Not just another CITH Thread...

[Vince1022]

Yet rogue priest and bishops prevent people from receiving this way on a regular basis. I guess they don’t understand what the “norm” is

I’ve never encountered any priest or bishop who denied reception of communion on the tongue. If they do, they are acting contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching.

 

[Vince1022]

Are you saying CITH has been around for the entire New Testament? Do you have a source for this claim?

What do you know about the Dutch bishops in the 60’s?

Yes, communion in the hand has been around since the New Testament. There is nothing in the New Testament that prescribes or proscribes methods of reception, so if you are denying something the burden of proof is on you.

I don’t know anything about the Dutch bishops in the 60’s. I only know what the Vatican teaches (and taught in the 60’s). What’s your point? Are you Dutch?

 

[Vince1022]

If you have read this thread like you claimed you would have come across many sources I have provided. So far you have yet to provide one. Don’t you think your position would have more credibility if you provided sources?

I’ve posted my sources…the teaching of the Catholic Church. What other sources do you consider more important?

 

[Vince1022]

CITH has been condemned by at least two councils. Prayers of the Faithful were not.

Lots of things were condemned (as you say) by previous Councils. Like Bishops moving to another diocese.

So what’s your point? Are you saying the Church is wrong?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

How’s it going, Alan? I have no great comeback lines for that post so I’ll just say that I acknowledge it.

Doing well, and you?

I’ve tried to stay out of these things but it gets so boring elsewhere.

Alan

 

[Layman]

So when the Prayer of the Faithful was “reintroduced” to the Mass following Vatican II, that was also a novelty in defiance of custom and Tradition?

I am looking at what a Mass is supposed to do. What it’s for. What it means. Subjectivity doesn’t apply. It’s an ancient mystical rite with stated meanings, done in a group setting. There must be objective standards that those attending, follow.

Introducting CITH to a secular RC diocese means either:

• COTT, kneeling was deficient, somehow and/ or
• Our forefathers were wrong and/or
• The Host is no longer as sacred.

I’m happy to hear other reasons. I think I’ve discounted the standard ones offered, previously.

I think we can discern the real motivation behind the changes to the RC rite if we consider that a simple translation into the local lingo wasn’t enough, if the vernacular was all that was wanted. First the text was modified,then the altar, altar rails, exclusion of women, etc.

**
The stated object: ‘To bring the Mass to the People’(?)
The effect: de-sacralisation. What was taboo no longer is.**

The R.C. Church should just collectively admit it made a big mistake in giving into trends. Don’t sweat defending the indefensible. Then we can go back to seeking sanctity via the TLM. Get priests formed properly with holiness as their objective and the rest will follow.

 

[ProVobis]

The Prayer of the Faithful was removed from the Mass by Pope Gregory the Great around 600 A.D. Vatican II restored this. Same with CITH…VII restored a traditional practice that had been removed for a period…

Not the same.

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]

I’ve never encountered any priest or bishop who denied reception of communion on the tongue. If they do, they are acting contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching.

You’re either denied or ostrasized in many OF’s if you don’t receive CITH. Either way it seems to violate a condition of having the CITH allowed in your setting.

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying the Church is wrong?

It appears that you’re the one who says the Church was wrong in condemning it numerous times. Where’s the wisdom of restoring such a practice after multiple condemnations?

 

[Ockham]

I’ve posted my sources…the teaching of the Catholic Church. What other sources do you consider more important?

The Church does not teach CITH. Repeat that to yourself as often as required.

By your participation in this thread it is clear this is a subject of interest to you. Why then do you refuse to learn anything about it? As Catholics we have a responsibility to know and practice our faith. It would be nice if all we need to know were taught in sermons, but sadly this isn’t the case in most parishes.

