Not just another CITH Thread...

[Ockham]

That kind of response ought to be beneath you. Whether or not this is “just another CITH thread,” it’s definitely just another Ockham thread.

How about stating your point instead of playing the victim card.

 

[Ockham]

Your peril is that you assume you know the mind of Christ on this better than the bishops. What happened to the traditional Catholic acceptance of obedience to the hierarchy?

Bishops have been disobedient in the past and some in the present. Obedience dictates COTT as the universal norm

 

[Ockham]

The magestrium are moral reletavists???

Read up on the history of CITH. The Magestirium didn’t come up with the idea of CITH.

Back to post #1…I know it’s approved. The questions that keep getting avoided is WHY and HOW?

 

[estesbob]

Read up on the history of CITH. The Magestirium didn’t come up with the idea of CITH.

Back to post #1…I know it’s approved. The questions that keep getting avoided is WHY and HOW?

The how is the Magestrium has approved it. Thats good enough for me. In their widsom they decided to let people continue to recieve on the tongue if they wish too. The why is becuase the Bishops of the United States decided that it was a good change to make and the people have been very accepting of it.,

I find COTT to be unsanitary and disrespectful but I defend your right to recieve it so.

 

[momor]

Bishops have been disobedient in the past and some in the present. Obedience dictates COTT as the universal norm

You are subject to your bishop’s authority. It is at your own spiritual peril if you wish to persist in publically maligning a practice and those who partake in it which is approved in your diocese. You could be 100% right about CITH and still be 100% wrong morally in your response to it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, this post is an appeal to exaggerated absurdity. Let’s take it a step further…perhaps we should crawl from the doors of the Church to our pews. The point is COTT is more reverent than CITH and the universal norm of the Church for thousands of years. CITH is a modern Protestant practice that has not served us well.

You are right about my line of reasoning. Certainly you would consider crawling as excessive and CITH as “least” perhaps. Why is COTT the obvious dividing point?

Plus, as I understand others here to say without refute, CITH actually predated COTT. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

You are subject to your bishop’s authority. It is at your own spiritual peril if you wish to persist in publically maligning a practice and those who partake in it which is approved in your diocese. You could be 100% right about CITH and still be 100% wrong morally in your response to it.

So I might go to Hell for raising the questions of how and why CITH got approved?

If all anyone has is “it’s approved” then by post #1, that is a given.

 

[Ockham]

Plus, as I understand others here to say without refute, CITH actually predated COTT. Please correct me if I’m wrong on that.

Alan

How about you bring some research to this debate. You can Google just as easily as I.

 

[Ockham]

I find COTT to be unsanitary and disrespectful but I defend your right to recieve it so.

The Church disagrees with you and has so for hundreds of years.

The whole ‘sanitary’ thing is red herring. I’ve yet to have a priest’s hand touch my tongue. It’s more unsanitary to shake hands during the “signs of peace”. Maybe that’s why it has evolved to hugs.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How about you bring some research to this debate. You can Google just as easily as I.

You are probably correct, but if you don’t know that offhand, then I might assume (of course I might be wrong) either it isn’t important to you or you don’t like the answer.

I choose not to care. It doesn’t matter which was first. They are both here to stay.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The Church disagrees with you and has so for hundreds of years.

The Church ruled on whether it was sanitary?

 

[Ockham]

They are both here to stay.

Alan

I wouldn’t bet on it. The Church is slowly recovering from the chaos of post V2. By their fruits you shall know them and the fruits of the ‘spirit of V2’ are rotten. When we rediscover our Catholic identity modern fads like CITH wither on the vine.

 

[estesbob]

The Church disagrees with you and has so for hundreds of years.

The whole ‘sanitary’ thing is red herring. I’ve yet to have a priest’s hand touch my tongue. It’s more unsanitary to shake hands during the “signs of peace”. Maybe that’s why it has evolved to hugs.

If the Church disagrees with me why do they allow it? Other than Jesus who else do you stick your tongue out at as a sign of respect?

 

[Ockham]

If the Church disagrees with me why do they allow it? Other than Jesus who else do you stick your tongue out at as a sign of respect?

Bob, if you honestly believe people stick their tongues out at Jesus then there’s not much more we can discuss. Ask youself why the Church makes this sign of ‘disrespect’ in your eyes the universal norm? Why has this sign of ‘disrespect’ been the universal norm for centuries?

