Is it possible that true reverence for The Body of Christ is a thing of the past..

[Joannm]

Pharisees, shmarisees. Was it reverent when they defied the sin of sacrilege and started the practice of CITH? Was it reverent when they fixed the episcopal vote count to bring the sacrilegious practice into the US? Is it reverent to receive CITH in the manner most of them are doing it? (I bet 95% aren’t even following proper instructions on this.) Is it reverent to receive in a sloppy manner, without even a paten to catch the tiny particles of Christ? The sooner the Church bans CITH altogether, the better.

There are people who receive irreverently on the tongue as well. I have distributed to many people who simply bite it as I try to put it on their tongue. There are other who sort of slurp it in and others who do not offer their tongue at all but I have to almost pop it in. So it goes both ways.

 

[Frosty]

Is it reverent to receive CITH in the manner most of them are doing it? (I bet 95% aren’t even following proper instructions on this.) Is it reverent to receive in a sloppy manner, without even a paten to catch the tiny particles of Christ? The sooner the Church bans CITH altogether, the better.

What a crock of baloney! It’s really amusing that those people who dislike certain practices that are allowed by the Church are so all-knowing and all-seeing that they believe they can make blanket statements like the above and then wonder why so many other faithful Catholics have a difficult time taking them seriously. How wonderful it must be to have such spiritual pride that they have no problem basically giving the finger to all the hundreds of millions of Catholics who receive the Eucharist in their hands on Sundays and the tens of millions who receive in a like manner on a daily basis. To have the audacity to think that they know what is in the hearts and minds of those millions is truly amazing!
On a personal note, I made my first Communion in 1952 and had always received on the tongue. In October of 2009 because of concerns about the HINI flu asked that we not receive on the tongue. He did not flat out forbid it however and most pastors requested that those who wished to disregard the Bishop’s directive and continue to receive on the tongue wait until the end of the Communion line. The reason for this was because after any person received on the tongue, either the priest or the EMHC who administered Communion on the tongue would be required to go back to the sanctuary and sanitize his/her hands before continuing. I chose to comply with my Bishop’s directive and receive in the hand. Having read so many threads on CAF and other blogs where so-called traditionalist insist that receiving in the hand is irreverent and therefore must reduce one’s belief in the Real Presence, initially I was curious as to how I would react and if I would somehow feel that I was being deprived. In fact, I felt no different whatsoever! The restrictions were lifted several weeks ago and I have continued to receive in the hand by choice. Quite honestly, I prefer it. Do I now receive any less revently than I did for all those years previously? Most definitely not. If the Church decides to end the practice of Communion in the hand, I will have no problem with obeying but until or if that day comes I will continue to receive Communion in the hand.

 

[Malleus_01]

<<<< What a crock of baloney! It’s really amusing that those people who dislike certain practices that are allowed by the Church are so all-knowing and all-seeing that they believe they can make blanket statements like the above and then wonder why so many other faithful Catholics have a difficult time taking them seriously. How wonderful it must be to have such spiritual pride that they have no problem basically giving the finger to all the hundreds of millions of Catholics who receive the Eucharist in their hands on Sundays and the tens of millions who receive in a like manner on a daily basis. To have the audacity to think that they know what is in the hearts and minds of those millions is truly amazing! >>>>>>

Mal: Actually - I would appear that those who refuse to receive CITH are the ones being demonized. ProVobis mentioned no names. I have witnessed personally abuses. THESE are what we are speaking about. And no matter how many people you claim are reverently recieving the Body of Our Lord - the simple fact is - particles drop. That is why the Church uses the PATEN. Every single one of those particles is OUR LORD. Personal reverance has nothing to do with it. Knowing that Our Lord is being trampled underfoot daily is why we make issue of it. I served Mass and held the paten under the chin of the Communicants and saw NUMEROUS times particles fall. Each particle no matter how minute is OUR LORD. It doesnt have to be the fault of the communicant or their reverence at issue for Our Lord to end up on the sole of someones shoe.

