Pentecost Sunday: Vatican Prohibition On Communion in the hand Enforced

Click on photo to view video clip…

On Pentecost Sunday several priests refused to give Holy Communion in the hand in Vatican St Peter’s Basilica. 

They put Holy Communion as it should be on the tongue.
[Ed: except in one case where the choir member refused to accept the priest’s insistence on the tongue, pointing to his cupped hand.]

Twitter-User CatholicSat explained (May 25) that there was an increasing number of abuses over the recent months.

Therefore priests have been reminded again that Communion in the hand is prohibited in the Vatican. 

Comment: 

Should the priest have refused to give in to the choir member who insisted on receiving Communion in the hand? 

56 responses

  1. What an arrogant man, full of pride! The priest absolutely should have refused to give him Communion in the hand!

    However, I find it bizarre that Communion in the hand is “banned” at the Vatican, but permitted everywhere else! If it’s wrong to receive in this way at the Vatican, it’s wrong everywhere.

    • Petrus,

      Hear, hear! That was my own first thought. How can it be banned in the Vatican, but allowed everywhere else.

  2. I was at a First Communion a week ago and ALL the children and MOST of the adults had Communion on the tongue.This was in Scotland.

  3. Very curious. Has this been “enforced” in the past? Seems that no one in the vid knew. Everybody approached with cupped hands.

    Oh, and yes, the priest should definitely have refused to offer the Blessed Sacrament to the guy who demanded it.

    I guess my real question is that if this has not been “enforced” in the past, why now? Change of mind by [Pope Francis]? Personal decision of the MC? Private agreement among the priests? Marketing ploy by [Pope Francis] to placate some conservatives in preparation for another heretical doctrinal bombshell? Why?

    Oh, and I’ve placed “enforced” is in quotes because it wasn’t enforced. You should change the title of the piece. Had it been enforced, the choir member would have been refused the Sacrament. To repeat, the title of the article is wrong. It SHOULD read:

    “Vatican Prohibition On Communion in the hand NOT Enforced”

    If it was actually enforced, the choir member would have been given no other option. Period.

    But then, can we expect anything more from priests who hail from a corporate culture defined by effeminacy in administration of Sacraments and teaching of doctrine? While Islamic terrorists are willing to blow themselves up and take the ire of much of the world, we can’t even get a priest in the VATICAN to require a CHOIR member to receive the Body of Our Blessed Lord the way it should be received. Why, somebody might complain!

    This is one convert likely among many converts and cradle Catholics that is just exhausted and utterly sick of the rotten, soft, vapid and weak culture that exists in the Catholic Church.

    What happened to the Catholic Church?

    • Rod Halvorsen,

      One of these days, I’ll advertise for a headline-writer. Although it’s been a while (used to happen a lot here) it never ceases to amaze me that so many people think nothing of coming on to advise me about headlines or to make suggestions on how I could be a better administrator.

      Try it over at The Remnant, or, better still, Father Z and see what happens. Let me save you the time – your name will disappear into cyber-space!

      These priests WERE enforcing the rule but one of them weakly decided to give in to a modernist gentleman (I use the term loosely). So, the headline remains. End of….

      As for “what happened to the Catholic Church” – what happened is precisely what was foretold at Quito in the 17th century with the solution, given at Fatima in 1917, studiously ignored.

      Pray for the Consecration of Russia, as specified by Our Lady, and peace and order will be restored in both the Church and the world. Easy.

  4. The Pope, who governs such matters, is reported thus in March 2018:

    “Just as the bread and wine are turned into the real body and blood of Christ, he said, so too are those who receive the gifts, transformed into ‘a living Eucharist,’ becoming “body of Christ.”
    ‘We become what we receive,’ he said.

    The Pope said receiving Communion can be done standing “with devotion” or kneeling, whichever has been determined by each bishops’ conference, and Communion can be received on the tongue or, ‘where it is permitted’, in the hand.”

    Thus, The Supreme Head, and legislator, in The Church says decisions about Holy Communion are reserved to each Bishops’ Conference.

