Not just another CITH Thread...

[Vince1022]

CITH has not been around in the Latin rite for twenty centuries.

Pope Paul VI stated CITH may lead to a diminished belief in the Real Presence and forty years later guess what we’ve got?

There are valid reasons to distribute Holy Communion COTT. There are none that I’m aware of for CITH. As an RCIA instructor what reasons to you give?

So, you have evidence that communion in the early Church (first two centuries) was NOT received in the hand? Care to share such evidence? Thank you!

 

[Vince1022]

Don’t hold your breath.

I’ve looked for anything positive regarding CITH and haven’t found it. Then Archbishop Bernardin was the main proponent behind getting it into the GIRM but even Googling him doesn’t uncover anything he wrote in support of it.

So,…you’re on a witch hunt? You have some personal issue with Bernardin? Why do you care so much…aren’t you in Canada and not the U.S.? And, again…on what basis do you blame (or credit) Bernardin with what the Vatican approves?

 

[Vince1022]

Finally! Somebody found something illustrating the graces of CITH. Does Fr. Chauvet say if we’re better off?

I haven’t heard of this priest so typed his name into Google. Do you have any pictures of him wearing his priest’s collar?

He’s an exceptionally well known and respected sacramental theologian. You’ve never heard of him?

What does it matter what he wears in photos?

 

[otjm]

How did Christ ‘give’ us CITH? CITH is assumed at the Last Supper, only. If Christ gave us CITH, why is/was COTT the norm in the RC rite?

It is the norm because it has been the universal rule (but not the only rule) in the Roman rite for 10 centuries. And as noted, for the last 800 years CITH has been allowed (in a very limited way) in the Roman rite, and has been continually allowed and practiced in some of the Eastern rites.

I don’t think I said anything about ‘weak sucks’(?)

The constant referral back to the beginnings of CITH to laity just before the indult was allowed certainly give that implication loud and clear. Poor old Paul 6th just gave way amid all his misgivings - what a weak suck.

I asked how changing from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, could be an improvement. How that could be ‘spiritually nourishing’ to the faithful in the main rite of the Roman Catholic Church. What’s the benefit?

At this point, given how strong your belief is that there is no benefit whatsoever, and in fact great danger, I won’t bother. As I ahve noted, there are multiple parishes in our Archdiocese with adoration 24/7, and the large majority receiving CITH. The evidence is right in front of your face and you continue to ignore it; repeating will have no benefit.

**Bit weird, if you believe the Host is imbued with your God. **

Onlly for you laddy, only for you. You are the one obsessed with the issue.

 

[otjm]

Errr, CITH means you hand someone the Host. So you have to open your hand, regardless, just as you would have to to hold any other mundane object.

I don’t receive mundane objects in the palm of my hand, supported by the other hand. I either take the object with my fingers, or have one hand out. Sorry, you apparently have not paid much attention.

COTT, kneeling is a humbling way to receive and unusual, for an adult. Reminds you you’re not doing something mundane and rightly places you in an inferior position before our Lord.

when one has been doing the same thing since one was six or seven years old, it is simply rote. As in, mundane.

COTT, kneeling is good catechesis. Do it and you you won’t need to lecture people on how to distribute and receive via CITH. It’s also says: the Host is taboo, therefore, holy. Much simpler.

Most people once properly taught don’t need to be lectured further. And that applies to either form of receiving. Simpler? Not; that is why there are far more Hosts dropped because of being improperly placed on the tongue, than there are when placed in the palm of the hand - and that comes from having been an altar boy starting in 1957; between there and when I stopped serving I saw numerous Hosts fall off tongues because the tongue was not stuck out far enough, or flipped off be the upper teeth.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t receive mundane objects in the palm of my hand, supported by the other hand. I either take the object with my fingers, or have one hand out. Sorry, you apparently have not paid much attention.

Amen. I carry my baby with my hands, and hug my parents and wife. Its also the hands I use to help other people. I wonder why people only see the negative aspect of hands. I can name many questionable things that mouths are used for.

 

[diggerdomer]

The GIRM US says you can only recieve COTH if it is approved

Where in the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. is this stated? Please cite the reference. Thank you.

p.s. for your reference: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

 

[diggerdomer]

No.

