TLM At the National Shrine

[Layman]

The churches I was referring to use EMHCs. Of the five I’m familiar with, two are Franciscan. The latter are not, physically, big churches, with large congregations, but they still use EMHCs.

EMHCs are not, of course, used at the TLMs I attend.

So, because you are returning to your charism, you have to use EMHCs? Because canon law cannot force a layman to kneel and monks and friars don’t kneel, COTT, kneeling is out?**

Hmmm, why would a layman, who is physically sound, want to stand at a communion where no one else is? What was the inspiration to have Communion put into your hand anyway? How does it foster piety? I’ve never got a satisfactory answer to that question.

An odd state of affairs. I can see that returning to the TLM is the best way to avoid four decades of experimentation. It cuts out a lot of aggro. Go to a TLM and you’re pretty sure what you’re going to get. Kinda lucky in a way how that’s worked out.

–

** Mixed CITH and COTT, kneeling would be awkward, I think. e.g. “Why are those guys kneeling when them over there are standing?” How can you distribute communion both from behind and in front of the rails? Or in a queue, with people kneeling and standing?

 

[Marie5890]

What was the inspiration to have Communion put into your hand anyway? How does it foster piety?

It’s my understanding this is an ancient practice. Am I wrong in my understanding
?

 

[ProVobis]

Then don’t translate it. Have it in Latin. We’ve had a de-facto de-sacralisation of our rite via an unthinking pursuit of populism. It may annoy people, but having Latin preserves the meaning of the text and transmits it down the centuries.** We now have a Babel in the Church. **

Not to mention having to maintain several hundreds of different vernacular texts and readings of the liturgy and to ensure each one’s authenticity. Sounds like an overwhelming task to me.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s my understanding this is an ancient practice. Am I wrong in my understanding
?

In short, it was a practice done under very different circumstances. Since then a couple of councils and many Popes spoke out against it. Apparently the practice was abused and those circumstances were no longer applicable.

 

[Layman]

For me it’s simple: Do ye believe your God present in the Host? Yes or no? If yes, then changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman makes no sense.

If the answer is no, if it’s just blessed bread, or merely symbolic, then changing over to CITH, standing, is no biggie. Unfortunately, also, I think the latter is the Protestant position, amongst those sects which offer communion.

We are expected to revere the Host and participate in the ‘Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass’ and then this practice is introduced. It’s a contradiction.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

What was the inspiration to have Communion put into your hand anyway? How does it foster piety? I’ve never got a satisfactory answer to that question.

I’ll answer your question. CITH dates back to the early days of the Church. Some people think it was done in the Church for many years, but in reality it was only done for a brief period of time. Sources that say it was done longer are wrong. Even when CITH was done, they put cloths on their hands. However, they stopped doing it because they realized it was sacreligious. Then CITH re-appeared at the Protestant reformation. How did it make a second appearence in the Catholic Church? Vatican II is to blame. Protestants gave suggestions at Vatican II, and one of the suggestions they gave was to have Communion received in the hands. So, Vatican II threw it in there.

So what was the inspiration to have CITH to begin with? The blame lies on the Devil himself in this situation. We must recall that Martin Luther was tempted by the Devil to break away from the Church and clearly got his “inspiration” from those temptations. Afterall, Luther was obsessed with the Devil. Some accuse Luther of having been mentally ill. CITH, therefore, became a Protestant thing and then found its way into the Catholic Church at Vatican II.

 

[JReducation]

The churches I was referring to use EMHCs. Of the five I’m familiar with, two are Franciscan. The latter are not, physically, big churches, with large congregations, but they still use EMHCs.

EMHCs are not, of course, used at the TLMs I attend.

So, because you are returning to your charism, you have to use EMHCs? Because canon law cannot force a layman to kneel and monks and friars don’t kneel, COTT, kneeling is out?**

Hmmm, why would a layman, who is physically sound, want to stand at a communion where no one else is? What was the inspiration to have Communion put into your hand anyway? How does it foster piety? I’ve never got a satisfactory answer to that question.

