JReducation;9250183:
Um, no, actually it doesn’t help. This is the first time I have ever heard that Fransicans received communion in the hand from 1209 on. Again, I did a search for the history of the Franciscans, and the history of communion in the hand, but I just don’t find it anywhere that they received in the hand. I certainly don’t mean to be disrespectful, and as a Franciscan, you certainly have more knowledge than I do. But it just doesn’t seem to make sense that St. Francis would ever permit a host to be touched by any of his friars who were not ordained. Again, I point to the quote of St. Francis:
"If I were to meet at the same time a Saint from Heaven and a poor priest I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence,** for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good which far surpasses everything that is human’**
."
Why would he specifically mention the hands of a priest touching the Word of Life if he thought it was okay for everyone to touch it?
Br. JR, you’ve really got me confused.
Also, why did the sister teaching us in 1962 tell us that we must never touch a host, that only the priest can touch it? Was she wrong then? You have to understand that with formation like that in our very young years, it make some of geezers reluctant to accept CITH.
We have three separate things happening here. Let’s take one at a time.
The quote
The quote is out of context. The question that he was addressing was not who touched the host. The question was about the “immorality” of the priests of this place where he was at the time. He refers to the fact that they (the priests) consecrate to emphasize the respect that people should have for their priests. His issue was that instead of talking about your priests, you should show reverence toward them. If you have a real problem, go to those who can solve it, not to the internet. I’m putting that in modern terms.
We know this, because he repeats the same advice in his rule and in the admonitions to the brothers.
CITH
The Franciscans started with one priest and 11 non-clerical brothers. It was never the intent of St. Francis to found an order of priests, but a brotherhood. In this brotherhood, there were priests, but not everyone was a priest. Without anyone making it a law, the custom just developed that the priest would hand the consecrated host to the brothers. This became common practice.
In some provinces, this practice never caught on, because the brothers who formed those provinces wee not part of the original line of brothers from Assisi. Many Franciscan communities have emerged during the last 800 years. Some are closer to and others are less close to the original community in Assisi.
It COTT was not banned. It simply was not enforced by superiors. The brothers always adapted themselves to their surroundings. When they have a conventual mass, they do it their way. When they have a public mass or attend a mass by a priest who is not a brother, they follow the practices for that situation.
In other words, on this point, Franciscans were never sticklers for law. We had brothers who were acolyte who took Communion to the sick. We have few, but some who are permanent deacons. They too distributed Communion, long before CITH was allowed by the Vatican.
Sister in 1962
She was wrong, but she did not know that she was wrong. In 1962, Canon Law prohibited the laity touching the sacred host. Sister was right on that part.
Church law never limited touching the host to priests. Deacons, in some places, acolytes, in female monasteries, nuns and fraternal orders, non clerical brothers (not the same as a lay brother) and in mission countries, most missionaries, touched the host, because they distributed Communion in the absence of a priest or deacon.
The Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are deacons, priests and bishops. Sister was wrong in excluding deacons. She was wrong in excluding all of the other exceptions.
However, Sister did not know that she was wrong, because she was probably never taught about deacons or about the other exceptions. She was probably taught from Aquinas, who said that only consecrated hands could touch the host. The fact is that some people treat everything that Aquinas said as if it were infallible Church law, which is not the case. In this instance, Aquinas was wrong. The Church never adopted his position. But I can assure you that many people were taught that position. This is why I say that Sister was wrong, but did not know that she was wrong.
There were many things that were taught as absolutes that we know were never absolutes. CITH is one of them, but not the only one that was not properly explained. There was a canon about this, but no one explained to the laity or to sisters when the canon came in, why or the exceptions. Remember, sisters were not allowed to study theology or Canon Law. That’s part of their rebellion. They were often treated as “just women” or more condescending “angelic figures who needed nothing more than prayers and an apostolate.” Their theological formation was very limited or non-existent in some communities. They were well trained as teachers, nurses, doctors, etc, but not in theology or Church law.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
