The Communion of the Apostles by Signorelli
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Issued on May 29, 1969.
When the Church celebrates the memorial of the Lord it affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of him, Christ present in the sacrifice and given as food to those who share the Eucharistic table.
For this reason it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness. It preserves intact the already developed tradition which has come down to us, its riches having passed into the usage and the life of the Church The pages of history show that the celebration and the receptions of the Eucharist have taken various forms. In our own day the rites for the celebration of the Eucharist have been changed in many and important ways, bringing them more into line with modern man's spiritual and psychological needs. Further, a change has taken place in the discipline governing the laity's participation in the sacrament. Holy communion under two kinds, bread and wine has been reintroduced. It had once been common in the Latin Church too, but had subsequently been progressively abandoned. This state of affairs had become general by the time of the Council of Trent, which sanctioned and defended it by dogmatic teaching as being suited to the conditions of that time.[1]
These changes have made of the Eucharistic banquet and the faithful fulfillment of Christ's command a clearer and more vital symbol. At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the Eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the Eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.
Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.
However, the Church's prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, "let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it"[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] "For it is the Body of Christ."[4]
Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: "When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent."[5]
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, 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 method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in "ordinary bread and wine"[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which "The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father."[8]
Further, 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, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually."[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: "What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members."[10]
When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. 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 which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.
Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:
1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?
Yes: 597
No: 1,233
Yes, but with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20
2. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?
Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes, 70
3. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?
Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128
From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over" the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.
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,[12] 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.
Note: in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547) the Instruction was accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand. The letter laid down the following regulations:
1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage....
2. The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully. In effect, since human attitudes are in question, it is linked with the sensibility of the person receiving communion. It 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 so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament. The result of this catechesis should be to remove any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the eucharistic presence, and also to remove any danger or even suggestion of profanation.
3. The fact that the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object. Rather ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the Eucharist make him a part. He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of the Lord which he touches with his hands. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.
4. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant. One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium. In either case, the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place, and the minister's role will be emphasized by his saying, "The Body of Christ," to which the communicant responds, "Amen."
5. No matter which method is adopted, one will be careful not to allow any fragment of the host to fall....
6. When the communion is distributed under both kinds, it is never permitted to place in the hands of the communicants hosts which have first been placed in the Blood of the Lord.
7. Bishops who have been permitted to introduce the new rite of communion are asked to send a report to the congregation, six months hence, on the outcome.
[Translated by Rev. Austin Flannery, O.P. from AAS 61 (1969), pp. 541-547.]
Endnotes
1. Cf. Council of Trent, session 21, The Doctrine of Communion under Both Kinds: Denz. 1726-1727.
2. St. Augustine, On the Psalms, 98, 9.
3. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis, V, 21.
4. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, n. 37.
5. Justin, Apologia, 1, 65.
6. See St. Augustine, On the Psalms 98, 9.
7. See Justin, Apologia 1 66.
8. Instruction Eucharisticum Mysterium n. 3.
9. Ibid., n. 9.
10. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis V; 21.
11. See Acts 20:28.
12. See Vatican II Decree Christus Dominus, n. 38, par. 4.
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
father parang lumalapas po sa margin ang nakasulat....may mga part po akong hindi mabasa kasi lumapas sa boarder.... try putting it first sa notepad before ilagay sa blog... thanks
ReplyDeleteAYAN, OK NA. HE, HE, HE..
ReplyDeleteAlthough it wasn't until Feb. 27, 1989 that the Holy See granted an indult for all dioceses in the Philippines to distribute the Sacred Host in the hand pursuant to Prot. N. 358/89, the practice was already common in Metro Manila in the early 80s, driven in part by charismatics and those who liked to blindly copy American liturgical practices.