An odd state of affairs. I can see that returning to the TLM is the best way to avoid four decades of experimentation. It cuts out a lot of aggro. Go to a TLM and you’re pretty sure what you’re going to get. Kinda lucky in a way how that’s worked out.

–

** Mixed CITH and COTT, kneeling would be awkward, I think. e.g. “Why are those guys kneeling when them over there are standing?” How can you distribute communion both from behind and in front of the rails? Or in a queue, with people kneeling and standing?

Not necessarily. Remember what I said. Even when the Roman Church had the Tridentine mass, those parishes run by exempt religious orders were also exempt fromt he rubrics of the TLM. They followed the customs of their orders. Dominicans did their thing. Carmelites did it their way. Franciscans did it their way. Carthusians did it their way, Benedictine had their way. Later you had the Clerks Regular who also had their own traditions.

The TLM mass that everyone is talking about being so uniform was only uniform in secular parishes. Not in monastery parishes, friary parishes, or parishes run by clerks.

If you impose the TLM on every parish, you’re going to create a crisis for the Church. All of these religious orders wuold have to abandon the parishes that they serve. Where are you going to get priests for those parishes? The religious orders are niot going to change their rule and constitution to keep the parishioners happy. That’s not allowed. Canon Law says that any tradition in a religious order of men, that is over 100 years old, is not subject to Church Law, it automatically becomes part of Church tradition.

Right now we have 40% of priests are members of religious orders. Twenty-five percent of ordained religious serve in diocesan ministries such as parishes, schools and hospitals where they celebrate mass. That entire group would have to stop celebrating mass. If they have to do that, you can be sure that the major superiors will pull them out of those ministries. They can use the manpower someplace else. There are other ministries that desperately need religious and do not require celebrating mass. Of course the conventual mass would not be affected, because none of the law can carry over into a religious house of men who are exempt from the laws. That’s why they are called exempt orders.

The idea of making every parish TLM is not going to work, because even before the OF, every parish was not TLM. The majority in the USA were, because the majority of priests in the USA are secular men.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I’ll answer your question. CITH dates back to the early days of the Church. Some people think it was done in the Church for many years, but in reality it was only done for a brief period of time. Sources that say it was done longer are wrong. Even when CITH was done, they put cloths on their hands. However, they stopped doing it because they realized it was sacreligious. Then CITH re-appeared at the Protestant reformation. How did it make a second appearence in the Catholic Church? Vatican II is to blame. Protestants gave suggestions at Vatican II, and one of the suggestions they gave was to have Communion received in the hands. So, Vatican II threw it in there.

So what was the inspiration to have CITH to begin with? The blame lies on the Devil himself in this situation. We must recall that Martin Luther was tempted by the Devil to break away from the Church and clearly got his “inspiration” from those temptations. Afterall, Luther was obsessed with the Devil. Some accuse Luther of having been mentally ill. CITH, therefore, became a Protestant thing and then found its way into the Catholic Church at Vatican II.

St. Cyrill is the first to write about this practice, very early in Church history. But it did not go away quickly. In fact in the revision of canon law at the Tertulloian Council in 690, Canon 101, repeats what St. Cyril had taught hudreds of years before. It was only after the demarkation between the Eastern and Western Catholics that we begin to see different rites use different methods of distributing communion.

It cannot be a scrilege to distribute communion in the hand, because most Eastern Catholic Churches do so. What is a sacrilege for the Roman Church has to be a sacrilege fo the universal Catholic Church. Let us not forget that we are one Catholic Church made up of 22 Catholic Churches in communion with each other, but with different traditions. You can’t call something a sacrilege here and a holy act there. That’s not only confusing, it makes no sense to people. The Eastern Catholics would hang you if you told them that receiving in the hand is a sacrilege.

I have never seen a cloth in the hand nor do the ancient writings talk about it. This is what Cyril says.

** In approaching25172517 Cat. xviii. 32: “with what reverence and order you must go from Baptism to the Holy Altar of God.” therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King25182518 Cyril appears to be the earliest authority for thus placing the hands in the form of a Cross. A similar direction is given in the 101st Canon of the Trullan Council (692), and by Joh. Damasc. (De Fid. Orthod. iv. 14). Dict. Chr. Ant. “Communion.” That the communicant was to receive the Bread in his own hands is clear from the language of Cyril and other Fathers. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. c. i. § 5: “Some after dividing the Eucharist according to custom allow each of the laity himself to take his part.” See the passage of Origen quoted in the next note, and Tertull. Cor. Mil. c. iii. “The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded both (to be taken) at meal-times and by all, we take even in assemblies before dawn, and from the hand of none but the presidents.”. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it**

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvii.html

It was included in Canon Law of the Roman Church at least to the 8th century, maybe later, because some monasteries founded after that had it and still do. The Cluniac Reform did not happen until the 10 century and the Cluniac movement had communion in the hand for their houses. They were Roman.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

You haven’t answered the question. You have said that it was allowed, long ago, and is now allowed again, but not why, now, after hundreds of years.

Nor have you explained why changing a Roman Catholic secular parish over to these practices, when previously the Host was so revered it was taught that no one save clergy could touch it by hand, is of spiritual benefit. And are you telling me that Franciscans had CITH in their friaries before the 1960’s? I know certain religious orders had their own rites, but …

Again I ask: 1. which non-Roman Catholic or even Orthodox rites currently allow this practice. 2. Under what circumstances and 3. Why should we copy them?

Also: does anyone besides St. Cyril promote this practice, especially in the RC Church?

 

[Marie5890]

St. Cyrill is the first to write about this practice, very early in Church history. But it did not go away quickly. In fact in the revision of canon law at the Tertulloian Council in 690, Canon 101, repeats what St. Cyril had taught hudreds of years before. It was only after the demarkation between the Eastern and Western Catholics that we begin to see different rites use different methods of distributing communion.

It cannot be a scrilege to distribute communion in the hand, because most Eastern Catholic Churches do so. What is a sacrilege for the Roman Church has to be a sacrilege fo the universal Catholic Church. Let us not forget that we are one Catholic Church made up of 22 Catholic Churches in communion with each other, but with different traditions. You can’t call something a sacrilege here and a holy act there. That’s not only confusing, it makes no sense to people. The Eastern Catholics would hang you if you told them that receiving in the hand is a sacrilege.

I have never seen a cloth in the hand nor do the ancient writings talk about it. This is what Cyril says.

** In approaching25172517 Cat. xviii. 32: “with what reverence and order you must go from Baptism to the Holy Altar of God.” therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King25182518 Cyril appears to be the earliest authority for thus placing the hands in the form of a Cross. A similar direction is given in the 101st Canon of the Trullan Council (692), and by Joh. Damasc. (De Fid. Orthod. iv. 14). Dict. Chr. Ant. “Communion.” That the communicant was to receive the Bread in his own hands is clear from the language of Cyril and other Fathers. Cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. I. c. i. § 5: “Some after dividing the Eucharist according to custom allow each of the laity himself to take his part.” See the passage of Origen quoted in the next note, and Tertull. Cor. Mil. c. iii. “The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded both (to be taken) at meal-times and by all, we take even in assemblies before dawn, and from the hand of none but the presidents.”. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it**

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvii.html

It was included in Canon Law of the Roman Church at least to the 8th century, maybe later, because some monasteries founded after that had it and still do. The Cluniac Reform did not happen until the 10 century and the Cluniac movement had communion in the hand for their houses. They were Roman.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for the big picture of historical facts. I was taught that CITH was a historical practice when I was going thru RCIA but our teachers didnt know that actual facts surrounding it.

 

[Layman]

Marie, you may wish to consider a contrary account:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

That only St. Cyril, it seems, can be found to support this practice, and him operating in a different culture and 1500+ years ago, is significant, I think.

Why drop COTT, kneeling, from a priest and repalce it by CITH, standing, from a laywoman? What’s the benefit?

 

[Marie5890]

Marie, you may wish to consider a contrary account:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

That only St. Cyril, it seems, can be found to support this practice, and him operating in a different culture and 1500+ years ago, is significant, I think.

Why drop COTT, kneeling, from a priest and repalce it by CITH, standing, from a laywoman? What’s the benefit?

Thanks for the link…Will go read it…

AFA as why “drop” the things you mentioned, I guess for me that true reverence comes from the soul, attitude, and the heart and not the position, etc. Im incapable of kneeling and that doesnt prevent me from feeling profound reverence when I receive. It’s the same with who is distributing communion. For me its Who I am receiving, not who is distributing. Im not paying attention to them…Im paying attention to Him.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Layman]

Well, a Mass is a communal, public rite consisting of symbolic, outer, acts and objects. No one can see your inner reverence. The idea is to raise the particapants minds and souls to matters Divine and bring Heaven a little closer.

Symbols matter. Changing ours affects our perceptions. Otherwise, the rite is meaningless and we might as well stay home and send out for an EMHC.

 

[Marie5890]

. Otherwise, the rite is meaningless and we might as well stay home and send out for an EMHC.

Having spent months at a time in hospitals I completely disagree with the word “meaningless”.

I expect those home bound and in nursing homes would also disagree with the word “meaningless”.

 

[Layman]

By meaningless I mean: if inner reverence trumps outer posture, in a public, communal rite and symbols can be changed or removed according to fashion, then why should the rite itself be taken seriously?

 

[Brendan]

It cannot be a scrilege to distribute communion in the hand, because most Eastern Catholic Churches do so.

Br. John,

I would disagree here. Most of the Eastern Catholic Churches distribute the Eucharist by Indinction.

The Melkites, Coptic Catholic and Chaldeans offer the Eucharist in the form of a single speceies, and thus allow reception in the hand.

But in terms of both numbers of Eastern Catholics, and by sui juris Church, Communion by Intinction is the most common.

So while it would be accurate to state that SOME Eastern Catholic recieve that way (which still helps to reinforce your overall point), it would not be accurate to state that MOST do.

Perhaps you were thinking of the antidoron, the blessed bread that was NOT consecrated ( the priest will only consecrate sufficent bread from the loaf for the needs of distribution). The bread not used in Concecration is blessed, but put aside before the Eucharistic Prayer.

It is distributed to the faithful after DIvine Liturgy as a Sacramental. THAT is recieved in the hand and consumed.

 

[Marie5890]

By meaningless I mean: if inner reverence trumps outer posture, in a public, communal rite and symbols can be changed or removed according to fashion, then why should the rite itself be taken seriously?

Why? Because it is making Our Lord present. Do symbols matter? Of course they do. But they aren’t the main focus nor should they be. If they are the main focus, then, IMO, people are missing the entire reason what Our Lord was doing at the Last Supper.

Symbols are very helpful, but should never be the main focus.

 

[ProVobis]

Why? Because it is making Our Lord present. Do symbols matter? Of course they do. But they aren’t the main focus nor should they be. If they are the main focus, then, IMO, people are missing the entire reason what Our Lord was doing at the Last Supper.

The crucifix is much more than what Our Lord was doing at the Last Supper. As is the Mass. As are all the stations of the cross. As are the cherubims which watch over God’s Holy of Holies.

 

[Marie5890]

Layman, I read the link you gave me and that person is certainly articulate in putting forth their opinion.

But that is what I came away with; their opinion and their preference, which people are certainly free to have. (ie"CITH is too casual")

I do tend to be more interesting in facts.

Thanks for the link though! I always appreciate reading a different view well articulated.

 

[ProVobis]

Why drop COTT, kneeling, from a priest and repalce it by CITH, standing, from a laywoman? What’s the benefit?

Precisely. COTT-only kneeling-only at the communion rail worked for many centuries in the Latin Rite. If someone was unable to kneel or walk, then communion was brought to them upon request. I have yet to read anything which said that system was broken and needed fixing.