Not just another CITH Thread...

[Ockham]

Ok brothers and sisters, let’s see if we can have a mature and responsible discussion on one of our favorite subjects - Communion in the hand.

Here are the givens:

1. It is approved
2. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’
3. the Franciscans do it

Ok? So we don’t need to repeat these three statements. The challenge then is this - **should **CITH be approved? Why is it approved? What are the theological differences?

 

[Miss_Linda]

Here is the language of the Papal indult for permitting Communion in the Hand:

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use (communion on the tongue). At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must therefore be respected.

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 of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving 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 mode 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 into 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.

Monsignor Guido Marini, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, notes in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, that “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an indult from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it.” He notes further in the same interview that “The method adopted by Benedict XVI (communion on the tongue while kneeling) tends to underscore the force of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition, one could perhaps also note a preference for using this method of distribution which, without taking anything from the other, better sheds light on the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it helps the the devotion of the faithful, introduces them more easily to a sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our time, speaking pastorally, it is urgent to highlight and recover.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ok brothers and sisters, let’s see if we can have a mature and responsible discussion on one of our favorite subjects - Communion in the hand.

Here are the givens:

1. It is approved
2. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’
3. the Franciscans do it

Ok? So we don’t need to repeat these three statements. The challenge then is this - **should **CITH be approved? Why is it approved? What are the theological differences?

The norm for reception is Communion on the Tongue (COTT).

The U.S. has an indult for CITH. Therefore as you say, it is approved, although recently Father Z had an interesting read in his blog about whether or not CITH would be an option for the EF (it seems it would not be according to the rubrics).

I don’t know if one can argue ‘should’ --the fact is, it has been approved in the U.S. (see Indult, above).

As for the why, I am sure that the reason is multifactorial. No doubt some sought it from loving and reverent motives; it is also possible that it was sought from motives of malice and dissent. We cannot be sure of the minds of any who were involved.

I prefer COTT myself.

I’ll make it clear that this is my own opinion here: Since the normal remains COTT, my personal opinion is that for the foreseeable future, the Indult for CITH should be revoked.

NOT because I feel that the majority of those who receive that way are wrong. Not because I think the practice is intrinsically wrong. Not because I want to drag the Church back to the Middle Ages.

BUT because there is so much dissent and so much ‘feeling’ and so much confusion regarding the whole concept of the Eucharist, and so many people have been either badly taught or have somehow fallen short in their understanding–I (personally feel) that in order to deal with the whole thing, the universal practice should be adhered to by all people until we can get ourselves as Christians ‘back’ to a correct understanding of the Eucharist.

If my computer had a bunch of add ons, even if some of the aps were really, really great. . .but they caused my computer to get slower, and slower, and finally crashed it to the black screen of death. . .well, in order to get my computer fixed I’d have to wipe out all that good stuff temporarily, wouldn’t I --to get my computer ‘back’ into running order? I’d have to go back to the basics before I could start to ‘add on’, and I’d have to be a lot more careful with those add ons knowing what could happen. I’m sure that in time I could have the really good worthwhile stuff, but some of the really great ‘looking’ stuff might turn out to be toxic for the computer. . .for a while at least if not always, . .no matter how ‘great’ it looked or how much I’d enjoyed it!

 

[Thomas58]

Objectively speaking which act of receiving the Eucharist shows more reverence to the presence of our Lord? 1. Receiving the body and blood of our Lord while standing in line, in the hand, by a layman? Or. 2. On your knees at the alter rail receiving the body and blood of our Lord on the tongue, from only the consecrated hands of a Priest acting in Persona Christi?

There is no comparison.

The Novus Ordo is grossly irreverent and treats sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner.

 

[momor]

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.

In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use (communion on the tongue). At the same time **he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request **and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter.

---

Anyone know what the reasons for the request for CITH were?

 

[Cristiano]

…The Novus Ordo is grossly irreverent and treats sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner.

Finally someone making an intelligent comment about the OF!

