Why Is CITH So Popular?

[John_oxios]

Posture changed in 1967:
In accordance with the custom of the Church, Communion may be received by the faithful either kneeling or standing. One or the other way is to be chosen, according to the decision of the episcopal conference, bearing in mind all the circumstances, above all the number of the faithful and the arrangement of the churches. The faithful should willingly adopt the method indicated by their pastors, so that Communion may truly be a sign of the brotherly union of all those who share in the same table of the Lord. (Eucharisticum Mysterium 34a)

OKA-ay, Thanks for the info/ reference I still remember kneeling and receiving into the early to mid seventies. Now when did CITH [a] became an indult? ** then become popular ? As I remember I was at a Catholic Reunion Mass, and as we walked up tp receive one of my female friends who knew I did not frequent Mass, whispered behind me we receive standing up now that was about 1995?

God bless,
John**

 

[japhy]

The indult for CITH was released in 1977. By far the greatest number of people enter the Church as kids and not through RCIA. Kids go through first communion at what age? Say 9? So those born in 1968 or so would be the first batch of those who have been the first group to have been given the option during their formation.

Not necessarily. CITH might have been promoted before the indult was received. If CITH were not widespread and been a prevailing practice, the US would not have applied for nor been eligible for the indult.

Necessarily. Yes the indult was almost certainly anticipated in some places but the number of such places and the number of individuals practicing the illicit act would have been relatively small and for a relatively short time – perhaps 2-3 years.

Do you have anything to back up those claims? I don’t know how long CITH was illicitly practiced in the United States; how do you need it was “a relatively short time”? I figure it must have been around for some time to have been so prevalent as to cause the NCCB to petition Rome for the indult.

Once cannot not say that “If CITH were not widespread and been a prevailing practice, the US would not have applied for nor been eligible for the indult.” That’s simply not true.

From Memoriale Domini:
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Quapropter Apostolica Sedes Episcopos et sacerdotes et fideles vehementer hortatur, ut validae iterumque confirmatae legi studiose obsequantur, sive ad iudicium a maiore catholici Episcopatus parte latum, sive ad formam qua hodiernus sacrae Liturgiae ritus utitur, sive denique ad commune ipsius Ecclesiae bonum respicientes.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See — wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays — lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

Sicubi vero contrarius usus, sanctam nempe Communionem in manibus ponendi, iam invaluerit, eadem Apostolica Sedes, ut Episcopales adiuvet Conferentias ad pastorale officium implendum, pro hodierno rerum statu saepe difficilius, iisdem Conferentiis committit onus ac munus peculiaria adiuncta, si quae sunt, expendendi, dummodo tamen et quodvis praecaveatur periculum, ne reverentiae defectus vel falsae de Ssma Eucharistia opiniones irrepant in animos, et alia etiam incommoda sedulo tollantur.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.

Porro hisce in casibus, ad eiusmodi usum recte ordinandum, Episcopales Conferentiae opportunas, prudenti praemisso examine, deliberationes capient, quae secretis suffragiis duabusque e tribus partibus suffragiorum faventibus ferendae sunt; quas quidem deliberationes deinde Sanctae Sedi, necessariae confirmationis causa, proponent, adiecta accurata expositione causarum, quibus ad eas capiendas impulsi sunt. Sancta Sedes singulos casus accuarate perpendet, illius haud oblita coniunctionis, quae variis locorum Ecclesiis inter se vel earum unicuique cum Ecclesia universa intercedit, ad provehendum commune bonum communemque aedificationem, atque ad fidei pietatisque incrementum, quod mutuo ad exemplo profluit.
It seems to me from Memoriale Domini that in order to request the indult, the practice of Communion in the hand must already have been “prevailing” against the law and discipline of the Church which the Apostolic See was urging them to obey.

 

[japhy]

Now when did CITH [a] became an indult? ** then become popular?**
In 1969, the Holy See enabled Episcopal Conferences to request an indult to permit CITH. It was not until 1977 that the indult was granted to the US:
South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

 

[Hotchkiss]

Do you have anything to back up those claims? I don’t know how long CITH was illicitly practiced in the United States; how do you need it was “a relatively short time”? I figure it must have been around for some time to have been so prevalent as to cause the NCCB to petition Rome for the indult.

