CITH: some document requests

[SimonDodd]

DD, Memoriale Domini said that indults were available. The United States got one in the late 1970s. That makes short work of your theory that “CITH was not an indult following the (Vatican-approved) Missal of Paul VI”), because there would then have been no need for the U.S. Bishops to spend half a decade arguing over whether to request an indult per MD, as they eventually did—superfluously, you would have to argue—in 1977. See Hyer, Communion In Hand Voted By U.S. Bishops in The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1977, p.C6.

 

[Vico]

The first link says:
Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, 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.
What is the indult being referred to? Clearly one permitting Christ’s faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

Japhy, thanks for pointing that out, I though I was wrong to include that reference, but not so.

 

[diggerdomer]

Oh, right, the first reference is not for communion in the hand, it is that permission for communion only in the hand is denied. My mistake on mentioning that indult. Yet the indult for Canada is mentiond in the second reference.

The second indult reference is for “permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful”.

The third reference refers to the date given in the second reference.

I disagree, the first reference you cited does not deny permission for communion in the hand. Is that really what you were saying? As I read it, the question was whether communion may ONLY be received on the hand. Which, of course, is not true. Please clarify. Thank you.

Again, the second reference you give is from 1969, right? Of course communion in the hand was an indult then, as the GIRM and MIssal of Paul VI (which allowed communion in the hand by law, and not by indult) was promulgated.

The third reference you cite refers to a change in particular law (i.e. applying only to dioceses of the U.S) and not an indult.

 

[diggerdomer]

DD, Memoriale Domini said that indults were available. The United States got one in the late 1970s. That makes short work of your theory that “CITH was not an indult following the (Vatican-approved) Missal of Paul VI”), because there would then have been no need for the U.S. Bishops to spend half a decade arguing over whether to request an indult per MD, as they eventually did—superfluously, you would have to argue—in 1977. See Hyer, Communion In Hand Voted By U.S. Bishops in The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1977, p.C6.

Can you please give me a reference for what indult the United States got in the late 1970’s? Thanks.

I assume, of course, that you’re not referring to the Washington Post as an authoritative source for indults?

 

[diggerdomer]

The first link says:
Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, 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.
What is the indult being referred to? Clearly one permitting Christ’s faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

Well, if we want to be technical, the main problem with the link you refer to is that it is not official Catholic teaching. It’s on the Adoremus website, as you note. While that site is helpful and beneficial, we really can’t cite it as official Church teaching.

Right?

It lacks a lot of detail and background. It cites a question and response, but doesn’t indicate when that question and response was given, nor to whom (or from whom).

So, again, the point of the link to anyone who objectively reads it is that reception of communion is allowed either on the tongue or in the hand.

Right?

 

[Vico]

I disagree, the first reference you cited does not deny permission for communion in the hand. Is that really what you were saying? As I read it, the question was whether communion may ONLY be received on the hand. Which, of course, is not true. Please clarify. Thank you.

Again, the second reference you give is from 1969, right? Of course communion in the hand was an indult then, as the GIRM and MIssal of Paul VI (which allowed communion in the hand by law, and not by indult) was promulgated.

The third reference you cite refers to a change in particular law (i.e. applying only to dioceses of the U.S) and not an indult.

The first reference is, request denied to allow communion only in the hand, but refers to communion in the hand as an indult, Canada April 1999:
“…to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.”

The second reference is, 1969 request for indult for communion in the hand. And also has a list of the dates when that faculty was granted to English speaking countires, ranging from Feb. 1970 to Oct. 1977. Canada was granted in Feb. 1970, USA in Jun. 1977.

1969 Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum (3 April 1969)
1969 Memoriale Domini (29 May 1969) also date of response to indult request
1969 GIRM published with Order of Mass (18 November 1969)
1970 grant of communion on the hand faculty to Canada
1970 GIRM revised, published with Roman Missal (26 March 1970)
1973 GIRM emended in light of *Ministeria Quaedam *(15 August 1972)
1975 GIRM revised, 2nd edition of Roman Missal (27 March 1975)
1977 grant of communion on the hand faculty to USA
1983 Code of Canon Law (25 January 1983)
1985 GIRM emended in light of 1983 Canons (1 March 1985)
2000 Study edition released (July 2000)
2002 3rd edition of Roman Missal (March 2002)
2002 Adaptations to GIRM become particular law for USA (25 April 2002 )

The third reference, from the 1975 GIRM appendix, item 240, refers to the same date given in the second reference (the appendix has the US changes, dated later than the date of the original 1975 GIRM of course):
“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.”

