Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[trish2009]

Thank you for the great photograph. A picture is worth a thousand words. What better way than to kneel for Communion.

Pat

 

[FAB]

I recently read where Pope Benedict is trying to do away with Communion in the hand. This was on a website called Newsblast.com. Here is the info I copied. It is rather long but definitely worth reading.

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

**Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only
**
Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the Pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

The pope’s action is in accord with the Church’s 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing a true spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

Kneeling also coincides with the Church’s centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (Council of Trent)

It is for reason that Pope Paul VI in his May 1969 pastoral letter to the world’s bishops reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the reception of Communion, stating that: **“This method on the tongue must be retained.” **(Memoriale Domini) This came in response to the bishops of Holland who started Communion in the hand in defiance of the centuries old decree from the Council of Rouen (650 A.D.) where this practice was condemned as sacrilegious. “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths.” This prohibition has never been overturned by any Pope, Bishop or legal authority. Unfortunately for us, within a few months, most Catholic communities throughout the world, especially here in America, followed Holland’s laissez faire disobedience.

Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have ‘abuse’ problems today it is because we’re abusing the Sacrament - it’s backfiring on us!

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse and we as members of Christ are called upon to assist him. For your encouragement we include the following quotation from Cardinal Llovera, the new prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments speaking to Life Site News on July 22, 2009: “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

Also worth considering is the recent decree from Cardinal Caffarra, the Archbishop of Bologna Italy, forbidding the practice of Communion in the hand: “Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue." (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

Technically all bishops and clergy are bound to follow the Holy Father’s directive on this issue, but don’t hold your breath. In the meantime the faithful are not obliged to wait for the approval of their bishop in order to kneel for God. The directives of the Holy Father are not subject to the veto or scrutiny of the bishops and therefore all pastors and laity have a right and duty to put these directives into practice for the edification of their communities.

Our Lady’s Workers of Southern California"

David Martin

jmj4today@att.net

“In the name of Jesus every knee should bend” - Philippians 2:10

(I have had to delete some paragraphs as the text was too long for this post).
I wonder how long it will take before the priests allow us to kneel in order to receive Communion. It will be impossible for us to follow the Pope’s wishes if we have to stand in line to receive, and we can’t just go up to the altar rail and wait for the priest to come to us.

I would imagine if this goes into effect, that this does away with Extraordinary Ministers since their hands are not consecrated.

Pat

As for communion placed by the pope on the tongues of the faithful, kneeling – during his recent visit to Santa Maria di Leuca and Brindisi – Marini affirms that this will become “a regular practice at papal celebrations.” And he continues:

«In this regard, it must not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand remains, from the juridical point of view, a dispensation from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to the bishops’ conferences that have asked for it. The practice adopted by Benedict XVI tends to emphasize the continued validity of the norm for the whole Church. In addition, one might also note a preference for the use of this manner of distribution which, without taking anything away from the other, better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, and makes it easier to enter into the sense of mystery. In our time, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to recover and emphasize these aspects.»

from Chiesa news

As with manny things the Pope does, he is focusing attention on the Eucharist. As to if the practice comes the only norm, I seem to doubt it since he following the request of bishop’s conferences.

Peace, FAB

 

[otjm]

I recently read where Pope Benedict is trying to do away with Communion in the hand. This was on a website called Newsblast.com. Here is the info I copied. It is rather long but definitely worth reading.

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel For Communion

**Pope Benedict to Catholics:
Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only
**
Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the Pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

The pope’s action is in accord with the Church’s 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing a true spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

Kneeling also coincides with the Church’s centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. “To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.” (Council of Trent)

Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have ‘abuse’ problems today it is because we’re abusing the Sacrament - it’s backfiring on us!

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of this abuse and we as members of Christ are called upon to assist him. For your encouragement we include the following quotation from Cardinal Llovera, the new prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments speaking to Life Site News on July 22, 2009: “It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict’s emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling.”

Also worth considering is the recent decree from Cardinal Caffarra, the Archbishop of Bologna Italy, forbidding the practice of Communion in the hand: “Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue." (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

Technically all bishops and clergy are bound to follow the Holy Father’s directive on this issue, but don’t hold your breath. In the meantime the faithful are not obliged to wait for the approval of their bishop in order to kneel for God. The directives of the Holy Father are not subject to the veto or scrutiny of the bishops and therefore all pastors and laity have a right and duty to put these directives into practice for the edification of their communities.

