[narses]

Nor should it. What did happen was the degradation (not elimination) of the sacred aura and respect for the Sacrament by both the clerics and the laity involved. Not unlike the use of mufti by the religous and the casual address between them and the laity. Fr. Wilson becomes Fr. Bill and Sister Rose of Lima becomes plain old Beth. The key here is the how and why it happened. What was the intent of those pushing this "reform" and what were and are the fruits thereof? Frankly, in the early Church Communnion in the hand in in both species was not uncommon. Like so many of the dozens and dozens of the "reforms" inspired by the "Spirit of Vatican II", this one was not, by itself fatal. In fact, NONE of them are fatal, as the gates of Hell will not prevail. The question is why, and how did the "reform" help save souls?

Under the old rules, ONLY a consecrated man could touch the Host. Now the Real Presence can be, and is often (at least in chapels near me and nursing homes in my area) carried about and distributed by women who are divorced, remarried and living in public sin. Valid? Yes. Licit? Under the Indult, yes. Respectful? Not in my opinion.

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

Well, narses, the article concludes with:

"Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence."

If you wish to make other arguments, have at it. But the argument of the article that you have here posted concludes that Communion in the hand weakens faith in the Real Presence.

And I noted that it hasn't for me.

sitetest

[ThomasMore]

Valid? Yes. Licit? Under the Indult, yes

Where does this come from?