CITH: some document requests

[SimonDodd]

It’s frequently said that communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church, but I’ve not been able to find any official Church documents that say so in as many words. It’s the clear implication of Memoriale Domini, of course, but I was hoping for something that states the point more directly.

I also wondered if anyone knew of any studies or statistics that are available on reception practices outside of the United States, and particularly outside of the English-speaking world? I.e., how many countries have requested (and gotten) the indult, percentages of the faithful who receive on the tongue either because that’s the only option or who have the choice and choose it, and so forth.

Of course, feel free to chip in other materials not mentioned which you have found particularly helpful.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s frequently said that communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church, but I’ve not been able to find any official Church documents that say so in as many words. It’s the clear implication of Memoriale Domini, of course, but I was hoping for something that states the point more directly.

I also wondered if anyone knew of any studies or statistics that are available on reception practices outside of the United States, and particularly outside of the English-speaking world? I.e., how many countries have requested (and gotten) the indult, percentages of the faithful who receive on the tongue either because that’s the only option or who have the choice and choose it, and so forth.

Of course, feel free to chip in other materials not mentioned which you have found particularly helpful.

GIRM
161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

 

[SimonDodd]

ConstantineTG, neither of those are helpful. (It’s also a little insulting, with all due respect, insofar as it implies I was too dumb to look at the two leading instructions on modern liturgy. I thought it would be obvious that I’ve looked in the obvious places.) They both say that communion may be received on the tongue, or, to the extent allowed by law, in the hand. Of course, both can be read as implying a preference for COTT, but they don’t actually say as much, and they don’t have to be read that way. (Try citing them to a CITH proponent and see what happens.) Memoriale Domini implies the point far more strongly than GIRM or RS, and my OP said that I wanted documentation that states the point more directly even than that.

 

[ProVobis]

Simon, this may be helpful from Cardinal Arinze:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I’m not sure of the date of this from EWTN, but the list is antiquated insofar as the Holy See approved CITH for Poland in late 2007 or early 2008.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[Phemie]

ConstantineTG, neither of those are helpful. (It’s also a little insulting, with all due respect, insofar as it implies I was too dumb to look at the two leading instructions on modern liturgy. I thought it would be obvious that I’ve looked in the obvious places.) They both say that communion may be received on the tongue, or, to the extent allowed by law, in the hand. Of course, both can be read as implying a preference for COTT, but they don’t actually say as much, and they don’t have to be read that way. (Try citing them to a CITH proponent and see what happens.) Memoriale Domini implies the point far more strongly than GIRM or RS, and my OP said that I wanted documentation that states the point more directly even than that.

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

 

[SimonDodd]

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

Why would you think that I think COTT is not the norm universally? I agree that it is. That’s the clear implication of Memoriale Domini. But I need something that I can cite for the proposition; the more authoritative the better, and an official Church document concisely stating that COTT is the universal norm sits at the top of the ladder. With all respect to his eminence, Card. Arinze’s comments in the video posted by ProVobis fall into the category I mention in the OP (“It’s frequently said that communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church”).

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

Simon: “COTT is the universal norm of the Church.”
Them: “Says who?”
Simon: “Well, that’s clearly the implication of various documents like the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Memoriale Domini.”
Them: “The implication? So you don’t have anything that says COTT is the universal norm of the Church?”
Simon: “Right, I’m inferring it, but I think it’s pretty clear.”
Them: “Sure, but as you concede, none of those documents say it. So at most, you can say that you interpret some documents as implying that COTT is the universal norm of the Church. You can’t cite anything that says so.”
Simon: “Right.”
Them: “Come to think of it, if something is a universal norm in the Church, whence specific dispensation must be sought, doesn’t it strike you as odd that you can’t cite a single church document which directly and unambiguously states that norm?”
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.”
Them: “Did you order the code red?”
etc.

 

[MarkThompson]

Why would you think that I think COTT is not the norm universally? I agree that it is. That’s the clear implication of Memoriale Domini. But I need something that I can cite for the proposition; the more authoritative the better, and an official Church document concisely stating that COTT is the universal norm sits at the top of the ladder. With all respect to his eminence, Card. Arinze’s comments in the video posted by ProVobis fall into the category I mention in the OP (“It’s frequently said that communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church”).

