Receivng Communion on your Hand

[JReducation]

That’s still my question that I don’t understand.

You seem to be saying that a Catholic can follow a Rite of the Church and be wrong.

Is that correct? Thanks for any clarification (starting with yes or no would help).

If an a liturgical action is approved for a certain right, it is always OK. As long as it has approval from the appropriate authority. That authority can be the Holy See or tradition. The Holy See is always the final interpreter of tradition. That is the papal power to bind and unbind, to make law or change law. Liturgical actions are matters of law, not dogma. The dogma is the sacrament itself, not the actions that confect the sacrament. Case in point, one Eastern Church was resently accepted into union with the Catholic Church but did not have to change its canon, even though it does not use the words of consecration. The Holy Father said that the words or consecration are present in the narrative of the last supper that is included in the canon of that Church. That was enough.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[truevaticanii]

Wait a minute, you are talking here only about the Easter Rites. There are Eastern Rites and Eastern Churches. The Eastern Rites are not churches withn the Church. That’s different. There are independent uniat Churches in communion with Rome. They are not rites. They have their own rites. But they also have autonomy. Their communion with Rome has to do with the authority and primacy of Peter, not with the liturgy. In regards to liturgy and sacraments they are autonomous. Some do not even have the same words of consecration as we do and are not required to have them. But their Eucharist is valid and legal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I do not know of any Eastern Churches my friend. “Some do not even have the same words of consecration.” Then the sacrament would be invalid… we cannot change the substance of the sacraments… the Church has no authority over that… if that is done in any Rite it is invalid.

Isn’t a rite merely a subdivision of a Church consisting in the Catholic Church? E.g., the Roman Church (Apostolic see) has Rites such as the Ordinary Form, Extraordinary Form, the Ambrosian Rite, the Carmelite Rite, the Dominican Rite, etc.

 

[truevaticanii]

That’s still my question that I don’t understand.

You seem to be saying that a Catholic can follow a Rite of the Church and be wrong.

Is that correct? Thanks for any clarification (starting with yes or no would help).

You would not be wrong, but you could be doing something that is against God’s will for the Mass. The Church has the authority to tell us how the Mass is laid out, but it is not infallible, hence why we are able to change the form of the Mass, the prayers of the Mass, etc.

 

[truevaticanii]

Actually he did. But that is because there was an indult that was given to the Franciscans when the rule was approved that allowed the superior of the house to handle the Eucharist. That’s why you often see portraits of St. Clare with the monstrance. For centuries our friars and cloistered nuns have handled the Eucharist. But that’s another story.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

St. Francis said: “If I were to meet at the same time a saint from heaven and a poor priest, I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence, for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good far surpasses everything that is human.’”

 

[truevaticanii]

"Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.

Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully." -Homily by Fr. Robert Altier - BSP Visitor, bspenance.org/Archive/Newsletter.html

 

[tassitus]

. . . Before: Kneeling, on the tongue, from your priest, at the altar-rails separating you from the holy ground. Now, standing tall, into your hand, from a laywoman, lining up in a ‘bread queue’. . .

Sorry, I have not yet read through this whole thread (and probably won’t - it’s a long one), but I have to say the above is, to me, a shocking choice of words for a Catholic to type. I “line up” with my brothers and sisters at the communion rail, on our knees, too. Care to cast the same aspersion?

I trust you simply did not realize how offensive that came off. I trust.

Peace all.

 

[JReducation]

I do not know of any Eastern Churches my friend. “Some do not even have the same words of consecration.” Then the sacrament would be invalid… we cannot change the substance of the sacraments… the Church has no authority over that… if that is done in any Rite it is invalid.

Actually, no. It was about two years ago that one of the Eastern Church seekiing reconciliation with Rome had to deal with this issue and Pope Benedict said that they did not have to have the exact words of consecration as long as they were implied in the canon through the narrative. In other words, they are present in the cannon as their canon tells the story of the last supper. But they are not said as we say them. The Holy Father said this was acceptable. and they are now in communion with Rome.

