CITH: some document requests

[diggerdomer]

Anyone who has ever been to a Byzantine rite liturgy, or any written description of one. While the use of a spoon to pour some of the blood and a cut piece of the Body into the open mouth of the communicant could be called “on the tongue”, it is definitively different than the Latin practice. And it’s always done that way; it is hardly some atypical practice. So, for the Catholic Church as a whole, Latin style COTT is not a universal practice.

(Can’t say i know what they do in other rites beyond the Roman and Byzantine, though.)

Amen. Thanks for the additional Catholic insights.

 

[SimonDodd]

Compare the Washington Post article you refer to in 1977 with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (second typical edition) and Sacramentary (both approved by the Vatican) of 1975. Which should Catholic follow?

Your comment asserts (by presupposition) some kind of contradiction, but you have shown none. To have credibility, you need to show two things: How a specific section of the 1975 GIRM supports your position, and why, if it does, the US Bishops would have requested an indult in 1977 when doing so would be superfluous on your reading.

oknazevad:

I don’t know why you’d call it gross

That’s just how it strikes me. No offense intended, of course.

 

[SimonDodd]

Here’s the thing, DD: you have to account for NCCB’s 1977 request. You can’t deny that it happened, because it’s well-attested by reliable sources. So you have only three other options, it seems to me: (1) you could argue that the 1975 GIRM says what you think it says, yet the U.S. bishops hadn’t received it by 1977, or (2) that they had received but misunderstood it (which are both desperately unattractive arguments, for obvious reasons), or (3) you can concede that the bishops understood it correctly and that your theory is wrong. If you have another way out, please, feel free to explain.

 

[diggerdomer]

Your comment asserts (by presupposition) some kind of contradiction, but you have shown none. To have credibility, you need to show two things: How a specific section of the 1975 GIRM supports your position, and why, if it does, the US Bishops would have requested an indult in 1977 when doing so would be superfluous on your reading.

That’s just how it strikes me. No offense intended, of course.

What indult did the U.S. bishops request in 1977? I really don’t know…would appreciate learning…thanks!

 

[Vico]

Here’s the thing, DD: you have to account for NCCB’s 1977 request. You can’t deny that it happened, because it’s well-attested by reliable sources. So you have only three other options, it seems to me: (1) you could argue that the 1975 GIRM says what you think it says, yet the U.S. bishops hadn’t received it by 1977, or (2) that they had received but misunderstood it (which are both desperately unattractive arguments, for obvious reasons), or (3) you can concede that the bishops understood it correctly and that your theory is wrong. If you have another way out, please, feel free to explain.

An indult is a favor; it must be a favor because there is no right to what the indult grants. Just as an example of an indult that was canceled, consider the purification of the holy vessels. In 2006 the indult for the extraordinary ministers to purify the holy vessels was terminated, although it was approved as particular law for the US at the time the indult was granted in 2004. Note the wording:

“It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.”
– Francis Cardinal Arinze and Monsignor Mario Marini
Prot. n. 468/05/L Rome, 12 October 2006

But the particular law had to be ammended for this, as the USCCB was directed to make the changes.

I think the universal law still required an indult for communion in the hand, so the Holy See can cancel it, just as it did for the purification of vessels. That is was an indult even up to 1999 (for Canada) is clear from below:

The Canada indult reference is from *Notitiae *(April 1999), the official publication of the CDW, posted on Adoremus:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Communion in the Hand indult was requested in 1969 but not US approved until 1977, Canada in 1970:

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

See No. 240 here from the appendix to the 1975 GIRM:
“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.”
cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T2

 

[SimonDodd]

SimonDodd:

Your comment asserts (by presupposition) some kind of contradiction, but you have shown none. To have credibility, you need to show two things: How a specific section of the 1975 GIRM supports your position, and why, if it does, the US Bishops would have requested an indult in 1977 when doing so would be superfluous on your reading.

What indult did the U.S. bishops request in 1977? I really don’t know…would appreciate learning…thanks!

It’s difficult to take this reply in good faith when it has been asked and answered repeatedly above (e.g. posts #36, #64, #75, #79, and #87).

All you’ve done is regurgitate your post #82, but that post said nothing—it merely attacked a strawman and asked for information already given. I directly answered that question in posts #79 and #87; whether you like it or not, it is a historical fact, supported by multiple reliable sources, that the U.S. Bishops requested and received an indult to distribute communion in the hand in 1977. Your theory that CITH is not by indult must account for that fact.

 

[otjm]

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.

Having read my way through this thread, I thought I would add to the fracas.

