O
Ockham
Guest
OTJM, If we are to follow the Pope’s example then shouldn’t we receive Holy Communion on tongue while kneeling?
- Status
N
ncjohn
Guest
It is amazing that these discussions continue. It is the current prudential judgment of the Church on this discipline that either is allowed and acceptable and that neither is objectively better than the other. End of question.
What other Popes or saints held in the past is irrelevant and there were some of each on each side during every century. It is not now and has never been a “teaching” in the sense of being doctrine. It is a discipline, which the Church is allowed to change as it sees fit. Whether we as lay people like, understand, or agree with the decision is irrelevant also. The Church has spoken and until it speaks otherwise it is what it is.
Those who continue to make the “objectively more reverent” argument are either being dishonest with themselves (along with everyone else) or simply do not understand what it means for something to be objectively true. To be objectively true it must be true always and at all times which is clearly not the case here or in ANY matter of discipline. Disciplines come and go based on the circumstances and prudential judgments of the Church at the time. It is fine and dandy to find it more reverent in your own eyes, or to quote that someone else thought it was or is so. But that does not in any way translate to any discipline at any time being objectively so.
Whether it is by indult or the norm is irrelevant also. To make the argument that COTT is better just because it is the Norm is to then have to argue that the OF is better because it is the norm and that the EF, which was allowed only by indult or is now NOT the norm, is therefore less reverent, which is of course ridiculous. The Church’s stance on both situations is the same: both are allowed, acceptable and equal.
A strong emotional response devoid of logic is truly at work here. And of course when coupled with a stance that only that person gets to decide what is acceptable evidence it becomes laughable and undiscussable since the rules being set are outside the foundational premise set by the Church. Yes, there are some acting more like Martin Luther…those who believe themselves smarter than the Popes and the Church and making up their own rules in contradiction to what the Church has proclaimed. Doing all the things they proclaim others to be liberals and modernists for doing.
I guess if Jesus had to deal with that though it’s not unexpected that we would too. Some things never change.
Peace,
What other Popes or saints held in the past is irrelevant and there were some of each on each side during every century. It is not now and has never been a “teaching” in the sense of being doctrine. It is a discipline, which the Church is allowed to change as it sees fit. Whether we as lay people like, understand, or agree with the decision is irrelevant also. The Church has spoken and until it speaks otherwise it is what it is.
Those who continue to make the “objectively more reverent” argument are either being dishonest with themselves (along with everyone else) or simply do not understand what it means for something to be objectively true. To be objectively true it must be true always and at all times which is clearly not the case here or in ANY matter of discipline. Disciplines come and go based on the circumstances and prudential judgments of the Church at the time. It is fine and dandy to find it more reverent in your own eyes, or to quote that someone else thought it was or is so. But that does not in any way translate to any discipline at any time being objectively so.
Whether it is by indult or the norm is irrelevant also. To make the argument that COTT is better just because it is the Norm is to then have to argue that the OF is better because it is the norm and that the EF, which was allowed only by indult or is now NOT the norm, is therefore less reverent, which is of course ridiculous. The Church’s stance on both situations is the same: both are allowed, acceptable and equal.
A strong emotional response devoid of logic is truly at work here. And of course when coupled with a stance that only that person gets to decide what is acceptable evidence it becomes laughable and undiscussable since the rules being set are outside the foundational premise set by the Church. Yes, there are some acting more like Martin Luther…those who believe themselves smarter than the Popes and the Church and making up their own rules in contradiction to what the Church has proclaimed. Doing all the things they proclaim others to be liberals and modernists for doing.
I guess if Jesus had to deal with that though it’s not unexpected that we would too. Some things never change.
Peace,
P
ProVobis
Guest
Is it illogical to follow what most Catholics had been taught most Catholics prior to CITT, that is a sacrilege to touch the Body and Blood of Christ with hands other than those of the priest? So suddenly everyone is supposed to wake up one day and say CITT was a farce? Look, what’s been taught has been taught, you can’t blame people from doing what they have been repeatedly taught and don’t expect to maintain your integrity if you think practices can and should be changed at personal whims of a few individuals.
