CITH: some document requests

[CDNowak]

I don’t think we have an unequivocal document (not that even that would satisfy a certain poster on this thread).

As japhy noted the AAS (Latin only) is the place to look, although it appears 1977 is late, EWTN gives “29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.” (in addition to the English).

For further clarification, the best we have now is the comparable status of the two modes of reception: one universal, the other by way of the 1969 indult (US1977); one cannot be suspended (per 1969, other liturgical law, also worth looking into the Acta for the past year and the swine flu cases) one suspendable by the bishop (albeit with cause)

 

[japhy]

As japhy noted the AAS (Latin only) is the place to look, although it appears 1977 is late, EWTN gives “29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.” (in addition to the English).

I was looking in AAS and Notitiae (to which I don’t have full access) for the 17 June 1977 correspondence from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the USCCB. I have not found it in the AAS, so I expect it is in Notitiae 13 (for 1977), but I can’t that issue online anywhere.

I’ll scour the 1969 AAS for the “original” indult.

 

[CDNowak]

I was looking in AAS and Notitiae (to which I don’t have full access) for the 17 June 1977 correspondence from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the USCCB. I have not found it in the AAS, so I expect it is in Notitiae 13 (for 1977), but I can’t that issue online anywhere.

I’ll scour the 1969 AAS for the “original” indult.

EWTN’s page numbers are accurate to the online edition of tho AAS (it is in French, not Latin). It is rather lengthy to post here, but it also references Notitiae 5, I don’t know what is there.

As for the individual permissions, it seems they are all in the Notitiae (if we will be able to find them).

 

[SimonDodd]

I’m wondering if a way to get a specific, citable, clear answer on the universal norm question might be for me to write to the CDW. I’m allowed to do that, right?

I’d also like to repeat my request about practices outside the United States—where I would find statistics or even anecdotal evidence about that kind of thing.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.”

Yep. I was wrong. I recognized later that different English translations used different spellings. Sorry. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

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

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?

You have confirmed my point. Thank you. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved by the Vatican, allows the reception of communion in the hand or on the tongue.

No indult needed.

Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

= 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?

Yes I get it.

That is exactly my point. Thank you for confirming.

In the U.S., communion is validly (licitly, reverentially, etc.,pick your adverb) receive either on the tongue or in the hand.

I already made my “mea culpa” to japhy’s post (thanks japhy…when I later reviewed things I knew I goofed!).

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

I live in the U.S., so I can only respond for what the norm as approved by the Vatican is for the U.S. The norm in the U.S. is either CITH or COTT. Both are valid, licit, reverent, approved, etc.

So what’s the big deal?

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t think we have an unequivocal document (not that even that would satisfy a certain poster on this thread).

As japhy noted the AAS (Latin only) is the place to look, although it appears 1977 is late, EWTN gives “29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.” (in addition to the English).

For further clarification, the best we have now is the comparable status of the two modes of reception: one universal, the other by way of the 1969 indult (US1977); one cannot be suspended (per 1969, other liturgical law, also worth looking into the Acta for the past year and the swine flu cases) one suspendable by the bishop (albeit with cause)

If you live in the U.S., the best you have now is the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. Where is the ambiguity? No 1969 indult is mentioned in the GIRM is it? Or are you saying that the GIRM approved by the Vatican for the U.S. is somehow incomplete or inadequate? Not to mention norms etc. approved by the U.S. bishops?

 

[diggerdomer]

I’m wondering if a way to get a specific, citable, clear answer on the universal norm question might be for me to write to the CDW. I’m allowed to do that, right?

I’d also like to repeat my request about practices outside the United States—where I would find statistics or even anecdotal evidence about that kind of thing.

The universal norms are taught by the Vatican. As you are in the U.S., you are bound by the norms the Vatican approved for the U.S. Here is what the Vatican prescribes for the U.S.:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

 

[Vico]

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.

The communion in the hand indult was the 1969 Memoriale Domini of Holy Father Paul VI. It had some revision to it’s cover letter in 1985. When I read it, I saw no time period on the indult.

