Communion in the hand

[rben20]

Why do people keep insisting that just because something allowed via indult is bad?

Well no one is saying that indults are bad. After all, wasn’t the EF of the Mass an indult before SP? I’m sure people including myself would never say the EF was bad practice when compared to the OF, though I do know those who think this way.

 

[rben20]

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

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.

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

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

I think these two links were great and answered it all.

 

[thirddec]

We used to say when we were young that communion was the only time you could get away with sticking your tongue out at the priest

 

[Ruth_Catherine]

We used to say when we were young that communion was the only time you could get away with sticking your tongue out at the priest

I remember when I was young someone used to tell me that, too.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Eh, it’s a bit of a stretch to compare CITH to The Mass of All Ages;

The EF is not “The Mass of All Ages”.

Any Eucharistic rite can be called the “Mass of All Ages” including the OF.

After all, as the Holy Father has stated there are not two Eucharistic rites in the Latin Church, there is only one rite with two forms, the Ordinary Form (which is the norm) and the Extraordianry Form (which is not the norm hence the name Extraordinary).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Not only that, it is a misunderstanding of the Ordination rite. The consecration of the priests hands is not for the touching of the Eucharist, it is for the Consecration of the Eucharist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This thread is just another example of how people need to focus on their own actions and what they are doing and to stop focusing so much on what others are doing and passing judgement on them because what they are doing is different from what you do and what you think should be done.

 

[rben20]

This thread is just another example of how people need to focus on their own actions and what they are doing and to stop focusing so much on what others are doing and passing judgement on them because what they are doing is different from what you do and what you think should be done.

Brother, nothing ugly has been said. Just because a few state to look at the other position does not mean the other way is bad or inferior. This is what a forum is for…discussion. Don’t add to the confusion already on this simple post. All I did was post a video from Voris who shed some light on it as I know there have been multiple conversations on this topic here at CAF. Do not confuse those threads with this one. I did not expect everyone to get all touchy about it, otherwise I would have never posted it, but apparently others here cannot handle a discussion and confuse arguments with “judgements”

 

[ConstantineTG]

Well no one is saying that indults are bad. After all, wasn’t the EF of the Mass an indult before SP? I’m sure people including myself would never say the EF was bad practice when compared to the OF, though I do know those who think this way.

I just see it as a main theme of those who say, “don’t do CITH because its an indult”. Why even bring it up? The Church indults many things besides CITH. You gave one example from not so long ago. Any exception to the law is an indult.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

There is no proof he ever said that.

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

scripturecatholic.xanga.com/703038688/9-what-are-we-to-think-of-%E2%80%9Ccommunion-in-the-hand%E2%80%9D/

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[markomalley]

An interesting book on the subject COTT vs CITH is Dominus Est – It is the Lord by +Athanasius Schneider.

The review on Amazon reads as follows:

Based on his experience of Eucharistic devotion under Communist persecution, Bishop Schneider, auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda, Kazakhstan and member of the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross, bears witness to the loss of reverence for the Real Presence in the Western world and makes concrete suggestions for the renewal of Eucharistic faith and devotion in our times. “I have read the whole book with delight. It is excellent.” ~ Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect, Congregation for Divine Worship “Now more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful renew a living faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in order to strengthen the life of the Church herself.” ~ from the preface by Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship

 

[corsair]

I can respect that the Byzantines receive one way and the EF Romans receive another as the OF Romans another. As for me its on the tongue and kneeling.

 

[TrueLight]

I can respect that the Byzantines receive one way and the EF Romans receive another as the OF Romans another. As for me its on the tongue and kneeling.

When I finally receive communion, a year from now, it will most likely be on the tongue.

What do you do if everyone stands on the line. Is it disruptive to kneel?

 

[The_Reginator]

When I finally receive communion, a year from now, it will most likely be on the tongue.

What do you do if everyone stands on the line. Is it disruptive to kneel?

I knelt at the OF Mass for years and, as far as I know, it didn’t cause any disruption at all.

[My priest asked me to stand and bow instead. But that was in relation to problems I was having with authority and pride. If he had any other issues with it, we’ve never discussed them.]