    As far as I know, in most places it is discouraged at most outdoor celebrations of Holy Mass anywhere in the world. (Because it may be blown away for example.) There may be specific – non theological reasons – why it is discouraged in The Vatican. For example, some people may, wrongly, value a Host consecrated by The Pope above one consecrated by another Priest, and attach greater importance to it, and more if it is saved for sacrilegious reasons best not contemplated.

    In short, wherever it does take place licitly, anywhere in the world, it will have been approved by the same Vatican.

    • Good article by the way, except for that headline.

      LOL.

      I’m not sure I understand your reply here.

      First, I’ve never seen anything like what you suggest at the two sites you note, and I read and have posted quite a bit on both. My statement was sort of but not wholly rhetorical tho technically I was correct. A practice can be enforced, not enforced or partly enforced. In this case the best that can be said is “partly enforced”.

      Enforcement of a rule only has meaning when an attempt is made to misbehave. In this case, the only fellow who can be said to have “enforced” anything was the choir member who might be said to have “forced” the priest to knuckle under, which as a good and typical, modern cleric he did. So what we saw was no enforcement at all.

      As for enforcement, I have heard of but not seen communicants refused communion when kneeling. THAT would be true “enforcement” if true.

      As for the rest, I might be missing your point, but of course “in the hand” is approved by many {almost all} local ordinaries. It is the common practice of the Church. Everybody knows that. The origin of course and history of the practice/abuse is pretty well known, as is the commonality of the practice today.

      As for in-the-hand being discouraged in outdoor places, you could be right but I’ve personally never seen on-the-tongue reception outdoors except by folks that individually take it upon themselves to receive otherwise.

      In the meantime, for your viewing enjoyment…Skip to 8:00 for the punchline.

      • Rod Halvorsen

        I think you’re going on about “something and nothing” as the saying goes.

        The fact that one priest failed (probably out of human weakness) to enforce that rule, doesn’t require a different headline. We’re not stupid, we know a rebel getting one over on a weak priest when we see one, and it was only one, LOL!

        I, for one, don’t want to see this important topic hijacked over what is nothing more than a technicality, at worst. Look at how often the priest did enforce the rule, with people sticking out their hands and him refusing to put the Host in their hand. Only one determined modernist won the day. It wouldn’t happen in an SSPX chapel where the priests would just walk on. In fact, there was a time when the priest would quietly slap the hands to indicate “tongue only”.

        I see you’ve never been blacklisted from Father Z! It’s quite well known that if you were to even disagree with Father Z you would be blacklisted, never mind tell him off about his headlines, LOL! I guess that’s what editor was meaning. I remember reading blogs here about Father Z’s blacklisting of bloggers here. It’s true that she gets people instructing her on how to run the blog – and people wouldn’t dream of telling Michael Matt or Father Z off for a headline they disagree with or anything like that. She’s had to point this out before, and I must say, I do sympathise. It’s probably because she’s the only female blog author in the Catholic blogosphere, I think I’m right in saying. Nobody would chide a male for putting the “wrong” headline, LOL!

        Personally, I think the headline’s perfectly fine – I couldn’t believe it when I saw the priest actually enforcing the rule, and thought, I wish I was in his parish, LOL!

        • It was a teachable moment lost.

          How can a person used to doing something continuously for years, a thing they have been taught is right and good, be condemned as “arrogant” when said individual simply prefers to do the same thing he has been taught to do?

          The problem is actually with the priest.

          He had an opportunity to teach the man through the use of a rule enforced. He chose not to and thereby he taught everyone who saw it that like a Big Mac, they can have it their way. And this in microcosm is the church today. Teachable moments lost over and over and over, on this issue and many, many others. Teachable moments lost when priests avoid teaching on contraception, or the Church long-standing teaching on the death penalty, or consistent teaching on dancing, the doctrine of hell, or marriage, etc, etc, etc.

          Having said that, we shouldn’t be too hard on the priest, for he has himself very likely been taught to avoid confrontation like the plague.

