R
rben20
Guest
Here is a video I thought I’d share on the topic.
youtube.com/watch?v=PQch2zDHKnw&feature=channel_video_title
youtube.com/watch?v=PQch2zDHKnw&feature=channel_video_title
- Status
B
Barbkw
Guest
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.
The prayer book contained a quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem from the 300’s about how to take Eucharist in cupped hands.
O
otjm
Guest
While I enjoy Michael Voris, I do not always agree with every last thing he says. As to his statement that Communion in the hand never was the norm in the Church, the actual truth is that there is little evidence in the first hundred years or so as to what the norm was, because the method of reception simply is not discussed. That Communion on the tongue eventually became the norm is correct, but that is not how he stated it.
He also may be correct that it will never become the norm; perhaps he has a crystal ball or some other means of determining norms; but his absolute statement that it will never become the norm goes a bit too enthusiastic. I suspect he is correct; but had he said that it likely will never be the norm, I would not quibble.
As to his issue that one never used one’s fingers, I would be most interested in finding the source of that statement; most information simply does not address the issue.
Interestingly, there is evidence of Communion in the hand up to about 1000 AD. In addition, and what is generally not known, is that Communion in the Hand has been practiced with permission since somewhere in the 1200’s, as noted by our Franciscan - as the Franciscans were specifically permitted to receive in that manner (I believe he said permission was given to Francis) and has been practiced since then.
I also do not agree with his implication that Communion in the hand is somehow less reverent; reverence is as reverence does. My parish largely receives in the hand; we also have had 24/7 Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years. Reverence is an issue within the Church. Catechesis is the answer; whether or not there is need to withdraw the permission is generally a debate fueled by those who don’t like CITH. As noted, my parish seems to have a grasp on The Real Presence and on reverence, and interestingly there has been no move to receive on the tongue.
I would certainly encourage anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue to do so. But care needs to be exercised that there does not creep in an issue of pride, that one is thereby more reverent. One can be every bit as reverent and receive in the hand.
He also may be correct that it will never become the norm; perhaps he has a crystal ball or some other means of determining norms; but his absolute statement that it will never become the norm goes a bit too enthusiastic. I suspect he is correct; but had he said that it likely will never be the norm, I would not quibble.
As to his issue that one never used one’s fingers, I would be most interested in finding the source of that statement; most information simply does not address the issue.
Interestingly, there is evidence of Communion in the hand up to about 1000 AD. In addition, and what is generally not known, is that Communion in the Hand has been practiced with permission since somewhere in the 1200’s, as noted by our Franciscan - as the Franciscans were specifically permitted to receive in that manner (I believe he said permission was given to Francis) and has been practiced since then.
I also do not agree with his implication that Communion in the hand is somehow less reverent; reverence is as reverence does. My parish largely receives in the hand; we also have had 24/7 Perpetual Adoration for something like 15 years. Reverence is an issue within the Church. Catechesis is the answer; whether or not there is need to withdraw the permission is generally a debate fueled by those who don’t like CITH. As noted, my parish seems to have a grasp on The Real Presence and on reverence, and interestingly there has been no move to receive on the tongue.
I would certainly encourage anyone who wishes to receive on the tongue to do so. But care needs to be exercised that there does not creep in an issue of pride, that one is thereby more reverent. One can be every bit as reverent and receive in the hand.
R
rben20
Guest
I agree with his position. It’s important to note that it is not the rule, just the exception. Comparing the CITH tradition of today to back then is also a point he addressed. It was as already pointed out received in cup hands with the right on top with hands washed and cared for. There was no use of fingers as is common place today. I would suggest watching all of it, not just a few minutes worth. It is a very good video in light of it being a popular topic on CAF. Thought I would share it since I can’t recall a vortex addressing the issue.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Re: the bolded part-
the same thing could be said for the EF-
it is an exception to the norm,
but I am not trying to stop people who find it spiritually edifying from attending it,
so why are you (and MV and all others who agree that CITH is the root of all evil) judging my heart, my faith and my beliefs because I prefer to receive CITH?
M
mattkubes
Guest
Sure, someone could be equally reverent with regards to an internal disposition when receiving CITH, but I still think that receiving on the tongue is more reverent from an objective standpoint. In the West, we have similar standards for reverence in prayer - we can be reverent when we sit, but kneeling has traditionally been considered a more reverent posture. I think this is why receiving on the tongue is still the norm in the universal Church, and probably why Pope Benedict asks people who come to him to receive on the tongue (and to kneel as well).
When the altar rails were ripped out and people started standing to receive Communion, it might have made logistical sense to switch to an indult of CITH, but I don’t think it’s the ideal.