Look at it from a different way: what would have been the problem had CITT never been introduced in the post-VII Church?
N
ncjohn
Guest
In that case I guess it never should have been changed to COTT if nobody was allowed to make such a change. What that change made on a whim also? Or the change to Latin because it was the vernacular of its time and people wanted the liturgy in their own language, another of those “objectively more reverent” issues?Is it illogical to follow what we had been taught most Catholics prior to CITT, that is a sacrilege to touch the Body and Blood of Christ with our hands? So suddenly everyone is supposed to wake up one day and say CITT was a farce? Look, what’s been taught has been taught, you can’t blame people from doing what they have been repeatedly taught and don’t expect to maintain your integrity if you think practices can and should be changed at personal whims of a few individuals.
If someone taught you that as doctrine, it was clearly in error. The fact that something might have been taught to some in error does not change that it is in fact a discipline that the Church is allowed to change, though it is hardly “at the personal whims of a few individuals.”
I grew up in the years before Vatican II and while we wouldn’t have thought of holding the host since that wasn’t even thought of at the time I never once heard it was a “sacrilege”, though I did hear many other things taught as doctrine that weren’t so at all, however well-intentioned those holy sisters might have been. I was also taught that my eyes would stay crossed if I kept crossing them, and something about “going blind”, but I don’t cling to those either.
It’s not “illogical” to follow what you find more reverent to you; the problem is a choice to proclaim that that personal preference has objective value when the Church has stated otherwise.
Peace,
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
By the same token: Indulging and permiting are neither teaching against.
“Ditto”
tee
P
ProVobis
Guest
When we were in grade school, sacrilege was a moral issue not a doctrinal one. I don’t remember too many debates of practice vs doctrine being held before VII. COTT was the only game in town and it was what it was. There were bigger issues such as whether you were in the state of mortal sin before you received. But many see this today as another practice that was lifted. Personally I think we went too far with this all-practices-can-be-changed mindset. Simply call it a practice and poof it’s changed. Isn’t some preservation of integrity important?
I had one nun who taught the whole class that it was a mortal sin for a boy to keep his hands in his pockets. Had another one taught the same I might have believed it. Fortunately she was the only one.…I did hear many other things taught as doctrine that weren’t so at all, however well-intentioned those holy sisters might have been. I was also taught that my eyes would stay crossed if I kept crossing them, and something about “going blind”, but I don’t cling to those either.
The point is that reinforced teachings last a long time, if not a complete lifetime. Some people still believe in a flat earth. What do you say to them? There are many wives’ tales people believe in but I certainly don’t condescend and tell them their position is illogical.
B
Breviarylover
Guest
S
Socio_Momma
Guest
I didn’t posit that it was not allowed for the laity to receive via the hand, I never stated how the laity received historically. I only stated that using the Apostles as either a justification for or against how to receive either in the hand or the tongue as a lay person doesn’t apply. Instead the discussion how laity receive should focus on the history around laity. Don’t add more to my post that was there or get into mental gymnastics that I didn’t offer or to imply I was offering an intellectually dishonest approach to the discussion (I understand you were not implying I as a person am dishonest). However, parsing my post & attaching an argument to it that I did not offer is not accurate.
Again, one cannot look to the Apostles as a reason to receive in the hand or on the tongue as a lay person. Instead the discussion of how one is to receive is separate from the Apostles. These are two different discussions.
N
ncjohn
Guest
The simple fact is that whatever terms you want to put it in this is a discipline and open to change by the Church. Yes, preservation of integrity is important but in this case in particular you have two competing (small “t”) traditions, both of which have been the norm at different times in the Church’s history and both of which the Church has made a prudential decision on at this time in history. Nobody here is arguing against preserving COTT or trying to take it away from anyone who finds it more reverent. The only argument being made is that the Church finds both equally acceptable. If anyone is arguing for taking sometihng away it is those who believe that ONLY COTT is acceptable because it was the most recent tradition. Many great saints and martyrs have come from both traditions.
