Not just another CITH Thread...

[JReducation]

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?

The problem that seems to be recurring here is that if you go back to previous councils and popes one will always find something that was allowed or forbidden at one time and then changed later. The Church has the authority to do this in any matter concerning discipline.

We cannot treat the manner of receiving Holy Communion as a doctrine. It is a discipline that can be changed and has never been static.

With the word “approves” there is a matter of semantics. To approve can mean to authorize; but it can also mean to approve of (to like). Popes do not have to like something to approve its practice. They have approved (authorized or permitted) many things that they did not like, simply because they found no moral or doctrinal ground to forbid it. Many things have been approved because they are practical, not because they are preferable. Once you throw in the term “preferable” you have a whole other discussion. Preferable is not the same as morally binding. It means what it says. Something is preferable because of a particular good in sight.

Obviously, communion on the tongue is preferable, because of the meaning that it conveys. It is preferable, because of its place in the Roman tradition. But it is only binding when the law says that communion on the hand is not allowed. That’s going to vary according to the diocesan bishop. Those bishops who have the authority to introduce communion in the hand can morally and legally do so without violating any law.

Here is an aside, but it may help. A bishop may decide to give Holy Communion to a non-Catholic Christian. It is not illegal. Is it preferred? No. Is it approved? Yes. It is his call to make. We saw this done by Cardinal Ratzinger at Pope John Paul’s funeral and by Pope Benedict at his first papal mass. In the first case, he was authorized to make such a judgment call because he was the highest ranking prelate celebrating the funeral. In the second case, he was acting a the Bishop of Rome. In both cases, the law is on his side. The same applies to CITH. One need not like it, but one must accept the law as it is. If it is on the side of the bishop, then it is what it is.

At some point, we have to let go of the fighting against a law that we do not have the power to change. If the Church were a democracy, where laws are made with the consent of the governed, then such debating and driving to change it would be efficacious; because in the end, the elected officials would have to cave. Since we do not elect our bishops or popes, they do not have to cave. They govern without the consent of the governed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

Another member asked me to provide evidence COTT was the norm in the early Church and that’s what I did.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

True, JR, but you’re disciplined in other areas and members of your communities I would bet are more theologically astute than the average churchgoer who needs to look around to see what everyone around him does. You are able to convert your discipline into a deeper and more meaningful adoration for God whereas someone without any discipline at all would take a much more casual approach whether it’s one way or the other.

I think we discussed before about Pope Paul VI allowing Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. He removed the discipline but did that lead to higher spirituality as he intended? Of course we didn’t know until much later after our habits changed that penance is still required on Fridays. I’m not saying what he did was wrong but there was a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of allowing a lot of things coming out in the 60’s and 70’s. Today of course we have the internet and a wonderful English-speaking Cardinal (Arinze) to clarify a lot of those mistranslations and pieces of misinformation for us. Personally I learned a lot just by reading the various documents on the Vatican website; I had known so little about them and indeed I hope more take advantage of those great tools.

PV

 

[JReducation]

True, JR, but you’re disciplined in other areas and members of your communities I would bet are more theologically astute than the average churchgoer who needs to look around to see what everyone around him does. You are able to convert your discipline into a deeper and more meaningful adoration for God whereas someone without any discipline at all would take a much more casual approach whether it’s one way or the other.

I think we discussed before about Pope Paul VI allowing Catholics to eat meat on Fridays. He removed the discipline but did that lead to higher spirituality as he intended? Of course we didn’t know until much later after our habits changed that penance is still required on Fridays. I’m not saying what he did was wrong but there was a lot of misinformation and misinterpretation of allowing a lot of things coming out in the 60’s and 70’s. Today of course we have the internet and a wonderful English-speaking Cardinal (Arinze) to clarify a lot of those mistranslations and pieces of misinformation for us. Personally I learned a lot just by reading the various documents on the Vatican website; I had known so little about them and indeed I hope more take advantage of those great tools.

PV

This is an excellent post and ProVobis makes some excellent points. I hope that more people read it and follow. There are a few words in this post that I find to be of great importance.

DISCIPLINE: we have to learn to turn book knowledge into ascetic and mystical practice. Otherwise, it’s just information.