Please don’t pull this thread down to such a level. I’d like to see a mature and intellectual discussion on this subject.

How about supplying the debate with some substantial references or supporting information. Do you have a pope, saint, or doctor of the Church agreeing with your position?

 

[ProVobis]

Do you have a pope, saint, or doctor of the Church agreeing with your position?

Not even close.

(4) Historical testimony against Communion in the hand:

Reviewing available evidence from Church history and the writings of the Church Fathers does not support the claim that Communion in the hand was a universal practice that was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue. Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

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.” (Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception. The oft-quoted reference of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is quite suspect, because what follows his famous quote is odd, superstitious, and even irreverent to Catholic thought. This has led scholars to question the authenticity of the text, that perhaps the saint’s successor was really responsible for this odd statement, the Patriarch John, who succeeded St. Cyril. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy, which we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So if the quote is genuine, it most likely is attributed to the Nestorian Patriarch John, which would explain the oddity of the text. The fact that St. Cyril is quoted to the exclusion of Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus I, the Council of Trent, and centuries of Church tradition, is a prime example of the historical revisionism and dumbing-down of the modernists. Just a sampling of reliable historical evidence is enough to demonstrate the consistent position of the Church regarding Communion in the hand:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

tldm.org/news5/cinh2.htm

 

[ProVobis]

(5) the danger of sacrilege

Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei quotes Origen with approval who says that if anyone dropped a Sacred Particle of the Host on the ground (through negligence) then that person would be guilty of sin: “In fact the faithful thought themselves guilty, and rightly so, as Origen recalls, if after they received the Body of the Lord in order to preserve it with all care and reverence, a small fragment of it fell off through negligence.” (Mysterium Fidei, Pope Paul VI, taken from “In Exod. Fragm.” P.G. 12, 391.) At any given Mass there will be at least a few, if not many, who will drop the sacred Particles to the ground, thereby committing sacrilege and irreverence, though it may be only through negligence and thoughtlessness. The priest, however, is responsible to make sure that no irreverence is committed and is bound to take all necessary precautions to safeguard the honor and respect due Our Lord in the blessed Sacrament.

As we quoted before from Bishop Laise: “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.”

His Excellency also writes:

“Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”

Bishop Laise ends his marvelous book, Communion in the hand: Documents and History, with this quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“As of all the sacred mysteries bequeathed to us by our Lord and Saviour as most infallible instruments of divine grace, there is none comparable to the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; so, for no crime is there a heavier punishment to be feared from God than for the unholy or irreligious use by the faithful of that which is full of holiness, or rather which contains the very author and source of holiness.” (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II, cap. 4)

 

[ProVobis]

(6) Consecrated hands

In the Bible it is recorded that only the Levite priests were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenant: “No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for the Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to him forever” (1 Chronicles 15:2; 1 Paralipomenon 15:2 in Douay-Rheims Bible). But when a non-Levite touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was struck dead: “And when they came to the floor of Chidon, Oza put forth his hand, to hold up the ark: for the ox being wanton had made it lean a little on one side. And the Lord was angry with Oza, and struck him, because he had touched the ark; and he died there before the Lord” (1 Chronicles 13:9-10; 1 Paralipomenon 13:9-10 in Douay-Rheims Bible).

Everything in the Bible has been put there by God for our instruction. Why was God angry at Oza? Why was he struck dead? What is the lesson that God wanted to impart to us by this incident?

The teaching of consecrated hands can be found in various writings of the saints, which convey an admirably reverential attitude towards the sacraments, especially the holy Eucharist. From the writings of St. Bonaventure (The Breviloquium, chapter 11, #5), he writes concerning the reverence for the holy oils: “…a sacrament whose matter is holy—that is, consecrated oil—in order to avoid any risk, its dispensation is entrusted to priests in general. And because of the consecration of the oil, it should be touched by none except consecrated hands.” (Note the great reverence for the sacraments in general expressed by St. Bonaventure. The same reverence was naturally present during this time for the blessed Sacrament, the greatest of sacraments).