Official publication appears in AAS and Notitiae.

 

[diggerdomer]

The first reference is, request denied to allow communion only in the hand, but refers to communion in the hand as an indult, Canada April 1999:
“…to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.”

The second reference is, 1969 request for indult for communion in the hand. And also has a list of the dates when that faculty was granted to English speaking countires, ranging from Feb. 1970 to Oct. 1977. Canada was granted in Feb. 1970, USA in Jun. 1977.

1969 Apostolic Constitution, Missale Romanum (3 April 1969)
1969 Memoriale Domini (29 May 1969) also date of response to indult request
1969 GIRM published with Order of Mass (18 November 1969)
1970 grant of communion on the hand faculty to Canada
1970 GIRM revised, published with Roman Missal (26 March 1970)
1973 GIRM emended in light of *Ministeria Quaedam *(15 August 1972)
1975 GIRM revised, 2nd edition of Roman Missal (27 March 1975)
1977 grant of communion on the hand faculty to USA
1983 Code of Canon Law (25 January 1983)
1985 GIRM emended in light of 1983 Canons (1 March 1985)
2000 Study edition released (July 2000)
2002 3rd edition of Roman Missal (March 2002)
2002 Adaptations to GIRM become particular law for USA (25 April 2002 )

The third reference, from the 1975 GIRM appendix, item 240, refers to the same date given in the second reference (the appendix has the US changes, dated later than the date of the original 1975 GIRM of course):
“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.”

Official publication appears in AAS and Notitiae.

Exactly. 40 or so years ago, communion on the hand was only allowed via an indult.

But subsequent to that time, communion in the hand was allowed as part of liturgical law, not an indult, at least here in the U.S. (cf. the approval of Paul VI).

 

[japhy]

Well, if we want to be technical, the main problem with the link you refer to is that it is not official Catholic teaching. … While that site is helpful and beneficial, we really can’t cite it as official Church teaching. … It lacks a lot of detail and background. It cites a question and response, but doesn’t indicate when that question and response was given, nor to whom (or from whom).

Yes, diggerdomer, by all means, let’s be technical.

I wonder if there’s a technical issue preventing you from reading the whole page, which has this introductory text before the question and response:
This response by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was sent to us by Father Paul McDonald, of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Diocese of Saint Catherines in Ontario, Canada. The response appeared in Notitiae (April 1999), the official publication of the CDW, regarding the reception of Communion. The translation is Father McDonald’s. - Editor
So that tells us when and from whom. It might also tell us to whom.

The text of the response makes it clear that there is an indult, and the subject matter points to the indult being for the distribution of Communion into people’s hands.

 

[SimonDodd]

Can you please give me a reference for what indult the United States got in the late 1970’s? Thanks. I assume, of course, that you’re not referring to the Washington Post as an authoritative source for indults?

The request was news, and the WaPo suffices as an authoritative source for news. Several other outlets report the same thing in the same timeframe corroborating it. Cf., e.g., Communion in Hand gets Bishops’ OK in The National Catholic Reporter, June 17, 1977, p.22. It is crystal clear that in 1977, the United States requested and got an indult for communion in the hand. The timeline is not difficult: Memoriale Domini authorized bishops’ conferences to request indults. In 1973, the US Bishops discussed and rejected a proposal to make such a request, see Catholic Bishops To Study Change In Communion in The Hand in The Washington Post, Feb. 25, 1977, p.D14, and in 1977, they approved the request, see Communion In Hand Voted By U.S. Bishops, supra. Ample secondary literature supports this, see, e.g., Thomas Kocik, The Reform of the Reform? 79 (2003); M. Francis Mannion, Pastoral Answers 112 (2002); Thirty Years of Liturgical Renewal 194 (McManus, ed. 1987); 1977 Catholic Almanac 111 (Foy, ed.), and the CDW evidently concurs, see this repeatedly-cited nugget. I would say that there is at very least a prima facie case for the proposition that CITH was approved by indult alone in 1977; the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate why your bizarre theory has merit.

The attitude you’re displaying, I must reiterate, reinforces everything I said on the first page of this post.

