Not just another CITH Thread...

[EnchantedEve]

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

Let us also remember, though St. Cyril does not mention this, the common practice at that time was also to cover those same hands with a white cloth of some kind, one of the antecedents of the idea of wearing white at your First Holy Communion. So even when received in the hand, the hand still did not touch the Host.

I would also like to mention, for pure interest, that I know a priest of the Liberal Catholic Church. When I mentioned the idea of CITH, he said his church would never permit such a practice. They offer only on the tongue as an option, most preferably kneeling. The idea that Our Lord be handled in such a fashion was foreign to him. If the LIBERAL Catholic Church has figured this out, why not Rome?

 

[EnchantedEve]

That’s a good question, but not germain to this thread. Too answer quickly, any priest can exorcise provided he has the permission of the local bishop. This permission is rarely granted.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Forgive my extending of the diversion from the thread, but I understood the minor orders were suppressed in 1972, not 1983. Maybe not?

 

[paperwight]

I thought most countries *didn’t *have COTH. Could be wrong. Do you happen to know of a list? Thanks.

There doesn’t seem to be list, unfortunately, or at least, when this was discussed last year or the year before, nobody came up with one.

But pooling what we did know, either from reading or from personal travel. we established that CITH was allowed in all English-speaking countries, including those in Africa,and in all countries in Europe, even Poland. A bishop in Italy forbad it in his diocese, but Italy as a whole, including Rome, allows it.

Countries which are historically Greek or Russian Orthodox are not included, obviously.
It could be that any Roman Rite churches in those follow local custom.

 

[choy]

There doesn’t seem to be list, unfortunately, or at least, when this was discussed last year or the year before, nobody came up with one.

But pooling what we did know, either from reading or from personal travel. we established that CITH was allowed in all English-speaking countries, including those in Africa,and in all countries in Europe, even Poland. A bishop in Italy forbad it in his diocese, but Italy as a whole, including Rome, allows it.

Countries which are historically Greek or Russian Orthodox are not included, obviously.
It could be that any Roman Rite churches in those follow local custom.

CITH is also practiced in the Philippines as well as Singapore and Hong Kong. so at least in those parts of Asia

i find it funny though that one diocese will forbid CITH, because as i understand that its the bishop’s conference that will apply for the permission so it should be all diocese thats part of the bishop’s conference, which would mean the entire country.

 

[paperwight]

I forgot to add Sweden as a country where I know from personal experience that CITH is allowed. Probably other Scandinavian counties do as well in that case.

 

[ProVobis]

But pooling what we did know, either from reading or from personal travel. we established that CITH was allowed in all English-speaking countries, including those in Africa,and in all countries in Europe, even Poland. A bishop in Italy forbad it in his diocese, but Italy as a whole, including Rome, allows it.

According to Cardinal Arinze, 2/3rds of the bishops in a particular country have to vote in the affirmative in order to have the option of CITH (provided certain other ongoing conditions are met, that COTT not be denied, no danger to profanity exists, precautions are taken not to drop fragments, etc.).

However, there are numerous sources which reported that 2/3rds of the U.S. bishops present (as required) never approved of the practice. Twice they were polled and twice they rejected it. Furthermore, the abuse had to have been established prior to the vote, and as this hadn’t been established in the U.S. (thankfully!) the vote itself was not legitimate. Bishop Blanchette, Fr. Hardon, and Fr Kunz (and no doubt other bishops) have therefore in effect claimed that deceptive information was submitted to Rome to get the approval.

 

[ProVobis]

Let us also remember, though St. Cyril does not mention this, the common practice at that time was also to cover those same hands with a white cloth of some kind, one of the antecedents of the idea of wearing white at your First Holy Communion. So even when received in the hand, the hand still did not touch the Host.

Good point. I understand that the bishop of Rockford has required a communion rail cloth in all EF celebrations (to augment the paten), citing that the cloth was the standard practice in the early church.

 

[Ockham]

There does not seem to be much information available on the net regarding the events leading up to the implementation of CITH in the GIRM. Cardinal Bernardin was president of the USCCB from 1974 - 1977 and called for three votes before finally getting it passed. Why three votes? If the pope ruled against it, a general vote was taken by the US bishops ruling with the pontiff, why two more votes? There is suggestion the third vote was fraudulant.

More recently, there are calls from bishops to reconsider CITH:

*"Feb 1, 2008 / 03:32 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Cult and Discipline of the Sacraments has said that the policy of giving Communion in the hand should be revised.

**Receiving Holy Communion in the hand “produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” *wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider"

catholicnewsagency.com/news/communion_in_hand_should_be_revised_vatican_official_says/

 

[Ockham]

*The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. **They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact. ***

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

 

[JReducation]

Forgive my extending of the diversion from the thread, but I understood the minor orders were suppressed in 1972, not 1983. Maybe not?

They were not conferred, but they remained in the law until the rescript of Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

**Receiving Holy Communion in the hand “produces a growing weakening of a devout attitude toward the Most Holy Sacrament,” **wrote Archbishop Ranjith in the preface of a book from the Auxiliary Bishop of Kazakhstan, Bishop Athanasius Schneider"

So obvious, yet such denial.