<<<< On a personal note, I made my first Communion in 1952 and had always received on the tongue. In October of 2009 because of concerns about the HINI flu asked that we not receive on the tongue. He did not flat out forbid it however and most pastors requested that those who wished to disregard the Bishop’s directive and continue to receive on the tongue wait until the end of the Communion line. The reason for this was because after any person received on the tongue, either the priest or the EMHC who administered Communion on the tongue would be required to go back to the sanctuary and sanitize his/her hands before continuing. I chose to comply with my Bishop’s directive and receive in the hand. Having read so many threads on CAF and other blogs where so-called traditionalist insist that receiving in the hand is irreverent and therefore must reduce one’s belief in the Real Presence, initially I was curious as to how I would react and if I would somehow feel that I was being deprived. In fact, I felt no different whatsoever! The restrictions were lifted several weeks ago and I have continued to receive in the hand by choice. Quite honestly, I prefer it. Do I now receive any less revently than I did for all those years previously? Most definitely not. If the Church decides to end the practice of Communion in the hand, I will have no problem with obeying but until or if that day comes I will continue to receive Communion in the hand.

Mal: It would appear from reading this - that how you “feel” trumps what happens to the Body of Our Lord. People like you arent worth the time spent discussing it. You have made up your own mind and thus no matter what - you are going to have it your own way no matter what anyone else says. Yes that message comes through loud and clear. As for the Real Presence - The CHURCH says belief in the Real Presence is waning. Dr Dietrich Von Hildebrand predicted that would occur. We didnt. And in all the documentaion regarding H1N1 - I never once saw a warning from the surgeon general warning catholics who recieve on the tongue to make sure and get a flu shot because we are high risk and I didnt contract it nor get a flu shot. But then it isnt about you or me and it never was. The issue remains - what happens to the Body of Christ that Drops to the Floor? You didnt address that question. And if you recieved Holy Communion since 1952 - you remember the paten under your chin. Why was it there?

Pax

 

[ProVobis]

There are people who receive irreverently on the tongue as well. I have distributed to many people who simply bite it as I try to put it on their tongue. There are other who sort of slurp it in and others who do not offer their tongue at all but I have to almost pop it in.

No offense but then it must be you. When I served in pre-Vatican Church, I literally saw thousands receive on the tongue and I never saw this. And I held the paten under each one of those chins. Don’t blame the process if you lack the skills to do it.

 

[ProVobis]

Was CITH really allowed in the USA, despite of what you’ve been taught?

References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm

Pope Paul VI established several hurdles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions:

(a) the indult could only be requested** if Communion in the hand was an already established custom (i.e., disobedient abuse) in the country**, and

(b) if “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” the episcopal conference petitions Rome,

(c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission,

(d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence), or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These conditions are outlined in “En réponse à la demande,” which is attached to the Memoriale Domini instruction.

(1) CITH had not been an established custom in the USA so the first condition was not met.

(2) **Two-thirds of the episcopal conference did not approve of the practice. **

(3) “Permission” was granted only by deceiving the Pope that two-thirds of the conference approved by getting retired and dying bishops to sign off on the petition.

As Fr. Alfred Kunz has pointed out, permission given under deceit is no permission at all.

(4) Next conditions after “permission” was granted:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

The conditions were probably a moot point since the option specifications were not met.

 

[phrederik]

Was CITH really allowed in the USA, despite of what you’ve been taught?

References from tldm.org/News5/CinH2.htm

thank you for this link, i’ll plead ignorance that i’d never researched anything about the lady of the roses, and it was interesting, in fact the most interesting part was the link that brought me to Bishop Mugevero’s statement regarding it -

ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/MUGABAY.TXT

and receiving in the hand happened because a conspiracy of bishops forced this on an unsuspecting church? if the Pope, any Pope in the last 45 years, wanted to ban receiving in the hand he only had to do so, he has that authority, but it wasn’t done.

 

[otjm]

otjm,

Without taking anything away from other potions of your post and insightful observations regarding a (lack) of catechesis and that reverence may be had in both COTT and CITH, I’d like to respond with a possible counter argument on one or two points.

