Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I am referring to how children are prepared for first communion.

That is hardly about what Holy See said. Bishops decide norms about how children prepare for first communion.

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.

It is.

 

[Anesti33]

I had FHC around 1980, so the CITH indult was still young. As I have described, we were taught to receive in the hand, and we were made aware that COTT was an option. They did not spend a lot of time on COTT catechesis, but I knew how to receive that way, but I never bothered, because it seemed everyone else did CITH, and why change what works?

Only much, much later did I learn the truth about CITH, and this truth moved me to change my mode of reception. In fact, not soon after I began receiving on the tongue, I began kneeling as well. I cut that out after a year or two. Frankly, it was just too much trouble.

On the tongue, in the hand, these are not hills I will die on. If a bishop somehow prohibits one, then I will receive with the other. I will still make an issue when the bishop clearly doesn’t have authority or approval to legislate such, though.

 

[Pitcairn17]

Several posts in this thread refer to the Apostles receiving “the host” from Jesus. Surely this cannot be correct, at least in the sense of how we use that word today. I have always assumed what the Apostles received was a piece of unleavened bread torn from a larger loaf consistent with Jewish ritual practice.

 

[Thom18]

Do you anticipate a response besides, “The Church has authorized Communion in the hand, so Hildebrand’s opinion is just Hildebrand’s opinion”?

Are those who are so adamantly opposed to Communion in the hand also going after the Eastern rite Catholics who do not celebrate the Roman rite for their “failure” to conform to their personal preferences in Liturgy? The Byzantines certainly emphasize different things, and do so differently from the Roman rite; should they be brought to the Judge and an answer demanded from them as to their peculiar practices? They use leavened bread to symbolize the Resurrection- how can this be allowed when the Roman rite says that unleavened bread must be used to keep the Jewish Passover tradition? Isn’t this a “huge” problem?

I don’t get the attitude that this is a hill to die on, and a hill to kill others over. If I receive the Eucharistic Lord with a pure heart, am full of love for the One who cleanses the Temple of my body, what does it matter if He is placed on my tongue by myself or another except to conform to one particular tradition? My interior disposition is the same whether I receive in the one way or the other, and that seems to me far more important than the manner of reception, for if I have received Him with malice on my tongue, then I have committed a sacrilege.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Byzantines certainly emphasize different things, and do so differently from the Roman rite; should they be brought to the Judge and an answer demanded from them as to their peculiar practices? They use leavened bread to symbolize the Resurrection- how can this be allowed when the Roman rite says that unleavened bread must be used to keep the Jewish Passover tradition? Isn’t this a “huge” problem?

Eastern Rite has it’s own theological expression and it’s own approach. In other words Eastern practice needs to conform to Eastern Rite. Western practice needs to conform to Western Rite. If either is not happening it isn’t okay. One can’t say East must conform to West nor vice versa.

Only real point in this thread is that COTT is the norm and CITH is exception. When CITH is valid then that’s fine and everyone can use it, but CITH is far from norm nor is it objectively equal to COTT. It can be subjectively (for person receiving) better than COTT and that’s fine. I am saying that Church law recognizes COTT as objectively better (again that has little effect on subjective notion).

As I have described, we were taught to receive in the hand, and we were made aware that COTT was an option.

That has to be against some Church law I am pretty sure.

If a bishop somehow prohibits one, then I will receive with the other.

I receive by CITH at the moment. It isn’t necessarily that I hate CITH or anything. I am just saying that it isn’t true that both forms are completely equal in eyes of the Church because of how law is structured. When that changes then I will have no problem with it at all.

I have always assumed what the Apostles received was a piece of unleavened bread torn from a larger loaf consistent with Jewish ritual practice.

And Greek practice that conforms to John also says that Apostles received leavened bread. Oh the horror.