I agree that one should never approach Communion with a “whatever” attitude. But I also get the sense that the rules as currently stated (and without anyone showing the norm in statuatory language) give you unease. One would have to defend oneself to God if one was casual about the Eucharist. But given that the Church has decided that either mode of reception is permissible (and for Catholics, several other modes also), one does not have to defend one’s choice or participation in the various methods to God - God gave the Church the authority to determine the methods; but rather, one has to answer to God only for one’s reverence or rather lack of it.

I am not sure that the norm is going to be found anywhere necessarily, or at least in anything written recently - meaning in the last several hundred years. It appears, from what I have read over the years, that the norm was finally established somewhere around 1000 AD in the Roman rite, and while it was universal for the Roman rite, it was not absolute - the Franciscans appear to have specifically received in the hand for the last 800 or so years, and within their order that was the only means they were to use (so one could say they had an indult, but not an option to use the norm). I don’t know if it was codified more recently than that or not.

It is my understanding that in at least some of the Eastern rites, receiving in the hand has been the norm for 2000 years (it should be remembered that not all Eastern rites are Byzantine). The Maronite rite receives by intinction now, and no clue as to how they did in the past.

It would seem to me, however, that rather than trying to determine where the norm is written, that it is more important to determine, when one has the choice, why one chooses one means over the other. The fact that something is the norm does not necessarily explain why it is the norm, or how it got to be the norm.

Much has been written over reception on the tongue, but it is certainly open to question -somewhat the "chicken and the egg bit - whether the move from CITH to COTT was done for theological reasons or practical ones. In short, without a modern day examination (that is, probing questioning) of those who instigated the move, it can be argued either way - that the move was made for practical purposes (the move from small community churches to large congregations, and the practical aspects of distribution of the Eucharist) and received a theological gloss over time, or in the alternative, that there was a theological basis, and over time it won out.

Arguably Christ gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and they in turn consecrated the Eucharist and gave it to early Christians CITH. Others have tried to argue otherwise. History simply does not have much to say about it for 100 years or so, and then CITH is mentioned. It also appears that CITH has been practiced (not necessarily the norm, but practiced) within the Roman rite for all of the time with perhaps the exception of 200 years.

Some have tried to denigrate the indult by referring to the start of it within the Dutch dioceses (while ignoring, or being ignorant of the fact that it has existed to some extent specifically with permission for the last 800 years).

In short, it would seem to me that the issue of finding the norm written out is looking in the wrong direction. It may or may not be written out anywhere that you can find it; but if Rome has said it is the norm, then whether or not you or anyone else can find it written out as such, it is a fact that you can take to the bank. Rather, one should look at the two means of reception primarily practiced in the US, and determine how one receives based on what the two methods say in terms of your perceived spirituality; COTT if one perceives being fed as primary; CITH if one perceives the command “Take and eat” (as opposed to “Open and eat”) to be following Christ’s command to the Church.

Neither is a “whatever” approach, without any thought. There are vociferous proponents of COTT in these forae and they can speak for their position. CITH has a history in the Church for at least 1800 years, if not continuously and while disparaged by some, is not without some merit. The Church approves of the individual choosing the means. I would suggest that the way to choose is not to seek out a written statement, but rather to look at the method and ask, “What does this say in relation to the True Presence?” and, if Christ were to appear in front of you offering you the Eucharist in the manner opposite of what you might choose, how would you react?

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s difficult to take this reply in good faith when it has been asked and answered repeatedly above (e.g. posts #36, #64, #75, #79, and #87).

All you’ve done is regurgitate your post #82, but that post said nothing—it merely attacked a strawman and asked for information already given. I directly answered that question in posts #79 and #87; whether you like it or not, it is a historical fact, supported by multiple reliable sources, that the U.S. Bishops requested and received an indult to distribute communion in the hand in 1977. Your theory that CITH is not by indult must account for that fact.

It’s difficult to take your reply in good faith when you don’t read what I asked.

The post I responded to said the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult in 1977. Right? I asked for any reference or basis for such a claim, because I don’t believe it’s accurate. I may be wrong, which is why of course I was asking for clarification.

Similarly, if you go back to read all the posts you refer to, you will find that all of them but one refer to the Vatican approving an indult in 1977. NOT the U.S. Bishops asking for an indult in 1977. Again…read my post. I asked whether or not, as was claimed, the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult. I was not asking about the Vatican approving any indult.

The only exception to this, post #87, claims that the National Catholic Reporter claims the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult in 1977. I searched the archives of the NCR and was unable to find this reference. So if you or anyone can provide this evidence that the NCR reports that the U.S. Bishops did indeed ask for an indult in 1977 that would really help answer my question.

