Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[GangGreen]

Yes. Let’s take Communion in the hand for starters. An incredibly
ancient practice that was modernized later to by mouth.
So Vatican II returns to the ancient Christian practice
and you have a PROBLEM with this? Lol
You think Ambrose and Acquinas and the Apostles
were some how inferior in their devotion because they
took Communuon in the hand do you?

This paragraph is loaded with inaccuracies.

This ancient practice was not the same as the one you see today. I haven’t seen anyone purify their hands before receiving Communion. I haven’t seen anyone purify their hands after receiving Communion. I haven’t seen women covering their hands with a cloth. I haven’t seen anyone bend their body down to receive communion from their hands in a lowered position rather than using their other hand to pick it up with their fingers and bring it to their mouths. Today’s practice was radically different than what was previously practiced.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) said

“The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

The fact that St. Basil even mentions Communion in the hand only available in times of persecution shows that there had to be an alternative way to receive that was preferred. While CITH may have been practiced in places licitly, it surely wasn’t universal based on this quote.

Also, as the Church’s understanding of the Real Presence grew, these practices were seen as being unfit for use because of the increased risk of particles falling and the increased risk of profanation. Additionally, heresies such as the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Christ used this practice (CITH) as a show that Christ was not present in the Eucharist. We saw the Protestant heresy do the same.

Communion on the tongue was made the only universal way of receiving as a way of battling this. Although, there are quite a few quotes (including the one from St. Basil) which show that communion on the tongue was around since the days of the early church.

Another thing to note is the argument that “Jesus gave Communion in the hand.” This actually may not be true. In Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book Dominus Est he mentions an old Middle Eastern custom (which continues to this day) of which the host at a dinner (who would have been Jesus) would feed his guests by placing a a piece of bread into their mouths guests as a symbolic gesture. In this case it would appear that not even this argument for CITH is true.

A good Biblical example from the OT would be the Prophet Ezekiel who says

Open your mouth and eat what I am about to give you.’ When I looked, there was a hand stretch- ing out to me, holding a scroll… I opened my mouth; he gave me the scroll to eat… So I ate it, and it tasted sweet as honey…

Showing God feeding the Prophet from his hands to the Prophet’s mouth. In the same way we receive Jesus from His own hands (the priest’s hands are Christ’s hands since he acts in persona Christi) to our mouths.

Also, Communion on the tongue was referenced in many ways even prior to this and has been equated to the Prophet Isaiah receiving the burning coal on his lips. To remind you

Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, “Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven.”

Now Christ brings us the burning coal which is the Eucharist. The seraphim is now Christ. The tongs are his right hand, the coal comes from the altar to our lips. We are Isaiah. This comes from a beautiful sermon of St. Ephrem.

I really suggest you read Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book Dominus Est. It may open your eyes a bit as this is where I’ve gotten some of these examples from.

Next, Aquinas makes arguments in favor of why communion should be received on the tongue, I’m not sure why you threw his name in there.

“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.”

Lastly, Vatican II never called for Communion on the hand. As I said, Pope Paul VI fought vigorously to stop this from occurring. The bishops in many of the Northern European countries completely ignored his requests to stop. If you want to see Pope Paul VI’s position go and read Memorale Domini. We can see that the reason why he wrote this was due to Bishops who were taking matters into their own hands rather than following the Pope’s orders.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Pope St. John Paul II in INAESTIMABILE DONUM
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2inaes.htm

Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.

In Dominicae Cenae
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19800224_dominicae-cenae_en.html

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

 

[ProVobis]

1. § 1. Linguae latinae usus, salvo particulari iure, in Ritibus latinis servetur.

§ 2. Cum tamen, sive in Missa, sive in Sacramentorum administratione, sive in aliis Liturgiae partibus, haud raro linguae vernaculae usurpatio valde utilis apud populum exsistere possit, amplior locus ipsi tribui valeat, imprimis autem in lectionibus et admonitionibus, in nonnullis orationibus et cantibus, iuxta normas quae de hac re in sequentibus capitibus singillatim statuuntur.
*

the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended.

It’s interesting to note that this translation is somewhat biased in that the key words here haud raro (literally, not rarely) becomes “frequently.” I believe if the Council Fathers really meant “frequently” they would have chosen to use something like frequenter or saepe.

And why did they translate vernaculae as “mother tongue”? There is a difference.

But most importantly servetur (is to be preserved) as used in its jussive form is a command.

