CITH: some document requests

[Cat]

I’m not demanding that anyone prove anything to me. The heavy lifting is mine to do. I’m just asking for some help finding documentation that is pertinent to the question.

I say we do. When we have a choice to make on a matter this serious, we should not approach it lightly, and we should be able to give an account for the choice we make. I’m not disrespecting anyone who considers the question and reaches either conclusion—I’m not pinch-hitting for COTT here—but I do think that people ought to consider the question and decide how to choose within the freedom given to us in this matter by the Church.

And I think that many Catholics DO consider the question and decide how to choose between the two options offer to them by Holy Mother Church. I would not assume that other Catholics haven’t thought carefully and prayerfully through the options and made a thought-filled decision. I give people more credit.

Yes, yes, I know that many Catholics in the pew aren’t even sure what their Church teaches on the most basic theology issues like salvation and sanctification.

IMO–and remember, I converted to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism–it would be better to challenge most Catholics to become catechized about the dogma of the Church–the unchanging theological stances that distinguish Catholic Christianity from all other religions rather than spend a great deal of time studying and agonizing over a “discipline” of the Church (method of receiving Holy Communion) that can and has changed throughout history.

 

[diggerdomer]

DiggerDomer, I’m well aware of those points, but they isn’t helpful. (If they were, I wouldn’t have asked.) To say that the Church gives us a choice and that both choices are licit and valid does not—indeed cannot—actually make the choice. I’m trying to assemble the case for doing whichever turns out to be right. To the greater extent, that process involves prayerful reflection, but it also involves looking at the relevant history and materials and weighing them. That COTT stands at the head of a thousand years of tradition has some weight to it. That COTT is the universal norm of the latin Church is also has weight, if it’s true (hence my request for documentary support for that statement). If COTT is the prevailing practice in much of the non-anglophone church, that, too, would have some weight (hence my other request).

Mark, that’s fine, but do you have any church documents supporting ithat statement? See, that’s the problem. Everyone’s willing to chip in their view, but they never cite the authority on which they rest.

If you’re worried about what is “right” then you need look no further than what the Vatican-approved norms are for where you live.

In the U.S. the Vatican approves both CITH and COTT. Follow the teaching of the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

In dioceses where the bishop has approved you may receive in the hand. This privilidge is granted by an indult that has been in the US GIRM since the mid-seventies.

This not correct for Catholics in the U.S.

For Catholics in the U.S., the Vatican has approved both methods of reception. No indult (not that it matters, really, as either way the Vatican has approved it).

That is, in the U.S., according to Catholic teaching as approved by the Vatican, it’s not up to the local bishop’s approval. Communicants can receive either on the tongue or in the hand as directed by the Vatican.

 

[diggerdomer]

This is not correct for Catholics in the U.S.

For Catholics in the U.S., the Vatican has approved both methods of reception. No indult (not that it matters, really, as either way the Vatican has approved it).

That is, in the U.S., according to Catholic teaching as approved by the Vatican, it’s not up to the local bishop’s approval. Communicants can receive either on the tongue or in the hand as equally directed and approved by the Vatican.

 

[diggerdomer]

Since CITH is only allowed by indult why would you think that COTT is not the norm universally?

CITH is not allowed only by indult. In the U.S. it’s allowed without an indult.

 

[ProVobis]

It is out of concern for who I will receive that I am concerned about how I should receive.

Valid and important point.

We wouldn’t be kneeling and receiving on the tongue if it/It were an ordinary piece of bread.

 

[ProVobis]

That is, in the U.S., according to Catholic teaching as approved by the Vatican, it’s not up to the local bishop’s approval.

Actually it is. If, on the next vote, when and if there is one, CITH is not approved by 2/3rds of the bishops in a particular country, then the Vatican will disallow any CITH within that country.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[SimonDodd]

In the U.S. the Vatican approves both CITH and COTT. Follow the teaching of the Church.

It’s disappointing that so obvious a point has to be repeated so often: simply saying that there is a choice says nothing about which to choose. When your waitress comes to take your order, Diggerdomer, do you tell her: “In the U.S. the IHOP corporation approves this entire menu; follow the teaching of the menu”?

When people say things like that, with all due respect, it shows that they haven’t thought about it. That’s also my answer to Cat: I’m not saying that Catholics don’t “consider the question and decide how to choose between the two options offer to them by Holy Mother Church. I would not assume that other Catholics haven’t thought carefully and prayerfully through the options and made a thought-filled decision. I give people more credit.” But when they say things like “the church offers you a choice and that’s all you need to know,” that makes it very clear that they didn’t think about their choice consciously, and/or that they’re asking me not to.

