[quote="otjm, post:10, topic:188575"]
That there has been a lowering in reverance in general is without question. But saying it is due to Communion in the hand and ignoring all of the other issues that have come into play in the last 40 years is a) knee jerk reaction and b) partially post hoc, ergo propter hoc response.
The Church in the Roman rite had Communion in the had to a greater or lesser extent well into the 10th century. If it was so terribly horrible, so indicative of lack of belief in the True Presence, so fraught with sacrilege, then one has to explain how the Church managed to survive intact. The short answer is that receiving in the hand was not so horrible, etc. It was simply the common way of receiving in many areas and for ages and ages.
There have been other issues at play ove the last 40 years, not the least of which was the throwing out of the Baltimore Catechism without an adequate catechism to replace it. Teaching doctrine went out, a la baby with the bathwater, and the "social gospel", sans "gospel" was in. People were simply not told what the Church actually professes; it is no wonder that a generation or more cannot identify the term "transubstantiation" if they were never taught it. In addition to that, society in general has become far less reverent (see, e.g. the massive increase in lack of respect for life - abortion - and basic moral laws - sex outside of marriage), and a general lack of reverence in society will play itself out in the Catholic population.
However, it is a false charge to turn around and say that if they can't identify the correct term, that they have no faith or belief. The Church survived for centuries without using the term and belief in the True Presence managed to survive.
Are there some receiving who do not believe? Undoubtedly, but before one presumes a willful unbelief, one has to prove more than that they exist and don't believe.
Further, there is an unspoken assumption that people had much greater belief before CITH, but that is based on not much more than people showing up at Mass in larger numbers, coupled with a closer connection to adequate catechesis.
As to crumbs - some people get hyper-extended. If there are visible crumbs which can be identified as comeing from the Host, then they need to be consumed. If they are not identifiable, then the True Presence does not any longer exist and no irreverance is done. The Hosts today (with the exception of the large Host which is fractioned) simply do not cause crumbs. The large fractiopned Host can but does not necessarily do so; and again, catechesis has been lacking. But the cure for lacking catechesis is catechesis, not changing practice.
The norm is still COTT and no one anywhere ever should be denied it. Some people feel that COTT is more reverent. Reverent is as reverent does; I have lived long enough to have seen communicants receive on the tongue with expressions that would seem to indicate a lack of reverence. Those who insist that COTT is more reverent in and of itself are relying on feelings; feelings come and feelings go, and are not seriously indicative of much more than the individual's disposition.
It is an indult, and indults can be withdrawn. However, it has not been withdrawn, and it is the manner in which the large majority of people receive.
And yes, the Pope distributes according to the norm; some people take that as a "see - if it was ok he would do differently", which makes as much sense as saying that because he has the power to say Mass according to one of the Eastern rites, the fact that he doesn't means they are inferior. It means no such thing. He also says the OF, not the EF. So what? That is not reflective of anything other than that the OF is the norm.
The bottom line is reverence is as reverence does. If one approaches Communion reverently, then reception is done reverently whether by COTT or CITH. Either is acceptable where the indult is in effect. Those who wish to judge another's heart by the physical means of reception would do well to re-read some of the Gospels, and then go to Reconcilliation. There is ample commentary not only about judging but also about pharisaical attitudes in the Gospels.
Other comments about the differences in rubrics between the EF and the OF as to how the priest holds the Host are making a presumption that two fingers are holier than more than two, which is just silliness.
Great post!! You said exactly what I was thinking!:thumbsup:
I am studying Pastoral Ministry and Theology and last semester I took "Sacramental Theology". I came across the following from Louis-Marie Chauvet's The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body This is about the only thing I could add to your most excellent post!
It is the very nature of the church to confess that the sacraments it celebrates in faith in the name of Jesus Christ have a spiritual efficacy called "grace," a beautiful term. The most forceful expression of this grace is no doubt that extremely sparing one given to us in the dialogue of eucharistc communion: to the statement, " The body of Christ" Christians answer, not with the description of their feelings or the difficulties that their intellect might struggle with, but simply with the "amen" of faith. This amen comes from the mouth and the heart, of course, but also from the whole bodysince it is manifested by the opening of the hands into which the pure gift of God is placed.The gratuitous communion of God with the believers, such is the salient point of the sacraments. Any weaknening of this affirmation- provided it is correctly understood, as we shall see-would rob the sacraments of their essential originality.