But perhaps the argument isn’t that communion in the hand is “propter hoc” but rather “post hoc”, in other words that a lowering of reverence isn’t the result of communion in the hand but that communion in the hand is a fruit of a lowering of reverence?

The work on looking at the Sacraments started before Vatican 2, but was largely within the realm of the theologians. It was only after Vatican 2 that we, the folks in the pews, were introduced to the work - and many, if not most, did not have a very thorough introduction. That aside, however, it has never been my impression that looking back over the centuries at the ways the Church has celebrated the Sacraments was with the intent to lower reverence; rather, it was to take a look at each of the Sacraments and seek what would bring about (among other things) a greater understanding in our reception. And it is my understanding that reviving CITH was part of that, and based on approximately 10 centuries of its practive in the Roman rite. I think the lack of reverence is due to a number of things and may result in lack of reverence in reception by CITH; but simply changing the means of reception will do next to nothing to get at the cause of lack of reverence.

I’m a bit dubious of this line of argument. Isn’t it also possible that there was a development in Eucharistic doctrine over time and a concomitant increase in devotion to the Real Presence? The question wouldn’t be, then, how the Church survived with communion in the hand but, rather, why did the Church develop communion on the tongue and normalize it, and is this the right time to change that back.

It is possible that both occured; whether COTT was necessarily linked to devotion to the Real Presence is debatable. Jansenists took devotion to the Real Presence to a far extreme and were condemned. What makes people really nervous is the presumption that there may be a middle ground, or another way of expressing devotion.

And is this the right time - We are a couple of decades late on that question. The vast majority of people I have seen (and I certainly have not seen everywhere) follow CITH. It may well be that we have parishes - even many parishes - where there are few reverent people. My obeservations have been otherwise.

Likewise, the above. It doesn’t seem to me to be a question of how the Church survived without the term “transubstantiation” when the term wasn’t even developed yet, but rather the question should be how well would the Church survive if she were to repudiate the term now.

I am not sure where you are going wtih the idea of repudiation; I certainly am not suggesting otherwise. What I am suggesting is that we have had a horrible run of catechesis. We have two generations who largely don’t have a clue. And even that fact is often mis-analyzed. We need good, solid catechesis aimed at the basics. The rubrics will sort themselves out (and assuming the indult is not withdrawn) I would presume that CITH would continue with a majority practicing it if the catechesis was done thoroughly.

I’m questioning what seems to be an unspoken assumption that because something was done in the past that it ought to be done in the present. 1) Sometimes this isn’t the case, for instance if there has been authentic progress. 2) Other times it is the case, when there has been a deviation from a proper course. 3) Sometimes circumstances change and one thing suggests itself as more prudent than another thing.

Sometimes there is the assumption that progress is linear. The fact is that many of the rubrics are time related (e.g. withdrawing the Cup after the Protestant Revolution - an answer to a specific problem that no longer exists). There is an assumption that change in rubrics is driven by a linear increase of knowledge of theology, or for here, an increase in devotion to the True Presence when in fact it may be for far different reasons.

The example that come to my mind is the gradual increase in Eucharistic adoration. Certainly the Church survived when such a thing was nascent . . . but I’d be loath to say that because this was so it doesn’t matter if we were to shift away from Eucharistic adoration now.

VC

Well, my parish has had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for something like 15+ years now. And surprisingly, given that Oregon is the most (or second most) unchurched state in the nation, we are not the only parish in the diocese to have this; there are a number of them from Portland on down. I am not sure how many parishes have the EF; my suspicion is that you could count them on one hand and have finger(s) left over. However, my observation has been that the vast majority of people in the parishes with Perpetual Adoration still receive CITH. So, based on my observations, the two are simply not linked in reverse - that is, CITH goes along with lack of reverence. I know this flies in the face of what others profess to have observed. Having practiced trial law, pardon me if I am a bit jaundiced about some people’s observation powers and deductions.

In short, I think too often we presume that symptoms are the cause of the disease, rather than what they are - symptoms of a different issue.