As to whether the question is a backwater: The Eucharist is “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life” (LG11). Deciding how to approach it with the appropriate respect is of paramount importance. If we get liturgy wrong, we get everything wrong. And this particular issue bears on one of the four marks of the Church. I find it hard to believe that members of the universal Church, given freedom to choose between two methods, are not interested in knowing how the Church universal through time has answered, and the Church universal throughout the world does answer, the question.

I’m happy to discuss the issues, but keep in mind that this thread is chiefly a documentation request. It looks like the first request is answered in the negative. How about the other one?

 

[MarkThompson]

It’s disappointing that so obvious a point has to be repeated so often: simply saying that there is a choice says nothing about which to choose. When your waitress comes to take your order, Diggerdomer, do you tell her: “In the U.S. the IHOP corporation approves this entire menu; follow the teaching of the menu”?

"It is frequently said that the Super-Strawberry Vanilla French Toast combo is a weekly special not on the permanent menu and not available at all IHOPs worldwide. But I am having a hard time finding documents that state the point directly, or other information: I.e., how many franchises offer the french toast combo, percentages of the customers who order it either because that’s the only option for french toast or who have the choice and choose it, and so forth.

“I need something which can, figuratively, ‘stand up in court.’ You can imagine the dialog:”

Simon: “Regular french toast is the standard offering of the IHOP corporation.”
Waitress: “Says who?”
Simon: “Well, that’s clearly the implication of various menus like these two from Brookline, Mass., and Ocala, Florida, and also reviews I’ve seen online.”
Waitress: “The implication? So you don’t have anything that says regular french toast is the universal norm of IHOP?”
Simon: “Right, I’m inferring it, but I think it’s pretty clear.”
Waitress: “Sure, but as you concede, no corporate policy states it. So at most, you can say that you interpret some menus as implying that regular french toast is the standard offering of IHOP. You can’t cite anything that says so.”
Simon: “Right.”
Waitress: “Come to think of it, if something is a basic menu item at IHOP, whence other options are merely rotating specials, doesn’t it strike you as odd that you can’t cite a single corporate control document which directly and unambiguously states that fact?”
Simon: “I can’t answer that, beyond saying that some things are so well known and so broadly accepted that there’s no need to write them down. Everyone just presupposes them.”
Waitress: “Did you order the Code Red?”
etc.

 

[japhy]

Them: “Did you order the code red?”
etc.

You want Communion in the hand? You can’t handle Communion in the hand!

(No pun intended.)

(I can’t believe no one else acknowledged your A Few Good Men reference!)

 

[japhy]

For Catholics in the U.S., the Vatican has approved both methods of reception. No indult (not that it matters, really, as either way the Vatican has approved it).

CITH is not allowed only by indult. In the U.S. it’s allowed without an indult.

You’ve said this before, but I’ve never seen supporting documentation for it. Can you state when the indult for the US became unnecessary?

 

[SimonDodd]

Mark, that’s funny, but not a good analogy or terribly constructive.

japhy, I thought Mark’s post lampooned the Few Good Men reference pretty well. I haven’t seen that movie in years, I really ought to netflix it. Re the indult, I think Diggerdomer’s idea—I’ve seen others point to it as well—works like this (s/he can correct me if I get this wrong). The indult was originally necessary as a dispensation from the universal rule of COTT, but the 2003 GIRM directly authorizes CITH in the United States. Thus, the GIRM is now primary legislation on the subject, displacing both the original indult and the law whence it dispensed, and because GIRM now permits CITH, no dispensation from it is needed. I don’t necessarily agree with that analysis, but I think that’s the theory behind it.

 

[japhy]

japhy, I thought Mark’s post lampooned the Few Good Men reference pretty well. I haven’t seen that movie in years, I really ought to netflix it.

I posted my reply before I saw Mark’s post…

Re the indult, I think Diggerdomer’s idea—I’ve seen others point to it as well—works like this (s/he can correct me if I get this wrong). The indult was originally necessary as a dispensation from the universal rule of COTT, but the 2003 GIRM directly authorizes CITH in the United States. Thus, the GIRM is now primary legislation on the subject, displacing both the original indult and the law whence it dispensed, and because GIRM now permits CITH, no dispensation from it is needed. I don’t necessarily agree with that analysis, but I think that’s the theory behind it.

That might be the analysis, but I think it’s flawed in that it treats the GIRM in the US as existing apart from the indult, rather than being adapted to account for the indult, as was the case with the previous version of the GIRM.

 

[SimonDodd]

That might be the analysis, but I think it’s flawed in that it treats the GIRM in the US as existing apart from the indult, rather than being adapted to account for the indult, as was the case with the previous version of the GIRM.

That’s more-or-less how I see it, too.