From Memoriale Domini:
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Quapropter Apostolica Sedes Episcopos et sacerdotes et fideles vehementer hortatur, ut validae iterumque confirmatae legi studiose obsequantur, sive ad iudicium a maiore catholici Episcopatus parte latum, sive ad formam qua hodiernus sacrae Liturgiae ritus utitur, sive denique ad commune ipsius Ecclesiae bonum respicientes.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See — wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays — lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

Sicubi vero contrarius usus, sanctam nempe Communionem in manibus ponendi, iam invaluerit, eadem Apostolica Sedes, ut Episcopales adiuvet Conferentias ad pastorale officium implendum, pro hodierno rerum statu saepe difficilius, iisdem Conferentiis committit onus ac munus peculiaria adiuncta, si quae sunt, expendendi, dummodo tamen et quodvis praecaveatur periculum, ne reverentiae defectus vel falsae de Ssma Eucharistia opiniones irrepant in animos, et alia etiam incommoda sedulo tollantur.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions. The Holy See will examine each case carefully, taking into account the links between the different local churches and between each of them and the Universal Church, in order to promote the common good and the edification of all, and that mutual good example may increase faith and piety.

Porro hisce in casibus, ad eiusmodi usum recte ordinandum, Episcopales Conferentiae opportunas, prudenti praemisso examine, deliberationes capient, quae secretis suffragiis duabusque e tribus partibus suffragiorum faventibus ferendae sunt; quas quidem deliberationes deinde Sanctae Sedi, necessariae confirmationis causa, proponent, adiecta accurata expositione causarum, quibus ad eas capiendas impulsi sunt. Sancta Sedes singulos casus accuarate perpendet, illius haud oblita coniunctionis, quae variis locorum Ecclesiis inter se vel earum unicuique cum Ecclesia universa intercedit, ad provehendum commune bonum communemque aedificationem, atque ad fidei pietatisque incrementum, quod mutuo ad exemplo profluit.
It seems to me from Memoriale Domini that in order to request the indult, the practice of Communion in the hand must already have been “prevailing” against the law and discipline of the Church which the Apostolic See was urging them to obey.

I don’t think that was a prerequisite of requesting the indult at all…

But nevertheless what you are suggesting does nothing but underscore my curiosity about why CITH is so popular. If what you suggest is true, why did CITH become so popular so quickly even under an illicit cloud that an indult was requested? Why does it continue to be the overwhelming choice? Faulty catechesis? That’s ludicrous.

There appears to be some things that most communicants intrinsically prefer about CITH that make it so popular. Some would like to believe other reasons do not exist but that’s simply being disingenuous.

Some people are very bigoted towards CITH and expend great labor in attempting to paint a very negative image of why CITH is so popular. Typically they give faulty catechesis as the prime (or even sole) reason. While it most certainly plays a part, I’m not sure if faulty catechesis is even in the top 3-5 reasons for the popularity of CITH.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I don’t think that was a prerequisite of requesting the indult at all…

But nevertheless what you are suggesting does nothing but underscore my curiosity about why CITH is so popular. If what you suggest is true, why did CITH become so popular so quickly even under an illicit cloud that an indult was requested? Why does it continue to be the overwhelming choice? Faulty catechesis? That’s ludicrous.

There appears to be some things that most communicants intrinsically prefer about CITH that make it so popular. Some would like to believe other reasons do not exist but that’s simply being disingenuous.

Some people are very bigoted towards CITH and expend great labor in attempting to paint a very negative image of why CITH is so popular. Typically they give faulty catechesis as the prime (or even sole) reason. While it most certainly plays a part, I’m not sure if faulty catechesis is even in the top 3-5 reasons for the popularity of CITH.

I would like to remind you, though, that you have no evidence to back this up, aside from your own opinion.
I wouldn’t say that faulty catechesis is ludicrous, at least not at my parish, my girlfriend’s parish, or my girlfriend’s parent’s parishes. In all those cases it was solely because of poor catechesis. Across America, however, I agree that poor catechesis isn’t the only reason, but it, in my opinion as all of this is, is a driving force and one of the key reasons.

 

[pnewton]

I have another idea to throw out. I do not know about others, but my parish has a large section of Protestant converts, to whom receiving communion in the tongue is foreign. I wonder if familiariy with receiving in the hand has anything to do with them preferring one way or another. I would not even venture to guess whether or not Protestants converts even receive less on the tongue, though.

 

[japhy]

I don’t think that was a prerequisite of requesting the indult at all.

