Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[tee_eff_em]

Now,** I would like someone to post here, succinctly, why they favour CITH. How it helps their quest for holiness. **

It’s a simple question, and anyone who favours CITH can answer it; How does CITH, standing, from a laywoman help you in your quest for sanctification, compared to COTT, kneeling, from a priest. What do you think it adds to the Roman Catholic rite?

I cannot say if anyone participating in this thread favours CITH?

Speaking only for myself, I favour the position that the Church is competent to legislate in this matter and, in fact, has done so. What her reason(s) for doing so may have been, and whether it had anything to do with the acquisition of *holiness *and/or *sanctification *or not, I likewise cannot say.

:twocents:
tee

 

[Layman]

Exactly. What does any kind of relaxation of rules really add? The relaxation of Latin only in the liturgy, the elimination of a lot of prayers in the Mass, the less emphasis of mortal sins and Hell, the relaxation of the Friday meat abstinence, the relaxation of the men-only rule in the sanctuary, the relaxation of fasting rules during Lent, the expansion of Mass obligation to Saturdays, the lifting of sacrilege rules, the relaxation of the communion fast, the relaxation of priest-only touching of the Body and Blood of Christ, and then the relaxation of communion-on-the-tongue only reception. And then they wonder why most Catholics didn’t take Humanae Vitae more seriously.

That’s part of my concern about what’s been done to the new order of the Mass since the 1960’s. If you are going to proptitiate a wrathful God by re-enacting the Sacrifice of His Son, why then remove elements that emphasise the sacred (set apart), the awesomeness and the sacrifice?

We’ve gone from:

A three-hour fast (a sacrifice),
A sacred (set apart) language,
A physical separation of the sacred area (the altar rails),
A personal separation (men only in the sanctuary),
The humility shown by only receiving kneeling, on the tongue, from a priest or deacon;

to

CITH in a circular worship space and dancing-around-the-altar.

It’s interesting to me that the key part, as I understand it, of the Divine Mercy Chaplet, is reminding God of His Son’s Sacrifice.

If it’s Christ in the Host, then changing from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman is a strange and irreverent thing to do.

 

[Layman]

I meant to make clear, above: It’s interesting to me that the key part, as I understand it, of the** Divine Mercy Chaplet, is reminding God of His Son’s Sacrifice, so as to avert his wrath.**

 

[Bailey2]

Divine Mercy Chaplet, is reminding God of His Son’s Sacrifice, so as to avert his wrath.

I just caught this one so I’ll jump in and jump out quickly.

The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a good thing but the Catechism is better. Wrath is not the sole nor prominant point of the sacrifice of the mass or of the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a lopsided perspective.
And Vatican II was not a sudden thing. If one wants to go back: we must only receive once a year and not receive first communion until we are older than 7. Changes in the church have occurred throughout and there were misunderstandings, resistance, and abuses each time. Check the history there. Our church is progressive as truth unfolds throughout time.
blessings.

 

[otjm]

Exactly. What does any kind of relaxation of rules really add? The relaxation of Latin only in the liturgy, the elimination of a lot of prayers in the Mass, the less emphasis of mortal sins and Hell, the relaxation of the Friday meat abstinence, the relaxation of the men-only rule in the sanctuary, the relaxation of fasting rules during Lent, the expansion of Mass obligation to Saturdays, the lifting of sacrilege rules, the relaxation of the communion fast, the relaxation of priest-only touching of the Body and Blood of Christ, and then the relaxation of communion-on-the-tongue only reception. And then they wonder why most Catholics didn’t take Humanae Vitae more seriously.

Without addressing the other issues at this point, your logic is amazing, as most of the issues you point out came after Humanae Vitae was issued, and so your question of why HV was not obeyed is a null question - meaning it is a question with no content.

In short, don’t try to plow too much ground with this; you have the horse behind the plow.

 

[Layman]

I just caught this one so I’ll jump in and jump out quickly.

