Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion and Communion on the Tongue

[stmaria]

Pope Paul seemed to understand the importance of communion on the tongue and his history of it is right on. Unfortunately he gave in to the constant pressure from the Catholic reformers like Father Bugnini and allowed it after nine years of abuse.
Memoriale Domini On Communion in the hand.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

“Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice **has been introduced without prior approval **having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it **expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. **The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. **It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.**Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, **the Holy Father has decided not to change **the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.
Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.”

 

[Sure]

---

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]

“Some people’s”…it’s not up to them. You need to ask how much more will it take to satisfy Pope Benedict’s appetite. It’s his call to make. But it worth pointing out that (as I quoted from him earlier) communion in the hand isn’t the problem, it’s a lack of reverence and that was not caused by communion in the hand, it was caused by horrible catechesis.

 

[otjm]

It may have been done for 900 years but everything I have read was because of no respect for the Eucharist, is why receiving on the tongue was started. I am all for going back to kneeling and receiving on the tongue.

Then perhaps you should read more widely. Reverance is not an issue of hand or tongue; reverance is an issue of heart and mind. I would suggest I find more revereance in the act of bowing of an elder person entering the church, one who is crippled, but takes the time to greet the Lord, than some simple minded teenager who makes a swooping genuflection and has no real clue where they are.

 

[otjm]

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.

Last I recall, Zwingli has been dead for 400 years or so. His issue then is not our issue today. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, and applied across the board, the church limited confession to once in a lifetime; obviously there was a fear that sinners were not truly repentant if they repeated their sins; I seriously doubt that the Church should go back to thaqt because today there may be some who are not ruly repentant.

The issue is not one of a knee jerk reaction to every possible issue, but one of education - better known as catechesis.

 

[otjm]

Sure;3262719:

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,

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?Because it was deemed at the time to be a better response to an immediate issue. That does not mean that the response to an immediate issue is therefore a permanent response. There was an issue - actually, there were a whole series of issues - on the table. The Church went into a reactionary mode to the Protestant revolution - and it was a revolution. They revolted; it is no longer the 1500s, or the 1600s, or even the 1700s. We are no longer required to react to something that occured 450 to 500 years ago; much of the animosity has resolved itself. We can celebrate our liturgy without in any way being seen as “giving into” or “approving” what someone else is doing. Frankly, the evangelicals and fundamentalists mostly could care less about our rubrics; and the mainline Portestant churches have their hands so full of their own issues, that our rubrics don’t really reach their radar screen.

 

[otjm]

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?

If you want a refutation, start with basic logic. He throws a whole series of issues into the stew pot which are essentially unrelated, and presumes that reception of Coummunion in the hand is the source for the problems he purports to observe.

Just one example: has Communion in the hand brought in droves of people? No, of course not; and it was not intended to. But people stopped attending Mass - the fall-off in attendance started - in 1957-1958 (Gallup polls). Following the Gallup polls shows a continual drop off in attendance since 1958, long, long before Communion in the hand was an issue. His not so subtle presumption that it (Communion in the hand) is responsible for the lack of reverance in general is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement that ignores all other issues that have impacted Catholics in the last 50 years, is simplistic, and fails utterly to prove his point when subjected to any realistic analysis.

Loss of reverence is more due to the dumbing down of catechesis starting in the late 1960s, and is more clearly related to that than a change in the rubrical format of reception. Reverance is not automatic; it is something that is taught. If it isn’t taught, then how one receives - on the tongue on in the hand - is much more likely to be done with little reverance. Reverance is a head and heart issue, and when all we are teaching our children is “jesus my buddy”, and “we all need to be good little social workers and work in a suop kitchen”, and have them cut out butterflies for their religious education class about the Ressurection, we aren’t doing a very good job teaching reverance.

Frankly, you can believe anything you want. But believing it doesn’t makie it so; we only need to look to the sedevacantists for proof of that issue. There are plenty of people around who don’t like Communion in the hand. It is not required; in fact, it is by indult as Communion on the tongue is still the norm. But just because a vocal group wants to wax eloquent about how Communion in the hand is the cause of so many problems in the Church, that does not mean they are right.

There have been a whole host of issues that have impacted Catholics in the pews, and many of them are not Church issues, but have succeeded in spilling over into the Church. It is much easier to look for a simplisitic answer to all our problems because most people are not taught to think critically, and to examine issues from all sides. That relates more to our culture of 30 second sound bites than I care to admit. It takes work to examine what is actually causing a problem, particularly when there are things that tend to poke us emotionally. And most people don’t know how to do the hard work, and many are too lazy to engage in it.

 

[Walking_Home]

“Some people’s”…it’s not up to them. You need to ask how much more will it take to satisfy Pope Benedict’s appetite. It’s his call to make. But it worth pointing out that (as I quoted from him earlier) communion in the hand isn’t the problem, it’s a lack of reverence and that was not caused by communion in the hand, it was caused by horrible catechesis.

