Early Church CITH: the myth, the legends, the fraud

[agnes_therese]

I think the actions of our Holy Father now are instructive. Watch him serving communion sometime. I think he is trying to lead us, by example, towards a new norm. But that’s just my opinion.

I absolutely believe that’s true. BUT – the Church has not condemned or forbidden CITH. And until/unless that happens, our personal opinions on whether it’s appropriate are just that – our personal opinions.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I absolutely believe that’s true. BUT – the Church has not condemned or forbidden CITH. And until/unless that happens, our personal opinions on whether it’s appropriate are just that – our personal opinions.

This is not intended to be an ‘attack’ on you but:

Yes, indeed… but this thread is not about that! This thread is criticism of, and a refutation of, the myth that the Early Church were all receiving CITH. In other words, I am saying “stop referring to the Early Church as some super-argument-winning-referrence” when discussing the CITH vs COTT issue.

Again - not trying to make that a personal attack on you but your post was off-topic in that regard.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Sure I will try to expand a bit. The idea that early Christianity was purer than what we have now (in substance, liturgy, belief) is clearly anti-thetical to Catholic belief (that what the Apostles believed, we believe now). In fact, this false idea is quite Protestant. Especially new Protestantism where they claim that by the 4th Century “Roman Catholicism” corrupted Christianity. In any case, what we are dealing with here is the idea that to go ‘back’ to older practice or understanding makes something purer and closer to the truth. This implies, though, that what Catholics believe now is corrupted truth. Clearly, this cannot be the case as it denies that we have the truth at all times in it’s fullness within the Catholic Church.

Assigning different value to different disciplines is far from heretical (it seems to me, but this is a vague question in my view). I’m far from a theologian though but heresy seems to only deal in doctrine.

Thanks.

But the question, to my mind, is why one might not say that any given liturgical practice may or may not be “less pure” (which might mean, let’s say, less prudent or less devotional or less meritorious).

The reason I ask is because it seems that if we say this is so then we foreclose anyopportunity to say that, for instance, CITH as allowed now is less pure an expression of devotion than COTT was as required 200 years ago. Do you see what I mean?

VC

 

[agnes_therese]

Again - not trying to make that a personal attack on you but your post was off-topic in that regard.

I don’t believe that responding to a previous post is “off-topic.” I expect that a moderator will let me know if I’m wrong on that.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I don’t believe that responding to a previous post is “off-topic.” I expect that a moderator will let me know if I’m wrong on that.

Alright

 

[NewsTheMan]

Thanks.

But the question, to my mind, is why one might not say that any given liturgical practice may or may not be “less pure” (which might mean, let’s say, less prudent or less devotional or less meritorious).

The reason I ask is because it seems that if we say this is so then we foreclose anyopportunity to say that, for instance, CITH as allowed now is less pure an expression of devotion than COTT was as required 200 years ago. Do you see what I mean?

VC

Less pure in the sense used in the bad way means less truthful when compared with the Early Christian beliefs. If we mean less prudent, we say less prudent. If we mean less devotional we say that too. In terms of CITH I wouldn’t at all say that it is “less pure” - because that would be the wrong way to describe it. I would say it’s just less reverent or something like that. Purity in this bad sense is trying to make a causal connection between doctrine and history; where as time goes on doctrine becomes “less pure” *.

Does that make sense? I feel I may not be getting your question for which I apologize Put it down to my ignorance *

 

[Anniejoe]

I absolutely believe that’s true. BUT – the Church has not condemned or forbidden CITH. And until/unless that happens, our personal opinions on whether it’s appropriate are just that – our personal opinions.

I agree with you completely, agnes therese. If the Holy Father didn’t approve of the US norm, he’d say so. I believe the situation is that, while both are approved, it’s possible that certain physical positions have a higher probability of increasing an interior attitude of reverence. That is NOT to say that those who choose to stand or receive CITH are not as reverent. *All *manners of reception could potentially give rise to a great feeling of reverence, and *any *of them could be executed by an irreverent person. That isn’t the point. I think we can all agree that very reverent people stand and receive in the hand. And some irreverent people kneel and receive on the tongue. That’s a given.