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s disappointing that so obvious a point has to be repeated so often: simply saying that there is a choice says nothing about which to choose. When your waitress comes to take your order, Diggerdomer, do you tell her: “In the U.S. the IHOP corporation approves this entire menu; follow the teaching of the menu”?

When people say things like that, with all due respect, it shows that they haven’t thought about it. That’s also my answer to Cat: I’m not saying that Catholics don’t “consider the question and decide how to choose between the two options offer to them by Holy Mother Church. I would not assume that other Catholics haven’t thought carefully and prayerfully through the options and made a thought-filled decision. I give people more credit.” But when they say things like “the church offers you a choice and that’s all you need to know,” that makes it very clear that they didn’t think about their choice consciously, and/or that they’re asking me not to.

As to whether the question is a backwater: The Eucharist is “the fount and apex of the whole Christian life” (LG11). Deciding how to approach it with the appropriate respect is of paramount importance. If we get liturgy wrong, we get everything wrong. And this particular issue bears on one of the four marks of the Church. I find it hard to believe that members of the universal Church, given freedom to choose between two methods, are not interested in knowing how the Church universal through time has answered, and the Church universal throughout the world does answer, the question.

I’m happy to discuss the issues, but keep in mind that this thread is chiefly a documentation request. It looks like the first request is answered in the negative. How about the other one?

I’m sorry I don’t understand how your message responds to what I posted.

In the U.S., yes, there is a choice. CITH or COTT. That also means other choices are not allowed. So what’s your point?

By the way, it’s “font” and not “fount”

 

[diggerdomer]

You’ve said this before, but I’ve never seen supporting documentation for it. Can you state when the indult for the US became unnecessary?

That’s exactly my point. Where is the indult?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican, allows communion either on the tongue or in the hand. There is no differentiation in that liturgical law.

So, where is the so-called “indult”? The burden of proof is not on the Church, that approved the GIRM, but on those who claim otherwise.

If you have not read the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S.,you can read it here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml on the USCCB site.

Have you read it? If not, don’t bother replying.

Additionally, if you are sincerely interesting in commenting on the Church in the U.S., you should familiarize yourself with this document: usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

After reading these, what is your question/concern about some indult, specifically regarding reception of communion as approved by the Vatican in the U.S.?

 

[japhy]

By the way, it’s “font” and not “fount”

Have you read Lumen Gentium 11 which was being quoted? The version on the Vatican’s web site uses the word “fount” to translate fontem:
Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It.
The word fontem can mean “spring, fountain, well; source/fount; principal cause; font; baptistry.”

 

[japhy]

That’s exactly my point. Where is the indult?

Where is it? I suppose I can look for it in the 1977 AAS. (“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.”) I’ll start looking there.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican, allows communion either on the tongue or in the hand. There is no differentiation in that liturgical law.

Because it has been adapted for the situation of the United States. Just like the previous edition of the GIRM was adapted and approved.

If you have not read the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. … Have you read it? If not, don’t bother replying.

Additionally, if you are sincerely interesting in commenting on the Church in the U.S., you should familiarize yourself with this document: usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Yes, I have read those. I own a copy of the GIRM, highly marked-up with highlighter, pen, pencil, notes, etc. And I have read the Norms for the Distribution of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds.

Am I permitted to reply now?

 

[SimonDodd]

I’m sorry I don’t understand how your message responds to what I posted. In the U.S., yes, there is a choice. CITH or COTT. That also means other choices are not allowed. So what’s your point?

And I can’t understand how you can be so obtuse on such a simple point. As you say, in the US, there is a choice. But simply pointing to the obvious fact that there is a choice doesn’t help exercise that choice. Hence the IHOP analogy: when you go into IHOP, you have a choice. You can choose anything on the menu. But when the waitress asks for your order, you can’t just say “the menu allows me to choose.” You have to actually make a choice between the available options.

That is a precise analog for what you argued; your comment above said that in making that choice, one “need look no further than what the Vatican-approved norms are for where you live,” and “[f]ollow the teaching of the Church.” But that’s nonsense: the teaching of the Church is that both COTT and CITH are approved in the United States. The teaching and law of the Church excludes other options, but it offers no help in choosing between the options that are allowed. Get it?

By the way, it’s “font” and not “fount”

LMAO. Wow. See Japhy’s reply.

 

[SimonDodd]

That’s exactly my point. Where is the indult? The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved for the U.S. by the Vatican, allows communion either on the tongue or in the hand. There is no differentiation in that liturgical law.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, this argument, is exactly why I wanted something that directly says COTT is the universal norm. Some people just aren’t convinced by inference from Memoriale Domini, or they think GIRM supersedes it.

The answer, by the way, is that the U.S. edition of the GIRM presupposes, or itself contains, the indult. A CDW declaration that COTT is the universal norm would make this clearer, of course, but it’s not unclear now.