Last time I spoke on the contraversy of receiving communion in the hand. I want to quote an article from the Catholic News Service that was published on Jan. 31 of this this year. This article said:

The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand. Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the Vatican official, made the suggestion in the preface to a book about the Eucharist by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan...In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, "The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ -- God in our midst -- must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration...I think the time has come to evaluate these practices (receiving Communion in the hand) and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice," Archbishop Ranjith said.

So this issue is something that is being considered by the Vatican. However, the article also says that, while the Vatican believes there is a correlation between receiving in the hand and a decline in reverence, it believes that this has been a "gradual and growing weakening of the attitude toward reverence" again emphasizing a lack of and need for better catechesis and not that the practice itself should have never been allowed in the first place.

Please continue commenting on this issue because I think we need to continue to understand the factors and implications involved here. I want to briefly shift to something I noticed in the differences in my reasons for the decline and those of the emailer. I noticed this because of your responses (again another reason to continue to comment on these issues).

One thing that stuck out in these responses was that they were focused on the actions and liturgical elements of the Mass and not on the decisions of the Vatican II Council. I think this is very important. I have attended a number of extraordinary Masses and I can see how it attracts many people who feel a special sort of grace and reverence in the celebration of this Mass. One thing that seems almost universal in these responses is not that the reasons given by the emailer are right or wrong but that the differences between the ordinary and extraordinary form of the Mass does have an impact on some of the people. The emailer, however, believed that the changes made by Vatican II with regards to the Mass were wrong and that the ordinary form of the Mass implimented after Vatican II is at fault. His belief, as I mentioned in the original blog, was that Vatican II and the bishops themselves were responsible for this decline because of their decision to change the Mass. My readers, however, have been pointing out various practices within the Mass are the factors and not the council itself.

For example, the practice of receiving in the hand is actually not something that even remotely came out of the Second Vatican Council and was not discussed until 1969 and even then only by request of some of the bishop conferences. I think you, my readers, are much more on target than the emailer. While the emailer brought these three elements up as reasons, he did so to prove that Vatican II is at fault for this decline in reverence.

Another example of the emailer's misrepresentation of Vatican II is the change of Mass from the Latin to the vernacular (English in our case). He felt that this was another fault of Vatican II. The council, however, approved limited use of the vernacular. Paragraph 36 of Sacrosanctum Concilium states:

...since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants...

It wasn't until 1970 that general use of the vernacular for all parts of the Mass was granted in full. Again, Vatican II is not at fault for the use of English in the Mass nor do I believe that English is at fault period.

I find it inconceivable that Vatican II can be the source of all the faults of the Church today as some advocate. Some believe that no longer using Latin in the sacraments is the cause. Some believe that the changes to the Mass are destroying the Church. Other even believe that it is the hierarchy of the Church that is to blame. I think all these generalized opinions are broad excuses for particular problems of today. I also want to point out that the Church has faced these problems for centuries and that many of the issues of the Church today are not unique or new products of the modern world. That, however, is a topic of discussion for another blog. As long as I continue to get comments on the decline in the Real Presence, I will be happy to continue this discussion. It certainly makes my deciding what to write alot easier although it does require me to do some in-depth research. I enjoy doing that too so until next time...God bless.