Our Lady’s Workers of Southern California"

David Martin

jmj4today@att.net

“In the name of Jesus every knee should bend” - Philippians 2:10

(I have had to delete some paragraphs as the text was too long for this post).
I wonder how long it will take before the priests allow us to kneel in order to receive Communion. It will be impossible for us to follow the Pope’s wishes if we have to stand in line to receive, and we can’t just go up to the altar rail and wait for the priest to come to us.

I would imagine if this goes into effect, that this does away with Extraordinary Ministers since their hands are not consecrated.

Pat

The article is clearly using emotional language - i.e. it is editorializing, as opposed to reporting. Further, it is inaccurate historically. As to whether or not the Pope is intending to move the Church in the direction of revoking reception in the hand, time will tell. Given comments that he made prior to becoming Pope, I am not convinced that the article is anything more than an editiorial opinion disguised as a report.

Because I firmly believe that the rubrics need to be followed, this is not an expression of my likes, dislikes, or thoughts as to CITH nor whether or not it should be continued.

However, it is easy, if one has a strong dislike for CITH, to attach oneself to anything that appears to support one’s feelings. I have seen all too many statements taken entirely out of context to be used to support what the reporter wishes to make for a position.

It is further worth noting that the Archbishop of Bologna acted to stop CITH in two churches - a basilica and a shrine - which were open to the public and thus attracting people of all faiths and no faith as tourists; using it to intimate that there was some sort of movemengt to ban CITH is misreading what the Archbishop did - he did not ban it in his archdiocese, but only in two locations which were having a problem. Using that as an anchor for some sort of movement to ban CITH world wide is intellectually dishonest of the writer of the article; but as I noted, it is an editorial under the disguise of a report.

Further, the comment towards the end of the article plays the ususal cafeteria Catholic bit of “I will pick and choose what rules the bishop gives”. It only localizes the same attitude among the liberals who choose to ignore Rome.

Rome, by clearly giving permission for the use of EMHCs has also clearly indicated that the issue of touching the Eucharist is not an issue of consecrated hands or non-consecrated hands.

 

[John_Larocque]

However, the writings of the Fathers of the Church thoroughly support that the laity received in the hand. Those who argue about the Apostles are playing pick-and-choose with the history and literature of the Church.

The key though, in both the West AND the East, is that the custom was abandonned. It was reintroduced for all the (wrong) ecumenical reasons.

 

[otjm]

The key though, in both the West AND the East, is that the custom was abandonned. It was reintroduced for all the (wrong) ecumenical reasons.

We keep beating on the issue that the bishops in Holland introduced this through disobedience, as if that issue alone taints it so thoroughly that it borders on what - heresy?

The bishops of Holland can all go to confession for being disobedient.

There is a rule of theology that the Church cannot make a rule that is contrary to the faith. The issue has been far better explicated than I have. Rome has chosen to allow CITH, and that should be sufficient to stop the carping; but it seems to simply be ignored, as if somehow Rome is too weak to protect the faith.

The issue with respect and reverence for Communion is catechesis. I have seen enough people receive on the tongue with a lacksidasical attitude exhibited, and I have seen enough people receive in the hand with reverence and respect to understand the differences. There are people who exhibit the attitude that if Christ Himself were to be the one, in the flesh, distributing Communion and were to attempt to distribute it in the hand, that they would feel it necessary to correct Him.

If people have little or no catechesis concerning the Eucharist (and given the sad state of catechesis from the early 70’s to the mid 90’s) then it isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference whether CITH continues or is revoked. Some people seem to assume that we are going to get theology by osmosis if we just change practice. Not going to happen. Some people are horrified that CITH is allowed; they see it as a horrible abuse and sacriligeous. Never mind that Rome cannot make a rule that is intrinsically abusive and sacriligeous. People border all too far on making reverence into an emotion; the best analogy I can think of is the parallel that Hollywood has given us about love. Hollywood’s take on love is that it is a feeling; look at the divorce rate and look at how many people get divorced because they don’t feel love. Paul tells us love is a choice, not a feeling; reverence is a choice of submission of the will, not a feeling. Reverence is an act with thought. Any act (in church terms) can be done with reverence or irreverence. If that is so (and it is demonstrated repeatedly) then reverence is not intrinsic to the act. IOne can genuflect with reverence or without. One can receive with reverence or without.