          In that sense this whole episode is a snapshot of the Curch today.

          Those who seek to break with long-standing tradition or the teaching of the Church on many issues seem to have the upper hand.

          That is, in this case, the lower hand.

          As it were…

          • Listen, Rod. If you spent half as much time addressing the real issues rather than arguing the toss about something and nothing then you could have corrected numerous meaningful errors by now.

            Your comments are quite simply a distraction. Have the humility to let it go. If you don’t like the headlines then blog elsewhere.

        • Laura,

          I’ve never thought of myself as “the only female blog author in the Catholic blogosphere” – there is sure to be somebody else out there… who is much better than moi at picking headlines…

          See if I care!

      • Rod Halvorsen,

        I don’t know what the “punchline” is since I don’t speak Spanish but if you mean the Pope handing out Communion so casually, I’m not surprised. You can see his casual liturgies all over YouTube. He never genuflects in the Real Presence so there’s something not quite right there, since he’s no bother getting down on his knees to wash the feet of Muslim women and prisoners on Maundy Thursday.

    • Petrus Regnat,

      Communion in the hand is NOT licit anywhere in the world. It is an abuse which was deliberately introduced by disobedient bishops. Receiving on the tongue, kneeling, is still the norm. The idea that it may be prohibited at outdoor Masses for “non-theological reasons, such as being blown away – WOW! How much more theological does it need to get! The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ blown away to be trampled underfoot or consumed by animals, marine life, you name it. WOW!

      To consider a slightly contrasting view, here’s an extract from an article published over at New Liturgical Movement, which I’ve linked at the end of this comment so that you can read it in full:

      St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand … that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes:

      The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons.

      First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . .

      Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.

      Thirdly, because out of reverence toward this sacrament 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. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity — for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.”

      And

      In his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae, Pope John Paul II also states: “How eloquent, therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary. 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.”

      Read a little of the history of the disobedience behind the introduction of this liturgical abuse, in the linked article below, and bear in mind that Bishops’ Conferences have NO justification in Catholic Tradition and NO authority today. Each bishop is responsible for, and will be held accountable for, his own diocese.
      http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.Wwxw7vZFxhE

      • Editor,

        Just to reinforce your comments, here are Fr. Gruner & John Vennari, RIP, on Communion in the hand (this is Part I, I will post Part II next):

        • RCA Victor,

          Many thanks for those two videos which I’ll watch later – I’ve probably seen them before, as I’m a big Father Gruner fan, but one can never get too much of a good thing!

      • Editor

        The non Theological reasons referred to the insistence of Holy Communion on the tongue in The Vatican, and not the outdoor celebration of Holy Mass. I also gave at least two reasons why that might be so: people giving an extraordinary value to Holy Communion at a papal celebration, and also because some might want to hold on to such a Host for very negative reasons. (Although, there can be no good reason for doing so!)

        I am more than familiar with changing liturgical practice, and not all changes are abuses. The fact is that The Church has legislated for such a practice, and from memory I seem to recall that at the time the practice came into use in my lifetime it was presented as a re-introduction and they quoted saints from the early Church, who spoke well of the practice. At the time of writing I can’t recall what saints they then quoted, but they sure did quote them.

        However, the more important thing is that people recognise it for what it is: The Real Presence, Jesus Christ himself and that the Holy Mass is the perfect re-presentation of Calvary. To Him be Honour, and Glory, for evermore.

        • Petrus Regnat,

          The Church ended the practice of receiving Communion in the hand as belief in the Real Presence deepened; every effort had to be made to safeguard the Sacred Species as the understanding of the first Christians grew. The fact that, in our times, it was reintroduced by disobedient prelates and permitted (by indult only) by a pope (Paul VI) too weak to enforce the law, is not a strong argument for accepting it.

          As for your final paragraph – the truth is that fewer and fewer Catholics DO recognise the Real Presence and the novus ordo as Calvary. That is the simple reality. That’s why we have parishes merging and closing by the dozen.

