Communion in the Hand

[Saints_Alive]

When you say “insinuate” and “not cherry pick”, are you addressing that to Br JR?

Insinuate, yes. I see no problem with that word. If you claimed I was insinuating something, I wouldn’t be offended.

Cherry pick, no, I meant anyone/everyone here. I agreed with some of what Tim said, taking his words in context, and I agreed with much of what Brother JR said. If I’d have ignored the truth they stated and continued arguing my point, then I’d be cherry picking.

Picking and choosing, whatever term you want to use to describe it.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Sirach, if you can read Memoriale Domini and then state you see no rejection of the wishes of the Holy Father and the majority of the worlds Bishops at any time during the time it was debated, then I don’t think any man on this Earth, pope or otherwise will change your mind.

 

[SuperTrad]

I very much doubt the Franciscans let lay people handle the Body Of Christ, prior to 1970.

But you can make a very … interesting … Mass if you pick and choose the bits you like from 2000 years of history.

Meanwhile, the shell-shocked and the weary find their way to the Usus Antiquior and are refreshed.

 

[poche]

If you don’t want to recieve communion in the hand, then you don’t have to.

 

[severus68]

Insinuate, yes. I see no problem with that word. If you claimed I was insinuating something, I wouldn’t be offended.

Cherry pick, no, I meant anyone/everyone here. I agreed with some of what Tim said, taking his words in context, and I agreed with much of what Brother JR said. If I’d have ignored the truth they stated and continued arguing my point, then I’d be cherry picking.

Picking and choosing, whatever term you want to use to describe it.

Then you have been rather disrespectful, in particular to someone who is a member of the clergy, who has taught many of us a lot and who has been more than charitable in responses to those who have been less, to say the least.

 

[severus68]

Brother, if you are convinced that there were no instances of disobedience prior to the indult allowing CITH, I suppose we have no reason to discuss the matter. You haven’t even acknowledged it. By my cherry pick comment I meant all of us. Sorry if you were offended. I wasn’t trying to belittle your thoughts or replies.

I sense you are angry going by your progression from referring to traditionalists and then radical traditionalists. Not sure why you keep mentioning them in replying to my posts because I’m not arguing against CITH. Just as you seem irritated at my replies, I’m a bit irritated as well, left wondering if you are accusing me of being a radical traditionalist.

The issue seems to be my use of the words novelty, disobedience. My statement that CITH was not introduced by Rome, we seem to agree on.

At any rate, yes I’m new here and after reviewing the OP, I am puzzled as to why the SSPX, Traditionalists, and another Catholic forum are mentioned in the thread and belittled. Seems odd and off topic.

I’ll bow out of the discussion, but I must add that I refuse to accept the term Novus ordo is a derogatory term. It is found on the vatican site more times than either of us can count.
gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=novus+ordo&btnG=Search+on+vatican.va&client=default_frontend&output=xml_no_dtd&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&exclude_apps=1&site=default_collection

So you respect the OF and accept it as valid and just another form of the same rite?

 

[Melchior_1]

I very much doubt the Franciscans let lay people handle the Body Of Christ, prior to 1970.

Well for starters, if you’re a guest in their house you’ll probably do as they do.

Also, why is it that lay people couldn’t, yet others with non-consecrated hands could?

 

[Sirach2]

Sirach, if you can read Memoriale Domini and then state you see no rejection of the wishes of the Holy Father and the majority of the worlds Bishops at any time during the time it was debated, then I don’t think any man on this Earth, pope or otherwise will change your mind.

I see that you are dismissive of some key paragraphs, whether intentionally or not, that clearly grant permission, and state that it has been* a traditional* method.

Note: in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547) the Instruction was accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand. The letter laid down the following regulations:

1. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant.

This was the CDW’s letter issued in 1969, over 40 years ago. It does not prove, as you allege, disobedience. It merely states that formal approval had not been requested, and the Office is concerned that the faithful had not been instructed. Brother JR explained how it may have appeared to be disobedience, but in fact was NOT. Did you read his posts?

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

 

[ProVobis]

Second myth: A priest can’t tell you not to receive COTT.

