Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified ourfaith?

[rcn]

Originally Posted by oat soda

but clearly the fact that only 30% of the catholics held to an orthodox view of the eucharist

That is not true at all. You've been presented with the facts about the survey. That you continue to ignore these facts, says a lot.

[pnewton]

oat soda,

I totally agree with what you are saying and your question of the whole prudence of changing the manner of reception is the a worthy question.

I was analyzing the other night why I prefer to receive in the hand. I was actually practicing different postures to try to gain some insight and this is what I found:
Realizing I was not raised as a Catholic for me humility is associated with a bowed head. Even in Mass during most of the liturgy I find that I am bowing my head as I kneel, while most are looking straight ahead at the consecration. Therefore as I go to communion, my hand clasped and my head bowed, it feels unnatural at the point of receiving Christ to lift up my head and present my tongue. I am good friends with my priest, but this is one time I do not look him in the eye. I keep my head downcast as I bow and say, "Amen" . Trying to maintain a sense of meditaion, I place the host in my mouth, so carefully cradled, and consume it.

I know all this is strictly cultural baggage from a brain-washed Protestant, but if we are asked to end this indult and return to the tongue, I am one (of maybe a few) that will actually lose a sense of reverence. If asked, though, I will obey without blinking, as obedience is the greater form of humility.

[tuopaolo]

Originally Posted by pnewton

No it is not. At least he does not make the same tired, illogical arguement, A happens, B happens, so A must have caused B.

The fact that B happening after A does not entail that A caused B, does not entail that in a particular case where B happens after A and one has reason to believe that A is the kind of thing that could have caused B, that it is not reasonable to believe that A caused B.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

and one has reason to believe that A is the kind of thing that could have caused B.

This is the part I just don't get. The tongue is holy, a hand less holy. The tongue is a respectful organ, the hand less. I think the more obvious causes of lack of belief would be given more weight, oat soda's cynicism of the miraculous, for example. I would add, lack of catechisis and lack of homelies on the Real Presence. These make sense.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by pnewton

This is the part I just don't get. The tongue is holy, a hand less holy. The tongue is a respectful organ, the hand less.

Evidence, please?

-- Mark L. Chance.

[I thirst 4 YOU!]

It is with out a doubt a proven fact that less Catholics believe in the real presence. I believe that communion in the hand has only given people the idea that this is just mere bread. Some churches continue to allow the precious blood even to be offered in wine glasses. Does this show respect? Are we "bringing" Christ down to our level too much!?!?! I contend that we are, the mass is supposed to be sacred, and recieving in the hand doesn't take away from the sacredness but it sure hasn't helped it either.


God love you

[tuopaolo]

Originally Posted by pnewton

This is the part I just don't get. The tongue is holy, a hand less holy. The tongue is a respectful organ, the hand less. I think the more obvious causes of lack of belief would be given more weight, oat soda's cynicism of the miraculous, for example. I would add, lack of catechisis and lack of homelies on the Real Presence. These make sense.

To be honest, I actually thought you and he were talking about Vatican II and neglected to notice which thread I was replying to. But the same would apply in this case. It may not be the totality of the cause -- the things you mention may also have played a role -- but I think it is reasonable to believe it played some partial role.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by mlchance

Evidence, please?

-- Mark L. Chance.

Sorry. I forgot the question marks. Like I said, though. I do not understand the reasoning behind the difference. Your question remains for anyone who would insist too strongly (beyond personal opinion) that one organ is more worthy.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by pnewton

Sorry. I forgot the question marks. Like I said, though. I do not understand the reasoning behind the difference. Your question remains for anyone who would insist too strongly (beyond personal opinion) that one organ is more worthy.

Gotcha on the missing question marks.

So, let's sum up after 230+ messages:

1. According to one disputed survey, only 30% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence.

2. This is the fault of receiving Communion in the hand.

3. There is absolutely no evidence offered that receiving Communion in the hand has caused anyone to doubt the Real Presence (or any other lapse of faith). This holds true even if one accepts the single, disputed survey since that survey does not address causation.



-- Mark L. Chance.

[Swiss Guard]

Originally Posted by mlchance

[/color][/b]

Your words: "Communion in the hand has weakened our faith by causing doubts about the Real Presence."



And now you're backpedaling. Again, your words: "Communion in the hand has weakened our faith by causing doubts about the Real Presence."

Backpeddling? Tell me where I said that Communion in the hand is solely responisble for weakening the faith and causing doubts about the Real Presence?

There is no backpeddling on my part. You have made an incorrect assumption. I responded to the question in this thread about Communion in the hand. I did not address poor catechesis or liturgical abuses because those questions are not addressed in this thread.