ReplyDeleteThis practice began its life as a grave liturgical abuse, and through the lack of episcopal oversight, forced its way into the liturgy of the Church. In light of Sacrosanctum Concilium's admonition not to introduce innovations "unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them, and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing," (par. 23) the introduction of Communion in the hand stands out as a glaring contradiction and a repuditation of organic growth from existing forms. On the contrary, this practice has led to decreased reverence for the Eucharist and confusion among the faithful as to what the Eucharist really is. I pray that the Holy Fathe will find the courage to withdraw this indult and mandate Communion on the tongue as the only means to receive Communion.
To Richard Friend...
ReplyDeleteMass prepared yata ako sa communion in hand kaysa cimmunion in tongue dahil mas madali,nasubukan ko na rin mag communion in tongue kaya lang kinabahan ako baka malalag pa ang hustiya o makagat ang daliri ng pari.Mas secure kasi ang hustiya kapag nasa aking kamay,kung idiristo sa aking tongue baka malaglag nga o makagat ko pa ang daliri ng pari.
Ang dalawang paraan na ito ay accepted to our Church Magesterium.Kaya walang mali o masama sa dalawang paraan..
Good evening broder..
To richard friend,
ReplyDeleteWILL YOU PLEASE READ PARAGRAPH 5? The Communion is not a rupture of tradition as if you red this was practice and permitted in the "ancient times." So it is not an innovation ok?
And if you say that "Communion in hand" invites liturgical abuse, have you red the story of the Eucharistic Miracle of Santarem, Portugal? Allow me to narrate a few lines of it:
" Sometime between 1225 or 1247 there was a woman living in Santarem (Portugal), who was very unhappy. She was convinced that her husband did not love her, and was unfaithful. She tried all the wiles known to women from the days of Eve, but to no avail. As a desperate last attempt, she went to a sorceress. The sorceress promised the wife that her husband would return to his loving ways, if the wife would bring her a Consecrated Host.
This greatly frightened the woman. She knew it was sacrilege. She was also convinced that the sorceress was up to no good. The wife didn't know what to do. She finally gave in. She went to Mass at the Church of St. Steven, and received Communion, but did not consume the Host. Instead, she left the Church immediately, and took the Host out of her mouth, putting It into a kerchief. She then headed for the Sorceress."
IF you want to read the full account, it can be found here:
http://www.trosch.org/inx/santarem.html
So what is my point you ask? My point is that even if the Church imposes "communion in the tongue" only It is no guarantee also that the sacred body of our lord will be free from abuse. When a person wants to do something, there is always a way for it. Imposing Communion in hand with the conclusion that it will prevent or lessen the abuse in the Eucharist is fallacious. The holy father has encourage us to receive the communion in kneeling but that does not mean he imposes that to all. Sure, he has all the authority to do that but until then both method of receiving communion is to be respected as the Pope has approved both method.
Whether by hand or by tongue we receive the Holy Eucharist we still declare:"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed."
ReplyDeleteTo Ednard Kim: "WILL YOU PLEASE READ PARAGRAPH 5? The Communion is not a rupture of tradition as if you red this was practice and permitted in the "ancient times." So it is not an innovation ok?"
ReplyDeleteYou are quite presumptuous in your comments. You don't know me. I am quite aware of the fact that in ancient times, probably up until the 5th century, Communion in the hand was allowed. But "later, 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. " As Memoriale Domini explains, as the Church deepened its understanding of the truth of this sacred mystery, it established practices to reflect this greater feeling of reverence, doing away with Communion in the hand in favor of on the tongue. This is genuine organic development. The vast majority of bishops opposed any change in the manner of receiving Communion back in 1969, yet what started as an illicit practice in the 60s refused to die and eventually forced its way into the Church through acts of disobedience, to the point of supplanting Communion on the tongue as the de facto norm. This reversal to an earlier practice presents a rupture in genuine organic development, for I can find no spiritual benefit or good that resulted from the reintroduction of this practice. Can you? Read par. 23 of Sacrosanctum Concilium again and explain why Communion in the hand is not an innovation and rupture in organic development.
