Why Is CITH So Popular?

[frenchbeatle]

I was an EMHC at my last church. There were a few people who received on the tongue, and none of them leaned their head back, so every time, my finger touched their tongue. There were a few of those who stuck their tongues out REALLY far, and that helped me make sure I wouldn’t drop it, but it also looked strange.

I went through RCIA in 2001 and have always received in the hand, just because that’s what I’m used to. I wouldn’t feel comfortable receiving on the tongue, unless I was shown a good posture so that the person ministering to me would not touch my tongue, and I was sure the Host wouldn’t fall on the floor.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Hotch, don’t take this the wrong way but I wouldn’t receive from unannointed hands on the tongue or in the hands.

You wouldn’t receive the eucharist from a deacon? A deacon’s hands are not consecrated but it is the ancient tradition of the Church that deacons were allowed to bring communion to the sick and prisoners.

In Justin Martyr’s Apology he notes: “the deacons give Communion to each of those present and carry away the consecrated bread and wine and water for those unable to attend” (Apology, 1, 65).

Not only unannointed but I don’t see EMHC wash their hands before like the priest does before Consecration.

Of course, you do understand that the priest is not washing his hands in a hygienic sense?
It is a ritual that expresses the priest’s need for spiritual purification before beginning the Eucharistic Prayer.
blog.adw.org/2009/08/the-mass-in-slow-motion-the-priest-washes-his-hands/

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t see receiving COTH and serving as a EMHC as the same thing at all. To touch the Blessed Sacrament with my hand when it is destined for my own consumption is one thing. To give it to another believer, though, excepting that the bishop and priest have identified that it is according to need: that is not my place. To me, it is the ministering to someone else, and not how I touch the Blessed Sacrament, that makes it part of the priestly office. It is the same with the Precious Blood. Daring to touch the chalice and consume His Most Precious Blood when it is given to me by a minister is one thing, that is according to commandment, but daring to minister to someone else with a profession of faith is another thing altogether. I do it because it is not my place to tell those with the office that my assistance is not required when they ask for it. That is their place. I’m willing to do what is asked for, and it is a great privelege to do so. I won’t be sorry when there are priests and deacons enough that my assistance is no longer asked for, though.

I don’t know if that makes sense; I don’t feel I’m saying it very well. All I know is that even in light of the immensity of receiving the Blessed Sacrament, I still sometimes wonder how priests, who bear their office as an indelible and eternal mark, can bear the immensity of their office.

As far as which is more reverent, I have seen people receive inattentively both ways, which is the biggest pity. I don’t receive CITH if I think the parish is such that it is likely to dis-edify someone else to do so, but I think exterior reverence or irreverence is as fully available with either method of receiving. As long as Catholics may receive either way, it is most important to teach the reverent manner to do each.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I don’t see receiving COTH and serving as a EMHC as the same thing at all…

It’s not – It’s a red herring…

 

[John_oxios]

Well, I know that it first gain prominence in the early days of the Protestant Reformation as a way to deny the True Presence. I don’t think that any reason you gave is a good reason for its popularity, especially considering the long history of Communion on the Tongue where people over came those obstacles of age and uncomfortableness.

Hello,
I’m not buying that one the Lutheran Church still kneel at the altar and receive just like the Church did in the Latin Rite Mass. What Luther had a problem with was he felt the priests of his day were edified by the parishioners, so even though the Lutheran priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is when it is received in faith that it becomes the Body Of Christ.
The Precense of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t questioned in the Church til about 950 a.d. when a monk asked his Abbot, what do we mean by Real Presence? My guess is he didn’t like the answer he got and he then proceeded to write a book about his opinion on what the church means by the Real Presence, Needless to say the book was banned by the Catholic Church (East and West) , but the questioned remained till the 11th Century at council with 500 bishops did the Thomas Aquinas nail it! And the Council agreed to it the philosophical term "Transubstantiation’ was adopted to describe Christs’ Real Presence in the Eucharist. Well it was at that point the Eastern Rite CC, took exception, and exited stage left… They did not like the way the RCC was explaining the Mysteries of God in Philosophical terms for several hundred yrs.

The Early Church used by communion hand, why? Because after consecration @ the Last Supper, Jesus handed Judas the sop from His hand to Judas’ hand. Which was the custom/ tradition of the day

Jhn 13:26 “Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, {the son} of Simon Iscariot.”

It was later on Some elders began to see the Eucharist as too Sacred for the common man to handle.
Pope Benedict has no problem with either method, however he takes exception to standing while receiving. Me, When you hear a truth, its hard not to accept, you must eventually act on it. It took a few weeks, but I eventually began to kneel down, and reach up to receive, and it has made a great difference mentally, emotionally and spiritually in my experience receiving Holy Communion, all I can say, is That Pope Benedict was right… standing is no way to receive the Eucharist, unless you’re physically unable too.