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest minds the Church has ever known, writes the following regarding the Blessed Sacrament: “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 the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed 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 to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency” (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

As Michael Davies observes, “Unless we are to believe that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church for 1,000 years [the 1,000 year period from the time of the 10th Century, when Communion in the hand was forbidden], we must accept the fact that, under His guidance, a tradition evolved that only the consecrated hands of a priest could touch the Host; we have the witness of St. Thomas Aquinas that, by the 13th century, it was firmly established that not even a deacon could do so under normal circumstances.” (Privilege of the Ordained, p. 16)

Even the Protestants are witnesses to the Catholic understanding of the consecrated hands of a priest. Michael Davies reports that in his 1549 Communion Service, Thomas Cranmer allowed the Blessed Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was criticized by the more radical Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice. Among the reasons for the change, Bucer wrote:

“Every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested… I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think…that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed—as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth—which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason. In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand…”

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, writes:

“In the same way, actually that baptism is the distinctive mark of all Christians, and serves to differentiate them from those who have not been cleansed in this purifying stream and consequently are not members of Christ, the sacrament of holy orders sets the priest apart from the rest of the faithful who have not received this consecration. For they alone, in answer to an inward supernatural call, have entered the august ministry, where they are assigned to service in the sanctuary and become, as it were, the instruments God uses to communicate supernatural life from on high to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Add to this, as We have noted above, the fact that they alone have been marked with the indelible sign ‘conforming’ them to Christ the Priest, and that their hands alone have been consecrated ‘in order that whatever they bless may be blessed, whatever they consecrate may become sacred and holy, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ’ [Roman Pontifical, Ordination of a priest: anointing of hands].” (Mediator Dei, #43)

Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called a 20th Century Doctor of the Church, has written many outstanding books and articles in defense of the Catholic Faith, and against the many dangerous trends and heresies infecting the Church today. He is, in fact, the Catholic writer par excellence of the 20th Century whose conclusions are identical with Our Lady of the Roses message. There is no other writer who has so thoroughly and precisely concurred with Our Lady of the Roses messages as Dietrich von Hildebrand. Concerning Communion in the hand, he writes:

“Unfortunately, in many places Communion is distributed in the hand. To what extent is this supposed to be a renewal and a deepening of the reception of Holy Communion? Is the trembling reverence with which we receive this incomprehensible gift perhaps increased by receiving it in our unconsecrated hands, rather than from the consecrated hands of the priest? It is not difficult to see that the danger of parts of the consecrated Host falling to the ground is incomparably increased, and the danger of desecrating it or indeed of horrible blasphemy is very great.” (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 67-68)

Pope John Paul II speaks of consecrated hands in Dominicae Cenae:

“We should also always remember that to this ministerial power we have been sacramentally consecrated, that we have been chosen from among men ‘for the good of men.’ We especially, the priests of the Latin Church, whose ordination rite added in the course of the centuries the custom of anointing the priest’s hands, should think about this…. 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!” (#49).

It is interesting to note that a deacon’s hands are not anointed, as are the hands of priests, during ordination.

Our Lady of the Roses repeats this traditional understanding of the consecrated hands of a priest:

“I repeat again that none shall bring the sacred Body of My Son, His Body and Blood, to another but a legally-ordained priest with consecrated hands. I say, My children, consecrated hands, blessed hands, washed clean by the Holy Spirit! No man shall render excuses for defilement of My Son’s Body.” - Our Lady, May 14, 1977

tldm.org/news5/cinh2.htm

 

[ProVobis]

(8) Communion on the tongue remains the law of the Church throughout the world to this day:

Pope Paul VI stated in Memoriale Domini that “The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully submit to the law [Communion on the tongue] which is still valid and which has again been confirmed” (#16). Pope Paul VI was emphasizing that Communion on the tongue was still the law of the Church. Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church, even to this day; Communion in the hand is the exception to the law. But Pope Paul VI was opposed by his own bishops, and by the Episcopal Conferences, who failed to reign in the abuse of Communion in the hand. This is the real reason why Communion in the hand spread throughout the world. In a 1968 speech, Pope Paul VI took to task the disobedience of the Episcopal Conferences:

“We refer above all to this mentality according to which many receive with annoyance all that comes from the ecclesiastical authority, that is, what is pertaining to law. This being the reason that in liturgical matters even the Episcopal Conferences sometimes proceed on their own accord more than what is justified. It also occurs that arbitrary experiments are made and this introduces rites that openly contradict the norms of the Church.” (Speech to the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, October 14, 1968. A.A.S., 1968, p. 735).

