As I said - it DOES NOT MATTER if Communion in the hand was a former practice in the early Church. Read previous postings- Protestants reintroduced it to show heresy. In other words the practice, after years of suppression and then re-introduction by Heretics in order to show disbelief in the Real Presence and the Catholic priesthood shows A DIFFERENT MEANING than it did in the early Church.
At the most recent Synod of Bishops, only one bishop spoke up in favor of banning the practice…one. But, a dead horse only smells better for being well and truly beaten, so swing away.
But like the heresy that caused the Church to deny the Chalice to the laity, the Church apparently deems it NOW sufficiently dealt with. And the Church cannot promulgate or propose to the faithful an heretical discipline.
But WHY OH WHY would you want to do something that is meant to mean heresy? Every action we do in public liturgy is to profess Catholic Teaching. Communion in the hand does not profess Catholic teaching.
I have to disagree. The Catholic Church teaches that Communion in the hand is a valid choice. It seems like many on this board are calling the Church “wrong” for making this change. I’d be willing to bet that Christ will not appreciate anyone making such a claim about His bride. And keep in mind, He gave the Church authority to make changes. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Therefore, communion in the hand is valid in heaven, and on earth, regardless of our opinions to the contrary.
Michael:
If you really wish to be accurate, “valid (as opposed to invalid) choice” is more accurate than “tolerated exception”. At least Michael didn’t try to slant things. If you wish to be accurate, “approved indult”. would be more precise, which puts it in the same category as the TLM.
And this is where one can appeal to tradition WITHOUT being guilty of antiquarianism, since one isn’t saying that we HAVE to do what the early Church did: it’s a very poor and illogical historical/traditional argument to say that He only meant the Apostles as Bishops if we then invoke the Apostolic Fathers and Patristic Fathers in our apologetics for our faith (which we constantly do). Why? Because reception in the hand by the laity WAS practiced in the Apostolic and Patristic Church, by the disciples of those Apostles. The argument that only the Apostles could receive by hand seems to have been refuted by Apostolic/Patristic practice. Again, I’m not saying we HAVE to have Communion in the hand because the ancient Church had it. I’m saying that since the Apostolic Church had it, it must have been an Apostolic practice. That’s not “liberal,” that’s simply history and logic.
There was no attempt to slant. If one reviews the chain of events leading to the current practice, the tension surrounding this issue becomes clearer. This essay is a good example:
You know, that’s exactly why I want to receive from the priest or deacon!
Not only is it not meant to be heresy, it CAN’T be heresy. The Church cannot propose to or promulgate for the faithful any discipline that could lead them to impiety. That’s a traditional view which you seem to rather selectively reject while upholding other ones that you like (the point was promulgated by the Council of Trent). And again, just because Protestants receive in the hand for heretical reasons doesn’t mean that Catholics cannot receive in the hand for non-heretical reasons. The action of receiving Holy Communion in the hand is, of itself, morally neutral. It can be vested with heretical intent or it can be vested with perfectly orthodox intent. And restricting reception to the tongue cannot definitively rule out heresy on the part of the recepient…or the priest for that matter. And if it is permitted by the Catholic Church as a discipline (even the disciplines are protected by a negative infallibility), it most assuredly DOES profess Catholic teaching.
You are very close to the truth on that. Not only did they "sanctify"themselves with the Blood, it got to the point where they would dip clothing and other articles in it, rub it in their hair, stand in front of the congregation and let it drip out of their mouth into their hands and rub it all over their bodies.etc. Those practices along with the belief that you** HAD** to receive under both species in order to get the full benefit of Holy Communion were the main reasons that the Chalice was taken away from the laity.
##After the word “Apostles,” I meant to say “and their successors.”
Fortunately, heresies can be combated with good catechesis of sound teaching.
Isn’t **the Rosary **a sacramental
? ##