Not just another CITH Thread...

[Layman]

We can’t quantify one’s disposition, only God can be the judge of that.

…

I agree that disposition is important. There are people who receive COTT while living sinful and unrepentant lives. So I don’t know how COTT and CITH changes one’s disposition.

One’s disposition can change as quickly as a thought can flit across one’s mind. COTT, kneeling, as a public, outer act of humility before your God, cannot be gainsayed. You do it, or you don’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’d be interested on the statistics on that one. On the surface, though, it appears that most who receive CITH are more likely to receive because everyone around them receives. But that’s my opinion. Many in other cultures (Polish OF, EF) do not receive.

It would be hard to make valid scientific statistics of that. How many would openly admit that they are living in sin, much less receive Communion while living in sin.

I would step forward and say that it has happened to me. I can’t make a conclusion that it happens a lot, but I’m confident that it does happen. To what degree, we don’t know. But it does happen.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One’s disposition can change as quickly as a thought can flit across one’s mind. COTT, kneeling, as a public, outer act of humility before your God, cannot be gainsayed. You do it, or you don’t.

But that still doesn’t guarantee any proper disposition or reverence. In fact, its even worse that you kneel and inwardly you lack reverence, because your outward sign is a lie.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:6-9[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[ProVobis]

I would step forward and say that it has happened to me. I can’t make a conclusion that it happens a lot, but I’m confident that it does happen. To what degree, we don’t know. But it does happen.

Thanks for sharing that. I did it once too. At my mother’s funeral where I felt very pressured to go but I did confess it.

 

[Layman]

This amen comes from the mouth and the heart, of course, but also from the whole body since it is manifested by the opening of the hands into which the pure gift of God is placed. The gratuitous communication of God with the believers, such is the salient point of the sacraments."

…

And I really do not believe that CITH is the root of all the “bad fruit” that has come to be after VII. As it has been said, over and over, it is the lack of good catechesis. In my mind, saying that CITH is the cause of diminished belief in the Real Presence is akin to putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Errr, CITH means you hand someone the Host. So you have to open your hand, regardless, just as you would have to to hold any other mundane object.

COTT, kneeling is a humbling way to receive and unusual, for an adult. Reminds you you’re not doing something mundane and rightly places you in an inferior position before our Lord.

COTT, kneeling is good catechesis. Do it and you you won’t need to lecture people on how to distribute and receive via CITH. It’s also says: the Host is taboo, therefore, holy. Much simpler.

 

[Layman]

But that still doesn’t guarantee any proper disposition or reverence. In fact, its even worse that you kneel and inwardly you lack reverence, because your outward sign is a lie.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:6-9[/BIBLEDRB]

I’d say if your emotions are wayward then COTT, kneeling, from a priest would help focus them. It’s not something you do outside Mass, whereas one does queue up to handle food all the time.

If not properly disposed, one shouldn’t go up to Communion at all. If you are, then why go for CITH, standing if you can have COTT, kneeling?

 

[ProVobis]

If not properly disposed, one shouldn’t go up to Communion at all. If you are, then why go for CITH, standing if you can have COTT, kneeling?

Now that I would call good catechesis!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’d say if your emotions are wayward then COTT, kneeling, from a priest would help focus them. It’s not something you do outside Mass, whereas one does queue up to handle food all the time.

If not properly disposed, one shouldn’t go up to Communion at all. If you are, then why go for CITH, standing if you can have COTT, kneeling?

Why would I kneel when the Bishops clearly ask us to stand (in the OF of course, CITH would be a non-issue if the context of the discussion is the EF)?

Again as I mentioned, disposition doesn’t affect the form. There are many with proper dispositions who receive CITH, within and outside the Latin Church (Chaldeans, Coptic, etc.). So you can’t say that those who receive CITH are not properly disposed.

 

[Layman]

Why would I kneel when the Bishops clearly ask us to stand (in the OF of course, CITH would be a non-issue if the context of the discussion is the EF)?

I would like your Bishops to explain why they prefer you to stand. Also, I don’t think your Bishop can forbid COTT, while CITH can be withdrawn at any time.

Again as I mentioned, disposition doesn’t affect the form. There are many with proper dispositions who receive CITH, within and outside the Latin Church (Chaldeans, Coptic, etc.). So you can’t say that those who receive CITH are not properly disposed.

I didn’t say that.