In a secular generation highly antagonistic to Christianity, was it proper to introduce this practice? In the U.S., belief among Catholics in the real presence of Christ in the Sacred Species is less than 25%. Every Sunday during Communion, row upon row of Catholics line up to receive in the hand, yet few bother to go confession. I see the same thing happening here. When people are taught to receive Communion casually simply by sticking their hands out as if to receive a candy, then it is not hard to imagine how belief in the real presence can take a hit. One has to be blind not to see this. Our Holy Father himself has deemed it fit to restrict the reception of Communion to on the tongue when receiving from him, and the fact that he has not imposed this on all is a sign of his inability to impose his will on his brother bishops due to collegiality. I find it quite ironic that the Pope who approved of collegiality, Paul VI, by which our Holy Father Pope Benedict finds himself bound to, had no problem allowing the introduction of a practice that the majority of bishops opposed.
Your example of the poor woman who received on the tongue and then took out the Sacred Host completely misses the point. Communion in the hand multiplies the chances of abusing and profaning the Sacred Host. Just ask any priest where Communion in the hand is practiced how many times they've seen or been told about people walking away and not immediately consuming the Host, or finding Hosts or parts of it on the pews or on the ground. Yes, abuse also happens when Communion is given on the tongue, but it is rare.
I find it quite sad that among Catholics there is almost a knee-jerk reaction to criticisms of present liturgical practices, as if such criticism means some sort of rejection of a dogma of the Church, when in fact no dogma is involved.
There is no need to assert that the practice of Communion in the hand is allowed as if I asserted the contrary. Did I not mention the indult granted? The point I was trying to make was that Communion in the hand was an illicit innovation in the 60s, which was eventually allowed because of a lack of Episcopal oversight, and which practice has resulted in decreased reverence for the Eucharist and confusion among the faithful about the real presence.
To anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIt is your option and right to receive in the hand, but I find your reasoning quite shallow. Because it is convenient?? There are many things that the Church wants us to do, and we do them not because they are convenient, but because they are good for our souls and bring us spiritual benefit. If we go by the rule of convenience, then perhaps we should also get rid of kneeling altogether (as they have done illicitly in Tokyo, where they stand throughout the Liturgy of the Eucharist, because the bishop does not want the noise from people kneeling on wooden pews) because many find kneeling inconvenient. In fact, in the U.S. there are some communities that refuse to kneel, preferring instead to stand because "kneeling is penitential and we are the people of the resurrection." At the rate we’re going liturgically, it would no longer surprise me if one day even this practice of kneeling becomes optional.
Bro. Kim,
ReplyDeleteBro. Richard Friend is not an SSPX supporter but a Roman Catholic who is so in-loved with the Liturgy of the Church. He love and respect both TLM and the Pauline Mass. He is only concerned about the abuses.
As a priest, of course, I uphold whatever the Church approves. For that I accept Communion in the hand. But personally speaking, I prefer Communion on Tongue because of the actual experiences I had with Communion by the Hand.
I agree with Bro. Kim concerning the legitimacy of Communion by Hand and I also attest to what Bro. Richard is saying about the abuses in Communion by Hand. For instance, I experienced right in the Cathedral of Sorsogon when I was giving communion a kid came to receive it. Being young that she was I was about to put the host on her mouth but her hand grabbed the host instinctively. Then she run back to her parents without me seeing the host being consumed. I stop giving Communion and called on the people to stop the running kid. I was calling for help but NO ONE MOVED. I WAS TELLING THEM IN LOUD VOICE TO STOP THE CHILD BUT NO ONE DID. They simply stared at me as if I was nuts.
So, I walked fast to the place where the child went and talk to her parents. I inquired where the Blessed Body is and was told that it was consumed already. BUT, I DIDN'T SEE IT BEING CONSUMED. It was under my responsibility.
WHAT IF THE CHILD RUN OUTSIDE AND WENT TO THE PLACE WHERE I CAN'T LOCATE ANYMORE THEN PLAYED WITH THE BLESSED SACRAMENT? Indeed, there are several cases wherein the host is not being consumed. In our local parish in Bulacan, my parish priest assigned ladies in white with blue veils to stand before the priest or lay ministers giving communion. They are guiding the people to line properly, to have their hands kept on their breasts, to kneel one step before receiving the Eucharist and to consume it immediately.
