Not just another CITH Thread...

[ProVobis]

Yes, I’ve read this thread. I can only speak for the U.S., where I live, and where CITH has been approved by the Church since Paul VI.

There were certain conditions imposed. Do you remember what they were offhand?

 

[elts1956]

Actually, it was under Pope Paul VI that communion in the hand was approved for the U.S.

The Church teaches this in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as approved for the U.S.

Yes, I’ve read this thread. I can only speak for the U.S., where I live, and where CITH has been approved by the Church since Paul VI. Have you read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal?

Hopefully, I am mistaken about this, but I don’t think Communion in the Hand was ever “approved”. It was “allowed” after the US Bishops et al ran away with it. Pope Paul VI who was not a great disciplinarian just sighed and let it be.

 

[Vince1022]

How long was the period?

If you read this thread then you may remember the first post that indicated CITH is approved and we’re not debating that fact. The issue is should it be? What is your take on the Cardinal Bernardin actions?

Some hundreds of years. Less than half the Church’s history, and of course only applicable to the Roman Catholic Church, not the entire Catholic Church.

If the Church approves it, why do you question it?

Cardinal Bernardin had nothing to do with the Vatican approving CITH.

 

[Vince1022]

Hopefully, I am mistaken about this, but I don’t think Communion in the Hand was ever “approved”. It was “allowed” after the US Bishops et al ran away with it. Pope Paul VI who was not a great disciplinarian just sighed and let it be.

I disagree, I think Paul VI was a great disciplinarian. How else to explain Humanae Vitae, which was and is rejected by so many?

The U.S. Bishops didn’t run away with anything. The Vatican approved CITH and the U.S. Bishops complied.

 

[Vince1022]

There were certain conditions imposed. Do you remember what they were offhand?

There are no conditions I know of in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which was approved by the Vatican for the U.S.

 

[Melchior_1]

I disagree, I think Paul VI was a great disciplinarian. How else to explain Humanae Vitae, which was and is rejected by so many?

I’ll say this much; you’re right about this one.

 

[Layman]

The Church teaches this in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as approved for the U.S.

‘Approved’, or in truth, merely ‘allowed’?

Is this the GIRM?

cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T15

It doesn’t say why a Roman Catholic diocese should change from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. I would like to read other reasons, besides:

It was done in the past (1500 years ago);
It is done in other Catholic Rites (why change ours?);
EMHCs do it for the housebound (outside Mass);
It is allowed (i.e. it is allowed because it is allowed).

None of these are good reasons to change our rite. However, when you look at how it’s been edited since the 40’s, such a change can’t be called surprising, I suppose.

Now, if you wanted to reinforce the idea of Mass as The Lord’s Supper, it works. Who kneels at a meal? Who gets hand fed? It’s silly! Change the text, add in the altar table and the priest confecting the Host facing you and folksy hymns and the change is complete.

But if you want to keep the reverence for the Body Of Christ, the awe at a sacrifice of a Divine Being, well … you’ve got a problem there. You can’t have it both ways: the People’s Celebration of The Lord’s Supper (with folk hymns and unvested laywomen in the sanctuary) or The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass. Even calling it ‘The Liturgy Of The Eucharist’ helps play down it’s importance.

Here’s the trick: you can pluck out an example of all the changes to the Mass being done somewhere at some time in some special cirumstances by some religious or clergy in some rite … but add them all, at once, into the R.C. rite and then gut the text …?

Funny thing to do to the sacred rite of your religion. Unless you really want to change it to a celebratory re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper by the royal priesthood of the laity. The changes make perfect sense then.

Even calling it the ‘Lord’s Supper’ instead of the Last Supper makes it sound nicer. It doesn’t recall the terrible thing that came after.

 

[ProVobis]

There are no conditions I know of

Yes there are.

(d) Conditions in the indult:

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.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ll say this much; you’re right about this one.

I’ll disagree with both of you on this one. Paul VI published Progressio Populorum where he allowed consciences to be used in determining birth control. He also gathered his best moral theologians on the ABC subject afterwards. Their vote on allowing ABC made it look like the Pope would allow ABC and many bishops and priests were running on that strong probability. That’s what the average church-going Catholic learned. H.V. was rejected or ignored by many Catholics because they already had adjusted their lives around ABC and had been for some time. The process of delivering the final message, if anything, was wishy-washy at best, and not disciplined.

As far as CITH, Rome never initiated any directives for it. The action of finally allowing the practice was in response to mass disobedience to the Church’s banning of the practice and deception on the part of the bishops in getting it approved. And it came with conditions that one would have to admit are very rarely followed. So technically it is NOT allowed in all the places within those countries you cite as “approved in.”

 

[Ockham]

Some hundreds of years. Less than half the Church’s history, and of course only applicable to the Roman Catholic Church, not the entire Catholic Church.

If the Church approves it, why do you question it?

Cardinal Bernardin had nothing to do with the Vatican approving CITH.

