Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But slow down here, deacons do not perform the ritual either and they have the right to distribute communion. They are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not the intention of the Church that only those who wash their hand and recite the ritual prayer distribute communion. It never was. Priests concelebrating do not was their hands either and they too distribute Communion. The point is that the prayer and the ritual is not tied into the distribution of Communion. The six rites and the 22 Catholic Churches that make up the universal Catholic Church have deacons distributing communion since the Apostolic age. The ritual has never been tied in to the ministry of Holy Communion. It was meant for the celebrant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
That’s an excellent point. Besides which, I suppose if the priest saying the Confiteor by himself while the people remain quiet is good enough to “cover” the people because he represents them and is saying the prayer on their behalf, then the priest saying the Lavabo ought to be good enough to “cover” anyone else who might be distributing Communion. 🙂
 
There are many people poorly taught, whether they receive COTT or CITH. In another thread there is a discussion about whether saying Amen in the OF Mass as called for by the GIRM is mandatory, and if the minister of the Eucharist has the right to withhold communion until the proper response is given. I was taught that was the case, but upon an effort to research it I cannot find a Church document that specifically states that a person cannot receive unless they say Amen even if the GIRM calls out for it. Same case with what you are saying, do we withhold Communion just because a person doesn’t posture the hands properly? Doesn’t bow? Etc.? Canon Law only supports withholding Communion for those you know are excommunicated and under penalty of law. So a minister of the Eucharist would have to give communion to those who freely seek it.
The amen is part of the communion rite. But you may not withhold the sacrament because ther communicant does not say it. The way that this works is that you can only withhold communion if there is a case where there is public sin and the bishop has authorized such an action. There are other reasons given in Canon Law and in the GIRM for withholding Communion, but this is not one of them…

That being said, many times, if the minister of Holy Communion is sharp he will ask if the person has made their first Communion or if they are Catholic. There are times when this is the reason why you don’t get a response. The person does not know the rite. This can happen in either form or in any of the rites. I remember going to mass at a Chaldean parish and not knowing the proper rite for Holy Communion. It’s not a rite with which I’m familiar. Being my first time there, I made a few mistakes. The priest asked me if I was Catholic. I explained that I belonged to the Church of Rome and he just smiled and said “OK”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Dunno. I wipe wipe my rear-end and pick my nose with my hand. I’m careful about what I put in my mouth. So I’d say COTT is the safer option.
I don’t know about you, but I was never always a good Catholic. And I can say that there are things that enter one person’s mouth that shouldn’t be there.

Besdies, from a spiritual sense, most of us sin with our mouths more than we do with our hands. How many otherwise good Catholics would readily gossip or say bad things about other people? As opposed to people who with their hands will inflict pain or death on others?

Also, from a biological point of view, there are more bacteria in your mouth than your hand. One obvious reason is that we can easily clean our hands with tough, highly toxic, anti-bacterial chemicals. We can’t with our mouths.
Onegin said:
I think EMHCs and CITH just add more bother and potential for sacrilege to the rite e.g. search on the phrase ‘EMHC guidelines’. google.com/search?q=EMHC+guidelines There seems to be a deal of variety.

One site I found had a poignant line, which I paraphrase: “If a communicant doesn’t consume the host immediately, say quietly (as they walk away): 'Please consume the host now”.

Lunacy.
Those who seek to profane the Host can do so even if its placed on their tongue in their mouth.
 
Dearest Brother,

I believe only Moderators are authorized to give instruction on what can be posted here. Are you a Moderator?

It is my understanding that this forum exists for discussion on traditional Catholic subjects. Currently there are Archbishops and Cardinals discussing the subject of CITH publically, so it is relevant.

There is no hatred, intolerance, or any other sin in this thread. It is supposed to be a mature discussion on a contemporary issue. If you go back to the first post, ‘it’s approved’ is a given and not intended to be debated.

Thank you for taking so much time out of your day for this thread.

Peace,

Ockham 🙂
Wow, in reading some of JR’s posts to others, I thought he was a moderator, too. I’ve lurked here more than posted, and I am surprised to find he isn’t on the list (guess I should have looked rather than assumed, lol) Thanks for the info

I think many people confuse intensity for something more nefarious, and since we can’t see through the screens, I like to give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

As for the topic. I’d like to see CITH done away with for the simple reason we should present to the Blessed Sacrament the least corrupted vehicle to receive. Hands that have hung onto pews, hands, kneelers, and used kleenex don’t meet the definition as the best…IMHO
 
The amen is part of the communion rite. But you may not withhold the sacrament because ther communicant does not say it. The way that this works is that you can only withhold communion if there is a case where there is public sin and the bishop has authorized such an action. There are other reasons given in Canon Law and in the GIRM for withholding Communion, but this is not one of them…