 

[OraLabora]

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) said

“The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

I think a cogent argument could be made that we are in times of persecution, especially in Western civilization. In my own country and province, every effort is being made to push religion out of the public sphere and into the private realm. In a sense, the Church is being driven underground.

 

[R_C]

I think a cogent argument could be made that we are in times of persecution, especially in Western civilization. In my own country and province, every effort is being made to push religion out of the public sphere and into the private realm. In a sense, the Church is being driven underground.

No. Persecution will only begin when our priests are dragged in prison or martyred and the blood of our brethren flows, so that the divine liturgy will be only celebrated in catacombs, and sometimes are limited to a Rite of. Distributing Communion Outside Mass led by lay faithful.

Parishes are pretty comfy these days, especially in US. The widespread use of communion in the hand not just as a matter of preference but as the only way of receiving communion being arbitrarily taught in catechism courses, and the flurry of lay extraordinary ministers, has lead to exactly what Pope Pius VI spoke about in Memoriale Domini: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine, all of these have come true in so many different ways.

It really doesn’t take much to bend the knee and receive in the tongue. Sure you don’t have to. The angels don’t have to veil their faces before God’s glory either. It’s an act of love. Not doing it is not - as some too hastily presume - an act of irreverence. But doing it with a humble and contrite heart and with the spirit of Fear of the Lord is an act of reverence and definitely brings out more graces ex opere operantis.

To me it’s quite simple: if the ordinary reverence to be given to the exposed Blessed Sacrament is to bend the knee, I feel bound in my conscience to do so when the priest elevates the Most Blessed Sacrament and says: “Corpus Christi - the Body of Christ”. It really is a humbling sight. And even though the days are way gone when people would kiss the hands of a priest in sign of respect and reverence for his consecration - for his hands could bring down Christ from heaven and wipe away our sins - I still find it personally humbling to let the priest handle the Living Bread, though I am allowed by my Mother the Church to do so myself to a degree.

 

[ProVobis]

I think a cogent argument could be made that we are in times of persecution, especially in Western civilization. In my own country and province, every effort is being made to push religion out of the public sphere and into the private realm. In a sense, the Church is being driven underground.

The practice was restored because of persecution? Interesting theory.

 

[marywarfield]

This paragraph is loaded with inaccuracies.

This ancient practice was not the same as the one you see today. I haven’t seen anyone purify their hands before receiving Communion. I haven’t seen anyone purify their hands after receiving Communion. I haven’t seen women covering their hands with a cloth. I haven’t seen anyone bend their body down to receive communion from their hands in a lowered position rather than using their other hand to pick it up with their fingers and bring it to their mouths. Today’s practice was radically different than what was previously practiced.

Also, Communion on the tongue was referenced in many ways even prior to this and has been equated to the Prophet Isaiah receiving the burning coal on his lips. To remind you
Now Christ brings us the burning coal which is the Eucharist. The seraphim is now Christ. The tongs are his right hand, the coal comes from the altar to our lips. We are Isaiah. This comes from a beautiful sermon of St. Ephrem.

Hmm. That IS very romantic I admit. However if all
we have to do is wash our hands we are back at
pre-Christ.

I beg to differ. The purification we as Catholic Christians
seek is not a bottle of Purell or Listerine but instead should have
occurred way before reception with the purification of
confession and penance. Lest we miss the whole
point of Christ…
As was pointed out on another thread while the lines
of Catholics in Communion fretting over in the hand
or by mouth and whether to bow or sanitize the hands
is very long, the actual rite of purification- Confession-
has way fewer attendees.

 

[OraLabora]

No. Persecution will only begin when our priests are dragged in prison or martyred and the blood of our brethren flows, so that the divine liturgy will be only celebrated in catacombs, and sometimes are limited to a Rite of. Distributing Communion Outside Mass led by lay faithful.

It’s coming. Wait for it. When killing the most innocent of lives, unborn infants, is labeled as a “human right”, there’s only a thin line protecting us from the depravity of our society.

Already Catholic hospitals see immoral acts imposed on them in order to obtain state funding.

Doctors in Canada are liable for malpractice suits or censure by their Colleges if they refuse to refer women for an abortion.

True, our priests (at least the ones not guilty of sexual crimes) are not being dragged to jail… yet.

 

[R_C]

It’s coming. Wait for it. When killing the most innocent of lives, unborn infants, is labeled as a “human right”, there’s only a thin line protecting us from the depravity of our society.

Already Catholic hospitals see immoral acts imposed on them in order to obtain state funding.