There seems to be a great deal of confusion among Catholics and theologians about what to do about the problem of Communion in the hand. But it is really very, very simple:

“Not infrequently it happens that opposite laws seem to call for fulfillment at the same time, as when in case of unjust attack it seems that one is bound to defend oneself and bound not to injure the other party. Hence arises a conflict of obligations and rights. But the difficulty is only apparent; for, since God is a just and wise lawgiver, he does not intend either that one should be held to impossibilities, or that a superior obligation should yield to one that is inferior.” (Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I, McHugh and Callan, p. 96)

“The objects or content of human law [civil and ecclesiastical law] must be of such a character: (a) that they do not conflict with the Natural or the Divine Law; (b) that they be beneficial to the community for which they are made.” (Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I, McHugh and Callan, #372, p. 134)

In no way can the superior obligation forbidding sacrilege (Divine Law) yield to any ecclesiastical law (human law). The confusion that currently exists regarding Communion in the hand arises from a misreading of Memoriale Domini (as indicated by Bishop Laise), and from a failure to promote the higher law of reverence forbidding sacrilege (Divine Law), which takes precedent over ecclesiastical law (human law).

The Pope is bound to observe the Divine Law and promote it:

“The Pope can dispense as follows: (a) in all ecclesiastical laws he can grant a dispensation strictly so-called; (b) in divine laws in which the obligation depends on an act of the human will (such as the laws of oaths, vows, contracts, etc.), he can grant a dispensation improperly so-called. In other divine laws, he can interpret or declare, but he cannot dispense.” (Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I, McHugh and Callan, p. 183)

Regarding the divine prohibition against sacrilege, not even the Pope can dispense.

“When the law is negative (i.e., prohibitory), no inconvenience excuses from sin; for that which is forbidden by the Natural Law is always morally evil, and hence more to be shunned than even the greatest physical evil, or death. Example: one is obliged, under grave or light sin, as the case may be, to forfeit all temporal goods rather than blaspheme, murder, lie, etc.” (Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Vol. I, McHugh and Callan, p. 111)

Sacrilege is in this prohibitory category. Therefore, no inconvenience excuses priests from taking the necessary precautions to protect the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilege.

Unfortunately, Memoriale Domini did not slow the abuse of Communion in the hand, but rather was seized upon by disobedient priests, bishops and laity as a pretext to spread the abuse even more. It is not disloyal to believe this, but is rather to acknowledge a sad truth. As Dietrich von Hildebrand states:

“On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and respect for the Holy Father.” (The Charitable Anathema, p. 32)

 

[ProVobis]

Ecclesiastical law is not infallible; it can be imprudent. Clearly, the 1,000 year ban on Communion in the hand was the prudent law as it so effectively minimized the loss of sacred particles and theft of the Host by those seeking to desecrate it. The current indult, however, is imprudent because it has not served to protect the blessed Sacrament from sacrilege or theft. We pray that the traditional practice of receiving Communion only on the tongue may be restored throughout the world, as was the hope of Pope Paul VI:

“The Holy Father … does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world.” (October 12, 1965 letter of the “Consilium” to Bernard Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands)

To better understand this subject, we highly recommend Bishop Laise’s book, Communion in the hand: Documents and History, which is perhaps the most authoritative book on this subject in the world. In this book, he briefly summarizes his reasons for rejecting Communion in the hand:

“Given that a manner is in practice that not only is better but is recommended and praised by the Holy See, and asking me if I want to introduce another that carries with it serious dangers and which the Holy See does not recommend but rather only allows with displeasure, not existing in my diocese any abusive introduction or an expectation of the faithful in this respect, and having received manifestations of serious worries on the part of priests, religious and faithful; and since the decision has remained placed on my prudence with the compromise of my conscience, keeping in mind that all dispensation produces a certain social damage that is only justified in order to avoid a greater damage or to obtain a greater public or private benefit, remembering that the Church recommends to the priests not only to abide by the licit but also to look for the most profitable, I have not doubted in submitting myself diligently ‘to the law already in force and once more confirmed.’”

tldm.org/news5/cinh2.htm