![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/03\/MotherTeresaHandCommunion.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
From a Facebook discussion, dated 7-8-13, initially about an earlier version of my paper,\u00a0Holy Communion in the Hand (Norm till 500-900 AD)<\/a>. Words of Fr. John Abberton will be in blue<\/span>, and Benjamin Baxter\u2019s in green<\/span>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The facts of the matter of early practice are undeniable, but it\u2019s how they are interpreted in light of the present debate which is interesting. Lots of legalism and emotionalism in equal measure . .\u00a0. I\u2019m clearly being objective about it because I practice and prefer one method but refuse to run down (and actually defend to a large extent) the other, in terms of intrinsic inferiority, which is nonexistent.<\/p>\n The real and key difference runs through each human heart: reverent and pious and worshipful or not? Posture and demeanor (either method) will reflect and exhibit that. I can spot an irreverent person a mile away . . .<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The problem about \u201cearly Church\u201d arguments in favour of certain practices is that it does not adequately deal with the question of development. Pope Paul VI warned against the attitude of seeking the \u201cprimitive\u201d observance precisely because it leaves out the action of the Holy Spirit over time. if I remember correctly Pope Paul specifically warned against the arguments of those who say, \u201cWhen Jesus was at the Last Supper\u2026\u201d etc. There were historical and cultural reasons for receiving on the tongue but this does not mean that the development was wrong or that we need to return to something earlier. There is actually no proof that returning to earlier practices is correct and there is every reason, when looking at the liturgy, to argue that, for the most part, developments have been good. Of course, there HAVE been problems following Vatican 11 which cannot be blamed on the documents but on erroneous or one-sided interpretations.<\/span><\/p>\n Fr. John,<\/p>\n I agree generally with your point about development (though I think liturgical development is different in kind from doctrinal, since there can be variability in a way that doesn\u2019t apply to dogmas and doctrines). My own perspective (to clarify) is not:<\/p>\n \u201cThe early Church did it; therefore it is the best way and we should \/ must do the same.\u201d<\/p>\n Rather, it is:<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that reception in this manner was the norm far and wide and for centuries in the early Church is compelling proof that communion in the hand is not intrinsically irreverent<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0and cannot be otherwise.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I argue for preference in this time and place and culture (kneeling \/ on the tongue, from the priest), but I don\u2019t argue for intrinsic superiority of same. And the early Church\u2019s practice is a major reason why I don\u2019t. It\u2019s a classic case of where being aware of history has a real and important impact on a particular debate.<\/p>\n I also stress interior disposition, which is oftentimes lost in these discussions, by making posture the be-all and end-all. I don\u2019 think so. It is the attitude and approach in our hearts, and our faith. Jesus applied that to all of faith in the Sermon on the Mount and it was usually the underlying theme in his denunciations of the Pharisees: \u201cyou clean the outside of the cup, but<\/em><\/strong> . . .,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I\u2019m not arguing for communion in the hand per se (it\u2019s not my own practice, after all). My argument is that any approach that holds that communion in the hand is intrinsically irreverent is misguided and should be discontinued. Legitimate arguments advocating communion on the tongue can be made on various other grounds (I make them, myself), but this is not one of the ways that it should be done, in my humble opinion.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n People sometimes distort my argument (not the first time, believe me, and far from the last!), including this one: which has many subtleties and nuances. My position is that kneeling is more reverent, generally speaking, in this time and place<\/strong><\/em>. It may not be everywhere<\/em>, and indeed, in Eastern Catholicism as a whole, it is not at all. But in the Latin rite, since we kneel at consecration, for example, it is clearly regarded as a particularly reverent posture.<\/p>\n Thus, I argue for it being more reverent in this culture at the present time (in the Latin, western rite), while carefully avoiding any fallacious argument from intrinsic superiority. It\u2019s culturally relative to some extent (as many things are). The (almost sole) purpose of this post was to knock out the argument that communion in the hand is inherently irreverent: also to provide historical background that many (especially reactionaries and some legitimate traditionalists) appear to be unaware of.