Why is CIH so popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ElToro
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
anp1215 said:
I would argue that one disadvantage of COH is the greater possibility of “Eucharistic abuse” (not sure if that’s a real term). For example, there is a greater chance of someone walking off with the host in their hands, than say, someone spitting out the host when they got back to their seat. Yes, I know that both instances happen, but I think that receiving COH makes for greater difficulty in monitoring what exactly people are doing with the host.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that is true,
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
Code: 
                 Originally Posted by **Phemie**
Click to expand...
The diaconate is part of Holy Orders, yes, but unlike priests, those ordained to the diaconate do not have their hands anointed.

This is what is said at the time the priest has his hands anointed “The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God.” So his hands are anointed to confect the Eucharist.

There is no such thing with deacons, so while he may be a cleric, his hands are not consecrated.
Click to expand...
 
anp1215 said:
I would argue that one disadvantage of COH is the greater possibility of “Eucharistic abuse” (not sure if that’s a real term). For example, there is a greater chance of someone walking off with the host in their hands, than say, someone spitting out the host when they got back to their seat. Yes, I know that both instances happen, but I think that receiving COH makes for greater difficulty in monitoring what exactly people are doing with the host.
Click to expand...
ElToro said:
I don’t believe that is true,
Click to expand...
What you believe and what is are two different things, though.
While abuse of the Eucharist can happen either way- it is much easier (and more discrete) to have something handed to you and stash it in your pocket then it is to spit something out of your mouth

I am not realy sure what your intention with this thread was- but here is my :twocents: on the issuse of CITH.

I am happy that the Church (in the US) has decided that I have the choice. I was taught both methods of receiving when I made my First Communion back in the early 1980’s and I have received both ways, but my normative way is in the hand.

I live in a diocese that is well-known for its leanings to the “liberal side” and it was not until I started to look for a more balanced approach to my faith (and found CAF), that I had ever really even thought about how I receive.

I think that this has to be about the most ridiculous “debate” (and I use that term very loosly :p) I have ever witnessed. I have seen CITH be made the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the Church today, and there are people in this thread, and a few others, that have gone as far as “implying” that the Church is wrong, and not following Her own rules & tradition, by even allowing CITH.

How I receive does not indicate what I believe. What matters in the reverence in my heart. I have witnessed many people in my life-time, who “play the part”- who know all the right words, all the right gestures and have no concept that “love of neighbor” is also part of the deal! :sad_yes:

I have also seen others take it to the other “extreme” and say “throw out the rules, Jesus was all about LOVE, dude!” :tsktsk:

Bottom line, at least here in the US, reception of communion in the OF is allowed in the hand or on the tongue. There are so many things that need fixing in the Church, and it seems to me that many want to focus of curing the “symptoms” instead of attacking the larger “disease”.
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of good & meaningful, life-time catechesis! If we change this, all the other things will fall into place!!
 
Oneofthewomen said:
**What you believe and what is are two different things, though.**While abuse of the Eucharist can happen either way- it is much easier (and more discrete) to have something handed to you and stash it in your pocket then it is to spit something out of your mouth

I am not realy sure what your intention with this thread was- but here is my :twocents: on the issuse of CITH.

I am happy that the Church (in the US) has decided that I have the choice. I was taught both methods of receiving when I made my First Communion back in the early 1980’s and I have received both ways, but my normative way is in the hand.

I live in a diocese that is well-known for its leanings to the “liberal side” and it was not until I started to look for a more balanced approach to my faith (and found CAF), that I had ever really even thought about how I receive.

I think that this has to be about the most ridiculous “debate” (and I use that term very loosly :p) I have ever witnessed. I have seen CITH be made the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the Church today, and there are people in this thread, and a few others, that have gone as far as “implying” that the Church is wrong, and not following Her own rules & tradition, by even allowing CITH.

How I receive does not indicate what I believe. What matters in the reverence in my heart. I have witnessed many people in my life-time, who “play the part”- who know all the right words, all the right gestures and have no concept that “love of neighbor” is also part of the deal! :sad_yes:

I have also seen others take it to the other “extreme” and say “throw out the rules, Jesus was all about LOVE, dude!” :tsktsk:

Bottom line, at least here in the US, reception of communion in the OF is allowed in the hand or on the tongue. There are so many things that need fixing in the Church, and it seems to me that many want to focus of curing the “symptoms” instead of attacking the larger “disease”.
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of good & meaningful, life-time catechesis! If we change this, all the other things will fall into place!!
Click to expand...
So YOU say…
 
Oneofthewomen said:
What you believe and what is are two different things, though.
While abuse of the Eucharist can happen either way- it is much easier (and more discrete) to have something handed to you and stash it in your pocket then it is to spit something out of your mouth

I am not realy sure what your intention with this thread was- but here is my :twocents: on the issuse of CITH.

I am happy that the Church (in the US) has decided that I have the choice. I was taught both methods of receiving when I made my First Communion back in the early 1980’s and I have received both ways, but my normative way is in the hand.

I live in a diocese that is well-known for its leanings to the “liberal side” and it was not until I started to look for a more balanced approach to my faith (and found CAF), that I had ever really even thought about how I receive.

I think that this has to be about the most ridiculous “debate” (and I use that term very loosly :p) I have ever witnessed. I have seen CITH be made the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the Church today, and there are people in this thread, and a few others, that have gone as far as “implying” that the Church is wrong, and not following Her own rules & tradition, by even allowing CITH.

How I receive does not indicate what I believe. What matters in the reverence in my heart. I have witnessed many people in my life-time, who “play the part”- who know all the right words, all the right gestures and have no concept that “love of neighbor” is also part of the deal! :sad_yes:

I have also seen others take it to the other “extreme” and say “throw out the rules, Jesus was all about LOVE, dude!” :tsktsk:

Bottom line, at least here in the US, reception of communion in the OF is allowed in the hand or on the tongue. There are so many things that need fixing in the Church, and it seems to me that many want to focus of curing the “symptoms” instead of attacking the larger “disease”.
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of good & meaningful, life-time catechesis! If we change this, all the other things will fall into place!!
Click to expand...
Good post. Thanks. Yes, I was just trying to make the point that CIH makes it slightly easier for someone to walk off with the host. Does that mean most people who take CIH are going to desecrate the host? No. Does that mean that if everyone receives COT there is no possibility of desecration of the host? No. But CIH does allow for more leeway in what the person actually does with the host.
I agree with everything else you write. It seems that there are a lot of people at each extreme-for example, many catechists who teach CIH and neglect to mention COT; and many traditionalists who think CIH is less reverent than COT and have a holier-than-thou attitude towards those who receives CIH. I think you and I are in the middle. Personally, if I were to receive, I would receive COT, but I don’t think twice about others who receive.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
What you believe and what is are two different things, though.While abuse of the Eucharist can happen either way- it is much easier (and more discrete) to have something handed to you and stash it in your pocket then it is to spit something out of your mouth
Click to expand...
ElToro said:
So YOU say…
Click to expand...
Can you please explain to me why you have a problem with this line of thinking?

I know that I am not saying that abuse is more prevelent because of CITH, what I am saying is that it adds a new element that we must diligently address.
If someone really wants to steal the Body of Christ for a nefarious purpose or was just misguided (i.e to have a “souvenir”), they are going to succeed no matter what the mode of reception.
Ignoring the fact that CITH presents unique circumstances to make such activity a little easier and more discreet, is not a good idea either.

As I said before, the mode of reception is just a symptom- what we need a lot more of is catechesis, LIFE-LONG CATECHESIS, so that all who receive the Body & Blood of Christ do so with humble hearts and a true understanding of all that Eucharist means.
 
One thing that Protestants beat Catholics in almost every circumstance is life-long teaching. You have little kids and middle school age children who go to Sunday School. High school kids have similar programs suited to their age. My old Baptist church had “Bible Fellowship” classes for adults that were held after every “service.” There were even classes for people ages 80 and up, and you can be sure they were packed.

It is true that in the Protestant variety of catechesis, it’s mostly Bible-based discussions and lessons. But Catholics can take a cue from their Protestant counterparts and adapt their method. It’s sad that many Catholics know so little about their own religion, where as Protestants know so much about their own, considering that Protestantism is fundamentally wrong.

I’m not saying that we have to become experts in our field, so to speak, because I think that would lead to a clergy vs. laity thing even more than we have now. But I do think that if we are expected to hold certain things in reverence (such as the Eucharist) and respect our religion, we should have to opportunity to have the “tools to succeed.”
 
Phemie said:
The diaconate is part of Holy Orders, yes, but unlike priests, those ordained to the diaconate do not have their hands anointed.

This is what is said at the time the priest has his hands anointed “The Father anointed our Lord Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. May Jesus preserve you to sanctify the Christian people and to offer sacrifice to God.” So his hands are anointed to confect the Eucharist.

There is no such thing with deacons, so while he may be a cleric, his hands are not consecrated.
Click to expand...
Technically true in that he can not confect the Eucarist. but Being as the the word deacon come from the word that means table server, and that they are ordained ( concecrated) not anointed, that would include their hands. Anointed to confer the Eucarist is another matter entirely.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
Can you please explain to me why you have a problem with this line of thinking?

I know that I am not saying that abuse is more prevelent because of CITH, what I am saying is that it adds a new element that we must diligently address.
If someone really wants to steal the Body of Christ for a nefarious purpose or was just misguided (i.e to have a “souvenir”), they are going to succeed no matter what the mode of reception.
Ignoring the fact that CITH presents unique circumstances to make such activity a little easier and more discreet, is not a good idea either.

As I said before, the mode of reception is just a symptom- what we need a lot more of is catechesis, LIFE-LONG CATECHESIS, so that all who receive the Body & Blood of Christ do so with humble hearts and a true understanding of all that Eucharist means.
Click to expand...
👍
 
MisterCorduroy said:
But at a normal Mass, especially when an Extraordinary Minister is distributing I do what St. Cyril of Jerusalem taught in the 4th century “placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.” (Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis, 21)
Click to expand...
This has been questioned as to its authenticity.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Also three councils, Saragozza (380), Rouen, France (650), and Constantinople (692) condemned or forbid the practice of CITH.

Today CITH is not universally allowed except in those countries where a 2/3 majority of bishops approve. And even there several important conditions have to be met.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
 
ElToro said:
Summary

CIH:

Advantages: Better hygiene, more ancient method of receiving; more modest for those uncomfortable about the condition of their mouths; less anxiety for those who don’t want to have others’ hands near their mouths; less anxiety for those who do not want to stick out their tongues; more efficient; safety – less possibility of a dropped Host;

Disadvantages: None known

COT:

Advantages: “Hands-free” communion for those with children or walkers/canes/crutches.

Disadvantages: Having mouth touched; having fingers bitten, more potential for dropped hosts, greater chance of spreading germs/disease.
Click to expand...
All of the advantages listed place us, the communicants, first. And that is the issue that many who prefer COTT have an issue with. So much has the focus become towards us.

"A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, “Where have they taken him?”
Pope Pius XII

If none of today’s prominent churchmen were rethinking CITH, then it could be said that those who prefer COTT were indeed simply sentimental or even scrupulous. But that isn’t the case.

Again, when defending CITH, it cannot be done with sound theological arguments. It can only be done by revealing the true source of the desire for it. That is, what “we” want. All of these pro CITH arguments, while unintentionally perhaps, remove the crown from Our Lord’s head.

Two informative articles
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT
 
It appears that the magisterium agrees with at least some of these arguments, allowing for EMHCs and CITH.

Are you suggesting that the magisterium is “removing the crown from our Lord’s head”?
 
Newbie2 said:
It appears that the magisterium agrees with at least some of these arguments, allowing for EMHCs and CITH.

Are you suggesting that the magisterium is “removing the crown from our Lord’s head”?
Click to expand...
I’m suggesting that those who take the liberty to speak for them do.
 
oneGODoneCHURCH said:
Technically true in that he can not confect the Eucarist. but Being as the the word deacon come from the word that means table server, and that they are ordained ( concecrated) not anointed, that would include their hands. Anointed to confer the Eucarist is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...
You’re confusing things here. People are saying priests can touch the Eucharist because their hands are consecrated. Their hands are consecrated for consecrating the Eucharist, not for touching it. Otherwise every lay person’s mouth would have to be consecrated as well. Deacons do not get their hands consecrated because they do not have the power to change bread and wine into the Eucharist.
 
ConstantineTG said:
You’re confusing things here. People are saying priests can touch the Eucharist because their hands are consecrated. Their hands are consecrated for consecrating the Eucharist, not for touching it. Otherwise every lay person’s mouth would have to be consecrated as well. Deacons do not get their hands consecrated because they do not have the power to change bread and wine into the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
both are consecrated, only the hands of the preist are anointed, And that is for confecting the Eucharist not distribution of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top