And again, I have not heard anyone say that it is illogical to hold to one’s belief or preference, or what they have been taught on the subject. My only point is that it is a matter of discipline that the Church has ruled on and not a matter of doctrine. Therefore it IS illogical to condescend to tell someone who validly finds an alternative allowed by the Church to have more value to them that YOUR way is the only right way.
I personally rejoice that it is enough of a concern to you that you are consciously trying to do what you find most reverent. The only thing point I’m making is that we can do so and still be able to consider that someone who finds the other alternative more reverent can actually be just as concerned and pious even while not sharing our preference. We don’'t have to understand why any more than we need to understand why someone actually LIKES and eats okra or lima beans. Some things just “are” and we accept them when they have been proclaimed acceptable by the appropriate authorities.
Peace to you!
O
otjm
Guest
“Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?”
“I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion.” by Cardinal Ratzinger in The Living Liturgy, a Gift from Heaven, as quoted in Adoremus Bulletin.
Perhaps we should put this to rest? I have a slight suspicion, maybe only very slight, that the good Cardinal was aware of how the Dutch bishops did and Paul 6th’s actions subsequently. And I suspect that as Pope he has the same opinion.
O
otjm
Guest
We have been down this route before, but lets go down it again.
When something is a universal norm, it would be expected that the Pope in public Masses would follow the norm. People have tried repeatedly to say that this means that he disapproves of CITH; that is at best a and extremely far stretch of the facts.
He is eminently capable of saying that he does not approve of CITH, but has not done so; he is also eminently capable of removing the indult and he also has not done so.
He is also eminently capable of saying one of the Mass forms from one of any of the other Churches in union with Rome but he does not do so; by your analogy he has “disapproved” of them because he does not say them. But since he is head of not only the whole Church but also of the Western rite (Latin, Roman) his saying the OF does not in any way reflect on the other rites’ formats.
Neither does the fact that he says the OF have anything to say about the EF, although by your analogy it should.
Why would anyone expect him to follow an indult? He is not a bishop in the US; he is Bishop of Rome and all that entails.
O
otjm
Guest
Whether it actually was a sacrilige is an issue for moral theologians far more experienced, trained, and educated than anyone on these boards. That it was taught by the good nuns is without doubt; whether it was correct or not I will leave to someone else. If in fact it was a sacrilige, it was so only because there was a specific disciplinary rule in place; and as has been stated, disciplinary rules are always subject to revision or revocation and replacement.Is it illogical to follow what most Catholics had been taught most Catholics prior to CITT, that is a sacrilege to touch the Body and Blood of Christ with hands other than those of the priest? So suddenly everyone is supposed to wake up one day and say CITT was a farce? Look, what’s been taught has been taught, you can’t blame people from doing what they have been repeatedly taught and don’t expect to maintain your integrity if you think practices can and should be changed at personal whims of a few individuals.
The good nuns also taught us that Limbo was a doctrine - at least the ones who taught me taught it as God’s given truth. The Church has held that it was never a doctrine, but rather a theological construct widely, if not almost universally held. But it wasn’t a doctrine. This issue is not doctrinal. The Church (as opposed to the Roman rite part of it) has allowed CITH since the beginning. All the bishops in Holland can do time in purgatory for their disobedience. and if you want to insist by implication that Paul 6th was a lousy Pope for not whacking them all up the side of the head, well, he can do time too. Bottom line is it is an indult. If you don’t want to receive that way, by all means, don’t. That is most definitely your right.
It is not, however, your right to criticize anyone who follows the indult. And that is not to promote the indult; it is simply a fact of the Church’s authority, which trumps your opinion unless and until the Church authority decides otherwise.
The problems that the Church has are far more due to poor catechesis over the last 40 years than they are to the means by which we receive. And changing the format of receiving does not change the problem with catechesis. Solve the problem of catechesis, and the form of receiving is a non-issue; note my quote of Cardinal Ratzinger herein this thread.
L
Layman
Guest
What benefits, practical or spiritual, are there from changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?
