Not just another CITH Thread...

[AlanFromWichita]

Now that Ockham made a point by point list, and Br. JR did as well, it makes it easier for me to see where we’ve been.

I guess my question is, who is currently in charge of how things are done today, if not tomorrow?

Can Pope Benedict simply withdraw the indult, or whatever it would be called, if he thought it was right? Whether it would be “politically correct” for him to do so – given the assumed risk of backlash and/or outright disobedience – is a fair but separate question.

If CITH is really a problem, and should be done away with wherever practicable, then “who’s on first?” Isn’t it somebody’s job to oversee these things?

Alan

 

[Layman]

To: Vince

By secular RC dioceses I mean churches in a Roman Catholic diocese, manned by secular clergy, where the Roman rite is said.

You see, CITH, standing has been excused on the basis of instances of it existing religious communities(?) or at other times or in other rites or in special circumstances.

I’m waiting for someone to complete this sentence:

A Roman Catholic, secular church should change over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, because …

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m waiting for someone to complete this sentence:

A Roman Catholic, secular church should change over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, because …

my ex-pastor had really bad back problems and needed help distributing it, as he couldn’t stand or very well walk to do it himself. He also was the priest that said the TLM every Sunday at 8 AM, but I couldn’t ever go because I am committed to my home parish at that time of week.

Alan

 

[paperwight]

To: Vince

By secular RC dioceses I mean churches in a Roman Catholic diocese, manned by secular clergy, where the Roman rite is said.

You see, CITH, standing has been excused on the basis of instances of it existing religious communities(?) or at other times or in other rites or in special circumstances.

I’m waiting for someone to complete this sentence:

A Roman Catholic, secular church should change over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, because …

Since it is not compulsory to receive one way over another, your question would be better phrased ‘A Roman Catholic secular church should give parishioners the choice between …etc’

 

[Layman]

So back problems and a suggestion to change the question. Any more?

 

[Ockham]

What planet do you live on?

Seeing as you’ve asked this ridiculous question twice I wonder how seriously I should consider anything you post. I have asked you to provide sources for your statements and you refuse. Just because you state something doesn’t make it true. Aliens may have abducted you yesterday, but without proof you will have a hard time finding anyone to believe you. You said you read this thread but have not shown any proof of that either. Please make a sincere effort at educating yourself on this subject and showing courtesy to others by proving sources as proofs to further commentary.

CITH has clearly been a part of Catholic tradition since the New Testament (the New Testament does not prescribe nor proscribe methods of receiving. Receiving on the tongue is clearly a later medieval development.)

CITH has not been considered an abuse for most of Catholic (read: Catholic) history.

I’ll ask again: please provide sources

What Popes have condemned CITH? Certainly not Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, nor Benedict X VI. If they haven’t condemned it, what’s the problem?

*"Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

**This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, *taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]"

MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship​

Issued on May 29, 1969.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm

*"Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion." *

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

*"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."*
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

 

[Ockham]

“In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologiae
Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D.
served toward bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end.
After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the
hand persisted here and there. Church authority apparently judged that it
invited abuse and deemed it contrary to the custom of the Apostles.
Thus the Synod of Rouen, France, in about 878 directed: “Do not put the
Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but only in their mouths”
(“nulli autem laico aut feminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in
os eius”). (4) A non-ecumenical Council of Constantinople known as “In
Trullo” in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to
themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is
placed in the hand of communicants), and decreed a censure against those who
would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.”

Rev. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

*“The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” *

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica
newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm

*"The Council of Trent, 1545-1565: “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.” " *communion-in-the-hand.org/index.php/eucharistic_ministers/

Pope Paul VI was the Pope when CITH was extended (as approved for the U.S. at least, which is the only personal knowledge I have). So you are simply factually wrong to say that he simply condemned it. It was under his pontificate that the nuns and priests at my parish taught us how to properly receive CITH.