MISINTERPRETATION: there is always a danger that an individual will do this. That’s why it is important to study the documents with others and to check out our understanding of them against the commentaries and against what the Church actually does. U

READ: if you do not read the documents, you will not know what they say. It’s that simple.

Thank you PV for the good post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. If I tell you that it was a good post, you can be sure that I really found meat in it. I’m told that I was a very demanding teacher when I was doing so.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you PV for the good post.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

PS. If I tell you that it was a good post, you can be sure that I really found meat in it.

I appreciate that. I was taught by some great brothers back in high school so I have a little advantage there.

 

[PJM]

=ConstantineTG;6974327]Sigh, this argument has been rehashed time and time again. If I had a dime for everytime someone says, “why was the indult granted? Because of abuse…” I would be able to afford repair and renovation of our old parish, plus pay off my mortgage and car. Really, our parish repair bill would be about $2million. It seems that any offer of logic is dismissed.

My dear friend in Christ, I asked the question precisely bcause folks like you seem bent on:

1. Doing your thing
2. Not being logical [if disobedience to God’s Will as articulatd by our Pope and Magiterium expresed in in Ecumenical Council] actually matters?
3. Are willing to put your own preferences ahead of what clearly is NOT the best actions for the salvation of souls.
4. I see your reply as disengenious and avoiding the facts of the matter. WWJD?

Love and prayers,
Pat

 

[ConstantineTG]

My dear friend in Christ, I asked the question precisely bcause folks like you seem bent on:

1. Doing your thing

I am bent on doing what the Church asks me to, or make my own decision on things the Church allows me to make a decision on. CITH is allowed by the Church, don’t make anyone feel bad for doing what the Church allows.

1. Not being logical [if disobedience to God’s Will as articulatd by our Pope and Magiterium expresed in in Ecumenical Council] actually matters?

People who receive CITH are not disobedient because the official Church documents, and not the various opinions of whomever regardless of their positions, says people in specific territories may receive CITH. Now if one is to insist on CITH in a place without the indult, then that person is wrong. But if that person is in a place like the US or Canada or many other countries in the world were CITH is allowed by the Bishops and approved by the Vatican, they are not disobeying anything. They are merely doing something the Church has allowed them to do. Where is disobedience in that?

1. Are willing to put your own preferences ahead of what clearly is NOT the best actions for the salvation of souls.

The Church is the authority on such matter, not you, not me. If the Church officially declares something allowed, then nothing you or I or anyone who doesn’t have the authority nor act with such authority can change that fact.

1. I see your reply as disengenious and avoiding the facts of the matter. WWJD?

Love and prayers,
Pat

Your opinion. Its very typical here that no matter how abrasive a post is, as long as one shares the same opinion that post is propped. While no matter how much fact and charity you throw into a post when it doesn’t coincide with another’s personal opinion, you are always labeled as something negative like disingenuous. Nothing like ad hominems to discredit a person.

 

[MarkThompson]

Your opinion. Its very typical here that no matter how abrasive a post is, as long as one shares the same opinion that post is propped. While no matter how much fact and charity you throw into a post when it doesn’t coincide with another’s personal opinion, you are always labeled as something negative like disingenuous. Nothing like ad hominems to discredit a person.

Right on!!! Excellent post!!!

:extrahappy:

 

[Thomas_Casey]

A direction was given that you may not speak about other posters. Some people have failed to comply. Infractions are now being given. The next step is to close the thread and put a moratorium on the subject until people back-off each other.

Please cooperate by posting on the subject, not about each other.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Yes, but it is the attitude of the gesture and what it implies, not the gesture itself.

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.

True enough that John said that, but does that mean he should never have touched the Lord? He also protested when the Lord asked to be baptized, because he didn’t understand. He knew Christ was great, but incorrectly thought that meant Christ was “untouchable” to the extent he could not baptize Him.

When Jesus washed the feet of Peter, Peter was at first horrified. Again, Christ insisted these things must be done. Peter had jumped to conclusions.

It’s as if Christ was actually trying not to be put on a pedestal, the way He behaved. He didn’t even let people call Him “good” in deference to the Father who is the only one who is good. He wants us to share Him, but with what attitude? Crawling? Really? Is that what He really wants of us? Does Christ ever do or say anything that requires or even supports this sort of approach to Him? For sure, He was impressed when people of great faith asked Him for things, but when the people honored Him like a king, He wept because they didn’t understand.