The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a good thing but the Catechism is better. Wrath is not the sole nor prominant point of the sacrifice of the mass or of the crucifixion of Jesus. This is a lopsided perspective.

Sacrifice has always been about proptitiating a god, even amongst pagans. Other apects are supplicatory and thanksgiving. In the new Mass, propitiating has been played down and the ‘celebratory’ (thanksgiving) aspect way up. Thus you have women dancing at the foot of the Cross of Calvary.

I’ve read people saying that what we need is better catechesis to correct this. However, given that this was traditionally done in schools and from the pulpit and that now both these routes are watered down/liberalised/intellectualised/banalised for many people, I don’t see how that’s going to happen in a hurry.

It’s not too difficult. Just start with the Commandments, Deadly Sins, Judgement, Heaven and Hell and the Sacraments from a traditional perspective.

Who is the more charitable: a doctor who tells a sick man who’s smoking and drinking that if he keeps doing it, he’ll die a painful, miserable death or the nice chap who soft-pedals the truth?

You’re doing people no favours by preaching Jesus-is-your-pal constantly. Grown men and women have now spent their entire lives only attending the celebratory Novus Ordo and maybe having a sandwich half-an-hour before Mass ‘in case they get hungry’. At the hour of their death they might get the Last Rites in the new, ‘celebratory’ form. At their funeral Mass they might get an oration from the pulpit from a relative saying how great they were and how they’re surely in Heaven now.

**Meanwhile they’re suffering the pangs of Purgatory and desperate for a solemn Requiem mass to alleviate them. **

 

[ncjohn]

Sacrifice has always been about proptitiating a god, even amongst pagans. ]

Wow, that may well have been true among pagans and even amongst old testament religion. And the blood sacrifices of those times were certainly, within their understanding, an attempt to “appease” God (or gods). But apparently the entire context of the new testament is being missed if you truly believe that the primary purpose of the Mass is to somehow appease a “wrathful God”. It is most certainly a remembrance of the sacrifice of Calvary but the word Eucharist itself means Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving for that sacrifice even while remembering it.

Your snide remarks about dancing around the altar notwithstanding, as if that was part of any liturgy, the basic form of the Mass elements and its combination of sacrifice and thanksgiving has not really changed.

Quite frankly, if life and religion were really about appeasing a “wrathful God” I would want nothing to do with such a capricious deity and “heaven” and eternity with such a being would not be on my list of things to strive for. Thankfully God Himself, through Jesus, the apostles, the writers of scripture, and the fathers of the Church made it clear that is not the case.

In saying all of that I am not in the least downplaying the presence of evil or implying that we can somehow presume on God’s mercy or relinquish our responsibility to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Nor am I in any way denying our insignificace, on our own merits, before the transcendent and eternal God. But the whole message of the incarnation is that we are beloved by the Father whose overriding wish is that we love Him and love each other as He has loved us. “What I desire is mercy not sacrifice” is the overriding them of Jesus’ entire message, and was present even in the later writings of the Old Testament.

I’m hoping I misunderstood what you have said but somehow, based on other things you have said, I don’t think so. “Fear” of the Lord in the sense of awe at His amazing love and mercy is one thing; fear that is actually a matter of “being afraid” of God is directly opposed to both Church and scripture.

Of course all of that is totally off topic and I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Bailey2]

**
You’re doing people no favours by preaching Jesus-is-your-pal constantly. Grown men and women have now spent their entire lives only attending the celebratory Novus Ordo and maybe having a sandwich half-an-hour before Mass ‘in case they get hungry’. At the hour of their death they might get the Last Rites in the new, ‘celebratory’ form. At their funeral Mass they might get an oration from the pulpit from a relative saying how great they were and how they’re surely in Heaven now.