I say changing over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, in the Roman Catholic rite, is a queer thing to do, if you believe your God is present in the Host.

I doubt most Roman Catholics are aware of other rites in the Church, never mind their disciplines. It’s curious they’re used as an excuse for CITH in ours. Discipline shopping(?).

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would like your Bishops to explain why they prefer you to stand. Also, I don’t think your Bishop can forbid COTT, while CITH can be withdrawn at any time.

That doesn’t prove anything though. Its a disciplinary action. A bishop can also forbid afternoon Masses, that doesn’t make an afternoon Mass any less than the morning Mass.

Its not my Bishop, its the US Bishops. I’m still trying to figure out what my Bishop wants us to do as the Canadian GIRM is not as readily available as the US GIRM.

I didn’t say that.

I say changing over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, in the Roman Catholic rite, is a queer thing to do, if you believe your God is present in the Host.

I doubt most Roman Catholics are aware of other rites in the Church, never mind their disciplines. It’s curious they’re used as an excuse for CITH in ours. Discipline shopping(?).

That still doesn’t take away the fact that CITH is a valid and good way to receive Communion. Somewhere in the Church it has happened for its entire history. Its not about being aware of the disciplines and traditions of other Rites, but I’m wondering why you can say something that is good for other Rites is not good for our Rite? What’s good is good. If its good for one part of the Church, its good for the entire Church.

 

[Layman]

That doesn’t prove anything though. Its a disciplinary action. A bishop can also forbid afternoon Masses, that doesn’t make an afternoon Mass any less than the morning Mass.

It would be interesting to hear a Bishop explain why he prefers CITH over COTT. A bishop is unlikely to forbid afternoon Masses.

That still doesn’t take away the fact that CITH is a valid and good way to receive Communion. Somewhere in the Church it has happened for its entire history. Its not about being aware of the disciplines and traditions of other Rites, but I’m wondering why you can say something that is good for other Rites is not good for our Rite? What’s good is good. If its good for one part of the Church, its good for the entire Church.

• It’s not good because we had a catechetical way to distribute and receive Communion and that is not now available to many in the RC church.
• It’s not good because it adds more mundane elements to a religious rite.
• It also makes distribution more complicated.
• It’s not good, in that by changing over to CITH, standing, we are symbolically saying that the Host is now less important, or that we laymen are now more so, or that our forefather’s way was somehow deficient.
• It’s not good, in that if a rite can mutuate so much in such a short space of time, it gives a precedent for more mundane changes at the whim of your Bishop e.g. dancing in South American masses.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It would be interesting to hear a Bishop explain why he prefers CITH over COTT.

I think I’ve said it before that its not a question of preferring one form over the other. Since both are allowed, then people are free to make that choice depending on their own disposition. You don’t see people arguing over immersion vs. pouring in baptism. I think immersion is a better sign of dying and rising with Christ. Because you do not nearly drown with pouring, you do with imerssion. Why is there no debate there? In the end, the graces do not come from the sign, they come from Jesus. The sign just makes us appreciate the graces we receive. If we can appreciate the graces of the Eucharist through CITH as well as COTT (not better, the same, equal) then why not?

A bishop is unlikely to forbid afternoon Masses.

Of course, but he still can. Thats the point. He can recind the indult for any reason as much as he can forbid afternoon Masses. Unlikely, yes. But this is a question of can and cannot. And the answer is simply he can.

• It’s not good because we had a catechetical way to distribute and receive Communion and that is not now available to many in the RC church.

Actually the Catechisis of the Church does not teach the form of reception of Communion. The CCC is absolutely silent on COTT or CITH.

• It’s not good because it adds more mundane elements to a religious rite.

This comment strikes me as subjective. You may view it that way but others do not.

• It also makes distribution more complicated.

You put the Host on one’s tongue or on one’s hand. There’s only one way to open your hand. A lot of people do not open their mouths properly nor stick their tongues out enough or at all. I have received via CITH and COTT and I can tell you COTT is more complicated especially from the communicant side. From the minster’s side, we all know the stories of some who get bitten. That never happens with CITH.

• It’s not good, in that by changing over to CITH, standing, we are symbolically saying that the Host is now less important, or that we laymen are now more so, or that our forefather’s way was somehow deficient.

I don’t know how that connotes less important. We stand for important things. It all falls on the perception of a person. You can add as much solemnity to the ritual as you’d like, if a person doesn’t appreciate it as much then the importance is lost on that person.