<\/p>\n The theological liberals were clearly pushing communion in the hand. They<\/em> clearly thought it is more in line with their less-than-stellar eucharistic views. The fact that it was pushed in Germany and Holland is almost in itself proof that this is the case.\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Germany in theological terms is sort of like Nazareth in the Bible: \u201ccan anything good come out of Germany?!\u201d\u00a0:-)<\/span><\/span>\u00a0Well, Pope Benedict did, but he was an extraordinary exception to the rule . . .<\/p>\n In any event, it doesn\u2019t follow that everyone<\/em><\/strong> must think the same as theological liberals do (that receiving in the hand somehow waters down the Real Presence). We must studiously avoid mere guilt-by-association arguments, too.<\/p>\n So, Dave, would your position be more adequately expressed that reception in the hand is not intrinsically irreverent but extrinsically irreverent?<\/span><\/p>\n I think it is relatively less reverent in our culture and at this time: but only in a very broad sense, as a generalization. It has (here and now in America) less of what we might call a \u201cconditioned reverence\u201d than kneeling does.<\/p>\n In any event, I still hearken back to interior disposition and what is in one\u2019s heart. That\u2019s ultimately where it\u2019s at, and trumps all else.<\/p>\n Does communion on the tongue facilitate a higher degree of conditioned reverence and allow for a better state of interior disposition?<\/span><\/p>\n I think it depends on person and place, as I keep saying. These blanket statements are too simplistic. I think the stuff you are citing probably presupposes cultural conditions, too. Certainly no one can say that the entire early Church was irreverent about Holy Communion.<\/p>\n There is a very good reason why the early Church did not have this practice. The early Church did not think of it at first, and later their attachment to their own traditions prevented much change from existing praxis.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nHow to Receive Communion: Tradition & Abuses<\/a>\u00a0[1-28-00]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nDialogue: Receiving Communion: Traditionalist Argument from Liturgical Development: Method of Receiving Communion<\/a>\u00a0(vs. David Palm) [8-31-06]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCan Communion in the Hand\u00a0be Equally Reverent?<\/a>\u00a0[7-13-11]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nKneeling for Communion & Worship: Variant Postures for Worship & Reception of Holy Communion: the Biblical Data, & Cultural Factors<\/a>\u00a0[1-23-13]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nFurther Thoughts on Communion in the Hand<\/a>\u00a0[6-20-13]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMichael Voris & Historic Communion in the Hand (Standing)<\/a>\u00a0[8-8-13]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCatholic Worship & Beauty, Imagination\u00a0<\/a>[11-25-13]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nThoughts: Communion in the Hand & Reverence<\/a>\u00a0[9-4-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nReverence of Hand-Communion: Biblical Evidence<\/a>\u00a0[9-5-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSt. Augustine\u2019s Holy Communion (Standing, in the Hand)<\/a>\u00a0[10-4-15]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\nUnfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist<\/strong>:\u00a0<\/span>If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 \/ month \u2014 a mere 33 cents a day \u2014 would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see\u00a0my Resume<\/a>).\u00a0My work has been proven (by God\u2019s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences\u00a0from unsolicited \u201ctestimonies\u201d<\/a>).\u00a0I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nMy book royalties from\u00a0three bestsellers in the field<\/a>\u00a0(published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.\u00a0 I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have\u00a0written 50 books<\/a>.\u00a0It\u2019ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and \u201clikes\u201d and links and shares). Thanks!<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nSee my\u00a0information on how to donate<\/a>\u00a0(including 100% tax-deductible donations). It\u2019s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my \u201cbusiness name\u201d there is called \u201cCatholic Used Book Service,\u201d from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through\u00a0Zelle<\/a>. Again, just send to my e-mail address.\u00a0May God abundantly bless you.<\/div>\n