Posted on 12/18/2008 9:00:48 AM PST by Pyro7480
...The Congregation for Divine Worship [in 1969] issued an Instruction, Memoriale Domini, on the manner of receiving Holy Communion....
After recalling the development of the reception of Communion on the tongue as a fruit of "a deepening understanding of the truth of the Eucharistic mystery...", the Instruction declares that "this method of distributing Holy Communion must be retained...."
It also warned: "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...the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
...Today, the Instruction's warnings about loss of reverence for, belief in and even the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament have - sadly - been vindicated. It is time to look again at the question of Communion in the hand. This is precisely what a young bishop from Central Asia has done in 'Dominus Est.'
This little book, a brief but insightful survey of the Fathers, the Early Church, the Magisterium and the Eastern and Western liturgical rites, is capable of creating a storm - not in a teacup, but in the minds of those unduly attached to the flawed external changes made to the liturgy in what can only be described as a peculiar period in the Church's history.
That it will provoke a storm is unfortunate, for the practice it advocates is a practice of love and of humility, one from which no one who truly adores Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament ought to recoil....
(Excerpt) Read more at catholicherald.co.uk ...
This is not wandering sheep. This is sheep telling the shepherd where they should go.
That is just as problematic. A shepherd LEADS, and has the best interest of the sheep at heart. If the practice causes them to lose faith, then the shephered wasn’t doing his job.
I understand the claim of abusing a loophole, but has the Vatican been silent on this abuse for almost fifty years?
You are correct. To a well edjumcated Catholic who knows what’s what, I don’t reckon it’s too big a deal. But well edjumcated Catholics are a very small minority, at least around here, and I would hazard US Catholics are pretty bad when it comes to understanding their faith in general. Communion in the paw combined with bishops who don’t care to teach has allowed the Eucharist to be treated with less than proper reverence. If reception of the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue could help illustrate that it IS a big special deal, I wouldn’t mind the change, even though I’ve never recieved on the tongue in my life.
Freegards
They haven’t been “silent,” but, like in many matters, they have unfortunately haven’t taken actions against it.
Forgive me for saying so, but refusing to follow isn’t the same as not being lead.
Would you be kind enough to direct me to one of the official pronouncements critical of the practice?
The sheep don’t always know what’s good for them. That’s what the shepherd is there for. Why do you think shepherds carry staffs — just to look cool?
The 1969 statement above is the key document, and outside of that, the current Pope, even when he a cardinal, spoke out against it.
My point, exactly.
At least they're pretty much covered up.
And they once again prove the point that "liturgical dancers" are neither liturgical nor dancers -- just silly old women who couldn't get a gig anywhere else.
Not everything that is lawful is beneficial. Even popes can make grave blunders. It's clericalism to settle supinely for a "Father knows best" nonchalance even in cases where obedience to lawful authority isn't in question.
The practice is disordered because it cheapens the faithful's reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and the sacrament of Holy Orders, and because it conveys a false idea of what the Mass is.
I call the practice damaging because the results speak for themselves.
I’m really not trying to be difficult, but which statement is the 1969 one you’re referring to?
It's a big deal because it obscures the ontological distinction between priests and the rest of us. The hands of a priest are consecrated for his work: he is conformed to Christ in a radical way that lay people are not. Communion in the paw reduces him to minister/presider. It's an important way the Mass has been protestantised.
Hey pal I wouldn’t protest if it was changed tomorrow. In fact, I reckon it would be a good thing, even though it would be a new thing for me that might be a little weird at first on account of being “new”. But I can dig helping folks see that it is a big deal, which most seem to not get, at least in these parts.
As far as hand/tongue affects how folks see the priest, I reckon all the ex. ministers/mushy lib priests have done more to protestanize how folks see the priest than on the tongue or in the paw did.
Freegards
And where is his diocese again?
Oh, that's right......Kazakhstan......where the Catholic population is about a dozen and a half.
How come a huge diocese like LA gets saddled with a turkey like Mahony and the great bishops end up in the former Soviet Central Asia?
Time to bring this man to the Vatican.
Aside from the loaded verbage used by partisans, why is there no mention of Immensae Caritatis (spelling)?
I found it in less than five minutes, and it does make the article seem like special pleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
There are also wolves in shepherd’s clothing who are deliberately leading the flock astray.
That will, in turn, mean that instead of multiple communion lines in multiple aisles of the Church there will be just one line, for there will usually be just one priest. And the most efficient way for that line to move would be for it fan out and kneel across the altar steps and allow the priest to pass along it. That in turn would require something to kneel against, i.e. an altar rail.
IOW, this is an issue which relates to multiple problems at one and the same time. That is, the issue of communion in the hand, the issue of standing instead of kneeling and the issue of an absence of a clear demarcation between sanctuary and nave in the form of an altar rail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.