Today there is evidence of tenison concerning the reception of the Blessed Eucharist. Error has penetrated the Church, dividing it into two extreme factions of traditional and modernistic approaches.

Throughout the centuries, our Fathers have told us about our Faith and about the Blessed Sacrament. Our Fathers have told us that the Holy Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Fathers of the Council of Trent defined the Blessed Sacrament with precision and care. Our Catholic Fathers at home, as well as our teaching sisters in school told us that it was sacrilegious for anyone but the Priest to touch the Sacred Host. Throughout the centuries, the Popes, Bishops and Priests taught us this same thing, not so much by words, but by example and especially by the celebration of the Old Latin Mass, where profound reverence for the Blessed Sacrament as the true Body of Christ was in every movement the Priest made. Our Fathers told us these things not just for the sake of handing down a venerable but groundless tradition, they have told us these things through word and example to show fidelity to the Catholic Faith and reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. OUR FATHERS TOLD US THIS BECAUSE IT WAS THE TRUTH.

Can we detect an element of arrogance, behind the push to disregard traditional Church discipline? The introduction of Communion in the hand shows an arrogant disregard for what our Fathers taught us. Has the current practise of hand communion increased reverence? Can it not be said that hand communion in the face of a venerable tradition, a guarded reverential tradition of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, shows complete defiance and contempt for centuries of Catholic teaching and practice before us. In all sixteen documents of Vatican ll, there is no mention of Communion in the hand or even its approval worldwide.

Communion in the hand was introduced under a false ecumenism, allowed to grow due to weakness in authority, approved through compromise and false sense of toleration, and has led to profound irreverence and indiference toward the Blessed Sacrament as the liturgical order of our day and DISGRACE OF OUR AGE.

Before Second Vatican Council, there is no historic record of Bishops, Priests or laity petitioning anyone for the introduction of Communion in the hand. Quite the contrary, anyone who was raised in the pre-Vatican ll, Church will distinctly remember being taught that it was sacrilegious for anyone but the Priest to touch the Sacred Host. The teachings of St. Thomas of Aquinas, in his great Summa Theologica stamps out all error concerning the worship and administration of the Blessed Eucharist:

The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the Priest for three reasons. First, because he Consecrates in the Person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the (Last) Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the Priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Second, 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. Third, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is 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.

St. Thomas, who is the prince of theologians in the Catholic Church, who towers above all the rest, whose Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Scriptures during the Council of Trent, and whose teaching Pope St. Pius X said was THE REMEDY for Modernism. St. Thomas clearly teaches that it belongs to the Priests and only to the Priests to touch and administer the Sacred Host, that "only that which is consecrated" (the hands of the Priest) "should touch the consecrated" (the Sacred Host).

In the fourth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem warned the faithful that they must receive the Blessed Sacrament with the utmost reverence and care. He said:

"Partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it, for if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you did not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?"

The Great St. Cyril, Father and Doctor of the Church, was warning the faithful that they must receive the Blessed Sacrament with utmost reverence, so that there would not be the remotest chance that the slightest particle would fall to the ground and be desecrated.

It is unfortunate today that due to hand Communion, the paten has now become obselete. What happens to the fragments that fall from the hands of the faithful to the floor? They are TRAMPLED underfoot or SWEPT up or VACUUMED or MOPPED away. The Inspired Word of GOD has made it very clear that we must GATHER UP THE FRAGMENTS THAT NOTHING MAY BE LOST.

Pope Paul Vl in his Encyclical Memorialle Domini 29th May 1969 states that:

* The dangers in the new manner of distributing Holy Communion would be a lessen of reverence of the faith towards the noble Sacrament of the Altar, profanation and adulteration of perfect doctrine.

* The Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges Bishops, Priests, and people to observe ZEALOUSLY this law.

* Tongue Communion assures that Holy Communion will be distributed with appropriate REVERENCE, DECORUM, and DIGNITY, and that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic Species in which the whole entire Christ GOD and MAN, is substantially constained and permanently present in a unique way WILL BE AVOIDED, and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always been commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained.

Where is the diligent care which the Catholic Church has always been commended for, the very fragments of the Consecrated Bread. TONGUE COMMUNION IS A BETTER SAFEGUARD AGAINST SACRILEGE.

Therefore, it is only too obvious that this latest innovation of giving Communion in the hand is not the wishes of the Holy Father, nor the wishes of the people, but an abuse of the letter and spirit of the Memorialle Domini.

St. Thomas of Aquinas defines SACRILEGE:

"The sin of sacrilege consists in the IRREVERENT treatment of a Sacred Thing. The highest degree of sacrilege is that committed against the Sacraments whereby man is sanctified, chief of which is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, for it contains Christ Himself. Deportment when receiving Holy Communion is extremely important, for it is an outward sign of REVERENCE. If at all possible one should kneel, because kneeling itself is a sign of adoration."