Here’s what you need to know about CITH:

• it has not been part of our tradition since the New Testament
• it has been considered an abuse for most of the Church’s history
• no pope has ever endorsed nor taught it
• rebellious Dutch clergy and laity started it up again in the 60’s
• Pope Paul VI ruled against it
• then Archbishop Bernardin needed three votes to get CITH into the US GIRM
• the third vote has suspicions of irregularities
• the universal norm of the Church is COTT
• Pope Benedict XVI only distributes the Blessed Sacrament to those who kneel before him and God and COTT

Throughout this thread you’ll find all the sources you need to confirm my statements above. Please show some respect to those who participate in this thread by backing up your statements with authorative sources. I can save you some time - you won’t find any.

 

[Ockham]

So it is not a given that CITH induces or results in lack of reverence.

You and I have debated this issue before so there’s no need to rekindle it. Here’s what some high ranking clergy have to say:

*"However, Archbishop Ranjith said, the introduction of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand coincides with the beginning of “a gradual and growing weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred eucharistic species.”

“I think the time has come to evaluate these practices and to review them and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice,” Archbishop Ranjith said.

“Now more than ever, it is necessary to help the faithful renew a lively faith in the real presence of Christ in the eucharistic species with the aim of reinforcing the very life of the church and defending it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith,” the archbishop wrote." *

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0800606.htm

Prefect of Divine Worship, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera

“What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What dies it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.”

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/12/kneeling-for-communion-and-communion-on.html

*“The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.” *

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

*"Opus Dei Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani Thorne told Petrus: “I maintain that the best way to administer Communion is on the tongue, so much so that in my diocese I have forbidden the host in the hand.”

The cardinal, who is Archbishop of Lima and a member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, said that “the relaxed attitude of many priests” was to blame for a decline in reverence for the Eucharist among the faithful. “In Masses with great attendance, in the past we even found hosts thrown on to the pavement of the church,” he added." *

thetablet.co.uk/article/11362

"*According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)" *

ecceagnusdei.blogspot.com/2007/09/communion-in-hand.html

 

[diggerdomer]

Not the same.

tldm.org/news5/cinh2.htm

Oh, so some random website is more authoritative than the Magisterium of the Catholic Church? What’s the point of your offering that link?

 

[Vince1022]

Introducting CITH to a secular RC diocese means either:

• COTT, kneeling was deficient, somehow and/ or
• Our forefathers were wrong and/or
• The Host is no longer as sacred.

I’m happy to hear other reasons. I think I’ve discounted the standard ones offered, previously.

Nonsense. For one, what do you possibly mean by a “secular RC diocese”? I mean, I didn’t know there were different types of RC dioceses? Are there “secular” RC dioceses and “other” RC dioceses? What describes “other”?

Anyway…no, despite what you offer, adding CITH as an option does not mean COTT kneeling is or was deficient. Nor does it mean our ancestors in the faith were wrong, nor does it mean the “Host” is no longer sacred.

Sorry, you just don’t seem to get the Catholic Tradition.

 

[Vince1022]

I am looking at what a Mass is supposed to do. What it’s for. What it means. Subjectivity doesn’t apply. It’s an ancient mystical rite with stated meanings, done in a group setting. There must be objective standards that those attending, follow.

Introducting CITH to a secular RC diocese means either:

• COTT, kneeling was deficient, somehow and/ or
• Our forefathers were wrong and/or
• The Host is no longer as sacred.

I’m happy to hear other reasons. I think I’ve discounted the standard ones offered, previously.

I think we can discern the real motivation behind the changes to the RC rite if we consider that a simple translation into the local lingo wasn’t enough, if the vernacular was all that was wanted. First the text was modified,then the altar, altar rails, exclusion of women, etc.

**
The stated object: ‘To bring the Mass to the People’(?)
The effect: de-sacralisation. What was taboo no longer is.**

The R.C. Church should just collectively admit it made a big mistake in giving into trends. Don’t sweat defending the indefensible. Then we can go back to seeking sanctity via the TLM. Get priests formed properly with holiness as their objective and the rest will follow.

I would strongly encourage you to read, prayerfully and faithfully, and with help as needed, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. It’s available online from the Vatican web site.

 

[Vince1022]

You’re either denied or ostrasized in many OF’s if you don’t receive CITH. Either way it seems to violate a condition of having the CITH allowed in your setting.