\

Did you really read this thread?

Can you provide a source to support your ‘less than half the Church’s history’ claim?

Cardinal Bernardin was instrumental in getting CITH approved in the USA. Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

I question why the Church approves CITH because it seems to have been approved in error, is an error itself which contributes to a diminishing belief in the Real Presence and Catholicism in general.

 

[Ockham]

I’m not sure why someone would break-in to a church to obtain the Blessed Sacrament when they can just go to a Mass and have someone hand it to them.

*"A golden container and the hosts for Holy Communion inside it were stolen during an overnight break-in Tuesday at St. Rose of Lima Church in Carbondale.

Called the ciborium, it was the only thing taken."*

thetimes-tribune.com/news/carbondale-church-desecrated-by-theft-1.926299

There is most likely Satanic activity around this parish and the pastor or bishop should suspend CITH immediately as per conditions to the indult.

 

[ProVobis]

I’m not sure why someone would break-in to a church to obtain the Blessed Sacrament when they can just go to a Mass and have someone hand it to them.

 

[Vince1022]

Under different circumstances and before the practice was banned.

Just because certain liturgical practices are “banned” at a certain time, for certain circumstances, does not mean they are absolutely and eternally prohibited.

Read Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei, esp para 50.

Yes, the Roman (not, simply the Catholic) Church decided to regulate the reception of communion solely on the tongue, at one point. That doesn’t mean it’s some eternal or divine law, or that other traditional practices cannot be reinstated.

 

[Vince1022]

‘Approved’, or in truth, merely ‘allowed’?

Is this the GIRM?

cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T15

It doesn’t say why a Roman Catholic diocese should change from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. I would like to read other reasons, besides:

It was done in the past (1500 years ago);
It is done in other Catholic Rites (why change ours?);
EMHCs do it for the housebound (outside Mass);
It is allowed (i.e. it is allowed because it is allowed).

None of these are good reasons to change our rite. However, when you look at how it’s been edited since the 40’s, such a change can’t be called surprising, I suppose.

Now, if you wanted to reinforce the idea of Mass as The Lord’s Supper, it works. Who kneels at a meal? Who gets hand fed? It’s silly! Change the text, add in the altar table and the priest confecting the Host facing you and folksy hymns and the change is complete.

But if you want to keep the reverence for the Body Of Christ, the awe at a sacrifice of a Divine Being, well … you’ve got a problem there. You can’t have it both ways: the People’s Celebration of The Lord’s Supper (with folk hymns and unvested laywomen in the sanctuary) or The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass. Even calling it ‘The Liturgy Of The Eucharist’ helps play down it’s importance.

Here’s the trick: you can pluck out an example of all the changes to the Mass being done somewhere at some time in some special cirumstances by some religious or clergy in some rite … but add them all, at once, into the R.C. rite and then gut the text …?

Funny thing to do to the sacred rite of your religion. Unless you really want to change it to a celebratory re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper by the royal priesthood of the laity. The changes make perfect sense then.

Even calling it the ‘Lord’s Supper’ instead of the Last Supper makes it sound nicer. It doesn’t recall the terrible thing that came after.

What is the difference between the Vatican “approving” something, and “allowing” something?

Are you suggesting the Vatican can approve things that are not allowed, or allow things that are not approved? I’m confused. Please help.

 

[Vince1022]

’
Is this the GIRM?

cfpeople.org/Books/GIRM/girmp11.htm#T15

It doesn’t say why a Roman Catholic diocese should change from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. I would like to read other reasons, besides:

It was done in the past (1500 years ago);
It is done in other Catholic Rites (why change ours?);
EMHCs do it for the housebound (outside Mass);
It is allowed (i.e. it is allowed because it is allowed).

None of these are good reasons to change our rite. However, when you look at how it’s been edited since the 40’s, such a change can’t be called surprising, I suppose.

Now, if you wanted to reinforce the idea of Mass as The Lord’s Supper, it works. Who kneels at a meal? Who gets hand fed? It’s silly! Change the text, add in the altar table and the priest confecting the Host facing you and folksy hymns and the change is complete.

But if you want to keep the reverence for the Body Of Christ, the awe at a sacrifice of a Divine Being, well … you’ve got a problem there. You can’t have it both ways: the People’s Celebration of The Lord’s Supper (with folk hymns and unvested laywomen in the sanctuary) or The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass. Even calling it ‘The Liturgy Of The Eucharist’ helps play down it’s importance.

Here’s the trick: you can pluck out an example of all the changes to the Mass being done somewhere at some time in some special cirumstances by some religious or clergy in some rite … but add them all, at once, into the R.C. rite and then gut the text …?

Funny thing to do to the sacred rite of your religion. Unless you really want to change it to a celebratory re-enactment of the Lord’s Supper by the royal priesthood of the laity. The changes make perfect sense then.

