D
diggerdomer
Guest
Teaches, supports, approves. Ok, pick your verb. CITH and COTT are both ok by the Church in the U.S.
- Status
E
EnchantedEve
Guest
You are being selective with your posts. You asked what the PREFERENCE is, not the permitted. I never claimed, in fact explicitely said otherwise, CITH was a permitted practice, simply not the preferred.
Regarding St. Basil, he apparently mentions this in his Epistle 93, though elsewhere in the same Epistle he approves of the practice in general as something which can have its good points, but still indicated it was best kept to times of danger or exception:
“It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint.**** It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.**** All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.”
I should point out St. Basil’s reference to the Desert Solitaries leaves out that these monks were often granted a dispensation from the ordinary to do this, were given a special blessing (as EMCs are supposed to be) and were to cleanse their hands, preferrably with water, but with incense if necessary and then receive. A small ceremony (which has fallen into disuse) does still exist to provide for giving Holy Communion outside the context of a Mass. This was very common until the Council of Trent, which made Holy Communion at Mass the highly preferred context for receiving the Eucharist. A study of the Holy Eucharist in the 1950’s Dominican work, Come, Let us Worship, discusses this at length.
I repeat, the manner of receiving CITH in ancient practice is different then now. One did not pick up the host and place it in your mouth, but lifted the whole of both hands to the mouth and place the Sacred Host directly in. Again, in Roman practice a cloth was generally used, and apparently the rubric for this persisted until 1962, long after CITH fell out of practice.
To wit:
“The tradition of the Roman Church points to the use of a linen cloth (not metal of any sort) at Holy Communion. The purpose of this cloth was to receive the Sacred Particles which might fall from the hand of the priest. The present regulations of the Church embody the Roman practice of old. The Missal requires that a linen cloth or white veil be extended before those who are to receive Holy Communion : “Interim minister ante eos extendit linteum, seu velum album.” The Ritual insists on a clean linen cloth for this purpose: “et ante eos linteo mundo extenso.” Neither is the Caeremoniale Episcoporum silent on this point, as it demands a white cloth (“mantile album”) for Communion. Let us add in passing that the Pontificale in the rubrics for the ordination of a priest (singular form) speaks of a mappula to be used at the Communion of the newly ordained. Positive law then, as well as the usage of centuries, requires that the laity in receiving Holy Communion hold a linen cloth between themselves and the ministering priest. Custom tolerates a card or small square of linen, instead of a cloth, at altars where communions are not numerous or frequent.” Fr. A.B. Meehan, 1917.
This was apparently renewed in 1922 and 1929, by the Congregation of Rites.
The idea of placing a paten under the chin was apparently meant to replace the white cloth for COTT, but this was apparently a general practice, and not strictly speaking necessary or even the rubric(!) of the Church. The white cloth, or even card, was still the required practice. This in later usage was simply spread over the altar rail as an addition to the paten, and not as the primary intermediary it once was.
L
Layman
Guest
Hee hee, but it looks like they did cave in, for the introduction of CITH into the Roman rite! So, they can change it back just as easily.
You can certainly petition your bishop about such things. You can support the TLM if it gets going locally. If LifeTeen and Charismatic masses can get going, a return to an ancient, pious, discipline certainly can.
Sorry, JR, but this issue is not going to go away, at least while people post statements like ‘The Pope approves CITH!’ in the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. It’s part of a parcel of fashion-chasing changes to our worship, which have confused the laity into thinking that their preferences and active outward participation are of overriding importance to the Mass.
L
Layman
Guest
Yes, please clarify further. Under what circumstances are or were there married Roman Catholic clergy?
L
Layman
Guest
Sure. Approve has positive connotations. Allow has neutral or negative ones. I approve of you giving me money but I’ll allow you to borrow some from me. I approve a child going to bed early but I’ll allow him to stay up just for tonight.
Saying ‘The Church approves CITH’ might lead readers, who don’t know its history, to think the Church is saying “CITH is great, go do it” or even “You should change over from COTT to CITH”.
Where does the Church ‘teach’ CITH? AFAIK, it just states the cirumstances under which it can be done in the Roman rite.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Here is one example.
gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/
And a married, former Protestant minister, was ordained a transitional deacon in my diocese this past spring. He will be ordained to the priesthood next year.
O
Ockham
Guest
Here is the OP. If you can’t provide anything other than “it’s approved” then you are off-topic. If you suggest CITH has been part of the Church’s tradition since day one please provide evidence. There have been multiple sources suggesting otherwise. Thanks.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Great point. Not to mention the Holy of Holies instructions which are covered in Exodus.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You need to take up that issue with the Cardinal. The Pope did ask us to use the internet to spread the Truth. But that’s on YouTube too.