Memoriale Domini does not state that a conference can request the indult for the purpose of introducing the practice of CITH; rather, the conferences where CITH exists despite the urging of the Holy See to obey liturgical law could vote to request the indult and apply for the indult if such a vote passed.

If what you suggest is true, why did CITH become so popular so quickly even under an illicit cloud that an indult was requested? Why does it continue to be the overwhelming choice? Faulty catechesis? That’s ludicrous.

Maybe because it was “new” or even “rebellious”! Maybe because people pushed it (and denigrated or even forbade COTT). Maybe because it was presented as a “Vatican II change”. Maybe because pastors and catechists got the wrong idea about the practice and taught their flocks incorrectly. Why are such possibilities ludicrous? Is it because they could lead one to the conclusion that CITH became popular through illicit promotion and disobedience?

Why do some people disdain the practice of receiving on the tongue? Why was I told explicitly not to make a big deal about receiving on the tongue when I gave a presentation on the Eucharist at my parish last Advent? (I had only mentioned it in passing in a sentence like, “you can receive Communion on the tongue or in the hand”, and that raised a red flag.)

There appears to be some things that most communicants intrinsically prefer about CITH that make it so popular. Some would like to believe other reasons do not exist but that’s simply being disingenuous.

I don’t disagree that other reasons than the ones I offer exist, I just think those other reasons are only applicable to those people who know about and have tried both ways of receiving Communion. Your average child in your average Catholic parish probably never sees a person receive on the tongue and is never told about it. It’s not “popular” to them, it’s the only thing they know! It’s not “easier” to them, it’s the only thing they know! It’s not “less awkward” to them, it’s the only thing they know!

Some people are very bigoted towards CITH and expend great labor in attempting to paint a very negative image of why CITH is so popular.

I am of the opinion that CITH was introduced and promoted illicitly, and the people who introduced and promoted it probably also denigrated COTT.

P.S. Communion under both kinds, which is now widely practiced in the US (to the point where some people don’t know about concomitance, etc.), was promoted illicitly as well. Bishops continually went beyond the prescriptions of the Holy See on when the Chalice could be conceded to the laity, and eventually the Holy See acquiesced to the disobedience.

 

[Hotchkiss]

Maybe because it was “new” or even “rebellious”! Maybe because people pushed it (and denigrated or even forbade COTT). Maybe because it was presented as a “Vatican II change”. Maybe because pastors and catechists got the wrong idea about the practice and taught their flocks incorrectly. Why are such possibilities ludicrous? Is it because they could lead one to the conclusion that CITH became popular through illicit promotion and disobedience?

No way would either explain the popularity of CITH. It might possibility explain the reason for the indult (which I personally doubt.) But the rampant popularity even amongst those who were catechized when COTT was the only option? No way.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I have another idea to throw out. I do not know about others, but my parish has a large section of Protestant converts, to whom receiving communion in the tongue is foreign. I wonder if familiariy with receiving in the hand has anything to do with them preferring one way or another. I would not even venture to guess whether or not Protestants converts even receive less on the tongue, though.

I think that would indeed be a small factor but it wouldn’t explain the rampant popularity.

I would also suggest that many converts are “more” Catholic than cradle-Catholics at least when it comes to externals and I would guess that quite a few would embrace COTT as being particularly Catholic.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I would like to remind you, though, that you have no evidence to back this up, aside from your own opinion.
I wouldn’t say that faulty catechesis is ludicrous, at least not at my parish, my girlfriend’s parish, or my girlfriend’s parent’s parishes. In all those cases it was solely because of poor catechesis. Across America, however, I agree that poor catechesis isn’t the only reason, but it, in my opinion as all of this is, is a driving force and one of the key reasons.

None of us knows for sure. We are all speaking based on opinion. About the only two things I am fairly certain of is that CITH is practiced by an overwhelming majority of Catholics who attend Mass where it is allowed and there are several reasons why CITH is so popular.

I think faulty catechesis is a factor but only one of many and some simply don’t want to acknowledge that. I suspect if they did it would underscore the fact that CIH ain’t going anywhere, at least in the USA. It’s not simply a matter of ensuring that both methods are taught as being allowed in those catechetical programs that are currently in error on this matter.

 

[japhy]

No way would either explain the popularity of CITH. It might possibility explain the reason for the indult (which I personally doubt.) But the rampant popularity even amongst those who were catechized when COTT was the only option? No way.

