Communion in the hand, why ?

[estesbob]

Pawel, why do you suppose Jesus couldn’t preach effectively in His home town, but could everywhere else? Because they were familiar with him. Familiarity breeds contempt. They all “knew” Jesus. Saw Him growing up as a small boy, etc. “Oh, we know him. We saw him grow up. He can’t be anymore special than us.” type of thing.

So I assume you object me going to Communion every day as familiarity breeds contempt?

I always find it ironic that those who object to the Church allowing us to take communion in the hand use the same reasoning as those who tell us the church will soon approve of abortion and homosexual marriage. The Church is wrong, we are right and the church will soon realize the error of its ways;

So if the Church is wrong about allowing us to receive communion in the hand how do I know that it is not wrong about the resurrection? Or the divinity of Christ?

 

[placido]

Yes it has - very sadly so. But it certainly wasn’t the Church’s first choice - she was bullied into it.

Bullied by whom? And do you now also want to bully the church into adopting your “first choice”?

placido

 

[placido]

Unfortunately, this is not true in my diocese. We are told not to ask for it in the mouth. It makes me sad.

Please discern carefully the source of your sadness. We don’t have to feel bad in obeying the decision made by our leaders: “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

placido

 

[placido]

Communion on the tongue is the normative method of receiving.

Who made “communion of the tongue” the normative method? If it was the church and you recognize the church’s right and power in doing so, why do you suddenly reject the church’s right and power to decide on “communion in the hand”?
In fact, it all boils down to recognizing or rejecting chuch authority.

placido

 

[placido]

I would recommend everyone just look at the fruits of Communion in the hand.

That is “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this therefore because of this), a fallacy based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event.

placido

 

[placido]

Pawel, why do you suppose Jesus couldn’t preach effectively in His home town, but could everywhere else? Because they were familiar with him. Familiarity breeds contempt. They all “knew” Jesus. Saw Him growing up as a small boy, etc. “Oh, we know him. We saw him grow up. He can’t be anymore special than us.” type of thing.

Now, use that same argument to support the church’s decision like for example that, “the people were too familiar with communion on the tongue. That is why the church decided on something new because familiarity breeds contempt”.
No, I know you won’t do that. For whatever questionable reasons you are not consistent.

placido

 

[placido]

Not really. The Apostles were the precursor to our bishops and priests, i.e., those who were ordained. Jesus didn’t go to the crowds and confect the Eucharist and invite them all to “take” it into their hands.

Well, to be consistent you unfortunately have to go further and argue that, since Jesus didn’t go to the crowds and invite them all to “take” it, it is therefore wrong to give the Eucharist to the crowds, regardless of whether it be on the tongue or in the hand.

He did so to the Apostles only. Priests have always been allowed to handle the Eucharist.

But do we see believers receiving Communion on the tongue in Acts? Did the apostles and the church fathers practice “communion on the tongue”? No!
From the Last Supper on, Holy Communion was, as the norm, continually given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy after the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D.
And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church it was the norm.
An argument for the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of
Jerusalem’s fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to
neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to “place your left
hand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy
Communion]”. This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any Fragments
which might remain on one’s hands. Communion on the tongue only became the universal norm during the Middle Ages.
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
Now, if the church had the right and the power to change a 900 years old “norm”, why do you think it has neither the right nor the power to change a 1000 years old “norm”?

placido

 

[choy]

Who made “communion of the tongue” the normative method? If it was the church and you recognize the church’s right and power in doing so, why do you suddenly reject the church’s right and power to decide on “communion in the hand”?
In fact, it all boils down to recognizing or rejecting chuch authority.

placido

he is actually right
COTT is the norm and CITH is the option

same in the forms of Mass. OF is the norm, EF/TLM is the option

 

[Michael_Francis]

Not an apologetics topic and closed.