As to the Eastern Churches, each Church is an independent Church. Each Church may or may not have its own rite. For example, there are several Eastern Churches that use the same rite to celebrate the mass, the mass of St. John Chryssostum. But they are not the same Church.

Observe what canon law has to say about the Churches. There are both, Eastern Churches and Eastern Rites.

The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

Isn’t a rite merely a subdivision of a Church consisting in the Catholic Church? E.g., the Roman Church (Apostolic see) has Rites such as the Ordinary Form, Extraordinary Form, the Ambrosian Rite, the Carmelite Rite, the Dominican Rite, etc.

A rite is the liturgical tradition. A Church is an independent community with its own leadership, always a bishop, its own language, its own laws, its own rubrics, its own religious life, its own history and its own apostolic lineage to one of the apostles. There are Churches that are united to the Roman Catholic Church in government. Even though they have their own bishops, those bishops are in communion with the successor of Peter.

There is only one Latin rite. The EF and the OF are not two rites. They are one rite in two different forms. They both follow the format of the Latin Church and the words of consecration, the scriptures and the ministers are the same in both forms. They follow the same liturgical calendar and they are submissive to the same leadership, the Bishop of Rome. Since the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Latin Church, they are called the Latin rite mass, even though the forms are different.

In the Latin rite mass, you must have the words of consecration said in the manner that we know. The same words are used in most other rites, but not in every rite. In some rites, the words are present, but in a different manner. I can’t recall the specific word for this, but there is a technical word for it, when you have the words of consecration dispersed through the canon instead of recited as a unit, the way that most of the Churches do it. If I find it or remember it, I’ll post it.

I’m not an expert on Eastern Churches. You may want to PM Byzcath (Br. David, O’Carm). He’s an expert on Eastern Churches. He belongs to an Eastern Church, not an Eastern rite, but an actual Church. Yet, he is a friar in a Latin religious order. There is a perfect example of the unity between the Churches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, I have not yet read through this whole thread (and probably won’t - it’s a long one), but I have to say the above is, to me, a shocking choice of words for a Catholic to type. I “line up” with my brothers and sisters at the communion rail, on our knees, too. Care to cast the same aspersion?

I trust you simply did not realize how offensive that came off. I trust.

Peace all.

I agree with Tassitus. To call the communioin line a “bread cue” is a horrible choice of words for a Catholic to us. Regardless of who distributes communion, it is still the Eucharist. The fact that the writer goes to the extent of mentioning the fact that it is a woman distributing communion, as if there were something wrong with women, makes it sound worse yet. It gives one the impression of intolerance.

I can appreciate that one may not feel comfortable with an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. I don’t. But I would never call it a bread cue or single one out, because it’s a woman. That is not the issue. I don’t feel comfortable, because I’m a friar. I’m used to receiving communion from another friar. Let’s call it a friar’s habit. But not because I look down on these folks as being less worthy or taking anything away from the most holy Eucharist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

St. Francis said: “If I were to meet at the same time a saint from heaven and a poor priest, I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence, for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good far surpasses everything that is human.’”

Actually you misquoted our holy Father. The quote end that he would kiss the hands of the priest becaus “it is through the holy sacrifice that he offers daily that I can see the only visible sign of the body and blood of our lord Jesus Christ.”

Never misquote St. Francis to Franciscan friars. We have a love affair with our holy Father. I think we’re one of those orders who has such a high esteem for our holy Father that we spend six-years in formation studying no one but him, before we go on to study theology.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Here is the decree that I was looking for. It is older than I thought. Sorry about that mistake. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who approved it and Pope John Paul who gave it his final blessing. This is the case where the Eucharistic prayer is celebrated without the actual words of consecration, but it is valid.

