Why Some Conservative Catholics Want To Stop

[Thomist-in-Training]

Dear all,
For the record, I will restate my position on Holy Communion in the hand without analogies, apologizing for earlier use of hyperbole due to strong emotion and tiredness.

After the first few centuries of Christianity, the practice of Communion in the Hand was deliberately discontinued in exchange for practices deemed more reverent, along with the developing understanding of Holy Communion.

In the 16th century, Protestant reformers introduced Communion in the Hand in their Protestant sects.

In the 20th century, Catholics began to disobey the thousand-year-and-more-old Catholic practice of NOT giving Communion in the hand. After it had already begun to be introduced disobediently, bishops' conferences were allowed to request it legally.

I think, given the conscious decision of the Church to drop the practice, the reintroduction of the practice by the Protestant arch-heretics, and the re-beginning of the practice in disobedience, it is not advisable for Communion in the Hand to exist in the modern Church. I am not saying anything about the first few centuries. I am talking about taking up a practice that was only brought up again by Luther, who hated the Church with a passion.

[Selah]

I really don't see why receiving communion in the hand is such a big deal...

[thessalonian]

I really don't think that whether protestants do a particular practice or not has anything to do with whether Catholics should or should not. This is the kind of thinking of prejudice in which we say that group all bad, us all good. Therefore shun everything the do. Paul says to examine all things and hold on to what is good.

Now again for reasons of laxity of our times I do think that communion in the hand was a bad idea. Maybe it always was and I currently think it should be rescinded. My point is simply to use proper reasoning in coming to such decisions. Not bias toward some group. I do not recieve communion in the hand and doudt I ever will, though I used to. I believe that my reverence would be no less recieving in the hand and Cyrils words always came to mind when I used to recieve that way. I may have been more reverent.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Selah' date='19 August 2009 - 06:19 PM' timestamp='1250723947' post='1952929']
I really don't see why receiving communion in the hand is such a big deal...
[/quote]

It makes it easier for someone to steal and desecrate the most holy Sacrament.

Though it is certainly possible for intentional desecrations to occur even when Communion is only distributed on the tongue, it make the task much harder. Distributing Communion only on the tongue possibly eliminates completely desecrations that occur when someone does not know what he supposed to do at Mass (e.g. I remember someone on Phatmass once said that he took the consecrated Host home after Mass when he was a little kid because he was unaware that he needed to eat it.)

[Dave]

C'mon, guys, I may not be a moderator here, but I wanna discuss the topic of this thread, not Communion in the hand vs. on the tongue!

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='19 August 2009 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1250728942' post='1952947']
It makes it easier for someone to steal and desecrate the most holy Sacrament.

Though it is certainly possible for intentional desecrations to occur even when Communion is only distributed on the tongue, it make the task much harder. Distributing Communion only on the tongue possibly eliminates completely desecrations that occur when someone does not know what he supposed to do at Mass (e.g. I remember someone on Phatmass once said that he took the consecrated Host home after Mass when he was a little kid because he was unaware that he needed to eat it.)
[/quote]

I think the bigger problem is that even if you do consume the host and have no intention of desecrating the host, particles adhere to the fingers and fall to the ground and are stepped on... even though the people recieving may have had no thought of desecrating the Blessed Sacrament. The priest has are specially consecrated to hold the Eucharist, and even he purifies his fingers carefully after holy communion, to do the best possible to safeguard the particles, because Jesus is as fully present there as in a whole host.

[picchick]

I don't want to stop the canonization of Pope John Paul II. I just want it to not be expedited. It should follow the regular course like all the other saints. I believe this for all people including him and Mother Theresa.

[dauntingknight]

[quote name='Dave' date='19 August 2009 - 09:46 PM' timestamp='1250732762' post='1952992']


C'mon, guys, I may not be a moderator here, but I wanna discuss the topic of this thread, not Communion in the hand vs. on the tongue!
[/quote]
I second that!


It's too soon to even [u]CONSIDER[/u] makeing Pope John Paul II a saint.
Even Mother theresa it's to soon for her too.

