Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why do people keep insisting that just because something allowed via indult is bad?
That something is an indult is that it is not really the mind of the Church but you are allowed to do it. They usually have come up because people were doing things anyway and the Vatican had to decide whether or not to force the issue or just to allow them an exception to the rule.
 
St. Cyril seems to be the only one, those who are pro-CITH, can quote. Was he even in the Roman Church?

Changing over to this practice, after hundreds of years, says a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, today. If the host is holy, why do that? COTT to undignified for ya?
 
St. Cyril seems to be the only one, those who are pro-CITH, can quote. Was he even in the Roman Church?

Changing over to this practice, after hundreds of years, says a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, today. If the host is holy, why do that? COTT to undignified for ya?
I love the way some people think that nothing changed in the Church until the Second Vatican Council when in fact the Church has been in a constant state of change since the beginning.
 
I agree for most part Br. JR. I could imagine people treating the Mass as a tourist center. To say that this is the only reason as to why the Pope chooses COTT this is wrong though.
That statement was not made by me, it was made by the Holy Father in Light of the World. It’s part of his explanation. The key word here is “part”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I fail to understand why some Latin Catholics want to make this a pro or contra issue. When you have a law and you have an indult, it means that what’s in the law is the norm and the exception to the law is allowed under X circumstances; therefore making the exception legal and honorable. Church law would never make legal what is not honorable.

We have many indults. Anyone who wants to see indults just has to look at religious orders. You have Canon Law, which dictates the norms for everything from admission to perpetual profession. Then you have the rules written by the founders. Guess what happens? The founders had something in mind that Canon Law did not foresee. Now what do we do? The Church changed Canon Law in 1983 and the Rule of St. Benedict says, the Rule of St. Francis says, the Rule of St. Albert says, the Rule of St. Augustine says and the Rule of St. Basil says. Now you have the five existing rules (the only rules for religious life) out of compliance with Canon Law. Worse, they don’t agree with each other. What happens?

You call a General Chapter of your order and you put together one of the following:

a) an constitutional ammendment that overrides the founder to bring the community into compliance with Canon Law

b) a leter to the Holy Father explaining why you’re out of compliance with Canon Law

Then what happens?

The Holy Father writes an indult, either

a) you may override your founder on this point and use your constitutional ammendment so as to be in compliance with Canon Law

b) you may follow your founder and override Canon Law on this particular point

And he does this for every single religious community in the world who finds themselves in a dilemma because they are following one of these five rules that were written long before 1983. Remember, there are no other rules in the Catholic Church. A religious community must choose one of these rules or choose not to have a rule at all and govern themselves democratically by statutes that they revise every X number of years, even that is an indult. Until St. Ignatius of Loyola came around, all religious orders and congregations had to follow a rule. St. Ignatius asked for an indult that is in place to this day, which allows the Society of Jesus not to follow any rule, but to govern itself by statutes that Ignatius wrote and they can edit, modify, delete, append and overwrite at their discretion as long as their Superior General convokes the chapter and a simple majority of the capitulars approve. They have been living with this indult for almost 500 years and no one has ever complained.

The Poor Clares have been living with an indult for 775 years and no one has ever noticed. They touch the Eucharist. They give themselves Holy Communion when no one is around to celebrate mass for them. They are not to answer to any male authority except the local bishop and the pope. The local bishop’s authority over them is very limited. That too is an indult.

What’s my point? The Church makes many rules, has many traditions and has hundreds of indults that we don’t even know about. This is one more. Each person has to do the best he or she can for his or her salvation and that of his or her family. It is one thing to be charitable and it is another to push a point because I think everyone should go in that direction. That’s not how our Church operates. She does not micromanage.

Those who think that she did in the past are mistaken. Rome has more interaction with the dioceses around the world after aggiornamento and collegiality was introduced than it had before. Prior to that, each bishop was on his own. The popes dealt in international matters, not in local matters. That’s why they had the ad limina visit every five years, because it was the only way for the pope to be in touch with the world outside of Rome. The Church is not interested in micromanaging the spiritual lives of her children. She’s interested in teaching and guiding. After that, it’s up to the local bishops and the individual Catholics to pick up the ball and run with it.

