Pope John Paul II (Nov. 1980, Germany): “There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it..... neither will I recommend it!” Also said, “I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this….Hear, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!”
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)"
One question here --
At the Last Supper when Jesus Christ instituted the Holy Eucharist, do you think he passed the loaf and cup to the apostles or did he place it on their tongue?
We are going back to our roots, no?
It is not uncommon for 'traditionalists' to pass off earlier Church disciplines as uniform when they were not, and use this mythical "uniformity" coupled with their profound misunderstanding about what constitutes Tradition and what does not to complain about current practices in the Church that they do not like. This small paper will hopefully let the air out of their so-often insolent little balloons; however, not without pointing out a key point that indirectly benefits the 'traditionalist' case on this issue.
The controversy on communion in the hand started in Europe in the 1960’s and was actually practiced by dissidents before the practice was made licit by the Holy See. From this standpoint the 'traditionalist' has a point as far as objecting to the way in which this practice came about in recent times but of course they do not wish to proceed along that track which would indeed be a credible approach for them to take. No, the 'traditionalist’ chooses instead to construct a fictitious past with regards to communion in the hand as their means of fighting what they see as a great evil of our time. It stems again from the common ignorance of Church history and the 'traditionalist' feeling that the uniformity of worship, policy, devotions, etc. that prevailed after the Council of Trent was somehow the norm for Church history. In reality, the history of the Church in almost all of the realms where the 'traditionalist' gripes about was not as neat and tidy as they would like it to be. A few examples are the subjects of clerical celibacy, plural prayer forms, vernacular liturgies, active laity participation in the liturgy, sacramental norms of administration, and (of course) different procedures of communion reception. Among many other elements of note these to some extent varied from locale to locale without the strict uniformity that the 'traditionalist' insists is mandatory or "traditional".
For the rest of the story, read The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand.
The reason I will always receive on the tongue (much to my PP's consternation!) is the same as the reason I was taught to never receive on the tongue as a little Presbyterian boy:
"The Reformers instituted communion in the hand to wean people off the idea that the bread was the "Body of Christ" and that the minister's hands were somehow special."
The Reformers were excellent propagandists and students of human nature - on this issue they scored big time. Communion in the hand was a perfect vehicle to destroy belief in the Real Presence and the Sacrificing priesthood.
I hope that bishops such as Suenens were just ignorant of history and not malicious in their intent. Unfortunately I know at least one Monsignor locally who has adopted the heresy of consubstantiation, and he is the most ardent promoter of abuses in order to further his agenda.
"Lex orandi...lex credendi" applies just as much to bodily aspects of prayer as it does to verbal aspects.
If you treat something like its just a piece of bread for long enough, you will eventually start to believe it.
communion in the hand - almost as evil as silently breaking wind during Mass