I don’t believe I said Pope ‘condemned’ CITH. Can you provide evidence? It seems curious you use the word ‘factually’ when you haven’t provided any facts to this discussion other than 'it’s approved".

You keep referring to Bernardin. I’m sorry, why? What relevance?

The third vote of what? Again, more personal speculative biases that are not common tradition.

The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/holy-communion-in-the-hand-the-true-story/

You said you were researching Bernardin. If true then you should have found that he was the head of the USCCB in the seventies. CITH was an abuse before he came around. He wanted CITH and called for a vote three times before he got it passed. Retired bishops were asked to vote on the third and submitted via mail. Pope Paul VI’s indult stated that for areas where CITH was already practiced it may continue. CITH was not practiced in the US in 1969 therefore the indult is not applicable.

 

[Ockham]

The universal norm of the Church is of course applicable. But, at least here in the U.S., we follow the universal norms as approved by the Vatican for our region (conference). We don’t have a choice of norms to follow, we only follow the norms approved by the Vatican. And, again, ad nauseam, the norms approved by the Vatican allow either method of reception. Do you live in some place that is solely bound by the Vatican norms?

I’m not sure what this means. The universal norm of the Church is COTT and CITH is only an indult, an exception to the rule. The indult may be cancelled at any time.

Pope Benedict is free to distribute communion as he sees fit. That is not binding on any other minister of communion. And, by Church law, in applicable regions, he is not free to deny communion to anyone with a different posture (as allowed) than he prefers. Just like ministers in the U.S. are not free to deny communion to those who prefer a posture other than recommended by the U.S. Bishops as the norm.

The pope or any priest may deny CITH at any time. COTT cannot be denied.

*"All laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1
Corinthians 10:23:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify.” Communion in the hand, though
lawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of the
center of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapening
of what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of the
sacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, John
Paul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in Saint
Peter’s Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like to
restate the well known assertion “Where Peter is, you will find the
Church”, but would like to modify it by adding ‘and where the Church
is, you will find the truth’ (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: “the
Church is the pillar and foundation of our truth.”) My desire is for
priests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouraging
Communion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on this
matter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priests
have an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform their
parishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymen
reading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverence
for the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve to
take Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth".*

David L. Vise
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

 

[Ockham]

Now that Ockham made a point by point list, and Br. JR did as well, it makes it easier for me to see where we’ve been.

I guess my question is, who is currently in charge of how things are done today, if not tomorrow?

Can Pope Benedict simply withdraw the indult, or whatever it would be called, if he thought it was right? Whether it would be “politically correct” for him to do so – given the assumed risk of backlash and/or outright disobedience – is a fair but separate question.

If CITH is really a problem, and should be done away with wherever practicable, then “who’s on first?” Isn’t it somebody’s job to oversee these things?

Alan

The Vatican is in charge. It wasn’t the Vatican that brought CITH it was disobedient Dutch in the sixties. The Dutch Church was also promoting married clergy and divorce among other things. Archbishop Bernardin became head of the USCCB and apparently muscled CITH into the GIRM. The third vote has irregularities. The indult doesn’t apply to US anyway as CITH was not in practice when Pope Paul VI issued this exception.

Pope Benedict XVI and other high ranking clergy are trying to get us back into regular COTT. As several CITH supporters have proven in this and other thread some people are very attached to CITH. Would they rebel and leave the Church if the indult was repealed? Quite possibly which in my humble opinion is why no pope has done so yet.

Pope Paul VI warned CITH could lead to a diminishing belief in the Real Presence and some forty years later that’s exactly what we see among the faithful. Prior to V2 75% of Catholics attended weekly Mass. That number has dropped below 25%. Many souls will not spend their eternity in Heaven and that’s why this issue among others is important.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s the point of your offering that link?