Doctors in Canada are liable for malpractice suits or censure by their Colleges if they refuse to refer women for an abortion.

True, our priests (at least the ones not guilty of sexual crimes) are not being dragged to jail… yet.

Oh dear brother, I am so well-aware of the darkness that is to befall on mankind…the time of mercy is followed by the time of justice, for Christ returns as the Just Judge on the day of His wrath. Our Lady reminded us through her words at Fatima that the world needs but one thing now in order to delay the wrath of the Father: “Penance, penance, penance!” But too many years have passed and too little penance has been offered…never like today the words of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos seem to be living and present…but I tremble at the awareness that persecution, true persecution, is yet to begin. On that day the Church will look to heaven and cry: “Elohi, Elohi, lama sabachthani?”

 

[marywarfield]

It seems to me that no Catholic can stand before
the Eucharist and qualify the Reception concerning
others. If our concern is whether we are bowing, receiving,
appropriately we forget who it is standing before
us. It is not for you to determine how I receive Him
or He receives me. That is between Him, me and the
Church, of which you are a member but not THE
member.

Likewise the Mass form. If one is convinced Christ
is more present in the Tridentine then the NO?
This is foolish. It is Christ, of His own volition who comes
to us and He does not come dependent on the skill
of the pianist or the girl in the third pew in short shorts.

Is the NO an infallible thing? I would say its form
is changeable but God Himself never changes.

Since when we worship the Eucharist we are worshipping
the very Person of Christ that is what must be in mind
for each person before Him- bottles of hand
sanitizer notwithstanding.

 

[pnewton]

It’s a serious flaw in logic in say that because someone hasn’t seen something it doesnt exist.

It is also a flaw to say that they exist because I have seen it on the internet. It is also a flaw to draw any causation between any abuse of the Order of Mass and the Order used. Thus, the very use of this clown herring is a logic flaw.

As this applies to the original topic, one cannot use a violation of authority to challenge authority. In civil terms, it would be like challenging the Texas Penal code for making drug abuse easy because, well, people use drugs.

Just look at the outlandish, off-topic junk brought up in the last days post that have zero to do with the form of Mass, the language used of anything else relevant to a truly logical discussion. Oh, well, thanks for pointing out a good logic flaw.

 

[R_C]

That is between Him, me and the
Church, of which you are a member but not THE
member.

There is much pride in this statement.

Likewise the Mass form. If one is convinced Christ
is more present in the Tridentine then the NO?
This is foolish. It is Christ, of His own volition who comes
to us and He does not come dependent on the skill
of the pianist or the girl in the third pew in short shorts.

Only a deep lack of awareness of the sense of the sacred and of the essence of gratiae ex opere operantis would bring forth such an argument. All valid and licit Holy Masses are equal in dignity. A reverent Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not inferior to any E.F. Mass. But to deny the serious issues that for forty years have affected the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which have been addressed by and manifested openly by the wisest theologians and liturgists and by the Holy Fathers themselves is indeed the true foolishness. Irreverence against the temple is the only thing that brought out Christ’s wrath during His public ministry. How much chastisement have poor celebrations of the NO brought upon the Church…how much graces have devout and reverent celebrations of any Divine Liturgy in any Catholic Rite brought upon the whole world!

Since when we worship the Eucharist we are worshipping
the very Person of Christ that is what must be in mind
for each person before Him

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. According to how we pray, we shall believe and live.

If you believe that the Lord of Hosts is before you, you should follow the impulse of the soul to honor and revere him with the simplicity of a little child, not caring about what others around may say or think.

Which is why for thousands of years the Church (at least in the Latin Rite) had custom of genuflecting and receiving on the tongue. If it made no difference, they would have sat around a table and passed the fragments of Eucharist to one another.

But every gesture, every expression, every action and omission means something in the divine liturgy.

For many, touching the Most Blessed Sacrament simply feels disrespectful and thus they refrain from doing so. For many, bending the knee before the Living God is the only way to go. This is not passing judgment on those who don’t.

But my question is: do those who receive on their hand and standing have a reason for doing so, or do they just do it because that’s the way they learned it / that’s the way everyone’s doing it? That kind of introspection is most desirable. One should plan Holy Communion like a bride plans how she will receive her bridegroom. Every gesture, smile, every word, every kiss…all will mean something…may we grow in awareness of the Real Presence of Christ and receive Him with ever-increasing reverence and devotion, according to the precepts and rubrics of Holy Mother Church and in respectful memory of the traditions of our Fathers in the faith.