---

I don’t have to ask the Pope—for it is there in RS–2004. Communion in the hand is to be withdrawn at the risk of profanation—yet it continues even after actual profanation. Our late Pope knew what was happening --but washed his hands of it by passing the buck to those below ---- which did no good. The truth of the matter is — communion in the hand opened a much greater avenue for profanation–and on top of that gives the horrible catechesis much–much more freedom to express itself.

 

[otjm]

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.

And I would disagree that Communion in the hand wa the issue; catechesis was the issue. If they had received it on the tongue, there is nothing in your example whowing they would have been any more reverant in their reception.

There was a consecrated host by JPII on ebay.

And prior to reception in the hand it was not unknown for someone to extract the Host from thier mouth if they intended no good.

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

And as an altar boy prior to Vaticn 2, I have seen way more Hosts dropped when put on the tongue than when given in the hand. It is all too easy to not have enough tongue sticking out to set the Host on firmly; further, Hosts get flicked off the tongue by the teeth or the upper lip.

Seen hosts laying in pews.

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

Again, it goes to catechesis, which even the bishops have finally acknowledged has been sorely lacking - and not just about Communion.

 

[otjm]

I am referring to the amount of authority reflected in the page that Eric posted.

Actually, what he posted were some people’s opinions, not authority. Authority, last time I checked, was Rome, the proper dicastery or the Pope himself.

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.)

It was a matter of Canon Law when the Canon was first promulgated in the early 1900s, and was the law before that going back who knows how long. Centuries. So what?

It is not a matter of how many popes said this, or said that; the Pope has the authority to regulate how Communion is received, and it was what Christ instituted, and what the Church did for almost half of its existence. There came a time when it was deemed prudent because of exisiting circumstances, to limit how we received. It has since been deemed prudent that we allow people to reveive as they originally did, and for 9 centuries.

You are welome to feel that it is not prudent; that and about $2 will probably get you somewhere on the local mass transit system. The Pope has preserved your reception on the tongue as the norm; he has allowed it in the hand, and said that you are not to judge others who receive in the hand.

Everyone has an opinion; some even have two or three about an issue. It is what makes things lively.

Others have elsewhere felt that the change in the Mass was the worst thing that happened to the Church in the last 50 years, and have longed for a return of the EF. It has now returned, but realistically it will take 5 to 10 years to see what impact it may have. At one point, the Church had no problem with the local authorities burning heretics at the stake, and that too has changed. Not that it has a whole lot of relevance to the issue, but the Church takes a much different approach to heresy now, rightly or wrongly. There are those who long for the good old days, without realizing that they were just old days, and neither particulary good or bad.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

otjm:

If you want a refutation, start with basic logic.
…
And most people don’t know how to do the hard work, and many are too lazy to engage in it.
…
You are welome to feel that it is not prudent; that and about $2 will probably get you somewhere on the local mass transit system.

Otjm-

Your pretentiousness and arrogance are simply disgusting and off-putting to anyone who reads your drivel. Clearly, you have not grasped my question, and thus I am sorry to inform you that you wasted an extraordinary amount of time typing a wall of text.

I have not aired my personal opinion on this topic, save that I find Eric’s link compelling. Mainly, I would like to see addressed the teachings that it contains from various infallible councils. Furthermore, if the opinions of such knowledgeable saints as St. Thomas Aquinas can be refuted, then demonstrate so. If you can do this, feel free. If you are unable, then please do not waste my time baiting me with phrases such as “basic logic”.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

… But people stopped attending Mass - the fall-off in attendance started - in 1957-1958 (Gallup polls). Following the Gallup polls shows a continual drop off in attendance since 1958, long, long before Communion in the hand was an issue.

…There have been a whole host of issues that have impacted Catholics in the pews, and many of them are not Church issues, but have succeeded in spilling over into the Church. It is much easier to look for a simplisitic answer to all our problems because most people are not taught to think critically, and to examine issues from all sides. That relates more to our culture of 30 second sound bites than I care to admit. It takes work to examine what is actually causing a problem, particularly when there are things that tend to poke us emotionally. And most people don’t know how to do the hard work, and many are too lazy to engage in it.

No, the drop-off was not continual since 1958. Here is the graph:

cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

Yes, it must be a lot of hard work to try to find more remote issues as the cause of the main drop off in 1965 other than the wholesale changes ushered into the Church itself due to the reforms of Vatican II.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Loss of reverence is more due to the dumbing down of catechesis starting in the late 1960s, and is more clearly related to that than a change in the rubrical format of reception. Reverance is not automatic; it is something that is taught. If it isn’t taught, then how one receives - on the tongue on in the hand - is much more likely to be done with little reverance. Reverance is a head and heart issue, and when all we are teaching our children is “jesus my buddy”, and “we all need to be good little social workers and work in a suop kitchen”, and have them cut out butterflies for their religious education class about the Ressurection, we aren’t doing a very good job teaching reverance.