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

Simon: “COTT is the universal norm of the Church.”
Them: “Says who?”
Simon: “Well, that’s clearly the implication of various documents like the GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum, and Memoriale Domini.”
Them: “The implication? So you don’t have anything that says COTT is the universal norm of the Church?”
Simon: “Right, I’m inferring it, but I think it’s pretty clear.”
Them: “Sure, but as you concede, none of those documents say it. So at most, you can say that you interpret some documents as implying that COTT is the universal norm of the Church. You can’t cite anything that says so.”
Simon: “Right.”
Them: “Come to think of it, if something is a universal norm in the Church, whence specific dispensation must be sought, doesn’t it strike you as odd that you can’t cite a single church document which directly and unambiguously states that norm?”
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.”
Them: “Did you order the code red?”
etc.

Perhaps the problem is that COTT is not the universal norm for “the Church,” it’s the universal-ish norm for the Latin Church, not counting those who have never practiced it like the Franciscans?

 

[diggerdomer]

It’s frequently said that communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church, but I’ve not been able to find any official Church documents that say so in as many words. It’s the clear implication of Memoriale Domini, of course, but I was hoping for something that states the point more directly.

I also wondered if anyone knew of any studies or statistics that are available on reception practices outside of the United States, and particularly outside of the English-speaking world? I.e., how many countries have requested (and gotten) the indult, percentages of the faithful who receive on the tongue either because that’s the only option or who have the choice and choose it, and so forth.

Of course, feel free to chip in other materials not mentioned which you have found particularly helpful.

CITH is a more ancient practice. Both are valid as are all other methods of reception approved by the Church. A lot of people really seem hung up on preferring one over the other.

 

[SimonDodd]

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.

 

[Ockham]

Check out the forty page thread in Traditional Catholicism entitled “Not just another CITH thread”. All the relevant documents that I’m aware of are provided there.

Just for the record, Constantine was not trying to insult you.

 

[SimonDodd]

Ockham, that’s a seven hundred post food fight, with a lot more heat than light. I read it all, and it’s popcorn—mostly air. A lot of opinions making much out of very few reliable sources; not even recitation of talking points—“copy and paste talking points from agenda websites that agree with me” in many instances! The citations of various first millennium councils are quite amusing to me, because they’re stock answers, and with the exception of the synod of Rouen, reveal nothing more than the fact that the person posting them hasn’t read the council documents. I have.

There are a few gems in there, to be sure. One link indicates that CDW is inching toward issuing a document that will say outright that COTT is the universal norm. That’s what I’m looking for. (Another commenter says it’s in canon law; it isn’t.) And John Monaco’s Aug 19, '10 7:57 am comment demonstrates just the right attitude: he receives on the tongue, but accommodates a priest who finds it physically difficult to so communicate him by receiving in the hand: “It would be worse to arrogantly insist to receive on the tongue, and make the 75 year old priest struggle to bring it up.” This is precisely the right attitude, and I wish more people would approach ecclesial matters like brothers and sisters in Christ, not ACLU lawyers. Kudos to John.

Several commenters there demonstrate my point that there’s a tendency to treat the availability of the choice as making the choice for you. One says it outright: “The church now, in 2010, says CITH is allowed. What more do you need to know?” (paperwight, Jul 16, '10 10:37 am). Well, one needs to know in which of the two authorized ways one ought to receive, which is not a question that can be resolved merely by acknowledging the availability of the choice. The Church gives us discretion; she doesn’t give us license, she gives us freedom. That is, she doesn’t say “here, do as you like,” she frees us to do the right thing as revealed by our own prayer and study.

My intention in posting this thread is much more limited than your intentions in posting that thread. I don’t really care how CITH got started or whether it ought to exist; whatever my personal opinions on those points, I have no authority to change them. My interest is confined purely to determining which of two licit alternatives I should use when I take first communion next year (God willing!) and thereafter. To that end, my requests were limited. First, for a document: I already know COTT is the universal norm, I just need an official document that I can cite for that proposition to avoid the dialog described above. My second request is purely an empirical one: what happens outside the United States? In other words, I’m looking for documentary sources that directly support two very, very common statements made by COTT proponents: “COTT is the universal norm in the Church,” and “COTT is the general practice outside of the United States.”

 

[MarkThompson]

Ockham, that’s a seven hundred post food fight, with a lot more heat than light. I read it all, and it’s popcorn—mostly air. A lot of opinions making much out of very few reliable sources; not even recitation of talking points—“copy and paste talking points from agenda websites that agree with me” in many instances! The citations of various first millennium councils are quite amusing to me, because they’re stock answers, and with the exception of the synod of Rouen, reveal nothing more than the fact that the person posting them hasn’t read the council documents. I have.

. . .