Br JR, ah, but he can hold the host at your eye level, thus encouraging you to receive COTT, especially in case he senses whether you are undecided. And if you do decide to receive in the hand, he can make CITH look like an inconvenience. No words necessary, especially if it’s a fast moving line. Just pointing out the mechanics.

 

[Baelor]

AFAIK, it’s the bishops’ call on whether it’s allowed within that country with conditions (has to be consumed immediately, etc). Furthermore the local bishop and/or pastor may restrict the practice within a diocese, church, or particular service, such as an EF.

COTT is universally allowed.

It doesn’t matter. If CITH were inherently problematic, then religious orders would not be permitted to use it.

I think very few liturgical problems besides validity can be said to be inherently wrong. I personally see liturgy on a stratum of “better practices” and “worse practices.”

That is fine, but the OP was clearly suggesting, and even outright stating, that CITH was inherently problematic.

As has been pointed out in the past, religious are generally better informed and have a much deeper understanding of religious practices than do many of the laity.

Irrelevant when discussing the inherent nature of a practice.

Hence a practice that is used by a religious order may not always be understood by the laity to the same degree as the religious do. For instance, I somehow doubt that a Franciscan would receive Holy Communion, carry it back to his seat and consume it there, as more than a few of the laity do.

Irrelevant when discussing the inherent nature of a practice.

 

[Sirach2]

Saints Alive:

I’ll bow out of the discussion, but I must add that I refuse to accept the term Novus ordo is a derogatory term. It is found on the vatican site more times than either of us can count.
gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=n…ult_collection

You have received excellent instruction about this from Brother JR showing the reason this term is no longer used, yet you override it in favor of your search on the Vatican documents that “proves” he is wrong? Take a good look at your referenced links, and you’ll find on the first page alone, several date back to 1955, 1959, and 1969. In some instances, the reference was only to “Ordo” meaning Order, and did not refer to the Mass.

Oh, but you are wiser, yes?

JReducation:

In addition, the “novus ordo” as you call it was simply the cover title for the rubrics of the revised mass of Pope John XXIII. After that edition, there have been three revisions and the term has no longer been used. It is simply called the Roman Rite or the Ordinary Form. Novus Ordo is a disparaging term used by radical traditionalists, not the canonical term used by the Church.

 

[SuperTrad]

Well for starters, if you’re a guest in their house you’ll probably do as they do.

Um, what? ‘A guest in their house?’

I would say a church is God’s temple where lay people come to be sanctified by their priest’s propitiating Him. I don’t see how changing to letting them handle Him helps that. Too many vectors for misuse and a loss of a humbling action.

I’m pretty sure Franciscans never let lay people handle the host when the rule was in force. It would have been deeply scandalous. Unless they were experimenting in secret(?)

Also, why is it that lay people couldn’t, yet others with non-consecrated hands could?

Indeed, why was CITH forbidden and why is it widespread now?

My impression is that that the scholars won out over the mystics. Some ‘clever’ people read a few books and decided they’d love to try it: back to the year 200! Exciting!

 

[Sirach2]

Br JR, ah, but he can hold the host at your eye level, thus encouraging you to receive COTT, especially in case he senses whether you are undecided. And if you do decide to receive in the hand, he can make CITH look like an inconvenience. No words necessary, especially if it’s a fast moving line. Just pointing out the mechanics.

Irrelevant.
He still cannot refuse COTT, and you provide no proof other than your assumption due to a priest’s body language that this is the prevailing practice in many parishes. I agree that this is not prudent if it has been done, but I still do not see an outright refusal to distribute the Eucharist to the communicant.

 

[ProVobis]

It doesn’t matter. If CITH were inherently problematic, then religious orders would not be permitted to use it.

Apples and oranges. If you were taught that it is sacrilegous for a layman to touch the Host with your hands and everyone around you has been taught that way in every country you’ve visited, then I would disagree with you. Not only was the matter of receiving COTT the norm in parishes prior to the 60’s, but it was ACCEPTED that any deviation from COTT in parishes was mortally sinful. Whether CITH was the norm in religious orders or in the first century or in some warfields is pretty much irrelevant in cultures where one can easily mistake the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ with ordinary breadlines. Just saying from a spiritual standpoint. I fully realize the law changed.

