What’s uncharitable about debating the demerits of CITH?
The statement quoted had nothing to do with debating the merits or demerits of anything at all. It was nothing more than a triumphalistic, “holier than thou” proclamation that those who prefer CITH have no reason other than “it is allowed”, which could not be further from the truth even if it wasn’t completely adequate.
** And what are these good reasons? I’ve asked for these many times.**
And while nobody is required to acceed to your demands they have been given by many people in every single thread on the subject. Unfortunately the response is to just reject out of hand anything that does not agree with the predetermined conclusion and then claim that nothing has been offered. Quite frankly, it would be just as legitimate for the other “side” to make the claim that all the COTT proponents have to fall back on is “we’ve done it that way for a long time and we don’t want to change.” Neither claim is either charitable or a correct characterization.
It’s a public rite, with rules. We’re discussing those here. No one can see your inner disposition. We can see outer behaviour.
And again, there is absolutely nothing to be gained by judging that approved outer behavior which has established “rules” that are indeed followed. That is the whole point. It becomes nothing more than a distraction from focusing on God while preparing to receive him in the sacrament. It is the prayer of “Lord thank you for not making me like those other so-called Catholics who don’t know how to worship you properly.” If God is pleased with someone’s inner disposition who the heck are you to be making judgments about the outer? If someone is indulging in something illicit I can fully agree that it would be distracting but if not it’s time to get a life and focus your attention where it belongs.
How is changing to receiving standing up, from the hand of a layperson, a way of expressing humility?
Asked and answered innumerable times. In the end it’s a matter of humility because the person doing it considers it so. Humility is not observable so you don’t get to judge what external indicates it.
We’re Roman Catholics. Just because something is done, in a different, Eastern rite, is no reason for it to be plucked out of context and adopted by us.
Number one, it wasn’t “plucked” from an Eastern Rite though there are Eastern Rites that have practiced it from the beginning.
More important is the entire mindset of COTT being “better” as an “objective truth.” An objective truth must be true for the entire population and COTT most assuredly doesn’t even come close, even within the Roman population given the diffferent norms through its history. There is a huge difference that is consistently missed here between being more appropriate–which is a subjective decision–and being “objectively better.” All of us are equally Catholic and Roman Catholics have no claim to be objectively better nor do their practices have such a claim.
I fully agree that it would be inappropriate to go into an Eastern liturgy and demand to receive COTT. It would be equally inappropriate to go into a RC liturgy and demand one of the Eastern practices. That does not mean however that either is objectively better, only that one is more culturally-suited to liturgy where it is the norm. That doesn’t mean though that in making a decision to return CITH the Roman church couldnt be informed by the experience of the Eastern churches where it is used.
On the other hand, CITH was indeed practiced and was the norm within the Roman church for centuries. It was replaced in the Roman church at some point because of fear of specific heresies occurring though it did not disappear and continued unabated in Eastern liturgies. In the 60’s and 70’s it was resurrected in the Roman church, though admittedly to an initial negative reaction.
Over time however, for whatever reason, the Church either satisfied itself relative to the objections or decided that there was enough interest to let it be used where it was desired by those who felt it was a better form for their constituencies.
One is certainly entitled to feel it isn’t appropriate or to feel it isn’t as reverent since we are allowed to disagree about the prudence of disciplines. One does need to keep in mind however that there is no objective truth to that position and that it is a subjective preference. That doesn’t lead to any conclusion that we could or should just transplant Eastern practices into Roman liturgy–though this is not what is happening here–it simply means that given the wealth of different methods of receiving communion within the Catholic Church, Eastern and Roman, one cannot make any claim of one being “objectively better” which by definition means that in and of itself, in its nature, it is better than any alternative.
In the end it is this belief in “objective superiority”, which is really nothing more than subjective preference, that fuels the arguments and the misplaced judgments. If there really is catechesis needed in the matter it is catechesis on avoiding the “near occasion of sin” of being drawn into judgment of brothers and sisters about such things. The New Testament is full of examples and cautions against it from pretty much every one of the writers along with Jesus himself.
Peace,
I think you can be interiorly reverent and at peace, experiencing the fruit of the Spirit, all the while writing posts that for whatever reason compel me to write one back. 