I am merely dealing with the topic at hand. You decided to put words in my mouth by claiming that I said Communion in the hand is solely responsible for a weakening of faith. Kind of like the way Jimmy Akin reads the results of the poll about Catholics belief in the Real Presence.

So, then, explain. How is it that receiving the Host in and of itself, whether on the tongue or in the hand, is supposed to strengthen or clarify our understanding of the faith?

I have already explained that receiving Communion in the hand from your neighbor and popping it in your mouth like a piece of candy isn't strengthening and clarifying the faith. If you don't understand my point, there's not much I can do to explain it better.

Where is the evidence that receiving Communion in the hand has weakened "our faith by causing doubts about the Real Presence"?

Let me save you some time: There isn't any evidence.

People leaving the sacred host in the pews, people leaving the sacred host in choir lofts, people selling hosts on e-bay isn't evidence? How can these sacrileges not convince you?

If it is a fact that today more Catholics do not understand Church doctrine about the Real Presence or fail to believe that doctrine (which, BTW, are two separate problems), the root of that problem is not related to posture.

The root of the problem is related to poor catechesis, mostly likely, IMO, stemming from the failure of the domestic church to take baptismal promises about the proper faith formation of children seriously.

-- Mark L. Chance.

I agree completely about poor catechesis and the fact that priestly formation in seminaries is below average to almost non-exisistent. However, when people kneel to receive Holy Communion from the priest, there is a built in reverence for the sacred host. This is why the Church allows everyone to receive the Communion on their knees.

There are Church documents that state kneeling for Communion is a form of Eucharistic adoration. I'm at work now so I can't access them.

We are in complete agreement that there are many reasons for a lack of faith in the Real Presence. I'm saying, in response to the question posed on this thread, that Communion in the hand is one of them. Do I believe if we eliminated Communion in the hand today that the 70% of Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence would come around? No, it will take more than eliminating Communion in the hand. However, eliminating Communion in the hand would be a good start.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

I did not address poor catechesis or liturgical abuses because those questions are not addressed in this thread.

I'm more likely to think folks keep ignoring poor catechesis because it takes the wind out of the "Communion in the hand is bad" nonsense.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

I have already explained that receiving Communion in the hand from your neighbor and popping it in your mouth like a piece of candy isn't strengthening and clarifying the faith.

Today's first fallacy is the straw man.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

People leaving the sacred host in the pews, people leaving the sacred host in choir lofts, people selling hosts on e-bay isn't evidence? How can these sacrileges not convince you?

Today's second fallacy is post hoc.

First, please provide evidence that these abuses were committed by people who received the Host in the hand. Then, please provide evidence that the sorts of people who commit these abuses would not do so if they received the Host on the tongue.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

I agree completely about poor catechesis and the fact that priestly formation in seminaries is below average to almost non-exisistent.

Then it ought to be obvious the problem isn't one related to posture.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

However, when people kneel to receive Holy Communion from the priest, there is a built in reverence for the sacred host. This is why the Church allows everyone to receive the Communion on their knees

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

.

One can kneel and still receive the Host in the hand. You want built in reverence, scroll back up for the quote from Saint Cyril's instructions on how to receive the Host in the hand.

-- Mark L. Chance.

[Swiss Guard]

Originally Posted by mlchance

I'm more likely to think folks keep ignoring poor catechesis because it takes the wind out of the "Communion in the hand is bad" nonsense.

Thanks for the reply. Despite our differences on this issue, I enjoy our conversations.


There are many reasons why there is a decline in belief in the Real Presence among Catholics. I couldn't address all of them since it would take up too much space and it would also be off topic. I'm not ignoring poor catechesis, I'm just staying on topic.

Originally Posted by mlchance

Today's first fallacy is the straw man.

Originally Posted by mlchance

Today's second fallacy is post hoc.

I notice you didn't dispute my claim about lack of formation in seminaries, even though that point is just as much a "straw man" and "post hoc" as Communion in the hand. It's only a "straw man" if you disagree with the point.

Originally Posted by mlchance

First, please provide evidence that these abuses were committed by people who received the Host in the hand. Then, please provide evidence that the sorts of people who commit these abuses would not do so if they received the Host on the tongue.

Provide evidence that the level of abuses were the same before Communion in the hand was permitted. There is no evidence to suggest that we had the same level of sacrilege as we do now. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to see it.

Would these people commit the same sacrileges? I doubt anyone on e-bay would be selling a host with his saliva all over it, so I think that one can be ruled out. The others probably would if they received on the tongue, since we permit the laity to touch the host. They probably would have no problem taking it out of their mouths since everyone can handle the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ as if it were an M & M or a Life Saver.

