C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Its not odd. Norm doesn’t mean people have to choose it. There is a choice, people are free to choose. There is nothing wrong with that.
- Status
F
FightingFat
Guest
I think it’s because when CITH came in, it was pretty much all the catechists taught. My youngest boy is just going through FHC classes now and his catechists had no idea about any of the history, norms or development. She has just always taught CITH to the children. Thus the practice has become the norm, regardless of what constitutes orthopraxy.
M
Mike5575
Guest
CITH is older than some people realize. Take this quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem dating back to the 4th Century AD:
*“Do not approach, then, with your wrists extended or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a king. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, “Amen.” Then, after having carefully blessed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, consume it- carefully, lest you lose any portion. For whatever you lose is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone give you grains of gold, would not you hold them with all care, on your guard against losing any? Will you not keep watch more carefully, then, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?..” *
-St. Cyril of Jerusalem On Reverence At Liturgy
Now, I prefer COTT over CITH, but for those that receive Communion on the hand, I strongly suggest that you receive it the way St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructed. If you do that, you can’t go wrong in my opinion.
Now, my theory is that the Church alowed CITH early on, but restricted it to COTT to prevent abuses.
*“Do not approach, then, with your wrists extended or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a king. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, “Amen.” Then, after having carefully blessed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, consume it- carefully, lest you lose any portion. For whatever you lose is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone give you grains of gold, would not you hold them with all care, on your guard against losing any? Will you not keep watch more carefully, then, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?..” *
-St. Cyril of Jerusalem On Reverence At Liturgy
Now, I prefer COTT over CITH, but for those that receive Communion on the hand, I strongly suggest that you receive it the way St. Cyril of Jerusalem instructed. If you do that, you can’t go wrong in my opinion.
Now, my theory is that the Church alowed CITH early on, but restricted it to COTT to prevent abuses.
S
Spelling
Guest
I don’t. I think there are a some very practical reasons why people choose to receive CIH. First, I think some are ashamed at the condition of their teeth/mouths. A coated tongue or poor dental condition can make some people very self conscious. I know some who receive COT who barely open their mouths/stick out their tongues because they are self conscious yet they demand to receive COT. Second, I think some people are terrified of having a host fall or be dropped while they are receiving. Third, some people take the words of the Mass very literally “…TAKE, eat, this is My Body…” Fourth, some don’t want their mouths accidentally touched by someone’s hand. Those are four, very practical and valid reasons to choose the CIH option.
T
Tony27
Guest
http://www.filetolink.com/1c4c10ce
where where
where where
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
I know it sounds silly, but a priest friend of mine actually ran into this very issue. He was visiting an elderly person who was a shut in and while talking she produced a photo ablum of all the Papal events she had been to during her life. But instead of pictures in the plastic sleeves there were hosts!Seriously people…buy a postcard
My friend gushed what a wonderful collection it was and that he’d hate to see it be thrown away or fall into the wrong hands if something should happen to her. She agreed and let him take the album with him when he left. He made sure to properly dispose of the hosts.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
YikesI know it sounds silly, but a priest friend of mine actually ran into this very issue. He was visiting an elderly person who was a shut in and while talking she produced a photo ablum of all the Papal events she had been to during her life. But instead of pictures in the plastic sleeves there were hosts!
My friend gushed what a wonderful collection it was and that he’d hate to see it be thrown away or fall into the wrong hands if something should happen to her. She agreed and let him take the album with him when he left. He made sure to properly dispose of the hosts.
Although…she did have a photo album of Jesus that way…(sorry…couldn’t help it)…
T
The_Curt_Jester
Guest
Well, I was making a reference to something someone told me awhile ago. I receive on the tongue and KNEELING. Someone told me that I shouldn’t receive kneeling because standing is the norm and I need to do everything to conform with everyone else. So why is it a big deal that I have to do the norm like everyone else when it comes to standing/kneeling, but then when it comes to COTT/CITH, people choose to ignore the norm and receive in the hand (Indult) and it’s perfectly okay? Shouldn’t there be a big stink from the same people because people aren’t doing the norm?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The norm for standing is mandated by the Bishops as instructed in the GIRM and is approved by the Holy See. There is a reason they want all people to stand. Posture has more of a unifying effect than mode of reception.
Is that the Catholic thing to do?
Besides, these same people say negative things about the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, but prefer to go to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Mass. Why is that?
T
The_Curt_Jester
Guest
Putting up a big stink about something? Only if it’s something important. The question I posed about “putting up a big stink” was merely rhetorical, however.
To the last part of your post, it could be because the first refers to how rare they should be and the latter refers to how great it is! Ah, the wonders of the English language!
V
veilofveronica
Guest
Communion in the Hand is an Indult, Communion on the Tongue is the Norm.
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
As it says in the article, no minister of the Eucharist can refuse Communion on the Tongue, but they can refuse Communion in the Hand if they think that abuse may occur.
God Bless You
catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
As it says in the article, no minister of the Eucharist can refuse Communion on the Tongue, but they can refuse Communion in the Hand if they think that abuse may occur.
God Bless You
B
benedictgal
Guest
There is only one instance where COTT is mandatory. If Holy Communion is distributed via intinction, both the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum specifically state that the intincted Sacred Host must be given by the priest on the tongue.
Thus, if the Elect will be receiving Holy Communion via intinction, they can only receive from the priest on the tongue. He cannot placed the intincted Sacred Host in the hands of the communicant.
Thus, if the Elect will be receiving Holy Communion via intinction, they can only receive from the priest on the tongue. He cannot placed the intincted Sacred Host in the hands of the communicant.
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
This, I think, would be the ideal (it was used at the monastery where I was received into the Church). That way, both Sacred Species may be consumed by the communicant (a fuller sign, but not, of course a “fuller” sacrament) and there would be less of a chance for spillage of the Most Precious Blood and it would put paid to the continued debate of COTH v. COTT. Of course, only priests are currently permitted to administer via intinction.
- Status