Have some been misrepresenting the indult allowing Communion in hand?

[Eilish_Maura]

---

Since He is to be “passed” around – might as well sit and wait our turn. Some say that is how the “early” Church did it.

We know for sure the Apostles did it at the Last Supper.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Since He is to be “passed” around – might as well sit and wait our turn. Some say that is how the “early” Church did it.

We know for sure the Apostles did it at the Last Supper.

---

Well now --it seems more clear which way you bend.

 

[stmaria]

What more do you wish to be said on the topic, then? I gave you my take on the matter with my first post, which basically reiterated Memoriale Domini’s points. I don’t think I misrepresent the CitH indult and its historical origins, nor do I think the situation over the CitH indult is analgous to the 1962 Missal indult.

You are right, japhy, Memoriale Domini, finally addressed the unauthorized practice.
According to the man that should know, Father Annibale Bugnini, communion in the hand began shortly after the *Constitution on the Liturgy *was passed. This would be in 1965. It began in the Netherlands. Pope Paul sent Bugnini there on two occasions to have the practice stopped.
*Reform of the Liturgy *page 640
" At the beginning of the liturgical reform there was a trend in some countries toward the distribution of communion by placing it in the hand of the recipient. The practice soon spread…But the Bishops found it difficult to suppress the new practice"
footnote 34
" The Holy Father does not, however, think it proper that the sacred host be distributed in the hand and then received by the faithful themselves in one or other fashion. He therefore urgently asks the Conference to issue appropriate regulations so that the traditional way of receiving communion may be everywhere restored. But this and other remedies had no effect."

Also at this time in the Netherlands, without approval, the Mass was being said in the vernacular with unauthorized Eucharistic prayers and with the laity distributing communion without approval.
Soon inter-communion began
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835149-1,00.html
Febuary 1966
'As many as 6,000 dedicated Catholic and Protestant laymen reportedly belong to ecumenical study groups in The Netherlands that periodically celebrate interfaith Communions; either a minister or a priest will preside, and the consecrated elements are given to all members present. And though probably most common in Northern Europe, experiments in interCommunion have taken place in the U.S. and even in Rome, where one Catholic priest privately admits that Protestant ministers have showed up for services at his church, stayed to receive Communion with the congregation."

 

[Walking_Home]

uote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
Since He is to be “passed” around – might as well sit and wait our turn. Some say that is how the “early” Church did it.

We know for sure the Apostles did it at the Last Supper.

---

Well – it seems that promoting ideologies — based on the “early” Church would fall under the errors denounce in Mediator Dei. This holds true in the current Church since She has denounce the current “ideology” of sitting for communion.

 

[MrS]

Just slightly off topic…

But…

Some have been misrepresenting the meaning of indult. For example, the life span of an idult is temporary, not permanent. It is an exception, not meant to be a norm.

“[F]or grave pastoral reasons, the faculty may be given by the diocesan bishop to the priest celebrant to use the assistance, when necessary, even of extraordinary ministers in the cleansing of sacred vessels after the distribution of Communion has been completed in the celebration of Mass”

Example:
zenit.org/article-21751?l=english

Here the indult concerning purification of sacred vessels in the US has expired.

That is vessels… vessels. Expired… Now the Priest or the Deaon or an acolyte again are the correct ones to purify.

Soon… I hope … the indult for communion in the hand will be revisited. Afterall, the unconsecrated hand is not a sacred vessel.

.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

We know for sure the Apostles did it at the Last Supper.

This is true of incredibly few things; the manner of the Apostles’ reception not being one of those we know with certainty.

 

[IrishBrigade]

This is true of incredibly few things; the manner of the Apostles’ reception not being one of those we know with certainty.

…

…I agree entirely…that which we do not know as certainty would fill a large stadium…I’ll tell you my concern with cith…is its practice, and therefore apparent acceptance by laity and clergy alike an ecumenical response to Protestant theology…I’ve heard (albeit from a source I don’t entirely trust) that cith was introduced as a Reformation tactic, in order to subvert the sanctity of the priest…in other words, hand to hand receipt formalizes the equality of celebrant and communicant…and that the acceptance of same in today’s mass represents the deleterious effects of ecumenical practices…I personally do not believe any such thing in its entirety, as agendas are often being floated, but I do not discount some essence of its truth…

 

[Brendan]

This is true of incredibly few things; the manner of the Apostles’ reception not being one of those we know with certainty.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Apostles were Ordained as Bishops that evening. The mode of reception for a priest or bishop differs greatly from what the laity might do.

 

[CradleCath]

What more do you wish to be said on the topic, then? I gave you my take on the matter with my first post, which basically reiterated Memoriale Domini’s points. I don’t think I misrepresent the CitH indult and its historical origins, nor do I think the situation over the CitH indult is analgous to the 1962 Missal indult.