That being said, many times, if the minister of Holy Communion is sharp he will ask if the person has made their first Communion or if they are Catholic. There are times when this is the reason why you don’t get a response. The person does not know the rite. This can happen in either form or in any of the rites. I remember going to mass at a Chaldean parish and not knowing the proper rite for Holy Communion. It’s not a rite with which I’m familiar. Being my first time there, I made a few mistakes. The priest asked me if I was Catholic. I explained that I belonged to the Church of Rome and he just smiled and said “OK”.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
That made me curious Bro. JR. I went to a Chaldean Mass and received the same way as I did in a Latin Rite Mass. The most significant diffrence I saw during Communion is the incense on the table in the middle of the two Communion lines. People place their hand over to purify their hands for receiving CITH. Otherwise, everything was the same. Or at least the Deacon did not deny me Communion. But the Chaldean parish here only shares space with a Latin Rite Parish, so I guess they’re more prepared for Latin Rite visitors than a Chaldean Parish.

So what’s the difference?
 
I don’t know about you, but I was never always a good Catholic. And I can say that there are things that enter one person’s mouth that shouldn’t be there.
Well, we are supposed to fast before we receive. Maybe we should extend that fast to three hours and require teeth brushing? I wouldn’t oppose that.
 
I never said that.

You just dodged my question: who initated the indult?
This is where I was trying to help before with the example of the saints. The practice began ilegally. But the indult itself was given by the Vatican. In our quest for holiness, if we look to our saints, we find that they accept what the legitimate authority accepts, regardless of how it begins. Once it is accepted by the legitimate authority in the Church, it becomes permissible.

The same can be said for many other practices. There are many that began without the permission of the Church, but were eventually approved by the Church. I’ll give you one simple example. In 1209, Francis of Assisi forbade the use of Gregorian chant at mass and at the Divine Office. He established that the ordained friars would not single themselves out, but should be known as Brother, serve and work alongside the non-clerical friars as equals. He established that at the conventual mass the friars were to avoid all semblances of distinctions between the ordained and the non-clerical except in matters that pertained to the sacrament itself, which was to be revered by all.

All of this was contrary to the existing laws of the time. Houses were monastic and usually run by priests. Non-clerical monks were called lay brothers and were servants to the ordained. The mass and the Divine Office was chanted in Gregorian Chant. Most religious lived in an enclosure that they rarely left. While Francis designed the enclosure to be flexible. The laity did not enter, but the friars and the nuns went out, such as Mother Angelica and her sisters do to this day.

One can question whether it was legal to do all of this. It certainly was way out of the ordinary. But once Pope Honorius put a papal bull on Francis’ rule in 1223, there was no doubt as to the licaity of these rules. They were accepted, because the pope accepted them. Prior to 1223, there were many arguments about their liceity, especially the rules that governed the clerics and that forced them to be anonymous and on equal footing with the non-clerics. The concept took on a new meaning in the Church. Eventually people forgot how it all began and the important thing became that it was accepted by the Church and therefore accepted by those in communion with the Church.

In the 1950s many of our men decided that they wanted Gregorian Chant and introduced it in some of our houses. They decided that they wanted altar rails and introduced them in our churches and chapels. By the mid-1960s the practice was becoming common, but it was illegal. In 1970 a General Chapter was called and Pope Paul VI wrote an indult to allow Gregorian Chant, altar rails and a number of other practices that were contrary to the law.

These things are done, because the Church in her mercy does not want people in spiritually dangerous situations that can be remedied by an indult, sometimes by a complete change in discipline. We’re seeing this again today with the ordination of married men to the Roman Rite. It is a pastoral provision, not the norm. But we accept the Pastoral Provision, because it is approved by the pope. Those who do not like attending mass with a married priest have other choices.

On the journey toward holiness, we must remain focussed on the center of our faith: Christ, the avoidance of sin, the conversion away from sin when we do fall, and the perfection of charity. Every other concern should be measured against this backdrop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Wow, in reading some of JR’s posts to others, I thought he was a moderator, too. I’ve lurked here more than posted, and I am surprised to find he isn’t on the list (guess I should have looked rather than assumed, lol) Thanks for the info

I think many people confuse intensity for something more nefarious, and since we can’t see through the screens, I like to give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

As for the topic. I’d like to see CITH done away with for the simple reason we should present to the Blessed Sacrament the least corrupted vehicle to receive. Hands that have hung onto pews, hands, kneelers, and used kleenex don’t meet the definition as the best…IMHO
The mouth has been proven to be dirtier than the hand, both in a spiritual point of view (we sin more withour mouths than our hand) and in a biological sense
 
The mouth has been proven to be dirtier than the hand, both in a spiritual point of view (we sin more withour mouths than our hand) and in a biological sense
FWIW, the dental profession calls the mouth the laboratory of the body.
 
That made me curious Bro. JR. I went to a Chaldean Mass and received the same way as I did in a Latin Rite Mass. The most significant diffrence I saw during Communion is the incense on the table in the middle of the two Communion lines. People place their hand over to purify their hands for receiving CITH. Otherwise, everything was the same. Or at least the Deacon did not deny me Communion. But the Chaldean parish here only shares space with a Latin Rite Parish, so I guess they’re more prepared for Latin Rite visitors than a Chaldean Parish.

So what’s the difference?
It was the incense that threw me off. I was in Turkey and I do not speak the language. I was not sure what to do. I walked right past it. The priest noticed it. He was very nice and did not make me go back and do it again. He just asked me. Fortunately, he spoke French or I would not have known what he was asking. Also, in Turkey they don’t share a building with a Roman Church. They have their own building. The organization of the space is different. Remember, they’re not only a different rite. They are a different Church that uses the East Syrian Rite. When you visit them in their homeland, they’re very different from what you see in the USA. But they’re very nice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
It was the incense that threw me off. I was in Turkey and I do not speak the language. I was not sure what to do. I walked right past it. The priest noticed it. He was very nice and did not make me go back and do it again. He just asked me. Fortunately, he spoke French or I would not have known what he was asking. Also, in Turkey they don’t share a building with a Roman Church. They have their own building. The organization of the space is different. Remember, they’re not only a different rite. They are a different Church that uses the East Syrian Rite. When you visit them in their homeland, they’re very different from what you see in the USA. But they’re very nice.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
I guess the population in my location is not enough to support their own parish. I’ve known the parish priest because he also celebrates Mass in the Latin Rite, and has twice in the past year substituted in our parish when our parish priest was away.

I did put my hands on the incense but I received COTT because the two people in front of me received COTT. I was prepared to receive CITH but I was not sure if there was a difference in posture and I didn’t see anyone to copy. I guess most of them are Latinized, as there were also quite a few kneelers during Mass.
 
Wow, in reading some of JR’s posts to others, I thought he was a moderator, too. I’ve lurked here more than posted, and I am surprised to find he isn’t on the list (guess I should have looked rather than assumed, lol) Thanks for the info

I think many people confuse intensity for something more nefarious, and since we can’t see through the screens, I like to give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

As for the topic. I’d like to see CITH done away with for the simple reason we should present to the Blessed Sacrament the least corrupted vehicle to receive. Hands that have hung onto pews, hands, kneelers, and used kleenex don’t meet the definition as the best…IMHO
LOL, no I’m not employed by CAF or a CAF volunteer. However, my canonical assignment is to do online ministry. I spend a lot of time on many forums.

I used to teach theology for many years, hence the screen name. I developed terminal cancer last year. I was reassigned to pro-life and media ministry, because I don’t have to move around as much and I can modify my schedule according to my health. Some days I go longer than others. It’s actually a great ministry, because our founder dictated to us to go out and preach to Catholics. Today, one of the best ways to reach a large number of Catholics is the internet.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Those who seek to profane the Host can do so even if its placed on their tongue in their mouth.
You’re reaching, here. It’s easy, through crafty palming or simple ignorance, to make a plaything of the Host if CITH is used. Also, I don’t want to know what you’ve put in your mouth that was as bad as me wiping me bum with my hand or sneezing into it. **The mouth is the eventual destination of the host, regardless. Using the hand as an intermediary just increases the probability, Churchwide, of greater mischief. ** And that’s apart from the symbolism of the change.

Still haven’t heard a good reason for changing a diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

It’s a sacred rite for the propitiation of God and this is an improvement? Boggles the mind.
 
You’re reaching, here. It’s easy, through crafty palming or simple ignorance, to make a plaything of the Host if CITH is used. Also, I don’t want to know what you’ve put in your mouth that was as bad as me wiping me bum with my hand or sneezing into it.
Don’t worry, its been hidden under the seal of confession. 😃
**The mouth is the eventual destination of the host, regardless. Using the hand as an intermediary just increases the probability, Churchwide, of greater mischief. ** And that’s apart from the symbolism of the change.

Still haven’t heard a good reason for changing a diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

It’s a sacred rite for the propitiation of God and this is an improvement? Boggles the mind.
I think Bro. JR already wrote a beautiful piece on why. Sometimes the Church doesn’t do something because the practice in itself is a greater good. Sometimes we need to stretch the boundaries of the discipline of the faith so that more people may be saved. I guess this goes into what I’ve been saying why Jesus chose a fisherman to head His Church. Sometimes he needs to move the boat where more fish can be caught. Sometimes he just needs to cast a bigger net. The interest of the Church is to save as many souls as it can, its the entire purpose of why Jesus established the Church. The Church should be more inclusive, not exclusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top