Pope John Paul II on COTT

[damooster]

I’m not trying to start a debate (I know this is a touchy subject) but I was kind of shocked to learn that Pope John Paul II was apparently in favor of COTT. I’ve talked to people who always give me the “oh, that changed after Vatican II” to defend something, so I was shocked to see that Pope John Paul II was in favor of COTT.

Here’s the quote:

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

This quote was included in Pope John Paul II Dominicae Cenae. You can read it here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

And again, I’m not trying to start a debate. I just wanted to share it with all of you.

 

[ProVobis]

And again, I’m not trying to start a debate. I just wanted to share it with all of you.

And thank you for that.

 

[jennifer1auren]

Wow, I’m really surprised. I figured he would be all for COTH. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not trying to start a debate (I know this is a touchy subject) but I was kind of shocked to learn that Pope John Paul II was apparently in favor of COTT. I’ve talked to people who always give me the “oh, that changed after Vatican II” to defend something, so I was shocked to see that Pope John Paul II was in favor of COTT.

Here’s the quote:

This quote was included in Pope John Paul II Dominicae Cenae. You can read it here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

And again, I’m not trying to start a debate. I just wanted to share it with all of you.

It is amazing how things can get warped when they are filtered down through so many mouthpieces. That’s why it’s always best to go to the source as you have done.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I fully realise this topic can get a little heated (I may qualify for the understatement of 2010). But, without starting a debate, no intention of baiting, and not wishing to break any forum guidelines or rules aren’t the facts in the Latin Church fairly straightforward:

1. 
   *]Communion received kneeling is the Latin Church’s norm;
   *]Communion received on the tongue is the Latin Church’s norm;
   *]The Holy See can grant indults for communion to be received standing to individual episcopal conferences;
   *]The Holy See can grant indults for communion to be received on the hand to individual episcopal conferences;
   *]Even in countries where the The Holy See has granted an indult for communion to be received standing to individual episcopal conferences individual communicants retain the right to kneel;
   *]Even in countries where the The Holy See has granted an indult for communion to be received in the hand to individual episcopal conferences individual communicants retain the right to on the tongue.
   
   I am just asking this as a point of clarification. It can do no harm for us to know what is permitted by Holy Mother Church.
   
   Matt

 

[ConstantineTG]

I fully realise this topic can get a little heated (I may qualify for the understatement of 2010). But, without starting a debate, no intention of baiting, and not wishing to break any forum guidelines or rules aren’t the facts in the Latin Church fairly straightforward:

1. 
   *]Communion received kneeling is the Latin Church’s norm;
   *]Communion received on the tongue is the Latin Church’s norm;
   *]The Holy See can grant indults for communion to be received standing to individual episcopal conferences;
   *]The Holy See can grant indults for communion to be received on the hand to individual episcopal conferences;
   *]Even in countries where the The Holy See has granted an indult for communion to be received standing to individual episcopal conferences individual communicants retain the right to kneel;
   *]Even in countries where the The Holy See has granted an indult for communion to be received in the hand to individual episcopal conferences individual communicants retain the right to on the tongue.
   
   I am just asking this as a point of clarification. It can do no harm for us to know what is permitted by Holy Mother Church.
   
   Matt

1. 
   If you follow the letter of the GIRM and RS, standing does become the norm if the Episcopal Conference says so. Standing is not granted as an indult, only CITH.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If you follow the letter of the GIRM and RS, standing does become the norm if the Episcopal Conference says so.

Wouldn’t they still need the Holy See’s approval? I know if the episcopal conference passes something by a two-thirds vote it also requires the Holy See’s recognitio. I know they don’t require its recognitio if the vote is unanimous but I thought all acts of an episcopal conference had to be reviewed and confirmed by the Holy See.

 

[MarkThompson]

Wouldn’t they still need the Holy See’s approval? I know if the episcopal conference passes something by a two-thirds vote it also requires the Holy See’s recognitio. I know they don’t require its recognitio if the vote is unanimous but I thought all acts of an episcopal conference had to be reviewed and confirmed by the Holy See.

Yes, but requiring an approval doesn’t make it an indult. It would also require approval if the conference chose kneeling as the norm. See Eucharisticum Mysterium (“In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing.”) and GIRM 160. CITH, of course, is by indult, as mentioned above.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wouldn’t they still need the Holy See’s approval? I know if the episcopal conference passes something by a two-thirds vote it also requires the Holy See’s recognitio. I know they don’t require its recognitio if the vote is unanimous but I thought all acts of an episcopal conference had to be reviewed and confirmed by the Holy See.

It would need recognitio regardless, its what the law asks. No matter how many Bishops favor it or not. Maybe in certain other things they would do what you described. Here’s what RS#90 says

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

So regardless of the choice and regardless of how many Bishops vote in favor of the choice, it needs to receive recognitio as stated by law. And what is chosen is not an indult but the norm as set by the Episcopal Conference.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Yes, but requiring an approval doesn’t make it an indult. It would also require approval if the conference chose kneeling as the norm. See Eucharisticum Mysterium (“In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing.”) and GIRM 160. CITH, of course, is by indult, as mentioned above.

OK, I understand from what CTG said in Post #6 it’s not an indult. I was just checking that the Holy See’s consent is still required.

What stops it from being an indult? I thought an indult was when the Holy See allows an episcopal conference to do something that is different from the norm in the rest of the Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

OK, I understand from what CTG said in Post #6 it’s not an indult. I was just checking that the Holy See’s consent is still required.

What stops it from being an indult? I thought an indult was when the Holy See allows an episcopal conference to do something that is different from the norm in the rest of the Church.