GUIDELINES FOR ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST
BETWEEN THE CHALDEAN CHURCH
AND THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST

**The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

The principal issue for the Catholic Church in agreeing to this request, related to the question of the validity of the Eucharist celebrated with the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, one of the three Anaphoras traditionally used by the Assyrian Church of the East. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari is notable because, from time immemorial, it has been used without a recitation of the Institution Narrative. As the Catholic Church considers the words of the Eucharistic Institution a constitutive and therefore indispensable part of the Anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer, a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. **

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html

The document gives all the reasons that Cardinal Ratzinger gave to the pope and the pope approved for why this Eucharistic Prayer, without the exact words of consecration is valid and this mass is valid.

I told you I would find it and post it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

Maybe it is the strategy of some to distort this issue by the constant use of fallacies and distractions. This issue isn’t a matter of what I or anyone else says, my preference versus yours. The Church is our authority and has been quite clear on it for hundreds of years. Yet, the Church is made of humans, thus sinners, and not impermiable from the temptations of Satan. We are charged to be vigilant and protect Christ’s Church in our worship and prayers and to resist sin.

CITH resurfaced in the Age of Aquarius in Holland as a liturgical abuse. In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued Memoriale Domini in response. The bishops voted CITH down, yet left a loophole for places already lured away so as to not lose them to schism. This loophole was used by others as a way to force CITH to many new places and now it is in their GIRM.

The real questions on this issue are why did CITH resurface in Holland? Why did it spread to other places clearly against the orders of the Church? Why is it so feverishly defended and why are our children not taught the universal norm in receiving their First Communion? What’s been going on?

 

[Ockham]

Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion
The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969

  When it celebrates the memorial of the Lord, by that rite the Church witnesses to its faith and adoration of Christ, who is present in the sacrifice and who is given as food to those who share in the Eucharistic table. 

   **For this reason it is of great concern that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared in most worthily and fruitfully, by observing unchanged the tradition that has reached us step by step, the tradition whose riches have been poured into the practice and life of the Church**. The documents of history demonstrate that the ways of celebrating and receiving the holy Eucharist have been diverse. Even in our time many and important ritual changes have been introduced into the celebration of the Eucharist in order to bring it into accord with the spiritual and psychological needs of men today. Because of circumstances, communion under both kinds, bread and wine, which was once common in the Latin rite but had fallen into disuse little by little, has again been made a part of the discipline governing the faithful's mode of receiving the holy Sacrament. At the time of the Council of Trent a different situation had arisen and was in effect everywhere; the Council approved and defended it as suited to the conditions of that period. (1) 

  With the renewal of the modes of communicating, however, the sign of the Eucharistic meal and the complete fulfillment of Christ's mandate have been effected more clearly and vividly. At the same time a full sharing in the celebration of the Eucharist, expressed through Sacramental communion, **has recently stirred up in some places the desire to return to the practice by which the Eucharistic bread is placed in the hand of the faithful who communicates himself by putting it in his

mouth. **

  ** In some communities and localities this rite has even been performed without obtaining the prior approval of the Apostolic See and occasionally without appropriate preparation for the people. **      It is true that, according to ancient usage, it was once permitted for the faithful to take the sacred food in their hands and themselves to place it in their mouths and even, in the earliest period, to carry the holy Sacrament with them from the place of celebration, especially in order to receive it as viaticum if they should have to suffer for the profession of the faith. 

   **Nevertheless the precepts of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give abundant witness to the great reverence and prudence shown to the holy Eucharist. For "no one . . . eats this flesh unless first he adores," (2) and each recipient is warned: ". . . receive it and take care that none of it be lost to you" (3): "for it is the body of Christ." (4) **

   In the meantime the care and ministry of the Body and Blood of the Lord was entrusted in a quite special way to sacred ministers or to persons assigned to this function: "After the president has completed the prayers and all the people have made the acclamation, those among us whom we call deacons distribute a part of the bread and wine and water, in which the thanksgiving has been made, to each one present and bring them to those who are absent." (5) 

