My apologies Thomas. I just felt I had to defend myself there after being called disingenuous. I truly am more interested in debating the topic, not another person. I promise to do better moving forward. Thank you for keeping everyone in-check, myself included.A direction was given that you may not speak about other posters. Some people have failed to comply. Infractions are now being given. The next step is to close the thread and put a moratorium on the subject until people back-off each other.
Please cooperate by posting on the subject, not about each other.
Thomas Casey
Moderator
Sorry, don’t understand. What do you claim an individual bishop can disallow on his own authority? Thanks!Technically, yes, because a bishop can disallow it where he feels it is necessary. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t. And I’m sure the Vatican would have no problems with it.
On a wider level, in the next time they vote on the matter, if 2/3rds of the US bishops don’t vote for it, then it gets dropped entirely.
Ok, fine. But I’m talking about the whole of the Catholic tradition. Not just one person’s esteemed thoughts. When did kneeling as a posture become “traditional”? When did on the tongue become “traditional”? Does Cardinal Arinze or any other source you have say more on that?Call it what you want but kneeling and receiving on the tongue is the traditional and preferred way of receiving, per Cardinal Arinze.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4
Can you give us a source for God caring so much about rubrics (i.e. referring to the current Mass, not Moses)? And you might want to read through the whole thread before commenting, it’s been a very engaging and thought-provoking discussion.I have not read through the pages and pages of this thread, but, it is suffice to say that rubrics very much matter to God.
Yes, I know about citing people’s messages, but so often there are so many diverse points raised in one comment I prefer to address them individually in the interest of keeping a semblance of focus and continuity. As you did in your post.[To: DiggerDoner:
You can respond to all of a person’s points, in one post, if you copy and paste the opening and closing ‘quote’ tags and use them to ‘bookend’ each of the quoted person’s points separately.]
Now, with regard to whether CITH is an indult in the US or not, it seems you may know about the relevant documents already and can give us a precis of the discussion, here. Others may find it interesting.
Still can’t think of any spiritual benefit changing from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. It’s a weird thing to do, in the context of a religious rite and Who you are handling.
Reminds me once again of a story I read once on here:
Muslim to Catholic: “So you believe your God is in that little gold box up there?”.
Catholic: “Well, yes”.
Muslim: “So why aren’t you on your knees?”
I didn’t say Roman Catholic clergy were allowed to marry. Please, read.Errr … when were R. C. clergy last allowed to marry?
Also, ‘The Pope approves of CITH’ is disingenuous. It being allowed does not imply approval, as that word is commonly understood. I would like to read where bishops or a Pope came out and said* “CITH is good, because [insert reasons here], go do it”.* That would be approval.
Dunno when, or if, CITH existed in the RC Church, but it seems to have been dropped at least over 1000 years ago. If so, why revive it now?
This entire line of reasoning makes no sense. Are you saying that God painstakingly cared about the rubrics of proper worship in the Old Testament, so much so that He shamed Cain, yet all of sudden with the foundation of the Church the Lord could suddenly care less? The Most Holy Trinity sounds like it changes It’s mind a good deal for being transcendent of time and space. I would consider that if the Lord had any concern for rubric in the past, that concern probably remains unphased.Can you give us a source for God caring so much about rubrics (i.e. referring to the current Mass, not Moses)? And you might want to read through the whole thread before commenting, it’s been a very engaging and thought-provoking discussion.
So, you are saying that the Church “approving” and “allowing” something are significantly different? Please clarify. Otherwise, following Church teaching means we may be doing something not approved (or allowed,…or whatever you mean by this apparent distinction).Also, ‘The Pope approves of CITH’ is disingenuous. It being allowed does not imply approval, as that word is commonly understood. I would like to read where bishops or a Pope came out and said* “CITH is good, because [insert reasons here], go do it”.* That would be approval.
CITH existed from the beginning (unless anyone has evidence otherwise).Dunno when, or if, CITH existed in the RC Church, but it seems to have been dropped at least over 1000 years ago. If so, why revive it now?
I shouldn’t have to repeat this and wonder why certain members still require it. CITH is in the US GIRM by an indult. Pope Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini allowed CITH for areas where it was already in practice. The USCCB headed by Archbishop Bernardin petitioned three times to get it approved in the US where it was not in practiced when MD was issued in 1969. Bernardin’s third vote included mail-in proxies by retired clergy something many describe as unusual.
The indult is an exception to the rule permitted by the Vatican and can be retracted at anytime by the Vatican or the USCCB. CITH is not taught by the Church (prove me otherwise). The ‘make your palm a throne’ quote is taken out of context and anyone promoting it owes it to themselves and others to learn the whole story. In fact popes, saints, doctors of the Church have and continue to teach COTT while kneeling and there are many examples contained in this thread.
The title of this thread was intended to steer the conversation away from the mindless refrain of “it’s approved” into a more indepth study of CITH’s history and value compared to COTT. Out of respect to everyone interested in this subject if all you have to offer is some variation of “it’s approved” please find something else to post about or spend some time researching and learning about this modern trend in the Roman Catholic Church.