M
mattkubes
Guest
Eh, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare CITH to The Mass of All Ages; a relatively recent indult practice to a centuries old Liturgy attended by a huge number of the West’s great Saints.the same thing could be said for the EF-
it an exception to the norm,
but I am not trying to stop people who find it spiritually edifying from attending it,
so why are you (and MV and all others who agree that CITH is the root of all evil) judging my heart, my faith and my beliefs because I prefer to receive CITH?
I hope no one here is judging your heart, but I think discussing the prudence of this indult is legitimate. Maybe before Summorum Pontificum, the indult connection could have been made, but still…
R
rben20
Guest
Well first off I am not judging anyone here so please watch what you are saying and try not to get ahead. I am simply agreeing to one side of the argument. As far as the EF and OF comparison, it is weak. The EF Mass was the Mass for centuries. It was never the exception, it was simply treated as abrogated as we know it in fact never was. CITH was made an exception in English speaking world.Re: the bolded part-
the same thing could be said for the EF-
it is an exception to the norm,
but I am not trying to stop people who find it spiritually edifying from attending it,
so why are you (and MV and all others who agree that CITH is the root of all evil) judging my heart, my faith and my beliefs because I prefer to receive CITH?
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I am not comparing the two-
I was replying to the statement by rben20 in post #4-
"It’s important to note that it is not the rule, just the exception."
As I said, the same could be said for the EF- it is ***NOT *** the norm.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Michael Voris judged those who receive CITH, you said you agreed with him.
The EF is now the exception that’s why it is extraodinary- it is not the norm.
I see many in this sub-forum also use the same tactic in discussing Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion- those who do not like the practice make it a point to say that extraordinary means not the norm.
We can’t have it both ways.
R
rben20
Guest
I really don’t know how you equate Voris saying there is sometimes irreverence in CITH with “CITH is the root of all evil…judging my heart, my faith and my belief.” He never said it was a bad thing for those who do practice it. He just gave some really good points on COTT and how it was the norm which is true. The important thing to get out of this is the norm in this case is being used as tradition of the Church. Not whatever seems to be practiced today but has been practiced for centuries. That is why your comparison of the OF and EF is weak.
M
mattkubes
Guest
Sure, they have the same word in their titles, but that’s where the comparison ends. The TLM isn’t said under indult, so it’s not ‘extraordinary’ in the way that EMHCs are. Still, I don’t think it’s important which practice is extraordinary - I’m pretty sure we can agree on what fits into which category. There are more fundamental questions that need to be asked.
To say that one “exception” is preferred by a person so they should have no issue with other “exceptions” just doesn’t follow.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Both ways of receiving Communion are permitted, receiving Communion in the hand requires special permission (indult) as requested by some Bishops Conferences (including USCCB).
At one time some US Bishops gave Catholics a difficult time if they wanted to receive on the Tongue even though it is still the NORM.
Rather than listen to any individual or poster, why not listen to Holy Father Pope Benedict.
Here is the link directly from the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
Here is a video explanation from Cardinal Arenze, please watch in entirety. It’s not that long.
veniteadoremusdominum.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_12.html
At one time some US Bishops gave Catholics a difficult time if they wanted to receive on the Tongue even though it is still the NORM.
Rather than listen to any individual or poster, why not listen to Holy Father Pope Benedict.
Here is the link directly from the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
Here is a video explanation from Cardinal Arenze, please watch in entirety. It’s not that long.
veniteadoremusdominum.blogspot.com/2010/11/blog-post_12.html
A
AndyP2010
Guest
It is my understanding is that he explains this in “Light of the World”
from this articlect.dio.org/comment-and-dialogue/question-box-with-father-dietzen/pope-benedict-xvi-and-practice-of-communion-in-the-hand.html
J
JReducation
Guest
What he says is nothing new. CITH is an indult. It is not a sin or a sacrilege. COTT is the preferred method. He has not said anything that anyone who has read the GIRM doesn’t already know.
He does make one statement that is problematic. He says that the priest’s hands have been consecrated to touch the host. Why is this statement problematic? For one simple reason . . . deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In other words, a deacon does not need permission to distribute Holy Communion as does an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The consecration of hands is not part of the ordination rite to the diaconate.
I’m guessing that Mr. Voris is quoting something from St. Thomas Aquinas. However, deacons have been distributing Holy Communion for centuries, even during the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. The duties of the deacon in liturgy varies from one Catholic rite to another. A deacon in the Latin Rite has different liturgical duties than does a deacon in the Alexandrian Rite. In some rites, deacons do not distribute Holy Communion. That’s not because they do not have consecrated hands. It is because the rite evolved differently. Even though there are 23 Catholic Churches, there are only seven major rites between them (not counting the different rites within the Latin Rite). Depending on the rite, the duty of the deacon may or may not include the distribution of Holy Communion.