My intention in posting this thread is much more limited than your intentions in posting that thread. I don’t really care how CITH got started or whether it ought to exist; whatever my personal opinions on those points, I have no authority to change them. My interest is confined purely to determining which of two licit alternatives I should use when I take first communion next year (God willing!) and thereafter. To that end, my requests were limited. First, for a document: I already know COTT is the universal norm, I just need an official document that I can cite for that proposition to avoid the dialog described above. My second request is purely an empirical one: what happens outside the United States? In other words, I’m looking for documentary sources that directly support two very, very common statements made by COTT proponents: “COTT is the universal norm in the Church,” and “COTT is the general practice outside of the United States.”

This post does a very good job at explaining what you are getting at. However, I think you may be approaching the issue the wrong way. Both options are allowed, but it isn’t a “trick question.” You say that “one needs to know in which of the two authorized ways one ought to receive,” but in fact one does not need to know that, and you have no justification for presuming that one of the two authorized ways to receive is the way to receive.

Also, since you are talking about determining how you will proceed, your dialogue makes no sense. You don’t have to justify your choice to anybody – if you have to justify anything, it is your right to make a choice, the sources to support which are readily available. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which your decision to receive on the tongue requires you to prove to anybody that it is the “universal norm.” A perfectly valid response in your dialogue would be “I find this option better for me spiritually, so that’s what I’m gong with. Well, it was nice chatting. Bye.”

Furthermore, there is no logical connection between COTT being a “universal norm” for the church and it being the form you ought to use. You have me entirely baffled here; I can’t imagine why you apparently think that finding a document that declares COTT to be the general norm would solve your decision dilemma immediately.

It seems to me that what you ought to be asking is, “Persuade me which form I should use.” Instead what you seem to be asking is, “Persuade me which form I should use – but the sole criterion is which is the general norm, and I will not accept anything less than unequivocal proof.” Unless I’ve seriously misunderstood what you’re after, forgive me for finding your entire endeavor a little . . . quirky.

 

[Ockham]

Well put Mark.

Simon, there is no document stating guidelines to consider. The universal norm of the Church is to receive on the tongue. 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.

After that your choice will depend on all the non-technical reasons that you’ll find in that thread. Welcome to the Church.

 

[Cat]

I personally think that you should not be so concerned about how you will receive, but Who you will receive.

This isn’t the Protestant Church. You don’t have to figure everything out for yourself anymore. You can just trust Holy Mother Church to tell you the right things to do, and in many practices, the Catholic Church gives you a choice. I love being Catholic and I hope you will, too.

Ockham summed up the teachings about receiving Holy Communion very nicely in his post right before mine. Just nestle, don’t wrestle, as Corrie ten Boom said.

Also, I think you should consider being a little kinder to people who are only trying to help you. That post accusing Constantine of insulting you was rough. It’s no wonder so few people have responded to your OP–no one wants to get beat up.

 

[SimonDodd]

since you are talking about determining how you will proceed, your dialogue makes no sense. You don’t have to justify your choice to anybody – if you have to justify anything, it is your right to make a choice, the sources to support which are readily available.

Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that you’re right that it isn’t necessary to justify the choice to anyone else. I think that’s incorrect (cf., mutatis mutandis, 1 Pet 3:15), but I’ll stipulate it. I still have to justify the choice to myself and to God.

I cannot imagine a circumstance in which your decision to receive on the tongue requires you to prove to anybody that it is the “universal norm.” A perfectly valid response in your dialogue would be “I find this option better for me spiritually, so that’s what I’m gong with. Well, it was nice chatting. Bye.”

It’s a valid response. Not a very good one, though. It will leave the other person suspicious that you haven’t really given the matter any thought at all—that you simply went along with what everyone else in your parish was doing, or did what your friends did, etc. Which may actually be correct: talking to converts from other parishes, many have said that none of their catechists even broached the issue, told them that they had a choice, let alone encouraged them to think about it.

The fact is, a wholly rational response isn’t going to be possible: “I did a lot of research and thinking, but in the end, I felt the spirit was leading me to receive __ the __” may be the honest answer. Perhaps I am overthinking the issue a little, but I would rather overthink it than give it no thought at all.

there is no logical connection between COTT being a “universal norm” for the church and it being the form you ought to use. You have me entirely baffled here; I can’t imagine why you apparently think that finding a document that declares COTT to be the general norm would solve your decision dilemma immediately.

It doesn’t solve it, but it weights the scales. With respect, I think that the connection is pretty obvious. We are allowed to choose, as I have said, but which should we choose? What are the relevant factors to consider? It seems obvious to me that if COTT is the universal norm for the Church, standing at the head of a thousand years of tradition, it is presumptively the form that should be used unless one is persuaded otherwise. These two points don’t settle the matter, but they do tilt the scales dramatically. Similarly, if COTT is the prevailing practice in the Church at large (the focus of my second question), that, too, tilts the scale.