I believe that what Eilish Maura wants to hear is that our Popes permitted the “resurrection” of the Latin Mass & and the indult re CITH for the same reason, with the same objectives. (She has been bringing this up in many threads). No one can tell her what she seems to want to hear, because it isn’t true. The permission for the people in our country to receive CITH came as a result of disobedience & manipulation. The Latin Mass, which had never been abrogated, is our RIGHT though it has been terribly suppressed.

RE: The Latin Mass:
It was during the late 70’s that Pope John Paul requested a report from the Bishops on the success or failure of the Missal of 1970 & the implementation of liturgical reform within their diocese.
On the basis of their replies it appeared that the problem of priests and faithful holding to the so-called “Tridentine” rite was almost completely solved.
However, the Pontiff, in a desire to meet the wishes of ALL of the laity, **granted to diocesan bishops the choice of using an indult to permit the TLM to be said with their consent. ** (Notice it was the BISHOPS who were to allow the TLM or not. The indult was to come from them, not the Pope).

RE: CITH indult:
The Indult allowing CITH came about after several of our liberal Bishops had already introduced the practice to the laity in their diocese. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the Pope (who was opposed to it), nor from the ranks of Christ’s faithful who never asked for this practice. It came from the Liberal arm of the hierarchy who considered COTH just TOO Catholic. The first to abuse his authority & initiate this practice, without permission, was a Bishop in Belgium. He did so in flagrant disobedience. Rather than further confuse the faithful & cause public rancor (everything was changing at that time), Pope Paul IV granted an indult to this Bishop…

To make a long story short, in our own country Archbishop Bernardin (Chicago) & Archbishop Quinn (California) were pressuring for CITH here. They “misrepresented the truth” & told the Pope that this practice of CITH was in demand in this country too, when few of us had ever received Christ in that manner & MOST of us, didn’t want to. In truth, only a handful of self-styled “progressive” parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery “hangers on”.
The Pope polled the US. Bishops, asking for a 2/3 majority who were in favor of CITH. The vote failed. A few years later, the Bishops voted again & by counting those who were absent from the meeting, they got their 2/3 majority & we got Communion in the hand …standing…whether we wanted it or not. It has progressed to the point where there are actually priests who will deny the Eucharist to those who kneel.

Hopefully, this post will put an end to the questions re Indults & stop the comparisons that Eilish Maura is trying to make between the freeing of the Latin Mass & the Indult which gave the Bishops the right to have CITH.

 

[Brother_John]

To make a long story short, in our own country Archbishop Bernardin (Chicago) & Archbishop Quinn (California) were pressuring for CITH here. They “misrepresented the truth” & told the Pope that this practice of CITH was in demand in this country too, when few of us had ever received Christ in that manner & MOST of us, didn’t want to…The Pope polled the US. Bishops, asking for a 2/3 majority who were in favor of CITH. The vote failed. A few years later, the Bishops voted again & by counting those who were absent from the meeting, they got their 2/3 majority & we got Communion in the hand …standing…whether we wanted it or not.

Can you actually document this? That the Bishops “lied” about the demand for CITH? Or that the votes were manipulated? Did the absent Bishops vote by proxy?

Is this fact or opinion?

 

[japhy]

I believe that what Eilish Maura wants to hear is that our Popes permitted the “resurrection” of the Latin Mass & and the indult re CITH for the same reason, with the same objectives. (She has been bringing this up in many threads). No one can tell her what she seems to want to hear, because it isn’t true. The permission for the people in our country to receive CITH came as a result of disobedience & manipulation. The Latin Mass, which had never been abrogated, is our RIGHT though it has been terribly suppressed.

It appears as though the CITH was suppressed justly and with the authority of the Magisterium, whereas the Tridentine Latin Mass was suppressed unjustly by those without the real power to do so.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

It appears as though the CITH was suppressed justly and with the authority of the Magisterium, whereas the Tridentine Latin Mass was suppressed unjustly by those without the real power to do so.

What back up documentation is there to say the TLM was suppressed ‘unjustly’?

It made sense to have suppressed it as part of establishing the OF as the universal liturgy of the Church.

 

[MrS]

What back up documentation is there to say the TLM was suppressed ‘unjustly’?

It made sense to have suppressed it as part of establishing the OF as the universal liturgy of the Church.

Once again you don’t get it.

The TLM, aka the Extraordinary Form, was suppressed by too many local bishops… they did not issue valid instructions of what to do. Instead too many bishops let too many pastors listen to ignorant or arrogant laity. Abuses began…NOT WITH DOCUMENTATION. After time, the abuses became “norms”, some of which were given an indult.

The Ordinary Form as we most often see it today IS NOT the Ordinary Form suggested by VAT II. And I say suggested because the EF was never abrogated. Thankfully B16 has now made that clear.

You need to do more work on understanding an indult. Then perhaps you will understand abuses, norms, and “active participation”.