The arguments for:
Remove the old altars and altar rails,
Remove Latin,
Move the tabernacle,
Let unvested laity into the sanctuary,
Let unvested laity read Scripture from the pulpit,
Let unvested laity orate from the pulpit at funerals,
Let unvested laity distribute Communion,
Let women into the sanctuary and choir,
Remove chant,
Add folksy hymns,
Stick kids drawings up in the Sanctuary;
Priest now performs the rite facing the people, like it was a show, for them;
Make a de-facto new Mass in the common language …
… and then wonder where the old reverence has gone . Wonder why those who do turn up aren’t more reverent in dress and behaviour. **It’s because they’re being cued not to be.
**
You can’t have it both ways. Remove the hierarchial and exclusive elements, add populist ones and then expect people to aproach with awe and reverence.
The arguments for:
- We have an indult. It can be done because it’s allowed i.e. It’s allowed because it’s allowed.
- It was done 1600+ years ago and/or in other, non-Roman rites
- Reverence is an internal matter. Posture is not important.
- COTT, kneeling, from a priest is the norm. CITH is an indult, an exception.
- COTT, kneeling, from a priest was done for 1000+ years in the Roman rite. Why change now? Are we holier, so we can now touch the Host or has it become less so?
- Mass is a public rite with other people present. Why are you going to do now that you’re there? Stand reverently(?) and have an unconsecrated laywoman use her unpurified hand to put the host reverently into your unpurified hand? You can only show reverence by what you do outwardly. By stopping COTT, a great opportunity for expressing humility in the Presence of Christ The King has been lost.
- The priest has (had?) to be careful with his hands and purify the vessels afterwards, but the EMHCs can hand you the Host into your hand with no such precautions for either of you.
Remove the old altars and altar rails,
Remove Latin,
Move the tabernacle,
Let unvested laity into the sanctuary,
Let unvested laity read Scripture from the pulpit,
Let unvested laity orate from the pulpit at funerals,
Let unvested laity distribute Communion,
Let women into the sanctuary and choir,
Remove chant,
Add folksy hymns,
Stick kids drawings up in the Sanctuary;
Priest now performs the rite facing the people, like it was a show, for them;
Make a de-facto new Mass in the common language …
… and then wonder where the old reverence has gone . Wonder why those who do turn up aren’t more reverent in dress and behaviour. **It’s because they’re being cued not to be.
**
You can’t have it both ways. Remove the hierarchial and exclusive elements, add populist ones and then expect people to aproach with awe and reverence.
O
otjm
Guest
Irrelevant, as it is not on point. It is well settled that in the early Church laity were allowed to receive in the hand. That is separate from touching any vessels; and without more we have no background as to why the rule was issued about vessels. Yes, I am aware of what was contained in the vessels; it is not dispositive because it is established that they were allowed to receive in the hand.
Since there is no quote, not possible to determine relevance. However, one does not “take” the Eucharist; one receives it. The rule appears not to be about reception in the hand but about taking as opposed to receiving.
Acknowledges reception in the hand but limits time and place; not dispositive that receiving in the hand is wrong in and of itself.
Not dispositve of any universal rule; they are local rules.
Per the next quote, obviously not dispositive. “Required” is an interesting term since obvioulsy it was not effective; again no quote. Penalties?
Aother synod; rules are made for current problems and there was a current problem. Certainly not dispositive of any universal “teaching” but rather reflective of disciplinary action.
Again, indicative that prior rulings either were not universal in application, or not effective in creating a universal application.
Commentary by a theologian, not the Magesterial teaching of the Church (although when someone likes him, they promote his comments as if they were Magiesterial teaching). Obviously a commentary on discipline at the time; and as it is commentary on discipline, it is not binding. He is also known to have made comments on doctrinal matters which were incorrect. He is not incorrect in this comment; but the comment is not an issue binding conscience for all time; it is a comment supporting the then in place discipline.
Not dispositive of anything herein’ it references the priest, not the recipient. Whikle the practice at the time was on the tongue, this doesn’t address COTT/CITH; it references who distributes. It also is inaccurate to the extent that it does not recognize the distribution by a deacon.
