of the act.

The act itself as noted by the Holy Father is good. He says, “we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.”

Arch. Ranjith and others can disagree as to whether it is the best practice for the Church at this time. But what they can’t say is that it is intrinsically evil or invalid in any way. It is a good approved posture at this time.

Saying the Our Father is also a protestant tradition should we then stop saying it?

 

[Sure]

If this is not refuted, then I am entirely convinced. Would the proponents of Communion in the hand answer the quotes on this page, please?

Men and women used to sit separately in church for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Was it wrong to change this practice? Has changing this practice led to problems in the church?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Insofar as it was disobedient it was an abuse. It was not an abuse because of the intrinsic nature of the act.

The act itself as noted by the Holy Father is good. He says, “we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.”

Arch. Ranjith and others can disagree as to whether it is the best practice for the Church at this time. But what they can’t say is that it is intrinsically evil or invalid in any way. It is a good approved posture at this time.

Saying the Our Father is also a protestant tradition should we then stop saying it?

saying the our father goes back to before the reformation. It was said in the old mass.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Men and women used to sit separately in church for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Was it wrong to change this practice? Has changing this practice led to problems in the church?

I don’t think they are talking about that issue.
The man issue is communion in the hand and the abuses it has led to in the last 30 to 40 years.

 

[Sure]

saying the our father goes back to before the reformation. It was said in the old mass.

That is exactly my point. And communion in the hand was done in Catholic churches before the Protestant’s even existed. So, if we say that it is a “protestant tradition” we would also have to say that saying the Our Father is a protestant tradition as well. My point is that neither Communion in the hand nor saying the Our Father can correctly be called a “protestant” tradition.

 

[Sure]

I don’t think they are talking about that issue.
The man issue is communion in the hand and the abuses it has led to in the last 30 to 40 years.

Well, perhaps many of the issues we are experiencing today are caused not by Communion in the hand but by men and women sitting together. It’s a little strange that many traditionalists blame any modern problems on changes to discipline that they don’t agree with…but the changes they don’t care about can’t be held to blame for any of our problems.

It’s your opinion that communion in the hand has led to problems, it’s not mine and it’s not the Holy Father’s either.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

It’s your opinion that communion in the hand has led to problems, it’s not mine and it’s not the Holy Father’s either.

It’s not an opinion. It has led to problems. I have witnessed them myself. I have seen kids grab the host and run with it back to the pew and play with it.

There was a consecrated host by JPII on ebay.

I have seen so called Eucharistic ministers drop the host on the floor, pick it back up and give it out again.

Seen hosts laying in pews.

Believe me it’s not an opinion its a fact.

 

[Sure]

It’s not an opinion. It has led to problems. I have witnessed them myself. I have seen kids grab the host and run with it back to the pew and play with it.

There was a consecrated host by JPII on ebay.

I have seen so called Eucharistic ministers drop the host on the floor, pick it back up and give it out again.

Seen hosts laying in pews.

Believe me it’s not an opinion its a fact.

No, the problem you have seen is a lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament as noted by Card. Ratzinger.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I trust the leadership of the Church to know whether or not communion in the hand, in and of itself, is proper…and they have said it can be done. There were abuses by those who received on the tongue as well…spitting it out later, etc.

 

[Walking_Home]

No, the problem you have seen is a lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament as noted by Card. Ratzinger.

---

What you seem not to take into account is that Pope Benedict has had 30 more years from the time he made those statements as Card. --to see the effect of communion in the hand. Communion in the had opens up a much greater avenue for abuse and sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament.

What is being voiced now by Ranjith, etc. concerning the problems with communion in the hand —can very well be our Pope’s current thought on this matter.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

No, the problem you have seen is a lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament as noted by Card. Ratzinger.

which is a result of communion in the hand.

 

[TMC]

Or not.

Have there been any statements from the Pope or the Vatican since his elevation that suggest he is thinking of denying communion in the hand? I have seen none. For three years I have heard pronouncements about what this Pope secretly thinks, and how any minute he is going to turn the clock back 100 years. I dont’ see it. The Pope published a major work on the Eucharist last year and never mentioned this at all, except to reaffirm Redemptionis Sacramentum.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Men and women used to sit separately in church for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Was it wrong to change this practice? Has changing this practice led to problems in the church?

I am referring to the amount of authority reflected in the page that Eric posted. How many Popes, synods, and ecumenical councils dictated that men and women must sit separately? Quite a few prohibit Communion on the Hand. Again, if you can refute this, do so. But to compare this to men and women sitting separately is making a faulty analogy. (Unless you can show me that men and women sitting together was, at some point, condemned by Popes, Councils, etc.)

 

[Walking_Home]

Or not.

Have there been any statements from the Pope or the Vatican since his elevation that suggest he is thinking of denying communion in the hand? I have seen none. For three years I have heard pronouncements about what this Pope secretly thinks, and how any minute he is going to turn the clock back 100 years. I dont’ see it. The Pope published a major work on the Eucharist last year and never mentioned this at all, except to reaffirm Redemptionis Sacramentum.

---

Since as you say – the Pope reaffirmed RS-2004 then he reaffirmed this—which is the topic of this thread. From what has happened in the last 40 + years — it has gone way past risk — to actual abuse/profanation/sacrilege. How much more abuse of the Blessed Sacrament will it take to satisfy some peoples appetite — before they say no more. 5 more years, 10 --15-- 20 or maybe never.

92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand.** If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.**[179]