So, none of the posts you refer to, except maybe one (which is dubious at best) answers the question I actually asked (not the question that you seemed to think I asked).

Help? Thanks.

 

[japhy]

It appears, from what I have read over the years, that the norm was finally established somewhere around 1000 AD in the Roman rite, and while it was universal for the Roman rite, it was not absolute - the Franciscans appear to have specifically received in the hand for the last 800 or so years, and within their order that was the only means they were to use (so one could say they had an indult, but not an option to use the norm).

Did I miss something? Where is the source of this Franciscan indult for Communion in the hand in the 1200s?

Some have tried to denigrate the indult by referring to the start of it within the Dutch dioceses (while ignoring, or being ignorant of the fact that it has existed to some extent specifically with permission for the last 800 years).

If the Franciscan indult is true, that doesn’t change the fact that such an indult did not apply to Dutch priests or bishops who acted without permission or authorization.

What concerns me most about Communion in the hand is that it was (re)started illicitly, forced upon some people, and snuck in through the back door. Memoriale Domini was abused: people introduced CITH and then claimed a right to it based on the document, whereas it says the indult is only for those places that already have CITH occurring and the bishops are unable to resolve the issue.

 

[otjm]

Did I miss something? Where is the source of this Franciscan indult for Communion in the hand in the 1200s?

Brother JR, a regular member of these forae. He knows a bit more about the Franciscans than the average individual (me included).

If the Franciscan indult is true, that doesn’t change the fact that such an indult did not apply to Dutch priests or bishops who acted without permission or authorization.

It is my understanding that there had been some level of permission given to them, possibly withdrawn. In any event, assuming the worst - so what? They violated a liturgical law; that does not make a change to liturgical law invalid or unworthy.

What concerns me most about Communion in the hand is that it was (re)started illicitly, forced upon some people, and snuck in through the back door. Memoriale Domini was abused: people introduced CITH and then claimed a right to it based on the document, whereas it says the indult is only for those places that already have CITH occurring and the bishops are unable to resolve the issue.

All of which has to do with discipline, not the mode of reception. You wish to taint an ancient and accepted mode of reception as an unworthy mode because some of those who used it and/or promoted it were unworthy.

CITH has a history in the Church as long as the Church’s existence. There have been times within the history of the Roman rite where it has been not allowed and times where it has been allowed; and the net is that for the vast majority of time it has been allowed. and for the last 10 centuries, it has not been the norm and is not now for the Roman rite, but is allowed.

I think the problem you have is this: it appears that you feel that a law is only legitimate if it come from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.

However, even in the earliest history of the Church, some things came from the bottom up. Not to belabor a point, but Christ was not a Christian; He was a Jew; and in fact, the perfect and penultimate Jew. He was the perfection of the Jewish religion. And his followers were Jews, and for the earliest history of the Church, they followed Jewish law. Acts tells of of the incident of Christians who had not been Jews not following Jewish law (that is, they were violating the laws of the Church, because the Church followed Jewish law), and the Pope - Peter- changed the law.

If the Dutch bishops violated Church law, then they need(ed) to go to Confession; and perhaps they will do time in purgatory for it. That is between God and them. The Pope changed the law (as did Peter) when the law was being violated.

As I said above, it is at least as arguable if not more arguable, that Christ gave us CITH rather than COTT. The Church (not the Roman rite) has had CITH in its total history, and the Roman rite for almost all of it. The Church has the authority to make the rule, relax the rule, and change the rule and the source of the change (the Dutch bishops) does not go to the integrity or the reverence of receiving CITH.

I am not promoting CITH. I have no problem with someone deciding that one form is better in terms of their spirituality than the other. But that decision should be made on something other than rule making, or some subset violating the rule as the rule does not impact the mode intrinsically. I don’t promote reception of the Blood through a straw, but that is a legitimate form of reception within the Church. I don’t promote reception of the Eucharist which was consecrated from leavened bread, but that is legitimate within the Church. I don’t promote CITH or COTT, but when I teach RCIA, I teach both methods of reception, pointing pout that within the Roman rite, COTT is the norm. And I most definitely do not go into the history of the indult, as that is not intrinsic to the mode of reception. Individuals should be encouraged to consider both modes and choose that which best assists and promotes their spiritual growth. Fussing about what the law says, or said at any particular given time, would make the discipline of greater determination than the intrinsic parts of the act itself.

People screw up on discipline. Both on the left and the right. Screwing up on discipline - not following the law - if it is sinful is a sin against disciplinary authority but does not speak to the intrinsic value, worth or spirituality of the matter which is controlled by the disciplinary law.

