Not just another CITH Thread...

[JReducation]

Not all franciscans do it!!! The Franciscans at EWTN do not…they receive kneeling and on the tongue.

That particular house has an indult to receive communion on the tongue. After 1990 every Franciscan house was allowed to ask for permission to receive communion on the tongue provided that it was the desire of the friars to show reverence for the Holy Eucharist. Such a petition could not and may never be made for the sole purpose of displaying reverence, but must be born out of a true sense of reverence. Displays are acts of pride not reverence.

Because the Franciscan family is made up of 1.7 million brothers in 114 countries around the world, it was important to comply with the requirements of Vatican II, which stated that religious families accomodate to local cultures and customs. In many countries where our brothers live or come from, communion on the tongue is the only known manner of receiving communion. For those brothers, communion in the hand is extraordinary. Prior to Vatican II, they had to conform to the practice that came down to us for 800 years. It never occurred to anyone that a person joining the order would feel uncomfortable with the customs of the order. From 1970 to 1990 many customs were examined and those that were not essential to the Franciscan identity could be dispensed by the Major Superior of the region or by the local superior of the house, if the Major Superior delegated it.

Receiving communion on the tongue or the hand does not change the Franciscan identity of the community as long as certain requirements are met.

First, communion must be received with great reverence as defined not by outside forces, but by the constitution and the rule. In other words, the our definition of reverence must coincide with that of St. Francis not anyone else’s.

Second, communion on the tongue or hand may never be public display of reverence that calls attention to the friar. The friar must receive communion in a manner that is reverent, but does not single him out.

Third, if the priest is also a friar, the manner in which he distributes communion must not project clericalism or set him apart from the non clerical friars. He must distribute communion humbly as one who is serving his brothers, not above his brothers. He is not their father, he is their servant.

Fourth, if there is a friar who is a deacon and he is serving on the altar, he should also distribute communion to bring out the unity of the three orders in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The priest’s hand are consecrated for the purpose of confecting the Eucharist, not for the purpose of distributing the Eucharist. Such thinking is contrary to the teaching of the Church and the teaching of our Holy Father Francis.

Fifth, those friars receiving communion from a deacon or a priest, must receive with great reverence not only for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, but also for the Sacrament of Holy Orders, for only through the Sacrament of Holy Orders do we receive the Holy Eucharist. They should never look upon their ordained brothers with disfavor, but with great love, for at mass they stand in Persona Christi.

Sixth, the friars are to follow the policies of the local diocese in churches and other places that belong to the diocese. They must follow the policies of the religious order in churches and other sacred places that belong to other religious orders. We must bear in mind that our traditions and customs are for our benefit and not to cause an inconvenience or scandal to others. At the same time, those who enter our houses and our chapels must observe the same respect toward our traditions and customs as we do in theirs. There should be no rupture in the spirit of brotherhood between the friars and the laity, especially over the most holy Eucharist. Friars are forbidden to impose their criteria on the laity when serving the laity in the local parish. The laity is forbidden to impose its criteria on the friars when entering the chapel or oratory of the convent or friary. Each is bound to accomodate to the other in a spirit of love and brotherhood respecting their different places in the Body of the Church and trying to encourage each other to be faithful to their respective ways of life.

In conclusion, the friars may receive communion on the tongue if they discern that it’s for their spiritual benefit and it is does not cause an inconvenience to the minister of Holy Communion. An example of this is an older deacon or priest who may not be able to reach down to someone who is kneeling without losing his balance. In that case, charity demands that the friar stand and receive communion in whatever manner is easier for the person distributing the Eucharist.

There is a culture, for lack of a better word, a culture of respect between the Franciscan family toward the Traditionalist communities. The same respect is expected in return for our tradition which actually outdates the Tridentine tradtions.

The Church should never be split assunder when it is possible to respect and honor different schools of spirituality, if we open our minds to learning something that we did not know.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[elts1956]

Can someone point me to a post on this thread where it is said that originally an induit for receiving the host in the hand was given only to certain countries that were thought by the Vatican to have a real need for the practice. I have no idea what would be considered a need. As I understand it, the Bishops grabbed that bull by the horns and before the Holy Father knew what was happening, the practice was already established in the US. Knowing the horse had fled the barn and couldn’t be reined in, the Holy Father gave the induit also to the US and other places around the world. Communion on the tongue quickly faded from the litergy.