Four hundred years ago, Communion in the hand was re-introduced into "christian" worship by men whose motives were rooted in defiance of Catholicism. The 16th century Protestant revolutionaries (more politely but undeservedly called protestant reformers) re-established Communion in the hand as a means of showing two things:

1) That they believed there was no such thing as TRANSUBSTANTIATION and that the bread used at Communion time was just ordinary bread. In other words, the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is just a "Papist superstition" and that the bread is just bread and anybody can handle it.

2) Their belief that the minister of Communion is no different in essence from any layman. Now, it is Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Holy Orders gives a man a spiritual, sacramental power, it imprints an indelible mark on his soul and makes him different in essence from laymen. The Protestant Minister, however, is just an ordinary man who leads the hymns, reads the lessons and gives sermons to stir up convictions of the believers. He can't change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord, he can't bless, he can't forgive sins. He can't DO anything a normal layman can't do. He is not a vehicle for sacramental grace.

The Protestant's re-establishment of Communion in the hand was their way of showing their rejection of belief in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, rejection of the Sacramental Priesthood - in short, to show their rejection of Catholicism altogether.

From that point on, Communion in the hand received a distinctly anti-Catholic significance. It was a recognisably anti-Catholic practice rooted in disbelief in the real Presence of Christ and the Priesthood. So, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is not unfair to ask WHY are our modern Churchmen imitating self proclaimed infidels who reject core sacramental teaching of Catholicism? This is a question that those Churchmen intoxicated by the liberal spirit of Vatican ll have yet to answer satisfactorily.

Though Communion in the hand was not mandated by the Second Vatican Council, what was "canonized" by Vatican ll was Ecumenism - this false spirit of counterfeit unity that had been previously condemned by the Church, particularly by Pope Pius Xl in his 1926 Encyclical Mortalium Animos - this movement of Catholics becoming more buddy and huggy-huggy with other religions, and especially Protestants. This movement that supposedly plays up those things we have in common with other creeds, and hush-hushes those things that divide us. Due to this introduction, some ecumenically minded Priests in Holland started giving Communion in the hand, in a monkey-see, monkey do imitation of Protestant practice. But the Bishops, rather than do their duty and condemn the abuse, TOLERATED it. Because Church Leaders allowed the abuse to go unchecked, the practice then spread to Germany, Belgium and France. But if the Bishops seemed indifferent to this scandal, the laity were outraged. It was the indignation of large numbers of the faithful which prompted Pope Paul Vl to take action. He polled the Bishops of the world on this issue, and they voted overwhelmingly to RETAIN the traditional practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. And it must be noted that at this time, the abuse was limited to a few European countries. It had not yet started in AUSTRALIA.

Three questions were proposed to the Bishops of the world: (1) Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted? YES: 567, NO: 1,233. (2) Should experiments with this new rite first take place in small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary? YES: 751, NO:1,215. (3) Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly? YES 835, NO:1,185. From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be OFFENSIVE to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful. The outcome is as follows: 1) The Bishops of the world were overwhelmingly AGAINST Communion in the hand. 2) "The manner of distributing Holy Communion (that is, the Priest placing the Host on the tongue of the communicants) must be observed." 3) Communion on the tongue in no way detracts from the dignity of the communicant. 4) There was a warning that "the dangers in the new manner of distributing Holy Communion would be a lessen of reverence of the faith towards the noble Sacrament of the altar, profanation and adulteration of perfect doctrine. Therefore the Apostolic See strongly urges Bishops, Priests and people to observe zealously this LAW.

The history of our Church reminds us that Communion in the hand was CONDEMNED as an abuse at the Synod of Rouen in the year 650, so it can be said with reasonable certainty that due to desire for greater reverence, and as a safeguard against desecration, receiving on the tongue was the norm. Council of Constantinople in 695, prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. The Holy Spirit within the Church is not a spirit of contradiction nor the spirit of innovation and desecration which is now happening blatantly and not a single finger is being lifted to alleviate the suffering which Christ Himself is enduring for love of his people. Thus it appears evident that Communion on the tongue was the normal way of receiving the Eucharist. The method of "in the hand" was the exception, rather than the rule. Therefore those that practice it were in err as is the case today.

The Inspired Word of GOD (Douay-Rheims Version) even goes to the extent of giving us an example; Jesus spoke highly of John the Baptist, when He said in Mat 11:11

"Amen I say to you, among those born of women there has been none greater than John the Baptist." In relation to Jesus, John the Baptist said:

"...but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals."

Since John the Baptist is so great before the eyes of Jesus Christ Our Saviour, and yet cannot see himself worthy to hold His sandals, THEN WHO ARE WE, THE LAY PEOPLE TO HOLD THE ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN OUR UNCONSECRATED HANDS?

The inescapable conclusion from all this is that receiving Communion on the tongue is one of the most TIME HONOURED TRADITIONS of the Catholic Church. To state otherwise (as the innovators are doing) is only being intellectually dishonest. An attempt to introduce innovations through deceit and half truths does not proceed from the Holy Spirit.

I beg you in the Name of Jesus Christ Our Saviour, and for the sake of His Sorrowful Passion to humble yourselves before your Creator and come back to the Traditions of the Catholic Church, BAN HAND COMMUNION. Has not Jesus Our Saviour suffered enough?