I teach RCIA, and I am the one who instructs on how to receive. I always explain the norm, what an indult is, what the choices are, and let them decide; I don’t throw any curves. A few who have come through over the years have chosen and still receive COTT. Most have chosen otherwise.

 

[otjm]

Was it reverent when they defied the sin of sacrilege and started the practice of CITH?

You are confusing two things. The practice itself was not and is not sacriligious; it was a pracitce accepted in the Church for the first 10 centuries. So in and of itself, reception in the hand is not sacriligious. That it coulod be sacriligious is not from the form of reception, but from an intent; and receiving in the hand in bviolation of a rubric is not per se a sacrilige. A sacrilige is an intent as to the Eucharist itself, not as to the means of reception.

And you make the presumption that sloppy is based on method; it is entirely possible to be sloppy in receiving COTT. Sloppy is based on irreverance and/or lack of training. Most people who are sloppy will not be so if properly trained; so the issue of how to receive is keyed on training, not on the specific method.

 

[phrederik]

not that i’ve watched everyone receive every time, but i’ve never seen Particles of the Host drop to the floor, have you? i am a EMHC and the Host seems very solid. i understand the risk you’re concerned about, that Jesus will drop to the floor, but i don’t know what to do to prevent that, short of never taking the Host out of the tabernacle. I trust if this happens it is accidental and God will know this. however if it is done with disregard or purpose then it is a grave sin, between God and that person. if i see a Particle fall to the floor i will pick It up and consume It.

 

[ProVobis]

not that i’ve watched everyone receive every time, but i’ve never seen Particles of the Host drop to the floor, have you?

You don’t need to see the particles in order to know that they’re there. They can be quite small; even the size of a molecule. And if you think that’s too small, consider that this entire thread can be stored on electrical circuitry or magnetic storage about that size or a few angstroms. And you obviously see the entire thread.

 

[ProVobis]

if the Pope, any Pope in the last 45 years, wanted to ban receiving in the hand he only had to do so, he has that authority, but it wasn’t done.

But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried or the bishops aren’t disobedient or deceptive. If the Pope were that excited about it, I’m sure he would grant an universal approval which he hasn’t.

And if you’re into anti-conspiracy theories, consider that Fatima is ranked in the top 10 as far as conspiracy theories go. And you don’t have to believe that or any other apparition either, whether your bishop approves of it or not. I don’t even know why you brought it up.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

They can be quite small; even the size of a molecule.

PV,

What do you make of St. Thomas when he says (III. 77, 4):

Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament (. . .) if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament (. . .) if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

I would like to see this quote in its original language and context. I don’t trust translators, especially when “if…then…if/sothat” ambiguities appear in the translation. And what is “tiny” or “fine” here? Less than an atom? Subatom? Less than I can see, which isn’t saying too much, as I can’t see the person in front of me without glasses? Is he speaking substance or accidents here? I still have to respect the accidents, don’t I?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I would like to see this quote in its original language and context. I don’t trust translators, especially when “if…then…if/sothat” ambiguities appear in the translation. And what is “tiny” or “fine” here? Less than an atom? Subatom? Less than I can see, which isn’t saying too much, as I can’t see the person in front of me without glasses? Is he speaking substance or accidents here? I still have to respect the accidents, don’t I?

Here is the pertinent part in Latin:

non remanent corpus et sanguis Christi sub hoc sacramento. Et hoc tam ex parte qualitatum, sicut cum ita immutatur color et sapor et aliae qualitates panis aut vini quod nullo modo posset compati natura panis aut vini, sive etiam ex parte quantitatis, puta si pulverizetur panis, vel vinum in minimas partes dividatur, ut iam non remaneant species panis vel vini.

You can find the whole thing here: corpusthomisticum.org/sth4074.html#50701

If you read the question in context, it would seem St. Thomas is holding that since the accidents of bread and wine retain their being as accidents, including their ability to be modified, then they can be modified. And if they are modified to such an extent that were the underlying substance of bread or wine still present we would have said that bread and wine no longer exist*, *then likewise we would say that the Body of Christ or Blood of Christ are no longer present.