The key is not that it was abandoned; so were other things. Just because at some point in history something was changed does not in and of itself meant that the change was for all times and all places; often the change was for reasons that were specific to the time. When the time (that is, the reason) for it being abandoned is no longer in existence, then it is not necessary that the previous custom be reintroduced; but neither is it necessary that it not be reintroduced.

Rome has seen fit to reintroduce it. That should be sufficient to settle the constant questioning of the procedure.

If you don’t want to receive in the hand, then by all means don’t. But that does not open up the right to carp constantly about it, to the point of bordering on judgement of the status of those who do.

It may well be that the Pope will move to revoke the indult. If he does, so be it. So far, he hasn’t.

Compare it to something else: it is already in the rulebook that the OF can be said ad orientem and in Latin. He has said it that way on occasion; and most of the time he says it the way that the vast majority of the Masses in the OF are said - towards the people and in the vernacular. Just because he says it occasionally in a way that most priests and bishops don’t does not mean that he is going to go in and tweak the rules.

I have said it before, and some people simply don’t get it: CITH is by indult and the norm of the Roman rite is on the tongue. The fact that he does it on the tongue should be a surprise to no one, as it is the norm. One would expect that he might follow the “universal” norm as that represents the world wide practice, as opposed to a more narrow practice which is not universally done. And I use quotes because Eastern rites have their own rules. I would not be the least bit surprised to find the congregation where he says Mass standing sooner after the Consecration than we do, because the norm has been modified for the US, and we remain kneeling longer. He is Pope of the universal Catholic Church (whihc is repetitive); and that includes the Eatern rites, and it includes the OF with and without indults.Why anyone would presume that if he does not follow an indult, that means that he is going to change or revoke it at best means people don’t understand what a norm and what an indult mean.

 

[paperwight]

Superb post, otjm - in my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Layman]

According to Vatican 2, when the bishops are working in union with the Pope, they share in the charism of infallibility.

That is a nice phrase and news to me.

Even if true, it seems the rule for many of them now is: “Obey the Pope when it suits us and ignore or undermine him when it doesn’t”.

If they were obedient, CITH would not have spread like wildfire. What benefit, spiritual or otherwise, is there in going from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

It’s sad if priests see ‘audience participation’ as a cure for declining congregations and a vocations crisis.

With the exception of the Vocation crisis, it would seem that everything you mention is permitted by Rome.

Permitted, perhaps, but not approved.
Permitted, in the sense that the Pope doesn’t have the power to send in the Inquisition any more.
Permitted, in the sense that the Pope and those loyal to him don’t want to split the Church over such things while there’s a demographic timebomb ticking in the background, with the SSPX and those like-minded in the foreground and with a wider degeneracy in Western society.

CITH is one of a set of novelties introduced into the Novus Ordo which contradict the purpose of our rite. These novelties introduce mundane elements.
For example, if previously no layman could touch the Host and now he can, just how special is it? And just why is Mrs GoodLady in the sanctuary at a critical point of the Mass?

The Mass is a propitiary rite of Sacrifice, directed towards God. Progressive bishops and clergy have used Vat. II as the pretext to move the focus further from Him and towards the participants. They’ve ‘run with the ball’ and the Mass is poorer for it.

Example: Catholics, conservative and liberal, now actually have to defend the basic validity of the N.O. to other Catholics who have attended TLMs and seen the difference, or just wondered why Father now has all those kids in the sanctuary with him when he’s doing the consecration. Imagine! Going from ‘The Mass Of All Time’ to ‘The Basically Valid Mass’. It’s crazy!

**What happened pre-Vat. II is now moot. The standard was there. Bishops, priests and laity could salute it or ignore it, but it was there. Now, if you’re a priest with a liberal Bishop, you can sit back and let the laity distribute Communion. With a folk-band backing. In a bare church.

But if you want to say a public TLM, you might want to be careful.**

Curious, innit?

 

[Chrissyangel]

I read that the Pope would prefer people to recieve on the tongue,and that this is being looked into,to bring this back in to the church,I do hope so. I also read that recieving the eucharist in the hand is dangerous,being that fibres can remain on the hands,and fall to the ground,and also there are people who belong to satanist groups who actually take the host with them,and satan was so pleased when catholics started to do this,as we no he works,and looks for ways,even through the church,without many bishops,priests,knowing. I am a believer of Medjugorje,and I no the Blessed Mother has said to the visionary’s that God is not pleased with some things that are now happening in the church,one being communion in the hand,so I do hope and pray that this will be brought back soon,and also to kneel when recieving communion. The Lord should have the greatest respect,and many churches and people do not show this.The Lord send His Spirit so that we will change,and once again show our love and respect for Jesus our saviour who died to set us free.