That’s right. Attack the messenger. You want more anti-CITH references?

philippineaid.org/transfer/CIH.pdf

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

cormacburke.or.ke/node/645

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2005719/posts

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2008/01/archbishop-ranj.html

cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=10822

 

[ProVobis]

The Vatican is in charge. It wasn’t the Vatican that brought CITH it was disobedient Dutch in the sixties. The Dutch Church was also promoting married clergy and divorce among other things. Archbishop Bernardin became head of the USCCB and apparently muscled CITH into the GIRM. The third vote has irregularities. The indult doesn’t apply to US anyway as CITH was not in practice when Pope Paul VI issued this exception.

Pope Benedict XVI and other high ranking clergy are trying to get us back into regular COTT. As several CITH supporters have proven in this and other thread some people are very attached to CITH. Would they rebel and leave the Church if the indult was repealed? Quite possibly which in my humble opinion is why no pope has done so yet.

Pope Paul VI warned CITH could lead to a diminishing belief in the Real Presence and some forty years later that’s exactly what we see among the faithful. Prior to V2 75% of Catholics attended weekly Mass. That number has dropped below 25%. Many souls will not spend their eternity in Heaven and that’s why this issue among others is important.

Precisely. Even JPII stated the following in his LETTER DOMINICAE CENAE:

“In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to.”

Further:

"… one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained…"

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

Great post ProVobis!!

That’s right. Attack the messenger. You want more anti-CITH references?

philippineaid.org/transfer/CIH.pdf

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

cormacburke.or.ke/node/645

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2005719/posts

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2008/01/archbishop-ranj.html

cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=10822

 

[Ockham]

Great post ProVobis!!

Indeed. It’s in stark contrast to the contrarians.

 

[JReducation]

That’s right. Attack the messenger. You want more anti-CITH references?

philippineaid.org/transfer/CIH.pdf

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

cormacburke.or.ke/node/645

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2005719/posts

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2008/01/archbishop-ranj.html

cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=10822

Slow down here. These are the commentaries by individuals. They deserve respect. But they are neither doctrinal or canonical. You have to make sure that you tell your readers this when you link them up to these writings or you run the risk of misleading them to believe that these writings have authority. They do not. I read all of them. None are canons or doctrines. They refer to doctrines, canons and other writings. That’s OK. Good writing should do that. But the authors are not in positions of authority to say “this is the rule of law.” Only the pope is or a bishop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

There are a few points that need clarification here.

1. The indult for CITH can be retracted by the pope at any time.
2. I’m not sure if the minister of Holy Communion has the authority to deny CITH when the diocesan bishop has authorized it. If I remember correctly, once it is authorized by the diocesan bishop, it comes a right of the faithful. This was a big question about religious hosues. Did the religious superior have the right to deny the religious communion in the hand or in other houses, did the religious superior have the right to deny the religious communion on the tongue. The answer that came back is that the chapel belongs to the house, but the Eucharist belongs to the bishop. There may be a case for saying that the minister of Holy Communion cannot deny COTH, where it is allowed.
3. There is no such thing as a secular parish. All parishes are diocesan, because they are the property of the diocese. It is true that many parishes are run by exempt religious orders. The parish remains diocesan, the order is exempt from the control of the bishop. Once the bishop signs the decreee of erection, which allows an order to setup house in his diocese, he cannot back-peddle. The cards are stacked in favor of the order. The order can back out, but the bishop cannot. That would be suppressioin. No bishop has the power to suppress religious, only the pope can do that. Even if they were standing on their heads, the bishop cannot suppress them. He has to get the pope to do so. Let’s hope that there are not many of these cases.
4. Even a parish run by secular priests, there are the rights of the priests themselves. A secular priest is less bound than a priest who belongs to a religious order. A secular priest is just that, a secular man. He is paid by the parish to serve as pastor or associate. He has a job description and work hours. Anything outside of that is not within the power of the bishop or the pator to regulate. A priest who is a religious is in a different situation. His superior or his brothers have the power to regulate whatever their constitutions authorize them to control. You have to be very careful in your expectations of priests in your parishes. Unless you’re very sure of the rules, you may be stepping on toes. That’s not what you want to do. You want to have a parish where the faith is alive and well, not one where there is a constant battle of wills.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed. It’s in stark contrast to the contrarians.

