I am not sure that you can. People in general have not been taught to think critically - that is, they have not been taught logic, and have not been required to think through the statements they make to test them (the statements). Too often one is met with “don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up!”
Trying to even discuss the issue with those folks is simply an act of frustration.
Fair enough - lot’s of people on these forums have no clue what an argument looks like and come off as ranting lunatics - but I happen to think these people show up on both sides of most issues. If you’re trying to say that on this particular issue it is
only those who oppose communion in the hand who have no critical thinking skills, or that
all those who oppose communion in the hand are so challenged, this would unfortunately place you in the same boat.
Communion in the hand started primarily in Europe; it started at a time when there was tremendous enthusiasm for liturgical change, liturgical research into the older Church, and liturguical experimentation.
Yes, that was the general climate, but…
My own estimation is that the liturgical experimentation that went on early was altogether too charged with enthusiasm, most of it for a closer relationship with Christ; extremely little common sense; almost no sense of continuity, and troublesome to say the least.
…we might be willing to overlook irresponsible exuberance in a middle-schooler, but when we’re dealing with supposedly mature men to whom flocks have been entrusted and who stand under oaths of obedience, we’re dealing with a different matter. Sure, they may have acted out of some sort of general good will . . . but you hit the nail on the head when you say they used extremely little common sense (let alone critical thinking!) and almost no sense of continuity. In such a case, I think “troublesome to say the least” is a little to soft; I would venture to say “automatically demands suspicion and crticial evaluation.”
As to the OP’s question about what authority those bishops had who instituted communion in the hand, while I wish the answer were “absolutely none” it is actually “next to none.” Custom has always had a place in canon law, and the fact of the matter is that a bishop can (though I don’t fully understand why)
allow (but not mandate) a custom that is against the law, unless such a practice has been specifically
reprobated, meaning it has been singled out as something that cannot ever become a legitimate custom.
But that is a very narrow realm of possibilities, and it must also be governed by common sense. Someone would even have to look into whether communion in the hand had been reprobated at any point prior to the '60s. It is clear that the bishops were disobeying the law (since communion in the hand was against the law), it’s simply not clear whether it might have been possible for them to justify this as the introduction of a new custom or not. And, let’s be honest, Paul VI made clear that this was at least borderline scandalous behavior, i.e. it risked “adulterating the true doctrine.” Allowing communion in the hand in their particular situation would be like a bishop of today allowing skipping down the aisles or slapping butts at the sign of peace - something that everyone in the pews would recognize as in violation of the norms of “reverence” in their time and place.
Finally, however, even if the custom argument held up, the story the OP was told about how the bishops had been handed initiative and so weren’t actually being disobedient is simply false. Even while liturgical experimentation was being conducted, it was legally confined to specific locales/congregations trying out specific practices. There was no blanket permission for bishops to “go see what works,” and the bishops had to constantly be reminded that they were not supposed to be doing their own experiments. The bishops involved knew they were being disobedient, they just thought they were justified in doing it and were pretty sure (correctly in this case) that Rome wouldn’t punish them for it.
A perhaps related question - most people no longer refer to the EF as an indult, because Summorum Pontificum made it widely availble. Is the same true of CIH? It doesn’t seem to me to be an “indult,” which to me means “permission to do something that is against the rules”.
Summorum Pontificum changed our liturgical law such that the EF is now an option contained within the law itself: by law, any priest may use it for his private Mass, any pastor may allow it for public Masses in his parish, etc. It used to be that priests could not do this on their own initiative, but needed special permission to do something that was not envisioned in the law itself. That latter situation still holds true for communion in the hand: by law, everyone has a right to communion on the tongue, and it is the only normative option contained in the law itself. However, bishops can request special permission to do something not envisioned by the law, i.e. allow communion in the hand.
You’re right that there seems to be some dissonance, but that’s because you’re including the channels followed to receive permission to “do something against the rules” as part of the rules themselves. For communion, the universal rule is “receive on the tongue.” The fact that Rome lets people ask for permission to break the rule doesn’t change what the rule itself is. If you like, you might refine your definition of indult to “permission to do something the rules only allow you to do with explicit permission from a superior.” That might get closer to the heart of the matter.