Originally Posted by mlchance

Then it ought to be obvious the problem isn't one related to posture.

If posture doesn't matter, then why does Holy Mother Church command us to stand and kneel at certain parts of the Mass? If posture doesn't matter, then let's replace the pews with comfortable chairs, get rid of all the kneelers, and have everyone sit and relax during Mass.


Posture DOES matter, as it shows a level of respect. If you are called into your boss' office, would you slouch in the chair or sit up? If your called to give a presentation, would you stand up or sit down? Posture is non-verbal communication. When someone stands and receives Holy Communion like a piece of candy from their neighbor that takes away a significant amount of sacredness than receiving on the tongue, kneeling and from the priest.

You can avoid responding to this point all you want by pasting links to definitions of "straw man," common sense says when someone receives Communion on their knees and on the tongue from the priest there is a level of sacredness that is missing if received another way. If not, Holy Mother Church would teach otherwise.

Originally Posted by mlchance

One can kneel and still receive the Host in the hand. You want built in reverence, scroll back up for the quote from Saint Cyril's instructions on how to receive the Host in the hand.

-- Mark L. Chance.

Yes they can and I've seen people do it. We have an altar rail at our parish and every now and then someone will receive at the rail in the hand.


I'm not doubting the reverence of St. Cyril's instructions. I am saying that when we receive in the hand we lose a certain amount (which can be signficant depending on the situation) of reverence that we wouldn't lose if receiving on the tongue.


The Blessed Sacrament priest I mentioned in a previous post used to say familiarity breeds contempt. When we become too familiar with something, we lose respect for it. His point is when we handle the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord, we become more familiar with it and it is no longer special, which leads to a loss of respect. I will take his 50 years of priesthood over a "straw man" argument any day of the week. Experience is the best teacher.


Pax tecum.

[Swiss Guard]

Originally Posted by pnewton

No it is not. At least he does not make the same tired, illogical arguement, A happens, B happens, so A must have caused B. He points out quite correctly how statistics and polls can be misleading.

It is not illogical to make an argument that A causes B when B is directly related to A.

It would be illogical to argue that Communion in the hand was allowed when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, therefore the election of Jimmy Carter is the reason for Communion in the hand.

However, it isn't illogical to argue that Communion in the hand has led to the sacrileges I mentioned since one is directly related to the other. If it can be proven the level of sacrilege was the same before Communion in the hand, I will recant my argument. I still won't like Communion in the hand, but I will recant my argument.

Originally Posted by pnewton

No, he is not the ultimate authority, but he is more learned and up to date on Catholic teaching than most anyone here. He is also extremely logical in his thinking and is from Texas, to boot.

Saying consubstantiation is really beleiving in transubstantiation isn't logical nor is it up to date on Catholic teaching. It's manipulating results to make it say what you want it to say rather than what it really says. Where a person is from makes no difference to me.

I believe someone told me Jimmy Akin is a convert to Catholicism. Do you know if this is true?

Originally Posted by pnewton

One more thing; his organization is paying the bills here and a little respect is appropriate. Anyone here is welcome to go start their own website (TCA forums?)

Last time I checked, Karl Keating is the president of Catholic Answers, not Akin. I can't disagree with someone because they work for the organization that owns this forum? I can't say someone is way off base and not using proper logic because he's an employee? If Keating made the absurd comments Akin made I would make the same statements.

Also, why is it anyone who wants to see the traditions (small t) of Holy Mother Church restored automatically labeled a trad on this forum? I always advocate obedience to the Holy Father and assent to Church doctrine and dogma, but somehow that makes me an SSPXer in some people's eyes. This is what irritates me.

I am not a schismatic because I don't like Communion in the hand. This practice came about due to disobedience. Have I ever called you a heretical modernist who wants the Church to conform to your beliefs because you like Communion in the hand?

You can't argue your point, that Communion in the hand increases reverence and strengthens the faith because there isn't a shred of evidence to support such a claim. So you try to discredit me by calling me a trad, inferring that I'm not in union with Holy Mother Church.

When you can't beat 'em, discredit 'em. Truly sad.

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

I believe someone told me Jimmy Akin is a convert to Catholicism. Do you know if this is true?


Last time I checked, Karl Keating is the president of Catholic Answers, not Akin. If Keating made the absurd comments Akin made I would make the same statements.

Yes, Jimmy Akin is a convert and a staff apologist. Karl Keating is the president.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

Also, why is it anyone who wants to see the traditions (small t) of Holy Mother Church restored automatically labeled a trad on this forum?