[zunshynn]

I think it's appropriate for some people to be canonized more quickly. Apparently Pope Benedict did too. And I don't think that necessarily means the canonization process needs to be rushed.

And I agree... just because there were some problems in the Church during his papacy is not grounds for him to be considered any less holy. He was working on them. Last I checked, making the world perfect was not required of a saint... Heroic virtue and manifest holiness are. Both can take place, often do take place, and perhaps even mostly take place, when there are a lot of problems in the Church and the world.

Pope Benedict has the authority to move forward with these canonizations. If God does not want them to take place, He will intervene.

Personally, I say, God's will be done, but if it is in accord with God's Will, Santo Subito!

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Thomist-in-Training' date='18 August 2009 - 08:03 PM' timestamp='1250640203' post='1952258']
I disagree with you VASTLY on this topic. Better a million sex scandals than one act of irreverence to Our Lord REALLY present on the earth. Don't tell me that some people really don't know that it is irreverent to receive communion in the hand. I know, because I used to be one of them. However, every bishop and priest who pressured to allow it or allowed it in his parish had been raised being taught what reverence to Our Lord's body means, and no one but protestants had thought about communion in the hand for a THOUSAND AND A HALF YEARS. Communion in the hand promotes disbelief in the Real Presence.
[/quote]

It's a fact that in the early church, communion on the hand was the ordinary way of reception of the Eucharist. Jesus is no better on your tongue than he his in your hand. I don't understand why people actually believe that to touch the savior with one's own hands is a [i]disrespect[/i] to Him. I've heard people say that when they were young, they were taught that it was a mortal sin for the hands of anyone besides a priest to touch the Eucharist (while the Church hasn't even formally said anything on the matter of who gets to "touch" it). And that many minors being damaged by men [i]in persona Christi[/i] is better than the Eucharist to be however disgraced? Where do you get off saying things like this. There are people who hate God and revile him everyday. Sure, they don't physically attack his real presence, but God is disrespected and will be, since he said so himself. That isn't to say that it's not a tragedy when it does happen, but come on! It wasn't so much about the Church looking bad as it was about people being scarred that just turned my stomach when I read that. Priority rearrangement is definitely in order.

As for John Paul II's canonization, if it happens, it happens. I don't think there should be some movement to stop it, though. It's making something that's about God bringing a son to glory and letting him shine as a light for the rest of us into something that's about them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='picchick' date='19 August 2009 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1250741505' post='1953090']
I don't want to stop the canonization of Pope John Paul II. I just want it to not be expedited. It should follow the regular course like all the other saints. I believe this for all people including him and Mother Theresa.
[/quote]
I agree.

The whole idea of rushing canonizations appears to be a symptom of the modern consumerist mentality that wants everything quickly.

[Lilllabettt]

To me, the whole "I love JP2!!!!" thing is just a little too band-wagon-y. It has become "cool" in Catholic circles to be enthusiastic about all things "JP2," Theology of the Body, World Youth Day, the new movements, mysteries of light etc. Naming their kids/colleges after him.

That to me, is a red flag, when something becomes "in" like that. If not a red flag, then a yellow, caution flag.

Personally, I think a lot of the speculative theology John Paul II did gets lost. Of course, I'm biased since I think phenomenoloy itself is a load of hooey. I didn't think he was that great of a poet. Of course, I only read the translations, and poetry is hard to translate. I think he was a poor judge of character and not so hot when it came to management. Of course I prolly couldn't do any better.

And then there was his heroic endurance and service to the Church in the midst or pain and suffering.

So ... my guess is he'll be canonized eventually. But I would rather it would wait until it becomes "kosher," in orthodox Catholic circles, to be somewhat critical of him.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='20 August 2009 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1250791641' post='1953258']
I agree.

The whole idea of rushing canonizations appears to be a symptom of the modern consumerist mentality that wants everything quickly.
[/quote]
Amen.

[LouisvilleFan]

I think that if God doesn't want it to happen, it won't happen.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='20 August 2009 - 12:29 PM' timestamp='1250792944' post='1953273']
I think that if God doesn't want it to happen, it won't happen.
[/quote]
The fact that God gave man free will means that lots of things happen in the world that He does not want.