Archbishop Suspends Communion in the Hand

[Walking_Home]

Precisely. The initial article referenced in this thread is being used as a political tactic to promote the abolishment of communion in the hand because some regard CITH as being “less-than” communion on the tongue. It reminds me of the thread regarding women and the wearing of pants. There was a gist there that, for some reason, a woman who goes to Mass in pants is less worthy to receive than a woman in a skirt, regardless of the fact that the woman in the skirt could have been, for all we know, that most brazen sinner this side of the Mississippi, while the woman in pants may be a truly pious person. **The Archbishop in Rome suspended CITH because of a certain, distinct problem, **not because of a perceived lack of reverence among those in attendance. ****While I am not overly fond of communion in the hand, I do not share the opinion that if everyone received kneeling on the tongue, then reverence would increase. I go to Mass every week where the altar rail is used and people simply go up to it with the same mentality as at other churches where people line up to receive in the hand.​

I do not agree --that the initial article is being used as a “political statement”. It seems to be that the OP made an observation based on the fact that CITH can be withdrawn.

And again–from the article --it cannot be said that lack of reverence was not one of the determining factors leading to the withdraw of CITH. Actually lack of reverence seems to be built into the decision of withdrawing CITH

Rome, Italy, May 11, 2009 (CNA).- The Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, has prohibited the reception of communion in the hand in three parishes of his archdiocese and has asked priests to be on the watch for those who may be abusing the Eucharist.

 

[Brooklyn]

---

I do not agree --that the initial article is being used as a “political statement”. It seems to be that the OP made an observation based on the fact that CITH can be withdrawn.

Yes, the OP states the reason for citing this article is to prove that CITH “was an indult and can be revoked and Receiving on the tounge is the norm”. That is the discussion of this post. Is CITH an indult or is it the norm.

Here is an interesting link:
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=228

Issue: When was Communion in the hand first permitted?

Response:** In 1969 Memoriale Domini provided for the reception of Communion in the hand in limited areas and under special circumstances.** Then, in the 1973 instruction Immensae Caritatis, the Church granted wider permission because many episcopal conferences had asked for permission to allow Communion in the hand.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In 1973, the Church granted wider permission for Communion in the hand in the instruction Immensae Caritatis (On Facilitating Reception of Communion in Certain Circumstances). A few directives are given that essentially reflect the directives in Memoriale Domini. In addition, the Holy See acknowledged the increase in episcopal conferences seeking permission to allow Communion in the hand.

As one priest said to our Bible Study group once, receiving in the hand is illicit but valid. It seems that receiving in the hand is something that was requested by individual dioceses and did not originate in the Vatican. It was never part of the GIRM. The Vatican merely acquiesced in this matter.

Therefore, it would follow that CITH can be revoked at any time in a diocese by the Bishop. And yes, the OP is correct, CITH is an indult and not the norm.

Mary

 

[Malkin71]

Rewarded how?

Elevate him to Cardinal!

 

[Timothysis]

Elevate him to Cardinal!

So, you basically concede that it is more about liturgical “politics” than anything else.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do I have to remind you that the TLM was at one stage also only available by indult and the OF was the Universal Norm? I suppose at that point you were hoping that the TLM would be done away with too.

This idea of ‘xyz is only an indult, therefore it’s less-than in some fashion’ is a logical fallacy of the worst order and to argue thusly does no favours to those who dislike CITH.

At the very least, Summorum Pontificum shows how quickly the indult can become the norm (or at least the non-indult). Thus how little relationship there is between something being being norm or indult and being more or less reverent or appropriate.

Actually the idea that something is “less-than” is the very definition of something which is allowed by indult. When one in authority grants an indult, he “indulges” someone else, meaning that he allows an exception but specifically does not want the indult to become the norm. See the Catholic Encyclopedia for a good explaination of indult oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pontifical_Indult

In Summorum Pontificum, HH Benedict explained that because the traditional Mass had never been abrogated (in Article 1), an indult was never necessary in the first place (even though he refers to the fact that an indult had indeed been granted).

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by Malkin71 View Post
Elevate him to Cardinal!

---

In the Catholic Faith —elevating one who is on the path of orthodoxy is not “politics”. Now the elevation of one that has deviated from the path — well that would show that some “maneuvering” has been done.

 

[Newbie2]

We just need to be careful not to take such a decision and make “in your face” commentaries such as “see, we’ve been telling you all along communion in the hand is better/more reverent, etc, etc.”. I dont’ believe the OP is trying to do that, but nonetheless we have to be careful how our posts are received.