          Watch the short 6 minutes clip of Bishop Schneider on the grave consequences (as he puts it) of the practice of Communion in the hand which I posted below in response to a comment from Rod. And think seriously about those fragments.

          • Bishop Schneider is an admirable man, but his “insights” cannot be given credence above those of others, more senior, and experts in their field, or indeed Documents issued with the Authority of The Supreme Pontiff. Further, for example, St Thomas Aquinas, had “opinions” which do not have the same weight as his teaching on Transubstantiation.

            In many ordinary Parishes, which you sneer at, and condemn, as N.O. Parishes, there is weekly, and often daily, Exposition of The Blessed Sacrament, and Benediction, and in many Diocese, and regions, Churches that have Exposition 24/7, 365 days of the year. There is England and Wales, in September, a National Eucharistic Congress in Liverpool, over 3 days, with a Blessed Sacrament Procession through the streets of Liverpool. Please explain how this fits in with your view of these decaying Parishes that deny “The Real Presence”.

            Please raise your eyes and thank God for these signs of hope.

            • Bishop Schneider’s admirable insights are, as it turns out, lock step with the rule existing in the Vatican itself, which should be sufficient “credence” of the truth and accuracy of his assessment.

            • Petrus Regnant,

              Your post is rather hostile. I do not believe this is necessary, but I do believe you have missed several points.

              Bishop Schneider is not perfect. No one has claimed that, neither has it been claimed that his insights can be given credence above others. What we can say is that any well informed Catholic can recognise that Bishop Schneider quite often explain truths of the Faith eloquently. You see, that’s the key point. The doctrine of the Faith, not any personal insights.

              As for you comment about us sneering at Novus Ordo parishes, this has absolutely no substance. We recognise that there are many Catholics of good faith, lay and ordained, practising their faith in modern parishes. However, this can only be in spite of the liturgical reform, heretical teaching and numerous abuses.

              The adoration, exposition etc. are fine. Although I have to say, that on my recent trip to Dublin I stopped off at a chapel in central Dublin to visit the Blessed Sacrament. This chapel has constant adoration. To my horror, the monstrance could only be described as a monstrosity, the crucifix looked like a snooker cue and the altar was like a folder away dining table! I was accompanying two young Catholics and after a few minutes in adoration, the 15 year old got up and left, stating that the horrendously modern environment was too distracting and he found it almost impossible to concentrate. So, the events you describe are good, as long as they are done properly.

              • Just to tag on, Petrus Regnat if he hasn’t already, might enjoy reading Bp Schneider’s “DOMINUS EST” on communion in hand.

                Short, to the point and worth the read.

            • Petrus Regnat,

              If you can so easily dismiss Bishop Schneider’s comments on the dangers of Communion in the hand, his informed remarks about the fragments being lost and trampled underfoot, then, clearly, there’s nothing anyone here can say that will be of any use to you. I have to say, you do surprise me, though.

              For the record, the Bishop, far from merely expressing his own opinion, is actually expressing the teaching found in more than one official Church Document – Pope Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini springs to mind.

              Nobody has sneered at any NO parishes, which we refer to as such simply because a few of us here do not attend NO parishes but fulfil our obligation at a traditional chapel. I occasionally refer to “diocesan” Catholics or parishes, but there is no slight intended by referring to parishes in terms of the novus ordo liturgy provided there.

              And, finally, if you don’t think the fact of massive church closures and mergers is a sign of decay, then – again – there’s nothing any of us can say that will be of any use to you. Given that Our Lord’s instruction at His Ascension was to “go out into the whole world, baptizing…” that, too, surprises me. Growth, Our Lord seemed to be saying, would be a sign of Heaven’s blessing, of the Holy Spirit at work. Still, I could be wrong about that, in this upside down, anything goes (as long as it’s not traditional) Church and world 😀

              Oh and, believe me, in response to a previous comment from you where you urged me to raise my eyes and thank God… I did, believe me, raise my eyes. I even rolled them, for good measure… 😀

              Dominus vobiscum!