 

[drolla]

Just because a proceedure or practice comes from the Vatican doesn’t mean it represents the Pope’s wishes or has any infallibility to it. Please remember dear friends that there are bishops, cardinals, priests and theologians that are Freemasons and Communist. Some have attiained very high positions in the church and exact tremendous influence.
Powers, Principalities, Thrones and Dominions in the spiritual world and the physical have influence over all of us. CITH only benefits those who cannot physically kneel in adoration to receive Christ. Those who will not knee mentally or spiritually suffer Pride issues.

 

[otjm]

That is a nice phrase and news to me.

then it would appear that you have not read the documents of Vatican 2. When the bishops, in teaching faith and morals, are in union with the Pope on these matters, they share in the charism of infallibility. Infallibility does not extend to matters of discispline.

Even if true, it seems the rule for many of them now is: “Obey the Pope when it suits us and ignore or undermine him when it doesn’t”.

and I have never said to the contrary. But you seem to assume because a few gain notoriety through disobedience, that all or most are. That is not a logical proof, nor does it comport with reality.

If they were obedient, CITH would not have spread like wildfire. What benefit, spiritual or otherwise, is there in going from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

We don’t know what would have happened; you are presuming that had the disobedience been restricted tot he Dutch bishops that CITH would not later have been approved; you are also presuming that had there been no disobedience at all, that it would not have been approved. There were a number of changes to the sacraments in terms of proceedures; given the changes that occured, many of which had to do with the early Church (e.g. changes to the rite of Baptism and return to the early practice of a more public period of catechesis), it is just as possible that CITH would have eventually been introduced also. The whole thing amounts to a guessing game, which ultimately renders the exercize moot.

And as to your second question: The graces and benefits spiritually come from the Eucharist, not from kneeling, not from COTH, and not from the sex of the distributor. You seem to have no clue about the Eastern rites or their history, and an interesting (for lack of a better term) Eucharistic theology, and perhaps Christology also.

It’s sad if priests see ‘audience participation’ as a cure for declining congregations and a vocations crisis.

What is sad is to see individuals project their presumptions, suspicions and prejudices on matters that are sourced from other causes.

Permitted, perhaps, but not approved.
Permitted, in the sense that the Pope doesn’t have the power to send in the Inquisition any more.
Permitted, in the sense that the Pope and those loyal to him don’t want to split the Church over such things while there’s a demographic timebomb ticking in the background, with the SSPX and those like-minded in the foreground and with a wider degeneracy in Western society.

OK, now the truth comes out - you believe in a weak papacy, one that the Holy Spirit seems to have abandoned. It was not only permitted, it was approved; that is what permitting does. The Church is already split (and unlike your myopic view of Church history, it has had splits from its existence) and the source of the split is not CITH vs. COTH, or even SSPX vs, say liberation theologians of 20 years ago, or Voice of the People. It runs far deeper than that, as they are simply symptoms of the issues.

CITH is one of a set of novelties introduced into the Novus Ordo which contradict the purpose of our rite. These novelties introduce mundane elements.

That is absolutely hilarious. Or else tremendously sad. Again, it goes back to what seems to be your theology of the Eucharist, coupled with any knowledge of Church history.

For example, if previously no layman could touch the Host and now he can, just how special is it? And just why is Mrs GoodLady in the sanctuary at a critical point of the Mass?

Again, lack of knowledge of Church history. There were no tabernacles until sometime around the 8th or 9th century; and they were not in the church porper until about the 10th. For a long time, people would take the Eucharist to their home. They took it, the priest didn’t bring it. People touched it. Get over it. People touched Christ when He walked the Earth. People received in the hand from the early Churhc onward for a long time. Your presumption that it never occured or was extremely limited in time and area is unfounded.

The Mass is a propitiary rite of Sacrifice, directed towards God. Progressive bishops and clergy have used Vat. II as the pretext to move the focus further from Him and towards the participants. They’ve ‘run with the ball’ and the Mass is poorer for it.