Then again, I’m back to speculating on how much this stuff means to God, as opposed to how much it means to churchgoers who have a preference on how not only themselves, but how others receive the Lord.

 

[ProVobis]

He wants us to share Him, but with what attitude? Crawling? Really? Is that what He really wants of us? Does Christ ever do or say anything that requires or even supports this sort of approach to Him?

Hi, Alan.

From Romans:

{14:11} Scriptum est enim: Vivo ego, dicit Dominus, quoniam mihi flectetur omne genu: et omnis lingua confitebitur Deo.
{14:11} For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

PV,

You make a good point. That said, is it not God the Father who made that statement?

Alan

 

[JReducation]

Let’s back-peddle here. I can see where we are pulling pieces of scripture that have nothing to do with this subject.

John the Baptist’s statement goes with "I must decrease . . . " John is alluding to the fact that he’s not worthy to be Jesus’ servant. The truth is that he was more worthy than any of us, because he was born without original sin. But it was a necessary statement to drive home the point that this was the Messiah.

The statement in Romans is an eschatological statement. It is a reference to the Kingdom, where all things will be brought together under the Kingship of Christ.

We can safely say that none of us, whether we receive CITH or COTT are worthy to be his slaves and that in the end, all of us shall be brought together under the kingship of Jesus Christ. This is true. The Eucharist is the point where we are brought into that Kingship. As Christ is lifted up, we are drawn into his life though his charity toward us, even though we are unworthy to be even lowly slaves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Alan, I found these cross references.

bible.cc/romans/14-11.htm

Isaiah 45:23 "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.​

Philippians 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, (NASB ©1995)

 

[benedictgal]

I have not read through the pages and pages of this thread, but, it is suffice to say that rubrics very much matter to God. After all, He did not spend some serious time with Moses dictating the form, manner, matter and means by how He would be worshipped. These norms actually pointed to the authentic sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and, by obvious extension, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now, regarding the issue of kneeling to receive Holy Communion and receiving same on the tongue, this is what Pope Benedict XVI said back in May 2008:

At this point we cannot forget the beginning of the “Decalogue”, the Ten Commandments, where it is written: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20: 2-3). Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present. Kneeling before the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: those who bow to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate themselves before any earthly authority, however powerful. We Christians kneel only before God or before the Most Blessed Sacrament because we know and believe that the one true God is present in it, the God who created the world and so loved it that he gave his Only Begotten Son (cf. Jn 3: 16). We prostrate ourselves before a God who first bent over man like the Good Samaritan to assist him and restore his life, and who knelt before us to wash our dirty feet. Adoring the Body of Christ, means believing that there, in that piece of Bread, Christ is really there, and gives true sense to life, to the immense universe as to the smallest creature, to the whole of human history as to the most brief existence. Adoration is prayer that prolongs the celebration and Eucharistic communion and in which the soul continues to be nourished: it is nourished with love, truth, peace; it is nourished with hope, because the One before whom we prostrate ourselves does not judge us, does not crush us but liberates and transforms us.

Here is what Msgr. Guido Marini, his MC, said about the reception of Holy Communion:

«In this regard, it must not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand remains, from the juridical point of view, a dispensation from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to the bishops’ conferences that have asked for it. The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church. In addition**, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery. In our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to recover and emphasize these aspects**.»

It would be a mistake for us to think that we are merely “putting Jesus on a pedastal”, simply because we pereceive that He did not want to be. However, we also need to remember that Jesus is God and we are receiving Him, not taking Him, in Holy Communion. We receive; we do not take. Adam and Eve “took”; they snatched at divinity, not waiting for it to be offered to them. When someone gives us a gift, we don’t “take” it, grabbing it. No, we receive that gift.

 

[ProVobis]

We can safely say that none of us, whether we receive CITH or COTT are worthy to be his slaves and that in the end, all of us shall be brought together under the kingship of Jesus Christ.

JR, is there any significance in the new translation, where we are to say

“All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.”

instead of

“All: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word
and I shall be healed.”

other than being truer to the Latin source?