  5. Oops.

    My mistake, I posted under Regnat.

    Meant to post under “Editor”.

    My second mistake of the day! 🙂

  6. Definitely that man should have been refused Communion. What a cheek to be so flagrant about such an important Church discipline right within the Vatican walls.

    Good on the priests, though, for enforcing the rule in the majority of cases. I wish we had them over here in the UK!

    • Lionel,

      Read this article which gives something of the history of this liturgical abuse
      http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.Wwxw7vZFxhE

      Michael Davies (RIP) has thoroughly documented the history of the disobedience, the cunning, which saw this sacrilegious abuse introduced into the Catholic Church. Utterly scandalous. See his book Paul Paul’s New Mass – excellent.
      https://www.amazon.com/Pope-Pauls-Mass-Michael-Davies/dp/189233173X#customerReviews

      • Right on. Well said.

        That’s it exactly, but what IS AN ABUSE HAS BECOME AND NOW IS THE STANDARD PRACTICE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

        This isn’t a distraction, it’s a fact.

        And what is more FACT is we have almost no prelates or priests with the guts of those heretics whose video I posted to enforce the rule and prevent sacrilege.

        THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR AND THE PRIEST in your video didn’t even have the decency, courage or manly integrity to protect it.

        You can belittle my point, but the FACT is the abuse will continue until priests stop it.

        Some time ago I was speaking to an African priest who told me it is common practice in his area to have ushers present at communion to stop public, known, and unrepentant sinners {living in adultery, especially, you know the stuff the Pope seems so soft on…}. Now most folks would faint at the thought, but whether the details there are problematic or not…

        …A PRIEST KNOWS WHETHER THE COMMUNICANT IS DEMANDING TO BE COMMUNED IN AN ABUSIVE MANNER because the communicant is doing it right in the priest’s face.

        At the heart of many problems in the Church today is simple, manly guts.

        We lack it.

        Catholics who used to be the definition of religious courage. Now??? HA!!
        We faint at choir boys who want what they want when they want it. Now we are known for our compromise, capitulation and effeminacy at every turn.

        And you can laugh or call me names or say I’m speaking of distractions all you want.

        I couldn’t care less.

        There will be no restoration of the faith until there are priests, prelates and lay folk who have the guts to speak and live it, and for the clergy, that means administering discipline where necessary.

        • Rod,

          You seem to be of the opinion that we are all ignorant of the fact that Communion in the hand is routinely the practice in parishes – our very first blogger made an implicit comment to that effect at the top of this thread when he said that if Communion in the hand is not allowed in the Vatican, it should not be allowed anywhere, bizarre that it IS the norm in parishes. So, we KNOW that – that is why the fact that it is not permitted in the Vatican is of interest, albeit that one priest did not refuse the persistent rebel, in the video clip from Gloria TV. I agree that he should have done, but it would be more fruitful if we supply reasons why the practice was stopped in the early Church and the widespread loss of faith in the Real Presence (not to mention shortage of vocations to the priesthood) which has resulted from its re-introduction by disobedient prelates, rather than use the headline as a stick with which to beat my unworthy self.

          Nobody is “laughing off” any of your valid comments, but to focus on the headline IS a distraction. Headlines are often “inaccurate” – deliberately so, in many cases, in order to provoke readers to read on and, in this case, to discuss. To have made the point that there was a clear lack of enforcement in one case by the priest would have been perfectly valid, and a great way to focus on what you rightly describe as the “effeminacy” of too many priests today. I spoke about the days when we had “manly” priests to a priest only last week, when he dithered about dealing with an issue in his parish, involving some bossy lay people who would drive the entire Communion of Saints away from Mass if they could get away with it.