Dates that communion in the hand faculty were granted:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Memoriale Domini is here on this page:
gcatholic.com/documents/year/1969.htm

Holy Communion Documents:
gcatholic.com/documents/tag/holycommunion.htm

An indult ceases if the authority that granted the indult revokes it by directly revoking the particular indult or indirectly by promulgating a new law covering the same subject matter whose effect supersedes or revokes the indult. This happened when the 1962 Roman Missal was made the extrordinary form in universal liturgical law rather than an exception, July 7, 2007 with Summorum Pontificum. The indult was Quattuor abhinc annos of 1984.

The letter that replaced the one annexed to “Memoriale Domini” is below. Since it was in 1985 which was after the 1975 GIRM but before the 2003 GIRM. The letter uses the term **faculty **not indult. However in 1999 CDWDS called it an indult for Canada:

“… those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.”

adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

(From Zenit):

zenit.org/rssenglish-28024

"The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful … It would seem opportune to draw attention to the following points:

"1. Communion in the hand should show, as much as communion on the tongue, due respect towards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For this reason emphasis should be laid, as was done by the Fathers of the Church, upon the dignity of the gesture of the communicant. Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making ‘the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King’ (Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).*

"* In practice the opposite direction has to be given to the faithful: the left hand is to be placed upon the right hand, so that the sacred host can be conveyed to the mouth with the right hand.

"2. Again following the teaching of the Fathers, insistence is to be laid upon the importance of the Amen said in response to the formula of the minister, ‘the Body of Christ’; this Amenis an affirmation of faith: “Cum ergo petieris, dicit tibi sacerdos ‘Corpus Christi’ et tu dicis ‘Amen’, hoc est ‘verum’; quod confitetur lingua, teneat afectus”(Saint Ambrose, De Sacramentis 4, 25: SC 25 bis, p 116).

"3. The communicant who has received the Eucharist in the hand is to consume it before returning to his place, moving aside yet remaining facing the altar in order to allow the person following to approach the minister.

"4. It is from the Church that the faithful receive the Holy Eucharist, which is communion in the Body of the Lord and in the Church; for this reason the communicant should not take from the paten or container, as would be done for ordinary bread, but the hands must be stretched out to receive from the minister of communion.

"5. Out of respect for the Eucharist, cleanliness of hands is expected. Children need to be reminded of this.

"6. It is necessary that the faithful receive sound catechesis in this matter, and that insistence be laid upon the sentiments of adoration and respect that are required towards this most holy sacrament. (cf. Dominicae cenae, n. 11). Care must be taken that fragments of the consecrated host are not lost (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 2, 1972: Prot: no. 89/71, in Notitiae 1972, p. 227).

"7. The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.

"These norms and those indicated in the documents cited above are designed to recall the duty of respect for the Eucharist and apply independently of the way in which communion is received.

"Those who have the care of souls should insist not only upon the necessary dispositions for the fruitful reception of communion, which in certain instances demands recourse to the sacrament of Reconciliation, but also upon an external attitude which conveys a sense of respect in general and expresses in particular the belief of the faithful in the Eucharist.

“From the Congregation for Divine Worship, April 3, 1985.
*+ *Augustin Mayer, OSB – Prefect”

 

[Phemie]

You have confirmed my point. Thank you. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved by the Vatican, allows the reception of communion in the hand or on the tongue.

No indult needed.

Thank you.

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the GIRM says “receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.” Since it is not allowed everywhere, obviously the US (and Canada) had to receive permission to go against the universal norm. That permission was the indult they were granted 30+ years ago and which could be ended at any time.

 

[japhy]

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, as approved by the Vatican, allows the reception of communion in the hand or on the tongue. No indult needed.

You seem to be excluding completely the possibility that the US adaptation of the GIRM to permit Communion in the hand is because of an indult. I grant this is something still to be proven, but you don’t seem to even acknowledge it as a possibility.

 

[ProVobis]

There were also strict conditions imposed on the practice.

1. The new method of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage…

1. The rite of communion in the hand must be introduced tactfully. In effect, since human attitudes are in question, it is linked with the sensibility of the person receiving communion. It should therefore be introduced gradually, beginning with better-educated and better-prepared groups. It is, above all, necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament. The result of this catechesis should be to remove any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the eucharistic presence, and also to remove any danger or even suggestion of profanation.