 

[JReducation]

JR, is there any significance in the new translation, where we are to say

“All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.”

instead of

“All: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word
and I shall be healed.”

other than being truer to the Latin source?

I’m not sure how and when that change happened. I left the USA when we were saying “enter under my roof.” Seven years later I returned to “I’m not worthy to receive you”

The original comes from the scriptures. The centurian asks Jesus to heal his servant. Jesus wants to go over to his home. He says this sentence, “I’m not worthy that you should enter under my roof. Speak but the word and my servant shall be healed.”

The later version has no biblical reference at all. That’s why we’re returning to the earlier version. The English speaking countries were the only ones who changed. I was in Italy during those severn-years and they used the “under my roof” version. Maybe Benedictgal may know how and when the English translation changed or why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, I found these cross references.

Thank you for your time and trouble entertaining my ideas.

---

I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that I have nothing useful to add to this thread.

I thought I was trying to help us all open our hearts to each other and to the matter, but this is an academic discussion, and beyond the limits of what I know on the subject. I wish I could play but I don’t have the right tools. I should not have broken my “fast” from this thread.

For myself, at my regular Mass I do not have the option of going to a priest, so I will continue to receive from the lay minister who comes to the music section, and probably in the hand. I believe that I am doing zero harm to God or His Church by doing so, and not being disobedient to either.

Now I will try to stay off this thread for its duration. Thank you all who have taken your time and energy to consider the things I have said. Agreement is not necessary; you all have been very polite to me.

Alan

 

[EnchantedEve]

Thank you for your time and trouble entertaining my ideas.

---

I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that I have nothing useful to add to this thread.

I thought I was trying to help us all open our hearts to each other and to the matter, but this is an academic discussion, and beyond the limits of what I know on the subject. I wish I could play but I don’t have the right tools. I should not have broken my “fast” from this thread.

For myself, at my regular Mass I do not have the option of going to a priest, so I will continue to receive from the lay minister who comes to the music section, and probably in the hand. I believe that I am doing zero harm to God or His Church by doing so, and not being disobedient to either.

Now I will try to stay off this thread for its duration. Thank you all who have taken your time and energy to consider the things I have said. Agreement is not necessary; you all have been very polite to me.

Alan

Via Con Dios!

 

[EnchantedEve]

Let’s back-peddle here. I can see where we are pulling pieces of scripture that have nothing to do with this subject.

John the Baptist’s statement goes with "I must decrease . . . " John is alluding to the fact that he’s not worthy to be Jesus’ servant. The truth is that he was more worthy than any of us, because he was born without original sin. But it was a necessary statement to drive home the point that this was the Messiah.

The statement in Romans is an eschatological statement. It is a reference to the Kingdom, where all things will be brought together under the Kingship of Christ.

We can safely say that none of us, whether we receive CITH or COTT are worthy to be his slaves and that in the end, all of us shall be brought together under the kingship of Jesus Christ. This is true. The Eucharist is the point where we are brought into that Kingship. As Christ is lifted up, we are drawn into his life though his charity toward us, even though we are unworthy to be even lowly slaves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Sorry, JR, I stand by my example. The rendering you just gave of that Scripture’s meaning is precisely the meaning I was trying to convey. It is a matter of attitude toward the Holy Eucharist, one of unworthiness. I do not believe I can presume to take Lord into my hands the way a priest does, especially as I think it undermines, to an extent, the seperate uniqueness of the sacrificial priesthood. I also believe that even if the Church has the power to change its mind, it would seem prudent to be wary of restoring practices roundly condemned in the past. I would think, in the Church’s wisdom, that there were reasons She condemned these things before, and I am sure those reasons are as valid, if not more so, now than they were 1,400 years ago. I recall a quote from Pope Paul VI on changes to the Rosary suggested by Archbishop Bugnini in 1976:

“[T]he faithful would conclude that ‘the Pope has changed the Rosary,’ and the psychological effect would be disastrous…. Any change in it cannot but lessen the confidence of the simple and the poor.” (Response issued by Secretariate of State Office)

I often think how these words so well applied to many other areas. Ultimately, it is the simple Faith of the many which suffers, and the certainity and comfort that such a Faith provides is thus in danger of being lost.