tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post7876139677622956473..comments2024-01-22T01:52:37.473-06:00Comments on RENEGADE TRADS: Talking Points for Ending Communion in the HandA Sinnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05083094677310915678noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-75987152885896790142010-05-10T21:45:38.582-05:002010-05-10T21:45:38.582-05:00A have to agree, an excellent summary. But a few o...A have to agree, an excellent summary. But a few other points to consider, maybe:<br /><br />Generally, when people come to me asking about why I don't allow communion in the hand (no way, no how!), I frame my answer in two ways, the first being history, the second being ecumenicity.<br /><br />Historically, even though the practice of Communion in the Hand may have existed in the early days of the Church, it was by no means universal, and quickly discarded for a reason (the Church only discards something when she has a good reason, so it's a safe bet that such things are better left alone); when the practice was revived, it was done so by the Swiss Reformation with the specific intent of undermining the Real Presence.<br /><br />This brings us to ecuminicty. The German (and to a large extent the English) Reformation retained the practice of Communion kneeling and on the tongue. The Lutherans did it precisely to defend the Real Presence, while the Anglicans did it as a compromise between common practice and Reformed theology. In either case, the practice of Communion on the tongue (just like infant Baptism) is prevalent amongst the majority of the world's Christians --- Catholic, Orthodox, and even Protestant --- with the Reformed making up a minority of the worldwide Christian population. Hence Communion on the tongue is more ecumenical.<br /><br />Of course, the same argument could be made for the Historic Lectionary (the Pre-Vatican II Lutheran and Anglican books used pretty much the same Propers and Readings as the Immemorial Mass, though in an abbreviated form and with variations happening during Trinitytide); so the oft-repeated claim that the Novus Ordo was necessary for ecumenism shows itself to be false, too. Just a little something extra to think about.Agostino Taumaturgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08187514355327479915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-41796801774632688342010-05-06T19:14:35.257-05:002010-05-06T19:14:35.257-05:00Oh, one more tangent:
The pastors of both the par...Oh, one more tangent:<br /><br />The pastors of both the parishes I mentioned <b>strongly recommend</b> that communicants receive on the tongue at the Ordinary Form. Both also encourage kneeling at the altar rail during the OF, though it is not obligatory in either parish. It's a shame that they can't outright refuse to give Communion in the hand. In one of the parishes reception on the tongue is almost universal. In the other, the majority receive on the tongue but about 20% haven't gotten the message. Still, these pastors must be commended for fostering reverence in their parishes.sortacatholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-89178487978216966772010-05-06T19:02:43.278-05:002010-05-06T19:02:43.278-05:00I second Pater. Great summary. Two observations:
...I second Pater. Great summary. Two observations:<br /><br />1) I've seen people receive Our Lord in the hand and then put Him in a pillbox etc. Yes, these people might be stealing the Host for blasphemous ritual. However I suspect that many people steal the Host because they can't get a priest to visit their shut-in parent, relative, etc. Priests really should make an effort to make house calls. I know they're busy and there are less priests today. Still, which is better? Having the priest visit for twenty minutes to hear a confession, administer Holy Communion, and say part of the rosary? Or have people resort to sacrelige out of misguided desperation? <br /><br />2) When I'm in the States I go to two parishes, one "reform of the reform" and one EF+ROTR. Both prohibit extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs) at the Ordinary Form. The distribution of Holy Communion (in one kind) in these parishes takes not much more time than distribution in similar sized parishes with EMHCs. EMHC's are never really needed. The "we have large Masses so we need a phalanx of EMHC's running around" argument fails when its clear that traditionally minded parishes easily and efficiently distribute Holy Communion from the hands of clergy only. The EMHC phenomenon is nothing more than an ideological move towards lay clericalization. <br /><br />Pope Benedict could and should forbid "Communion in the hand" and EMHCs in one pen stroke. I fear he hasn't done this because the episcopal councils of developed countries would have a howling fit if he returned the Eucharist to its rightful guardians.sortacatholicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4213316015209503694.post-2951018129207086192010-05-06T17:41:19.714-05:002010-05-06T17:41:19.714-05:00An excellent summary. Kudos!An excellent summary. Kudos!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05846505482231411080noreply@blogger.com