1. The fact that the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object. Rather ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the Eucharist make him a part. He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of the Lord which he touches with his hands. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.

1. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant. One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium.**This has since been banned.] **In either case, the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place, and the minister’s role will be emphasized by his saying, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant responds, “Amen.”

1. No matter which method is adopted, one will be careful not to allow any fragment of the host to fall…[use of paten?]

1. When the communion is distributed under both kinds, it is never permitted to place in the hands of the communicants hosts which have first been placed in the Blood of the Lord.

1. Bishops who have been permitted to introduce the new rite of communion are asked to send a report to the congregation, six months hence, on the outcome. [no longer applies]

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm

 

[SimonDodd]

diggerdomer:

So what’s the big deal?

I really don’t understand how you can say “what’s the big deal” within the confines of an orthodox Catholic understanding of the eucharist. The big deal is that we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly, really, and substantially contained in every atom of the eucharist. The Church gives us a choice as to how we receive this astonishing gift, and given the gravity of the subject matter, the exercise of that choice requires the guidance of prayer and careful consideration, regardless of which manner of reception one decides on.

If you have made anything quite clear throughout this thread, it’s this: it doesn’t seem to have even occured to you to give the exercise of your choice any thought. (I infer this from your refusal to move past red herrings like the availability of the choice itself and the licitness of either alternative.) You seem to have just assumed that since you had a choice, you could do whatever you preferred without giving it any real thought. That is not something that I would feel comfortable having to defend before God, myself.

 

[ProVobis]

So what’s the big deal?

I’d like to remind the poster that the practice has been allowed but with conditions.

Eating meat on Fridays is also “allowed” but with conditions. (Condition being that some form of penanced be exercised by the person in this case.)

 

[ProVobis]

I really don’t understand how you can say “what’s the big deal” within the confines of an orthodox Catholic understanding of the eucharist. The big deal is that we receive the body, blood, soul, and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly, really, and substantially contained in every atom of the eucharist. The Church gives us a choice as to how we receive this astonishing gift, and given the gravity of the subject matter, the exercise of that choice requires the guidance of prayer and careful consideration, regardless of which manner of reception one decides on.

If you have made anything quite clear throughout this thread, it’s this: it doesn’t seem to have even occured to you to give the exercise of your choice any thought. (I infer this from your refusal to move past red herrings like the availability of the choice itself and the licitness of either alternative.) You seem to have just assumed that since you had a choice, you could do whatever you preferred without giving it any real thought. That is not something that I would feel comfortable having to defend before God, myself.

Good post. Certainly puts things into their proper perspective, especially since there are probably many who aren’t properly disposed to receive the sacrament either way.

 

[CDNowak]

If you live in the U.S., the best you have now is the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. Where is the ambiguity? No 1969 indult is mentioned in the GIRM is it? Or are you saying that the GIRM approved by the Vatican for the U.S. is somehow incomplete or inadequate? Not to mention norms etc. approved by the U.S. bishops?

“In the US” does not equal “Universal norm” (no wonder we have a reputation as ignorant).

Am I saying that the GIRM w/ US adaptations is incomplete or inadequate? Yes, to the extent that the US is not the the Universe, the US GIRM is inadequate. (didn’t we do this a year ago…).

BTW, let me add RS 92 to the list of citations.

 

[At_Trent]

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

^ all that needs to be said

 

[diggerdomer]

You are deliberately ignoring the fact that the GIRM says “receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.” Since it is not allowed everywhere, obviously the US (and Canada) had to receive permission to go against the universal norm. That permission was the indult they were granted 30+ years ago and which could be ended at any time.

You are misunderstanding (whether deliberately or not, I don’t know) the GIRM as approved for the U.S. The GIRM as approved for the U.S. allows communion to be received either on the tongue or in the hand. Read para. 160.

Where do you get the idea that communion in the hand is allowed in the U.S., today, only by indult?

The fact that communion in the hand may not be allowed everywhere has nothing to do with what the Vatican approved for the U.S.

Of course the Church is free to change the manner of communion reception. As you referred to, some 40 (not 30) years ago, communion in the hand was only licit by means of an indult. But that changed, as the Church authorized communion in the hand, without the indult, for the U.S. in the 1970’s.