Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)
Carlos A Loya
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
i believe you have to made 2 distinctions.
first, you have to distinguish the documents for the Counsel from the heterodox practices of the Consilium.
second, it was Cardinal Bernadine who forced the sacrilege here in America. Montini & the CDW opposed it.
from Memoriale Domini: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline …More
i believe you have to made 2 distinctions.
first, you have to distinguish the documents for the Counsel from the heterodox practices of the Consilium.
second, it was Cardinal Bernadine who forced the sacrilege here in America. Montini & the CDW opposed it.
from Memoriale Domini: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."
Between the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada, then finally here, it's the evil conferences of bishops that allowed it.
first, you have to distinguish the documents for the Counsel from the heterodox practices of the Consilium.
second, it was Cardinal Bernadine who forced the sacrilege here in America. Montini & the CDW opposed it.
from Memoriale Domini: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."
Between the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Canada, then finally here, it's the evil conferences of bishops that allowed it.
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
That's the way Protestants do things. As such, its should be anathema in the Catholic Church. But unfortunatly, Vatican II slowly turned us into Protestants in all but name.
My Grandmother when she was growing up in Japan told us, and when coming to the USA even more (because there's even fewer Protestants in Japan as there are Catholics), that in the 1950's in the USA, Catholic children were actualy …More
That's the way Protestants do things. As such, its should be anathema in the Catholic Church. But unfortunatly, Vatican II slowly turned us into Protestants in all but name.
My Grandmother when she was growing up in Japan told us, and when coming to the USA even more (because there's even fewer Protestants in Japan as there are Catholics), that in the 1950's in the USA, Catholic children were actualy taught to look the other way, or lower their eyes so they don't have to see a Protestant Church if they walk past one. UNtil John XXIII, I don't think ANY Protestant religious leader or clergyman was recieved by the Pope.....it was considered an abomination.
If Paul VI had said "NO" to communion in the hand in the first place, perhaps we would never have had it enter the Church. Unfortunatly, he didn't.
My Grandmother when she was growing up in Japan told us, and when coming to the USA even more (because there's even fewer Protestants in Japan as there are Catholics), that in the 1950's in the USA, Catholic children were actualy taught to look the other way, or lower their eyes so they don't have to see a Protestant Church if they walk past one. UNtil John XXIII, I don't think ANY Protestant religious leader or clergyman was recieved by the Pope.....it was considered an abomination.
If Paul VI had said "NO" to communion in the hand in the first place, perhaps we would never have had it enter the Church. Unfortunatly, he didn't.
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I read that he was super naive, and when evil/bad things started happening in the Church after Vatican II, he panicked and didn't know what to do. He had appointed all the people who were wrecking the Church, and didn't know how to get rid of them. He took months to make a decision on things, agonizing what to do. More often than not, except for Humanae Vitae, he made the wrong decision, or appointed …More
I read that he was super naive, and when evil/bad things started happening in the Church after Vatican II, he panicked and didn't know what to do. He had appointed all the people who were wrecking the Church, and didn't know how to get rid of them. He took months to make a decision on things, agonizing what to do. More often than not, except for Humanae Vitae, he made the wrong decision, or appointed the wrong people. He was a liberal, like all his cronies, but he didn't expect them to start implementing things without his OK....which they did.
chris griffin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Personally, I get a lot of comfort with Communion in the hand. It is the way Jesus established the first Communion and was standard in the early Church for 800 years.
rhemes1582
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@chris griffin you are in error.
Holy Communion by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise
Educate yourself before typing errors on this Catholic website please.More
@chris griffin you are in error.
Holy Communion by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise
Educate yourself before typing errors on this Catholic website please.
Holy Communion by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise
Educate yourself before typing errors on this Catholic website please.
@chris griffin you say you "get a lot of comfort"..? As if to say that you go to Church to be or to get 'comfort'? What about the 'consecrated hands' of the Celebrant/Priest? He is the ONLY one that should be touching the Host, not laity! But that's a Novus Ordo 'feel good, everyone welcome, nothing is a sin' banquet, with rainbow colors and noise that they call 'music' and of course, people giving …More
@chris griffin you say you "get a lot of comfort"..? As if to say that you go to Church to be or to get 'comfort'? What about the 'consecrated hands' of the Celebrant/Priest? He is the ONLY one that should be touching the Host, not laity! But that's a Novus Ordo 'feel good, everyone welcome, nothing is a sin' banquet, with rainbow colors and noise that they call 'music' and of course, people giving Communion to themselves! So glad I left that 'circus' decades ago!
Darice Henriques
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
The only person who can give the Body of Christ is Christ Himself, this is part of the mystical marriage. Christ gives us His Body through the hands of a priest who is another Christ. I am not Alter Christus so I cannot take with my hands and give myself the Body of Christ. Nor can any 'extraordinary' minister. Therefore it's on the tongue only, from a priest only.
I saw Bishop Athanasius Schneider …More
The only person who can give the Body of Christ is Christ Himself, this is part of the mystical marriage. Christ gives us His Body through the hands of a priest who is another Christ. I am not Alter Christus so I cannot take with my hands and give myself the Body of Christ. Nor can any 'extraordinary' minister. Therefore it's on the tongue only, from a priest only.
I saw Bishop Athanasius Schneider clarify this in an interview - At the last Supper, it is not clear from Scripture whether the Apostles received on their hands or on their tongue. But even had they received on their hands, they were already Bishops.
Anyway there are also more imp reasons as given by others in their comments here.
To this I will add:
The practice of receiving in the hand is inherently open to sacrileges, not just in leftover particles or particles flying. I have seen in my Novus Ordo parish people just taking it like a wafer between their thumb and forefinger, people walking off with it to consume in the pew, even a consecrated host thrown in the holy water font. A priest in my diocese had spoken up against Communion in the hand, quoting the rates quoted by sellers of Consecrated Hosts in the city.