INASMUCH AS I ACCEPT AND WILL DEFEND THE CANONICAL AUTHORIZATION ON COMMUNION BY THE HAND I CANNOT DENY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE MORE ABUSES THERE THAN BY RECEIVING IT ON TONGUE.
On the other hand, there are also some problems regarding Reception by Tongue. Most of the time people touches the finger of the priest with their teeth, lips or even tongue. If one has a virus it could transfer through the hands of the priest, especially now that new kinds of virus are being discovered and are very deadly in nature. Some are still incurable in effects.
We can say that WE TRUST THE LORD TO TERMINATE THE VIRUS WITH HIS PRESENCE. However, we are not assured of that because God respects the law of nature also. Thus, we need all to be prudent and careful.
THESE THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND SENSITIVE. THAT IS WHY WE MUST TRUST THE WISDOM OF THE CHURCH. BUT AS CATHOLICS WE MUST HELP THE CHURCH AUTHORITY BY OUR OPINIONS AND TESTIMONIES SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE APPROPRIATE DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT NOT ONLY OF THE LITURGY BUT OF OUR BODY AND SOUL.
Reverend Father,
ReplyDeleteWith all these liturgical abuses going on today, I do not think this can be solve anymore with by imposing the traditional manner in receiving the Communion. I too am aware of the many abuses going in the Eucharist in receiving the communion in hand. In fact, in my pinning ceremony mass, I was scandalized that my friend posted a pic in the face book where he pose with the body of our lord unconsumed with a mockering smile.
We can have our own preference in how we receive the communion. But what really disturbs me father? MANY PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING THE COMMUNION DESPITE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IN TO CONFESSION FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND IN THE STATE OF MORTAL SIN.
THis is the real liturgical abuse that I am concern of- a direct sacrilege to our lord which cannot be solve by kneeling. This can only be solved through proper education and catechism in the basic theology and discipline of the Eucharist which at the present time,dominated by the errors of secularism and materialism, are forgotten or disregarded by the faithful.
The reason why I am a bit frustrated with traditional group because the pope has approved both methods and I believe in no way we can question the decision made by Rome if it approves or forbids something in particular with the church discipline.I am aware that they want us to show reverence but A person can kneel or stand when he receive communion and that does not mean he receive communion with full reverence and in a state of grace.
Hi Father,
ReplyDeleteHope you are not affected by that volcano.
One Sunday when we still had the TLM at St. Jerome, I saw a woman with a young daughter approach and kneel at the rail for Communion. She received on the tongue, stood up and as she was walking away (she walked in front of me) I saw her open her mouth, remove the Sacred Host and place it on the mouth of her daughter who was walking beside her. I was speechless and in shock. But they went straight out of the church and disappeared in the crowd and I never saw her again. She was not a regular at the TLM and I believe she attended regular Novus Ordo Mass at other times at St. Jerome. The Church badly needs to catechize the faithful about proper respect for the Eucharist. My complaint about Communion in the hand is that it does not foster respect for the Eucharist, and it shows in the very casual way people treat the Eucharist. This affects everyone, including those who attend the TLM and are subjected to the same casual attitude towards the Eucharist by those who occassionaly walk into our Mass.
The other point I would like to bring up is the visible contradiction in the signs. Out of respect for the Eucharist, the priest handles the Sacred Host carefully, taking caution that bits of it are not left on the corporal or paten. That's why the priest would scrape the corporal with the paten, or diligently wipe the paten over the chalice during ablution. The people in the pews see all these. But what do these acts mean to them? If all these acts are intended to show respect for the Sacred Species, then the manner in which it was given contradicts this notion, for people who receive in the hand and put the Host in their mouth with their finger are not required to purify their fingers afterwards. Is it conceivable that fragments of the Host would remain on the fingers of the communicants and priest? Of course. That's why the Church has strict rubrics for ablution and purification - but only for the priest, not the faithful. So, in effect, the manner of distributing Communion (in the hand) undermines the respect owed and displayed to the Eucharist by the priest (through acts of ablution and purification), and this very visible contradiction is not lost on the people.