Language of the law I guess. If the Church says, “you can set the norm,” then what you set is the norm. But in the case of CITH or married priests in the Latin Church, the norm isn’t abolished or replaced, so it would be an indult. In the case of standing or kneeling, the language of the law is clear, “here are two choices, YOU decide.”

 

[PAboy57]

I just wish the Church/Pope would say kneel and only a priest or deacon may give COTT. If you are unable to kneel we understand.

or say do it the other way only CITH.

I think having all these options create more fighting among us than help.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

If you follow the letter of the GIRM and RS, standing does become the norm if the Episcopal Conference says so. Standing is not granted as an indult, only CITH.

Of course, a norm is in this case really only a description. Which is why kneeling communicants are not to be held disobedient - the norm has no prescriptive force.

Fr. Z was the first commenter I found, though I’m almost positive Cdl. Arinze has said as much, for those with more energy than I to track it down.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-in-the-usa-is-it-against-the-law-to-kneel-for-communion/

 

[JReducation]

I just wish the Church/Pope would say kneel and only a priest or deacon may give COTT. If you are unable to kneel we understand.

or say do it the other way only CITH.

I think having all these options create more fighting among us than help.

The fighting in unnecessary. It can stop if we simply accept what the Church accepts. If the Church accepts that John can receive COTT and Mary can receive CITH, then I can accept it too and leave it at that. In my own life, I receive COTT. I don’t look at or care if others receive CITH. The Church says they can do so. I’m not in authority. Therefore, I have no say in the matter. It’s that simple. The problem is that we all want to have a voice in everything that goes on around us. We really have to examine how realistic that is.

OK, I understand from what CTG said in Post #6 it’s not an indult. I was just checking that the Holy See’s consent is still required.

What stops it from being an indult? I thought an indult was when the Holy See allows an episcopal conference to do something that is different from the norm in the rest of the Church.

CITH is not an indult. However, the local conference can decide to have CITH. Once they decide to do so, they must submit their decision to the Holy See for approval. However, the individual bishops can back out of the agreement at any time. The Conference does not make laws for the doiceses or take the authority away from the local bishop. An indult, is a dispensation from a rule. In this case, we can say that the indult was to allow the conferences to choose, even though the choice has to be acknowledged by the Holy See.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course, a norm is in this case really only a description. Which is why kneeling communicants are not to be held disobedient - the norm has no prescriptive force.

Fr. Z was the first commenter I found, though I’m almost positive Cdl. Arinze has said as much, for those with more energy than I to track it down.

wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/quaeritur-in-the-usa-is-it-against-the-law-to-kneel-for-communion/

This topic has been debated to death in these forums. The norm is the norm. The letter of the law also says those who don’t follow the norm are not to be denied Communion. If you check the “blah blah blah” thread there’s a post there saying someone received Communion while on his cellphone. So is receiving not on your phone only a description?

 

[At_Trent]

The Church says they can do so. I’m not in authority. Therefore, I have no say in the matter. It’s that simple. The problem is that we all want to have a voice in everything that goes on around us. We really have to examine how realistic that is.

Totally agree with that, and if those that started the practice of CITH would have accepted that fact, we would not have CITH. Or, if we would have it today, then it would have been introduced by Rome after proper process. Then no one would have a right to question it.

But, CITH was born of disobedience, and that’s why we keep having the divisive debates. If there were no clergy speaking against CITH, then perhaps the laity would do best to shut up. But some are speaking against it, so those who agree will continue to speak up

IMO, CITH is appalling. But I don’t judge those who don’t know better. I’d imagine the average Catholic who sees someone receive COTT thinks it’s something that is tolerated, when in fact, it’s the other way around.

 

[damooster]

I was hoping this topic wouldn’t turn into a debate but rather a discussion of Pope John Paul II’s comments…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Totally agree with that, and if those that started the practice of CITH would have accepted that fact, we would not have CITH. Or, if we would have it today, then it would have been introduced by Rome after proper process. Then no one would have a right to question it.

But, CITH was born of disobedience, and that’s why we keep having the divisive debates. If there were no clergy speaking against CITH, then perhaps the laity would do best to shut up. But some are speaking against it, so those who agree will continue to speak up

IMO, CITH is appalling. But I don’t judge those who don’t know better. I’d imagine the average Catholic who sees someone receive COTT thinks it’s something that is tolerated, when in fact, it’s the other way around.

Don’t you think you’re micro-analyzing CITH because of personal opinion against it? How many traditions and practices are accepted today that are “born out of disobedience”? Meaning they were not in the rubrics but somehow, somewhere people started practicing them and the practice spread? To tell you honestly I do not know the answer, but organic development and inculturation happens that way and its prevalent in the East and is accepted in the East. In fact, didn’t the Council of Nicea say that we should offer our prayers to the Lord standing up? How did Roman Catholics start kneeling anyway?

 

[ProVobis]

All legalities aside, I think the OP’s point was to show how little the Catholics value the words of the Pope, and a popular one at that. The fact that several people were even surprised at this statement from the Pope shows how truth either gets relegated to the last page somewhere, gets completely distorted, or only concentrates on all possible loopholes. Very sad.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

All legalities aside, I think the OP’s point was to show how little the Catholics value the words of the Pope, and a popular one at that. The fact that several people were even surprised at this statement from the Pope shows how truth either gets relegated to the last page somewhere, gets completely distorted, or only concentrates on all possible loopholes. Very sad.

But here is where I see a disconect and why I see that some do not “value the words of the Pope”, he is the authority. He has the power to make reception on the tongue the only way to receive, which appears to be he preference, yet he allows for the other option.

So there is no way that one can say that one is better than the other, even if the Pope has a personal preference because he allows for both.