**Meanwhile they’re suffering the pangs of Purgatory and desperate for a solemn Requiem mass to alleviate them. ****

Now, now. I don’t preach Jesus-is-pal. I have never said anything that is not in the catechism of the Catholic church, the new testament, or out of the mouths of the Saints, except when I tell people to get counseling. However, I also don’t judge who has adult faith and who does not and who is going to purgatory or hell because I don’t know the interior state of people and exteriors tell you nothing about a person. There is a wide variety globally in the Church of how people ritualize the central themes of the faith. In any case, there is final judgment at death but there is also great love. We will be judged on how well we have loved by conquering sin and practicing Christian virtue. That is a far cry from Jesus-as-pal mentality. Be glad to find scripture and sources on that if you wish.

 

[Layman]

I think that what has happened is that a ‘Royal Priesthood of the Baptised’ in the Roman Catholic rite now feel emboldened to handle the Host themselves. This is in line with the downplaying of the priests’ role and the encroachment of the laity upon the sanctuary.

I do not think this is helping the salvation of sinners. They’re being cued that Jesus is fairly easy-going. Thus, confession lines are short and Catholic families mysteriously become infertile after two or three children.

From memory, the latest major, approved private revelations (Divine mercy, Fatima) have mentioned God’s displeasure with sinful humanity. At a time of increasing viciousness and reversal of previous social mores, having Communion distributed by the unpurified hands of lay women into the unpurified hands of standing lay people is an odd change to make to the rite, especially added to all the other, populist changes.

 

[j2c99]

Fr Z’s Black Glove
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/

Thank you for that.

 

[Bailey2]

I think that what has happened is that a ‘Royal Priesthood of the Baptised’ in the Roman Catholic rite now feel emboldened to handle the Host themselves. This is in line with the downplaying of the priests’ role and the encroachment of the laity upon the sanctuary.

I do not think this is helping the salvation of sinners. They’re being cued that Jesus is fairly easy-going. Thus, confession lines are short and Catholic families mysteriously become infertile after two or three children.

From memory, the latest major, approved private revelations (Divine mercy, Fatima) have mentioned God’s displeasure with sinful humanity. At a time of increasing viciousness and reversal of previous social mores, having Communion distributed by the unpurified hands of lay women into the unpurified hands of standing lay people is an odd change to make to the rite, especially added to all the other, populist changes.

Royal Priesthood is in the catechism. I do believe the Magisterium permits both hand and tongue without saying one is better than the other (open to reading encyclicals contrary). I also believe we are not required to believe anything of private revelation, even approved ones.

I definitely agree that there is a disrespect both of the clerical priesthood and a misunderstanding of the laity’s role as “priest, prophet, and king.” I am not sure the disrespect is because of the Vatican II changes however. And I don’t think it is a global phenomenon. People die for the faith all over the world and I suspect they all celebrate the mass with different cultural nuances and with Vatican II changes intact and not. In affluent countries like Europe and the US, I think disrespect of anything sacred including the bond of parent and child is under attack. Authority is not respected, period. And those in authority wimp out of their rightful role and shirk their responsibilities as leaders.

I would hope that the external differences of Catholic practice would be such that if put to the test, you and I and anyone else with disagreements would stand together in front of the firing squad if need be as a statement of unity… then,* we* would be Eucharist. To me that is faith. I don’t know if that is technically correct doctrinally but it is how I believe. I have no argument with latin masses, chaplets, and the like. In fact, I am fond of the Byzantine mass since one side of my family is of that rite… where I got my notions of faith. Many priests and laity were martyred during the great war and continue to be martyred in the holy land. I hope you take this positively as I am sending it. Peace.

 

[otjm]

I think that what has happened is that a ‘Royal Priesthood of the Baptised’ in the Roman Catholic rite now feel emboldened to handle the Host themselves. This is in line with the downplaying of the priests’ role and the encroachment of the laity upon the sanctuary.

Then why was it a practice in the Roman rite for so long? And why in the Eastern rites? You seem to have a lot of opinions that ignore facts.

I do not think this is helping the salvation of sinners. They’re being cued that Jesus is fairly easy-going. Thus, confession lines are short and Catholic families mysteriously become infertile after two or three children.