• It’s not good, in that if a rite can mutuate so much in such a short space of time, it gives a precedent for more mundane changes at the whim of your Bishop e.g. dancing in South American masses.

I do not know how much changes if you add one step to the process. There isn’t even any intermediary between COTT and CITH to justify that the change is “so much”. From minister’s hand to your mouth, to minister’s hand to your hand to your mouth. That is not much.

And its not a valid argument to link liturgical abuses with CITH. Its a cop-out, an escape goat. Liturgical abuses happen with or without CITH and is not dependent on it.

 

[ProVobis]

Why would I kneel when the Bishops clearly ask us to stand (in the OF of course, CITH would be a non-issue if the context of the discussion is the EF)?

Again as I mentioned, disposition doesn’t affect the form. There are many with proper dispositions who receive CITH, within and outside the Latin Church (Chaldeans, Coptic, etc.). So you can’t say that those who receive CITH are not properly disposed.

Don’t forget too that proper disposition also includes full belief in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Now I don’t know how many CITH people have the full belief but why would a person receiving kneeling and receiving on the tongue do so if he believed it was just an ordinary piece of bread (or opłatek as the Poles call it)?

That said, at the OF I stand to receive on the tongue. The only reason I don’t kneel is that I don’t want to bring attention to myself but it shouldn’t be that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Don’t forget too that proper disposition also includes full belief in the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Now I don’t know how many CITH people have the full belief but why would a person receiving kneeling and receiving on the tongue do so if he believed it was just an ordinary piece of bread (or opłatek as the Poles call it)?

That said, at the OF I stand to receive on the tongue. The only reason I don’t kneel is that I don’t want to bring attention to myself but it shouldn’t be that way.

No, you should do it out of obedience to your Bishop that they want the reception of the Eucharist to be standing in the OF.

I wouldn’t go into why one would change from COTT to CITH. Just to share my experience, I switched because I had issues with the minister of Holy Communion (either the priest or EMHC) would touch my tongue, teeth, etc. I didn’t see any difference in COTT or CITH, and since both were allowed by the Church, I switched. I carried the same level of reverence (or, as shared a while ago, lack of it at times). I recently switched back because I noticed the Hosts we’re using in the parish produces more crumbs than in the past. I am always conscios of the crumbs in my hand and normally I don’t find any. But for three consecutive Sundays I found a crumb in my hand, so I switched back. Our current priest has been very good distributing via COTT so I don’t see any reason to switch to CITH. Probably if I’m in another parish and receiving from an EMHC, I would receive CITH.

 

[ProVobis]

No, you should do it out of obedience to your Bishop that they want the reception of the Eucharist to be standing in the OF.

I think there is some misunderstanding here.

Several weeks ago my pastor stated in the bulletin (which is a repeat of the previous week’s sermon) an invitation for everyone in the parish (English OF, Spanish OF, and EF) to receive on the tongue kneeling at the communion rail. I’ve known this priest for quite a few years; he doesn’t disobey his bishop.

My personal feel on all this is that if the bishops require people to stand receiving, it’s to prevent (further) disruption in the receiving area. That has to be a concern too, I would imagine, where you don’t have communion rails.

 

[Layman]

I think I’ve said it before that its not a question of preferring one form over the other. Since both are allowed, then people are free to make that choice depending on their own disposition.

Why introduce CITH at all in the Roman Rite? That’s my point. Why give laypeople the liberty to handle the Host? It doesn’t follow, if the Host is holy.

Actually the Catechisis of the Church does not teach the form of reception of Communion. The CCC is absolutely silent on COTT or CITH.

I said COTT is cathecetical. It teaches people the host is holy in a simple and direct way. That’s what I meant. Posters constantly say catechesis is the problem. COTT is learning by doing.

This comment strikes me as subjective. You may view it that way but others do not.

CITH places the Host in laymen’s hands. EMHCs, in street clothing hand, out the Host. These are extra mundane elements, compared to the old rite.

You put the Host on one’s tongue or on one’s hand. There’s only one way to open your hand. A lot of people do not open their mouths properly nor stick their tongues out enough or at all. I have received via CITH and COTT and I can tell you COTT is more complicated especially from the communicant side. From the minster’s side, we all know the stories of some who get bitten. That never happens with CITH.