  The office of bringing the Eucharist to those who were absent was soon entrusted to sacred ministers alone, for the reason that greater care might be shown for the reverence due to the Body of Christ as well as for the needs of the people. In the following period, after the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, **from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy Sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicants. **

  **In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed**, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially **because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist**. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord's body. (6) 

 ** This reverence is a sign of communion not in "common bread and drink" (7) but in the Body and Blood of the Lord**. By it "the people of God shares in the blessings of the paschal sacrifice, renews the new covenant once made by God with man in the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope prefigures and anticipates the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father." (8) 

  In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the** appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which "the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,**" (9) will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: "If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members." (10) 

   On this account, since some few episcopal conferences and individual bishops had asked that the usage of placing the consecrated bread in the hand of the faithful be admitted in their territories, the Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of introducing this rite. **A change in a matter of such importance, which rests on a very ancient and venerable tradition, besides touching upon discipline can also  include dangers. These may be feared from a new manner of administering Holy Communion: they are a lessening of reverence toward the noble Sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine **

 

[Ockham]

Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to March 12 the following responses had been received:
1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted?
Yes: 567
No: 1,233
Yes, with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20
2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?
Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes: 70
3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly?
Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128

 

[Ockham]

**From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful. **
After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” (11) the Churches, **in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. **

  **The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.** 

  If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed. 

   In these cases, moreover, in order to govern this usage properly, the episcopal conferences should undertake the appropriate deliberations after prudent study; the decision is to be made by a two-thirds majority by secret ballot. 

  These deliberations should then be proposed to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, together with an accurate explanation of the reasons which moved the conferences to take this action. The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the entire Church, in order to promote the common good and edification and the increase of faith and piety which flow from mutual good example. 

   This Instruction, prepared at the special mandate of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, was duly approved by him, in virtue of apostolic authority, on May 28, 1969. Pope Paul also decreed that it be brought to the attention of the bishops through the presidents of the episcopal conferences. 
   Anything to the contrary notwithstanding. 

   Rome, May 29, 1969.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

 

[paperwight]

         3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly? 
   Yes: 835 
   No: 1,185 
  Invalid votes: 128

Well, they were plainly wrong, as it seems to have been embraced willingly all over the world.

 

[Ockham]

Well, they were plainly wrong, as it seems to have been embraced willingly all over the world.

“embraced” Really? By whom?

“willingly” Really? Is COTT while kneeling even an option in most Novus Ordo parishes all over the world? Why were the Communion rails ripped out of most churches? Why were the high altars ripped out?

Why is it until very recently I didn’t know the history of CITH nor the theology of COTT. Why are most of us not taught the differences or given the option? Why are our children only taught CITH?

Was Pope Paul VI wrong too?

 

[Layman]

Sorry, I have not yet read through this whole thread (and probably won’t - it’s a long one), but I have to say the above is, to me, a shocking choice of words for a Catholic to type. I “line up” with my brothers and sisters at the communion rail, on our knees, too. Care to cast the same aspersion?

I trust you simply did not realize how offensive that came off. I trust.

Peace all.

I used that form of words because I think that’s the connotation that changing a Roman Catholic diocese from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, is in danger of giving. A total change.

If Christ is present in the Host, then how should one behave towards it?

Previously: The Host was considered so sacred that having laymen handling it was to be avoided as much as possible. Even the priest had to be careful what he did with his hands and how he purified the vessels. Women were not allowed in the sanctuary during Mass.

Now: Into your hand, from a laywoman’s hands.

How is that an improvement? What lesson is being given by it? We’re now holier, so we can touch the Host or our forefathers were going overboard with their acts of devotion?

You may mention internal reverence as being more important. I counter that it’s a public rite. Outer symbolic action is important. Otherwise, you could drop most of the actions in the Mass and have it in a bare church (which, oddly, seems to be the trend in some parts, from what I’ve read online.)