I for one, do not understand why this change was thought to be necessary in the first place. Can anyone explain this to me? Also the holding of hands during the Our Father, as I understand it, is another “add on” done in various parishes. I avoid my neighbor’s hand when possible, nor do I lift my hands in the manner of the priest as he is saying the Our Father. I know there is a name for that posture, but I can’t remember it.

None of these changes were needed before 1963, so until someone can tell me more about it, I consider it just another fad some clergy have introduced into their parishes.;

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The priest’s hand are consecrated for the purpose of confecting the Eucharist, not for the purpose of distributing the Eucharist. Such thinking is contrary to the teaching of the Church and the teaching of our Holy Father Francis.

Very interesting. Could you expand on that? Can you point us to documentation that shows this?

Alan

 

[Sherry_G]

I know a number of Lutherans who express a belief in the Real Presence that is entirely coherent with Catholic belief.

REally??? Where is their tabernacle? I must have missed it!

 

[Ockham]

Can someone point me to a post on this thread where it is said that originally an induit for receiving the host in the hand was given only to certain countries that were thought by the Vatican to have a real need for the practice. I have no idea what would be considered a need. As I understand it, the Bishops grabbed that bull by the horns and before the Holy Father knew what was happening, the practice was already established in the US. Knowing the horse had fled the barn and couldn’t be reined in, the Holy Father gave the induit also to the US and other places around the world. Communion on the tongue quickly faded from the litergy.

I for one, do not understand why this change was thought to be necessary in the first place. Can anyone explain this to me? Also the holding of hands during the Our Father, as I understand it, is another “add on” done in various parishes. I avoid my neighbor’s hand when possible, nor do I lift my hands in the manner of the priest as he is saying the Our Father. I know there is a name for that posture, but I can’t remember it.

None of these changes were needed before 1963, so until someone can tell me more about it, I consider it just another fad some clergy have introduced into their parishes.;

This is exactly what I"m looking for as well. Just to reiterrate the first post of this thread:

CITH Givens

1. It’s approved by indult
2. St. Cyril said to make your palm a throne
3. Some Fransicans do it

We don’t need to continully state the givens. What would be appreciated is more in depth discussion as to why the indult came about.

The original indult was issued in 1969. Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH but unfortunately opened an exception for countries where it was already in practice. From my research that did not include Canada or the U.S. In 1977 the indult was extended to the U.S. What I don’t know is why. Were people practicing CITH up to 1977 illegally or was everyone faithfully obeying yet clamoured for the practice some European countries indulged?

 

[Robert_Burns]

I know a number of Lutherans who express a belief in the Real Presence that is entirely coherent with Catholic belief.

The question isnt whether or not “certain Lutherans” have a fidelity - rather its a question of the Religion itself and what it teaches as compared to Catholicism. Think about it for a minute. The Real Presense is necessary for the Sacrifice of Propitiation to have meaning. Are you likewise saying that Lutherans consider their service The Sacrifice? Or is it merely a commemoration meal. In that sense alone - it isnt the same.

 

[Robert_Burns]

I’ve heard similar reports about belief in the Real Presence. Very sad. A huge challenge for our Church.I don’t think it’s due simply or only or even primarily to CITH though.

I think its a major contibuting factor.

 

[JReducation]

Very interesting. Could you expand on that? Can you point us to documentation that shows this?

Alan

It’s in the rite of ordination of the deacon. One of his ministries is to be the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. But the hands of a deacon are not consecrated.

In the rite of ordination of the presbyter the hands are blessed to “sanctify and bless”.

Deacons do not consecrate and they do not bless. Thus they do not need to have consecrated hands. But it is their ordinary duty and right to distribute communion. We find this in the Acts, in Church History and in Canon Law under the Eucharist.

The Church has never formally taught that only consecrated hands can touch the consecrated host. If that were the case, deacons would be forbidden to touch it.