Thanks, guys.

But to be fair to the “contrarians,” I did a search for a single Vatican official who EVER had high praise for the practice of CITH.

I couldn’t find any.

 

[JReducation]

Thanks, guys.

But to be fair to the “contrarians,” I did a search for a single Vatican official who EVER had high praise for the practice of CITH.

I couldn’t find any.

This may also be very true. But I would strongly suggest that you drop the label “contrarians”. It has been my experience, over many years of pastoral ministry, that labels alienate people rather than draw them in to support something that you truly believe.

Remember, just because I or anyone else says that CITH is not a violation of rules, does not mean that I am a “contrarian.”

Speaking for me, I receive COTT all the time once I was given permission to do so. That was the form that I knew before I entered my community. It was easier for me to do it that way. During my first three years in community, I did CITH, because that was our custom for 800 years in many provinces. But it felt strange at first.

When permission was given to do as the laity, COTT, I went back to that. But I will not begrudge anyone the right to make use of a law that is in place. Here is my logic. In my community, COTT is an indult, not the norm. In the lay world, CITH is the indult, not the norm.

If I can make use of an indult inside the cloister, you should be allowed to make use of an indult outside the cloister, even though the indults are reversed. If I say to someone, that they should not make use of CITH, because it’s an indult and not the norm, I should not make use of COTT, because it’s an indult not the norm in the monastic world. To be consistent and fair, I must protect everyone’s right to make use of the laws that are in place. That is not being contrarian.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

Now that Ockham made a point by point list, and Br. JR did as well, it makes it easier for me to see where we’ve been.

I guess my question is, who is currently in charge of how things are done today, if not tomorrow?

Can Pope Benedict simply withdraw the indult, or whatever it would be called, if he thought it was right? Whether it would be “politically correct” for him to do so – given the assumed risk of backlash and/or outright disobedience – is a fair but separate question.

If CITH is really a problem, and should be done away with wherever practicable, then “who’s on first?” Isn’t it somebody’s job to oversee these things?

Alan

in the Roman Catholic Church, the Magisterium has the authority to regulate Liturgy. That’s the Pope and Bishops in communion with the Pope. Obviously, CITH is not a problem for the Magisterium as the Magisterium as approved it. It, also obviously, remains a problem for some.

 

[diggerdomer]

That’s right. Attack the messenger. You want more anti-CITH references?

philippineaid.org/transfer/CIH.pdf

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

cormacburke.or.ke/node/645

freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2005719/posts

romancatholicblog.typepad.com/roman_catholic_blog/2008/01/archbishop-ranj.html

cathnews.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=10822

I just wonder why all these people (whoever they are) reject what the Magisterium teaches?

 

[diggerdomer]

The Vatican is in charge. It wasn’t the Vatican that brought CITH it was disobedient Dutch in the sixties. The Dutch Church was also promoting married clergy and divorce among other things. Archbishop Bernardin became head of the USCCB and apparently muscled CITH into the GIRM. The third vote has irregularities. The indult doesn’t apply to US anyway as CITH was not in practice when Pope Paul VI issued this exception.

Pope Benedict XVI and other high ranking clergy are trying to get us back into regular COTT. As several CITH supporters have proven in this and other thread some people are very attached to CITH. Would they rebel and leave the Church if the indult was repealed? Quite possibly which in my humble opinion is why no pope has done so yet.

Pope Paul VI warned CITH could lead to a diminishing belief in the Real Presence and some forty years later that’s exactly what we see among the faithful. Prior to V2 75% of Catholics attended weekly Mass. That number has dropped below 25%. Many souls will not spend their eternity in Heaven and that’s why this issue among others is important.

If the Vatican didn’t allow CITH (e.g. read the GIRM as approved for the U.S.) then who did?