Another way of saying it (and I mean no offense to you or anyone else) is that the Church has the authority to change the mode of reception; it has done so; the Bishops of Holland did a no-no, and it is time to put on our big boy or our big girl panties and deal with it. Constantly harping on the Dutch bishops is a red herring. If COTT is a better assist in your spirituality, fantastic; but your spirituality needs to be formed on something other than what occurred in the 1960s; or for that matter, what occurred in 40 or 50 AD.

And lest I be misconstrued: where there is an option, the individual should be encouraged to adopt whichever mode best fits their spirituality; where the option is withdrawn, then individual spirituality must give way to Church discipline. Or as my sainted grandmother would say, “Offer it up”.

 

[japhy]

Brother JR, a regular member of these forae. He knows a bit more about the Franciscans than the average individual (me included).

Well, if he or anyone else can spare some documentation, I’d love to read it.

It is my understanding that there had been some level of permission given to them, possibly withdrawn.

Where did you develop that understanding? Memoriale Domini reported that CITH was happening in places without the approval of the Apostolic See.

In any event, assuming the worst - so what? They violated a liturgical law; that does not make a change to liturgical law invalid or unworthy.

I think the Roman Church moved away from CITH to COTT because of the dangers associated to CITH to a greater degree than with COTT, and because of a desire for greater reverence and humility towards the Blessed Sacrament.

You wish to taint an ancient and accepted mode of reception as an unworthy mode because some of those who used it and/or promoted it were unworthy.

I don’t wish to “taint” CITH; I think the people who illicitly reintroduced it tainted it by their disobedience. I think, as far as the Roman Rite is concerened, that COTT is objectively better than CITH. But that’s not the point of this thread, and so I haven’t voiced these opinions here. It’s not about what I think about CITH and COTT, it’s what the Church has said and established as the norm. That’s what we’re trying to resolve here.

I think the problem you have is this: it appears that you feel that a law is only legitimate if it come from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.

Not true. The Feast of Corpus Christi was a case of bottom-up, and I support it. Thing is, Juliana of Liege went to her bishop about it. The bishop acted within his authority. Later, when that bishop became pope, he acted within his authority again. But Corpus Christi, like certain devotions, was a bottom-up action that was brought to higher-ups and approved. I think that’s the way it should be: seek approval first.

Christ was not a Christian; He was a Jew; and in fact, the perfect and penultimate Jew. He was the perfection of the Jewish religion. And his followers were Jews, and for the earliest history of the Church, they followed Jewish law. Acts tells of the incident of Christians who had not been Jews not following Jewish law (that is, they were violating the laws of the Church, because the Church followed Jewish law), and the Pope - Peter- changed the law.

I think that was a matter of incomplete discernment on the matter. Acts 15:5 reports that the belief that Gentiles must first become Jews was held by “some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees”. Peter’s speech (Acts 15:7-11) doesn’t sound to me like a change in the law. That whole issue seems to be that some Jewish Christians didn’t understand the relationship of a Christian to the law of Moses, and were attempting to enforce the law of Moses on all who would be followers of Christ.

Another way of saying it (and I mean no offense to you or anyone else)…

If preaching the Gospel offends, I don’t preface it by saying “I mean no offense.” If telling someone that their jeans make their rear look big, I’ll say it in a way that does not offend.

Either choose an unoffensive way to make your point, or be honest about intent to offend.

the Church has the authority to change the mode of reception; it has done so; the Bishops of Holland did a no-no, and it is time to put on our big boy or our big girl panties and deal with it.

I agree that the Church can and has permitted CITH. I also agree that Dutch bishops “did a no-no.” What, though, do you mean by “deal with it”? Do you mean “get over it” or “do something about it”? It must be the former, because you consider pointing out their malfeasance to be “a red herring.”

In conclusion: this thread is about finding documentary evidence establishing COTT as the norm in the Roman Rite. Our feelings about CITH are not relevant to the matter at hand (unless they were to cause us to falsify information), and the history of the re-introduction of CITH is not relevant either (although it behooves people to know it).

 

[malphono]

I think the problem you have is this: it appears that you feel that a law is only legitimate if it come from the top down, rather than from the bottom up.

This isn’t my argument, but I don’t see that japhy implied that.

What I read was that he correctly pointed out that CITH was re-started illicitly. The fact that the discipline was amended to allow by indult (in certain places) what was being done illicitly in those places, does not change the fact that it was illicit at its inception.

I also read that he expressed concern about, correctly noted, the fact that the spirit of Memoriali Domini has been abused. CITH is not a “right” nor is it an even an “option” for general use. (The entire businesses of the practice of CITH – past and present, West and East – has been discussed to death in other threads, and I’m not about to get into that again now.) It is, very simply, an indult for certain places that has seen some abuse. The status of indult will only change if (a) the indult is rescinded entirely or (b) if the practice given the status of a legitimate “option” for general use, wherein it would no longer require an indult.