 

[Vico]

Exactly. 40 or so years ago, communion on the hand was only allowed via an indult.

But subsequent to that time, communion in the hand was allowed as part of liturgical law, not an indult, at least here in the U.S. (cf. the approval of Paul VI).

Interestingly, Monsignor Marini, said in 2008 that the universal law is communion on the tongue, in the hand is an exception (indult) to the universal law. Since the GIRM was made particular law in the USA, it seems logical that it is not a local indult in the USA dioceses, rather only a indult from the Holy See.

zenit.org/article-23028?l=english

 

[SimonDodd]

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?

What materials can you cite in support of these statements?

 

[oknazevad]

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.)

 

[SimonDodd]

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.

As I understand it, most of the eastern rites practice some form of intinction, see, e.g., Edward Faulk, 101 Questions and Answers on Eastern Catholic Churches 82-83 (2007); Peter Stravinskas, OSV Catholic Encyclopedia 256-57 (1998), where the host is either placed in the chalice and the communicant receives both kinds in a spoon, or the host is dipped in the chalice before being given on the tongue. It strikes me that both of these (your description is of the former) are can fairly be called COTT. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that COTT is a necessity, that CITH is a practical impossibility, in commixturing rites.

The use vel non of utensils does not strike me as particularly significant for these purposes; by one means or another, the communicant is fed rather than feeding themselves. Certainly there is a distinction, and maybe for someone else, that distinction is important, but for me, for these purposes, it doesn’t make much difference.

 

[oknazevad]

You’re right, of course, that it can be called “on the tongue” (I thought I said that), and your contrasting of being fed vs feeding yourself is a near perfect description of the contrast. But I was speaking in a purely mechanical sense, that is, the physical method is different.

 

[Vico]

The celebrant (the priest) feeds himself. I understand that Communion in the hand was used by all Christians through the seventh century. Then the eastern practice became mingling the Body and Blood, and the use of by hand and the straw in the west. The people themselves were afraid to spill the Blood of Christ, eventually the Chalice was withdrawn from them (>1215) and that is why infants were later excluded from communion in the west (since they were given only the Blood of Christ).

 

[SimonDodd]

oknazevad, Sure, your point is well-taken. Someone else who’s weighing these issues might conclude that the differences are more significant than the similarities to them. I could imagine someone saying, as Mark might, that receiving by spoon is alien to both CITH and COTT, which makes it a point against COTT as a universal norm. But just for myself, I conceptualize that as simply another (and more gross, frankly) way to do COTT.

 

[oknazevad]

I don’t know why you’d call it gross, as there’s ideally no contact between the mouth and spoon. unless you refer to the need to open the mouth that wide. Either way, yes, it is a type of on the tongue reception, but I do think it shows that there are multiple methods of reception throughout the Universal Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, diggerdomer, by all means, let’s be technical.

I wonder if there’s a technical issue preventing you from reading the whole page, which has this introductory text before the question and response:
This response by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was sent to us by Father Paul McDonald, of Niagara-on-the-Lake, Diocese of Saint Catherines in Ontario, Canada. The response appeared in Notitiae (April 1999), the official publication of the CDW, regarding the reception of Communion. The translation is Father McDonald’s. - Editor
So that tells us when and from whom. It might also tell us to whom.

The text of the response makes it clear that there is an indult, and the subject matter points to the indult being for the distribution of Communion into people’s hands.

An individual response as cited in the link whether to Fr. McDonald or anyone is not binding on the Church. Similarly, while this individual response mentions “indult” is does not declare that communion in the hand is an indult everywhere. Clearly, in the U.S. it is not (read the GIRM as approved for the U.S.).

 

[diggerdomer]

Tto receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult

.[/INDENT]

There may be dioceses that still “enjoy” this indult. I don’t know. My only point is, in the U.S., it’s not an indult.

 

[diggerdomer]

DD, Memoriale Domini said that indults were available. The United States got one in the late 1970s. That makes short work of your theory that “CITH was not an indult following the (Vatican-approved) Missal of Paul VI”), because there would then have been no need for the U.S. Bishops to spend half a decade arguing over whether to request an indult per MD, as they eventually did—superfluously, you would have to argue—in 1977. See Hyer, Communion In Hand Voted By U.S. Bishops in The Washington Post, Jun 3, 1977, p.C6.

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?