Cardinal Canizares on reception

  • Thread starter Thread starter dmorgan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Although I applaud the good Cardinal, this will go no where. The church can no longer “suggest” something. The heirarchy needs to promulgate what needs to change.
 
corsair said:
Although I applaud the good Cardinal, this will go no where. The church can no longer “suggest” something. The heirarchy needs to promulgate what needs to change.
Click to expand...
It is brick by brick. Since a majority of Bishops decided to start doing CITH, maybe by popular acclaim, COTT will become the norm again.
 
As posted earlier, it will go nowhere. Dispensation has been given to receive in the hand, the new GIRM also gives instructions as it is allowed. The good Cardinal is welcome to his opinion.
 
TrueLight said:
It is brick by brick. Since a majority of Bishops decided to start doing CITH, maybe by popular acclaim, COTT will become the norm again.
Click to expand...
Actually 2/3rds of the bishops need to approve it in their countries, as the CITH is not a universal allowance. WIth the right mix of bishops, the right of CITH can easily be repealed or allowed only in certain cases (where there is a flu epidemic, for example.) The Vatican needs to take no action.
 
TrueLight said:
It is brick by brick. Since a majority of Bishops decided to start doing CITH, maybe by popular acclaim, COTT will become the norm again.
Click to expand...
COTT is the universal norm, but yet it is not what is common.

( i know the wording is confusing, but still)
 
ProVobis said:
Actually 2/3rds of the bishops need to approve it in their countries, as the CITH is not a universal allowance. WIth the right mix of bishops, the right of CITH can easily be repealed or allowed only in certain cases (where there is a flu epidemic, for example.) The Vatican needs to take no action.
Click to expand...
Awesome!
 
ProVobis said:
Actually 2/3rds of the bishops need to approve it in their countries, as the CITH is not a universal allowance. WIth the right mix of bishops, the right of CITH can easily be repealed or allowed only in certain cases (where there is a flu epidemic, for example.) The Vatican needs to take no action.
Click to expand...
And even if the national conference of bishops approves is, a bishop can decline the indult for his diocese. This happened not too long ago with a diocese in Brazil.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually 2/3rds of the bishops need to approve it in their countries, as the CITH is not a universal allowance. WIth the right mix of bishops, the right of CITH can easily be repealed or allowed only in certain cases (where there is a flu epidemic, for example.) The Vatican needs to take no action.
Click to expand...
All we can do is pray! I know many would not like this because they would feel as if the “elitist traditionalist” have won.
 
FAB said:
As posted earlier, it will go nowhere. Dispensation has been given to receive in the hand, the new GIRM also gives instructions as it is allowed. The good Cardinal is welcome to his opinion.
Click to expand...
It is granted under indult. Any Bishop can stop CITH in his diocese. And the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has more pull than one might think 😉

Look what Cardinal Ranjith did in Sri Lanka 🙂
 
At_Trent said:
It is granted under indult. Any Bishop can stop CITH in his diocese.
Click to expand...
It’s more of a sensitive issue than most people realize. In addition to the 2/3rd vote, several conditions have to be met:
  1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.
Click to expand...
  1. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
  1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s body and blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.
Click to expand...
  1. As to the way to carry out the new rite: one possible model is the traditional usage, which expresses the ministerial functions, by having the priest or deacon place the host in the hand of the communicant. Alternatively, it is permissible to adopt a simpler procedure, namely, allowing the faithful themselves to take the host from the ciborium or paten. The faithful should consume the host before returning to their place; the minister’s part will be brought out by use of the usual formulary, The body of Christ, to which the communicant replies: Amen. [Note: Rome later forbid the Communicant to take the Host themselves.]
Click to expand...
  1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that there comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.
Click to expand...
  1. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lord’s blood.
Click to expand...
  1. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send to this Congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession."
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
 
FAB said:
As posted earlier, it will go nowhere. Dispensation has been given to receive in the hand, the new GIRM also gives instructions as it is allowed. The good Cardinal is welcome to his opinion.
Click to expand...
It is easy solved. All they have to do is bring back the rails for Communion. Why just talk about it? Just do it. plus how many people will actually get this message anyway?
 
Apparently, “the top” does not agree-
From*** Light of the World***
“I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion this way myself. The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel and receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point.” ~ HH Benedict XVI
Click to expand...
What he is opposed to is an attitude of irreverence, or of thinking that the Body of Christ is some type of souviner. I don’t believe that the Church will ever change her stance on this.
Some pockets of the Church may, and maybe rightfully so, suspend/ban CITH, for a period of time until any danger of profanation is over, after people have been properly catechised.
But, I cannot see the Pope waking up tomorrow and saying
"OK, that’s it everyone! Eucharist kneeling & on the tongue only!! " 😛 :rolleyes:

Could he? Sure.
Will I obey? Of, course!
But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it!! 😉
 
wisdomseeker said:
It is easy solved. All they have to do is bring back the rails for Communion. Why just talk about it? Just do it. plus how many people will actually get this message anyway?
Click to expand...
In the US it would be very hard to role this indult back. I for one would not want to see it happen. Except among those who consider themselve Traditionalist, it is a none issue. There is sacred and theologiacal reasoning behind both proctices which have long been discussed on this site.
 
FAB said:
As posted earlier, it will go nowhere. Dispensation has been given to receive in the hand, the new GIRM also gives instructions as it is allowed. The good Cardinal is welcome to his opinion.
Click to expand...
i`m not sure that “opinion” is the correct word. Considering what a small handful of other Cardinals and Bishops (plus Pope Benedict by his silent example) have had to say, “conviction” might be a better choice.
What St. Paul says to the Corinthians about not perceiving the Body and Blood, and the consequences, is disturbing: 1 Corinthians 11:28-32.
 
FAB said:
In the US it would be very hard to role this indult back. I for one would not want to see it happen. Except among those who consider themselve Traditionalist, it is a none issue. There is sacred and theologiacal reasoning behind both proctices which have long been discussed on this site.
Click to expand...
If the indult was taken away would you kneel?
 
FAB said:
In the US it would be very hard to role this indult back. I for one would not want to see it happen. Except among those who consider themselve Traditionalist, it is a none issue. There is sacred and theologiacal reasoning behind both proctices which have long been discussed on this site.
Click to expand...
archangel04 said:
If the indult was taken away would you kneel?
Click to expand...
Standing for Communion is not governed by any indult. An indult is a permission to do something which the law would otherwise prohibit. In the case of Communion posture, there is no “norm” or default which the law prescribes, thus no need for any indult to allow something else.
 
TrueLight said:
It is brick by brick. Since a majority of Bishops decided to start doing CITH, maybe by popular acclaim, COTT will become the norm again.
Click to expand...
I agree with Corsair. At some point, there needs to be an order or a revocation of the indult, for this to work effectively. Even in the Masses celebrated by the Holy Father, the overwhelming number of communicants recieve in procession and in the hand. It is only the communicants to the Holy Father that recieve exclusively on the tongue and on their knees.

Archangel asked, “If the indult were taken away, would you kneel?” I would kneel at a rail or on a prideux if it were provided. I would not be able to do so at my age and with back problems unless there was a rail or some kind of support. I believe that even the EF does not require people who are unable to kneel to do so for Holy Communion, but that the priest communicates them as they stand in front of him at the rail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top