 

[SimonDodd]

Part 1]
Diggerdomer,
Fair to say, posts #36, #64, and #75, and two of the books I cited in #87 (Kocik and Mannion), state that the Vatican approved the indult in 1977. But it’s hard to see how that helps your position. Unless you mean to contend that the Vatican did so sua sponte, the grant implies a request, and even if that was a credible claim, all it would accomplish is transferring the question of inexplicable behavior from the U.S. Bishops to the Vatican. At most, you score a rhetorical point: my question, which you have not attempted to answer, should be reformulated as follows. If the Vatican had already authorized CITH in the United States in 1975, why would the U.S. bishops request an indult in 1977, and even if they didn’t request it, why would the Vatican grant one two years after (in your version of events) they had directly approved a norm in the 1975 GIRM (a claim which you have in any event failed to substantiate)?

My reply exceeds the CAF character limit (“The text that you have entered is too long (6517 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long.”), and will therefore be continued in part 2, below.

 

[SimonDodd]

Part 2]
Meanwhile, posts #79 and #87 do directly claim that the indult was requested by the U.S. Bishops in 1977, and they substantiate that claim with multiple sources. Since you evidently need some spoonfeeding on this, I’ll quote from them and add a few more while we’re at it. We’ll go chronologically from the two national newspapers of record. Do not adjust your screen if it goes all wobbly as we journey back to 1 9 7 7…

“By a thin margin, the bishops today withheld approval, at least for a few days, of a proposal that would revive the ancient practice of allowing congregants to receive communion in hand instead of on tongue. ¶ The vote to allow the option failed to achieve the necessary two-third margin by what one spokesman said was a ‘very thin margin.’ ¶ The final outcome of the issue will be decided by the 28 absent bishops who will be asked to mail in ballots in the coming week.”

Penalty Lifted; Excommunication Rule Is Dropped in The Washington Post:

Meanwhile, the bishops produced a cliffhanger here today in their secret ballot vote on the highly emotional question of communion in the hand. ¶ A tally of the bishops’ written ballots fell “slightly short,” a church spokesman said, of the two-thirds majority needed to authorize priests to pace the holy communion water in the worshipper’s hand instead of in the open mouth as is now required. ¶ The 28 bishops of the American hierarchy who were absent from today’s meeting must now be sent ballots by mail, along with a summary of the impassioned debate which preceded the vote here, in order to decide the issue.

Bishops vote to Ask Vatican to Permit communion in Hand in the New York Times:

Roman Catholic bishops in the United States have voted to petition the Vatican to permit the practice of receiving communion in the hand in this country. ¶ The National Conference of Catholic Bishops said today that 190 bishops had voted in favor of seeking the permission from Rome. ¶ A vote taken at the bishops meeting in May did not make the two-third affirmative vote necessary to petition Rome, but it was close enough that members of the hierarchy not present at the chicago meeting were polled by mail. Approv[al] was widely forecast at that time. ¶ Under terms of the petition, dioceses would be allowed to reinstate, as a liturgical option, the ancient practice of allowing lay communicants to receive the bread of holy communion in the hand rather than on the tongue. ¶ . . . . ¶ Two earlier attempts to have the United States bishops’ cnopference petitition for permission were defeated because they did not receive the necessary two-thirds affirmative vote [q.v. *Catholic Bishops To Study Change In Communion

in The Washington Post, Feb 25, 1977, p.D14 (“The U.S. bishops have twice before considered communion in the hand - most recently in 1973 - but have rejected it both times.”)].
Communion In Hand Voted By U.S. Bishops in The Washington Post:

American Catholic bishops have voted, pending expected approval by the Vatican, to permit American Catholics to receive communion in the hand. … The proposal to petition the Vatican to permit the communion in the hand, as is now practiced in most of the Catholic world, came before the bishops at their meeting last month in Chicago, but fell just short of the necessary two-thirds vote to authorize it at that time. ¶ A subsequent mail poll of the bishops who were absent from that meeting has since produced a total of 190 favorable votes of a total 274 eligible voting members of the bishops’ conference, church officials said yesterday. … Twice before - in 1970 and 1973 - the American hierarchy failed to approve communion in the hand, which most church leaders concede is practiced widely despite the lack of official sanction.

