CITH: some document requests

[diggerdomer]

Once finally approved by US bishop vote in 1977, the NCCB made the request, and it was approved by CDW, and so the 1975 GIRM was annotated with that decision and 1977 date.

Are you claiming that the 1975 revision to the Roman Missal was officially edited or revised in 1977? I was not aware of that. Can you please share any official Church teaching that documents or attests to such? Thanks.

 

[otjm]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here. What problems did Peter have with the Gentile converts? It was the pharisaical Jewish-Christians who wanted to impose Mosaic law upon them, not the Church as a whole.

The “Church as a whole” consisted first and foremost of Jews who followed Christ and accepted Him as redeemer. Subsequently, Gentiles joined; when they joined, they joined a Church - incipient as it was - that was still going to synagogue on Saturday, and was “breaking Bred” on Sunday.

It was not “pharisaical Jewish-Christians” simply who wanted to “impose Mosaic law upon them” but rather a Church that was following Mosaic law, while the new converts were not. That was what caused the stir, and to simply brush it off as “pharisaical Jewish-Christians” is to relegate it to a seemingly small group. It was causing a major problem in the Church, had been going on for some time, and was finally resolved in the Council of Jerusalem. Any laws the Church had at the time, prior to the council, were from the foundation (and founders) of the Church; the Church was at that time the “fulfilled” jewish religion. It was not until the council, and subsequent growth of the Church that the Church began to see it self as more than just “fulfilled” Jewish religion - that is, not bound by all the laws of Moses. and it started specifically by Christians - Gentiles - not following what was then the laws of the Church.

 

[SimonDodd]

Diggerdomer, the sources cited in #112—contemporary mainstream news reporting of an event—demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that in 1977, the U.S. Bishops Conference asked for and received an indult to use CITH. By your standard, I suppose that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall in 1989 since there is no church document that says it did! After all, there’s no “authoritative Catholic teaching” on it! Like the fall of the wall, the bishops’ request was news. There doesn’t need to be “teaching” on it; it happened, and was reported in contemporary newspaper coverage.

Your feigned refusal to accept this shows clearly that you are responding in bad faith: the facts are inconvenient to your position, and because you have no answer, you are forced into this preposterous pose.

I will not play this game with you any further. Stop blowing smoke and debate the issue in good faith.

 

[Vico]

Are you claiming that the 1975 revision to the Roman Missal was officially edited or revised in 1977? I was not aware of that. Can you please share any official Church teaching that documents or attests to such? Thanks.

Yes. That version of the US GIRM (1975), fourth edition, has an appendix listing changes. No. 240 reads:

"240. DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION

On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship
approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The
Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this
optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:

a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and
reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on
the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.

b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest
or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner
of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.

c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the
host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the
communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction
should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of
Communion in the hand.

d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on
the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established.
Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide
the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, , no. 21.)"

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0012/_P2E.HTM#8
or
christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girm.html
or
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/girm1975.htm
or
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRMALL.HTM

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerdomer, the sources cited in #112—contemporary mainstream news reporting of an event—demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that in 1977, the U.S. Bishops Conference asked for and received an indult to use CITH. By your standard, I suppose that the Berlin Wall didn’t fall in 1989 since there is no church document that says it did! After all, there’s no “authoritative Catholic teaching” on it! Like the fall of the wall, the bishops’ request was news. There doesn’t need to be “teaching” on it; it happened, and was reported in contemporary newspaper coverage.

Your feigned refusal to accept this shows clearly that you are responding in bad faith: the facts are inconvenient to your position, and because you have no answer, you are forced into this preposterous pose.

I will not play this game with you any further. Stop blowing smoke and debate the issue in good faith.

Are you referring to the New York Time or the Washington Post for authoritative Catholic reference? Or was there some other authoritative source in #112 I missed? Thanks for any clarification.

We’re not talking about the Berlin Wall, we’re talking about an official Catholic Church action/request, which is surely documented somewhere other than the NY Times or Washington Post.

Wow…sorry you think I am responding in bad faith. I certainly don’t think you are.

I am simply asking, based on what someone else said, to provide reliable Catholic Church evidence that in 1977 the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult regarding reception of communion. I’m sorry if I don’t regard the NY Times or Washington Post as equivalent to Catholic teaching.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. That version of the US GIRM (1975), fourth edition, has an appendix listing changes. No. 240 reads:

"240. DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION

On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship
approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The
Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this
optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:

a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and
reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on
the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.

b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest
or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner
of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.

c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the
host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the
communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction
should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of
Communion in the hand.

d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on
the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established.
Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide
the necessary instruction. (See also the Roman Ritual, , no. 21.)"

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0012/_P2E.HTM#8
or
christusrex.org/www1/mcitl/girm.html
or
ourladyswarriors.org/liturgy/girm1975.htm
or
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/GIRMALL.HTM

Exactly.

NOT an indult. That’s my point. Thank you!

