Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[Ockham]

“Oh, please” is right. I don’t imagine for a moment that there would be much, if any, significant opposition if the Pope made such a ruling. The overwhelming majority of Catholics do what is the norm in the parish where they are attending Mass and will follow whatever the directives are. I find the argument that there would be some mass revolt over this entirely laughable.

Really? Look up some of the threads on this topic (there are many). Look at how fanatically some people argue for CITH. To think they would gladly accept the indult being recalled is absurd. I won’t say laughable because there is nothing funny about disrespecting God.

If you think Satan benefits from the division in the Church from this issue then wouldn’t the best thing that could happen be a recall of the indult and universal practice of the Church’s norm?

 

[ncjohn]

Really? Look up some of the threads on this topic (there are many). Look at how fanatically some people argue for CITH. To think they would gladly accept the indult being recalled is absurd. I won’t say laughable because there is nothing funny about disrespecting God.

The statements of a handful of fanatics in favor of it are no more indicative than the statements of the handful of fanatics against it. Projecting your personal preferences on to the Catholic population as a whole, or trying to make any kind of inferrences based on such a small, non-representative sample, has no validity whatsoever.

And your ability to make judgments that people are “disrespecting God” based on how they choose to receive communion is duly noted. I’m sure I do disrespect God every day in my sinfulness, but most assuredly not in my choice of liturgy or how I receive communion.

I find it an interesting argument regardless since one of the big arguments about so many about those who prefer the post-Vatican II liturgical developments is that they’re essentially just cultural Catholics who don’t really care about anything anyway and just “show up”. Aside from that, I’ve watched many of the threads on the subject and find exactly the opposite to be true. I find the small group highly opposed and demanding it be abolished. Those in favor on the other hand simply argue that it is allowed and question why those opposed get their panties in such a knot over how someone else chooses to receive communion. Many who prefer it give their reasons why but I have not seen any with claims that they would revolt if the practice was abrogated.

If you think Satan benefits from the division in the Church from this issue then wouldn’t the best thing that could happen be a recall of the indult and universal practice of the Church’s norm?

Ah yes, the “be reasonable, do it my way, then we won’t have a problem” argument. It isn’t the difference in practice that is behind the division; it is the quibbling about it that some feel commanded to indulge in, overriding what the Church, in its wisdom, has proclaimed.

 

[iluvburpees]

If you think Satan benefits from the division in the Church from this issue then wouldn’t the best thing that could happen be a recall of the indult and universal practice of the Church’s norm?

:clapping:

 

[Ockham]

The statements of a handful of fanatics in favor of it are no more indicative than the statements of the handful of fanatics against it. Projecting your personal preferences on to the Catholic population as a whole, or trying to make any kind of inferrences based on such a small, non-representative sample, has no validity whatsoever.

Good point and duly noted. I will include the recall of the indult in my daily prayers.

And your ability to make judgments that people are “disrespecting God” based on how they choose to receive communion is duly noted. I’m sure I do disrespect God every day in my sinfulness, but most assuredly not in my choice of liturgy or how I receive communion.

It’s not my ability brother, it’s centuries of Church teaching. The Church still teaches COTT as the norm. Pope Paul VI ruled agasint it when rebellious Dutch used it as a symbol of defiance. When the indult was issued CITH was not being practiced in America so it didn’t qualify in the first place.

Many who prefer it give their reasons why but I have not seen any with claims that they would revolt if the practice was abrogated.

I hope you are right but suspect those who favour CITH and other things like married priests, female or gay ordination, abortion, etc, would have a problem humbling themselves before the Lord. The nearest Protestant denomination would probably look quite attractive.

Ah yes, the “be reasonable, do it my way, then we won’t have a problem” argument. It isn’t the difference in practice that is behind the division; it is the quibbling about it that some feel commanded to indulge in, overriding what the Church, in its wisdom, has proclaimed.

It would end the division you see though wouldn’t it? COTT is the traditional method and Church’s norm so it’s not going away. It’s not accurate to say the Church proclaims CITH; more like a reluctant acquiesence after an overt display of disobedience. Has there ever been a pope speak out in favour of CITH?

 

[Sirach2]

COTT is the traditional method and Church’s norm so it’s not going away

It is truly laughable to find pick-and-choose adherents with regard to the Church’s indults.