They (those who had grown up with COTT) could have been made to feel that receiving on the tongue was an inferior way of receiving, something that elevated the priest (who receives by his own hand) over them. It could have been marketed as a “liberating” reform, bringing dignity to the laity, emphasizing their baptismal priesthood (which has nothing to do with receiving on the tongue or in the hand).

Just guesses from me. I’m 28, so I have very little to go on here.

 

[otjm]

I think that Communion in the hand is just one part of a package of measures designed to implement the “progressive” agenda.

No one will come out and state it, but I think the progressive agenda within the Catholic Church is as follows:

1. De-emphasize the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
2. Reduce or eliminate the perceived difference between laity and ordained priests and deacons.
3. Reduce or eliminate differences in Catholic and non-Catholic liturgy.
4. Reduce or eliminate traditional Catholic practices and devotions, again to blur the difference between Catholic and Protestant theology and spirituality.

The package of measures to implement this agenda include, I think, the following:

1. Reduce or eliminate differences between Catholic and Protestant churches ie, the actual structure and layout of the buildings and configuration of the space where Mass is celebrated. (Removal of high altars, communion rails, statues, etc)
2. Communion in the hand.
3. Standing, not kneeling for communion.
4. Changes to the Mass that went beyond what the actual VII documents required. (eliminating Latin, chant, facing the people, etc.)

In other words, instead of Mass being a different and unique experience, the Mass was made to be more like everyday life. Let’s have the same style music at Mass that we hear 24/7 everywhere else, take Communion the same way we eat a potato chip, wear the same t shirt with the skull and dripping blood from the Mega Death concert to Mass etc. (Yes I actually saw this, I am not making it up.)

Communion in the hand is not a single issue; it’s part of a systematic program to fundamentally change and water down the Catholic faith. Instead of being like Moses and taking off our everyday shoes on holy ground to meet God, we are trying to drag God down to the unholy ground to meet us. But God won’t be dragged down, that’s why He sent us Pope Benedict.

Your comments are simply a replication of comments by opeople who a) do not like the changes, and b0 largely have spent no tiume at all finding out why the changes are made.

I will say it again: the great majority of people in my parish receive in the hand; we also have had 24 hour perpetual Adoration for about 15 years. That in and of itself should answer 1 thropugh 4. There is no evidence that the changes were to obtin any of th results you have proposed. Further, the lack of caterchesis of basic doctrinal information has done more to damamge the faith of Catholics over the last 40 years than anything you complain about.

As to eliminating traditional devotions, the Council did not intent to eliminate them, but certainly intended to get the focus of our faith more carefully aligned with the Mass and the LOTH than, say, Tuesday evening Mother of Perpetual Help devotion. Many were eliminated; others toned down. time will determine if people want to return to them.

And while reducing or eliminating perceived differences between laity and priests and deacons (the later of whom didn’t exist at that time as a permanent office, so that part is irrelevant) was not part of the Council’s agenda, certainly reducing clericalism was. And we still have clericalism.

 

[otjm]

I think that would indeed be a small factor but it wouldn’t explain the rampant popularity.

I would also suggest that many converts are “more” Catholic than cradle-Catholics at least when it comes to externals and I would guess that quite a few would embrace COTT as being particularly Catholic.

Considering that I have been working with converts for the last 15 years, that might be your guess, but it most certainly is not my experience. They are taught COTT as well as CITH, because that is what the Church teaches. And looking back on the last 15 years of RCIA, maybe 2% receive COTT.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think that Communion in the hand is just one part of a package of measures designed to implement the “progressive” agenda.

Why then do many very devout conservative Catholics receive in the hand?

1. De-emphasize the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

When my parish gathers for holy hour the majority of people present receive the Eucharist in the hand at mass. Since they are worshiping the Eucharist at holy hour I highly doubt they are de-emphasizing the real presence when they receive in the hand.

1. Reduce or eliminate the perceived difference between laity and ordained priests and deacons.

That may be the intention of some, however, I fail to see how that makes theological sense. And many of my best parish volunteers and most solid Catholic spirituality parishioners receive in the hand and they have no desire to clericalize the laity.

1. Reduce or eliminate differences in Catholic and non-Catholic liturgy.

Once again, possibly the intention of some. Yet many devout conservative Catholics receive in the hand. And practically anything that Catholic liturgy has in common with non-Catholic liturgy would fall under this accusation.

1. Reduce or eliminate traditional Catholic practices and devotions, again to blur the difference between Catholic and Protestant theology and spirituality.

Perhaps a few, yet once again, many devout Catholics receive in the hand and attend traditional devotions.

