Why Is Communion In The Hand Still Allowed?

[beaverman]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343677530' post='2460332']
Nice try, but Saints are not infallible and the Church ALLOWS communion in the hand. Its a discipline, and the Church is able to change them Church it as she wishes.
[/quote]

Well, he is a doctor of the Church. I can't imagine him being wrong on a teaching so central to our faith.

[MIKolbe]

Why are brothers and sisters in the Church so anxious to play dime store Tertullian and hope or wish to restrict, condemn, berate, or play the 'how holy are you, really?" game with their brethren on an issue the Church permits?

Let us be generous to one another where Mother Church is generous to us.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='beaverman' timestamp='1343677322' post='2460328']
^ I know that doesn't have anything to do with my scriptural claims, but I really would like people to reconsider communion in the hand and not to write me off.
[/quote]

I receive on the tongue, actually. A lot of us do. I also think it's safe to say that those here who receive on the hand do so carefully and reverently.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='beaverman' timestamp='1343677871' post='2460335']
Well, he is a doctor of the Church. I can't imagine him being wrong on a teaching so central to our faith.
[/quote]

He also said some wacky things about women.

[quote][color=#000000][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif]If it were not for some [divine] power that wanted the feminine sex to exist, the birth of a woman would be just another accident, such as that of other monsters [= a dog with two heads, a calf with five legs, etc.] - [i][/font][/color][i]De Veritate[/i][/i][color=#000000][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif] 5, 9, d. 9. [/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif][/quote][/font][/color]

[beaverman]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1343678343' post='2460340']
He also said some wacky things about women.

[/font][/color]
[/quote]

That's not a central teaching of the faith.

I think he's basically saying that it was divine power that created woman. I don't see anything weird about that.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='beaverman' timestamp='1343677322' post='2460328']
^ I know that doesn't have anything to do with my scriptural claims, but I really would like people to reconsider communion in the hand and not to write me off.
[/quote]

since you're new, i'll let your attitude slide. but suffice to say we've had the debate of communion on the hand vs. communion on the tongue at least 5 or 6 times in the 10 or so years that phatmass has been in existence.

The Church allows it. Do not disallow what the Church allows.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='beaverman' timestamp='1343678681' post='2460346']
That's not a central teaching of the faith.[/quote]

Since when is the [i]manner[/i] in which one receives a "central teaching?"

[quote]I think he's basically saying that it was divine power that created woman. I don't see anything weird about that.
[/quote]

He's saying that if it weren't FOR the divine power, the creation of woman would be an accident, an abnormality of creation - i.e. his comparison of that to a dog born with two heads. You're right, nothing "weird" about that. Sheesh.

[Lil Red]

most of these topics are archived, so you won't be able to respond to any posts. but just doing a [b][i]cursory[/i][/b] google site search, here's what i found:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/122703-why-is-communion-in-the-hand-still-allowed/page__st__20#entry2460340"]Communion in the hand, and the Candidate's Girlfriend[/url] (2010)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/99099-communion-on-the-hand/"]Communion on the hand[/url] (2009)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/110389-a-argument-for-repealing-communion-in-the-hand/"]An Argument for Repealing Communion on the Hand[/url] (2011)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/111302-communion-in-hand-or-on-tounge-is-there-any-debate/"]Communion on the Hand or Tongue: Is There Any Debate?[/url] (2011)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/74687-communion-on-the-hand/page__st__0"]Communion on the Hand[/url] (2007)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/94158-proposal-to-try-to-end-communion-in-the-hand/"]Proposal to try to end Communion on the Hand[/url] (2009)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/94776-sociological-impact-of-communion-in-the-hand/"]Sociological Impact of Communion on the Hand[/url] (2009)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/76957-reconsidering-communion-in-the-hand/"]Reconsidering Communion on the Hand[/url] (2008)

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/121383-communion-rails/"]Communion Rails[/url] (2012)

[AccountDeleted]

Reverence is in the heart, not on the hand or the tongue. I prefer receiving on the tongue, at a Communion rail with a Communion plate underneath. But I also feel safer about not dropping the host when receiving on the hand if there is no proper place to kneel or plate in case the host falls. Where I attend Mass at a Carmelite monastery, half of the nuns receive on the tongue and half in the hand. As long as the Church allows it, then I won't judge what others choose to do or accept the condemnation of others on how I choose to receive. I know my reverence is total, no matter how I receive Our Lord and I know that He knows the state of my heart. This debate is so pointless as long as the Church allows it. This isn't a democracy and we don't get to vote on the matter so why not just do what feels right to you since both ways are acceptable?

[Slappo]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1343678815' post='2460349']
we've had the debate of communion on the hand vs. communion on the tongue at least [b]50 [/b]or [b]60 [/b]times in the 10 or so years that phatmass has been in existence.
[/quote]

Fixed. I think red dropped a zero there

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1343679694' post='2460363']
Fixed. I think red dropped a zero there
[/quote]

i was estimating conservatively.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1343679817' post='2460364']
i was estimating conservatively.
[/quote]

liberal

[Slappo]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1343670769' post='2460293']
They were eating bread and drinking wine, how do you think it got to their mouth?
[/quote]

Fork and straw?

Consecrated fork & straw of course


Now for teh serious since this is debate table.
While communion on the hand is permitted, it is still not the norm of the Church. There are many things that are permitted for various reasons [b]that may or may not be good things[/b]. Many Catholics interested and involved in some of the more traditional/ancient practices of the Church are strongly against many of these permitted things (female altar servers, communion on the hand, versus populum, certain instruments in mass, etc...). I myself am one of those Catholics, [b]but that doesn't make me better or worse than the others[/b]. Although it saddens me to see many of these practices due to my personal convictions, I am not a bishop and don't make the rules.

Now I can encourage other Catholics to follow practices or hold similar convictions to me, but blatantly arguing with them about the topic doesn't usually prove fruitful and usually actually turns them away from what I hold. If you really want to encourage someone to take a closer look at your convictions, explain what you do/believe, why, and how it has helped/benefited you/your family etc. Don't do so by attacking their own views. [b]I'm definitely guilty of this[/b], but I can't name a single person that I have "won over", for lack of a better term, by saying "communion in the hand smells of elderberries! Only boys should serve at the altar. Lets burn all the guitars and punch holes in the drums!"

Edited July 30, 2012 by Slappo

[Hubertus]

So what is the preferred route when someone wants to discuss something that has already been discussed? Should they bring up an old thread? If so, shouldn't the new threads that are duplicates then be locked?

I know it is a tired subject, but I do enjoy discussing it.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Hubertus' timestamp='1343680474' post='2460368']
So what is the preferred route when someone wants to discuss something that has already been discussed? Should they bring up an old thread? If so, shouldn't the new threads that are duplicates then be locked?

I know it is a tired subject, but I do enjoy discussing it.
[/quote]

i wasn't saying it shouldn't be discussed, but the statement that we've never considered it needed to be shot down. (and i'm pretty sure that one of the past threads involved at least the first video in the OP.)