Do you think the OF should be changed/reformed by Papal order, incorporating more traditional/reverent things?

(I assume that the Pauline Missal is somehow imperfect, and I recognize that the EF is permitted.)

well, if we're just tossing opinions about, I'd say get rid of the OF altogether.

why go halfway with a reform of the reform? ... just go back to what was.

It should be drastically reformed, but it won't be

It will eventually happen as literally nothing in this world is permanent, but probably not in our lifetime, and definitely not under Francis, who, if he had his druthers, would probably transform the Mass into something like you get from someone like Joel Osteen.

What will happen is that the Novus will die, there will be some attempts to force traditionalist priests to use a compromise Reform of the Reform Mass which will ultimately fail.

The reform of the Novus Ordo would have to take time and be phased in very slowly and by example. Example: no more ugly or huge outdoor papal Mass, but rather using all the traditional options outlined in the missal. As much as I would like to see the Novus Ordo tossed on the ash heap of Church history by the stroke of a pen, that would cause a whole lot of harm and alienation.

I am not going to claim to the pastoral expert, but some things may take years to remove/restore.

The indult for Holy Communion in the Hand could be phased out over a 5-10 year period (or whatever amount of time - and yes I know it existed in the transitional phases before the 1970 missal).

The priest facing the people would be a more difficult task, taking a longer time, and would probably require a hybrid situation: First start with the "Eucharistic prayer" being ad orientem with rest of the Mass is facing the people, then transition to the "liturgy of the Word" being versus populum, and the entire "liturgy of the Eucharist" being ad orientem.

Not sure if only having the Eucharistic prayers ad orientem would look awkward or not, but I am just showing how it could possibly be done.

Some other things would be easier: restore the traditional offertory and lavabo for example. I don't think people would fuss too much - but again, maybe a long transition period is needed for those.




Hopefully you're right, but it might take a long long time for it to die. It may even take several generations so people will not have memory of living the experience of it's creation and the stardom of those who used it.

That's one of the "reforms" I don't object to -- after all, at the original communion, at the Last Supper, the Apostles received in the hand.

But they weren't laity, an opponent of lay CitH would say

Right, the Apostles at that point were no longer laity as they were commanded to preform the Holy Sacrifice.

Communion in the Hand is objectively inferior to other methods like intinction and receiving on the tongue. It was never the norm in the early Church and eventually faded out of use for many good reasons: protection of the Sacred Species from falls/spills and thievery, but also the fact that everyone being able to touch like a common everyday object reduces the sense of the sacred. By treating the Holy as unique it firstly is more appropriate and fitting for Our Lord, and secondly it helps to cultivate a better reverence and respect for what is happening in people's minds and hearts.

Communion in the hand today is really just an example of antiquarianism and it's modern usage came by way of abuse and disobedience.

Scripture doesn't record how they received.

Do you honestly think they stuck out their tongues, and He put a bit of bread on each one?

It was a meal -- and they ate and drank as at a meal, each one taking bread and a goblet of wine.

It was also the institution of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the priesthood. Meals do not typically have a mystical element of Christ's death on the cross actually happening before you while giving men and indelible mark of holy orders on their souls.

That being said, since this was not your typical meal, reception of Holy Communion could have happened in a different manner - but who knows? Neither of us can say with certainty how the Apostles received, that is the point.

But regardless, the Apostles were ordained and consecrated so their ability to touch the Holy Eucharist is the positive will of God and absolutely necessary in order to perform the Sacrifice. Our ability to touch the Eucharist is normally not necessary. It's also imprudent for the reasons I explained above.

But why? What would require the Apostles to put out their tongues to receive the Body of Christ? And why -- if that happened -- is such an unusual thing not mentioned in the gospel?

And what evidence do we have for saying it happened?

Maybe consider that it wasn't that unusual?

If they did do this, then I assume it was an instructive demonstration by Our Lord on how to give Holy Communion (to show how the faithful were to receive).
But again, since they were ordained it would be normal for them to handle the Sacred Species.



Because the Gospels are not a exhaustive list of rubrics and doctrine.

The readers/listeners of the Gospel would already know how to receive Holy Communion. Details like this were not necessary for the writer because by the time the Gospels were written the Church already knew how to give Holy Communion.




Like I said above, no one knows for sure and it's not a big deal because the Apostles were not lay people.
Evidence for a non-hand reception can be argued as being contained in Apostolic tradition. The East, West, Oriental, Ethiopian, etc. churches/sects all ended up with non-hand reception. However, Communion in the hand existed in the early Church, but it was not the norm - and one of it's official instructions were to rub It in your eyes .If you want "unusual" there you have it. I doubt they were rubbing the consecrated species in their eyes at the Last Supper.

Anyway, after Communion in the hand was eliminated, all churches/sects that I know of practiced non-hand reception. The nature of religion is to conserve and hand down, so it's evidence (not proof) that the concept of non-hand reception was from the Apostles.

Much like with many practices sometimes you can't find absolute proof from the pen of an Apostle. But again, it wasn't necessary to write everything down anyway.

Perfectly true -- except that isn't and wasn't the practice at a meal. In a meal, the recipients take food in hand -- it isn't placed on their tongues.

Now Vatican II is a part of Tradition, is it not? So receiving in the hand cannot be objected to on those grounds.

Tradition is what is handed down and received, so to the extent that various teachings of Vatican II have been handed down and received, they form part of sacred tradition. But that has nothing to do with receiving Holy Communion in the hand.

Vatican 2 made no mention of communion in the hand FYI.

Communion in the hand was restored because of a wish to emphasize the "meal" aspect of Communion. At the same time, Catholics began to lose their faith in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Gosh. You'd almost think there was a connection or something.

It's a meal/sacrifice - not just a meal.

You cannot keep bringing up the concept of a meal and ignore that it is the true and real sacrifice of Calvary, hence elevating above a mere meal for sustenance.
If it's elevated above a mere meal by being the real sacrifice then extraordinary rubrics can logically be applied, since after all it was to become the apex of worship.

Again, you cannot say matter-of-factly that "isn't and wasn't the practice at a meal," because it is not just a mere meal. It is the mystical sacrifice of Calvary which handles the Real Body of Blood of Christ. The Last Supper was the institution of the priesthood and Eucharist.

But regardless, the context of what we're discussing is laity and Communion in the Hand, not the Apostles who were ordained at the Last Supper and who were supposed to handle the Sacred Species anyway. What the Apostles did is not necessarily equivalent to what lay people should do insofar as what is more proper and hence objectively superior both in terms of reverence and secondarily as a type of pedagogy.




Communion in the hand is not a part of Vatican II. Communion in the hand was resurrected by way of abuse. Pope Paul VI caved into the abuse and started granting indults. So even in the Church today Communion in the hand is not the norm because it is an indult granted for certain regions.

As tradition is handed down, both doctrine and practice develop. Communion in the hand was never the norm in the early Church and eventually died off. The development of Eucharistic doctrine goes hand in hand with the development of liturgical practices as time went on. Or in other words, the Communion in the hand stopped because it was in inferior practice (as explained in previous posts here). It's restoration is antiquarianism, unnecessary, and came by way of abuse. The practice is objectively inferior when considering issues like doctrine, particle droppage, theft, and treating holy things in a manner that is mundane and ordinary, i.e. everyone being able to touch something like a common everyday item.