Vatican Backs Holy Communion By Hand in U.S. in The Washington Post:

The V[a]tican has approved the request of American Roman Catholic bishops to permit church members in this country to receive holy communion in their hand rather than in the traditional manner, on the tongue. The new practice, which was approved by more than two-thirds of the bishops in this country, will be optional. … Communion in the hand is widely practiced in this country, even without official sanction of the Church. Failure of large numbers of Catholics to confine themselves to the traditional method of communion distribution was one of the reasons cited by bishops last spring for formally changing the procedures.

Communion Change In Effect Sunday:

The practice, which was approved by American bishops last May, brings communion practices in the American church in harmony with that of Catholic churches in more than 50 other countries

I trust that it is now sufficiently clear to you—as it should already have been—that you are wrong. The U.S. Bishops asked for and received an indult in 1977. Now stop the evasive pettifogery and answer the question: If the Vatican had already authorized CITH in the United States in 1975, why would the U.S. bishops request an indult in 1977, and whether or not they requested it, why would the Vatican grant an indult when, two years earlier (in your version of events) they had directly approved CITH? And while we’re at it, where in the 1975 GIRM did it supposedly grant CITH?

 

[SimonDodd]

One would have to defend oneself to God if one was casual about the Eucharist. But given that the Church has decided that either mode of reception is permissible …, one does not have to defend one’s choice or participation in the various methods to God….

I disagree with the latter point because I agree with the former. If one cannot defend one’s choice, it is clear that it was made casually. Just to clarify, in saying that one will have to defend one’s choice, I do not mean to imply that one answer is right and the other wrong, merely that given the awesome reality, one cannot be casual about the choice, or make the choice without giving it some real thought and prayer.

It appears, from what I have read over the years, that the norm was finally established somewhere around 1000 AD in the Roman rite, and while it was universal for the Roman rite, it was not absolute - the Franciscans appear to have specifically received in the hand for the last 800 or so years, and within their order that was the only means they were to use (so one could say they had an indult, but not an option to use the norm).

That’s interesting. If the Franciscans maintained CITH throughout the time when COTT ruled the roost, could one convincingly argue that this slim ribbon of continuity saves the 20th Century restoration of CITH from the realm of what Mediator Dei calls “antiquarianism”?

That’s a fascinating possibility; like japhy, I’d love to see some documentation on the underlying claim and some views on the point just raised.

It is my understanding that in at least some of the Eastern rites, receiving in the hand has been the norm for 2000 years (it should be remembered that not all Eastern rites are Byzantine). The Maronite rite receives by intinction now, and no clue as to how they did in the past.

IIRC, the armenian and coptic rites also receive on the tongue. There’s a book I ran across a while back which described the liturgical practices of the eastern rites, but I haven’t got around to reading it. Also, as I mentioned above, I think someone could reasonably think that byzantine communication is just too different to constitute (as I think it is best characterized) simply COTT by other means.

Arguably Christ gave the Eucharist to the Apostles and they in turn consecrated the Eucharist and gave it to early Christians CITH. Others have tried to argue otherwise. History simply does not have much to say about it for 100 years or so, and then CITH is mentioned.

I agree with this. There is no extant evidence of the earliest practices, and some evidence that it was at least common in the first half of the first millennium. While COTT proponents have attempted to cast doubt on this, I have not seen anything persuasive. For instance, there is a quote bandied from St. Sixtus I, but no verifiable source is offered for it. (Unusually, this one cites a source for it: “Mansi 1653.” Fine, it is on page 1653; but of which work? Which volume? What author? Even if we happen to know that one Giovanni Domenico Mansi wrote books in this general ballpark, he wrote many multiple-volume works. How illuminating a citation this is!) I’m happy to proceed on the stipulation that the norm in the patristic-era church was CITH.

Some have tried to denigrate the indult by referring to the start of it within the Dutch dioceses (while ignoring, or being ignorant of the fact that it has existed to some extent specifically with permission for the last 800 years).

That it was done with permission by some doesn’t justify it being done without permission by others.

In short, it would seem to me that the issue of finding the norm written out is looking in the wrong direction. It may or may not be written out anywhere that you can find it; but if Rome has said it is the norm, then whether or not you or anyone else can find it written out as such, it is a fact that you can take to the bank.

Well, quite, but Rome has not said that it is the norm; individuals—even if highly respected individuals such as Card. Arinze—have said that it is the norm. I’m just looking for a statement in which the Holy See says what several of its officers have already said in informal remarks.

Rather, one should look at the two means of reception primarily practiced in the US, and determine how one receives based on what the two methods say in terms of your perceived spirituality

I agree with that to a point, although I would add that the analysis should take account of all relevant points, not just one’s perceived spirituality. That’s basically what I’m trying to do.

Neither is a “whatever” approach, without any thought. There are vociferous proponents of COTT in these forae and they can speak for their position.