 

[stinkcat_14]

They (those who had grown up with COTT) could have been made to feel that receiving on the tongue was an inferior way of receiving, something that elevated the priest (who receives by his own hand) over them. It could have been marketed as a “liberating” reform, bringing dignity to the laity, emphasizing their baptismal priesthood (which has nothing to do with receiving on the tongue or in the hand).

Just guesses from me. I’m 28, so I have very little to go on here.

I was 13 years old when CITH was allowed in the US. Before it was allowed, all we ever knew was COTT, so in my parish and school CITH was never brought up until it was allowed. CITH was not presented as a superior method of receiving communion, but just an option. It was made extremely clear that COTT was still a licit and perfectly acceptable method of receiving communion. Within a year or two, most of us were receiving in the hand by our own choice, not by anyone’s brainwashing or hidden agenda, just our own choice. I guess that is what can happen when you give people a choice.

 

[Hotchkiss]

I was 13 years old when CITH was allowed in the US. Before it was allowed, all we ever knew was COTT, so in my parish and school CITH was never brought up until it was allowed. CITH was not presented as a superior method of receiving communion, but just an option. It was made extremely clear that COTT was still a licit and perfectly acceptable method of receiving communion. Within a year or two, most of us were receiving in the hand by our own choice, not by anyone’s brainwashing or hidden agenda, just our own choice. I guess that is what can happen when you give people a choice.

I think what you experienced is probably fairly close to the norm. It follows my own experience. It would be beneficial to truly understand why CITH was so quickly adopted by so many people as the preferred means to receive communion.

Again, some people apparently do not want to acknowledge there are important reasons other than faulty catechesis for the huge preference of CITH over COTT. I think once those other reasons are acknowledged, one must give credence to them and they in turn give credence to CITH. That would them mean that CITH isn’t going anywhere and that fact likely bothers some people.

 

[japhy]

Again, some people apparently do not want to acknowledge there are important reasons other than faulty catechesis for the huge preference of CITH over COTT. I think once those other reasons are acknowledged, one must give credence to them and they in turn give credence to CITH. That would them mean that CITH isn’t going anywhere and that fact likely bothers some people.

Who are these “some people” who “do not want to acknowledge” these other reasons with CITH is preferred over COTT?

What is your history with CITH, Hotchkiss? Did you grow up in a Latin parish or a Byzantine/Ruthenian parish?

 

[Hotchkiss]

Who are these “some people” who “do not want to acknowledge” these other reasons with CITH is preferred over COTT?

What is your history with CITH, Hotchkiss? Did you grow up in a Latin parish or a Byzantine/Ruthenian parish?

One group would be those who tried to turn this thread into a CITH vs. COTT debate.

I grew-up in a Latin Rite parish.

 

[Cat]

I personally think that in the United States, even though we are blessed with every material blessing and to date, the freedom to pursue those material blessings, we are still a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt people when it comes to spirituality and the things of God.

Most of us rush from activity to activity, and cram job, family, schooling, leisure, chores, workouts, etc. into our lives, to the point where we find it very difficult to even find one hour to spend at Church every week.

Studies have shown that there is a huge number of “former Catholics” or “non-practicing Catholics” in the U.S.

Other studies show that many Protestants hop from church to church to church, looking for a place where they can “be fed” or “have their spiritual needs met.”

In other words, many Christians, those who believe in Jesus Christ, are struggling to reach out and touch God. They see the turmoil and sin and darkness all around them, and like Peter, they begin to sink and cry out, “Lord save me!”

Catholics (and Protestants) who consider themselves knowledgeable and active in their religion find much to discourage them from day to day. We struggle to maintain our commitment to Christ in a country where commitment to anything is disparaged. We see over half of our people elect politicians, including a President, who are unashamedly pro-choice and pro-war and willing to vote for “sin.” We see Jesus totally excluded from our schools, even our Christian schools. We see entertainment media that is often a glorification of sin. And we see families undergo divorce and children bounced back and forth between two or more families.

The world seems to have gone mad here in the U.S.

I honestly think that the reason why people like to receive Jesus in their hand is that we are desperate to hold onto something bigger and better and more real than this world. Those of us who are aware of exactly WHAT the Mass is know that this is our “window into heaven.” This is the time when heaven is on earth and we can catch a glimpse of God’s glory and actually SEE His eternal plan for the universe re-presented right in our midst. (This “heaven on earth” scenario also occurs at Adoration, when Jesus is exposed in our midst, and we have the opportunity to SEE and adore the Lord of the Universe right here on earth.)

