Eucharist in the Hand

[Flower_Charity]

pnewton:

I see phrases “only by indult” and " just a discipline". If communion in hand is allowed by the church, then no one has the authority to judge another much less to judge the wisdom of the church. Discipline still requires obedience. Let us together build a bridge so we can all get over this.

nobody is judging anyone here. we have every right to judge the wisdom of the church outside of faith and morals. God created us with rational brains, we’re not supposed to blindly follow things which are not infallible.

Would it be wrong to critize the church on how it handled the sexal abuse of minors? Under your logic, the answer is no. Unfortunatley, the church is made up of sinners and fallible people who make errors in judgment. it’s our job of the laity to learn as much as possible about our faith and change society for the better. this could include encoraging and educating people on the benefits of more strict practices with the eucharist.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dutch said:

People are confused about the limits of the Church’s infallibility. It is really simple: They are only infallible in matters of faith and morals. NOT DISIPLINE

It has been argued that formal disciplines of the Church ARE matters of faith and morals. The above assertion, I believe is doubtful.

The Church has condemned the proposition that the Church can establish an ecclesiastical discipline that is “useless … burdensome … harmful … dangerous.”

Furthermore, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article “Eccesiastical Discipline”, the author calls the thesis that ecclesiastical disciplines are indirectly infallible as being held “unanimously” by Catholic theologians, and, rightly understood, is “undeniable.”

A Catholic is free to reject this thesis, as it is not infallibly defined as de fide dogma of Catholicism. However, if this is understood “unanimously” by Catholic tradition, then by what authority does a Catholic proclaim that an approved ecclesiastical discipline it is in any way harmful to the faith?

Pius VI’s condemnation reads as follows:

The prescription of the synod [of Pistoia] … it adds, “in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

I also refer you to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article entitled “Ecclesiastical Discipline”, under the heading “DISCIPLINARY INFALLIBILITY”.
newadvent.org/cathen/05030a.htm

Here’s an excerpt…

Disciplinary Infallibility

] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching.
God bless,

Dave

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps because I am an ex-fundamentalist and dealt used to believe a kind of minimalist Christianity that I am the way I am. My “fundamentals” has now broadened to include a 2" Catachism, the rubrics, encyclicals, church councils and more material than I’ll ever read. I am very reluctant to go beyond all this material and teach or encourage others to refrain from something the church allows.

Before someone brings up abuses, I am not refering to what a person or group of persons allow. We should all be involved in those struggles which violate church teachings and disciplines (such as liturgical abuse and molesting children).

 

[Bobby_Jim]

Just a thought from an occasional EMHC… those who receive Holy Communion on the tongue are not necessarily more or less reverent than those who receive in the hand. Sometimes you see people come up, open wide, and stick their tongue WAY out like they’re at the doctor’s office - not very reverent ! Some people just barely part their lips a little bit and don’t stick out their tongue at all, and you have to hope the Host doesn’t fall out (which is why a server with a paten is helpful). And then some people part their lips a bit, move their tongue forward a bit, and it’s very beautiful and reverent.

As with Communion in the hand, I think it’s both the inward disposition as well as the outward form that matters. Both influence each other.

 

[2livfree]

Wow this thread is old. Anyway, Wasn’t the Eucharist “originally” received in the hand until people starting abusing it? Did Jesus say take this and eat? When I ask someone to take something I always expect them to reach out with their hand. I believe one should be respectful and that is what matters.