The OF liturgy is the NORM, and is not going away, either. You accept the indult for the EF gladly because it is YOUR preference, even though it is NOT the norm. Why then do you not allow the indult for CITH to be upheld by those who likewise have THEIR preference?

 

[Ockham]

It is truly laughable to find pick-and-choose adherents with regard to the Church’s indults.

The OF liturgy is the NORM, and is not going away, either. You accept the indult for the EF gladly because it is YOUR preference, even though it is NOT the norm. Why then do you not allow the indult for CITH to be upheld by those who likewise have THEIR preference?

It’s not an indult, rather a form of the liturgy. The form that was practiced for centuries unlike CITH which is a modern variance. I’m not disallowing anything, merely pointing out the Church’s traditional and historical position on reception of the Blessed Sacrament. You can choose to follow the example of disobedience if you want to.

Why do you CITH fans find this issue laughable?

 

[drforjc]

It is truly laughable to find pick-and-choose adherents with regard to the Church’s indults.

The OF liturgy is the NORM, and is not going away, either. You accept the indult for the EF gladly because it is YOUR preference, even though it is NOT the norm. Why then do you not allow the indult for CITH to be upheld by those who likewise have THEIR preference?

One correction of fact: The EF, as Summorum Pontificum makes clear, is NOT celebrated under indult status. It is a legitimate use and B16 made it clear that it was never abolished.

 

[ncjohn]

One correction of fact: The EF, as Summorum Pontificum makes clear, is NOT celebrated under indult status. It is a legitimate use and B16 made it clear that it was never abolished.

It is *no longer *an indult but until SP it was in fact only allowed under indult. Not having been abolished and being under indult are not the same thing.

 

[ncjohn]

The form that was practiced for centuries unlike CITH which is a modern variance.

Again, this is false. CITH was the norm for centuries in the Roman Church and has been the unaltered norm in other Catholic liturgies since the beginning. This might have been reinstated but it most unquestionably is NOT a “modern variance.”

I don’t personally care whether it survives or not but I have just as much problem with those who have to get all judgmental about someone receiving communion in the hand as I do with people getting all judgmental about people preferring the EF. Since both are legitimate options, sanctioned by the Church, it is nobody’s business but the person making the choice nor does anyone have any right to be making judgments about anyone based on their valid liturgical preferences. To continue doing so is to be working in contradiction to Jesus’s direct commands to avoid causing disunity.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I hope you are right but suspect those who favour CITH and other things like

married priests

, female or gay ordination, abortion, etc, would have a problem humbling themselves before the Lord. The nearest Protestant denomination would probably look quite attractive.

If you lead off a list such as this one with a legitimate Catholic practice, it does nothing to support your position.

*Your position *against another legitimate Catholic practice, by my understanding.

:twocents:
tee

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Here is something interesting. Now I’m ready to make my own generalization, based on my experience posting at CAF. Never, ever, in our parish have I ever HEARD of anyone mentioning this CITH v COTT issue, so the division I’ve seen has been restricted to this web site.

Those hard-core types who favor “traditional Catholicism,” in general, have also promulgated the idea that it is better to lose a few Catholics than to compromise on, well, on anything.

Why is it such a big deal then, among the same people, to go ahead and get rid of CITH if it is so evil? If people quit, so what? They weren’t worth it anyway, and now with them gone the rest of us can get on with being proper and traditional. That is, unless the reason we fear people fleeing is not so much about the lost sheep as it is about maintaining the size of the bureaucracy.

Alan

P.S. If I receive CITH, is it a “valid” sacrament, or did I spoil it?

 

[Ockham]

Again, this is false. CITH was the norm for centuries in the Roman Church and has been the unaltered norm in other Catholic liturgies since the beginning. This might have been reinstated but it most unquestionably is NOT a “modern variance.”

Which centuries? Which pope made it the norm?

Who’s judging? This is a discussion of the history of CITH. Many Catholics don’t know it, certainly not I until Internet chats like this.

If SP removed the indult status of the EF why hasn’t any pope done the same with CITH?

 

[Sword_Brethren]

I understand that in the TLM Communion was taken on the tongue, and in the New Mass Communion is generally taken in the hand. I got into thinking of the Last Supper. When the apostles took the Body, wouldn’t they have taken it in their hands?

