False Antiquarianism vs. Early Church Tradition

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Claiming that the way the Early Church did a certain practice is wrong and should now be forbidden is called ???

Technically that is and can be correct view. Organic development has a reason. For example it is currently not right for all of congregation to have vestments on Sunday but Early Church practiced that. There is no such term precisely because that view is correct and uncontroversial.

I, honestly, don’t know what the true history of hand Communion is.

It isn’t that practice itself is what haunts minds of most people. It is the way it is codified in the law vs way it is actually used in practice. CITH is an exception meant to be allowed in areas that had it in 1960’s (started as an abuse), needs indult from Holy See, proper catechesis and can be refused by Bishop, local Priest etc. It is supposed to be presented as exception and not as normative (unlike COTT) and shouldn’t displace original form. As long as that’s all kept, no theoretical problem with the practice should arise as per law of the Church. Problem is when this isn’t kept. If you want to understand the topic, read Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini.

 

[Maximian]

The difference between “archeology” and “organic tradition” is very well described in Dom Alcuin Reid’s book “The Organic Development of the Liturgy “

 

[whatistrue]

It would help if someone defined “false antiqarianism”

Based only on what I have seen posted here, I would say that “false antiquarianism”, for some individuals, is “something that is old but that I disagree with”. And saying that some appear to feel that way should not be construed as an attack on any traditional practice, or a statement that all lovers of traditional practices have the same motives.