Canon Law for the Latin Church is very clear that the deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
Therefore, to say that the priest’s should be the only one who should touch the consecrated host, because his hands are consecrated is contrary to the Law of the Latin Church. If a deacon is “ordinary” he cannot be denied the right to distribute Holy Communion on the grounds that his hands are not consecrate. It is not a privilege, but a right that comes from Holy Orders.
The explanation on the rules and the indult were quite good; however, Mr. Voris did slip up on that one point.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
He does make one statement that is problematic. He says that the priest’s hands have been consecrated to touch the host. Why is this statement problematic? For one simple reason . . . deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. In other words, a deacon does not need permission to distribute Holy Communion as does an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. The consecration of hands is not part of the ordination rite to the diaconate.
I’m guessing that Mr. Voris is quoting something from St. Thomas Aquinas. However, deacons have been distributing Holy Communion for centuries, even during the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. The duties of the deacon in liturgy varies from one Catholic rite to another. A deacon in the Latin Rite has different liturgical duties than does a deacon in the Alexandrian Rite. In some rites, deacons do not distribute Holy Communion. That’s not because they do not have consecrated hands. It is because the rite evolved differently. Even though there are 23 Catholic Churches, there are only seven major rites between them (not counting the different rites within the Latin Rite). Depending on the rite, the duty of the deacon may or may not include the distribution of Holy Communion.
Canon Law for the Latin Church is very clear that the deacon is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.
Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.
Therefore, to say that the priest’s should be the only one who should touch the consecrated host, because his hands are consecrated is contrary to the Law of the Latin Church. If a deacon is “ordinary” he cannot be denied the right to distribute Holy Communion on the grounds that his hands are not consecrate. It is not a privilege, but a right that comes from Holy Orders.
The explanation on the rules and the indult were quite good; however, Mr. Voris did slip up on that one point.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
As you correctly say and as this article correctly says, the Holy Father did explain these reasons in his book. He has also given Communion in the hand at other masses. From the little that I have been able to observe at a distance, he uses the kneeler and communion on the tongue at big celebrations for the reasons that he states in the interview.
In smaller gatherings where he is celebrating mass for a small group, he does allow the person to choose.
This makes perfect sense, if you have ever been to mass at St. Peter’s. It’s a circus. The mass is still the mass. It’s beautiful and reverent. But having studied in Rome and having attended many masses at St. Peter’s I am no longer surprised at some of the nutty things that people do. For some people, going to mass celebrated be the pope is an event instead of a mass. I will never forget the hundreds of tourists who attend mass at St. Peter’s on Christmas Eve and the Easter Vigil who seem not to have a clue what a mass is, but it’s one of those things that you do if you’re on vacation in Rome during Christmas or Easter. You get tickets and go to “the pope’s mass” as if it were different from the mass in your local parish. People are strange. What can we say?
But we still have to love them.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
ANNE_2
Guest
Br. JR, OSF have you seen what is posted on the Vatican web site.
It is closer to Voris’s statements than yours.
Further the Holy Father only gives Holy Communion on the Tongue and while kneeling, since 2008 per the Vatican web site.
Yes, indeed St. Thomas Aquinas was the Voris quote about Priests, and that is also on the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
It is closer to Voris’s statements than yours.
Further the Holy Father only gives Holy Communion on the Tongue and while kneeling, since 2008 per the Vatican web site.
Yes, indeed St. Thomas Aquinas was the Voris quote about Priests, and that is also on the Vatican web site.
vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Why do people keep insisting that just because something allowed via indult is bad?
M
mattkubes
Guest
I don’t think anyone has made the argument that indult = bad. But knowing which practice is indult and which is the norm does give us some insight into which is preferred.
I
InquisitorMax
Guest
I don’t like the use of Ordinary and Extraordinary to describe both rites. It confuses people and that’s bad for something so important.
e.g. Ordinary = dull, regular, standard.
Extraordinary = Great, exceptional, unusual, uncommon.
Helps make the case for using Latin
That CITH is allowed is not in dispute. That it should be done, is. Especially considering what was done in most R.C. churches prior to it spreading. How can it be better?
I saw a woman (who I think was a celiac) imbibe the Precious Blood direct from the altar recently, at a Mass I haven’t been to in 30 years. We’re becoming too casual about this and I think the old, ‘bad’ days of authoritarian cergy and frightened laity are too long gone to be used as an excuse for being casual.
e.g. Ordinary = dull, regular, standard.
Extraordinary = Great, exceptional, unusual, uncommon.
Helps make the case for using Latin
That CITH is allowed is not in dispute. That it should be done, is. Especially considering what was done in most R.C. churches prior to it spreading. How can it be better?
I saw a woman (who I think was a celiac) imbibe the Precious Blood direct from the altar recently, at a Mass I haven’t been to in 30 years. We’re becoming too casual about this and I think the old, ‘bad’ days of authoritarian cergy and frightened laity are too long gone to be used as an excuse for being casual.
- Status