I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions from this thread. To say that CITH is permitted is a truth no onn can object to. But to say you feel there is therefore no best or holiest way (to use your terms) I think is to miss the points of what has been said. The Church has definitely said there is a preferred and even best way to receive the Holy Eucharist, it simply is not compulsory. That is very different from saying it is all the same no matter how you do it.Yes, I know about citing people’s messages, but so often there are so many diverse points raised in one comment I prefer to address them individually in the interest of keeping a semblance of focus and continuity.
I accept that you may not find a spiritual benefit in how the Church allows communion to be received. No problem. To me, this is one of the graces of the Catholic Church, that diversity does not threaten unity. I am glad the Church offers options for reception of communion. I don’t think there is one and only one best/holiest way. I respect those who feel differently than I do regarding what the Church allows. Certainly, I have my personal preferences, but I don’t impose them on others. Rather, I accept what the Church teaches.
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). "The right COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). "The fact that only the priestOk, last time I’ll repeatedly ask: what indult?I shouldn’t have to repeat this and wonder why certain members still require it. CITH is in the US GIRM by an indult. Pope Paul VI’s Memoriale Domini allowed CITH for areas where it was already in practice. The USCCB headed by Archbishop Bernardin petitioned three times to get it approved in the US where it was not in practiced when MD was issued in 1969. Bernardin’s third vote included mail-in proxies by retired clergy something many describe as unusual.
The indult is an exception to the rule permitted by the Vatican and can be retracted at anytime by the Vatican or the USCCB. CITH is not taught by the Church (prove me otherwise). The ‘make your palm a throne’ quote is taken out of context and anyone promoting it owes it to themselves and others to learn the whole story. In fact popes, saints, doctors of the Church have and continue to teach COTT while kneeling and there are many examples contained in this thread.
The title of this thread was intended to steer the conversation away from the mindless refrain of “it’s approved” into a more indepth study of CITH’s history and value compared to COTT. Out of respect to everyone interested in this subject if all you have to offer is some variation of “it’s approved” please find something else to post about or spend some time researching and learning about this modern trend in the Roman Catholic Church.
Where?Another member asked me to provide evidence COTT was the norm in the early Church and that’s what I did.
Umm…yes…of course…or as my kids would say…“DUH”"Vatican on Communion in the hand
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.
Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. 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.
With attention to the norms concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the Eucharistic species in his hand.
However, let all remember that the time-honored tradition is to receive the host on the tongue. The celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand, and he should make them aware of the reason for way of proceeding."
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html
Great question…but a different thread?JR, is there any significance in the new translation, where we are to say
“All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word
and my soul shall be healed.”
instead of
“All: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word
and I shall be healed.”
other than being truer to the Latin source?
I am in the U.S. I am following the teaching of the Vatican as approved for the U.S. As the Vatican teaches for the U.S., where is there a preference? Please help. Thank you.I must respectfully disagree with your conclusions from this thread. To say that CITH is permitted is a truth no onn can object to. But to say you feel there is therefore no best or holiest way (to use your terms) I think is to miss the points of what has been said. The Church has definitely said there is a preferred and even best way to receive the Holy Eucharist, it simply is not compulsory. That is very different from saying it is all the same no matter how you do it.
Note:
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.]
Sacred Host in their hand.Code:POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the
to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time ofCode:ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). "The right
persecution." St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular
that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of HolyCode:COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with
Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
required faithful obedience to the practice of administering HolyCode:POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and
Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguardCode:SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt
against sacrilege.
faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening theCode:SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the
transgressors with excommunication.
sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what isCode:ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). "Out of reverence towards this
consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and
likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa
Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an ApostolicCode:COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). "The fact that only the priest
Tradition."
Other posters have shown more recent statements saying on COTT is preferred. Why say otherwise?
I should probably cite the full quote of the Council of Rouen: (AD 650)CITH existed from the beginning (unless anyone has evidence otherwise).
So something was dropped for a long time. Yep. The Prayer of the Faithful (General Intercessions) was dropped by Pope St. Gregory the Great around 600 A.D. Do you have a problem that following Vatican II it was restored to the Mass?
I would say it is erroneous to use the term “teaching” for this subject, as it is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, as Brother JR rightly pointed out. Rome does not “teach” COTT or CITH, but rather supports COTT and permits CITH, in conjunction with the USCCB.I am in the U.S. I am following the teaching of the Vatican as approved for the U.S. As the Vatican teaches for the U.S., where is there a preference? Please help. Thank you.
Reference for what you claim St. Basil taught? Thanks.I should probably cite the full quote of the Council of Rouen: (AD 650)
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.”
St. Basil indicated that only reason CITH was permitted before the time of Constantine the Great was if there was a danger of being caught at Mass, so the host given in the hand so it could be hidden and not profaned if the Faithful were caught St. Tarcisius, in the 300’s, was caught with the Blessed Sacrament under similar circumstances, smuggling the Eucharist to deacons who were imprisoned. The only reason, he, an acolyte, was given the Holy Eucharist was because there were no deacons who could carry it as would normally be the case.