I believe that the confusion among Romans comes from the writings of many saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas himself who held this position. But the Church never adopted all of Thomas’ positions. This was one of the ones that was not adopted by the Church. I can understand the confusion, because we have spoken so highly of Thomas’ work in theology and have used him as a reference for so many centuries, that some people treat him as if he were a pope.

You can go to any of those sources. I hope they help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

In 1977 the indult was extended to the U.S. What I don’t know is why. Were people practicing CITH up to 1977 illegally or was everyone faithfully obeying yet clamoured for the practice some European countries indulged?

Supposedly Archbishop Bernadin was the principal driver in bringing CITH to the U.S. Even though the practice was not already in place before the vote, a necessary condition, nevertheless a vote was taken and it fell far short of the 2/3rd necessary to make the indult stand with the conditions imposed by the Vatican. However, they found a way around Vatican’s conditions and “polled” the retired and dying bishops to bring the vote total to the 2/3rd. Some canon lawyers found this poll invalid. But apparently TPTB thought otherwise, no disrespect intended.

 

[ncjohn]

There is a culture, for lack of a better word, a culture of respect between the Franciscan family toward the Traditionalist communities. The same respect is expected in return for our tradition which actually outdates the Tridentine tradtions.

The Church should never be split assunder when it is possible to respect and honor different schools of spirituality, if we open our minds to learning something that we did not know.

Thank you JR.

It is the inability for some to come to that culture of respect for different schools of spirituality, and the division that gets created because of that, that so troubles and confuses me. I am just at a loss to understand why it is that we should feel entitled to believe that we have a “one right way” in a disciplinary practice and to discount that others might find their calling in a different expression of devotion. An inability to understand why someone else might see things differently than we do in such matters just can’t begin to justify the vitriol expressed. If it is a “given” that it is ultimately about the internal disposition and reverence, what can it possibly be that so offends about this ancient and just as reverent practice other than someone having the audacity to feel more called to something other than our preference. It seems the culture of respect only goes in one way in this case.

“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”

 

[Ockham]

Thank you JR.

It is the inability for some to come to that culture of respect for different schools of spirituality, and the division that gets created because of that, that so troubles and confuses me. I am just at a loss to understand why it is that we should feel entitled to believe that we have a “one right way” in a disciplinary practice and to discount that others might find their calling in a different expression of devotion. An inability to understand why someone else might see things differently than we do in such matters just can’t begin to justify the vitriol expressed. If it is a “given” that it is ultimately about the internal disposition and reverence, what can it possibly be that so offends about this ancient and just as reverent practice other than someone having the audacity to feel more called to something other than our preference. It seems the culture of respect only goes in one way in this case.

“In necessary things, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Perhaps you would perceive more respect from others if you avoided words like “inability”, “vitriol”, and “audacity” when describing them. Respect is a two way street, one that is earned not extracted.

Where was the respect between the years 1969 and 1977 when CITH was contrary to Church ruling yet practiced by some.

The subject of this thread is the practice of CITH in the Roman rite. If you and the Brother wish to promote the Franscian method then you’re free to start a new thread.

 

[Robert_Burns]

It’s in the rite of ordination of the deacon. One of his ministries is to be the ordinary minister of Holy Communion. But the hands of a deacon are not consecrated.

In the rite of ordination of the presbyter the hands are blessed to “sanctify and bless”.

Deacons do not consecrate and they do not bless. Thus they do not need to have consecrated hands. But it is their ordinary duty and right to distribute communion. We find this in the Acts, in Church History and in Canon Law under the Eucharist.

The Church has never formally taught that only consecrated hands can touch the consecrated host. If that were the case, deacons would be forbidden to touch it.

I believe that the confusion among Romans comes from the writings of many saints, including St. Thomas Aquinas himself who held this position. But the Church never adopted all of Thomas’ positions. This was one of the ones that was not adopted by the Church. I can understand the confusion, because we have spoken so highly of Thomas’ work in theology and have used him as a reference for so many centuries, that some people treat him as if he were a pope.

You can go to any of those sources. I hope they help.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Isnt it True that Deacon is a Major Order though…

 

[JReducation]

Isnt it True that Deacon is a Major Order though…

Yes. Absolutely. A deacon shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The term is no longer “major order” because minor orders were suppressed in 1983. They were redefined as ministries and some were eliminated completely. Now we say that we have the three orders of the priesthood:

Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop.