Or maybe not?

 

[LoyalViews]

Well, here in Canada there is also an indult for the reception of the most holy Body of our Lord in the hand, though I am against it.

 

[Catholic87]

Not all franciscans do it!!! The Franciscans at EWTN do not…they receive kneeling and on the tongue.

 

[ljubim]

1. It is approved

Yes

2. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’

My response to this would be that St. Cyril lived in the fourth century when the Church did this. The Church did a lot of things way back when that they nipped in the bud, for very good reasons. More extreme examples that come to mind is that people would have a real meal at Mass separate from receiving the Eucharist, people would still bring their animals to sacrifice, etc. Lots of things that used to occur were halted and new norms developed. Out of a wild and confusing time such as the early Church, practices emerged that were deemed as clearly superior and they were regularized, replacing the older practices. To try and forcibly return to a former practice in contempt of the settled norm is not in line with the organic continuity/growth of the Church.

Also when you compare this one quote to the dozens of others also from its time, it is clear that this was not the widespread practice of the Church. There are equally good arguments, as well, the the very first Eucharist was given on the tongue, to the point that we do NOT know (as many claim we do) whether the Eucharist was given on the tongue or in the hand during the Last Supper. It’s, honestly, 50/50. We’ll have to ask God when we see Him.

3. the Franciscans do it

Appeal to authority :tsktsk: But could you give a source for this one?

 

[Vince1022]

Here is the language of the Papal indult for permitting Communion in the Hand:

Monsignor Guido Marini, Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, notes in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano, that “it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an indult from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it.” He notes further in the same interview that “The method adopted by Benedict XVI (communion on the tongue while kneeling) tends to underscore the force of the norm valid for the whole Church. In addition, one could perhaps also note a preference for using this method of distribution which, without taking anything from the other, better sheds light on the truth of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, it helps the the devotion of the faithful, introduces them more easily to a sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our time, speaking pastorally, it is urgent to highlight and recover.”

That’s interesting, historically, but current Church law (at least for the U.S.) does not rely on an indult. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, I believe, is the authoritative document, Church law, that allows this practice. (I think some call it the “GIRM”)

 

[Vince1022]

Objectively speaking which act of receiving the Eucharist shows more reverence to the presence of our Lord? 1. Receiving the body and blood of our Lord while standing in line, in the hand, by a layman? Or. 2. On your knees at the alter rail receiving the body and blood of our Lord on the tongue, from only the consecrated hands of a Priest acting in Persona Christi?

There is no comparison.

The Novus Ordo is grossly irreverent and treats sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner.

Where is the Mass approved by Pope Paul VI grossly irreverent? I mean, in the approved text from the Magisterium? Thanks for any clarification.

 

[Layman]

Yes
My response to this would be that St. Cyril lived in the fourth century when the Church did this. The Church did a lot of things way back when that they nipped in the bud, for very good reasons. More extreme examples that come to mind is that people would have a real meal at Mass separate from receiving the Eucharist, people would still bring their animals to sacrifice, etc. Lots of things that used to occur were halted and new norms developed.

I really, really wish you hadn’t mentioned the animal sacrifice.

Still, my relations are in farming. If it’s re-introduced, it might raise cattle and sheep prices.

 

[AndrewF1995]

Ok brothers and sisters, let’s see if we can have a mature and responsible discussion on one of our favorite subjects - Communion in the hand.

Here are the givens:

1. It is approved
2. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’
3. the Franciscans do it

Ok? So we don’t need to repeat these three statements. The challenge then is this - **should **CITH be approved? Why is it approved? What are the theological differences?