 

[ProVobis]

Irrelevant.
He still cannot refuse COTT

I agree. I think I took what BR JR said backwards.

 

[Melchior_1]

Um, what? ‘A guest in their house?’

I would say a church is God’s temple where lay people come to be sanctified by their priest’s propitiating Him. I don’t see how changing to letting them handle Him helps that. Too many vectors for misuse and a loss of a humbling action.

A Friary may not be a church building, hence being a guest in their house.

I’m pretty sure Franciscans never let lay people handle the host when the rule was in force. It would have been deeply scandalous. Unless they were experimenting in secret(?)

There was no “rule” about CITH for Franciscans, Brother JR covered this already.

Secrecy? Franciscans are quire transparent, there’s no secrets there. The only group that isn’t transparent are the ones who aligned with the SSPX, trying to pass themselves off as Franciscans when they aren’t recognized as such by the Order.

There is the small issue where documentation on some of this stuff is lacking, but that’s because Franciscans never really cared back then to write down their traditions, they were passed down orally. Sort of like how our Faith was first passed down. We have the benefit of having a chance to hear some of their traditions through Brother JR.

Indeed, why was CITH forbidden and why is it widespread now?

My impression is that that the scholars won out over the mystics. Some ‘clever’ people read a few books and decided they’d love to try it: back to the year 200! Exciting!

Except that in some circles receiving on the hand has been their tradition for 800 years, just like how in some circles the Tabernacle being in a side chapel has been a tradition for 1500 years (pre-dating it being at or near the alter).

And you’re missing the point; those who are members of certain communities are Brothers. They do no have “consecrated hands” as a priest does, yet they can touch the Eucharist and deliver Him to those who are sick.

 

[Baelor]

Apples and oranges. If you were taught that it is sacrilegous for a layman to touch the Host with your hands and everyone around you has been taught that way in every country you’ve visited, then I would disagree with you.

That is not what I was taught, nor is that relevant in any way. The introduction of evidence from the Franciscan order is therefore acceptable because the OP was saying that CITH was inherently problematic. Thus, the evidence is perfectly valid and the comparison possible.

Again, please read my posts very carefully, starting from my first (I believe on the page before this one) and consider what I am actually saying.

 

[LightBound]

I very much doubt the Franciscans let lay people handle the Body Of Christ, prior to 1970.

But you can make a very … interesting … Mass if you pick and choose the bits you like from 2000 years of history.

Meanwhile, the shell-shocked and the weary find their way to the Usus Antiquior and are refreshed.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=731923&page=4

See post #55

 

[LightBound]

Um, what? ‘A guest in their house?’

I would say a church is God’s temple where lay people come to be sanctified by their priest’s propitiating Him. I don’t see how changing to letting them handle Him helps that. Too many vectors for misuse and a loss of a humbling action.

I’m pretty sure Franciscans never let lay people handle the host when the rule was in force. It would have been deeply scandalous. Unless they were experimenting in secret(?)

Indeed, why was CITH forbidden and why is it widespread now?

My impression is that that the scholars won out over the mystics. Some ‘clever’ people read a few books and decided they’d love to try it: back to the year 200! Exciting!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=731923&page=4
See post #55

 

[TimothyH]

Franciscans are a religious order and as such have different rules and disciplines. To use their practices to prove a point not related directly to them seems a bit odd.

It proves that communion in the hand is neither an innovation, nor an abuse, nor a recent development, nor did it originated in parishes.

Religious orders like the Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites and Benedictines are not segregated parts of the Church. It is they who inform the laity in the Church, guide the laity in the Church and enlighten the laity in the Church, not the other way around, nor are they off in a bubble on their own.

Art, music, architecture, monastic and aristotlean theology, liturgy, spirituality, meditation, lectio, prayer… The vast majority of what we have in the Church today comes from the orders. The vast majority of everything else are most likely adaptations of rabbinic and levitical Jewish practices from before 70AD.

-Tim-.