It is important to note, that the deacon is not a lay man, even if he is married, any more than a married priest is a lay man. A married deacon or priest is still a cleric or clergyman. Our permanent deacons are clergymen with all of the rights and duties of every clergyman. They are part of the hierarchy of the Church.

Getting back to the point of consecrated hands touching the host, this has never been a teaching of any of the 22 Catholic Churches or any of the Orthodox Churches either. No one really knows how this came to be believed. As I said before, my guess is that it’s Thomistic influence.

At the same time, we must remember that while Thomas Aquinas was writing theology, so was Bonaventure. In fact, they were colleagues at the University of Paris. They disagreed on several major points and some minor points too. One of the points of disagreement was Thomas’ position on consecrated hands necessary for touching the host.

Bonaventure won that argument for several reasons, some practical and some historical.

Historical:

There was no precedent in any of the Churches for limiting the distribution of communion to priests. All of the Churches used deacons and acolytes as well as priests, each according to the rite that they used. Remember, there are 22 Catholic Churches and there are six rites. When we speak about rites, it’s not the same as when we speak about Churches. The Roman Church, which is the largest of the Catholic Churches has always been thought of as THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. But again, Bonaventure proved that this thinking was false. All of the Churches together make up the Catholic Church. This law is still in place today. Therefore it was contrary to the history of the Catholic Church to say that only the consecrated hands of the priest could touch the host, since this was only practiced in the Roman Church and only in those places where there were no deacons. In parishes and communities where there were deacons, they distributed communion along with the priest. If there were no clerics, an acolyte distributed communion.

The difference is that an acolyte may not distribute communion during mass. He takes communion to the sick or distributes communion outside of mass in those places where it is impossible to have a mass.

Practical:

I said that Bonaventure was able to drive home his point for practical reasons as well. Thomas Aquinas was a Doctor of Theology. So was Bonaventure. However, Bonaventure was also the Superior General of the Francisans and a Cardinal. Aquinas was neither a Prior General in the Dominican Order, nor a Cardinal. Bonaventure argued in defense relied on the historical facts to protect the Franciscans from being dominated by priests and deacons. As Superior General, it was his duty to preserve the equality among all of the brothers, the clerics and the non-clerics. Therefore, he had to avoid as many distinctions as possible. He used the history of the Church, good theology, canon law and the authority vested in him by the Rule of St. Francis, not to mention his position as Cardinal. In the end, he was supported by Aquinas, because there was an attempt by the laity at the time to have the Dominicans and Franciscans forced to follow the same clerical rules of the universal Church. This was known as the attack on the mendicants. Aquinas and Bonaventure went to Rome to argue before the pope that the mendicants were not the same as the rest of the Catholic Church and needed certain exemptions because it had been revealed as such by Christ. They won the argument.

Bonaventure also presented to the Holy See was that if the position of Aquinas was accepted as a doctrine, it would throw the rules of St. Augustine and St. Francis into heresy, because both rules sustained that there be as little distinction as possible between the cleric and the lay members, making all of the members of the order equals. And both of these rules had been accepted as theological truths, Church Law and sealed with Papal Bulls.

In the case of communion being touched by anyone other than a priest there are many a priori assumptions.

1. Deacons have always done it and they are do not have consecrated hands.
2. If you make this a requirement, you will have a schism on your hands, because the Oriental Churches will rebel. The deacons have always played a major role in their Divine Worship, unlike the Romans, where the permanent deacons disappeared for several hundred years and no one knows why.
3. If your make this a requirement, you must go back and recant the Papal Bulls given to the Rules of Augustine and Francis, because they contained error. This could not be done. The Church had already declared that they did not contain error.
4. The final a priori assumption behind non consecrated hands touching the host is that we have always allowed nuns in cloistered convents to do it. They expose the Blessed Sacrament and put it away. Only they can take communion to their sick sisters. Deacons and priests are not allowed inside the enclosure except to administer Annointing of the Sick.

The answer to the question on the table cannot be “only consecrated hands may touch the host.” That has already been discussed and found to be lacking for historical and practical reasons. Theology is always very logical.