Let’s let it happen the way that the Church envisions it. Let the bishops and their delegates (pastors, usually) deal with situations. Let each of us deal with what is under our jurisdiction to care for. Otherwise, it becomes a never ending discussion of the same subject and it’s not going to change because we wish it to change. It will change when the bishops decide it. The law is on their side. They can use the indult or they decline it.

If they choose to use it, let them do so. No one forces anyone to receive in the hand. If that happens to you, then you have every right to complain. But that should be to your pastor, not here. No one here can fix the problem.

On another note, about kneeling for communion. While it is a beautiful thing to do, always make sure that the priest or deacon who is distributing communion can give you communion while you’re on your knees. I learned a very “sad” lesson not long ago, about three weeks ago. A lady went to communion and knelt. She may have done it out of habit or was distracted and did not notice. The priest has CP. He cna’t walk. He moves with crutches. Goes to one spot and stands there and you go to him for communion. When she knelt, he had to ask her to stand, because if he bent over, he would fall or drop the hosts. It was very uncomfortable for both parties. It suddenly occurred to me that we have many older priests who may also have problems bending over or reaching at certain angles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I love the way some people think that nothing changed in the Church until the Second Vatican Council when in fact the Church has been in a constant state of change since the beginning.
That says nothing. But it sounds good. (President Obama used it when campaigning: “Change, we can believe in!” Sounds good, says nothing substantial i.e. What change, exactly?) Also, change can be bad.

I love the way defenders of CITH dance around the question: “Why should Roman Catholic churches change over to this practice?”.

Like, because you have an indult doesn’t mean “Hey, everybody, let’s drop COTT!”

I think, in the heat of revolution in the 70’s, some Catholics were thrilled to touch that which was previously forbidden. They also thought they were re-creating a ‘better’, ‘authentic’, distant past, which only existed in their selective fantasies.
 
That says nothing. But it sounds good. (President Obama used it when campaigning: “Change, we can believe in!” Sounds good, says nothing substantial i.e. What change, exactly?) Also, change can be bad.

I love the way defenders of CITH dance around the question: “Why should Roman Catholic churches change over to this practice?”.

Like, because you have an indult doesn’t mean “Hey, everybody, let’s drop COTT!”

I think, in the heat of revolution in the 70’s, some Catholics were thrilled to touch that which was previously forbidden. They also thought they were re-creating a ‘better’, ‘authentic’, distant past, which only existed in their selective fantasies.
While. yes, change may be bad a change the the Church allows can in no way be bad in the context that many use the word bad to be.

That is that many who use the word bad mean it to be a moral evil or sacrilegious which the Church can never allow.
 
40.png
JReducation:
Let’s let it happen the way that the Church envisions it. Let the bishops and their delegates (pastors, usually) deal with situations. Let each of us deal with what is under our jurisdiction to care for. Otherwise, it becomes a never ending discussion of the same subject and it’s not going to change because we wish it to change. It will change when the bishops decide it. The law is on their side. They can use the indult or they decline it.

If they choose to use it, let them do so. No one forces anyone to receive in the hand. If that happens to you, then you have every right to complain. But that should be to your pastor, not here. No one here can fix the problem.
http://bestsmileys.com/signs13/10.gif
Very well said, Brother JR. Actually, doing a search of the forum on certain posters, I have found multiple threads all the way back to 2004. Mostly it is a gripe session from those who wish it would change, and as you said, nobody here can fix it for them.
 
That says nothing. But it sounds good. (President Obama used it when campaigning: “Change, we can believe in!” Sounds good, says nothing substantial i.e. What change, exactly?) Also, change can be bad.

I love the way defenders of CITH dance around the question: “Why should Roman Catholic churches change over to this practice?”.

Like, because you have an indult doesn’t mean “Hey, everybody, let’s drop COTT!”