The pastor of the parish I attend has requested in the bulletin that all consider receiving on the tongue at the communion rail. Brick by brick.

 

[Vince1022]

An interesting point. Which raises others:

a) Who is the Magisterium;
b) Does it teach CITH?;
c) Why does it teach it?

a. The Bishops.
b. Yes.
c. Because it’s part of Tradition and a valid, licit, and historically continuous (unlike communion on the tongue) way to receive.

 

[Vince1022]

I’'m curious. If you are not that’s your perogative but hopefully you are not suggesting a censorship of this subject. It’s puzzling why I have to continually defend such a pursuit of knowledge. Perhaps there is something some people wish to keep hidden.

Actually, yes, I do believe more people should be aware of the history of CITH. Knowing history is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?

I want to know how and why it is approved.

What email?

But didn’t communion in the hand precede communion on the tongue, historically? Or are you saying there is historical evidence that the Apostles received on the tongue at the last supper, or that anyone in the early Church (first few centuries) did?

 

[Layman]

a. The Bishops.
b. Yes.
c. Because it’s part of Tradition and a valid, licit, and historically continuous (unlike communion on the tongue) way to receive.

I thought the Pope was part of the Magisterium too(?)

From what I’ve read on here, CITH is not promoted i.e. taught tp be a good discipline, apart from a selective, dubious quote from St. Cyril.** I would like to read quotes from Bishops other than St. Cyril promoting this practice as a postive thing to the Roman Catholic Faithful, explaining why COTT should be dumped in favour of it.**

CITH was stopped for hundreds of years. Why?
Then it was started up again in Holland recently. Why?

It’s not part of Tradition within the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[JustaServant]

Does it ever dawn on people that CITH takes longer? In the time the priest puts the host into your and and you pick it up to put in your mouth, COTT has already been done on three people.

 

[ProVobis]

Or are you saying there is historical evidence that the Apostles received on the tongue at the last supper

No but there isn’t any evidence they stood “taking” in bread lines either. Besides they were not laymen.

This official is also part of the Magisterium of the Church.

Vatican official: Church should reconsider Communion in the hand

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments said he thinks it is time for the Catholic Church to reconsider its decision to allow the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, the Vatican official, made the suggestion in the preface to a book about the Eucharist by Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan.

Bishop Schneider’s book, “Dominus Est: Reflections of a Bishop from Central Asia on Holy Communion,” was published in Italian in late January by the Vatican Publishing House, though some of it had been released earlier in the Vatican newspaper.

In the newly released preface to the book, Archbishop Ranjith wrote, “The Eucharist, bread transubstantiated into the body of Christ and wine into the blood of Christ – God in our midst – must be received with awe and an attitude of humble adoration.”

The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council never authorized the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, a practice that was “introduced abusively and hurriedly in some spheres” and only later authorized by the Vatican.

The liturgists, theologians and pastors who encouraged the change said it better reflected the ancient practice of the church and the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper, he said.

“It is true that if one can receive on the tongue, one also can receive in the hand because this organ of the body has equal dignity,” he said.

However, Archbishop Ranjith said, **the introduction of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand coincides with the beginning of “a gradual and growing weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred eucharistic species.” **“I think the time has come to evaluate these practices and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice,” Archbishop Ranjith said.

“Now more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful renew a lively faith in the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic species with the aim of reinforcing the very life of the church and defending it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith,” the archbishop wrote.

The bulk of Bishop Schneider’s book was published in early January in the Vatican newspaper; he said that if a Catholic truly believes in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, he or she should kneel in adoration and reverence when receiving Communion.

The article in L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, appeared under the headline, “Like a nursing child in the arms of the one who nourishes him” and included the bishop’s opinion that just as a baby opens his mouth to receive nourishment from his mother, so should Catholics open their mouths to receive nourishment from Jesus.

END

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm

 

[Ockham]

a. The Bishops.
b. Yes.
c. Because it’s part of Tradition and a valid, licit, and historically continuous (unlike communion on the tongue) way to receive.

a. The Bishop of Rome outranks the others. Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH.

b. Source? Where exactly does the Church teach CITH?

c. Have you read this thread? Have you done any research into this subject?

 

[Ockham]

But didn’t communion in the hand precede communion on the tongue, historically? Or are you saying there is historical evidence that the Apostles received on the tongue at the last supper, or that anyone in the early Church (first few centuries) did?

The Jewish sader meal has a tradition of the host placing food directly onto the guest’s tongue. The Apostles were clergy.

"ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication."

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

*"The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority. "*

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Ockham]

Does it ever dawn on people that CITH takes longer? In the time the priest puts the host into your and and you pick it up to put in your mouth, COTT has already been done on three people.

Good point. Also, many Novus Ordo Masses I’ve seen use too many EMHCs which actually cause disruption and disorder to the ‘flow’ of the Communion line. It amazes me when CITH defenders try to use this argument. They have no problem waiting in line for a coffee or cheeseburger, but demand a non-stop momentum to receive the Lord.

 

[Ockham]

“The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

The bottom line is the CITH in the USA should not be allowed. In 1969 Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH giving an exception to the dioceses where it was already established. Archbishop Bernardin became head of the USCCB in the mid seventies and pushed it through after three votes in three years. The final vote has acqusations of ballot stuffing.