They typically address the macro argument of whether CITH should be allowed at all. That’s a worthwhile debate, but it’s distinct from the individual question of how one should receive when either option is available.

The Church approves of the individual choosing the means. I would suggest that the way to choose is not to seek out a written statement, but rather to look at the method and ask, “What does this say in relation to the True Presence?”

The temporal and geographic universality are only two factors in the overall analysis. They have to be addressed, but they aren’t dispositive by themselves.

if Christ were to appear in front of you offering you the Eucharist in the manner opposite of what you might choose, how would you react?

I hope that I would be too busy falling face down in worship to be doing much of anything else.

 

[Vico]

…

Similarly, if you go back to read all the posts you refer to, you will find that all of them but one refer to the Vatican approving an indult in 1977. NOT the U.S. Bishops asking for an indult in 1977. Again…read my post. I asked whether or not, as was claimed, the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult. I was not asking about the Vatican approving any indult.
…
So if you or anyone can provide this evidence that the NCR reports that the U.S. Bishops did indeed ask for an indult in 1977 that would really help answer my question.

…

H.H. Pope Paul VI approved communion in the hand under specific conditions, an indult, in 1969. The NCCB did not meet those conditions immediately. They voted three times in 1975, 1976, and 1977 to see if the US Bishops agreed to use communion in the hand. 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.

One history, as presented by Father Mateo, states that the vote for CITH was taken May 1977.
mail-archive.com/joynet@jesusyouth.org/msg01722.html
There was a NCCB Conference in Chicago then, May 3-5. It may be hard to find this information on the internet. A good library would be helpful. One source I have seen given is:

Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal, byMonsignor Frederick McManus, p. 193, 194. Quoted by Adoramus:
adoremus.org/0502CommunionRite.html

Another site also mentions requirements to be met from 1969 showing a French document (sent to France) accompanying Memoriale Domini.
ceremoniaire.net/depuis1969/docs/memoriale_domini.html

Memoriale Domini 1969, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547): vatican.va/archive/aas/index_fr.htm

 

[otjm]

Well, if he or anyone else can spare some documentation, I’d love to read it.

You might ask him; he brought it up in another thread.

Where did you develop that understanding?

From a comment or comments on another thread about the issue. As I recall reading, there was permission given tot he Dutch bishops before this came to a head, to experiment in some liturgical changes. How wide it was, or whether it even happened is not something that I focus on particularly; and whether the comment is correct I cannot vouch. Nothing would surprise me either way. I would certainly welcome others’ investigation into the matter, but it is not of importance to me either way. If it did not happen, then they clearly acted outside any authority. If they had authority but exceeded it, that is a different matter. If they had no authority, that too is a different matter. The bottom is that I am curious but not enough to make the effort equivalent of doing a research paper on it.

I think the Roman Church moved away from CITH to COTT because of the dangers associated to CITH to a greater degree than with COTT, and because of a desire for greater reverence and humility towards the Blessed Sacrament.

There could be any number of different reasons they moved away from it, or a multiple of reasons. As noted, they have not moved away from it in terms of Eastern rites nor the Franciscans. It is well within their disciplinary right to regulate it, and they do not have to give a reason; or they may give a reason which is not exactly the motivating force. Reverence and humilty are eminently possible in both means of receiving, and lackadaisical and and irreverant attitudes and approaches are likewise.

I don’t wish to “taint” CITH; I think the people who illicitly reintroduced it tainted it by their disobedience. I think, as far as the Roman Rite is concerened, that COTT is objectively better than CITH.

The bishops of Holland can no more taint the means of reception by doing something illicit than Archbishop LeFabvre could taint the sacrament of ordination by doing it illicitly. They certainly can give a poor example of obedience. They certainly can do something which is objectively sinful. But their action did nothing and does nothing to taint the mode of reception, and if it were possible (and I don’t posit that it is), the action of the Holy See most certainly removed that taint.

Not true. The Feast of Corpus Christi was a case of bottom-up, and I support it. Thing is, Juliana of Liege went to her bishop about it. The bishop acted within his authority. Later, when that bishop became pope, he acted within his authority again. But Corpus Christi, like certain devotions, was a bottom-up action that was brought to higher-ups and approved. I think that’s the way it should be: seek approval first.

I agree that seeking permission is the way it should ahve been done. However, your point is non-responsive to my example.