The question in my mind is, has the Holy Father indicated a preference on his part through his actions? Is he trying to lead us towards a norm that he feels will bear good fruit in a harvest of increased reverence? At the Mass I attend, I’ve never seen anyone kneel, and only two or three receive on the tongue. I haven’t decided yet (I’ll be received into the Church at Easter), but I am pondering. And watching the Holy Father provokes certain questions in my mind. Not about what is allowed, but what is best? Frankly, when I consider that the Host is the Christ, my impulse is to throw myself down on my face and crawl on my belly. I don’t guess my RCIA instructor would let me do that? Ha ha!

---

 

[NewsTheMan]

Speaking of purity - can we please keep this thread pure to it’s original points please

CITH vs COTT has had many threads around here. I am dealing specifically with a certain claim that the CITH defenders make - I am not engaging in the debate of CITH vs COTT itself. Just a certain historical claim that is used as evidence.

Thank you

 

[Sirach2]

NewsTheMan:

In the face of all that I have posted you’re willing to brush off the truth and the facts from one sentence from his book?

In the face of your agenda posting, unequivocably … YES! John Salza and Msgr. Gamber are simply theologians expressing their opinions, and are NOT the hierarchy who at the present time have seen fit to permit CITH, contrary to your biased objections.

 

[Anniejoe]

Sorry, NewstheMan. I thought you had specifically addressed the Holy Father’s take on the issue. My apologies.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Less pure in the sense used in the bad way means less truthful when compared with the Early Christian beliefs. If we mean less prudent, we say less prudent. If we mean less devotional we say that too. In terms of CITH I wouldn’t at all say that it is “less pure” - because that would be the wrong way to describe it. I would say it’s just less reverent or something like that. Purity in this bad sense is trying to make a causal connection between doctrine and history; where as time goes on doctrine becomes “less pure” *.

Does that make sense? I feel I may not be getting your question for which I apologize Put it down to my ignorance *

News,

Thanks, I think you clarified it for me. You are speaking of a kind of doctrinal drift I suppose. I’m not convinced yet that we couldn’t say that any given time in church history was less pure than another (as long as we aren’t referring to official doctrine or dogma). Perhaps wht you are getting at is the notion that things are better because they are older is a false notion.

Looking forward to the remainder or your exposition,
VC

 

[NewsTheMan]

In the face of your agenda posting, unequivocably … YES! John Salza and Msgr. Gamber are simply theologians expressing their opinions, and are NOT the hierarchy who at the present time have seen fit to permit CITH, contrary to your biased objections.

Again, I am not debating the CITH issue. I am refuting the historical claim that often made by CITH defenders that they can simply say things like “CITH was done in the Early Church so it’s good”.

Furthermore, I understand you do not agree - however, it is out of line to call my post “agenda posting” and tell me my objections are “biased” as if to try smear my post itself as an ad hominem attack. In any case, yes, my post is biased and agenda driven… as is yours. This is what happens when you hold an opinion and when you present facts for consideration and refutation. So although your post was an uncalled for personal attack, it was rather redundant as I do not in fact deny that I have an agenda here: namely, to refute the constant references to the Early Church as support for CITH.

Thank you for your post

 

[NewsTheMan]

Sorry, NewstheMan. I thought you had specifically addressed the Holy Father’s take on the issue. My apologies.

That is no problem no need to apologize at all! I think it can get confusing and perhaps I haven’t helped

 

[Sirach2]

So although your post was an uncalled for personal attack, it was rather redundant as I do not in fact deny that I have an agenda here: namely, to refute the constant references to the Early Church as support for CITH.

It is presently immaterial what the early church believed or followed or was permitted to do. The fact that you and others overlook continuously in your attempts to reinstate CITT is that this is a lawful practice in the Church, and has been for many years. I truly do believe that this is against forum rules to post against allowed practices in the Church when they are not in accord with one’s personal prejudice. Your theologians have no authority whatsoever, other than their personal opinions, nor do you, my good man.

 

[NewsTheMan]

It is presently immaterial what the early church believed or followed or was permitted to do.