That is not only your opinion, but it is also an opinion without basis; you have no ability to judge the status of anyone’s soul. Further, the issue about how many children anyone has has absolutely no logical connection to Communion in the hand.

From memory, the latest major, approved private revelations (Divine mercy, Fatima) have mentioned God’s displeasure with sinful humanity. At a time of increasing viciousness and reversal of previous social mores, having Communion distributed by the unpurified hands of lay women into the unpurified hands of standing lay people is an odd change to make to the rite, especially added to all the other, populist changes.

What is next - we are going to start in about how women are unclean because they menstruate? Guess what - a deacon’s hands are not purified either - but he is charged with distributing the Eucharist; and while the Cup is primarily his, there is absolutely no objection in the Church to him distributring. You are mistaking the anointing of a priest’s hands with something to do with distrbuting Communion - please cite a source in Church rubrics or legistlation that backs that up.

If Mary was good enough to carry Christ, I fail to see why a woman cannot distribute Communion simply because she is a woman - and neither can the Church, since it has specifically approved of it. Or are you now wiser than the priests, bishops, Cardinals and the Pope himself?

You simply don’t get Church history. You are trying to make something into a borderline magic issue. For half of the history of the Church in the Roman rite, people received in their hands. Get over it. If you want to receive on the tongue, that is by all means your right as it is the universal norm. But exercising that right does not give you the concurrent right to criticize others who act with the Church’s permission, and even less right to determine their moral status or intent, or their reverence. Your judgemental attitude towards others is astounding.

 

[Layman]

Compare and contrast: the Roman rite before and after the 1960’s. We’re supposed to feel awe for and in a rite which has moved consistently towards populism (mundanity) since Vat. II. It’s contradictory.

As for what’s done in other rites, I don’t care. Does anyone know which other Catholic rites permit Communion into a layman’s unpurified hand? I’m arguing againt the change, in the Roman Catholic Rite, from COTT to CITH. There’s no reason for it to exist and persist as the de-facto norm. Yet, strangely, it does.

Women being admitted to the sanctuary and the choir is part of that process of populism as well.

And yes, if you add more and more mundane elements and play down or remove sacred (set apart) ones, the ‘magic’, i.e. the aura of mystery will, by definition, not be there.

So people chat in church, handle the host casually or don’t turn up at all.

 

[EasterJoy]

Those at the Last Supper were all bishops. They probably self-communicated, too. It could not be more besides the point.

The bishops were given the command to “do this in memory of Me”, as well as a shared power to bind and to loose that extends to heaven. That covers the Mass.

Our bishops are in succession of the Apostles, and have Apostolic authority. What they allow is allowed, what they disallow is disallowed. The practice of CITH didn’t have to have been something the Apostles were copying from the Last Supper. It was how they discerned Holy Communion would be distributed. Later, COTT wasn’t something “we” came up with. It is something the bishops came up with, discerning that this way had a value in addressing certain issues of that time. The same with receiving on the knees or on our feet, what vestments are necessary and what they should look like, how the churches should be arranged, and so on.

I’m all for giving the bishops feedback about how each method works, but let’s not forget that there is not some right or wrong answer on this that we can figure out and then pass on to the bishops. We can even dig up the documents outlining what Pope St. So-and-So laid down in the 2nd century or what Pope St. So-and-So X wrote 800 years later, and it would be besides the point to this extent: The correct answer is still what they decide it is.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m all for giving the bishops feedback about how each method works, but let’s not forget that there is not some right or wrong answer on this that we can figure out and then pass on to the bishops.

The right answer is that the way we receive communion should not detract from the Real Presence and be a distraction to others but apparently it continues to be so. This is especially true at the EF where if one insists on stirring up trouble and receive in the hands, it stirs up a major provocation. I don’t think this is what communion should be about, do you? The Body and Blood of Christ as well as certain sensibilities should be respected.

 

[ncjohn]

The right answer is that the way we receive communion should not detract from the Real Presence and be a distraction to others but apparently it continues to be so. This is especially true at the EF where if one insists on stirring up trouble and receive in the hands, it stirs up a major provocation. I don’t think this is what communion should be about, do you? The Body and Blood of Christ as well as certain sensibilities should be respected.

