Shaming those opposed to the practice of communion in the hand is not a helpful step in binding together the body of Christ to Jesus. We are convinced in our position that, given our development in the Latin Rite, our understanding of the Eucharist, and our cultural norms, it is simply not as reverent to receive in the hand than it is on the tongue.
Ok, here’s the problem though. The entire premise of a handful of those contributing to the thread has been to shame those who are validly receiving communion in a way the Church has accepted, and then making all kinds of rash judgments and snide comments about their humility and reverence. As I noted, I have great admiration for the devotion and zeal you show; what I object to is the lack of abilty to understand that others can share that devotion and zeal while having a different preference on posture.
The main arguments used seem to follow this line:
1-We have Ockham with his “theological proof” that COTT is “factually” superior and wants someone to come up with a similar theological proof that CITH is better. The only “fact” involved here is that it is a very valid way of showing why some come to the conclusion that they do that it is more reverent. The “fact” is that it is a discipline which has varied through time and through different parts of the universal Catholic Church. As such it cannot have any “objective” superiority. The Church is entirely within its rights to come to the conclusion that it is an appropriate way, based on its theological and practical examinations. Once it has done so, it is NOT acceptable for lay people to be making judgments about those who choose an legitimate option the Church has offered, though they may certainly have opinions about the prudence of the decision.
2-We have Layman whose major premise, repeated
ad nauseum, is that he doesn’t see what benefit has come from allowing CITH. Well, so what? The fact that he doesn’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And again, the Church and the Pope are who get to decide if there is potential value that outweighs potential risks. And then those who choose which way they want to receive that get to decide which one has the most benefit to them. The fact that this is continually laced with the implication that those who choose CITH, received from a “laywoman” <gasp!>, are just uninformed irreverent rubes only adds to the absurdity.
3-We have the argument that it came into being from (choose one) the Protestant Reformation or disobedience on the part of renegade Dutch bishops. Or your speculation that it was done to prevent schism, though there is no documentation for any such claim. Again, so what? Regardless of how it may have come into being, the Church examined the situation and made a decision. The Church gets to do that in matters of discipline to suit the times it exists in. It banned it at one time because of a perceived risk of a specific heresy. It was the norm at other times, and has been continuously within some rites. There is more to history and the decision than trying to connect some specific causation and Popes don’t do such things based on simple immediate expediency, nor do they continue to uphold them without valid reasons, whether we see and understand them or not.
4-We have the argument of particles being dropped or treated disrespectfully. This can be a valid reason to consider, and I’m sure it was taken into account in the decision making. The fact is though that there is more dispersion of particles in the breaking of the host–watch a closeup video of this some time!–than in distribution. Better catechesis can easily reduce or eliminate any danger here.
5-Finally we have the most outrageous argment of all. We have Layman’s repeated denial that interior dispostion isn’t what matters and that it is our outward “show” that makes the difference. This is totally contrary to all teaching of the Church and the Bible and just boggles the mind to hear coming from an “informed” Catholic. In fact, as I noted earlier, Jesus specifically spoke against such “shows” of piety.
Again, I’m not here to make arguments for or against either method. Both have value to those who choose them. The Church, in her wisdom, has at least at this time chosen to allow both and has said that both have equal value in the places where they are used. We don’t get to make judgments about people’s choices in the matter based on what the Church allows, especially when they are the approved norm of those places, which people are expected to observe. I do agree with Ockham that there should be better catechesis about the legimate choice of COTT though I would disagree that there has been a deliberate attempt to bury it in some way.
We are the Body of Christ. We are to support and uphold each other rather than tear each other down. I have severe problems with the need to “win” arguments at the expense of damaging the Body. This is a win-win situation in that people have two choices in how they want to express their piety, just as they have two choices in how they want to express their worship overall in the OF or EF liturgies. We really don’t need to be creating false divisions based on these legitimate preference issues.
Just as a final point…
Now, if I wanted to wear jeans suddenly because I felt more comfortable or looked more in line with pop culture, that would not be a good choice because the motivation is not to better honor God. Instead, my motivation in this case is to honor myself, a very humanist quality.
This is again a completely false analogy. We are not talking about individuals making a choice to do something inappropriate. We are talking about individuals making a choice to do something the Church has already examined and deemed appropriate. For you or anyone else to be casting aspersions and judgments that they are doing so in a way that honors themselves rather than God, or just doing so flippantly to be “more in line with pop culture” is simply unacceptable. None of us have the ability to look into anyone’s heart to make those judgments.