Yes, catechesis is important. But reverence is also “caught” not just taught. Symbols, gestures, and what we do with our body are also critical.

To quote again from The Feast of Christ the King:

1. …For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year–in fact, forever. The Church’s teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man’s nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God’s teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life.

newadvent.org/library/docs_pi11qp.htm

God bless.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Let me ask you this, do you think a persons hands that may be unclean?

And I would disagree that Communion in the hand wa the issue; catechesis was the issue. If they had received it on the tongue, there is nothing in your example whowing they would have been any more reverant in their reception.

And prior to reception in the hand it was not unknown for someone to extract the Host from thier mouth if they intended no good.

And as an altar boy prior to Vaticn 2, I have seen way more Hosts dropped when put on the tongue than when given in the hand. It is all too easy to not have enough tongue sticking out to set the Host on firmly; further, Hosts get flicked off the tongue by the teeth or the upper lip.

Again, it goes to catechesis, which even the bishops have finally acknowledged has been sorely lacking - and not just about Communion.

 

[otjm]

Otjm-

Your pretentiousness and arrogance are simply disgusting and off-putting to anyone who reads your drivel. Clearly, you have not grasped my question, and thus I am sorry to inform you that you wasted an extraordinary amount of time typing a wall of text.

I have not aired my personal opinion on this topic, save that I find Eric’s link compelling. Mainly, I would like to see addressed the teachings that it contains from various infallible councils. Furthermore, if the opinions of such knowledgeable saints as St. Thomas Aquinas can be refuted, then demonstrate so. If you can do this, feel free. If you are unable, then please do not waste my time baiting me with phrases such as “basic logic”.

Well… Apparently I tipped your teakettle over. That was not my objective; if I hurt your feelings, I am sorry.

I will go back to my basic point; it is a matter of basic logic. Basic logic is what one uses to, as you requested, refute a point. The article you referrred to had a number of violations of basic logic. I was not suggesting that you are illogical, but rather that the writer was using impassioned speech, rather than taking an issue and logically seeing where that went. The writer is impassioned about what he perceives as irreverance (and I do not disagree with the basic premise), and then throws a number of non-related issues into his discussion, implying that they are the source of the irreverance. He is trying to take a complex issue (the question of why reverance, or the demonstration of reverance has lowered over time, and apply a single issue answer. It plays into “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy to start with.

You asked for refutation. If you don’t like what I said, that is fine. I will repeat that many people want a simple answer to a complex question, particularly if they have a perception that something they don’t like is the source of the answer. There is a tendency to listen solely to others who feel the same way, and then, since they have received what they perceive as validation of their point of view, it tends to devolve into a “please don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”.

Drivel? Well, at least in your anger with my response, you provide some salvos back.

Wall of text? That’s a new one.

St Thomas was a brilliant theologian. He also was markedly wrong on some points (and had a great deal of humility about his writings). As to the isuse of touching the Host, he was wrong, or else you are left with accusing the pope of heretical changes. The fact that he was brilliant does not mean that his answers were both universal and permanently correct, as some issues were time and culture related. In short, he was wrong that one’s hands had to be consecrated; you want the refutation, then look at the fact that one pope decided that was not correct (an indult was given) and it has been ratified to the extent that it has not been withdrawn since; or in the alternative, consider the fact that it was started by Christ, continued by the Apostles, and maintained by the Church for 9 centuries. I seriously doubt St Thomas was accusing the Church of having gotten it wrong for 9 centuries.

 

[stmaria]

=otjm;3265701]
That it (Communion in the hand) is responsible for the lack of reverance in general is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement that ignores all other issues that have impacted Catholics in the last 50 years, is simplistic, and fails utterly to prove his point when subjected to any realistic analysis.

Loss of reverence is more due to the dumbing down of catechesis starting in the late 1960s, and is more clearly related to that than a change in the rubrical format of reception.

So are you saying that secretary of the Congregation Roman liturgy, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjih is wrong? That he is mistaken? He doesn’t mention dumbing down of catechesis.

cathcon.blogspot.com/2007/11/sanctuary-as-place-of-confusion.html

"A Curial bishop has specified the causes of the current ecclesiastical crisis :** Hand Communion**, the abolition of Communion benches and kneelers , the removal of Tabernacles to another part of the Church and laity at the altar.