 

[Vico]

Exactly.

NOT an indult. That’s my point. Thank you!

Actually it was the indult initiated in 1969, that is why they had to request it.

See the expressions in the letter to be sent to Bishops conferences when they are granted the indult:

“Letter to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-47 (French).” …

“The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize the introduction in his diocese of the new rite for giving communion.”

sainthenryparish.com/library/cdwrep.htm

Dates of granting the faculty:

Belgium, May 1969 (date taken from another source)
South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually it was the indult initiated in 1969, that is why they had to request it.

See the expressions in the letter to be sent to Bishops conferences when they are granted the indult:

“Letter to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-47 (French).” …

“The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize the introduction in his diocese of the new rite for giving communion.”

sainthenryparish.com/library/cdwrep.htm

Dates of granting the faculty:

Belgium, May 1969 (date taken from another source)
South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Ok, so an indult may have been requested in 1969.

But, with the subsequent promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI, as approved by the Vatican, for the U.S., communion in the hand was approved as part of liturgical law (the GIRM…i.e. General Instruction of the Roman Missal)…not as an indult.

 

[Vico]

Ok, so an indult may have been requested in 1969.

But, with the subsequent promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI, as approved by the Vatican, for the U.S., communion in the hand was approved as part of liturgical law (the GIRM…i.e. General Instruction of the Roman Missal)…not as an indult.

The faculty of having the option of communion in the hand (always having choice of communion on the tongue) was requested and granted to the USA two years after the GIRM second editio typica (27 March 1975). That is what the annotation 240 shows. The conditions for the indult were penned in 1969. As you can see from the list, various conferences got the grant ranging from 1969 to 1977.

 

[diggerdomer]

The faculty of having the option of communion in the hand (always having choice of communion on the tongue) was requested and granted to the USA two years after the GIRM second editio typica (27 March 1975). That is what the annotation 240 shows. The conditions for the indult were penned in 1969. As you can see from the list, various conferences got the grant ranging from 1969 to 1977.

THe GIRM as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican gave the option of communion in the hand. Right?

So what does anything in 1977 have to do with this question?

 

[Vico]

THe GIRM as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican gave the option of communion in the hand. Right?

So what does anything in 1977 have to do with this question?

The GIRM as approved [in 1977] for the U.S. by the Vatican gave the option of communion in the hand. (The GIRM before that did not.)

Versions:

1. The GIRM issued with the new Ordo Missae promulgated 6 April 1969
2. The GIRM as emended in the editio typica of the Missale Romanum, promulgated 26 March 1970
3. The GIRM as emended by the variations published by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship 23 December 1972, following the suppression of the diaconate and minor orders by the motu proprio Ministeria quaedam, 15 August 1972
4. The GIRM 27 March 1975 editio typica altera of the Missale Romanum

Over the years changes were made or requested by the US Bishops and notes added to the US appendix. This appears in the appendix:

“The number at the beginning of each section below refers to the respective section of the . Unless otherwise indicated, decisions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops were taken at the plenary session of November, 1969.”

The note on 240 about communion in the hand was added in 1977. The GIRM was already in use in the US before that, as noted the notes in general date to NCCB session November 1969, which followed version 1.

 

[japhy]

Yes. That version of the US GIRM (1975), fourth edition, has an appendix listing changes. No. 240 reads:

"240. DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNION

On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship
approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops
to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand.

Exactly. NOT an indult. That’s my point. Thank you!

diggerdomer, am I correct in inferring that your argument is three-fold:

1. That the US amendment to the 1975 GIRM paragraph 240 does not use the word “indult” implies that the permission was not actually an indult.
2. That the permission to receive in the hand became part of the GIRM in the US implies that the permission because part of US liturgical law.
3. That the Latin typical edition of the most recent GIRM envisions that some places have the permission to distribute Communion in the hand implies that the matter of Communion in the hand is no longer outside universal law.

Am I correct? If not, please, for the sake of this conversation, make your case as plainly and explicitly as you can.

 

[SimonDodd]

[DD], for the sake of this conversation, make your case as plainly and explicitly as you can.

Making a case, plainly and explicitly, is exactly what he’s trying to avoid. Look at his responses above on this page and before. He’s made up his mind that CITH is the way to go, constructed a fictional backstory to justify it, and hermetically sealed it to avoid facing difficult questions about. He’s not acting in good faith. I’m sorry to have to say that, because we should always presume good faith, but at a certain point, the presumption is rebutted. And that point was somewhere around post #117. Given irrefutable proof of his error, he sticks his fingers in his ears and yells “can’t hear you.”

It doesn’t seem worth the effort to pursue it with him when there are plenty of other reasonable people here.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

It seems the discussion has stalemated. Arguing over which document said what is pointless here. Our duty as Catholics is to follow our bishops’ directives. CITH is permitted by indult. Nothing more need be said. Thank you all for the discussion.