Reading it, you might think married Roman Catholic clergy are normal. I’m guessing St. Peter was married before he became a disciple. Aren’t married permanent deacons married before they become deacons? Aren’t clergy from other rites or denominations married before they are ordained in the RC rite?

My understanding is that a Roman Catholic priest or deacon cannot marry subsequent to ordination and that a married Roman Catholic man cannot be ordained at all.

No to what?

I never said nor implied married Roman Catholic clergy are normal (though I would say such for permanent deacons).

You don’t need to guess St. Peter was married. The New Testament tells us he was.

Of course married permanent deacons were married before they became deacons. What’s your point?

I never said anything about ordained males marrying after ordination.

What’s your beef?

 

[diggerdomer]

I have a problem with CITH. ‘Teaches’ also implies approval. I think CITH was introduced for no good reason. I’ve yet to read a bishop come out and say why CITH should be done. So who’s teaching it?

There seems to be plenty of quotes pro-COTT and only one, from St. Cyril, pro-CITH. Assuming he was even aware of COTT, kneeling.

AFAIK, none one is teaching why CITH should be done instead of COTT. Like versus-populum, vernacular Masses and folksy hymns, it’s just something people are doing.

It would be nice not to feel one is an experimental subject and attend Masses done in a way where the personalities of the participants are obfuscated as much as possible. The TLM does this nicely.

I’m sorry if you have a problem with what the Church teaches. I have no idea what your basis is for assuming CITH was “introduced” (as you state) for no good reason. Clearly the Church re-introduced it, and most Catholics would presume the Church had good reasons to do so.

Do you have any quotations for (as you say) “pro-COTT” from the first 5 centuries of the Catholic Church? Just curious.

I agree, no one is teaching one form or reception over another…except for certain individuals on this thread. The Church certainly does not teach a preference.

 

[diggerdomer]

Vince/digger. You are off-topic. In the OP I listed ‘it’s approved’ as a given and not a subject for discussion. By requesting sources you have proven to be not reading the thread. It seems your only purpose here is to drag the thread down to a monotonous refrain of ‘it’s approved’ while ignoring the arguments and sources of others. Please provide a mature and intelligent argument with sources or find another thread to spend your time on. Thanks.

I can’t speak for Vince, but you clearly have a bias, contrary to Church teaching, about CITH.

Why not come clean? What’s your real issue with Catholic teaching?

 

[diggerdomer]

If you read the history on this subject you’ll find the Church banned CITH to increase reverence and belief in the Real Presence. When Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH he stated those same reasons. Thirty years after CITH made its way into the GIRM we see a decline in reverence and belief in the Real Presence.

Classic example of a logical fallacy.

 

[diggerdomer]

We’re talking about the Latin rite. The Eastern rites and Franscians are another topic for another day.

Pope Paul VI warned against an increase in desecration to the Blessed Sacrament with CITH.

Excuse me, but are you saying Franciscans are not of the Latin Rite?

Evidence?

 

[diggerdomer]

I"ve never said anything about divine law.

You’re contention that we shouldn’t be worried about CITH while abortion exists is shallow at best.

CITH was banned for centuries in the Latin rite. The reasons were as solid then as they are now.

Communion under both kinds was banned for many centuries.

The Prayer of the Faithful (aka General Intercessions) was banned for many centuries.

Slavery was approved for many centuries.

So…your point?

 

[diggerdomer]

Note the words preference vis a vis the Vatican. I continue to contend this is a disingenius use of the term “teaching,” because to teach is to define, which the manner of reception of the Holy Eucharist is not.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal is what the Vatican defines (or teaches, though you may not like that word) what those of us in the U.S. are bound to.

Where in the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. do you see a preference indicated?

 

[diggerdomer]

This is not an argument.

So, what’s your real point? I’m not intending to argue. What do you mean by this post?

 

[Canto]

Where in the GIRM as approved by the Vatican for the U.S. is this stated? Please cite the reference. Thank you.

p.s. for your reference: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

I stated “The GIRM US says you can only recieve COTH if it is approved”

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, **where this is allowed **and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

Latin GIRM ubi concessum sit

 

[diggerdomer]

CITH has not been around in the Latin rite for twenty centuries.