If I recall correctly, the late Msgr Klaus Gamber, in his book Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pointed out that in ancient times when Communion in the hand was practiced, the communicant did not pick up the Host with his fingers, as is the practice now, but would reverently bow his head towards the Host resting on the palm of his hand (or on a white cloth like a corporal) and pick up the Host with his mouth. So to equate the present practiice of Communion in the hand with the ancient practice can be misleading.
There are two things that I hope and pray will happen in my life time - withdrawal of the Communion in the hand indult, and ad orientem celebration as the norm for OF Masses.
THANKS BE TO GOD WE ARE SAFE FROM THE VOLCANO BROD.
ReplyDeleteDear Bro. Kim,
ReplyDeleteI understand you very well. Your sentiment is also my sentiment. I am frustrated with the Ultra Traditional too who keeps on criticizing and attacking Church Authority.
On the other hand, liturgical abuses do happen from the time of the Apostles and it is also our duty to respond to it.
God bless you.
To Rechard Friend...
ReplyDeleteCommunion in Hand and Communion in Toungue are accepted in our Church Magesterium therefore thir is nothing wrong with that.
We are the Roman Catholic we believed the Holy Scripture or bible,the Holy Traditon and foremost THE CHURCH MAGESTERIUM or the teaching authority of the church and communion in hand is accepted in our Church Magesterium
Good evening Richard Friend...
Here's another problem with communion in the hand: I was about to receive communion in the tongue one sunday, but the lay minister thought that I was going to receive in the hand. He was about to put it into my hand, which was clasped with my right hand, so because of that, I opened them both (against my will hehehe). I felt that something was wrong because I felt that there were crumbs falling from the host. I can;t remember what I have done with the crumbs so that's why, I avoid communion in the hand. A radio broadcaster once said that when he receives in the hand, he cleans his palm from any fragment using his fingers and consumes them too. For me, it's a good thing but it'd be embarrasing because, it's not common for someone to clean his or her palm inside a church! I don't see people who receive in the hand doing the cleaning-the-palm thing though.
ReplyDeleteTO Asperges...
ReplyDeleteAs for me there is nothing wrong with communion in hand because it was accepted in our Church Mageterium who we are or who are you to dis-obey the mandated of our POPE.Our POPE has an authority to loss and to bind.What I have said THE TRUE TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLIC,WE MUST BELIEVED THE HOLY SCRIPTURE OR BIBLE,THE HOLLY TRADITION AND FOREMOST THE CHURCH MAGESTERIUM OR THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH and communion in toungue and hand is really accepted in our CHURCH MAGESTERIUM....
Ang turo talaga ng Mother ko ay communion in toungue talaga at yan talaga ang nasanayan ko,isang bisis hindi ko sinadya nakagat ko ang daliri ng pari kaya simula noon takot na ako mag communion in toungue,kaya ngayon mas prepared ako sa communion in hand,napa aray kasi si Father ng nakagat ko ang kamay niya....
ReplyDeleteHA HA HA... VERY NICE SHARING. HA HA HA...
ReplyDeletePARA DI MO MAKAGAT IBUKA MO LANG ANG IYONG BUNGANGA AT ILABAS ANG DILA. ISARADO MO PAG WALA NA ANG KAMAY NI FATHER. HE HE HE...
ReplyDeleteFr. Abe, is it right for a person to do communion by tongue WHILE KNEELING during a NOVUS ordo or Pauline Mass? Pinagsabihan ako ng isang Redemptorist Father with words that seem to discourage the communion by tongue while kneeling.
ReplyDeleteYES, IT IS RIGHT TO RECEIVE COMMUNION BY TONGUE WHILE KNEELING. ACTUALLY THAT IS THE OFFICIAL MANNER OF RECEIVING THE HOLY COMMUNION.
ReplyDelete