I’m considering speaking with our pastor and going back to kneeling.
It may be best to talk to your priest ahead of time and let him know what you want to do and why.

I pray that we can all do our best to show the greatest possible reverence to God in the Eucharist, and to encourage others to do so as well.

 

[Shin]

When I finally receive communion, a year from now, it will most likely be on the tongue.

What do you do if everyone stands on the line. Is it disruptive to kneel?

I always kneel. Once I started, I could not stop.

It’s not a disruption, though some people are upset at kneeling and so like to say it is. There are no problems with it, except in the minds of those offended by it.

It’s as simple as genuflecting, except you stay down but briefly longer, on two knees.

Begin, and thank God, and keep it up!

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

When I finally receive communion, a year from now, it will most likely be on the tongue.

What do you do if everyone stands on the line. Is it disruptive to kneel?

No. Some people have claimed it is, but that’s just a silly unfounded reason they give to try to make you stand. In all the time I’ve been kneeling it hasn’t been disruptive at all. The other day I knelt for communion at the chrism Mass (and was the only person to do so, I believe) and the old bishop’s jaw just about dropped to the floor. But other than that there was no disruption!

 

[JReducation]

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

Be careful. Go back to the site. It says

"Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest."

Then it moves right on without telling the reader that this never became law in the Latin Church and that in fact, it is contrary to current Canon Law in the Latin Church. Canon Law says, as I quoted above, that deacons are also Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. We know that the hands of the deacon are not consecrated.

My take is that the author uses St. Thomas’ statement to get you and me to focus on the significance of the Eucharist. He’s not trying to make a statement about the hands of the priest. If the author were to say that only the hands of the priest are worthy of touching the Eucharist, because they are consecrated, he would be out of compliance with Canon Law. He does not go there. He stays on course, focusing the importance of understand and helping others understand the sacredness of the Eucharist. As I said before, that is not a new idea. Good Catholics and good Orthodox know this.

In the video, the way that the statement was made, it sounded as if he was saying that only the consecrated hands of the priest can touch the Eucharist, which is what St. Thomas said, but the Latin Church never adopted what St. Thomas said.

As to the other, I made it very clear that in large settings the Holy Father only gives communion while kneeling and on the tongue. He also speaks about giving communion on the hand in Light of the World and he explains the circumstances and the reasons for the differences that he makes.

That part is not as important as the proper understanding of what St. Thomas said and what the Church says. They do not coincide. When that happens, we go with Church law. Poor St. Thomas would be horrified if people placed his thoughts above Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

**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. **

They are not two rites. They are two forms of the same rite.

e.g. Ordinary = dull, regular, standard.
Extraordinary = Great, exceptional, unusual, uncommon.

I see where you’re coming from here. The problem is not the term. The problem is American English. In Standard English and in other languages, ordinary and extraordinary have a much closer meaning than in American English.

In Standard English and other languages “ordinary” means “the standard”. It does not mean dull or common as it does in American English. Extraordinary means the exception, not so much the great.

In a language such as Spanish,

Ordinario: can mean standard or rude. The meaning changes with the intonation and the context.

Extaordinario: can mean the exception or fantastic. Again, the meaning changes with the intonation and the context.

That’s just a normal thing that happens when you translate documents. Try reading the works of John of the Cross in English and then in Spanish They’re much easier to understand in Spanish, trust me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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?

The term “Indult Mass” was common for those parishes which celebrated the Traditional Mass with diocesan approval prior to Summorum Pontificum. But to be technical, it was not an indult. An indult is an exception to the norm. No such indult was ever needed to say the Traditional Mass, as it was never forbidden (in theory, although in practice, things are much more complicated for a diocesan priest who wishes to say the Traditional Mass).

The Traditional Mass is the norm throughout Western Christian history. The New Mass is a new thing. Just because the Traditional Mass is not as common presently doesn’t make it automatically an “exception to the norm”. Statistics at a given point in time do not determine the “norm”. Just because Communion in the Hand (which is an indult – an exception to the norm of Communion on the Tongue) is more common in many places, doesn’t make it the norm.

Or at least, you could distinguish between the de facto norm and the de jure norm. Communion in the Hand, at this point in time, is the de facto norm. However, it is not the de jure norm.