Which only says that CITH is not replacing COTT. And we all agree the universal norm for the Roman rite is COTT. Not dispositive of anything.
Again, not dispositive as it is not about CITH; it is about “touching and distributing” taken together. It obviously did not address CITH as that is still the indult.POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
Again, not dispositive; it is not about CITH but about taking as opposed to receiving.
All of these have to do with disciplinary rules, and most of them are disciplinary rules that are not about CITH but about the issue of taking/receiving.
O
otjm
Guest
S
Socio_Momma
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
From the humeral veil and kneeling to casual carrying…
Treating the tabernacle like your kitchen cabinet…
But the Vatican permits it so it must be okay.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Then why did they change to COTT? Did those reasons change post VII? Or did some who just had too much time on their hands decide to start trouble?
Sacrilege is not a discipline issue; it is a moral one. Each one of us still has a conscience and a free will, regardless of whether you wish to call it a “correctly formed” or not.
O
Ockham
Guest
Thank you for finding a quote to support your argument. It would be nice if you provided a link as well.
In another thread you suggested I refrain from calling the Pauline Mass/OF “Novus Ordo” because we should all follow the Pope’s example. Now in this thread you are contradicting that advice by suggesting he’s only the Bishop of Rome thus us North American Catholics are not necessarily bound by his example.
It was also refreshing to see someone respond to the quotes on this topic I offered. However, I can sum up my review of your responses in one word: relativism. It seems in this day and age spinning facts is so common it’s become our new norm.
The bottom line here is the modern practice of CITH began in Holland as a liturgical abuse. The Pope of the day issued a warning against it. Yet the practice spread to many parts of the world forcing the Vatican to acquiesce and issue an indult with conditions.
As an aside, sometimes out of curiosity I’ll watch the Communion line at my NO parish. The vast majority of people make no sign of reverence and many don’t consume the Host in front of the Minister.
I’d like to know how many children are taught COTT when preparing for their First Communion. I’d wager a bet the vast majority are not so they grow up thinking CITH is the only way. How many know the norm of the Church is COTT and the centuries of teaching against CITH.
If following the practice that started as a liturgical abuse, contrary to all the Church teachings and following the example of Martin Luther is what modern Catholics want to do then we are in a sad state of decline. Hopefully once the generation that feels entitled to change and customization leaves this world the faithful will get back to following the Church and not their own inclinations.
O
Ockham
Guest
Bishop calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent
“It is not a question of ritualism, but a question of faith and love for Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11981
*The archbishop said that contemporary celebrations of Mass were “so superficial,” lacking “due concentration” and “visible, external signs of reverence.”
“We are composed of body and soul,” Bishop Schneider said. "We have to worship and to adore Christ in this moment also with our body. There is a mutual influence between the exterior sign and the interior disposition.
“Therefore, here is not a question of some ‘right,’ but here is a question of-- we are dealing with the Lord Himself, and therefore we cannot be silent, especially I as bishop, and say ‘OK, it’s all OK.’ It’s not all OK. When we love our Lord, we have to strengthen this moment in order that it become more sacred in order to educate the exterior sign of adoration, which is also an education of faith."
He referred to the common formal gestures used to greet a president, a king, or a queen, saying comparable respect for the King of Kings was necessary*
“It is not a question of ritualism, but a question of faith and love for Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11981
*The archbishop said that contemporary celebrations of Mass were “so superficial,” lacking “due concentration” and “visible, external signs of reverence.”
“We are composed of body and soul,” Bishop Schneider said. "We have to worship and to adore Christ in this moment also with our body. There is a mutual influence between the exterior sign and the interior disposition.
“Therefore, here is not a question of some ‘right,’ but here is a question of-- we are dealing with the Lord Himself, and therefore we cannot be silent, especially I as bishop, and say ‘OK, it’s all OK.’ It’s not all OK. When we love our Lord, we have to strengthen this moment in order that it become more sacred in order to educate the exterior sign of adoration, which is also an education of faith."
He referred to the common formal gestures used to greet a president, a king, or a queen, saying comparable respect for the King of Kings was necessary*
- Status