          So, be assured, your comments are very welcome, but always in the context of realising that I am not the perfect administrator or the perfect Catholic or the perfect anything. To focus on my inadequacies IS a distraction. And finally, nobody is belittling your point that this abuse will continue until priests/bishops put a stop to it – but that failure to enforce Church teaching and disciplines closely related to dogma is the very stuff of this crisis in the Church. It is in the very nature of this unprecedented crisis that – as Our Lady prophesied at Quito, speaking of the Church in the 20th century – “those who should speak out will fall silent.” Poorly formed and very weak priests are now the norm. We need to do all we can to change that, of course, but we need to recognise it for what it is, the “diabolical disorientation” prophesied at Fatima in the apparitions which began in 1917. Spiritual blindness has resulted from that disorientation, so we need to bear that in mind when we criticise the hierarchy and priests – in most cases, they actually believe that what they are doing, the liturgical abuses (beginning with the novus ordo Mass) are good things. Everything is upside down.

          Here’s a short clip of Bishop Schneider on the “grave consequence” of receiving Communion in the hand:

          • Editor:

            I think you got entirely the wrong impression. I am not nitpicking the editorial content. In fact, as i have said, you caught in microcosm one of the greatest and most devastating problems in the Church today. And the article was excellent.

            I am pointing out that one of the single greatest problems in the Church today is the culture of weakness that has developed since the bizarre words of Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae 16 where Pope St John XXIII states that no longer will the Church condemn evil…as everybody already knows what’s evil and doesn’t need to be reminded {my paraphrase but a virtual quote}.

            https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/john-xxiii-opening-speech.pdf

            But just as he actually admits, the combination of affirmation of good and condemnation of evil WAS the method of the Church since the beginning, since the words and actions of Jesus, thru to the Fathers and on till that very day. Affirming good, condemning {and disciplining evil}. This statement by JXXIII was a sea change, and the little event we have seen here, while some might consider it unimportant, screams out to the condition of a Church that has thrown away 1/2 of its weaponry and flails about in battle. Yes, a small thing {is it when it has to do with the Body and Blood of Our Lord??} but can you picture a choir boy demanding to be served communion “his own way” 60 or 80 years ago against the rule of the Church and the practice of the Vatican? I didn’t think so. And thus we have a very small event that starkly points to a very big problem. Indeed, as you know, this collapse of exercise of authority…IS EXACTLY HOW THE WHOLE ABUSE of “in the hand” gained status as the standard practice of the Church!

            You might say that this one priest {and all priests and prelates like him} are the REASON for the abuse!

            Believe it or not, the real problems with the Church are not so much doctrinal; we HAVE the unchanging Magesterium and that Magesterium is not going anywhere, but effectively, like the Law rolled up and dust-covered and unread of Helcias’ day in the Old Testament, it has been hidden. {4 Kings 22:8}. The Law hidden by lack of interest in teaching it and fear of defending it. You might say, hidden by fear of “choir boys”.

            The Catholic Church does NOT lack the doctrines, She lacks actual men to teach and demonstrate and DEFEND those teachings.

            I am not hung up about one little act of a priest.

            I am addressing the issue that this one little act points to. Think about it for one moment; What culture would produce a situation where a rule {and a very good one at that!} is dispensed with by a choir boy who is stubborn enough to resist it? What does that little act of defiance AND THE PRIESTS CAPITULATION TO IT say about the church today? It says volumes.

            Since WHEN do choir boys have hierarchical authority over PRIESTS?

            The answer is of course, they don’t.

            Unless PRIESTS abandon their authority to choir boys.

            And so it goes issue after issue after issue, from things big and things small. Rule after canon law after Biblical injunction.

            Don’t want to obey? No problem, just “point at you hand and tell the priest to go jump and…he’ll ask how high.

            Back to Gaudet Mater Ecclesiae; The “medicine of mercy” alone wasn’t sufficient for Jesus. It wasn’t sufficient for the Fathers. It wasn’t sufficient for the entire history of the Church.

            And it isn’t sufficient for the Church today. Period.

            No matter what 50 year old members of a choir say.

            No Restoration of the Church will or can occur unless those who are members of the hierarchy are willing to exercise their authority to defend the Lord and His teaching.

            Good day, and thanks for an excellent article.

      • That is a very edifying video – I’ve seen it before, a few times, but it always has the same effect, very edifying. Thank you Bishop Schneider!