Communion on the tongue is an important point of discussion only for the Roman laity. It is not an issue for other Catholics.
Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps you would perceive more respect from others if you avoided words like “inability”, “vitriol”, and “audacity” when describing them. Respect is a two way street, one that is earned not extracted.

Where was the respect between the years 1969 and 1977 when CITH was contrary to Church ruling yet practiced by some.

The subject of this thread is the practice of CITH in the Roman rite. If you and the Brother wish to promote the Franscian method then you’re free to start a new thread.

I’m sorry. I was not trying to promote the Franciscan custom. I was tyring to explain why the Franciscans at Our Lady of the Angels received communion on the tongue and kneeling, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

I’m sorry. I was not trying to promote the Franciscan custom. I was tyring to explain why the Franciscans at Our Lady of the Angels received communion on the tongue and kneeling, to avoid any misunderstanding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your explanation Brother. The thread can now get back to the original subject. If you have any insights as to why the general Church rebelled against Pope Paul’s decision of 1969 I would appreciate knowing about it.

 

[ncjohn]

Perhaps you would perceive more respect from others if you avoided words like “inability”, “vitriol”, and “audacity” when describing them. Respect is a two way street, one that is earned not extracted.

I apologize if what I said came across as disrespectful as I was only factually assessing the tone of the conversation. Quite frankly though you would do well to also observe your own advice since a lack of respect and inflamatory words are very frequently part of your responses, as they are in this one and others particularly in regard to Franciscans.

Where was the respect between the years 1969 and 1977 when CITH was contrary to Church ruling yet practiced by some.

Do you have any evidence that anybody doing so was being disrespectful rather than just doing what they were instructed to do and believed to be proper?

The subject of this thread is the practice of CITH in the Roman rite. If you and the Brother wish to promote the Franscian method then you’re free to start a new thread.

Excuse me, but the Franciscans are most assuredly part of the Roman Church. I don’t see anyone here, including me or Brother JR, “promoting” anything. Explaining that it has been the ongoing practice for centuries to answer the question about why there would be sudden “change” to something that is claimed to not exist is simple rebuttal of a faulty premise.

The question is still why it is that this so offends you that you cannot “accord a culture of respect” to someone else’s legitimate call to a different way of expressing their devotion? Who is it that has so offended you in some way by receiving CITH that you feel such a compulsion to denigrate it and anybody who thinks to prefer it? I continue to be at a loss as to what would cause such a deep aversion.

I’m not really sure I expect an answer though and hadn’t really intended even to participate here until I felt called to thank Brother JR for his historical and thelogical insights.

Peace be with you.

 

[Ockham]

The question is still why it is that this so offends you that you cannot “accord a culture of respect” to someone else’s legitimate call to a different way of expressing their devotion?

No, that is not the question. If you want to find out why some people are offended by CITH start your own thread. This thread is about investigating why a practice outlawed by the Vatican proceeded anyway. Read post #1 for clarification. If you have anything to offer to this subject please state it otherwise stop the distraction.

 

[Ockham]

Supposedly Archbishop Bernadin was the principal driver in bringing CITH to the U.S. Even though the practice was not already in place before the vote, a necessary condition, nevertheless a vote was taken and it fell far short of the 2/3rd necessary to make the indult stand with the conditions imposed by the Vatican. However, they found a way around Vatican’s conditions and “polled” the retired and dying bishops to bring the vote total to the 2/3rd. Some canon lawyers found this poll invalid. But apparently TPTB thought otherwise, no disrespect intended.

This is the first I’ve heard of this Archbishop, actually, he rose to Cardinal. Do you have any supporting documents on him as from what I’ve come across there is suspicion and scandal associated with him.

 

[Ockham]

Yes, I know this is a blog, but it is at least a start of understanding the details of how CITH got into the GIRM.

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/communion-kneeling-and-on-the-tongue-is-preferred-form/

Additional information is greatly appreciated.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please show respect for each other and remember that only a moderator may tell another poster what to do or not do on a thread. If you feel that the post is inappropriate, you may report it and the forum moderator will followp-up.

Thank you.

Thomas Casey
Moderator