Even calling it the ‘Lord’s Supper’ instead of the Last Supper makes it sound nicer. It doesn’t recall the terrible thing that came after.

For the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S., see the USCCB website: usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml

If you read the beginning parts, there are plenty of explanations about the “why” for the rules/rubrics that follow.

And, the website has many more links that help understanding the “why”. Best wishes, hope this helps.

 

[Vince1022]

’
None of these are good reasons to change our rite.

It’s not your (or “our”) Rite. It’s the Church’s Rite. The Magisterium has the authority and grace to regulate the Rites as She sees fit. If the Church approves Rites, why do you object?

 

[Vince1022]

How long was the period?

If you read this thread then you may remember the first post that indicated CITH is approved and we’re not debating that fact. The issue is should it be? What is your take on the Cardinal Bernardin actions?

I don’t know exactly when the Roman Church restricted the reception of communion to only on the tongue.

I don’t know of anything Cardinal Bernardin had to do with the Vatican approving communion in the hand or on the tongue in the U.S.

Should it be? Well, I would say yes, based on the fact that the Magisterium approves it.

 

[Vince1022]

Yes there are.

Communion in the hand in the U.S. is not an indult.

 

[elts1956]

I disagree, I think Paul VI was a great disciplinarian. How else to explain Humanae Vitae, which was and is rejected by so many?

The U.S. Bishops didn’t run away with anything. The Vatican approved CITH and the U.S. Bishops complied .

I don’t know if you have read a book called The Desolate City Revolution in the Catholic Church by Anne Roche Muggeride? It deals with power play of the Modernists within the Church with the more conservative and traditional element during the Second Vatican Council. It is quite an eye opener.

This is off the subject but does uphold what I said about Pope Paul VI being weak on discipline within the Church. According to Ms. Muggeride, Pope Paul VI did not declare Humanae Vitae to be infallible. This is what she has to say on p 84 of the copy of the book I have.

"He (Pope Paul VI) wrote in Humanae Vitae that the church’s historic teaching now reafirmed by himself “is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive meaning and procreative meaning,” Yet, (her words) when he issued the encyclical, he welcomed, “the lively debate” he hoped would ensue. (This could also be seen, I think, as his being willing to strongly defend the encyclical) …But if contraception is indeed, as Humanae Vitae says, “in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage and the will of the author of Life”, (she read as) what can be left to debate? etc.

Yet, he instructed the spokesman for the Vatican at the press conference held upon the publication of the encyclical to answer the question upon the status of Humane Vitae that the encyclical was not to be considered am infallible teaching . (Mudderidge words)

I would say Pope Paul Vi was not a good disciplinarian. You must read this book. It explains why many of our Bishops disregard the Vatican stance of forbidding a Pro Abort Pol communion and do as they please.

I myself have no difficulty with Communion in the Hand, although I prefer to receive on the tongue.

 

[Vince1022]

I don’t know if you have read a book called The Desolate City Revolution in the Catholic Church by Anne Roche Muggeride? It deals with power play of the Modernists within the Church with the more conservative and traditional element during the Second Vatican Council. It is quite an eye opener.

This is off the subject but does uphold what I said about Pope Paul VI being weak on discipline within the Church. According to Ms. Muggeride, Pope Paul VI did not declare Humanae Vitae to be infallible. This is what she has to say on p 84 of the copy of the book I have.

"He (Pope Paul VI) wrote in Humanae Vitae that the church’s historic teaching now reafirmed by himself “is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act, the unitive meaning and procreative meaning,” Yet, (her words) when he issued the encyclical, he welcomed, “the lively debate” he hoped would ensue. (This could also be seen, I think, as his being willing to strongly defend the encyclical) …But if contraception is indeed, as Humanae Vitae says, “in contradiction with the design constitutive of marriage and the will of the author of Life”, (she read as) what can be left to debate? etc.

Yet, he instructed the spokesman for the Vatican at the press conference held upon the publication of the encyclical to answer the question upon the status of Humane Vitae that the encyclical was not to be considered am infallible teaching . (Mudderidge words)

I would say Pope Paul Vi was not a good disciplinarian. You must read this book. It explains why many of our Bishops disregard the Vatican stance of forbidding a Pro Abort Pol communion and do as they please.

I myself have no difficulty with Communion in the Hand, although I prefer to receive on the tongue.

Never heard of or read it, sorry.

Yes, of course Humanae Vitae was not taught infallibly. Paul VI never claimed otherwise. So what? That doesn’t mean it’s not binding or authoritative. I don’t understand your point here.

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by " It explains why many of our Bishops disregard the Vatican stance of forbidding a Pro Abort Pol communion and do as they please.". Can you clarify?

In the U.S., communion in the hand or on the tongue are equally allowed. I have my preferences, so does everyone. I have no problem with people who have different preferences (which are just that, personal preferences, in line with Church teaching). I do have a problem with those who think that one or the other should be mandated or preferred for everyone, contrary to what the Church teaches in the U.S.)