What seemingly pervades your comment, if I may, is the assumption that if the choice is offered, the faithful can do whatever they like, without giving it any thought or prayer. What’s more, like many comments on this issue, you seem to just assume that since CITH is authorized, it ought to be the default. None of this seems appropriate given the gravity of the subject matter. I can see the argument for advising catachumens to way carefully the two options without a thumb on the scale; both are allowed. And I can see the argument (obviously, since it’s my position) that if there is to be a thumb on the scale, it should favor the universal norm and tradition of the Church. But I find entirely baffling the notion that people should just do whatever springs into their mind, which generally means absorbing their practice with nary conscious thought nor prayer on the subject from the prevailing practice in their parish.

It seems to me that what you ought to be asking is, “Persuade me which form I should use.” Instead what you seem to be asking is, “Persuade me which form I should use – but the sole criterion is which is the general norm, and I will not accept anything less than unequivocal proof.”

Well, that, of course, it the broader question I’m trying to answer. My OP here was much more limited because it had a quite specific request. I’m happy to rely on Memoriale Domini for myself, because I think it’s crystal clear, but the fact is that other people don’t agree: look at Okham’s thread, for example. Repeatedly, CITH proponents point to the U.S. version of the 2003 GIRM and say “behold! The indult has been superseded because the norm is now a choice, so there is no universal rule whence to dispense!” I don’t think that argument holds water, but a document stating unambiguously that COTT remains the universal norm would extinguish that line of argument.

I’m well aware that many CAF denizens have opinions on the broader subject.

 

[SimonDodd]

I personally think that you should not be so concerned about how you will receive, but Who you will receive.

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

This isn’t the Protestant Church. You don’t have to figure everything out for yourself anymore. You can just trust Holy Mother Church to tell you the right things to do, and in many practices, the Catholic Church gives you a choice.

We can trust what Church tells us to do, but on this point, as you acknowledge in the next clause of your reply, the Church doesn’t tell us what to do. It gives us a choice. Which we choose is left to us to figure out. As I said above, it seems to me that when the Church gives us discretion, she gives (to borrow terminology from Fr. Corapi, although he isn’t the only one to use it) freedom rather than license. She doesn’t say “do whatever feels right to you without thinking about it,” she frees us to do the right thing as revealed by our own prayer and study.

Also, I think you should consider being a little kinder to people who are only trying to help you. That post accusing Constantine of insulting you was rough. It’s no wonder so few people have responded to your OP–no one wants to get beat up.

It wasn’t my intent to beat up on him. As I said, the implication of his post was that I hadn’t done the most basic, obvious possible research on the question; the GIRM and RS are the leading authorities on liturgical practice, and I find it strange that someone ask a question here without having first consulted them. On the other hand, I suppose that the fact is that people do sometimes do that here, and so I apologize.

 

[SimonDodd]

I guess it doesn’t help that I wasn’t really clear from the outset where I was in this process or what the context of the question was. I started a blotter on this subject nearly a year ago. I started researching it in more depth a month or so ago. So, to the extent the stuff cited in Okham’s thread are stock sources, I had already read pretty much all of them, and as I said, checked up on them. (Very few of the pro-COTT sources stand up to scrutiny, by the way.) My question comes somewhere toward the middle of my process, not at the beginning. I apologize for any confusion.

 

[MarkThompson]

Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that you’re right that it isn’t necessary to justify the choice to anyone else. I think that’s incorrect (cf., mutatis mutandis, 1 Pet 3:15), but I’ll stipulate it. I still have to justify the choice to myself and to God.

But that’s where you’re mistaken – you really don’t. To me this thread reads like you are trying to get from Jonesville to Smithtown and, to decide whether to go via Highway 5 or State Route 40, you are demanding that people prove to you which route was first surveyed by the county engineer’s office in the 1940s. Both roads get you there. One may be more scenic, the other have better pavement; one may be faster, the other safer. Why you are focused on which was surveyed first – and why you think you need to indefeasibly “justify” the choice to yourself or anyone else in the first place – unfortunately escapes me.

 

[SimonDodd]

To me this thread reads like you are trying to get from Jonesville to Smithtown and, to decide whether to go via Highway 5 or State Route 40, you are demanding that people prove to you which route was first surveyed by the county engineer’s office in the 1940s.

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.

Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that you’re right that it isn’t necessary to justify the choice to anyone else. I think that’s incorrect (cf., mutatis mutandis, 1 Pet 3:15), but I’ll stipulate it. I still have to justify the choice to myself and to God.

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.