        I heard he gave a talk in a Glasgow parish recently so would be interested to hear from anyone who attended.

  7. One of my great-nieces recently made her First Holy Communion. It was a challenge trying to find a nice card to mark the event for her, most of them depicted a child receiving ‘in the hand’.

    • Pat,

      My sympathy – I’ve noticed that as well. Ditto when buying birthday cards for 16, 18 and 21 year olds – they’ve nearly all got bottles of wine or bottles of beer on the front. Growing up meaning time for all those “adult” activities…

  8. I think this is one of the most ridiculous arguments about Communion in the hand I’ve ever read. Just because a man who was very badly behaved all through Mass stood up and blew a kiss to the host at the elevation the writer thinks Communion in the hand is OK, he shouldn’t have judged the man who was irreverent all through Mass. Surely,the distracting behaviour all through Mass doesn’t get wiped out by that one act of supposed respect or reverence? I’d be interested to know what others think.
    https://cruxnow.com/faith/2015/03/19/communion-in-the-hand-vs-communion-on-the-tongue/

    • I completely agree. That was a very stupid way to defend CIH, as if it is OK to be on the phone etc during Mass and then just acknowledge the consecration. That really is one of the most ridiculous arguments, as you say, as if that makes the man behaving in a blasphemous way throughout Mass, suddenly a ‘good guy’. To be watching that and then be so impressed with a moment of attention at the consecration that you decide to receive in the hand, and that is a good reason to, is just non-thinking, IMHO.

  9. I didn’t know there was a ban on communion in the hand at the Vatican. I suppose its a kind of tokenism, given “anything goes” elsewhere in the Universal Church.

    And what an arrogant man, to insist on receiving in the hand. He should have been sent packing.

    Great pride is surely one of the hallmarks of the novus ordo church.

  10. Reporting what Sandro Magister has said on his blog, Rorate notes that the Vatican has derailed the German Bishop’s “communion for heretics” scheme.

    Francis has decided that the guidelines for the hairbrained scheme are “not ready for publication”. A mild refusal which saves face for his pet Germans.

    That is hardly a resounding reaffirmation of Catholic teaching, but its probably as best we can expect from Francis.

    The danger is that the German apostates might consider that further tinkering will make the document “ready”.

    Francis had clearly tried to let this pass with a nod and a wink, originally batting the question back to the Germans instead of giving any direction.

    However Cardinal Woelki and 6 other German Prelates would not agree to it. Recently Cardinal Woelki gave a speech on the matter and was apparently “visibly moved” during it, so maybe this is what led Francis to finally come down on the right side, however weakly.

    Woelki is a strange one. I have heard him described as “ultra liberal” before, yet he resisted Marx strongly here. I have read that Woelki has been greatly affected by the death of Cardinal Joachim Meisner, maybe his passing has somehow helped Cardinal Woelki see things more clearly?

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/06/pope-blocks-german-guidelines-allowing.html

  11. From Catholic Womens ordination uk website…(see latest newsletter pdf)
    Regarding their trip to Rome and attending Mass at St Peters basilica:
    ‘We decided to make it our own celebration, as we do, with the Eucharist. So we all
    took communion in the hand if we could, brought it back to our place, and shared it
    amongst ourselves, in a circle, as we always do.
    We’d managed to smuggle one banner in, that they hadn’t taken off us, but we
    decided against holding it up at the end. It would only have provoked them, and
    perhaps undone the good we’d achieved.’

    Luckily this group is small and elderly. Sad to see such liturgical abuse especially at the Vatican

      • The group do not even believe that the priest acts in persona christi. They feel this is an invention of the later Church. Why these people don’t become Anglican, I shall never know. Any ideas?

        • CDL,

          They don’t become Anglicans because they believe Luther made a mistake at the time of the Reformation by leaving the Church. They want to change it from inside (they think they’re “inside”, would you believe!) Thus, they’re sticking around this time…

          That, at least, is the rationale I’ve seen spouted by the so-called liberals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: