Not just another CITH Thread...

[ProVobis]

Errr… that could just as easily describe any religious gathering. Symbolism is central to a religious rite. It says what we are doing.

Do it for another few years and you might get it into the rubrics: “Behold the sacred disinfectant!”

 

[Vince1022]

“In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologiae
Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine in 313 A.D.
served toward bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end.
After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the
hand persisted here and there. Church authority apparently judged that it
invited abuse and deemed it contrary to the custom of the Apostles.
Thus the Synod of Rouen, France, in about 878 directed: “Do not put the
Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but only in their mouths”
(“nulli autem laico aut feminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in
os eius”). (4) A non-ecumenical Council of Constantinople known as “In
Trullo” in 692 A.D. prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to
themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is
placed in the hand of communicants), and decreed a censure against those who
would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.”

Rev. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

*“The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” *

St. Thomas Aquinas
Summa Theologica
newadvent.org/summa/4082.htm

*"The Council of Trent, 1545-1565: “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.” " *communion-in-the-hand.org/index.php/eucharistic_ministers/

I don’t believe I said Pope ‘condemned’ CITH. Can you provide evidence? It seems curious you use the word ‘factually’ when you haven’t provided any facts to this discussion other than 'it’s approved".

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.

marysanawim.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/holy-communion-in-the-hand-the-true-story/

You said you were researching Bernardin. If true then you should have found that he was the head of the USCCB in the seventies. CITH was an abuse before he came around. He wanted CITH and called for a vote three times before he got it passed. Retired bishops were asked to vote on the third and submitted via mail. Pope Paul VI’s indult stated that for areas where CITH was already practiced it may continue. CITH was not practiced in the US in 1969 therefore the indult is not applicable.

Your random and selective internet links are no substitute for the tradition and practice of the Catholic Church through the ages.

Clearly, the early Church tradition (including the New Testament) did not specify exactly how communion was received. We can only go on inferences. You are likely aware of the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, “make of your hands a throne” in the 4th century. This clearly witnesses to the practice of CITH. Do you have any reference from the first 500 years or so of COTT being practiced? Any at all?

It’s not a matter of which is better. Both are traditional, both are approved today by the Church in many areas. So what’s your problem?

 

[Vince1022]

I’m not sure what this means. The universal norm of the Church is COTT and CITH is only an indult, an exception to the rule. The indult may be cancelled at any time.

The pope or any priest may deny CITH at any time. COTT cannot be denied.

*"All laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1
Corinthians 10:23:

“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify.” Communion in the hand, though
lawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of the
center of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapening
of what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of the
sacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, John
Paul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in Saint
Peter’s Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like to
restate the well known assertion “Where Peter is, you will find the
Church”, but would like to modify it by adding ‘and where the Church
is, you will find the truth’ (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: “the
Church is the pillar and foundation of our truth.”) My desire is for
priests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouraging
Communion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on this
matter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priests
have an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform their
parishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymen
reading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverence
for the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve to
take Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth".*

David L. Vise
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

CITH is not an indult in the U.S. Sorry. It’s approved by the Vatican along with COTT. Read the GIRM the Vatican approved for the U.S. There’s no indult there. You’re living in the past.

 

[diggerdomer]

Consider the Lavabo prayer in the EF:

*I wash my hands in innocense, and I go around Your altar, O Lord,

Giving voice to my thanks, and recounting all Your wonderous deeds.

O Lord, I love the house in which You dwell, the tenting-place of Your glory.

Gather not my soul with those of sinners, nor with men of blood my life.

On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes.

But I walk in integrity; redeem me, and have pity on me.

My foot stands on level ground, in the assemblies I will bless You, O Lord.*

Why does the priest say this prayer in the EF but not the OF? Even in the OF the priest says a shortened prayer and symbolically washed his hands. Yet, at Communion, a member of the laity who has not said any form of this prayer nor washed his/her hands symbolically distributes the Blessed Sacrament into the hands of another member of the laity who also didn’t pray the Lavabo.

Doesn’t the OF form make the Lavabo redundant?

Exactly. The lavabo is considered by many liturgists as an accretion (unnecessary, at best, addition) to the Mass that many would say has no place.

 

[diggerdomer]

So the pope can be disobeyed as long as the infraction is not against Canon Law?

Up to the Vatican or the bishops conferences?

CITH was ruled an abuse in the past yet crept into the modern GIRM. Supporters of liturgical dance have scriptural evidence to support their argument. The Church calls everyone to sainthood and gives every Catholic the duty to protect the faith.

That’s clear.

Hmm…is that a straw man or a red herring?

Hello?

Communion in the hand is approved by the Vatican, at least for the U.S. Not an indult. Not an abuse. Not something that “crept in.”

Do you read what the Church teaches?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Are you saying that CITH was allowed because if it wasn’t, it’s adherents might have gone into schism? I missed that, in earlier posts.

No, I am not saying that.

If it was not allowed, then those who receive via CITH would then be committing abuses. The gravity of the abuses I would suppose is minor because for one thing CITH already exists somewhere within the Church.

 

[Canto]

Not an indult.

CDWDS Notitiae (April 1999)

Response: …Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.

Papal liturgist Monsignor Marini

…it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an **indult **from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

So the pope can be disobeyed as long as the infraction is not against Canon Law?

Well, disobedience is disobedience. But there’s a reason why some offenses needed to be spelled out and meted out a harsher punishment. Also, remember that to those who much is given, much is required. Disobedience by Bishops are more grave than disobedience by the laity. One reason I see is because its obvious that Bishops are more educated in Church law, plus their status as a Bishop. A common Catholic laity won’t even know one line in Canon Law.

Up to the Vatican or the bishops conferences?

Whoever makes the decision it would have to get approval from the Pope

CITH was ruled an abuse in the past yet crept into the modern GIRM. Supporters of liturgical dance have scriptural evidence to support their argument. The Church calls everyone to sainthood and gives every Catholic the duty to protect the faith.

Liturgical dance may have scriptural evidence, but no evidence in tradition. CITH has been part of the Church’s history since the 1st century.

That’s clear.

My purpose here is to learn through conversation, and share what I have learned. I wouldn’t gain anything by deception

Hmm…is that a straw man or a red herring?

Its a red man with a straw herring.

I think its a good analogy. Many things happen coincidentally and it would easy to blame one thing for what is happening. My child’s birth can easily be associated with global warming, you can say its overpopulation that’s causing global warming. The amount of diapers that have gone to the trash since my child’s birth. There’s so many thing in there that can be made into a good argument. But still its unfounded since you cannot prove that its directly linked.

 

[JReducation]

There are several points here that need major clarification.

1. The Church never adopted Thomas Aquinas’ position on the priest being the only person who could distribute Holy Communion. When we use the Doctors, we must make sure that we use what was adopted or at least what is not contrary to the Church’s practice or teaching. Deacons have always distributed Holy Communion, since apostolic times. Even during Aquinas’ times and in his own order, deacons distributed Holy Communion. Aquinas held positions on several issues that the Church does not accept. That does not take away from his great work. He was opposed to the Immaculate Conception too. He and Bonaventure debated over the Holy Communion issue. Bonaventure defended the fact that his founding father was not a priest, but distributed Holy Communion worthily.
2. The statement by Trent is mistranslated. The term used in the Latin refers to the priesthood in the sense of the ordained. This includes the deacon. We tend to forget that the diaconate is one of the three orders of the priesthood. The language of Trent does not exclude the deacon.
3. As far as the indult is concerned, what happens is that the Church in her mercy uses whatever power is at her disposal to save souls. When communion in the hand broke out in Europe, there were two choices: do battle with those dioceses that had introduced them or decree an indult. After careful consideration, it was decided to decree an indult. The indult is possible, because communion on the hand is a matter of discipline, not doctrine. Just because it was discussed at Trent, does not make it a doctrine. CITH has been around since the beginning of the Church. If it were a heresy, it would not be allowed in any situation. The fact that it was allowed to other Catholic Churches and to specific religious orders in the Roman Church, is a clear indication that it was not a heresy. I’m sorry that the word Franciscan is no longer polite on this thread, but those are the facts. In those communities that had equality between the ordained and the non-ordained, this was a point of discussion and COTH was part of internal customs in many provinces to unite the friars and eliminate clericalism. At the time and in the provinces where it was implemented, there were no restrictions against it. It was internal, because it was meant for the conventual mass. In those days, the friars did not run parishes. That came hundreds of years later.
4. The goal of the indult was to relieve those dioceses that began with COTH of possible canonical infractions that could be remedied by the indult. It was the Holy Father’s wish to relax the discipline so that people would not find themselves in a state of the sin of disobedience. They were not in a state of heresy, because this is not a matter of dogma. Their mass was not invalid, because this is not part of the matter. It’s part of the form. Therefore, the act was illicit. The eternal wish of the Church is to provide as much protection from sin as possible. Often, through history, she has changed or relaxed disciplines to alleviate people of culpable sins.

She has the power to do so and the authority to do so. The Church cannot change doctrine or revealed truths. She can change disciplines that she has created. She can dispense with them, create exceptions to them, and make them more demanding or less demanding.

We can disagree with the effects, which is what this entire discussion is about. We cannot disagree with the right of the Church to declare the indult or the right of the Church to maintain the indult. That would be spiritual arrogance on our part.

For example, I don’t like having EMHC at every mass, if the crowd is small. However, I do not have the right to campaign to have them eliminated. Why not? Because I never had the authority to implement it. Only the person who has the authority to do something has the right to undo it. This was not decided through a democratic referendum. Therefore, it’s change is not going to happen through some democratic process either.

We can share our concerns. We can request that the Church change something. That we can do. We should not assume to have the authority and the power to twist the Church’s arm into doing something. That is coercion. Coercion is immoral. We should not rally the troops to get what we want. Whether one is on the left or the right side of the aisle, such rallying only broadens the chiasm between Christians. The goal is to unite, not create more division. Maybe this is the reason that the indult is still in place. Just maybe, the popes believe that it’s not the right time to revoke it, because it can do more harm than good. I’m not the pope, so I’m not inside his head. But if I had to answer why he has not revoked it, I would have to say that he sees a greater good in having it than in not having it. I can’t see the pope wanting to keep an indult in place because he likes to see people fight over it. He certainly knows that some people are opposed to it and he has said nothing. Maybe the day will come when he will revoke it, but not today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

CDWDS Notitiae (April 1999)

Response: …Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.

Papal liturgist Monsignor Marini

…it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an **indult **from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it.

Communion on the tongue may never be refused. Communion on the hand may not be refused where the indult is in place.

That being said, the indult has provisions that allow the bishop to decide when it may and may not be used. The indult was granted to the entire USCCB. Nonetheless, the bishop of my diocese my decide not to make use of it. If the bishop does make use of it, then the parishes must do so, unless they have the bishop’s pernmission not to do, such as the FSSP, FI, and others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Canto]

Communion on the tongue may never be refused. Communion on the hand may not be refused where the indult is in place.

That being said, the indult has provisions that allow the bishop to decide when it may and may not be used. The indult was granted to the entire USCCB. Nonetheless, the bishop of my diocese my decide not to make use of it. If the bishop does make use of it, then the parishes must do so, unless they have the bishop’s pernmission not to do, such as the FSSP, FI, and others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks. And of course…

Redemptionis Sacramentum #92 If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

And out of interest, noting the GIRM #118, R.S. #93 says: The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

 

[ConstantineTG]

We can share our concerns. We can request that the Church change something. That we can do. We should not assume to have the authority and the power to twist the Church’s arm into doing something. That is coercion. Coercion is immoral. We should not rally the troops to get what we want. Whether one is on the left or the right side of the aisle, such rallying only broadens the chiasm between Christians. The goal is to unite, not create more division. Maybe this is the reason that the indult is still in place. Just maybe, the popes believe that it’s not the right time to revoke it, because it can do more harm than good. I’m not the pope, so I’m not inside his head. But if I had to answer why he has not revoked it, I would have to say that he sees a greater good in having it than in not having it. I can’t see the pope wanting to keep an indult in place because he likes to see people fight over it. He certainly knows that some people are opposed to it and he has said nothing. Maybe the day will come when he will revoke it, but not today.

Oohhh, a guessing game! Let me pitch in!

My guess is the Pope is seeing if he can encourage people to give up the indult without actually rescinding the indult. Its like enforcing tougher laws against tobacco without outright banning tobacco. More people are encouraged to quit smoking now, but at the same time you don’t want to start jailing or fining the smokers. But its harder now to find places to smoke.

With CITH, the Pope has already stopped distributing CITH himself. Cardinals have spoken against it, but I doubt it will stop the indult.

 

[Layman]

However, I do not have the right to campaign to have them eliminated. Why not? Because I never had the authority to implement it. Only the person who has the authority to do something has the right to undo it. This was not decided through a democratic referendum. Therefore, it’s change is not going to happen through some democratic process either.

We can share our concerns. We can request that the Church change something. That we can do. We should not assume to have the authority and the power to twist the Church’s arm into doing something. That is coercion. Coercion is immoral. We should not rally the troops to get what we want. Whether one is on the left or the right side of the aisle, such rallying only broadens the chiasm between Christians. The goal is to unite, not create more division. Maybe this is the reason that the indult is still in place. Just maybe, the popes believe that it’s not the right time to revoke it, because it can do more harm than good.

Don’t know how I could coerce a priest or bishop to say the old rite or do away with CITH. Maybe if I was a major donor to the church? I think modernism is too embedded to be done away with by fiat, anyway. It takes guts to introduce the old rite into an N.O. parish and I think priests are too afraid to upset the liturgical directors, EMHCs, choir masters, etc.

Example: I mentioned to a priest that singing Andrew LLoyd Webber’s “Requiem” at a feast of Our Lady was dumb. His reply “Oh, I don’t want to upset our singer”.

If a group can, through disobedience, get an indult for CITH,** I don’t see why laymen can’t make it known to their pastors that they favour COTT.** The Church has created the chasms you mentioned herself. I have politely mentioned to priests I know that I favour the old rite and that I attend it whenever possible.** If enough people do this, we may get less personalised and populist Masses. **

A small example: my father told me that the Mass times were changed in our local church. They had remained the same for near 100 years. The canon who did it complained, (at a subsequent Mass, I think,) that fewer people were attending. Someone piped up from the pews: “That’s because you changed the Mass times!”.

The Mass times were changed back.

Think about it: what’s happened to the Church post 1940 is insane. It’s like teenagers have got into the adults’ dressing room and are now playing at religion. I’ve read that the Orthodox were deeply suspicious of Rome until Pope Benedict arrived; all they had to do was look at Sunday Mass at a liberal parish and shudder.
**
CITH got going because of herd behaviour, I think. It can be done away with likewise.**

 

[Sherry_G]

Not all Catholics are interested in following the Gospels in the manner of St. Francis. If this is the path you’ve chosen then may God bless you. Perhaps a better use of your time would be in offering counsel to those who seek it rather than constantly interjecting the Fransican perspective it into chatroom discussions…

I am always eager to learn more about my beautiful Catholic faith, especially from JR.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Maybe with all the writers we have here, someone could draft a cut-and-paste letter to send to a bishop asking that CITH be done away with. Those who want could actually do something that might be useful, at least more useful than not doing so.

I’m not personally interested in seeing CITH done away with, at least unless and until we get rid of all non-priests giving out Communion, so I don’t have the interest or probably the background to draft one myself.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Ockham]

Your random and selective internet links are no substitute for the tradition and practice of the Catholic Church through the ages.

Clearly, the early Church tradition (including the New Testament) did not specify exactly how communion was received. We can only go on inferences. You are likely aware of the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, “make of your hands a throne” in the 4th century. This clearly witnesses to the practice of CITH. Do you have any reference from the first 500 years or so of COTT being practiced? Any at all?

It’s not a matter of which is better. Both are traditional, both are approved today by the Church in many areas. So what’s your problem?

You accuse me of using ‘random and selective internet links’ then go on to base your entire argument on ‘inference’?

I have provided many quotes and links from popes, saints, councils, and clergy. You haven’t provided one relevant to the discussion. In the first post I gave three givens therefore not worth debating. The issue here (thus why this was intended not to be just another CITH thread) is whether it should be approved using historicial references rather than emotional opinion.

CITH is an indult in the U.S.A. This is a fact. If you deny this you are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the discussion. As I have provided the proof that it is an indult and you claim to have read this thread then it could be concluded you are intentionally trying to mislead. This could be considered bearing false witness and I urge you to consider that very seriously as it is a mortal sin.

Unless you can provide support for your opinion this exchange between us has run its course.

 

[Ockham]

My guess is the Pope is seeing if he can encourage people to give up the indult without actually rescinding the indult. Its like enforcing tougher laws against tobacco without outright banning tobacco. More people are encouraged to quit smoking now, but at the same time you don’t want to start jailing or fining the smokers. But its harder now to find places to smoke.

With CITH, the Pope has already stopped distributing CITH himself. Cardinals have spoken against it, but I doubt it will stop the indult.

Wish I’d posted that.

 

[Ockham]

Thanks. And of course…

Redemptionis Sacramentum #92 If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

And out of interest, noting the GIRM #118, R.S. #93 says: The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

Exactly. The indult states concern for the particles must be practiced. How’s that done in the typical CITH/Novus Ordo?

Has any priest or bishop withdrawn CITH due to profanation? There is evidence of desecration to Hosts so that would qualify.

 

[Ockham]

CITH has been part of the Church’s history since the 1st century.

Not in the Latin rite. It’s time to stop promulgating this myth.

 

[Layman]

Not in the Latin rite. It’s time to stop promulgating this myth.

That’s interesting. Didn’t know that.