I have been attending Mass since 1946, so I have seen both forms of the rite. I have yet to see the focus on the people. You must attend a very strange parish. If what you mean is the change from largely observers to actively worshiping God, then I would say that the OF has changed that for many people. Pre Vatican 2, many people did not much more than observe; it was the finding of the bishops - not of the US, or of Europe, but of the world - that found that there had been too much separation between the congregation and the priest, and that participation in worship needed to be enhanced. May I point out that even Lefebvre agreed that there needed to be changes?

Example: Catholics, conservative and liberal, now actually have to defend the basic validity of the N.O. to other Catholics who have attended TLMs and seen the difference, or just wondered why Father now has all those kids in the sanctuary with him when he’s doing the consecration. Imagine! Going from ‘The Mass Of All Time’ to ‘The Basically Valid Mass’. It’s crazy!

The term “Mass of all time” comes from France, not the Church and is a direct insult to the Eastern rites. Catholics only have to defend the validity of the OF to those who are so far out of touch with the theology of the Church that they no longer follow the teachings of the last two Popes.

**What happened pre-Vat. II is now moot.**Both JP2 and B 16 have said repeatedly that Vatican 2 is vital to the Church; hardly moot. What Pope are you following?
Layman;5555503:

The standard was there. Bishops, priests and laity could salute it or ignore it, but it was there. Now, if you’re a priest with a liberal Bishop, you can sit back and let the laity distribute Communion. With a folk-band backing. In a bare church.

Disobedience to a rule is not proof that the rule is invalid. That folk band may be singing Psalms and songs directly out of the Gospels and OT. Too bad you don’t have a better scriptural backrground; or is it that you think it is more theologically correct to sing something just because it is 75 years old or more? Bare church? There isn’t one more bare than Mass in the battlefield. It is still Mass, whether there are stutes or not.

 

[otjm]

Just because a proceedure or practice comes from the Vatican doesn’t mean it represents the Pope’s wishes or has any infallibility to it. Please remember dear friends that there are bishops, cardinals, priests and theologians that are Freemasons and Communist. Some have attiained very high positions in the church and exact tremendous influence.
Powers, Principalities, Thrones and Dominions in the spiritual world and the physical have influence over all of us. CITH only benefits those who cannot physically kneel in adoration to receive Christ. Those who will not knee mentally or spiritually suffer Pride issues.

CITH benegfits all as it is the Eucharist; the benefit comes from Christ, not from modality.
As to the charges of Freemasons and Communists, unless there is accepted proof, one needs to be a bit cautios of the issues of lible and slander. There have been priests who cooperated with Communists in some of the Communist dominated countries and such issues have been documented. If you are speaking of Bugninni, I would walk a bit cautiously if I were you, as I have yet to see anything that amounts to accepted proof. All that I have seen so far simply amounts to conjecture, and that conjecture has been from those who stand to benefit by it.

 

[Layman]

I’ve read on this forum that COTT is the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. CITH is an indult and not the norm. Is that not so?

Using ancient, abandoned practices to justify their introduction to modern times is archeologism.

We are required to offer our best in the Mass. In a battlefield, the best is what you can scounge up. It doesn’t justify bare churches in peacetime

CITH, EMHCs, the priest versus-populum, unvested lay people in the sanctuary all increase focus on the participants. I assume that the Host, along with the Crucifix, it is the proper material focus of the Mass? If so, this is made more difficult by having an increasing number of unvested lay-people facing you operating up there. Especially when the whole thing could be happily done without them.

Changing to CITH and EMHCs implies that pre-Vat. II priests were doing it wrong or that we are now more holy and can now touch the Host, or that Host is less holy, now. We were taught that it was wrong to touch the Host, even when I was a post-Vat. II. kiddie in short pants.

[Please list, if you know, which rites of the East currently allow CITH. I’ve read on this forum it’s the Assyrian and one other. I’m not sure how *their method justifies our abandoning our way, but it would be good to know.]

None of these changes were mandated by the Second Vatican Council, at which the reigning Popes made no infallible pronouncements, I undersand.

By “what happened pre-Vat. II” being moot, I mean I assume that there was a set way to say the Roman Catholic Mass. A priest could ignore it, but he knew his bounds. Now, if you go into a new diocese you’re no longer sure about what you’ll find in the Mass, in terms of novelties. **With the vernacular Mass, you can’t participate at all, if you don’t speak the local lingo. **

Using reported pre-Vat II abuse as justifcation for change suggests abuse was widespread and that the subsequent changes have cured this. Or that they can bring regularity to the participants in the new rite. Which I submit they have not.