The Apostles were all priests.

 

[Sirach2]

One correction of fact: The EF, as Summorum Pontificum makes clear, is NOT celebrated under indult status. It is a legitimate use and B16 made it clear that it was never abolished.

Granted, but before the Motu Proprio it was an indult. And there was quite a bit of angst, as there is today, when people who have a preference for that form are not able to freely celebrate it with the regularity they prefer.

As an aside to my former post, it is also laughable as I consider that those who have a preference for the EF would be mandated to go to the OF. We’d never hear the end of it. Yet these same persons fail to honor the personal preference of those who lawfully receive CITH, and would love to force a permanent change, removing their choice – simply because it isn’t THEIRS.

 

[Ockham]

their choice – simply because it isn’t THEIRS.

It isn’t THEIR choice. It is the Church’s.

Choice by the way, is a Protestant hallmark. Personal interpretation, personal relationship, 30,000 different denominations, etc. The four marks of the Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. The norm for reception of Holy Communion is on the tongue. That would be ONE norm, not TWO.

It’s sad those who demand obedience are following the path of the DISOBEDIENT.

 

[ncjohn]

It isn’t THEIR choice. It is the Church’s.

Wrong. The Church has already made the choice available so it is their choice. I’m sorry you don’t like the choice, or think it isn’t prudent, but that does not make it invalid. Maybe when you become Pope you can change that.

Choice by the way, is a Protestant hallmark. Personal interpretation, personal relationship, 30,000 different denominations, etc. The four marks of the Church are: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. The norm for reception of Holy Communion is on the tongue. That would be ONE norm, not TWO.

This is so ludicrous as to not even really warrant any response. As if Catholics have not always had choices. As if there have not been numerous Catholic rites throughout the Church’s history. As if we don’t have dozens of devotions to choose from. Being Catholic has never meant marching in lockstep. Should the Pope go back and abrogate the EF so that we’ll only have one Mass also since the OF is the norm?

It’s sad those who demand obedience are following the path of the DISOBEDIENT.

And yet the only ones demanding “obedience” are those who are insisting that their way is the only way, despite the Church saying differently. What unadulterated arrogance! Those who prefer CITH are simply asking that those who don’t prefer it stop making judgments that they are somehow inferior for availing themselves of what the Church has offered as an option. There is nothing disobedient about that and nobody is asking you to switch your preference. It is when one starts putting one’s personal feelings above what the Church says that one becomes “protestant”.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And yet the only ones demanding “obedience” are those who are insisting that their way is the only way, despite the Church saying differently. What unadulterated arrogance! Those who prefer CITH are simply asking that those who don’t prefer it stop making judgments that they are somehow inferior for availing themselves of what the Church has offered as an option. There is nothing disobedient about that and nobody is asking you to switch your preference. It is when one starts putting one’s personal feelings above what the Church says that one becomes “protestant”.

John, it is totally beyond me. I’m right here, conversing with people and can’t get a clue what planet they are on as far as this logical situation goes. There apparently is no intent to make changes, although they want the rank-and-file to automatically behave like them even though the Church leaders are NOT telling us that one way is preferable. Therefore, all it is, is whining and moaning and creating ill will.

This situation is dumb enough I will now call upon the memory of Dr. Seuss:

First of all, because of the division by some of the people into two arbitrary groups to pick on, we have the Star Bellied Sneetches who all know their way, of two possible ways, is right and the other group is “abominable.”

Then, of course this whole argument reminds me of the Zax who just won’t budge.

Enjoy.

Alan

 

[Sirach2]

Ockham:

If SP removed the indult status of the EF why hasn’t any pope done the same with CITH?

Well that would be wonderful, because when the indult was removed, the EF was made permanent. If the indult is removed from CITH, it would also become a permanent norm of choice beside the COTT.

 

[Ockham]

Those who prefer CITH are simply asking that those who don’t prefer it stop making judgments that they are somehow inferior for availing themselves of what the Church has offered as an option.

One is the norm, one is an indult brought into the GIRM by disobedience. Check the facts. Judge yourself accordingly.

 

[Ockham]

even though the Church leaders are NOT telling us that one way is preferable.

Actually, the only way you can receive Holy Communion from the Pope (the highest Church leader) is on the tongue while kneeling.