Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation said:
They were not conferred, but they remained in the law until the rescript of Canon Law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense. I often forget that, no matter how many things changed post-1962, it was not until the rewrite of Canon Law in 1983 that they officially disappeared from the Law of the Church. Thank you for that clarification.
 
EnchantedEve said:
Makes perfect sense. I often forget that, no matter how many things changed post-1962, it was not until the rewrite of Canon Law in 1983 that they officially disappeared from the Law of the Church. Thank you for that clarification.
Click to expand...
I took a long time to write the New Code of Canon Law. Pope Paul VI wanted to oversee it himself, since he was a Doctor of Canon Law. This was an area the he enjoyed working. But he did not have time to spend on it 24/7. It was long an tedious. Then there was the issue that the best Canon Law Society in the Church is in the USA… Everything was sent to the USA for discussion and translations and more. This had to go back and forth because Paul VI spoke very little English. The law was written in Latin but the discussion were in English.

When the final draft was ready to present it to him, in 1978, the passed away. It was put on a shelf and not looked at again until about 1980. Pope John Paul II was not a lawyer. But he wanted to understand it, before he promulgated it. He took three years to study it, made some changes in those areas that concerned the bishops. He wanted the bishops to be more accountable than they had been for the past 1980 years. He added new laws regarding the bishops. This is how Archbishop Lefebvre ends up in trouble. John Paul II added the law about not ordaining other bishops without papal mandate. He also added to the commentary that the law of conscience could only be applied when the pope says that it can. In other words, if the pope says that your claim to conscience is not applicable in this case, then it’s not.

This sent some people over the top, because they had always assumed that conscience was inviolable. John Paul argued that conscience is inviolable, but there are conditions that must be met for that inviolability to apply. We have to remember, Pope John Paul was not a lawyer, but he was a philosopher and theologian. In a way, it was good for the Church that the Canons were not promulgated by Paul VI, because Paul was not a theologian. He was a lawyer.

What we got in 1983 was the best of both worlds. We got a code of Canon Law that was scrutinized by layers, theologians and philosophers. Never before had canon law been so carefully crafted, due to the lack of advanced communications that we had by 1983.

The problem comes in that the average lay person is not used to these canons, because they were using very different language from prior canons. This threw some people for a loop.

Here is where this thread comes into the picture. The canons allow for communion in the hand, but clearly state that communion on the tongue is the ordinary means of receiving the Eucharist. What the canons do not do is explain every possible exception to the two practices. It was the mind of Paul VI to make the canons as brief as possible so that they gave greater latitude to the local conference of bishops to make rules for thier areas.

When the question about communion in the hand comes up, there is no answer in canon law other than to say that the ordinary means is on the tongue, but it may be done on the hand if the local conference of bishops asks for the indult and if the local bishop alllows it.

Notice that this whole language is about bishops. This does not address religious houses or religious. These canonical persons are not under bishops. The canons do not speak about them when discussing communion in the hand or on the tongue.

The canons also make it very clear who the ordinary ministers of holy communion are: deacons, priests and bishops, with some exceptions an acolyte. But the acolyte is not an ordained person.

The canons also make it very clear that there must be a proper preparation and orientation before you can implement communino on the hand. However, the canon does not assume that those who receive communion on the tongue are better catechized. Why not? Because canon law is not about catechesis. It’s about what may lawfully be done. There are other guidelines for catechesis. So canon law simply says that you must catechize. To know how to do that, you have to go to the documents on catechesis.

I always use this example, canon law is not about love. The word love does not appear in canon law. It appears in the commentaries, but not in the law. Why not? The purpose of canon law is to make sure that we’re all doing what we should do, not to make us saints. Spirituality and catechesis are supposed to focus on that. You go to canon law to find out what you can and cannot do.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
MarkThompson said:
Thanks for all your hard work on it, Brother.

