As has been stated already, it would take several volumes to expose all the fallacies contained in The Body of Christ. A few more examples should suffice to prove conclusively that its authors are attempting to deceive the Catholic laity. It claims [p. 11] that:

      "The option of Communion in the hand does grow organically from procedures already existing, retains sound tradition, results from careful multi-disciplined, scholarly research, opens the way for legitimate progress, fulfills a current need and genuinely serves the good of the Church."

Every statement here is totally false!

     Communion in the hand is a complete innovation and did not grow from any procedure already existing in any Catholic rite. A tradition is something which is living today. A long obsolete practice is not a tradition. It resulted from an act of rebellion, an aping of Protestant practice-----perhaps this is what the American bishops mean by "careful, multi-disciplined, scholarly research". It opens the way to irreverence, profanation of the Blessed Sacrament, and division and discord within the Church. The American bishops describe this as fulfilling a current need and genuinely serving the good of the Church!

On pages 20 & 21, it is stated that fears about the innovation are unwarranted and that "Observers from countries that have already introduced the option offer encouraging testimony about the positive acceptance and relatively smooth implementation of communion in the hand."

      It can be noted here that, at the 1977 Bishops' Synod in Rome, high praise was given in the official communiqué to the resounding success the catechetical renewal has been throughout the world. Bishops are not likely to admit that policies which have been approved and which involve their prestige have been unsuccessful. The bishops of Great Britain and the U.S.A. will duly send in their reports saying how successful the innovation has been. The impression I have gained from visiting and reading reports from a good number of countries is that the practice has been followed invariably by irreverence and discord.

As part of the meal propaganda, the incident at Emmaus is described on p. 24 as if this was a celebration of the Eucharist. This is a claim which the majority of competent Bible scholars would not accept. ²⁶