This old news article should have woken people up but sadly, nobody cares.
Stealing Hosts for anti-Catholic art? Not illegal, Spanish judge says.
I saw Bishop Athanasius Schneider clarify this in an interview - At the last Supper, it is not clear from Scripture whether the Apostles received on their hands or on their tongue. But even had they received on their hands, they were already Bishops.
Anyway there are also more imp reasons as given by others in their comments here.
To this I will add:
The practice of receiving in the hand is inherently open to sacrileges, not just in leftover particles or particles flying. I have seen in my Novus Ordo parish people just taking it like a wafer between their thumb and forefinger, people walking off with it to consume in the pew, even a consecrated host thrown in the holy water font. A priest in my diocese had spoken up against Communion in the hand, quoting the rates quoted by sellers of Consecrated Hosts in the city.
This old news article should have woken people up but sadly, nobody cares.
Stealing Hosts for anti-Catholic art? Not illegal, Spanish judge says.
chris griffin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori…rhemes1582…Father Jonn…Opera 369…Darice Henriques
I am delighted to defend CIH. I was an altar boy in the 60’s and accompanied the priest during Communion for maybe 5,000 people and it never seemed a holy way to receive.
Catholics were practicing CIH centuries before there even was such a thing as “Protestants” and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
Ratzinger/Pope Benedict …More
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori…rhemes1582…Father Jonn…Opera 369…Darice Henriques
I am delighted to defend CIH. I was an altar boy in the 60’s and accompanied the priest during Communion for maybe 5,000 people and it never seemed a holy way to receive.
Catholics were practicing CIH centuries before there even was such a thing as “Protestants” and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
Ratzinger/Pope Benedict said CIH was the norm for the first 800 years which no one can prove otherwise no matter hard they try.
Jesus never specified COT and he never disavowed CIH. Jesus never said that only Bishops and priests are worthy to receive CIH.
COT NEVER WAS and is NOT NOW a Sacred Tradition. Communion on the tongue is an invention of some man.
Jesus distributed CIH to the Apostles as THE example of the proper form to distribute Communion. Jesus therefore established the proper form of distribution as CIH.
Thanks!
I am delighted to defend CIH. I was an altar boy in the 60’s and accompanied the priest during Communion for maybe 5,000 people and it never seemed a holy way to receive.
Catholics were practicing CIH centuries before there even was such a thing as “Protestants” and it is a mistake to conflate the two.
Ratzinger/Pope Benedict said CIH was the norm for the first 800 years which no one can prove otherwise no matter hard they try.
Jesus never specified COT and he never disavowed CIH. Jesus never said that only Bishops and priests are worthy to receive CIH.
COT NEVER WAS and is NOT NOW a Sacred Tradition. Communion on the tongue is an invention of some man.
Jesus distributed CIH to the Apostles as THE example of the proper form to distribute Communion. Jesus therefore established the proper form of distribution as CIH.
Thanks!
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
I just don't like Communion in the Hand because it is very disrespectfully given out in most Churches, even in the Vatican. Also, it reminds me of the way Presbyterians and Baptists (ugh), recieve communion...except they are given ripped pieces of bread. Not the traditional Hosts.
One thing I never knew, and found fascinating, is that like Catholics, there are actually a few cloisters of Episcopal …More
I just don't like Communion in the Hand because it is very disrespectfully given out in most Churches, even in the Vatican. Also, it reminds me of the way Presbyterians and Baptists (ugh), recieve communion...except they are given ripped pieces of bread. Not the traditional Hosts.
One thing I never knew, and found fascinating, is that like Catholics, there are actually a few cloisters of Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran "nuns" who are enclosed and who make Hosts like true Catholic cloistered nuns. Only problem is that their "hosts" are just wafters of bread, and that's all they'll ever be.
One thing I never knew, and found fascinating, is that like Catholics, there are actually a few cloisters of Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran "nuns" who are enclosed and who make Hosts like true Catholic cloistered nuns. Only problem is that their "hosts" are just wafters of bread, and that's all they'll ever be.
chris griffin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Father Jonn
Here is a few of the several hundred abbreviations of the Catholic Church…Fr., Abp. AD, D D, I.H.S., J.M.J, Mgr., Ph. D., S. J.
Here is a few of the several hundred abbreviations of the Catholic Church…Fr., Abp. AD, D D, I.H.S., J.M.J, Mgr., Ph. D., S. J.
Darice Henriques
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
chris griffin Sorry for my ignorance. And for the late response. You said that "Jesus distributed CIH to the Apostles as THE example of the proper form to distribute Communion. Jesus therefore established the proper form of distribution as CIH." May I know the source for this? As it's not mentioned in Scripture,
chris griffin
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
@Darice Henriques... I apologize for being incomplete and non-specific in my post. I said "Jesus therefore established the proper form of distribution as CIH" based on the precedent of Jesus establishing the proper form of baptism as water concurrent with the specific words of Baptism. In the case of Communion Jesus said "take" and "eat", thus was my conclusion on the proper form of Communion. This …More
@Darice Henriques... I apologize for being incomplete and non-specific in my post. I said "Jesus therefore established the proper form of distribution as CIH" based on the precedent of Jesus establishing the proper form of baptism as water concurrent with the specific words of Baptism. In the case of Communion Jesus said "take" and "eat", thus was my conclusion on the proper form of Communion. This is amplified by the catacomb wall paintings of the Last Supper with individual pieces of bread in front of each Apostle.
Thank you for an excellent question.
Thank you for an excellent question.