😃
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I wish that I could take a tiny bit of credit for the canons of 1983. But to be honest, I know very little about Canon Law. We had only two years of Caon Law in the seminary, divided into four topics: Consecrated Life (Duhhhh, being religious, ya’ think?); sacraments I; sacraments II; divine worship and sacred places. Hardly makes me an expert in Caon Law. The worse part was that I studied canon law from 1970-72 and had to redo the whole thing again in 1984. :banghead:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I wish that I could take a tiny bit of credit for the canons of 1983. But to be honest, I know very little about Canon Law. We had only two years of Caon Law in the seminary, divided into four topics: Consecrated Life (Duhhhh, being religious, ya’ think?); sacraments I; sacraments II; divine worship and sacred places. Hardly makes me an expert in Caon Law. The worse part was that I studied canon law from 1970-72 and had to redo the whole thing again in 1984. :banghead:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Oh, my mistake. 😉

Well, then thank you for all your hard work on your responses in this thread and so many others – those, I know you must take a long time to write, and it pays off. 👍
 
Please allow me to get this thread back on the rails.

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of information out there (Internet searches) on how CITH became the norm in the USA (even less for Canada). Here is a short summary:

“The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.”
stjohnsvaldosta.blogspot.com/2008/05/but-its-permitted.html

Even this account seems to contradict other information I’ve seen. When the Dutch started CITH the Pope issued an indult granting it’s continuation in the regions already established. It wasn’t lifted altogether and left to the individual bishops. That’s why it is so peculiar why Archbishop Bernardin tried three times to get it approved, the final using the votes of retired bishops.

Here’s a concise location of relevant Vatican documents:

communion-in-the-hand.org/index.php/mysterium_fidei/
 
Ockham said:
Please allow me to get this thread back on the rails.

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of information out there (Internet searches) on how CITH became the norm in the USA (even less for Canada). Here is a short summary:

“The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.”
stjohnsvaldosta.blogspot.com/2008/05/but-its-permitted.html

Even this account seems to contradict other information I’ve seen. When the Dutch started CITH the Pope issued an indult granting it’s continuation in the regions already established. It wasn’t lifted altogether and left to the individual bishops. That’s why it is so peculiar why Archbishop Bernardin tried three times to get it approved, the final using the votes of retired bishops.

Here’s a concise location of relevant Vatican documents:

communion-in-the-hand.org/index.php/mysterium_fidei/
Click to expand...
Communion in the Hand is a Protestant practise.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
The norm for reception is Communion on the Tongue (COTT).

The U.S. has an indult for CITH. Therefore as you say, it is approved, although recently Father Z had an interesting read in his blog about whether or not CITH would be an option for the EF (it seems it would not be according to the rubrics).

I don’t know if one can argue ‘should’ --the fact is, it has been approved in the U.S. (see Indult, above).

As for the why, I am sure that the reason is multifactorial. No doubt some sought it from loving and reverent motives; it is also possible that it was sought from motives of malice and dissent. We cannot be sure of the minds of any who were involved.

I prefer COTT myself.

I’ll make it clear that this is my own opinion here: Since the normal remains COTT, my personal opinion is that for the foreseeable future, the Indult for CITH should be revoked.

NOT because I feel that the majority of those who receive that way are wrong. Not because I think the practice is intrinsically wrong. Not because I want to drag the Church back to the Middle Ages.

BUT because there is so much dissent and so much ‘feeling’ and so much confusion regarding the whole concept of the Eucharist, and so many people have been either badly taught or have somehow fallen short in their understanding–I (personally feel) that in order to deal with the whole thing, the universal practice should be adhered to by all people until we can get ourselves as Christians ‘back’ to a correct understanding of the Eucharist.

If my computer had a bunch of add ons, even if some of the aps were really, really great. . .but they caused my computer to get slower, and slower, and finally crashed it to the black screen of death. . .well, in order to get my computer fixed I’d have to wipe out all that good stuff temporarily, wouldn’t I --to get my computer ‘back’ into running order? I’d have to go back to the basics before I could start to ‘add on’, and I’d have to be a lot more careful with those add ons knowing what could happen. I’m sure that in time I could have the really good worthwhile stuff, but some of the really great ‘looking’ stuff might turn out to be toxic for the computer. . .for a while at least if not always, . .no matter how ‘great’ it looked or how much I’d enjoyed it!
Click to expand...
I like your last paragraph, good analogy.

Here’s an idea. Right before the communion hymn, while kneeling, the whole congrigation, as well as all celebrants recite a profession of faith in the Eucharist. I think the byzantine rite has something similar. Here’s a sample:

“I profess that that which is upon this holy altar is no longer bread nor wine, but, as Christ himself promised in the Gospel, His own very body, blood, soul and divinity, not a sign, nor a symbol of the same, but His very essence. By partaking of this meal, I profess to cling to all the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines and precepts of the Holy Catholic Church all without exception, and that I am in a state of Grace.”