Receiving Holy Communion is our one opportunity on this earth to actually TOUCH the Lord. So many of us have so much emptiness and despair and doubt in our lives. Touching the Lord, holding Him in our hand and looking at Him for just one second–we need it to get through this life in the U.S.

When we receive Him on our tongues, we just have to trust that yes, it’s really Him in there. We don’t actually see Him and we don’t get to grasp Him, to hold Him, to “cuddle” Him, so to speak.

If I am drowning, I want someone to toss me a lifeline or preserver, and I will usually grasp that lifeline with my HANDS, not with my mouth.

I think that Christ in our hands is a lifeline that many many people in the U.S. are grasping in the hope and faith that He will pull us to safety and rescue us from the spiritual darkness that covers our nation. It’s NOT a lessening of reverence for Jesus at all. Rather, Communion in the hand is a great form of reverence–a desire to hold onto the Lord just for one short second, because we know that if we can just touch the hem of His garment for even a second, we WILL be healed.

 

[Cat]

I have another idea to throw out. I do not know about others, but my parish has a large section of Protestant converts, to whom receiving communion in the tongue is foreign. I wonder if familiariy with receiving in the hand has anything to do with them preferring one way or another. I would not even venture to guess whether or not Protestants converts even receive less on the tongue, though.

For most evangelical Protestants, processing forward to receive Holy Communion is utterly foreign. Receiving a host on the tongue or the hand is not an issue because the people do not process forward and receive the elements from a minister.

Generally in evangelical churches, communion services are held monthly or less often (the last evangelical church we attended held communion services four times a year). The people sit in the pews, and trays of broken matzah pieces are passed up and down the aisle, followed by trays with little plastic or glass cups of grape juice. Each believer selects a piece of matzoh and a glass of the grape juice and holds it until everyone is served, then all partake together when the pastor gives the indication to go ahead. (In some evangelical churches, people consume the elements immediately, and then put the little cup back onto the tray immediately).

Many evangelical churches are not doing communion services anymore, but merely place the elements on a table, and invite any believers who are interested to help themselves before or after the worship service.

Evangelical Protestantism is currently the fastest-growing “religion” in the U.S. (I put the word “religion” in quotes because evangelicals strongly object to using the term “religion.” They say, “Christianity is not a religion, it’s a Person, Jesus Christ.”)

I’ve also heard the stat tossed around that many of the most recent converts in the U.S. to Catholicism are ex-evangelical Protestants. I don’t know if this is a legitimate stat or not, but I and my husband and daughter would be in this camp.

I think you will find many mindsets among evangelical converts to Catholicism. One mindset is to totally immerse themselves in traditional Catholicism and embrace everything that is the most ancient. Many evangelical sects are very “experience oriented,” relying on rituals and postures and music and lights and sounds to provide an “emotional” high at worship services. The Assemblies of God and many of the Pentecostal evangelical churches are like this.

Another mindset is just the opposite of this–to reject “experiences” and stick with basic Catholicism. I am in this camp, because my evangelical churches were opposed to basing our relationship with Christ on “feelings” derived from religious “experiences.” When I see Catholics say, “I feel closer to Christ when I…” that’s MY cue to say, “No thank you. Facts first, then faith, and finally, feelings, which are optional.” This is one reason I am not interesting in attending the TLM–to me, it’s the same “experience” that I avoided assiduously as an evangelical. I don’t want or need the “experience” to feel closer to Jesus. I just need Jesus.

But then there is a third mindset–evangelicals are used to being “in charge” of their own faith and choices. So many evangelicals–and I would place myself in THIS camp, too—are scrupulous about obeying the Church authorities. If the bishop says boo, we say boo, too. So we do exactly as our bishop tells us to do. Unfortunately, the Pope seems to be telling us something different than our bishops, and I hate to say this, everyone, but this is the kind of thing that fills evangelical converts with doubt and causes us to experience the same kind of disillusionment that led us to “church hop” back when we were Protestants. I hope that the Vatican and the U.S. bishops get it all together and remember that there are baby Catholics in their midst who find all this conflict over Holy Communion extremely upsetting to their faith. They need to project UNITY on this issue. If Holy Communion in the hand is OK, the pope needs to make this clear, not muddy the issue by proclaiming that HE prefers Holy Communion on the tongue.