 

[Aramis]

I’ve read on this forum that COTT is the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. CITH is an indult and not the norm. Is that not so?

Using ancient, abandoned practices to justify their introduction to modern times is archeologism.

Kneeling on sundays and during the Paschal season was prohibited by the 1st ecumenical council.

No council since has contradicted that. Rome ignores that prohibition.

 

[Layman]

Errr … isn’t that because ‘Easterners’ see kneeling as associeted with slavery? It’s not the connotation in the West, as far as I know. You knelt to your Seigneur.

 

[otjm]

I’ve read on this forum that COTT is the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. CITH is an indult and not the norm. Is that not so?

Of course; I have never said otherwise.

Using ancient, abandoned practices to justify their introduction to modern times is archeologism.

No, it is ony that when it is used without any other justification. It is not the using which causes the archelologism; it is the justification that because it was done then we should do it now (without any other justification). Not all practices have been brought forward. However, the term archeologism is a misuesd term by those who simply don’t like the change; they have often not bothered to even find out why the practice has been re-introduced.

We are required to offer our best in the Mass. In a battlefield, the best is what you can scounge up. It doesn’t justify bare churches in peacetime.

I am not a proponent fo the bare church syndrome. That was a silly document that had no authority to require change but was used by twits with agendas. Neither do I like the churches that have so much statuary that it becomes a major distraction (and we have a charming example of such excess in one of our parishes).

CITH, EMHCs, the priest versus-populum, unvested lay people in the sanctuary all increase focus on the participants. I assume that the Host, along with the Crucifix, it is the proper material focus of the Mass? If so, this is made more difficult by having an increasing number of unvested lay-people facing you operating up there. Especially when the whole thing could be happily done without them.

But it would make your socks run up and down to attend a Solemn High EF with 6 candlebearers, 2 or three acolytes, a thurifer, a totally unnecessary Master of Ceremonies, a sub deacon, a deacon and priest. So actually, you like a lot of people aup there, and you don’t find it distracting with a lot of people up there. You just don’t like the change.

Changing to CITH and EMHCs implies that pre-Vat. II priests were doing it wrong or that we are now more holy and can now touch the Host, or that Host is less holy, now. We were taught that it was wrong to touch the Host, even when I was a post-Vat. II. kiddie in short pants.

It does nothing of the sort. Who ever taught you that? Obviously, they did no research.

You were taught as a child the rules which were in effect at the time. You appear to have been taught that they were rules that really were doctrinal rather than disciplinary; so was I. But at the very bottom of it all, that was not the full truth; it was the rule, but is twas not doctrinal. Holiness has nothing to do with it, and you know that. Homosexual priests who were sexually abusing teenage boys were touching the Host; don’t give me that bit about holiness. I know better. The change has nothing whatsoever to do with priests “doing it wrong”. It has to do with the shortage of priests. We have one priest in our parish who says 4 Masses from Saturday evening through Sunday evening and is in his 70’s. The EMHC’s are eminently justified in a parish with 1100 families.

[Please list, if you know, which rites of the East currently allow CITH. I’ve read on this forum it’s the Assyrian and one other. I’m not sure how *their

method justifies our abandoning our way, but it would be good to know.]Our method has not been abandoned. COTT is still the norm of the Church. People are free to receive either way where the indult is practiced; they obviously make the choice.

None of these changes were mandated by the Second Vatican Council, at which the reigning Popes made no infallible pronouncements, I undersand.

You might want to consdier the titles of the documents. The Church does not name their documents meaninglessly. So the changes were not mandated - and your point is? We can both agree that the OF was not, for all of its changes, contemplated by the decree. The decree did not specify exactly what changes it wanted; that should be no surpirse to anyone. We can all agree that some of the changes were not contemplated. They are still within the legitimate exercise of authority of the Pope. We can debate the wisdom of specifics. But I am tired of the mantra
“not mandated by the Council” as if that had any essential meaning. It may have meaning as to the wisdom of the changes; but the Council did not intend to set specifics - which should be obvous to the untrained reader.