 

[Sirach2]

Lastly, Vatican II never called for Communion on the hand. As I said, Pope Paul VI fought vigorously to stop this from occurring. The bishops in many of the Northern European countries completely ignored his requests to stop. If you want to see Pope Paul VI’s position go and read Memorale Domini. We can see that the reason why he wrote this was due to Bishops who were taking matters into their own hands rather than following the Pope’s orders.]

It may be because you are very opposed personally to CITH that you fail to report accurately Pope Paul VI’s instructions. The fact is that it is permitted. It is reprehensible to imply that those who choose to receive in this manner are reprobate in any way. Please read the true version below which has been entered officially in the AAS as a permanent record.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use.
At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

In misquoting Inaestimabile Donum, it is important to distinguish that this document is not saying that communion in the hand is forbidden. What is forbidden is that the faithful pick up the host themselves and communicate. It is only to be given by a priest or EMHC.

1. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.

 

[Brendan_64]

But my question is: do those who receive on their hand and standing have a reason for doing so, or do they just do it because that’s the way they learned it / that’s the way everyone’s doing it?

That is a very good question.

What motivated the initial disobedience that led to the indult allowing Communion in the hand eventually being granted in the first place?

A priest once told me that a Muslim he knew once asked him, “Do you really believe that that little piece of bread is actually God Himself?” When the priest answered, “Yes” the Muslim was amazed and replied in awe that if he believed that Allah was present as a piece of bread and kept in the tabernacle then he would down on his knees in front of it night and day, if possible.

Yet we wander up, take God in our hands and pop Him into our mouths, often quite casually. And how many of us genuflect properly in front of the tabernacle when the light is lit? Have we forgotten who is present in physical form?

 

[Sirach2]

That is a very good question.

What motivated the initial disobedience that led to the indult allowing Communion in the hand eventually being granted in the first place?

Yet we wander up, take God in our hands and pop Him into our mouths, often quite casually. And how many of us genuflect properly in front of the tabernacle when the light is lit? Have we forgotten who is present in physical form?

Be careful, Brendan, for you are not equipped to know the heart of the communicant, despite all outward appearances which may seem casual to you.

Another point that bears commenting upon, is the fact that permission was granted in 1969, and it was not as a result of disobedience, but in response to petitions from the Bishops. I see no evidence of disobedience, and again, you do not know the bishops’ hearts or have proof of such. This is where internet bloggers do much harm, for often the facts are unknown, but merely conjectured and spread like wildfire.

 

[thewanderer]

That is a very good question.

What motivated the initial disobedience that led to the indult allowing Communion in the hand eventually being granted in the first place?

A priest once told me that a Muslim he knew once asked him, “Do you really believe that that little piece of bread is actually God Himself?” When the priest answered, “Yes” the Muslim was amazed and replied in awe that if he believed that Allah was present as a piece of bread and kept in the tabernacle then he would down on his knees in front of it night and day, if possible.

Yet we wander up, take God in our hands and pop Him into our mouths, often quite casually. And how many of us genuflect properly in front of the tabernacle when the light is lit? Have we forgotten who is present in physical form?

I have to say that this way of thinking seems to me to veer dangerously close to rash judgement. I’m not saying its wrong to think this way in a general sense, but I just want to put out a general warning to remind people that we cannot know whether a person is being reverent or not by their exterior actions, reverence is an internal disposition (which, yes, overflows into external actions). It is not something that we can know from a person’s exterior action. And so, it would be wrong, and the sin of rash judgement to go from a universal idea that the external actions of receiving on the tongue and kneeling are more conducive to reverence and are a greater and more fitting external display of ones internal reverence to assume that any particular individual is lacking in reverence simply because they receive standing or on the tongue.

Again, I am neither assuming nor implying that you personally are guilty of rash judgement, just putting out a friendly Christian reminder that it is a sin we as Catholics are called to avoid.

 

[marywarfield]

There is much pride in this statement.

Only a deep lack of awareness of the sense of the sacred and of the essence of gratiae ex opere operantis would bring forth such an argument. All valid and licit Holy Masses are equal in dignity. A reverent Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not inferior to any E.F. Mass. But to deny the serious issues that for forty years have affected the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which have been addressed by and manifested openly by the wisest theologians and liturgists and by the Holy Fathers themselves is indeed the true foolishness. Irreverence against the temple is the only thing that brought out Christ’s wrath during His public ministry. How much chastisement have poor celebrations of the NO brought upon the Church…how much graces have devout and reverent celebrations of any Divine Liturgy in any Catholic Rite brought upon the whole world!