I have no idea what you mean. Sorry. Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[Vince1022]

The Church does not teach CITH.

Have you read the GIRM as approved by the Church for the U.S.? CITH is clearly an approved option there. Check it out when you have time, you’ll see that the Church does indeed teach CITH. If you need a link to it let me know. Thanks!

 

[Vince1022]

It appears that you’re the one who says the Church was wrong in condemning it numerous times. Where’s the wisdom of restoring such a practice after multiple condemnations?

I never said the Church was wrong to prohibit it. I never said the Church condemned it, and I don’t think the Church ever did…do you have a reference of where the Church “condemned” it? Maybe we need to talk about the difference between prohibiting and condemning? The Church never condemned this, for always and everywhere.

Where’s the wisdom of restoring any ancient practice that had been prohibited by the Church for a period?

Communion under both kinds?

Concelebration?

Prayer of the Faithful (General Intercessions)?

Who’s in charge here…you? me? The Magisterium?

 

[Vince1022]

The Church does not teach CITH. Repeat that to yourself as often as required.

By your participation in this thread it is clear this is a subject of interest to you. Why then do you refuse to learn anything about it? As Catholics we have a responsibility to know and practice our faith. It would be nice if all we need to know were taught in sermons, but sadly this isn’t the case in most parishes.

Here’s what you need to know about CITH:

• it has not been part of our tradition since the New Testament
• it has been considered an abuse for most of the Church’s history
• no pope has ever endorsed nor taught it
• rebellious Dutch clergy and laity started it up again in the 60’s
• Pope Paul VI ruled against it
• then Archbishop Bernardin needed three votes to get CITH into the US GIRM
• the third vote has suspicions of irregularities
• the universal norm of the Church is COTT
• Pope Benedict XVI only distributes the Blessed Sacrament to those who kneel before him and God and COTT

Throughout this thread you’ll find all the sources you need to confirm my statements above. Please show some respect to those who participate in this thread by backing up your statements with authorative sources. I can save you some time - you won’t find any.

What planet do you live on?

CITH has clearly been a part of Catholic tradition since the New Testament (the New Testament does not prescribe nor proscribe methods of receiving. Receiving on the tongue is clearly a later medieval development.)

CITH has not been considered an abuse for most of Catholic (read: Catholic) history.

What Popes have condemned CITH? Certainly not Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, nor Benedict X VI. If they haven’t condemned it, what’s the problem?

Pope Paul VI was the Pope when CITH was extended (as approved for the U.S. at least, which is the only personal knowledge I have). So you are simply factually wrong to say that he simply condemned it. It was under his pontificate that the nuns and priests at my parish taught us how to properly receive CITH.

You keep referring to Bernardin. I’m sorry, why? What relevance?

The third vote of what? Again, more personal speculative biases that are not common tradition.

The universal norm of the Church is of course applicable. But, at least here in the U.S., we follow the universal norms as approved by the Vatican for our region (conference). We don’t have a choice of norms to follow, we only follow the norms approved by the Vatican. And, again, ad nauseam, the norms approved by the Vatican allow either method of reception. Do you live in some place that is solely bound by the Vatican norms?

Pope Benedict is free to distribute communion as he sees fit. That is not binding on any other minister of communion. And, by Church law, in applicable regions, he is not free to deny communion to anyone with a different posture (as allowed) than he prefers. Just like ministers in the U.S. are not free to deny communion to those who prefer a posture other than recommended by the U.S. Bishops as the norm.

So, again…what planet are you from?

 

[JReducation]

As I try to follow this discussion I find myself being stunned at the circles. The facts are simple. I fail to understand why we can’t live with them.