 

[tweetymom]

Br. JR. I give you a great big for all your great posts. Other than your posts and estesbobs the only thing I have gotten is a lot of hair splitting, insults and a lot of nothing! Take the Host as one feels it should be and don’t worry about others is my suggestion:thumbsup: I have never seen so much argueing in my life. Too bad we don’t worry about showing Christs love to ohters

 

[CradleCath]

Maybe it is the strategy of some to distort this issue by the constant use of fallacies and distractions. This issue isn’t a matter of what I or anyone else says, my preference versus yours. The Church is our authority and has been quite clear on it for hundreds of years. Yet, the Church is made of humans, thus sinners, and not impermiable from the temptations of Satan. We are charged to be vigilant and protect Christ’s Church in our worship and prayers and to resist sin.

CITH resurfaced in the Age of Aquarius in Holland as a liturgical abuse. In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued Memoriale Domini in response. The bishops voted CITH down, yet left a loophole for places already lured away so as to not lose them to schism. This loophole was used by others as a way to force CITH to many new places and now it is in their GIRM.

The real questions on this issue are why did CITH resurface in Holland? Why did it spread to other places clearly against the orders of the Church? Why is it so feverishly defended and why are our children not taught the universal norm in receiving their First Communion? What’s been going on?

Pope Paul was pressured into allowing CITH here in the US., (after the debacle in Holland) by officers of the newly created USCCB. Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago ( &“boy’s club” fame) pushed, manipulated & gave a false report that “it was already being practiced in US”, thus we were granted the indult. Bernardins reason?? It happened during the time of the gutting of our Churches, the denial of truth contained in the Encyclical Human Vitae by most of our priests, the days of guitar music at Mass (Bob Dylan’s Blowing In the Wind was often used).

Both the “theology” of the man who lobbied for CITH ( Bernardin) & the times in which he did it… lead me to believe that he was following the words of Bugnini… “we must remove from Catholic Liturgy and prayer, anything which may act as a stumbling block to our separated brethren”.

IOW., Kneeling at the altar with tongue protruding as it waits for the Body of Christ was just to “:OLD CATHOLIC” for this NEW Catholic Church. I was about 24 when CITH was introduced here & remember that time well.

As I said before, this is MY opinion. I’m curious to know why you believe that some of our hierachy were so anxious to obtain the indult allowing CITH. You seem to be very knowledgeable re. our faith. I would value your opinion

The guidelines for receiving Communion, which are issued by the U.S. bishops and published in many missalettes, explain, "We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us ‘that they may all be one’ (John 17:21).

IMO., CITH was just another way to Protestantize the Church. I’m all for ecumenicism as long as we bring non-Catholics into the CATHOLIC Church. This psuedo-Catholic Church doesn’t impress me & the fruit of this “Amchurch” is rotten to the core…Pederastry, the loss of the nuns, the priest shortage, the LOW Mass attendance, etc., etc. …it is so sad.

 

[CradleCath]

**From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful. **
After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” (11) the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.

  **The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law,** valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church. 

  If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the duty and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed. 

   In these cases, moreover, in order to govern this usage properly, the episcopal conferences should undertake the appropriate deliberations after prudent study; the decision is to be made by a two-thirds majority by secret ballot. 

  These deliberations should then be proposed to the Holy See for the necessary confirmation, together with an accurate explanation of the reasons which moved the conferences to take this action. The Holy See will weigh the individual cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the entire Church, in order to promote the common good and edification and the increase of faith and piety which flow from mutual good example. 

   This Instruction, prepared at the special mandate of the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI, was duly approved by him, in virtue of apostolic authority, on May 28, 1969. Pope Paul also decreed that it be brought to the attention of the bishops through the presidents of the episcopal conferences. 
   Anything to the contrary notwithstanding. 

   Rome, May 29, 1969.

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

I should have read further before I posted my last message. It seems you’ve already done the detective work. Of course, Cardinal Bernardin & his cronies counted those “invalid” votes.