I actually agree with you here that how we do such things should, to the greatest extent possible, not be a distraction to others. To insist on receiving in the hand at an EF would almost surely be such a distraction and I would most certainly refrain from it.

I do find it interesting though that those who make that argument have no problem at all with going into a parish where receiving in the hand is the norm and then being a distraction by insisting on receiving on the tongue on their knees. I note that you refer to receiving in the hand at an EF Mass as “stirring up trouble” but I feel quite sure you not make such a comment about the reverse circumstances.

In both cases one is entirely within one’s “rights” but is presenting a distraction and a stumbling block to those around them and stirring “up a provocation”. The USCCB, when addressing the norms for receiving communion, attempted to eliminate that very distraction of which you speak in setting a norm of standing, preceded by a profound bow. While I do agree that one is entirely within one’s “rights” to ignore that norm, I do have to agree that doing so does draw attention to one’s self and presents a distraction. In both cases I’m sure there are those who do what they do simply out of their own call to piety; I am equally sure though, from having heard people specifically express it as such, that others do so simply to make a point.

I really don’t know the “right” answer on that one. I personally lean toward following the norm of the parish where one finds one’s self and just “offering it up” if it isn’t your personal preference, but I do also understand that others feel called to their particular expression of reverence and I have to respect that also. This is one of those where I don’t think catechesis is the answer except to the point of reminiding people that we should not be making judgments based on one another’s expressions of piety and devotion.

Peace,

 

[EasterJoy]

The right answer is that the way we receive communion should not detract from the Real Presence and be a distraction to others but apparently it continues to be so. This is especially true at the EF where if one insists on stirring up trouble and receive in the hands, it stirs up a major provocation. I don’t think this is what communion should be about, do you? The Body and Blood of Christ as well as certain sensibilities should be respected.

If everybody in the Church would do no more than consent to the rubrics laid down by the bishops, to the letter and in the spirit, as they teach the spiritual meaning of the proscribed rituals to be, that would be enough respect to sensibility for me.

Other than that–and I don’t criticize those who learn the rubrics and use those as their boundaries, as only the bishops may demand boundaries–there are also the demands of charity to be followed. On that, I mean that we demand charity of ourselves on behalf of others, not the other way around:
“Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up. No one should seek his own advantage, but that of his neighbor…So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Avoid giving offense, whether to Jews or Greeks or the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in every way, not seeking my own benefit but that of the many, that they may be saved.” 1 Cor. 10:23-24,31-33

Also: "…Love is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury.…" 1 Cor. 13:5.

So if you do not have scruples but are aware that a brother or sister has scruples, it is charitable to accomodate their scruples, if you can.

When in a situation where you can do almost nothing without offending someone or provoking them to judge you, though, you can wash your hands of worrying about it. You follow the rubrics, of course, but after that you sometimes have to let the busybodies handle their own anxieties, because there is no way to soothe the scruples of all of them. It just depends on where you find yourself.

If we are to have disagreements, we have to discuss them in charity and defer to one another as we can, or we are not in the will of God. Charity, OTOH, covers a multitude of sins. If we foster divisions among ourselves, we will not be praised for it.

In short, we can demand of ourselves more charity than the rubrics proscribe, and most surely we ought to, but unless we have a pastoral office we can really demand no more of anyone else, not on behalf of our own sensibilities.

 

[ncjohn]

Well put, EasterJoy. You said much more elegantly and charitably what I was trying to convey.

 

[truevaticanii]

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13

 

[Layman]

If you’re at an N.O. Mass, you can line up in front of the priest and motion that you want to receive on the tongue, while standing. Works for me and the priests don’t seem to mnd at all. I knelt once, but it makes you feel awkward.

Someone on these boards suggested telling your priest in advance you want to receive COTT, kneeling and make some kind of arrangement. An interesting idea.