Why Is CITH So Popular?

[bmadamsberry]

And my experience is just the opposite; and that includes parishes in western Oregon, Utah, northern California, eastern North Dakota, and Montana. As to my parish, the great majority of people receive CITH, and we have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for 15 years or so; not exactly what you would call a parish with a poor attitude towards the Eucharist.

An experiance that was just the opposite of mine would mean that the old were receiving CITH and the young were receiving COTT.
Either way, I’m sure it’s different at different parishes. The three that I mentioned were all in GA (Archdiocese of ATL and the Diocese of Savannah), and so it is a poor sampling.
However, I wasn’t commenting on the attitude of a parish such as yours towards the Eucharist (that was another poster). I’m sure that the people in your parish are very respectful of the Eucharist (again, it was a different poster).

And for the record, I teach RCIA and usualy am the one to instruct as to how to receive. Iteach both ways, explain norm and indult, and treat them like adults. Over the time I ahve been teaching, my estimate would be about 2% of those who were converts recieve COTT. Their choice.

That’s great. It’s such an honor for one to be the guide for others into the Catholic Church. And I’m glad that you give them a choice. The situations that I was referring to, like at my girlfriend’s parish, are children’s confirmation classes, not RCIA. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[bmadamsberry]

There isn’t any reason I’d be angry at you personally. Maybe I shouldn’t have written “don’t cope well”…that isn’t such a strong expression in my family. It does not imply that a meltdown is imminent. I only meant that, because it is very important to some people, I feel strongly that they should be left alone in the absence of compelling evidence to do otherwise. I feel a need to come to their defense, even though I could go either way. If one way or the other were abolished, it wouldn’t be any skin off my own nose.

Sorry, I probably overreacted. It’s hard, sometimes, to understand the meaning of what people are saying because so much communication is done through verbal tone, gestures, facial features, etc. So I read it differently than you intended it.

I think it is good for kids to practice both CITH and COTT. I think it gives them confidence that they can go anywhere in the universal Church and do just fine

I agree! There are some countries where you can’t recieve CITH, and there are some situations when you can’t as well, and you should be prepared for these.

 

[John_oxios]

In reference to the logic of asking kids to receive in the hand (asking is different than forcing. The parish I was talking about was forcing), I said that it was a logical concern. It is a logical concern/worry. I would be concerned about the kids dropping the Host, because it is possible (however unlikely). A logical concern would be a worry/concern that could happen, or could logically happen. So, because they are kids and are moveing all over the place, it is possible that the Host could be dropped.

? "If dropping the Blessed Sacrament is such a concern, who got rid of the long-handled patens? If we can find enough people to assist the priest as EMsHC, surely we can find some people to man the paten ?

 

[bmadamsberry]

Hi,
Actually, it may have been a shortage of altar servers, do the fact that five and six Eucharistic ministers are used, that would entail another five or six paten holders,

God Bless,
John

That might have been another cause, yes. I know that I have been to one parish where most people received CITH; however they still had an altar server with a paten for those few who did receive COTT.

 

[benedictgal]

That might have been another cause, yes. I know that I have been to one parish where most people received CITH; however they still had an altar server with a paten for those few who did receive COTT.

Interestingly enough, most of the faithful in my parish (before intinction was employed) receive COTT; however, even though we have enough altar servers, the patens are not used.

When we started intinction last month, I thought that my pastor would have bought patens; he did not. RS clearly calls for the use of patens. Go figure.

 

[bmadamsberry]

Interestingly enough, most of the faithful in my parish (before intinction was employed) receive COTT; however, even though we have enough altar servers, the patens are not used.

When we started intinction last month, I thought that my pastor would have bought patens; he did not. RS clearly calls for the use of patens. Go figure.

Do you know why that might be? Maybe adsent mindedness (just not thinking about it), maybe he doesn’t think you need it, money? I hope he eventually ends up buying them, though, lol.

 

[benedictgal]

Do you know why that might be? Maybe adsent mindedness (just not thinking about it), maybe he doesn’t think you need it, money? I hope he eventually ends up buying them, though, lol.

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

 

[bmadamsberry]

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

Well, that’s just sad. A priest that obviously knows that it’s in the documents but just doesn’t care. I guess there are worst things that could be happening, but it would still be nice to have those (it’s just something about putting gold under one’s chin to prevent Christ from falling that seems so… right).

 

[Hotchkiss]

Well, that’s just sad. A priest that obviously knows that it’s in the documents but just doesn’t care. I guess there are worst things that could be happening, but it would still be nice to have those (it’s just something about putting gold under one’s chin to prevent Christ from falling that seems so… right).