By “what happened pre-Vat. II” being moot, I mean I assume that there was a set way to say the Roman Catholic Mass. A priest could ignore it, but he knew his bounds. Now, if you go into a new diocese you’re no longer sure about what you’ll find in the Mass, in terms of novelties. **With the vernacular Mass, you can’t participate at all, if you don’t speak the local lingo. **

Having been in a number of dioceses and a number of parishes, I have found the “novelties” to be very minimal if at all. I have been surprised, because of all the vehemence about novelties, at how infrequent they actually are - and I have read the GIRM a number of times so it is not like I have no idea what the rules are. As to language - extremely few spoke Latin prior to Vatican 2; parroting a phrase is not “speaking Latin”. I have attended Mass in Spanish aned Vietnamese, and given the amount of Latin I studied, I could understand (minimally) more of the Spanish. But I always knew exactly where I was in the Mass in both languages.

Using reported pre-Vat II abuse as justifcation for change suggests abuse was widespread and that the subsequent changes have cured this. Or that they can bring regularity to the participants in the new rite. Which I submit they have not.

Who said that the changes to the Mass were because of abuses? They were due to the separation between priest and congregation, which had been growing wider over the centuries. Most particularly in a Low Mass, the congregation was essentially irrelevant to the saying of the Mass.

 

[Frosty]

Now, if you go into a new diocese you’re no longer sure about what you’ll find in the Mass, in terms of novelties. With the vernacular Mass, you can’t participate at all, if you don’t speak the local lingo.

.

This claim is absolutely ridiculous! To say that anyone who really understands what the Mass is all about cannot participate properly if one finds him/herself in a church where Mass is celebrated in a language other than one’s own shows an astonishing blindness on your part. In my lifetime, I have attended Mass on four continents in literally hundreds of different churches. Do I speak or understand Japanese, Swahili, Chinese, Portugese, Polish, Croatian, Hungarian, etc.? No, I don’t. Could I say the responses in any of those languages? No. I say them softly in my own tongue. However, I can assure you that I know what is happening at every moment of the Mass and can participate just as fully as when I attend Mass in my native language.
I don’t know what your purpose is in constantly making such sweeping and baseless statements or what satisfaction you get from doing so. Honesty and truth are an integral part of Catholic tradition. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that?

 

[bill210]

Eucharisted said that the Church has learned that the crumbs are not Jesus. That is not true.
Every particle of the Host and every drop of the Wine has become the living glorified Body of Christ. This miracle of faith takes place through the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual living God at the Consecration. Every host, every particle is Christ as long as the accidents of bread and wine exist and this is not dependent on the size of the particle or the opinion of any believer. This is an objective truth.
Consider the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano and you will see more clearly how this is true.

 

[I_Believe]

The key though, in both the West AND the East, is that the custom was abandonned. It was reintroduced for all the (wrong) ecumenical reasons.

Exactly, it was introduced from the bottom rung of the ladder. NOT from Rome.

Another example of the about face following VII.

 

[otjm]

Eucharisted said that the Church has learned that the crumbs are not Jesus. That is not true.
Every particle of the Host and every drop of the Wine has become the living glorified Body of Christ. This miracle of faith takes place through the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the actual living God at the Consecration. Every host, every particle is Christ as long as the accidents of bread and wine exist and this is not dependent on the size of the particle or the opinion of any believer. This is an objective truth.
Consider the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano and you will see more clearly how this is true.

That is not exactly correct. When the particles cannot be indentified as coming from the Eucharist, one has not more responsiblity for the issue.

If a Host cannot be consumed, it is put into water until it disintegrates, and then is poured down a sacrarium (which is a sink that goes directly to the ground). although the Host “dissolves”, on can still see particles.

Fragments that are visible and clearly of the Host need to be consumed. One does not have a duty to assume that fragments that are indistinguishable from whatever unidentifiable ditritus exists in the same area are part of the Host. As in, look at the air illuminated by a sunbeam, and you will often notice multiple small fragmanets of something floating in the air. The fact that they are floating in the air above the ciborium does not indicate that they are to be treated as fragments of the Host, in spite of the fact that it may be held up at that point.

 

[otjm]

Exactly, it was introduced from the bottom rung of the ladder. NOT from Rome.

Another example of the about face following VII.

Not everything that the Church does was introduced from Rome. Validity is not determined by the source of the action; it is determined by whether or not Rome allows or permits it (or, as in these circumstances, grants an indult).

About face? Vatican 2 provided only the directions that there were to be changes made, and outlined a few things they wanted to see (not mandated). It is pretty hard to say that Vatican 2 set anything of a clear direction to the changes let alone mandate specifically what changes they wanted; thus it becomes impossible to say that the direction was an “about face”.