Have I ever called you a heretical modernist who wants the Church to conform to your beliefs because you like Communion in the hand?.

I do not think it would be appropriate to call me or any one else a "heretical modernist" for being obedient to the teachings of the Church, so why would I think you did? I am surprised that such a thougth would come up.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

You can't argue your point, that Communion in the hand increases reverence and strengthens the faith because there isn't a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

Absolutely correct. In fact, if I could change my vote, I would. I voted too fast, based not on the fait of the Church as a whole, but only for myself. As I said in my previous post, I do find a better since of humility and respect by receiving communion in my hand. I am probably in the minority in this respect.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

So you try to discredit me by calling me a trad, inferring that I'm not in union with Holy Mother Church.

When you can't beat 'em, discredit 'em. Truly sad.

I will not call you a liar, but give you the benefit of the doubt. You are mistaken. I have never call you, or anyone a trad, radtrad, prot or other similar label. I do not believe in that sort of disrespectful name-calling. It is a personal attack. It is my opinion that the begining of personal attack usually is the result of lack of substance.

That being said, I also think Karl, Jimmy and the staff here deserve a little respect. They are not absurd and illogical. I am quite sure that Jimmy understand the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation. The point of his article, though, is those polled were not theologians and not everyone understands the difference. Consider also how most people answer polls, quickly and without a dissertation. It is easy to see how minor differences are magnified.

[mlchance]

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

It's only a "straw man" if you disagree with the point.

No. A straw man is when the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument.

For example, you characterized the Communion in the hand argument as:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

...receiving Communion in the hand from your neighbor and popping it in your mouth like a piece of candy isn't strengthening and clarifying the faith.

Since no one who has defending receiving Communion in the hand has stated that your characterization is the proper method of doing so, you're setting up a straw man (and an implictly insulting one at that).

Now for the post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy is when because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other.

You say receiving Communion in the hand has caused a decrease in the belief of the Real Presence. Yet you have no evidence for this (argument from silence). Furthermore, you admit that other factors are quite likely the cause. As a result, in addition to post hoc, you're committing up to four other causal errors. Would you like me to post links for them?

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

Provide evidence that the level of abuses were the same before Communion in the hand was permitted.

Unnecessary since I've never made that claim. You, OTOH, have made a positive claim that receiving Communion in the hand is destructive to reverence. Prove it.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

Would these people commit the same sacrileges? I doubt anyone on e-bay would be selling a host with his saliva all over it, so I think that one can be ruled out.

How ludicrous. If nothing else, spit dries. Why not just admit that you do not know for a fact that any Host being sold on E-bay was stolen via reception in the hand as opposed to reception on the tongue?

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

The others probably would if they received on the tongue, since we permit the laity to touch the host.

Then, in the case of abuses such as the E-bay situation, matter of reception is irrelevant. Criminals will do what they do. And, BTW, the laity has always been permitted to touch the Host (unless you manage to eat the flesh of Christ without any contact whatsoever).

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

...since everyone can handle the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ as if it were an M & M or a Life Saver.

There's that insulting straw man again.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

If posture doesn't matter....

And yet another straw man. I didn't say "posture doesn't matter." A quick review. You said:

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

I agree completely about poor catechesis and the fact that priestly formation in seminaries is below average to almost non-exisistent.

Now, given the apparently lousy catechesis, et cetera, I said:

Originally Posted by mlchance

Then it ought to be obvious the problem isn't one related to posture.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

When someone stands and receives Holy Communion like a piece of candy from their neighbor....

And, yet again with the straw man.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

You can avoid responding to this point all you want by pasting links to definitions of "straw man,"

I'm avoiding responding? Interesting. And, as long as you keep bringing up the straw men, expect to have them challenged.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

...common sense says when someone receives Communion on their knees and on the tongue from the priest there is a level of sacredness that is missing if received another way. If not, Holy Mother Church would teach otherwise.

Holy Mother Church does teach otherwise. She also teaches that one can receive Communion in the hand while standing.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

...when we receive in the hand we lose a certain amount (which can be signficant depending on the situation) of reverence that we wouldn't lose if receiving on the tongue.

But, again, you have no evidence that receiving in the hand actually causes a loss of reverence.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

The Blessed Sacrament priest I mentioned in a previous post used to say familiarity breeds contempt.

That's a cliche, not an article of the faith.

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

Experience is the best teacher

Originally Posted by Swiss Guard

.

No, the Church is the best teacher, and the Church teaches it is right to receive in the hand.

The Church has spoken; thus ends the argument.

-- Mark L. Chance.