Patens are not required. They should be used but I can think of times when they would do more harm than good. Perhaps this is one of those times?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

RS clearly calls for the use of patens. Go figure.

I can’t find that in the document. What section number is it under?

 

[benedictgal]

Patens are not required. They should be used but I can think of times when they would do more harm than good. Perhaps this is one of those times?

Maybe you should re-read the GIRM:

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

In two of the parishes down here where intinction is employed (not my own), an altar server holds the paten under the communicant’s chin while the priest administers Holy Communion.

At the Cathedral, altar servers stand next to the priest, deacon and EMHC with patens since most of the faithful there receive COTT.

How can you say that having a paten does more harm than good? Perhaps you might want to read what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say on the matter. I think that you would find it most educational:

93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.180

It certainly provides a safety precaution should the Host fall. I would rather have patens than none at all. Obviously the Holy See is of the same opinion, or, it would not have made the statement in RS.

 

[surritter]

Quote:
287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice…

Is this an accurate translation? I’m wondering how each communicant can hold a communion-plate.

 

[benedictgal]

Is this an accurate translation? I’m wondering how each communicant can hold a communion-plate.

That’s the USCCB’s official version, not mine. I don’t translate; I just post what the document says.

 

[surritter]

That’s the USCCB’s official version, not mine. I don’t translate; I just post what the document says.

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.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

I would encourage you to watch the Papal Mass on December 24th. You will find no less than the Papal MC, Msgr. Guido Marini, holding the paten for the communicants who come before the Holy Father to receive Holy Communion. In other televised Masses from EWTN, you will also find the same thing.

 

[Hotchkiss]

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.

You’ve just shown the shortcoming of those who suggest that everything is absolutely cut-and-dried and thoroughly documented in Church documents. So very much is left open to interpretation. Not by us, but by men with authority – the bishops of the Church

 

[Jamie_Burns]

In all of the years since CITH was allowed, I have rarely seen the Precious Body of our Lord dropped or mishandled. During my 8 years serving as an Altar Boy back in the 1960s, When serving at the Altar Rail, I very often caught the Precious Body with the paten when it slipped off of a communicant’s tongue.

In fact just last week a very experienced EMHC at our parish misjudged when putting the Precious Body into my own mouth, but I was able to catch it with my hand. (I always receive on the tongue).

I think the reason CITH is so popular is simply that for most US Catholics it is the norm. Even those who are called to serve as EMHC are often unfamiliar that many of us still receive on the tongue. I know this in our parish because I train them, and in every year’s class there are a couple who haven’t even noticed that about 15% of our parish receives on the tongue.

 

[surritter]

I would encourage you to watch the Papal Mass on December 24th. You will find no less than the Papal MC, Msgr. Guido Marini, holding the paten for the communicants who come before the Holy Father to receive Holy Communion. In other televised Masses from EWTN, you will also find the same thing.

Yes I have seen what is done in these Masses. I was not saying that a server holding the paten is wrong. I was making a point: that a legalistic approach is not always the best approach. Not because we shouldn’t follow the directions of the Church, but precisely because the letter of the law sometimes seems to conflict with what the mind of the Church intends.

This is a good example – I agree with you that patens should be used! But since the bit in the GIRM about the communicant holding the communion-plate is not really correct (that’s why I wonder about the translation), then it is reasonable to wonder if other directives need to be clarified by the bishops too.

 

[John_oxios]

Interestingly enough, most of the faithful in my parish (before intinction was employed) receive COTT; however, even though we have enough altar servers, the patens are not used.

When we started intinction last month, I thought that my pastor would have bought patens; he did not. RS clearly calls for the use of patens. Go figure.

Hi,
Intinction? Isn’t that reserved for priests alone? I haven’t seen or heard of a E.M. being granted permission for this? Being a E.M myself, in the Diocese of RVC, Long Island its unheard of other than by Priest, and rarely is the Eucharist celebrated this way.

God Bless,
John

 

[benedictgal]

You’ve just shown the shortcoming of those who suggest that everything is absolutely cut-and-dried and thoroughly documented in Church documents. So very much is left open to interpretation. Not by us, but by men with authority – the bishops of the Church

It is ironic that you are saying this since, as your posts indicate, you seem to not hold the authority of the CDWDS to decide such matters. Things are clear-cut and explained in the documents; unfortunately, you have repeatedly chosen to ignore them and go by your own interpretation, rather than that of the Holy See’s.