O
Ockham
Guest
*"Communion-in-the-hand is approved by the Holy See as an option for the United States, and for many other countries, including Italy. The following are the relevant parts of the documents governing this permission.
…]
The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do".*
Colin B. Donovan, STL
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
“When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some
individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the
consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their
territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the
Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to
introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based
on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely
affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may
arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the
danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the
altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
Memoriale Domini
“Father Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholic
country and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now its
vitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted the
procedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed
(removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal of
kneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he saw
that on one occasion at Holland’s cathedral when Mass was celebrated
by their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present.”
David L. Vise, “A Case for Communion on the Tongue”
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT
*"But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last
Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we
would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops.
But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality
which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is,
one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the
mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30):
“Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have
dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So,
after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”
Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be
rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later
in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if
so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?" *
Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify.”
1Corinthians 10:23:
"Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.
St. Augustine
…]
The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question. If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand. Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do".*
Colin B. Donovan, STL
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
“When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some
individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the
consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their
territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the
Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to
introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based
on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely
affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may
arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the
danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the
altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”
Memoriale Domini
“Father Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholic
country and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now its
vitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted the
procedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed
(removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal of
kneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he saw
that on one occasion at Holland’s cathedral when Mass was celebrated
by their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present.”
David L. Vise, “A Case for Communion on the Tongue”
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT
*"But surely the Apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last
Supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we
would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even Bishops.
But we must not forget a traditional custom of middle-eastern hospitality
which was in practice in Jesus’ time and which is still the case; that is,
one feeds his guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the
mouth of the guest. And we have this text of St. John’s Gospel (13:26-30):
“Jesus answered, ‘It is he to whom I shall give this Morsel when I have
dipped It.’ So when He had dipped the Morsel, He gave It to Judas… So,
after receiving the Morsel, he [Judas] immediately went out…”
Did Our Lord place this wet Morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be
rather messy. Did He not perhaps extend to the one whom He addressed later
in the garden as “friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if
so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own Hand”?" *
Fr. Paul McDonald
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify.”
1Corinthians 10:23:
"Wrong is wrong even if everybody is doing it, and right is right even if nobody is doing it.
St. Augustine
O
Ockham
Guest
"Historical argument favors Communion on the tongue
April 22, 2008
The American magazine Catholic Response has published an English translation of a provocative article, originally published in the official Vatican newspaper, calling for an end to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.
The article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L’Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling. Only ordained ministers were allowed to touch the consecrated Host with their hands.
By the 6th century, Bishop Schneider writes, the Church had formed a consensus that Communion should be received on the tongue, of reverence for the Eucharistic Lord. Pope Gregory the Great chastised priests who resisted that consensus, and it was become an “almost universal practice” in the early Church, the author says. "
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=57981
April 22, 2008
The American magazine Catholic Response has published an English translation of a provocative article, originally published in the official Vatican newspaper, calling for an end to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.
The article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L’Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling. Only ordained ministers were allowed to touch the consecrated Host with their hands.
By the 6th century, Bishop Schneider writes, the Church had formed a consensus that Communion should be received on the tongue, of reverence for the Eucharistic Lord. Pope Gregory the Great chastised priests who resisted that consensus, and it was become an “almost universal practice” in the early Church, the author says. "
catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=57981
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Isn’t this off-topic as well because we’re supposed to be discussing CITH, not COTT
J
JReducation
Guest
Wait a minute. There is a very important detail here. Communion in the hand was introduced to the laity because it was permitted by certain bishops in their dioceses, not because someone campaigned for it. What the Vatican did was to examine whether this was contrary to: canon law, morals and doctrine. They found that it was not. The next question was whether it was an issue that merited disciplinary action or catechesis and they opted for catechesis. This is not caving in. This is examining something and arriving at a resolution. What has gone wrong is the catechesis. We do not have it. It desperately needs to happen.
I shared on another thread an experience that I had while teaching Sacramental Preparation to kids. I taught the kids how to bow, genuflect and how to receive communion (COTT and CITH). I taught them the proper way to do both. Along with the gestures, the kids also had to learn the history behind all of these. They learned about the monks and friars. Being a Franciscan myself, I have to admit that I have an edge on the average catechist.
