C
cue
Guest
I would definitely agree. However, it is more priestly (in the sense of the ministerial priesthood). You cannot tell me that reception in the hand, coupled with lay extraordinary ministers approaching the altar and standing behind the priest, as concelebrants would, would not be a move toward blurring the line between clergy and laity. I am not saying that in itself, Communion in the hand contributes to this blurring, but it is the first step down that path.Comments about receiving in the hand emphasizing universal priesthood are just hogwash.
Despite the most pious intentions and dispositions on the part of the recipient, nothing can change that fact that reception in the hand IS more irreverent. This does not mean that the recipient himself is irreverent, but just that the he is participating in a less reverent way of receiving Communion than those who receive on the tongue. Why do I say this? By placing the Host in someone’s hand, the act of reception is delayed, offering more opportunity for irreverence. In other words, it extends the time that Christ is particularly vulnerable. This vulnerability is recognized most in particles. Particles of the Host do fall off. With reception on the tongue, particles that do not fall on the tongue fall onto the paten, which the Church prescribed should still be used. These particles fall into the chalice when the priest purifies the patens and they are consumed because they are the Body and Blood of Christ. With reception in the hand, these particles fall to the floor or into the pocket or wherever the hand goes. It is simply a more irreverent way of doing things, just it is more meaningful to give your wife a present in person rather then U.P.S. it.And anyone who wants to go down the path of “people are less reverent (or, fewer people believe in the Real Presence) since Communion in the hand started, therefore it is due to that” are playing post hoc, ergo propter hoc to the hilt.
Hence you see why the Church does not presribe or recommend reception in the hand. She has merely allowed bishops who have asked for such permission to grant it. The Church is perfectly able to decide what she wants in these matters. However, based on 2000 years of experience and trial and error, she has presribed reception on the tongue.
As for history, otjm, the “sufficent evidence” that has convinced you failed to convince the Church when at Trent she explained that reception on the tongue was an Apostolic tradition had been “always the custom.”