Or something like that.

These times are exactly what mandate positive additions to the Missal.
 
GIR said:
I like your last paragraph, good analogy.

Here’s an idea. Right before the communion hymn, while kneeling, the whole congrigation, as well as all celebrants recite a profession of faith in the Eucharist. I think the byzantine rite has something similar. Here’s a sample:

“I profess that that which is upon this holy altar is no longer bread nor wine, but, as Christ himself promised in the Gospel, His own very body, blood, soul and divinity, not a sign, nor a symbol of the same, but His very essence. By partaking of this meal, I profess to cling to all the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines and precepts of the Holy Catholic Church all without exception, and that I am in a state of Grace.”

Or something like that.

These times are exactly what mandate positive additions to the Missal.
Click to expand...
Wow! Thanks for this contribution and I will research this further. I agree that a profession of the sort you suggest would be ideal! It would put a stop to many abuses that occur on a regular basis ie reception by non-Catholics, those living in sin, etc.
 
GIR said:
Here’s a sample:
“I profess that that which is upon this holy altar is no longer bread nor wine, but, as Christ himself promised in the Gospel, His own very body, blood, soul and divinity, not a sign, nor a symbol of the same, but His very essence. By partaking of this meal, I profess to cling to all the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines and precepts of the Holy Catholic Church all without exception, and that I am in a state of Grace.”
Click to expand...
Not bad. Can we add a few words?

“I profess that that which is upon this holy altar is no longer bread nor wine, but, as Christ himself promised in the Gospel, His own very body, blood, soul and divinity, not a sign, nor a symbol of the same, but His very essence. By partaking of this meal, I profess to cling to all the doctrines, dogmas, and disciplines and precepts of the Holy Catholic Church all without exception and scandal, I have fasted accordingly, and that I am in a state of Sanctifying Grace.”
 
Robert_Burns said:
Communion in the Hand is a Protestant practise.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. As a Catholic, I’ve received communion in the hand since the 1970’s.

And historically, Catholics have practiced communion in the hand prior to the evolution of communion on the tongue.
 
Layman said:
I thought the Pope was part of the Magisterium too(?)

From what I’ve read on here, CITH is not promoted i.e. taught tp be a good discipline, apart from a selective, dubious quote from St. Cyril.** I would like to read quotes from Bishops other than St. Cyril promoting this practice as a postive thing to the Roman Catholic Faithful, explaining why COTT should be dumped in favour of it.**

CITH was stopped for hundreds of years. Why?
Then it was started up again in Holland recently. Why?

It’s not part of Tradition within the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as approved for the U.S.

It most certainly IS part of the tradition of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the Roman Church decided not to allow it for a period.
 
Ockham said:
a. The Bishop of Rome outranks the others. Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH.

b. Source? Where exactly does the Church teach CITH?

c. Have you read this thread? Have you done any research into this subject?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was under Pope Paul VI that communion in the hand was approved for the U.S.

The Church teaches this in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as approved for the U.S.

Yes, I’ve read this thread. I can only speak for the U.S., where I live, and where CITH has been approved by the Church since Paul VI. Have you read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal?
 
Ockham said:
The Jewish sader meal has a tradition of the host placing food directly onto the guest’s tongue. The Apostles were clergy.

"ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication."

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

*"The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority. "*

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
Click to expand...
Seder. Not sader.

The Apostles were not clergy, nor was Jesus. They were Jewish laymen.
 
Vince1022 said:
Read the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as approved for the U.S.

It most certainly IS part of the tradition of the Catholic Church, despite the fact that the Roman Church decided not to allow it for a period.
Click to expand...
How long was the period?

If you read this thread then you may remember the first post that indicated CITH is approved and we’re not debating that fact. The issue is should it be? What is your take on the Cardinal Bernardin actions?
 
Vince1022 said:
Yes, I’ve read this thread. I can only speak for the U.S., where I live, and where CITH has been approved by the Church since Paul VI.
Click to expand...
There were certain conditions imposed. Do you remember what they were offhand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top