God Bless,
John

 

[bmadamsberry]

Hello,
I’m not buying that one the Lutheran Church still kneel at the altar and receive just like the Church did in the Latin Rite Mass. What Luther had a problem with was he felt the priests of his day were edified by the parishioners, so even though the Lutheran priest consecrates the Eucharist, it is when it is received in faith that it becomes the Body Of Christ.
The Precense of Christ in the Eucharist wasn’t questioned in the Church til about 950 a.d. when a monk asked his Abbot, what do we mean by Real Presence? My guess is he didn’t like the answer he got and he then proceeded to write a book about his opinion on what the church means by the Real Presence, Needless to say the book was banned by the Catholic Church (East and West) , but the questioned remained till the 11th Century at council with 500 bishops did the Thomas Aquinas nail it! And the Council agreed to it the philosophical term "Transubstantiation’ was adopted to describe Christs’ Real Presence in the Eucharist. Well it was at that point the Eastern Rite CC, took exception, and exited stage left… They did not like the way the RCC was explaining the Mysteries of God in Philosophical terms for several hundred yrs.

The Early Church used by communion hand, why? Because after consecration @ the Last Supper, Jesus handed Judas the sop from His hand to Judas’ hand. Which was the custom/ tradition of the day

Jhn 13:26 “Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, {the son} of Simon Iscariot.”

It was later on Some elders began to see the Eucharist as too Sacred for the common man to handle.
Pope Benedict has no problem with either method, however he takes exception to standing while receiving. Me, When you hear a truth, its hard not to accept, you must eventually act on it. It took a few weeks, but I eventually began to kneel down, and reach up to receive, and it has made a great difference mentally, emotionally and spiritually in my experience receiving Holy Communion, all I can say, is That Pope Benedict was right… standing is no way to receive the Eucharist, unless you’re physically unable too.

God Bless,
John

I don’t understand why you went that far into explaining the Real Presence, beacause I agree that it’s there.
However, I quoted what I quoted, gave two of many different sources, and that’s that.
I wouldn’t mind seeing some sources for how the Early Church recieved Holy Communion.
What I understand, however, is that at papal Masses it is required to kneel if you are recieving on the tongue and from the Pope, but that this isn’t a requirement to kneel to recieve Holy Communion in the hand nor to kneel to recieve on the tongue from a person aside from the Pope.

 

[japhy]

It became VERY popular VERY quickly with Catholics of ALL ages. It didn’t require generations of indoctrination to become extremely popular.

Perhaps there was misinformation, or poor catechesis, when the indult was finally granted to the dioceses in the US; people might have been told not to receive on the tongue anymore. I was never taught about it. (I was born in 1981.) I only saw it, rarely, in movies, or occasionally done by a much older person.

Novelty could also have been a factor in the beginning: it was (perceived as) a new way of doing things, something to try.

This is probably off-topic, but I’m curious how popular (and why) CITH was in the US before the indult was granted. How did it get started here, how did it spread?

 

[japhy]

Well, I know that it first gain prominence in the early days of the Protestant Reformation as a way to deny the True Presence.

Not only that, but also to deny the distinction between the ordained priesthood (which they didn’t believe in either) and the baptismal priesthood.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Not only that, but also to deny the distinction between the ordained priesthood (which they didn’t believe in either) and the baptismal priesthood.

I didn’t know that, Japhy. Thank you.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Perhaps there was misinformation, or poor catechesis, when the indult was finally granted to the dioceses in the US; people might have been told not to receive on the tongue anymore. I was never taught about it. (I was born in 1981.) I only saw it, rarely, in movies, or occasionally done by a much older person.

Novelty could also have been a factor in the beginning: it was (perceived as) a new way of doing things, something to try.

This is probably off-topic, but I’m curious how popular (and why) CITH was in the US before the indult was granted. How did it get started here, how did it spread?

Possibly but I don’t think misinformation or poor catechesis would have had such a widespread and long-lasting subscription.

I think the biggest reasons are people don’t like opening their mouths and sticking out their tongues…

 

[japhy]

Possibly but I don’t think misinformation or poor catechesis would have had such a widespread and long-lasting subscription.

If the misinformation/poor catechesis was perpetuated and printed in popular literature (e.g. ministry/liturgy periodicals), I think it’s very likely to have had such a widespread and long-lasting impact. There’s plenty of misinformation and poor catechesis about the use/presence of Latin in the Mass, celebrating ad orientem, Confirmation (e.g. being a sacrament in which you “confirm” your baptismal vows), Communion under both species (that is, some people think it’s incomplete if it’s not under both species), etc. I think the same can easily be said for the modes of receiving Communion. Despite what the Church teaches on these subjects, somehow incorrect information consistently makes it into publications with widespread readership.

If a person isn’t even told about receiving on the tongue, but only about receiving in the hand, what are the chances that person will ask about some other way to receive? I think Elizabeth502 put it well in another thread: “People will just ‘go along’ with what appears to be the norm, unless they’re educated otherwise.”

