P
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
Call it what you want but kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the traditional and preferred way of receiving, per Cardinal Arinze.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
You don’t think it would be “Noli me tangere”?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Reminds me of a story, too, where a woman dared to touch Jesus. Then …
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” - Luke 7:39
Can you imagine what might have been on this woman’s hands when she touched the Lord? I think Jesus should have put the smack down on her.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Alan, very touching. (ha, ha)
That said, I wonder if many would have objected had CITH been extended on a limited basis, say to the nuns, back in the 40’s or 50’s. Maybe the timing was bad.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I’m still fascinated by the opinions of externals v. internals:
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. What is a Sacrament?
A. A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.
Since it is a sign, then the Church can define its particulars. The Church can define CITH as a valid form of this sign, so can the Church reject it.
From the Baltimore Catechism:
Q. What is a Sacrament?
A. A Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace.
Since it is a sign, then the Church can define its particulars. The Church can define CITH as a valid form of this sign, so can the Church reject it.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I don’t know personally about the 40s and 50s, but in the 60s and 70s those nuns were nothing to contend with. If they did something, I was not about to question it.
P
ProVobis
Guest
And they have.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
And they have.
And so it goes.
It’s been fun, but I think I need to fast from this thread for a while. I’m confident the thread is destined to make the 1000 mark.
Alan
C
Canto
Guest
I seem to remember reading of a woman (the wife of a politician?) putting her hands out for Holy Communion and Pope JPII gently put them down and gave Him to her on the tongue.Reminds me of a story, too, where a woman dared to touch Jesus. Then …
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” - Luke 7:39
Can you imagine what might have been on this woman’s hands when she touched the Lord? I think Jesus should have put the smack down on her.
L
Layman
Guest
The interesting thing is that, previously, touching the Host, by laypeople, was forbidden, at Communion, in the R.C rite. Now it’s not. What’s the benefit of the changeover, given Who it is we’re dealing with?Reminds me of a story, too, where a woman dared to touch Jesus. Then …
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” - Luke 7:39
Can you imagine what might have been on this woman’s hands when she touched the Lord? I think Jesus should have put the smack down on her.
Jesus was incarnate at that time. He allowed the woman to touch him. Now, anyone can if they want to, in the form of the Host. It’s not a matter of simple hygeine.** It’s a matter of respect. And going by outward signs, we’ve lost it.**
Your inner disposition can change as easily as a thought can flit through your mind. Your outer actions are definite. You kneel, or you don’t.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Especially armed with those rulersI don’t know personally about the 40s and 50s, but in the 60s and 70s those nuns were nothing to contend with. If they did something, I was not about to question it.
Good thing I grew up in schools run by brothers. Franciscans and then FSCs
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
CITH and COTT are not outward signs of the Sacrament. Bread and Wine are.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
I hear the story that the Muslim more likely said: “Then why do you cover your face in awe, walk down the aisle on your knees, and bow in humility before your Lord?”
Either way, I am amazed the Catholic(s?) do not get it.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
Yes, but it is the attitude of the gesture and what it implies, not the gesture itself.Reminds me of a story, too, where a woman dared to touch Jesus. Then …
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.” - Luke 7:39
Can you imagine what might have been on this woman’s hands when she touched the Lord? I think Jesus should have put the smack down on her.
I also seem to recall a certain man who said: “He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose.” (St. John 1:27)
It is with this attitude we should understand the Most Blessed Sacrament, and one where kneeling and on the tongue would make more sense.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Exactly. One can “touch” someone else by being far removed physically. What was that old phone commercial about “reach out and touch someone”?
OTOH, if everyone physically made contact with you at the same time, I don’t think you’d survive too long.
O
Ockham
Guest
I shouldn’t have to repeat this and wonder why certain members still require it. CITH is in the US GIRM by an indult. Pope Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini allowed CITH for areas where it was already in practice. The USCCB headed by Archbishop Bernardin petitioned three times to get it approved in the US where it was not in practiced when MD was issued in 1969. Bernardin’s third vote included mail-in proxies by retired clergy something many describe as unusual.
The indult is an exception to the rule permitted by the Vatican and can be retracted at anytime by the Vatican or the USCCB. CITH is not taught by the Church (prove me otherwise). The ‘make your palm a throne’ quote is taken out of context and anyone promoting it owes it to themselves and others to learn the whole story. In fact popes, saints, doctors of the Church have and continue to teach COTT while kneeling and there are many examples contained in this thread.
The title of this thread was intended to steer the conversation away from the mindless refrain of “it’s approved” into a more indepth study of CITH’s history and value compared to COTT. Out of respect to everyone interested in this subject if all you have to offer is some variation of “it’s approved” please find something else to post about or spend some time researching and learning about this modern trend in the Roman Catholic Church.
The indult is an exception to the rule permitted by the Vatican and can be retracted at anytime by the Vatican or the USCCB. CITH is not taught by the Church (prove me otherwise). The ‘make your palm a throne’ quote is taken out of context and anyone promoting it owes it to themselves and others to learn the whole story. In fact popes, saints, doctors of the Church have and continue to teach COTT while kneeling and there are many examples contained in this thread.
The title of this thread was intended to steer the conversation away from the mindless refrain of “it’s approved” into a more indepth study of CITH’s history and value compared to COTT. Out of respect to everyone interested in this subject if all you have to offer is some variation of “it’s approved” please find something else to post about or spend some time researching and learning about this modern trend in the Roman Catholic Church.
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
What do you know about “the palm is a throne?”
O
Ockham
Guest
Here you are Eve.
*"Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.
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
Vince, have you read this article? You keep challenging me to provide sources, I provide them and then you go on to deny their existence. Do you deny the Council of Rouen in the year 650 ruled against CITH? Do you deny Pope Paul VI did the same?
*"Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.
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
Vince, have you read this article? You keep challenging me to provide sources, I provide them and then you go on to deny their existence. Do you deny the Council of Rouen in the year 650 ruled against CITH? Do you deny Pope Paul VI did the same?
J
JReducation
Guest
Let’s not get confused here. He said that we have always had married clergy. He did not say that our clergy is allowed to marry. There is a difference.
We have always had married clergy in the Catholic Church and in the early days of the Roman Church and now with the deacons, we are again ordaining married men. In addition, we have the pastoral provision for those clerics who convert fromn Protestantism and ask for it.
As to CITH, let’s not go back to the discussion of all the exceptions that we had to the rule. We went through this already. It has always been available to certain religious communities of men. Not all male religious are clerics, even though all are consecrated men and all deacons, priests and bishops are clerics, but on 40% are consecrated men, probably less given the large number of secular deacons.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status