S
Saints_Alive
Guest
You both have misread the OP. It was stated CITH was begun as disobedience. No one has stated it is disobedient to receive CITH today.
- Status
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
What of Cardinals in the Curia ?
"It is the sign of adoration that needs to be recovered. I think the entire Church needs to receive Communion while kneeling.”
- Cardinal Llovera, Prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments - July, 2011
Can anyone cite a single statement by a churchman speaking of the benefits of CITH ? Just one ? I certainly can’ find one.
My point is, there are several members of the Curia who feel CITH was a mistake and they give solid/orthodox reasons for their view on the matter. Those laity who agree with them have but one concern and that is the harm to the Faith that CITH can enable.
Is it possible to receive CITH and have strong Faith ? Absolutely. But COTT while kneeling stresses the adoration aspect of Holy Communion. It also greatly lessons the chance of Hosts falling to the floor, and of people walking away with the host without consuming it immediately.
Yes, the Church allows CITH today via indult. And that is another thing that is seldom mentioned. The conditions of the indult. Seldom mentioned but frequently disregarded.
C
CB_Catholic
Guest
The poster stated that everyone secretly believes it is more reverent. I was pointing out that no, not everyone believes that. And whether you agree or not, it is a matter of opinion, including the respected Cardinals. I am perfectly free to share my opinion on this without me expecting everyone to agree with me and I am free to disagree with whatever Cardinals have spoken. This is not a matter of doctrine or Church law–it is permitted, the indult does not make it wrong, as some seem to be implying. I also do not believe that COTT prevents hosts falling to the floor or people walking away without consuming it. I have witnessed both. And FYI, I prefer to receive on the tongue, as I stated before, but I am not going to accuse my fellow parishoners of being less reverent than me.What of Cardinals in the Curia ?
"It is the sign of adoration that needs to be recovered. I think the entire Church needs to receive Communion while kneeling.”
I could post no fewer than 20 of these sort of statements, including some by BXVI.
- Cardinal Llovera, Prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments - July, 2011
Can anyone cite a single statement by a churchman speaking of the benefits of CITH ? Just one ? I certainly can’ find one.
My point is, there are several members of the Curia who feel CITH was a mistake and they give solid/orthodox reasons for their view on the matter. Those laity who agree with them have but one concern and that is the harm to the Faith that CITH can enable.
Is it possible to receive CITH and have strong Faith ? Absolutely. But COTT while kneeling stresses the adoration aspect of Holy Communion. It also greatly lessons the chance of Hosts falling to the floor, and of people walking away with the host without consuming it immediately.
Yes, the Church allows CITH today via indult. And that is another thing that is seldom mentioned. The conditions of the indult. Seldom mentioned but frequently disregarded.
In any case, this horse has been beaten to death, things are not going to change, it’s one of those things that people are not going to agree on, but the Church has spoken and has the final say.
P
Philosoraptor
Guest
This is why approving the disobedient practice never made much sense to me. I can think of many, many reasons to receive the traditional way, but no reason to receive via the indult. The experiment has been tried and I think it’s safe to say it has failed.
Obviously it is still possible to receive the Blessed Sacrament reverently in the hand - none question this. But which mode fosters reverence for It? Which mode emphasizes that It is a gift, something extraordinary? The great thing about the traditional reception is that it is so different from our everyday life that it forces us to come to grips that Something Different is at work here; nobody eats the way we consume Holy Communion, but we’ve all snacked from our hand. Given our tendencies to apathy and indifference, fostering reverence for the Sacrament with the indult reception seems a bit of an uphill battle.
The indult was given in the hopes of increasing Eucharistic devotion. Has this really happened? I would say no. While it seems unrealistic to blame the indult alone for the destruction of Eucharistic reverence, I think it’s undeniable to say that it didn’t help matters. Thus, since it is a novelty and a failure, it ought to be discarded.
From Deacon Greg:
Obviously it is still possible to receive the Blessed Sacrament reverently in the hand - none question this. But which mode fosters reverence for It? Which mode emphasizes that It is a gift, something extraordinary? The great thing about the traditional reception is that it is so different from our everyday life that it forces us to come to grips that Something Different is at work here; nobody eats the way we consume Holy Communion, but we’ve all snacked from our hand. Given our tendencies to apathy and indifference, fostering reverence for the Sacrament with the indult reception seems a bit of an uphill battle.
The indult was given in the hopes of increasing Eucharistic devotion. Has this really happened? I would say no. While it seems unrealistic to blame the indult alone for the destruction of Eucharistic reverence, I think it’s undeniable to say that it didn’t help matters. Thus, since it is a novelty and a failure, it ought to be discarded.
From Deacon Greg:
Perhaps this way of phrasing it is better. Imagine we’re at the time before the disobedience began; every Catholic receives kneeling and on the tongue. What would be sufficient reason to alter more than fifteen hundred years of tradition?
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
R
Reborn2013
Guest
I question the premise of this entire discussion. It seems to be turned upon its head. I have never encountered resentment to receiving communion on the tongue, but I know many who take a dim view of communion in the hand. And those who practice it.
O
otjm
Guest
As to Hosts falling to the floor, I served as an altar boy from 6th grade through high school, from 1958 into 1960, and my own personal experience is that I have seen 2 Hosts fall to the flloor since CITH started, and I saw numerous Hosts drop to the paten and any number of them hit the floor with COTT. That was essentially because people either did not get their tongue out far enough to have the Host properly placed on it (and it fell off), or the Host hit their teeth as they were taking it back into the mouth. The bit about so many Hosts falling if placed in your hand is just unadulterated poppycock.
M
markomalley
Guest
Can we not just grow up and accept…Where do you get the impression that I am angry?i am not angry at all, I can assure you.
That article from Father Z was written in 2007, before the publication of Universae Ecclesiae, which clarified a lot of matters, such is can the EF be celebrated in the vernacular (ans: the readings OK, but otherwise, no) and so on. What he said after the publication of UE was:
Par. 28 is very important:
28 – Praeterea, cum sane de lege speciali agitur, quoad materiam propriam, Litterae Apostolicae Summorum Pontificum derogant omnibus legibus liturgicis, sacrorum rituum propriis, exinde ab anno 1962 promulgatis, et cum rubricis librorum liturgicorum anni 1962 non congruentibus. … Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside. So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.
Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls…. As I read this, and I checked this with canonists, since the employment of females substituting for Instituted Acolytes came with an interpretation of the 1983 Code, you cannot have altar girls for the Extraordinary Form which was, in 1962, carried out by all male ministers and servers. This would probably apply to other issues, such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.
Derogate means that things are partially replaced, set aside. So, insofar as the use of the 1962 books is concerned, if there is something that came into law after 1962, and that thing or practice conflicts with what is in the 1962 books, then those later, post-1962 things don’t apply to the use of the 1962 books.
Communion in the hand is after 1962, as are Extraordinary Ministers of Communion, altar girls…. As I read this, and I checked this with canonists, since the employment of females substituting for Instituted Acolytes came with an interpretation of the 1983 Code, you cannot have altar girls for the Extraordinary Form which was, in 1962, carried out by all male ministers and servers. This would probably apply to other issues, such as the substitution of music, the use of proper vestments and choir dress, who gives which blessings, etc.
Here’s the bottom line: the USCCB Liturgy Department hasn’t addressed the subject in regards to the Extraordinary Form. The England/Wales Bishops’ Liturgy Department hasn’t said…but they referred the matter to the Latin Mass Society, who refers back to that letter from Ecclesia Dei.
I am not so invested in Communion on the Tongue that I will leave the Church if Ecclesia Dei comes out and states that CITH is OK in the EF if the national bishops’ conference has received the indult.
But, since it appears to me (and to Fr Z…and to Fr Finigan…that Universae Ecclesiae excludes it and you (and presumably others) think that it doesn’t exclude it…it would be a worthwhile question to ask the question again…and ask for an official serial numbered dubium to be published on it. And perhaps to send it to CDWDS and have it published in Notitiae.
M
markomalley
Guest
It’s interesting that a large number of parishes have ushers posted to assure that communicants actually communicate rather than carry the Host back to their pew. And how the pews need to be checked immediately after every Sunday Mass to assure that hosts weren’t left in, or under, the pew.
And the following scene would be a whole lot more difficult if communion was given on the tongue:
…But in an emotional show of solidarity, Brenna C. Cronin, who had already received her communion as part of the church choir, went back up and took another communion wafer (called a Host) and brought it to Murray herself.
“One of my brothers, a member of my community, who is a full and equal member of the body of Christ, was denied communion. So I got back in line and I brought him communion, as I would for anyone else,” Cronin told Windy City Times after the Mass. Cronin, who is a lesbian, has been involved with AGLO for two years and is also a cantor.
A
april32010
Guest
A
april32010
Guest
A
april32010
Guest
Pope John Paul II, Interview, 1980
“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)”
Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained…”
“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!”
“…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 Communion in the hand has been authorized.”
“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)”
Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, Feb 24, 1980
“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained…”
“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!”
“…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 Communion in the hand has been authorized.”
A
april32010
Guest
indult |inˈdəlt|
noun
(in the Roman Catholic Church) a license granted by the pope authorizing an act that the common law of the Church does not sanction.
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French, from late Latin indultum ‘grant, concession,’ neuter past participle of Latin indulgere ‘indulge.’
noun
(in the Roman Catholic Church) a license granted by the pope authorizing an act that the common law of the Church does not sanction.
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French, from late Latin indultum ‘grant, concession,’ neuter past participle of Latin indulgere ‘indulge.’
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
Come on now. As a server at a TLM, yes, you would indeed see every Host dropped. You are standing next to the priest. As a layman standing in a line, unless you are leaning and intentionally watching up ahead for falling Hosts, then of course you wouldn’t see every one that falls as you would as a server. So your argument is flawed isn’t it ?
With CITH, standing, there is seldom a paten used. With COTT at the rail, there is a paten and a Communion Rail. So yes, even though Hosts do indeed hit the floor from time to time, COTT while kneeling at the rail lessens the chance.
S
Saints_Alive
Guest
Looking down on those who receive in the hand is not charitable. But as you can see by the Churchmen quoted on this thread, that many of them are among the “many who take a dim view of communion in the hand” as you say.
O
otjm
Guest
It may well be that there are problems in some areas with people not consuming the Host. I can’t say I am widely experienced in the matter, having only been to parishes in North Dakota, Washington, Utah, Oregon and California since CITH came out. It is only that I ahve never experienced the matter in those few states in multiple parishes. Anecdotes are just that.
However, it was widely known that prior to the OF being promulgated, there would on a rare occasion be someone who would receive a Host (on the tongue - and at the time they were so thin as to almost be translucent) and surreptitiously take it out for other purposes.
Which of course says nothing whatsoever about the EF; only that it occurred at that time.
As to your comment about the lesbian; I would hope that you would not be so naive as to think that it did not occur in the 50’s, and the 40’s, and the 30’s and etc. that a sexually active homosexual would receive when not in the state of grace. Your comment is a red herring.
O
otjm
Guest
No, it is not flawed, as I sit near the front of the church where such is easily seen - except there is nothing to see.
That is only your supposition based on a pure lack of information. You will not concede, so issue terminated.
O
otjm
Guest
As usual, misinformation reigns supreme.
On another thread, Br. JR has explained that CITH has been present in the Roman rite since the 1200s, or as he put it, for 800 years, as it has been present within the Franciscan communities since then. And there is valid evidence that it was practiced within the Roman rite up until 1000+, which gives it an 1800 year history.
Further, as Br. JR has pointed out, the term “disobedient” is one bandied about by those who are strongly opposed to CITH. It was allowed by some bishops who, surprise of surprises, were the chief liturgists in their dioceses (as bishops are to this day) and that canonists were not in agreement that it was disobedience when the bishops allowed it without seeking approval from Rome. And, like most things, one can find someone who supports their position if one searches enough; but sadly, the “opposition” is usually ignored.
Those who oppose it still insist it was “disobedient” as it is their way of casting aspersions on the practice.
Both CITH and COTT appear to have history most likely going back to the time of the Apostles or near there. As the matter was not treated by the earliest Church writers, one simply has little to stand on other than opinion. And both have a long history in the Church, with COTT being the primary (but not exclusive) practice since 1000+ AD.
This horse has been flayed, beaten, and otherwise beat up. The opinions are just that - opinions. Playing the “this is holier” routine meanwhile distracts us from Christ.
Meh.
On another thread, Br. JR has explained that CITH has been present in the Roman rite since the 1200s, or as he put it, for 800 years, as it has been present within the Franciscan communities since then. And there is valid evidence that it was practiced within the Roman rite up until 1000+, which gives it an 1800 year history.
Further, as Br. JR has pointed out, the term “disobedient” is one bandied about by those who are strongly opposed to CITH. It was allowed by some bishops who, surprise of surprises, were the chief liturgists in their dioceses (as bishops are to this day) and that canonists were not in agreement that it was disobedience when the bishops allowed it without seeking approval from Rome. And, like most things, one can find someone who supports their position if one searches enough; but sadly, the “opposition” is usually ignored.
Those who oppose it still insist it was “disobedient” as it is their way of casting aspersions on the practice.
Both CITH and COTT appear to have history most likely going back to the time of the Apostles or near there. As the matter was not treated by the earliest Church writers, one simply has little to stand on other than opinion. And both have a long history in the Church, with COTT being the primary (but not exclusive) practice since 1000+ AD.
This horse has been flayed, beaten, and otherwise beat up. The opinions are just that - opinions. Playing the “this is holier” routine meanwhile distracts us from Christ.
Meh.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
So that is an angry statement is it? Saying that perhaps we should all grow up and accept that since our Church recognises either method of receiving our Lord as acceptable, then so should we.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Absolutely agree. Saints Alive participated in another thread where it was clearly stated that "Paul VI did in fact give permission to bishops to use CITH, as per the clarification re official entry into the AAS. Yet here he is contesting it again, claiming disobedience, as though the church had never clearly spoken.
The letter laid down the following regulations:
Another old thread source.
- Status