[this is from the website]:
His Emminence's statements are in green and mine are in red. Jesus' are in purple.
"the practice [Communion in the hand] expresses maturity, because the baptized Christian is no longer a spiritual or religious infant" [statement one]
HINT: Mark 10:15 : Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter into it.
Luke 18:17 : Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it. Bishop Athanasius Schneider drew my attention to these. How could Bugnini want to foster any attitude towards God other than that of a child? Doesn't he want us to enter the kingdom? It was the Serpent who wanted us to assume a more 'grown-up' attitude!
When I remember that his Holiness ,Paul VI, let it slip that the 'smoke of Satan' had penetrated into the Church I cannot help but think of statement like the one above!
"Communion in the hand is dignified and becoming: it is a recognition that the total person is holy, including one's hands." [statement two]
Still waiting for someone to knock this slow pitch out of the park!O. K. I give up! This statement fosters as much presumption as statement number one. i. e. it seems you should just presume you are 'grown up' [one]and 'holy' [two] just because you line up for Holy Communion. Does being in a 'state of grace' mean you are 'holy' i.e. "a saint"? [ 'holy' person and 'saint' are interchangeable terms.] The imprecise language of statement two seems intent on confusing us. Most of us, even when in a state of grace, do not make the grade of 'sainthood'.
Secondly did Bugnini think that sin is not a matter of the will, but rather that it is located in various parts of the body - hand, tongue, etc? His statement is seems intended to give the false impression that he is actually refuting someone. But the pre-1970 Church did not hold to the counterside of his childish argument. No one ever argued that 'hand is more sinful than the tongue'. But 'unlearned ears' are deceived by such fluffy simplistic lying arguments coming from a man in a high position of authority!
It reminds me of what a friend of mine said after he read the thousand page book Atlas Shrugged: 'I don't see how Ayn Rand could fit such a small idea in such a big book! ' Bugnini's statements lack any true substance.! There's no there there! We have seen the 'man behind the curtain' and he's naked as a jaybird!
Feel free to refute what I have written! Feel free to improve upon it!