(by the way… Did God die on the Cross?? Still waiting for your opinion)

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Once again you don’t get it.

The TLM, aka the Extraordinary Form, was suppressed by too many local bishops… they did not issue valid instructions of what to do. Instead too many bishops let too many pastors listen to ignorant or arrogant laity. Abuses began…NOT WITH DOCUMENTATION. After time, the abuses became “norms”, some of which were given an indult.

The Ordinary Form as we most often see it today IS NOT the Ordinary Form suggested by VAT II. And I say suggested because the EF was never abrogated. Thankfully B16 has now made that clear.

You need to do more work on understanding an indult. Then perhaps you will understand abuses, norms, and “active participation”.

(by the way… Did God die on the Cross?? Still waiting for your opinion)

None of the posturing answers my question.

B16 has said the EF was not abrogated but even he has not said the suppression was unfair.

It was a necessary part of the process when bringing on a new OF.

So what backs up the claim that it was ‘unfairly’ done ?

 

[ProVobis]

“Since He is to be “passed” around – might as well sit and wait our turn. Some say that is how the “early” Church did it.”

Poor choice of words on my part and glad you caught it. Personally I’ve never received in the hand and I’ve stayed away from those places where I would be the center of attention had I received on the tongue.

Having said that, though, my point was that if the Church really wanted reception in the hand, they would have redesigned the form in which it would be received. Plain and simple, the small, thin, round form which could be swallowed whole without touching the teeth and hands was designed to do just that. What happened in the early Church I’m sure was done with respect but probably using a different form.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

There is nothing wrong with the host touching a person’s teeth and does not need to be swallowed whole.

 

[CradleCath]

=Brother John;3328273]Can you actually document this? That the Bishops “lied” about the demand for CITH? Or that the votes were manipulated? Did the absent Bishops vote by proxy?

I’m not sure what you mean by “document” the lies told by Archbishops Quinn & Bernardin?? I don’t have access to a papal document, but it’s pretty common knowledge that these two prelates “misrepresented” the numbers who were already, illicitly being given Communion in the Hand in the US. If you will put Cardinal Bernafdin (or Archbishop, for he was AB. of Cinncinatti while this was happening), & CITH in your search engine, you’ll probably get many hits. Here’s one I found quickly:

aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html

Or that the votes were manipulated? Did the absent Bishops vote by proxy?

I didn’t claim that the voting was dishonest. It was simply clear to everyone that these two Archbishops, Bernardin & Quinn, were going to continue calling a vote until said vote went their way.
Pope Paul did not approve of CITH & was very concerned about the possibility of abuse, the laity didn’t want it, but the “powers that be” within the USCCB were determined. They usually got what they wanted.

IOW., yes I stand by my statement. The indult for CITH for the US. was obtained through disobedience & manipulation.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I’m not sure what you mean by “document” the lies told by Archbishops Quinn & Bernardin?? I don’t have access to a papal document, but it’s pretty common knowledge that these two prelates “misrepresented” the numbers who were already, illicitly being given Communion in the Hand in the US. If you will put Cardinal Bernafdin (or Archbishop, for he was AB. of Cinncinatti while this was happening), & CITH in your search engine, you’ll probably get many hits. Here’s one I found quickly:

aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html

I didn’t claim that the voting was dishonest. It was simply clear to everyone that these two Archbishops, Bernardin & Quinn, were going to continue calling a vote until said vote went their way.
Pope Paul did not approve of CITH & was very concerned about the possibility of abuse, the laity didn’t want it, but the “powers that be” within the USCCB were determined. They usually got what they wanted.

IOW., yes I stand by my statement. The indult for CITH for the US. was obtained through disobedience & manipulation.

So is this slander or libel against those who did champion CITH?
(I always forget)

Or is it against Pope Paul for not interfering?

This is a very serious accusation against those bishops – and to freely make it based on hearsay and speculation borders on scandalous.

 

[palmas85]

We know for sure the Apostles did it at the Last Supper.

Thats a pretty good statement Elish. Just how do we know this for sure? It doesn’t say that in Matthew Mark or Luke and in John it seems to indicate that intinction was used which would probably would mean on the tongue unless we believe that after dipping the Host into the blood Christ then put the Host into Judas hand. I somehow don’t think that is what happened.

I also don’t believe that you were present at the time and are therefore a pretty unreliable witness as to what actually happened.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Thats a pretty good statement Elish. Just how do we know this for sure? It doesn’t say that in Matthew Mark or Luke and in John it seems to indicate that intinction was used which would probably would mean on the tongue unless we believe that after dipping the Host into the blood Christ then put the Host into Judas hand. I somehow don’t think that is what happened.

IF there was intinction then Judas may have been the ONLY apostle to receive that way per John 13 as being handed the ‘morsal’ was a sign of who would betray him.