• Communion on the tongue is the ordinary manner of receiving the Eucharist.
• Communion on the hand has always existed in the Catholic Church.
• Communion on the hand has always been practiced in the Roman Rite by certain groups what had the privilege to do so.
• It was not the common practice for the Roman Rite.
• It is an indult given to bishops in the Roman Rite.
• If the diocesan bishop approves it, it is not contrary to Church law.
• The Church has never dogmatically taught against communion on the hand’; therefore the pope can modify this discipline at his discretion.
• Communion on the tongue cannot be denied to any Catholic in the Roman Rite. Anyone who refuses to give a communicant communion on the tongue violates his/her right and should be reported to the local chancery. It’s that simple.

The chancery will determine if there is a just reason for denying it, such as a physical impairment in the deacon or priest who are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. I only mention this because I do know a priest who can only distribute communion in the hand because he’s legally blind.

Why do we have to research every document from Peter to Benedict XVI to understand what the Church may or may not do and what she allows and does not allow? In the end, what matters is what the Church allows and forbids today, not what she allowed and forbade yesterday. There is truth found in tradition. That’s not an argument or should not be. A part of the truth found in Catholic Tradition is the authority of Peter to bind and unbind. Until the pope retracts the indult, it remains and it must be accepted as it reads.

I remember this conversation came up at a General Chapter of our community. We have always had communion on the hand for the friars, but not for the laity. The introduction of communion on the tongue for the friars was a novelty that caused some distress, because Church law says that customs of religious institutes that are of a certain age remain in effect, even when the law changes. During the chapter, the Superior General made a statement that closed the issue. “If the Lord Pope allows this, then our Holy Father Francis will not begrudge us the use of the indult to receive communion on the tongue. It is contrary to the mind of our Holy Father to question the prudence of the Lord Pope.” The friars voted and the vote was unanimous. The indult to receive communion on the tongue was to be applied, because we were not being asked to commit a sin. We were being given an option on how to receive Holy Communion.

The logic works for those living outside of the conventual cloister, even though the question in in reverse, going from communion on the tongue to communion on the hand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[diggerdomer]

As I try to follow this discussion I find myself being stunned at the circles. The facts are simple. I fail to understand why we can’t live with them.

• Communion on the tongue is the ordinary manner of receiving the Eucharist.
• Communion on the hand has always existed in the Catholic Church.
• Communion on the hand has always been practiced in the Roman Rite by certain groups what had the privilege to do so.
• It was not the common practice for the Roman Rite.
• It is an indult given to bishops in the Roman Rite.
• If the diocesan bishop approves it, it is not contrary to Church law.
• The Church has never dogmatically taught against communion on the hand’; therefore the pope can modify this discipline at his discretion.
• Communion on the tongue cannot be denied to any Catholic in the Roman Rite. Anyone who refuses to give a communicant communion on the tongue violates his/her right and should be reported to the local chancery. It’s that simple.

The chancery will determine if there is a just reason for denying it, such as a physical impairment in the deacon or priest who are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. I only mention this because I do know a priest who can only distribute communion in the hand because he’s legally blind.

Why do we have to research every document from Peter to Benedict XVI to understand what the Church may or may not do and what she allows and does not allow? In the end, what matters is what the Church allows and forbids today, not what she allowed and forbade yesterday. There is truth found in tradition. That’s not an argument or should not be. A part of the truth found in Catholic Tradition is the authority of Peter to bind and unbind. Until the pope retracts the indult, it remains and it must be accepted as it reads.

I remember this conversation came up at a General Chapter of our community. We have always had communion on the hand for the friars, but not for the laity. The introduction of communion on the tongue for the friars was a novelty that caused some distress, because Church law says that customs of religious institutes that are of a certain age remain in effect, even when the law changes. During the chapter, the Superior General made a statement that closed the issue. “If the Lord Pope allows this, then our Holy Father Francis will not begrudge us the use of the indult to receive communion on the tongue. It is contrary to the mind of our Holy Father to question the prudence of the Lord Pope.” The friars voted and the vote was unanimous. The indult to receive communion on the tongue was to be applied, because we were not being asked to commit a sin. We were being given an option on how to receive Holy Communion.

The logic works for those living outside of the conventual cloister, even though the question in in reverse, going from communion on the tongue to communion on the hand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Amen! Thank you Brother JR!