I think the biggest reasons are people don’t like opening their mouths and sticking out their tongues…

I think that’s one reason.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Possibly but I don’t think misinformation or poor catechesis would have had such a widespread and long-lasting subscription

What about the Protestant Reformation?

 

[Hotchkiss]

If the misinformation/poor catechesis was perpetuated and printed in popular literature (e.g. ministry/liturgy periodicals), I think it’s very likely to have had such a widespread and long-lasting impact. There’s plenty of misinformation and poor catechesis about the use/presence of Latin in the Mass, celebrating ad orientem, Confirmation (e.g. being a sacrament in which you “confirm” your baptismal vows), Communion under both species (that is, some people think it’s incomplete if it’s not under both species), etc. I think the same can easily be said for the modes of receiving Communion. Despite what the Church teaches on these subjects, somehow incorrect information consistently makes it into publications with widespread readership.

Most Catholics don’t read such periodicals and it still wouldn’t explain the rapid and lasting migration from COTT to CITH. I suspect the migration would not have been this rapid, strong and lasting if the normative was CITH and we received an indult for COTT.

If a person isn’t even told about receiving on the tongue, but only about receiving in the hand, what are the chances that person will ask about some other way to receive? I think Elizabeth502 put it well in another thread: “People will just ‘go along’ with what appears to be the norm, unless they’re educated otherwise.”

I think that’s one reason.

Such instances are limited. It would take generations to get to the level of CITH we see today if that were the only factor.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I don’t think anyone really knows. It’s bound to be a number of reasons but I don’t think anyone understands the amplitude of each contributing reason.

Truly understanding this matter through statistical polling (and I mean expert statistical polling) would yield some extremely interesting information. I would guess that a half dozen reasons or less would account for at least 95% of why CITH is so popular. I would further guess that well above 50% of that is due to not wanting to expose one’s mouth or stick out their tongues.

This would be good information to actually know.

 

[momme_of_three]

The local parishes in my disocese have only taught the kids to receive in the hand during their Sacramental Prep classes. In some parishes they are told they CAN receive on the tongue, but practice is only in the hand.

I was raised during the time when we did nothing but receive on the tongue, was a teen when we started receiving in the hand. BUT my husband and I stopped and began receiving on the tongue after Pope John Paul II said he preferred that it only be received on the tongue. Also, watching Masses that he said, at World Youth Days or other things, he NEVER gave out Holy Communion on the hand. That was enough for us.

We see so much lack of reverence as it is, we need to do whatever it takes to help our young folks learn what reverence really is and WHY it is so important in the presence of our Lord.

 

[benedictgal]

Just for the sake of observation, why don’t we take a sampling of Masses that are televised and see how many communicants receive under both forms (COTT and CITH)? EWTN will be having several different Masses this month. Along with their regularly televised Masses, they will be having liturgies broadcast from San Fernando Catherdal in San Antonio for the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe (Friday at about Midnight) and the replay in about five or six minutes of the Mass in Memory of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. We could also look at the Papal Masses (should the cameras pan the rest of St. Peter’s). There is also the other Christmas Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception that we could observe.

I think that this would make for a rather interesting study.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Just for the sake of observation, why don’t we take a sampling of Masses that are televised and see how many communicants receive under both forms (COTT and CITH)? EWTN will be having several different Masses this month. Along with their regularly televised Masses, they will be having liturgies broadcast from San Fernando Catherdal in San Antonio for the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe (Friday at about Midnight) and the replay in about five or six minutes of the Mass in Memory of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. We could also look at the Papal Masses (should the cameras pan the rest of St. Peter’s). There is also the other Christmas Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception that we could observe.

I think that this would make for a rather interesting study.

I would agree, but I have a feeling that the poll would greatly favor COTT, lol.

 

[benedictgal]

I would agree, but I have a feeling that the poll would greatly favor COTT, lol.

However, in the case of Masses celebrated at St. Patrick’s, San Fernrando and the Basilica of the National Shrine, that might change. St. Peter’s would be a toss-up, but, I suspect that it is mostly COTT.

 

[bmadamsberry]

However, in the case of Masses celebrated at St. Patrick’s, San Fernrando and the Basilica of the National Shrine, that might change. St. Peter’s would be a toss-up, but, I suspect that it is mostly COTT.

St. Peter’s would certainly be mainly COTT. I can see the Basilica being Communion in the hand (at least when I’ve been there that’s what I’ve seen). I’m not sure about San Fernrando or St. Patrick’s, though.

 

[japhy]

Most Catholics don’t read such periodicals and it still wouldn’t explain the rapid and lasting migration from COTT to CITH. I suspect the migration would not have been this rapid, strong and lasting if the normative was CITH and we received an indult for COTT.

It wouldn’t require “most Catholics” to read them, only their pastors and catechists who then disseminate the information to them. All it takes is a priest saying at Mass, “Today we will be receiving in the hand instead of on the tongue” a couple times, and poof. Combine that with a single year of catechists teaching children to receive their first Holy Communion in the hand, and double poof.