I think, in the heat of revolution in the 70’s, some Catholics were thrilled to touch that which was previously forbidden. They also thought they were re-creating a ‘better’, ‘authentic’, distant past, which only existed in their selective fantasies.
Changes:

  1. *]From the 2nd century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.
    *]As of the 2nd century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups, e.g. Ariamism and Ebionitiam argued that Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticiam held views which argued that Christ was a spiritual being that only appeared to have a physical body. The resulting tensions lead to schisms within the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and ecuminical councils were convened in the 4th and 5th centuries to deal with the issues. Eventually in 451 the Hypostatic union was decreed, namely that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.
    *]In 325 the First Council of Nicaea defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another - decisions which were re-ratified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of same substance) as the Father. The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus.
    *]In 431, the First Council of Ephesus was initially called to address the views of Nestorius on Mariology, but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed.
    *]The Council of Ephesus debated hypostasis (co-existing natures) versus Monophysitism (only one nature) versus Miaphysitiam (two natures united as one) versus Nestorianism (disunion of two natures).

    And that was in the first 400 years of the Church! Need I go on?
 
I was reading an Adoration prayer book last night.

The prayer book contained a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem from the 300’s about how to take Eucharist in cupped hands.
Which of course is a gnostic forgery.
 
Robert, were you being facetious or did you really believe that?

According to the Letter from the Holy See to the American Bishops (April 3, 1985):

Quote:
**Communion *in the hand should show, as much as communion on the tongue, due respect towards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For this reason emphasis should be laid, as was done by the Fathers of the Church, upon the dignity of the gesture of the communicant.
Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making “the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King” (Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).
 
Which of course is a gnostic forgery.
I highly doubt the Synod of Trullo Canon 101 would cite a “gnostic forgery.”
CANON CI.
THE great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, ARRANGING HIS HANDS IN THE FORM OF A CROSS, AND SO LET HIM RECEIVE THE COMMUNION OF GRACE. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.
ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CI.
Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth; whoever shall prepare a receptacle of gold or of any other material instead of his hand, shall be cut off.
 
When I consider all the sins I’ve ever committed with my hands as opposed to all the sins I’ve ever committed with my tongue, I would(with utmost honesty and humility)call my hands the Sistine Chapel and my tongue the portal to Hades. Seriously. My hands are the most honest part of my body. My tongue, however, is a rogue without limitation.

I realize that not everyone could make the same claim. But to make a carte blanche statement that the hands are always less holy than the tongue as a way to defend the primacy of COTT doesn’t translate universally to everyone.

Biblically, there are a number of passages which encourage us to work honestly with our hands, to raise up holy hands in prayer, to lay hands upon the sick and infirm. The tongue gets a bad rap all around.

I’m interested in reading rational explanations of why and how the tongue is more holy than the hands. For my part, in my experience it is the reverse. I understand that there are some for whom that statement would not apply, and for them they have the choice to receive COTT and love God and reverence the Church in the way that most becomes their devotion.
 
My hands are the most honest part of my body. My tongue, however, is a rogue without limitation.
I used to say the same until I started typing. 🙂

But I fail to see the point, unless you hope to topically absorb the host through the skin, which is possible BTW.
 
When I consider all the sins I’ve ever committed with my hands as opposed to all the sins I’ve ever committed with my tongue, I would(with utmost honesty and humility)call my hands the Sistine Chapel and my tongue the portal to Hades. Seriously. My hands are the most honest part of my body. My tongue, however, is a rogue without limitation.

I’m interested in reading rational explanations of why and how the tongue is more holy than the hands. For my part, in my experience it is the reverse. I understand that there are some for whom that statement would not apply, and for them they have the choice to receive COTT and love God and reverence the Church in the way that most becomes their devotion.
For me it’s not a case of hands or tongue being more holy.

It is the action of being fed.
Of Jesus coming from the hands of the priest directly onto my tongue.
… I am simply receiving our Lord with no ‘taking’ involved. (What I mean by the word ‘taking’ is that, even though we receive Jesus into our hands, we still must take some action in order to transfer Him into our mouths. I hope my meaning’s clear …)

I feel that it is a more humble way of receiving. Almost humiliating – here I am an adult yet I am being fed as if I am an infant.

Since my conversion I’ve been more and more aware of how the physical things in our liturgy affect and teach me. One of those things that affect me are the postures we assume for different parts of the Mass, such as kneeling during the Canon/Prayer of Consecration.
Receiving on the tongue, especially while kneeling before our God, helps me a great deal.

(I think that after Easter I’ll talk to our pastor to tell him that I’d like to go back to kneeling as I used to a few months ago.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top