COTT: from hand to mouth. CITH: from hand, to hand, to mouth.
And then there’s all the ‘catechecis’ you have to do with the EMHCs and the laity as a result.

I don’t know how that connotes less important. We stand for important things. It all falls on the perception of a person. You can add as much solemnity to the ritual as you’d like, if a person doesn’t appreciate it as much then the importance is lost on that person.

To quote a phrase: *“It’s not all about you”. * It’s a group rite. Therefore, it must have rules. These must have shared meaning. We’ve changed our rules. Kneeling has connotations in our culture. In CITH, we walk up to receive the host, remain standing and put our hand out.

In COTT, we kneel and are hand-fed. Quite different. Especially significant is changing one for the other.

And its not a valid argument to link liturgical abuses with CITH. Its a cop-out, an escape goat. Liturgical abuses happen with or without CITH and is not dependent on it.

I said nothing about liturgical abuse. However, since you’ve mentioned it …

I’ve not been to many O.F.s in recent years but once I saw a kiddie show his Mam the host, in their pew.

 

[ProVobis]

What’s good is good. If its good for one part of the Church, its good for the entire Church.

But CITH is not universally approved by the Church. It’s granted with conditions.

Think of eating meat on non-Lenten Fridays. It’s allowed too but on the condition that you perform some penance on that day.

With CITH there too are conditions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But CITH is not universally approved by the Church. It’s granted with conditions.

Because of disciplinary issues, not because its a bad practice. So to say CITH is bad is wrong.

Think of eating meat on non-Lenten Fridays. It’s allowed too but on the condition that you perform some penance on that day.

With CITH there too are conditions.

Receiving Communion also has conditions (state of grace, 1 hour fast, must be practicing Catholic). Whats your point?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think there is some misunderstanding here.

Several weeks ago my pastor stated in the bulletin (which is a repeat of the previous week’s sermon) an invitation for everyone in the parish (English OF, Spanish OF, and EF) to receive on the tongue kneeling at the communion rail. I’ve known this priest for quite a few years; he doesn’t disobey his bishop.

My personal feel on all this is that if the bishops require people to stand receiving, it’s to prevent (further) disruption in the receiving area. That has to be a concern too, I would imagine, where you don’t have communion rails.

Well if your pastor says so, you can’t argue with that

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why introduce CITH at all in the Roman Rite? That’s my point. Why give laypeople the liberty to handle the Host? It doesn’t follow, if the Host is holy.

It was there in the past. It not like CITH never existed within our Rite.

The Host is holy in whatever Rite. So I ask again, why can’t it be done in the Roman Rite while it is allowed in another Rite? Its note like the Chaldeans and Coptics think that the Host is not holy

I said COTT is cathecetical. It teaches people the host is holy in a simple and direct way. That’s what I meant. Posters constantly say catechesis is the problem. COTT is learning by doing.

No, I can tell you that doesn’t happen that way. I come from a country thats 80% Catholic but Catechisis is, in my opinion, poor. People tend to form their own theories why Church practices are such, and thus many people are living in false beliefs. So unless you tell the people plainly and directly why a practice is such, there will be as many theories are there communicants.

CITH places the Host in laymen’s hands. EMHCs, in street clothing hand, out the Host. These are extra mundane elements, compared to the old rite.

On the other hand (no pun intended), it helps people understand that what is special is the Eucharist itself, not the person who is giving it to you. When EMHCs were first introduced, people think that the Host they receive is less special because they didn’t get it from a priest. This is as bad as those who think they are more special if they receive part of the Host the priest raises as opposed to the ones in the chalice during consecration.

COTT: from hand to mouth. CITH: from hand, to hand, to mouth.
And then there’s all the ‘catechecis’ you have to do with the EMHCs and the laity as a result.

To quote a phrase: *“It’s not all about you”. * It’s a group rite. Therefore, it must have rules. These must have shared meaning. We’ve changed our rules. Kneeling has connotations in our culture. In CITH, we walk up to receive the host, remain standing and put our hand out.

In COTT, we kneel and are hand-fed. Quite different. Especially significant is changing one for the other.

Actually, there is nothing forbidding you from receiving CITH while kneeling. CITH is not tied to standing as much as COTT is.

I said nothing about liturgical abuse. However, since you’ve mentioned it …

I’ve not been to many O.F.s in recent years but once I saw a kiddie show his Mam the host, in their pew.

So what do you call this liturgical dancing you are speaking of?