I don’t think that any of my friends and other people my age (I am 15) really know how sacred and holy the eucharist is. I had to explain to my friend who goes to CATHOLIC school, what it was because he thought it was just blessed bread. CITH never strengthened my belief in the true presence, and until I started receiving COTT I didn’t really realize that this was really God. My younger cousins who are making there first communions only learn how to receive on the hand and they were told COTT was something only that “old people” do. It is very hard for kids my age to see what the eucharist really is, and I believe that if communion on the tongue comes back it would make them see how holy the eucharist is. Communion on the hand allows some people to just walk away with the host then put it in their mouth when they get to there pew. Eucharistic Ministers don’t strengthen people’s belief in the true presence either. Trust me on this one, CITH is defiantly causing people to not understand the sacrament, well at least people my age.

 

[Canto]

1. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’

St Cyril went on to say “When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them.”

That’s interesting, historically, but current Church law (at least for the U.S.) does not rely on an indult. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, I believe, is the authoritative document, Church law, that allows this practice. (I think some call it the “GIRM”)

GIRM 161: The communicant replies: Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, **where this is allowed **and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.

One can always receive on the tongue, but to receive on the hand it has to be approved (i.e. an indult) for a particular area e.g. US, Australia etc.

Does anyone know how many countries have applied for the indult?

 

[Robster7]

I sometimes attend the noon mass at The St. Therese Carmelite Chapel at Bergen Town Center in Paramus NJ (yes, it’s called “Chapel on the Mall.”)

An elderly priest there, while admitting it is not what he prefers (he thinks COTT is more reverent), insists that it’s CITH is legit, and instructed folks from time to time on proper reception. He’s a faithful priest, and I respect him for his obedience to the current church discipline on this matter. I can do it either way, and think reverence essentially ought to be first in our heart, and then expressed outwardly by our actions. Without the reverence of the heart, the reverent outward action is a sham.

 

[Ockham]

Appeal to authority :tsktsk: But could you give a source for this one?

JReducation is a Fransican brother who said they receive standing and in hand. I don’t know much about their order other then what he has described. After reading his post it occurred to me the modern Novus Ordo Church is much like their order.

 

[Ockham]

Back to the indult…

If it was issued in 1969 for countries where CITH was already in practice, how did countries after that get an extension? When Pope Paul VI issued it he stated that COTT was the rule and to be practiced.

 

[Lycorth]

1. It is approved

Yes, but as per Miss Linda’s post citing the actual instructions for CITH, it comes with a lot of conditions. It is approved, but it isn’t considered equal to COTT nor is it to supplant it.

1. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’

Which beckons folks who receive CITH to do so with extreme reverence.

A better question would be - why aren’t people instructed with St. Cyril’s words in mind today? “Just walk up there and get your cracker and God will understand because we think He should” - that seems to be the mentality in so many churches these days.

1. the Franciscans do it

As mentioned, not all Franciscans do - watch a Mass on EWTN sometime and you’ll see them all kneeling for COTT.

If every parish celebrated the NO Mass like EWTN does, there would be orders of magnitude less confusion and disorder in the Church today, at least in regards to the Mass.

Ok? So we don’t need to repeat these three statements. The challenge then is this - **should **CITH be approved? Why is it approved? What are the theological differences?

CITH already has as much place as it should have in the Church, and peoples’ perceptions of it need to be severely corrected. This is the big issue with CITH as I see it; the practice does need to be reined in and highly curtailed, though it is certainly not invalid in and of itself, and a traditional understanding of the Eucharist hammered upon until it is driven into every thick modernist skull.

There certainly are good reasons to have CITH as an exception to the rule, as a rare practice used only when needed, but in no way should CITH ever rival or supplant COTT, as per the Church’s own instructions on the matter.

 

[Ockham]

I made my First Communion in the mid-seventies and don’t remember COTT being taught even as an option. My wife is a primary teacher in a Catholic school and tells me the children are only instructed for CITH. If so many Catholics don’t know CITH is only an exception it’s understandable most think it is the norm. Only those so inclined to research Church practices and history uncover the truth as I doubt much catechesis comes from the pulpit these days.

 

[ProVobis]

1. St. Cyril said to ‘make your palm a throne’

This seems to agree with what Canto said above.

Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”

There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp