Why Is CITH So Popular?

[John_oxios]

He does not think we need them. But, the documents clearly indicate that we do.

Hi,
Just an addition:

    Origen, (on Exodus 13:3, third century a.d)., "You who are accustomed to take part in the Divine mysteries know, when yo receive the Body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any small part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost . For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect.  But if you are so careful to preserve His body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God's word than to have neglected His Body?

Doesn’t Jesus himself tell us, "And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, “Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost.” [Jhn 6:12].

Isn’t part of the reverence and veneration in protecting any and all fragments of His Body?

Doesn’t the whole Lamb have to be consumed?

Exd 12:8 They shall eat the flesh that night, roasted; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it.

Exd 12:10 And you shall let none of it remain until the morning, anything that remains until the morning you shall burn.
Exd 12:24 You shall observe this rite as an ordinance for you and for your sons for ever.

Don’t we clean the sacred vessels in a sacrarium, which drains into the earth beneath the Church so that if there is any trace elements left they are returned to sacred ground from which it came?

The only thing that has changed? Is some of our brethrens attitudes toward the Eucharist has become less than sublime, or that is where they are today in their journey.

God Bless,
John

 

[otjm]

Well then, the other two parishes in your area where the server holds a paten for intinction are also violating the GIRM, which states that the communicant hold the communion-plate.

People who are literalists and/or absolutists would so interpret it.

Rome is neither. Rome can make something clear when it feels the need. But an example of the fact that Rome is not a literalists or absolutist is the answer to Cardinal George’s dubium about standing after reception of Communion until all have received; Arinze answered that they did not intend to be rigid.

There is ample history of altar servers holding the paten; the issue of holding the paten is not about who holds it, but that it is available. It is not a doctrinal issue nor a moral issue, but a practical issue.

On occasion, common sense is needed.

The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common.

 

[japhy]

FWIW, I noticed the odd wording of the GIRM about the paten two and a half years ago, and started a thread about it.

I checked the Latin of the GIRM, and sure enough, it says:287. Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem, qui vas cum sacris particulis tenet et ad cuius latus sistit minister qui calicem sustinet. Sacerdos hostiam accipit, partem eius in calicem intingit et eam ostendendo dicit: Corpus et Sanguis Christi; communicandus respondet: Amen, a sacerdote Sacramentum ore recipit, ac postea recedit.The bolded text reads, “the communicant, holding a paten under [his] mouth, approaches the priest.”

(I think we would all certainly expect it to say “the communicant, a paten being held under [his] mouth, approaches the priest”, but that would require a completely different Latin phrase – patina sub ore tenta, I think. We use patina instead of patinam because now the communion plate is the subject of the perfect passive participle tenta, rather than the object of the present active participle tenens. The term tenta does not translate as “being held” precisely, because Latin has no present passive participle, but rather as “having been held”, which will do just as well here: “a paten having been held under [his] mouth.”)

It is certainly peculiar if taken at face value, because it would require one of the following scenarios: 1) a minister whose duty (at this time) is simply to hold a paten and give it to each communicant as he approaches the priest and receive it back from him (instead of the minister holding the paten himself), 2) a credence table (or somesuch) with a paten for the communicant to pick up and put back down, 3) each communicant to hand the paten to the next (très bizarre!), or 4) each communicant to have his own paten (which he would purify afterwards, of course!).

The constant handing back and forth of the paten seems improper – every exchange of hands is an opportunity for it to spill or be dropped.

My point is, this is an odd-sounding instruction, and it would appear that, based on how papal liturgies are celebrated, the traditional practice of another minister holding the paten for each communicant is the way to do it.

 

[surritter]

I checked the Latin of the GIRM, and sure enough, it says:
287. Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem, qui vas cum sacris particulis tenet et ad cuius latus sistit minister qui calicem sustinet. Sacerdos hostiam accipit, partem eius in calicem intingit et eam ostendendo dicit: Corpus et Sanguis Christi; communicandus respondet: Amen, a sacerdote Sacramentum ore recipit, ac postea recedit.
The bolded text reads, “the communicant, holding a paten under [his] mouth, approaches the priest.” (I think we would all certainly expect it to say “the communicant, a paten being held under [his] mouth, approaches the priest”, but that would require a completely different Latin word, I think tentus, which is the perfect passive participle. It does not translate as “being held” precisely, because Latin has no present passive participle, but rather as “having been held”, which will do just as well here.)

Thanks – that’s exactly why I questioned the translation. And I agree 100% with otjm!

 

[Hotchkiss]

**People who are literalists and/or absolutists would so interpret it.

Rome is neither.** Rome can make something clear when it feels the need. But an example of the fact that Rome is not a literalists or absolutist is the answer to Cardinal George’s dubium about standing after reception of Communion until all have received; Arinze answered that they did not intend to be rigid.

There is ample history of altar servers holding the paten; the issue of holding the paten is not about who holds it, but that it is available. It is not a doctrinal issue nor a moral issue, but a practical issue.

On occasion, common sense is needed.

The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common.

Quite true. That’s why it gets so old to see people trying to push their personal interpretation of the GIRM, RS, etc. in an absolutely literal manner when it matches their personal preferences…

We were talking about whether or not the distribution of communion by intinction is limited only to bishops/priests. It might possibly be but that cannot be determined from the GIRM or RS. Some may want to believe otherwise but they are wrong.

Until the Holy See says otherwise, the very fact that no reason exists to limit the distribution of communion by intinction to bishops/deacons means that it’s ultimately in the hands of the local bishops.

 

[benedictgal]

Quite true. That’s why it gets so old to see people trying to push their personal interpretation of the GIRM, RS, etc. in an absolutely literal manner when it matches their personal preferences…

We were talking about whether or not the distribution of communion by intinction is limited only to bishops/priests. It might possibly be but that cannot be determined from the GIRM or RS. Some may want to believe otherwise but they are wrong.

Until the Holy See says otherwise, the very fact that no reason exists to limit the distribution of communion by intinction to bishops/deacons means that it’s ultimately in the hands of the local bishops.

Why do you downplay and dismiss the CDWDS and its reading of the documents that they themselves authored? The documents clearly state that intinction is to be done by the sacerdos. Sacerdos means priest.

You do not understand that the it is not the bishop’s call to make. He can determine if one or both species will be distributed, but, he cannot change who can administer them. The bishop does not have carte blanche authority. You have been proven wrong many times, but, your refusal to ackowledge the overriding and prevailing authority of the Holy See, in this case, the CDWDS, is most troubling.