So, the question would become – if you disintegrate a piece of bread to the molecular level is it still bread? I would also hazard a guess that for St. Thomas a molecule is smaller than a “minimas partes” which could be had through pulverization.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

If you read the question in context, it would seem St. Thomas is holding that since the accidents of bread and wine retain their being as accidents, including their ability to be modified, then they can be modified. And if they are modified to such an extent that were the underlying substance of bread or wine still present we would have said that bread and wine no longer exist*, *then likewise we would say that the Body of Christ or Blood of Christ are no longer present.

So if you take some of the protons and electrons from a given molecule, and shoot them elsewhere, then those protons and electrons take on new forms and no longer are part of the old. Is this what you’re or he’s saying? I can relate to that. Somewhere we’d have to make that separation of what’s your body and what’s mine when we shake hands, for example.

The protons and electrons and neutrons don’t disappear although by Einstein’s theories can be converted to energy and other subatomic forms.

Interesting reading, though. Thanks.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You’re welcome.

It seems to me that both the Church’s speculative theology and liturgical practice would rule out a notion that the Body of Christ persists in molecule-size pieces of “bread”. I’m not a physicist, but I would guess that molecules of “bread” are all over the place, no matter how careful one could be.

VC

 

[ProVobis]

You’re welcome.

It seems to me that both the Church’s speculative theology and liturgical practice would rule out a notion that the Body of Christ persists in molecule-size pieces of “bread”. I’m not a physicist, but I would guess that molecules of “bread” are all over the place, no matter how careful one could be.

VC

I’d question it but I’m not going to dispute it. The discarded particles may not be the Body and Blood of Christ but my issue is that by what right do I have to increase the number of those “discarded” pieces? Wouldn’t you object if I scratched your skin and make those tiny fragments part of my fingernails or just kept scratching you not caring that I am removing layers of your skin in the process for no one’s benefit? The Body and Blood of Christ is to benefit us, not the floor.

Am leaving for Mass. Later.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The discarded particles may not be the Body and Blood of Christ but my issue is that by what right do I have to increase the number of those “discarded” pieces?

Yes, I think that is a better question. As opposed to saying that particles, no matter how small, are the Body of Christ it might be better to say particles, no matter how small, ought to be treated with the utmost reverence and care.

Going back for a moment to the “changing the accidents” to such an extent that substance (were it present) would have changed – this is why a consecrated Host which is unfit for consumption is dissolved in water. By dissolving it sufficiently, to the point one would say that had the substance of bread been present the substance of bread was no longer present, an attempt is made to end the abiding Real Presence by removing the sign of the sacrament. (Again, I don’t think we are considering molecule-size accidents here, because I would think that molecules of the species still float in the water.)

But, the point is, after this dissolving process the water isn’t treated as common water. It is disposed of reverently in the piscina or sacrarium, not into a sewer. I think that is food for thought.

VC

 

[otjm]

You don’t need to see the particles in order to know that they’re there. They can be quite small; even the size of a molecule. And if you think that’s too small, consider that this entire thread can be stored on electrical circuitry or magnetic storage about that size or a few angstroms. And you obviously see the entire thread.

If a particle cannot be identified as part of the Host, the stance of the Church is that there is no longer any True Presence.

This is an issue that tends to be upsetting to some; however, it is the position of the Church.

What might help is to read an article found in rubricsandritual.blogspot.com/2007/08/communion-cloth-or-paten.html which reflects on the use of the rubrics prior to Vatican 2 concerning purification; it might be worthy of examination as it relates to purification issues prior to Vatican 2 and thus is not subject to charges that it is some post Vatican 2 lack of reverence for the True Presence.

One needs to follow the mind of the Church, and not require more than the Church does.

 

[ProVobis]

But, the point is, after this dissolving process the water isn’t treated as common water. It is disposed of reverently in the piscina or sacrarium, not into a sewer. I think that is food for thought.
VC

There is also an issue about how long the consecrated Body and Blood of Christ stays the Body and Blood of Christ. Can’t be forever. Also how long does it stay the Body and Blood after you consume it. But I’ll leave that up to the theologians to determine.