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. According to how we pray, we shall believe and live.

If you believe that the Lord of Hosts is before you, you should follow the impulse of the soul to honor and revere him with the simplicity of a little child, not caring about what others around may say or think.

Which is why for thousands of years the Church (at least in the Latin Rite) had custom of genuflecting and receiving on the tongue. If it made no difference, they would have sat around a table and passed the fragments of Eucharist to one another.

But every gesture, every expression, every action and omission means something in the divine liturgy.

For many, touching the Most Blessed Sacrament simply feels disrespectful and thus they refrain from doing so. For many, bending the knee before the Living God is the only way to go. This is not passing judgment on those who don’t.

But my question is: do those who receive on their hand and standing have a reason for doing so, or do they just do it because that’s the way they learned it / that’s the way everyone’s doing it? That kind of introspection is most desirable. One should plan Holy Communion like a bride plans how she will receive her bridegroom. Every gesture, smile, every word, every kiss…all will mean something…may we grow in awareness of the Real Presence of Christ and receive Him with ever-increasing reverence and devotion, according to the precepts and rubrics of Holy Mother Church and in respectful memory of the traditions of our Fathers in the faith.

Of course I’m full of pride when I receive Him. I AM receiving
Christ, I have been honored by Him in that I have been
called to receive Him by Him. I AM proud of
Him and His Church and in being a member of such.

As far as the rest of your post? How dare you judge
my level or the level of reverence anyone else is
experiencing or try to dictate such?
Are you so blinded by your prejudice you can’t see
your disrespect of Him in your statements trying to
depict your own reverence? The point is, was, and always
will be Him, not your rigid adherence to some sort of
piety approved by you.

 

[Brendan_64]

Be careful, Brendan, for you are not equipped to know the heart of the communicant, despite all outward appearances which may seem casual to you

I have to say that this way of thinking seems to me to veer dangerously close to rash judgement. I’m not saying its wrong to think this way in a general sense, but I just want to put out a general warning to remind people that we cannot know whether a person is being reverent or not by their exterior actions

I am indeed speaking in a general sense and not making individual judgements, but there does appear to be a general sense of casualness, almost as if we have forgotten what is really present.

If the Lord appeared to you today what would you do? Would you walk over to Him say “Hi,” and shake His hand? Or would your response to Him be very different from that?

Is Jesus your friend, or is He your Lord and your God?

 

[Sirach2]

I am indeed speaking in a general sense and not making individual judgements, but there does appear to be a general sense of casualness, almost as if we have forgotten what is really present.

If the Lord appeared to you today what would you do? Would you walk over to Him say “Hi,” and shake His hand? Or would your response to Him be very different from that?

Lord, I thank you that I am not like the rest of these…

Not judging, eh?

 

[R_C]

permission was granted in 1969, and it was not as a result of disobedience, but in response to petitions from the Bishops. I see no evidence of disobedience

Re-read Memoriale Domini.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice [of communion in the hand] has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

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.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation,accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.

The bishops petitioned because this was happening randomly and they knew not what to do - either it was not allowed, and thus a discipline had to be enforced, or it was permitted, and if so, why such a departure from the traditional way, and to what degree/in which ways was it to be implemented.

The Holy See did not change this (at least back then) but did allow certain episcopal conferences to request an indult under extraordinary circumstances. The Holy See also gave provisions which are hardly observed, such as:

First:

The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage

I have witnessed myself that many catechesis classes (for kids and adults alike) only teach communion in the hand. Also there tends to be an aggressive behavior towards those who wish to receive in the tongue, or to humbly point out why this is an advisable way, f.ex. by quoting Paul VI’s affirmation:

<<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 reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine” that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord…the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species…Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.>>

Second:

The rite of communion in the hand…should therefore be introduced gradually, beginning with better-educated and better-prepared groups. It is, above all, necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way

Was it introduced gradually? Was an adequate catechesis ever made? Is it made today?

All we are advocating here is reverence for the Real Presence of Christ. Not judging those who chose to receive in the hand, whether they have a reason for this choice or not.

 

[Brendan_64]

Lord, I thank you that I am not like the rest of these…

Not judging, eh?

Not judging at all, just holding an opinion in a general sense and expressing it.

You aren’t by chance judging me by your remark are you?