Msgr Ranjith admits, that some directives of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform **damaged parts of the liturgy **But that was not the intention of the council. The former Cardinal Ratzinger, referred to the so-called “spirit of the council” as a true “pernicious Conciliar ideology;”

As a negative example of Archbishop cited** hand Communion**. . It was introduced so as to be an abuse. **Now despite harmful effects on the faith, it is maintained. **The hand Communion, “in a certain way” has helped ensure that **the belief in the real presence of Christ **in the Eucharist had waned:
"This practice, and the abolition of Communion benches before the sanctuary and kneeling benches in the Churches and the introduction of practices, which the faithful force during the consecration to sit or stand, diminish the true meaning of the Eucharist."

“In some churches, the Blessed Sacrament is almost hidden or banned to a barely visible and meanly decorated chapel .” All this overshadows the central beliefs of the Church of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament."

 

[otjm]

So are you saying that secretary of the Congregation Roman liturgy, Archbishop Malcolm Ranjih is wrong? That he is mistaken? He doesn’t mention dumbing down of catechesis.

Yes, that is what I am saying. Just because someone is named Cardinal does not mean that he is anointed expert in all matters. Cardinals have opinions, and other Cardinals undoubtedly have other opinions as to what has caused some of the issues he addresses.

 

[stmaria]

Yes, that is what I am saying. Just because someone is named Cardinal does not mean that he is anointed expert in all matters. Cardinals have opinions, and other Cardinals undoubtedly have other opinions as to what has caused some of the issues he addresses.

And does it bother you that this “Archbishop” was appointed by Pope Benedict to clean house?

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Latest from Ranjith,

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm

Vatican official: Church should reconsider Communion in the hand.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the Vatican official, made the suggestion in the preface to a book about the Eucharist by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan.

Bishop Schneider’s book, “Dominus Est: Reflections of a Bishop from Central Asia on Holy Communion,” was published in Italian in late January by the Vatican Publishing House, though some of it had been released earlier in the Vatican newspaper.

In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, “The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ – God in our midst – must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration.”

The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council never authorized the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, a practice that was “introduced abusively and hurriedly in some spheres” and only later authorized by the Vatican.

The liturgists, theologians and pastors who encouraged the change said it better reflected the ancient practice of the church and the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, he said.

“It is true that if one can receive on the tongue, one also can receive in the hand because this organ of the body has equal dignity,” he said.

However, Archbishop Ranjith said, the introduction of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand coincides with the beginning of “a gradual and growing weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred eucharistic species.”

“I think the time has come to evaluate these practices and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice,” Archbishop Ranjith said.

“Now more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful renew a lively faith in the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic species with the aim of reinforcing the very life of the church and defending it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith,” the archbishop wrote.

The bulk of Bishop Schneider’s book was published in early January in the Vatican newspaper; he said that if a Catholic truly believes in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he or she should kneel in adoration and reverence when receiving Communion.

The article in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, appeared under the headline, “Like a nursing child in the arms of the one who nourishes him” and included the bishop’s opinion that just as a baby opens his mouth to receive nourishment from his mother, so should Catholics open their mouths to receive nourishment from Jesus.

END

 

[stmaria]

Great post! I had to highlight some of the best.

=Eric_Olsen;3267834]Latest from Ranjith,

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm

Vatican official: Church should reconsider Communion in the hand.
VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, "The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ – God in our midst – must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration."
The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council** never authorized **the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, a practice that was “**introduced abusively **and hurriedly in some spheres” and only later authorized by the Vatican.

The liturgists, theologians and pastors who encouraged the change said it better reflected the ancient practice of the church and the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, he said.

“It is true that if one can receive on the tongue, one also can receive in the hand because this organ of the body has equal dignity,” he said.

However, Archbishop Ranjith said, the introduction of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand coincides with the beginning of "a gradual and growing weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred eucharistic species."

“I think the time has come to evaluate these practices and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice,” Archbishop Ranjith said.

“Now more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful** renew a lively faith in the real presence of Christ **in the eucharistic species with the aim of reinforcing the very life of the church and defending it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith,” the archbishop wrote.

The bulk of Bishop Schneider’s book was published in early January in the Vatican newspaper; he said that if a Catholic truly believes in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he or she should kneel in adoration and reverence when receiving Communion.

 

[otjm]

And does it bother you that this “Archbishop” was appointed by Pope Benedict to clean house?

Considering that Lavada was appointed to fill the position that Ratzinger had before he was elected Pope, not in the least. People are raised to various dicasteries for any number of reasons.

And as for cleaning house, I haven’t seen a very big broom is service.

The fact that Ranjith has floated a trial baloon is just that; the presumption that he did so at the behest of the Pope is speculation at its best, given what the Pope has had to say about Communion in the hand. And given the length of time that was spent, as well as the energy, to get the MP in place, I seriously doubt this one is going forward without a whole lot of (name removed by moderator)ut.

It is an indult; I am not ignorant of the point. I am aware that the Pope has spoken about the need to not continue the process of constant change that has upset so many.

But going after Communion in the hand as some sort of solution to catechesis is swatting at symptoms, not causes.