A
Agnus-Dei
Guest
I do find it amusing that the only person Jesus fed directly was Judas, to identify him as the traitor.
“To whom I give this sop” (not exact, but look it up.)
Dominus vobiscum
Last edited:
- Status
“To whom I give this sop” (not exact, but look it up.)
Dominus vobiscum
R
Rau
Guest
There is a chance of the Holy See rejecting a request, therefore it is not an automatic process. My statement is that we know of no such case.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t attempt to explain the fall in mass attendance. Those believing they can narrow down the causes will need to make their case, not just assert it. There have been a great many changes in society.
R
Rau
Guest
What are those conditions? There is a long list of countries where the conditions are fulfilled.
R
Rau
Guest
Could you provide a few bullet points?
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I can try but it would still be far better if Pope Paul VI could explain it to you as he did in the document. Document isn’t long at all and it is quite easy to read. I am going to try and also include CDF guidelines for this very indult in my shortened way.
Bishops ought to only ask for indult if such practice already exists. To help it’s spread or artificially create it in territory is forbidden and even indults are granted not to displace COTT neither to encourage CITH but to not make drastic change where it already prevails.
Bishops and Priests who allow it are require to properly catechize entire flock before allowing such practice. Priests can deny CITH to anyone of there is danger of sacrament being disrespected and may demand them to receive on the tongue.
Everyone receiving by CITH must have clean hands. Extraordinary measures must be included to prevent particles of Eucharist falling to the ground or remaining on the hands of recipient.
Eucharist received under both species by Body of Christ being dipped in Blood of Christ can never be received this way.
To get an indult Bishops must include detailed explanation as to why it is needed and report to Vatican after 6 months about how this new rite of reception of Eucharist affects the faithful.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
And about objective view of the Church
Memoriale Domini about COTT
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body.
In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which “the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,” will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members.”
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.
End of quotation from Memoriale Domini
It also speaks about how CITH vs COTT evolved, reasons for COTT and that CITH is pastoral provision and hence needs indult. Which is largely why I am saying that objectively CITH is not equal to COTT. Again, subjectively it might be equal or even superior. I do not mean to judge or somehow lessen people who employ CITH where it is allowed. I am merely saying universal law of the Church objectively places COTT above CITH while subjectively it can under certain circumstances (indult) be left to judgment of the faithful.
Memoriale Domini about COTT
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body.
In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which “the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way,” will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: “If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members.”
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.
End of quotation from Memoriale Domini
It also speaks about how CITH vs COTT evolved, reasons for COTT and that CITH is pastoral provision and hence needs indult. Which is largely why I am saying that objectively CITH is not equal to COTT. Again, subjectively it might be equal or even superior. I do not mean to judge or somehow lessen people who employ CITH where it is allowed. I am merely saying universal law of the Church objectively places COTT above CITH while subjectively it can under certain circumstances (indult) be left to judgment of the faithful.
D
DuskWind
Guest
Probably not. But wasn’t the power of the priesthood already conferred upon the apostles at that point? Therefore wouldn’t it have been possible for the apostles to receive the host in their hands without committing a sacrilege. Not trying to pick a fight with you - I’ve actually been curious about this myself. It’s been my understanding that the last supper was the institution of Holy Orders. Thanks and blessings.
M
Montrose
Guest
That is not correct. Intinction was revived after Vatican II and is not uncommon.
A
Anesti33
Guest
Intinction in the hand?!?OrbisNonSufficit:
That is not correct. Intinction was revived after Vatican II and is not uncommon.
R
Rau
Guest
And yet hardly any of that is in evidence in my experience.
Eg. What are the “extraordinary” means to prevent a small particle remaining on one’s hand? There is no inspector in my church.
I’m interested to know why CITH would ever be “needed” in one country but not another? The only argument might be that it needed to be granted where it was already practiced without permission.
This strikes me as a case of the theory and the implementation being quite far apart - possibly from the outset!
From the little reading I’ve done, many, many diocese requested CITH, including many where it was not already in use, and the indult was granted regardless. It would seem the Holy See itself has not managed the process consistent with its stated intentions.
If COTT is to be strongly preferred, the altar rail would best be retained too, for kneeling is better than standing I think.
Eg. What are the “extraordinary” means to prevent a small particle remaining on one’s hand? There is no inspector in my church.
I’m interested to know why CITH would ever be “needed” in one country but not another? The only argument might be that it needed to be granted where it was already practiced without permission.
This strikes me as a case of the theory and the implementation being quite far apart - possibly from the outset!
From the little reading I’ve done, many, many diocese requested CITH, including many where it was not already in use, and the indult was granted regardless. It would seem the Holy See itself has not managed the process consistent with its stated intentions.
If COTT is to be strongly preferred, the altar rail would best be retained too, for kneeling is better than standing I think.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Certainly that must not be done. The Holy See has said CITH is proper and it has in fact been taught as the norm to generations.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Well it would be good to speak to your pastor about potential abuse then. Rome has already spoken.
I think so too but Bishops provide detailed description to Vatican to get indult so I am quite sure they are meant to judge it and Rome ratifies that judgment.
Perhaps, but guidelines are these. Not even Vatican can just ignore the law. Pope can but can CDF? Not sure.
Well that depends on personal opinion. Church has not called for removal of altar rails anyway. But even in my country where CITH isn’t supported altar rails aren’t common.
As an exception to the rule if allowed by everyone in line of authority from First See through Bishop and minister down to recipient.
Again it hasn’t. You can’t provide anything slightly authoritative where Church teaches it to be norm. If that were true Bishops of countries where CITH is forbidden would be anathemizing themselves.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
What it means , as I understand it, is that communion by intinction can only be on the tongue, never in the hand.
M
Montrose
Guest
No. The priest dips the host in the wine then distributes on the tongue.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
I was referring to CITH in this manner. That is forbidden.
Also at that point it isn’t really wine.
M
Montrose
Guest
Consecrated wine.
R
Rau
Guest
I didn’t say that. I am referring to how children are prepared for first communion. In countries where CITH is practiced, I think you’ll find that’s all that those children are taught. Why teach both? How would the child be advised to adopt one or the other in practice?
The Holy See by its actions has caused CITH to become the practical norm in much of the developed world. Seemingly counter to its stated intention. It’s bizarre.
Last edited:
- Status