Really? Do you have any objective evidence for this? Or are you suggesting that at the Last Supper Jesus gave communion to the Apostles on the tongue? Do you really believe the first Christians received communion on the tongue? Based on what evidence? Not the Bible, right?

Pope Paul VI stated CITH may lead to a diminished belief in the Real Presence and forty years later guess what we’ve got?

Well, it was Pope Paul VI who approved communion in the hand for dioceses in the U.S. (not an indult). So…how do you reconcile your thoughts of what Pope Paul VI thought vs. what he did?

There are valid reasons to distribute Holy Communion COTT. There are none that I’m aware of for CITH.

Well, no kidding. Of course there are valid reasons to distribute Holy Communion COTT. You seem to continually (obstinately?) fail to recognize there are similarly valid reasons to distribute Holy Communion in the the hand.

As the Vatican teaches for the U.S.

 

[diggerdomer]

Brother, are you talking about me?

Kidding aside, I will just present my view of the issue, and let people run with it.

Communion in the hand does not bother me per se, if the manner of reception remained the traditional way (veiled hands, pre-cleansing of the hands, both hands direct to mouth, etc.) However, this is NOT the way most parishes practice it, and I cannot speak for the parish the other poster mentions, but here in Los Angeles, based on the slipshod, irreverant and fast food manner the Holy Eucharist is bantered about the Sanctuary, I would have banned CITH yesterday. Based on experience as an altar server, Sacristan, wedding coordinator, EMHC, lector, and other capacities at 3 parishes, I can state with confidence the reverent, bowing, and exaulted manner of receiving described before is NOT, I repeat, NOT the way most people are receiving here. I was with SSPX at one time, and I can say with confidence I never saw the type of behaviour toward the Holy Eucharist in their chapels displayed in OF parishes. COTT kneeling seems to induce greater reverence, for whatever reason, and abuses must be acknowledged as being very rare in this form. I could not even think of an example of a COTT abuse.

Good catechesis is great, but the regulations and suppressions of the past were the result of irreverence and poor catechesis. No miraculous change occured in catechesis post-1970, so I can assure you that this was probably not the reason CITH was permitted, whatever the reason. One does not permit a practice and then attempt to fix while it still occurs. This is like fixing an automobile while it is driving! If corrections need be made, the practice needs to stop, be reevaluated, and then offered again after better catechesis.

As I learned in psychology 101, the fact that one party in a relationship thinks there is a problem means there is a problem, whether all acknowledge it or not. The fact that so many seem concerned about CITH should at least indicate a need for reflexion on the issue, and perhaps suspension until a future date. CITH should come after better catechesis and not vice versa.

Personally, I like how my parish does it. We receive, kneeling, on the tongue and by intinction, with one priest holding the ciborium and the other priest dipping the Host in the chalice and placing it on the communicants tongue. Perhaps CITH would be an edifying practice if its signifigance was properly evaluated. However, the fact it has not been practiced in the West for over 1000 years should be at least one argument for being against so casually permitting it. Yes, it is nice to give a reverential ackowledgment to the East, but they have had it in their tradition for the last 1000+ years, and so they already understand and appreciate it’s signifigance. The West needs a time out, and I think it should be sooner, rather than later. I do not think it is unreasonable to want to reflect on whether the Holy Eucharist is receiving It’s proper due, and I do see why anyone would object to pausing the practice to give the Body of Christ in the West a moment of reflection and understanding. Could just be me.

Where do you get your ideas that the “traditional” way of receiving communion in the hand was as you described? I’d love to hear, never heard anything like that. Thank you.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you accusing me of spinning Pope Paul VI’s words? Did I take the Archbishop’s words out of context? I think the words of the man who was pope at the time are very relevant. Do you and BJR disagree?

How about you find a pope, saint or other high ranking clergy to sing the praises of CITH. At this point I’d like to see anything other than “it’s approved” or “it’s my preference”. Let’s see someone from the Church explain how we are better thirty years after CITH got into the GIRM. Anything.

I agreee…take Pope Paul VI at his word.

As when he approved (no indult) CITH for the dioceses of the U.S.

Right?

 

[diggerdomer]

Based on your latest posts I agree with have a problem with bad catechesis.

I completely agree, and if I had any doubts your posts would remove them.