[narses]

You're very good, but you commit one of the errors of debate common to the 'net. I conceded and applauded the fact that in your case it had not led to a loss of belief. I also pointed out that there are many, too many in fact, in the modern Church who have been taught by the liturgical excesses of the "Spirit of Vatican II" that the doctrine maybe isn't so. Nor is the Communion in the hand the only tool of the modernists in the use of the liturgy as a teaching tool, hence the other issues you noticed I brought in. Rather than weaken the thrust of the point, they strengthen it. Moreover, you have yet to deal with the real questions I posted. Why was this reform done? Was it the fruit of the tree of rebellion? Is it more efficacious in the work of Our Mother the Church -- the Salvation of Souls -- than the tradition of the Tridentine Mass and the Council of Trent?

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

"You're very good..."

Gee whiz, narses, flattery will get you everywhere *blush*. ;-)

"...but you commit one of the errors of debate ..."

No, I committed no error. You posted an article that made an argument against Communion in the hand. The argument made by the article is that this method of reception of the Eucharist is inherently bad, and leads to a loss of belief in the Real Presence. Your own posts in some cases seemed to support this argument. But some other of your posts seem to be satisfied that the impression is made that this is so, without having to commit to supporting the argument. It appears, at least at first, that you are trying to have it both ways.

Then, you bring in your laundry list of other items. They don't speak to the point of the article that you posted, that Communion in the hand is inherently bad. Thus, I assume that you have abandoned that argument, if you supported it in the first place.

If your argument all along has been that Communion in the hand, although not inherently bad, has been used to further another agenda, then this was the wrong article to post to begin the discussion. Further, in the context of the article and the thread, citing Mother Teresa's remarks only further obscures the argument you say that you are trying to make. I don't really know whether Mother Teresa thought the practice was inherently bad, or otherwise, but in the context of the thread, her quote appears to support the argument that Communion in the hand is inherently bad. And since you are giving the quote, at post #7, it makes it appear that, at least until post #7, you are still making the argument that Communion in the hand is inherently bad.

If you wish to make the argument that Communion in the hand has been used to advance an agenda, but isn't inherently a bad practice, then you ought to have started the thread with a defense of the inherent acceptability of Communion in the hand, and moved on.

"...you have yet to deal with the real questions I posted."

Why would I want to address any of your questions until I was sure that we had first agreed that the conclusion of the article that you posted and seemingly defended was sufficiently refuted?

Are we in agreement, then, that the conclusion of this article is false?

sitetest