The greater part of the term was spent on the theology of the Eucharist. The kids learned the theology of the mass as well as the theology behind preserving the Blessed Sacrament. In a nutshell, I taught them the msytery and awe of the Blessed Sacrament and the connection between the mass, Calvary and the Last Supper and how this all ties in together. The same kids had to learn about the Liturgy of the Hours, because if you don’t teach the LOTH your education on liturgy is short, since it’s all one package.
These kids practiced not only the rites of the mass and the LOTH, but they had to memorize certain doctrinal and historical facts, including the ancient monastic and mendicant customs that were gradually adopted outside of the enclosure.
My point is that there is so much to be taught that I feel there is little time and energy left to focus on getting the Holy See to change the current ruling.
Yes, you can certainly petition your bishop for a mass or changes that you feel are necessary. Most bishops appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut.
As I said, there is so much that needs to be done, that I personally do not spend time bothering my bishop on this point. For me, it does not have to be for you, it is very important to get the Catholics in my diocese to note that in 2009 we had 31,000 abortions within our territory. It is important to get the young and not so young, to understand the awe and mystery of the Eucharist. It is important to get the faithful to receive Holy Communion with reverence and the proper disposition. This takes a lot of time and energy.
Between five hours of the LOTH, almost five hours of community life, three hours of silence, and sleep, I have to preach and teach these other great moral and doctrinal truths to the faithful.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
So did you convert any of them to the Franciscan order?
J
JReducation
Guest
LOL, don’t laugh . . . but I actually had two little boys ask me how long it takes to become a Franciscan Brothers of Life. Should have seen their little fingers do the math when I said that they had to put in seven years of philosophical and theological formation after college, at least a four-year theology master’s in there somewhere. The next comment was, “Wow, you’re old.”So did you convert any of them to the Franciscan order?
I had never stopped to think of that. It is a long time from postulancy to solemn vows. I don’t feel old.
An older boy in the class was fascinated by the Liturgy of the Hours. He commented, “Is that why Brother J. runs out like a bullet when he finishes confessions. That’s a lot of praying.” When I explained that you have to do penance, if you’re late for the Divine Office, he said, “Detention?”
If any vocations come out of this we’ll have to split them with the Benedictines since many of these customs are both Franciscan and Benedictine. I’m sure the Bennies won’t mind. They love us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Layman
Guest
[My emphasis.]
This won’t work.
- CITH is complicated.
COTT is simpler.
Also, when I went looking on instructions for EMHCs, I found 1). They varied from parish to parish 2) They were complicated. Add in EMHCs and you add in superfluous bodies in the sanctuary. More to go wrong. Then add in trusting the laity to consume the host. More complication.
It’s bad engineering. Keep it simple, especially given the Matter you are dealing with.
**2. Mass should be catechesis itself. **
Do as you believe. Learn by doing.** With COTT, you kneel and are not allowed to touch the host. The lesson: the host is holy.** No need for extra fussing about you what you must not do when the host is in your hand or what EMHCs must not do.
3. The ignorant can’t teach the ignorant.
I don’t have much confidence in what’s being taught in schools these days. We have something called ‘Alive-O’ in Ireland. I read on here about people complaining that priests and RCIA directors are teaching incorrectly. I see silly things occuring at Mass.
We need a bit more rigour. We need to bin the idea that our forefathers were old fuddy-duddies and that we are the enlightened generation. The more I attend the TLM the more I realise that, if nothing else, they worked out, maybe just through trial and error, what worked, and dumped things that ‘educated’ people are now blithely trying to bring back.
Like CITH.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Now that I think about it, maybe the bigger issue is why do we feel so pressured to receive at all. Father Z has some interesting reasons and comments follow:
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-lay-communion-minister-wouldnt-bless-me/
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-lay-communion-minister-wouldnt-bless-me/
O
Ockham
Guest
*Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came **a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament **and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
**This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”**7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with** the proper respect, decorum and dignity**. It **removes the danger of profanation **of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about **the fragments of consecrated bread **which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”*10]
MEMORIALE DOMINI
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm
(emphasis mine)
This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
**This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”**7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]
Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with** the proper respect, decorum and dignity**. It **removes the danger of profanation **of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about **the fragments of consecrated bread **which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”*10]
MEMORIALE DOMINI
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm
(emphasis mine)
V
Vince1022
Guest
So what’s your point? Are you responding to someone specifically, or just randomly posting something from a bishop in Kazakhstan?
As you cite: "“All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.” 1Corinthians 10:23
Agreed. So…Communion on the tongue is lawful. Are you suggesting it’s not profitable? Or that is does not edify?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I disagree, I don’t think I asked what the preference is. Did I?
I was responding to others to clarify that in the U.S. there is no preference.
- Status