Me: “I think people should be left free to receive communion in their hands or on their tounges, according to their own devotion and diocesan pastoral norms.” #CatholicTwitter: pic.twitter.com/djRlyIw0Ga
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
Well, it’s not baffling that one would use that language at all, and implying that it is shows a lack of charity, but if it helps we can call it a pastoral exception to the established diocesan practice of supported by the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
I don’t think either of us are disagreeing on this point. I do think, at this juncture, though, that it’d be fruitful for the conversation if we had sense from a historian about when communion on the tongue became the norm.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
Having spent the first two years of my ordained life there, communion on the hand is allowed elsewhere in the diocese of Rome, making what happens at St. Peter’s not so bafflingly a pastoral accommodation.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
That’s not how the Domus usually functions, Francis issues it to bring in people from all around the Diocese. It’s used pastorally, not privately.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
The indult is in effect in Italy, though, and seems to be applied within the Holy See itself, which is what we’re talking about. In your case, I’d apply the same standard, individual pastors shouldn’t presume to change things that the local bishops choose not too.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
Francis allowing reception on the hand at the morning mass at the Domus is evidence enough that he’d generally be ok with both, and it’s enough to say that the practice at St Peters is specific to the Basilica and not by specific papal prerogative, which I took you to be saying.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
I think we’re saying the same thing, but from different ends of the spectrum. I’ve never been in a church, other than St Peters, that mandated one form of reception of the other and in places like the US such a thing is against the practice mandated by the Bishops.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
3/3 I would also argue thatmore homilies and catechesis on the sacraments and specifically the Eucharist, are sorely needed, and might make that choice more intentional for individual Catholics. (It might also make what happens at St. Peter’s more understandable to all.)
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
2/3 the pastor shouldn’t take it on himself to mandate one way or the other for his parish or individual parishioners.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
Sure, but a pastor should follow the norms laid forth by the Church as regards both reception in the hand and on the tongue. Namely, in a place like the US, where the bishops have made clear that the indult of 1969 means that both are acceptable, 1/2
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
I don’t think anyone’s making that claim. I don’t think, however, that you can make the opposite claim: “Benedict and/or Francis disfavor on-the-hand” under normal circumstances based on the practice at St. Peter’s.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
*on the tongue not younger... (autocorrect mistake)
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
2/2 I also suspect that there are many who would respect that receiving on the tongue is some people’s piety, but that it is not their own. Thus, I’d say it’s fine to point out that it’s an option, but the practice at St. Peter’s shouldn’t be taken as normative.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
I think that your experience is at the heart of my objection Paul. An announcement should be made that communion at St Peters is only recieved on the younger to all gathered, and not just to the priests before in the sacristy, which is now the practice. 1/2
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 30, 2019
I don’t think we disagree on that point, but I’d hesitate to say that the particular circumstance of St Peters could be applied universally, and I think there’s reasonable evidence that Francis agrees.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 29, 2019
My experience of it is that it’s a particular pastoral accommodation for St Peters. If I recall correctly, Francis does allow communion on the hand at the Domus. It’s a (good) situational rule , not universally prescriptive, as I (may wrongly) be taking you to imply.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 29, 2019
It’s not Francis’ policy specifically, it was in play under B16 too, and those were the actual reasons given. No need for interpretation.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 29, 2019
It’s a real thing, they try to get their hands on consecrated hosts for their black masses.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 29, 2019
That is sadly true, especially in places like Italy where a particularly virulent form of Satanism is at play.
— Michael Rogers, SJ (@mrogerssj) April 29, 2019