Perhaps for you, in which case - and I say this without any ill-will - this thread is not intended for you. So I thank you for taking the time to read and respond and if you’d like to attack me personally, or my viewpoints on CITH vs COTT (which this thread is not about just to re-iterate) please feel free to send me a PM (I would love to chat about it with you as I am sure I would be challenged on many points!)

 

[Ottoviani]

Is it worthwhile to discuss this ?

Of course it is.
Exposing the truth is preeminently important, always.

 

[Bookcat]

I am not getting into this.

But I will note for readers these quotes:

Cardinal Ratzinger (prior to being Pope Benedict XVI) notes that it was the practice of the Early Church.

He notes in God and the World “I wouldn’t be fussy about it. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion” (pg 410)

"…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion…

We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

I also recall but have not found it at the moment-- that he gave an answer as Pope in a Q & A session with Priests that was similar…

He certainly knows of what he speaks…both as Prefect of the Cong. for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time …and now as Pope.

With intellect of this man and his scholarship…his mastery of the Early Fathers…his love and expertise in Liturgy…not to mention the resources he had at the CDF and now as Pope…(his Library is much bigger than mine)

I will go with him.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Let me point out that the quote from St. Basil seems to be dealing with self-communication rather than reception of communion in the hand from an ordinary minister. Certainly the way he speaks about it does suggest to me that ordinarily the faithful did receive on the tongue. Still, we have to remember to keep the distinction clear when drawing supposed implications from it, like that COTH and such would be sinful under ordinary circumstances. Presumably the intended implication, if there was one, was that self-communication was sinful under ordinary circumstances, and this is still the case.

Regarding the beginnings of modern COTH as a liturgical abuse, that does not automatically mean it is wrong today. The assumption that something will always be evil because it started as an abuse would be an instance of the genetic fallacy. We need to consider COTH as it is today, not as it began in past decades.

At the time, communion was always to be given on the tongue, and so COTH was an act of disobedience and therefore an abuse. That doesn’t automatically mean it was a bad idea, just that its advocates were, at best, jumping the gun and implementing a reform they wanted to see before the Holy See had actually approved it. Once this happened the Holy See had to disapprove of the disobedience, but also could simultaneously look at the issue objectively and see if a change in the norms for reception might indeed be appropriate. And in fact they did decide, rightly or wrongly, that the Church would benefit from this change. They had the authority to make the change, and the earlier disobedience in some countries, doing this before it was approved, does not delegitimize the practice as it exists today.

Don’t get me wrong, my own personal wish would be that COTH be phased out again, but at the same time we shouldn’t be condemning duly approved sacramental practices of the Church as though they were inherently wrong.

 

[Ottoviani]

Here is a good video of Bishop Athanasius Schneider on EWTN commenting on the historicity [or lack thereof] of CITH:

youtube.com/watch?v=Jii6NCfTW68

 

[NewsTheMan]

I am not getting into this.

But

The power of the “but”!

Thank you for those quotes, Bookcat because they prove my point. Yes, the then Cardinal says those things. But examine this logic for me: I have quoted the Church Fathers, and examined the actual quotes in question and given references for you to do the same. Cardinal Ratzinger merely presumes that he is correct in his affirmation that “we know until the ninth Century communion was in the hand standing”. I am examining the part of the sentence that reads “we know”. I am challenging that. It is the fallacy of question begging to then merely quote “well we know!” when asked for references to how “we” know; especially in the face of what I have given [well, what I have quoted from others where they have given the direct sources].

I do not doubt his scholarship or intellect. I doubt this particular assumption of his (he cites no sources) - and I especially doubt the constant reference to one sentence in one book as having authority over and above the very sources in question!

It’s like… Imagine I wrote in a book “We know Bookcat likes cats because he said so” and then someone used this an an authority that you like cats. Someone else comes along and quotes from your autobiography where you state “Cats are okay I guess but I don’t really like them”. Now it would be an absolute leap in logic and reason for someone to then take one sentence in my book as the final word on the matter and state that you like cats. It just makes no sense!