I think that was a matter of incomplete discernment on the matter. Acts 15:5 reports that the belief that Gentiles must first become Jews was held by “some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees”. Peter’s speech (Acts 15:7-11) doesn’t sound to me like a change in the law. That whole issue seems to be that some Jewish Christians didn’t understand the relationship of a Christian to the law of Moses, and were attempting to enforce the law of Moses on all who would be followers of Christ.

peter had more than one problem with the Gentile converts, who were doing things outside Jewish law. Christian law, as opposed to Mosaic law, developed over time, and that development occured because of Gentile converts not following Mosaic law. and they did not seek permission to change the law; the law changed when they did not fgollow what the Church was following.

If preaching the Gospel offends, I don’t preface it by saying “I mean no offense.” If telling someone that their jeans make their rear look big, I’ll say it in a way that does not offend.

lol! I might tell a guy they make his rear look big; but no way in hades would I make any sort of a comment to a female…

Either choose an unoffensive way to make your point, or be honest about intent to offend.

Sorry, if being blunt offends, it is not said bluntly for the purpose of offending. But I choose to be blunt. I simply prefaced it to indicate that it was not made in a hostile fashion.

I agree that the Church can and has permitted CITH. I also agree that Dutch bishops “did a no-no.” What, though, do you mean by “deal with it”? Do you mean “get over it” or “do something about it”? It must be the former, because you consider pointing out their malfeasance to be “a red herring.”

Their malfeasance is a red herring to the worthiness or lack of worthiness of the mode of reception, re: my comments above.

In conclusion: this thread is about finding documentary evidence establishing COTT as the norm in the Roman Rite. Our feelings about CITH are not relevant to the matter at hand (unless they were to cause us to falsify information), and the history of the re-introduction of CITH is not relevant either (although it behooves people to know it).

However, the OP was seeking a written copy of the norm; and I think my comments are to the point; looking at the law misses whatever is intrinsic to each mode. If tomorrow the Pope declared that the new norm would be CITH (he won’t) and declared COTT to be an indult, it would not alter the intrinsic aspects of either mode. It would simply be disciplinary.

 

[japhy]

peter had more than one problem with the Gentile converts, who were doing things outside Jewish law. Christian law, as opposed to Mosaic law, developed over time, and that development occured because of Gentile converts not following Mosaic law. and they did not seek permission to change the law; the law changed when they did not fgollow what the Church was following.

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.

 

[diggerdomer]

Fair to say, posts #36, #64, and #75, and two of the books I cited in #87 (Kocik and Mannion), state that the Vatican approved the indult in 1977.

Thanks for correcting your previous misunderstanding.

But it’s hard to see how that helps your position.

Actually, it does. While I wonder what you think my “position is” I’m simply going by the straightforward question I asked. I simply asked, responding to what others said, where or when in 1977 the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult. As you seem to agree, finally, no one has provided a legitimate answer to that question.

my question, which you have not attempted to answer, should be reformulated as follows. If the Vatican had already authorized CITH in the United States in 1975, why would the U.S. bishops request an indult in 1977

Exactly my point. I contend, and no one has refuted it, that the U.S. Bishops did not ask for an indult in 1977.

thanks for affirming my contention. And, by the way, this is exactly the question I raised and have asked anyone to answer. It’s not that I am not answering your question, rather, it’s that no one has refuted my question.

 

[diggerdomer]

Meanwhile, posts #79 and #87 do directly claim that the indult was requested by the U.S. Bishops in 1977, and they substantiate that claim with multiple sources. Since you evidently need some spoonfeeding on this, I’ll quote from them and add a few more while we’re at it. We’ll go chronologically from the two national newspapers of record. Do not adjust your screen if it goes all wobbly as we journey back to 1 9 7 7…

Nope.

Again, read the posts.

Neither post (79 or 87) provided an authoritative source that the U.S. Catholic Bishops in fact asked for an indult in 1977. Remember…that’s my question that you seem hung up on.

These post refer to articles in the National Catholic Reporter (which I have not been able to find) and the Washington Post. Neither of which I have problems with, but neither of which are authoritative Catholic teaching.

Again (and again, and again, ad nauseam) my simple question, based on something someone else brought up on this thread, i.e. the claim that in 1977 the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult…where is Catholic Church evidence for it?

I trust that it is now sufficiently clear to you—as it should already have been—that you are wrong. The U.S. Bishops asked for and received an indult in 1977. Now stop the evasive pettifogery and answer the question: If the Vatican had already authorized CITH in the United States in 1975, why would the U.S. bishops request an indult in 1977, and whether or not they requested it, why would the Vatican grant an indult when, two years earlier (in your version of events) they had directly approved CITH? And while we’re at it, where in the 1975 GIRM did it supposedly grant CITH?

So, again (and again) do you have any Church teaching (not NCR or the Washington Post) to support the alleged claim that in 1977 the U.S. Bishops asked for an indult?