AFAIK, it’s the bishops’ call on whether it’s allowed within that country with conditions (has to be consumed immediately, etc). Furthermore the local bishop and/or pastor may restrict the practice within a diocese, church, or particular service, such as an EF.
I think very few liturgical problems besides validity can be said to be inherently wrong. I personally see liturgy on a stratum of “better practices” and “worse practices.”
Source please.
“History of the Franciscan Order: From Its Origins to the Year 1517” has a lot of interesting tidbits regarding Franciscan traditions, although I have a scanned copy of it so Ctrl+F isn’t an option. A part of me wants to type out the book as a whole, but in the end I’ll probably just take notes.
First of all, we are talking about the Ordinary Form today. Secondly, I highly doubt the Franciscans went about having their way in the manner that those who wouldn’t take no for an answer back in the late 60’s did. I’m sure they asked and were granted permission before they went forward with their wishes.
I actually take it by mouth now because for whatever reason, the pieces I’ve been getting are too crumbly.
As has been pointed out in the past, religious are generally better informed and have a much deeper understanding of religious practices than do many of the laity. Hence a practice that is used by a religious order may not always be understood by the laity to the same degree as the religious do. For instance, I somehow doubt that a Franciscan would receive Holy Communion, carry it back to his seat and consume it there, as more than a few of the laity do.
What the average layman does not understand is that in Canon Law a disobedience is an act contrary to what has been commanded or what has been forbidden. The command or the prohibition has to be explicit. It cannot be abstract. The principle that guided many people was one that came from St. Thomas Aquinas, which the Church has never accepted as being correct.
When introduced, CITH was new to the Novus Ordo. As you said in the other post, if the practice was OK’d by the local Bishop beforehand, then fine. No novelty.
Oh boy, I was replying as you posted, so you have answered a couple of questions in your post here , I had asked in my last reply.What the average layman does not understand is that in Canon Law a disobedience is an act contrary to what has been commanded or what has been forbidden. The command or the prohibition has to be explicit. It cannot be abstract. The principle that guided many people was one that came from St. Thomas Aquinas, which the Church has never accepted as being correct.
St. Thomas argued that only the consecrated hands of the priest should touch the host. The problem with his argument was
Historically, many people have held that this is the law of the Church, because St. Thomas said so. Even today, that are those who will argue that if a Doctor or a saint says so, then it must be law. That’s not the case at all. Only popes can create laws. Beneath them, only bishops. There are theological positions of saints and doctors that the Church accepts as truth, but not all.
- St. Bonaventure contradicts him and St. Bonaventure outranked him. Thomas was a friar and Bonaventure was a cardinal. Both were doctors.
- St. Thomas has no canonical authority to command. He’s a theologian, not a bishop or a pope.
- His statement was never adopted as binding.
There is another issue with regards to pastors who allowed CITH without the permission of the bishop. This is an incorrect interpretation of collegiality. Collegiality applies only to the bishops and the pope, not to the deacons, priests and bishop of a diocese. They are not part of the college. Therefore, the pastor does not govern independently of the bishop.
A canonist would say that this is not a problem of obedience as much as a problem of an incorrect application of collegiality, where the pastor assumes authority that he does not have and cannot exercise independent of the bishop… If the bishop explicitly says that it cannot be done, then it’s disobedience. If the bishop says nothing, then it is not disobedience, even though the law is being violated. The canonist would then look for the cause of the violation. In many cases it is a incorrect application of a concept that is rather abstract.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Obviously, you have not been around here very long. I’m not one to “cherry pick”. I’m quite orthodox in my theology and law and very knowledgeable of Church history and language.
When you say “insinuate” and “not cherry pick”, are you addressing that to Br JR?
Well said Brother. You are a lot more charitable than I am.Obviously, you have not been around here very long. I’m not one to “cherry pick”. I’m quite orthodox in my theology and law and very knowledgeable of Church history and language.
You cannot have disobedience when something is not prohibited or when the contrary is not commanded. Nor can you have disobedience when the individuals involved are incorrectly applying a concept. That’s not how Canon Law works. Canon Law always gives the greatest benefit of the doubt to the individual. What we’re trying to do here is to narrow that benefit, which is contrary to the legal tradition of the Church.
On another note, the Franciscans never received an indult for CITH. There was not such thing in the 13th century. Superiors made these decisions unilaterally. You must remember that Francis of Assisi was a religious superior in solemn vows.
At the time, there were no religious in simple vows, because there were no such things as religious congregations. There were only religious and secular orders. Orders are governed by abbots or their equivalent: Priors or Ministers. Abbots, Priors and Ministers have proper jurisdiction as if they were bishops, even if they are not priests, as was the case with Francis.
The concept of an indult came into existence in the 16th century with the founding of the Jesuits.
The Franciscan custom of CITH is not an indult, but a true Catholic tradition.
In addition, the “novus ordo” as you call it was simply the cover title for the rubrics of the revised mass of Pope John XXIII. After that edition, there have been three revisions and the term has no longer been used. It is simply called the Roman Rite or the Ordinary Form. Novus Ordo is a disparaging term used by radical traditionalists, not the canonical term used by the Church.
The introduction of CITH into the revised missal cannot be called an innovation, because it does not pass the canonical or liturgical test for innovation. The test is very specific. An innovation must be something that has never been done in the Church. The use CITH is much older than the Ordinary Form of the Mass. It is not limited to the Roman Rite. It is has been used in other rites as well, long before the 1960s. What we have here is a case of generalization of a practice.
The same is true about many other changes to the liturgy. What people refer to as “novelties” are actually very old practices that were not common to the average layman, but were common in other settings and they were generalized. One such generalization is communion while standing. It has been in use for 2,000 years, but not in Europe, except in houses of Cistercians, Franciscans, and other conventual orders. It has also been in use in other Latin rites including the Bragan Rite and the Mozarabic Rite, both of which are Latin rites.
What was done was to take these practices and to generalize them to the Roman Rite. One can argue whether it was a good idea or not. One can argue whether it was generalized correctly or not. One cannot say that this is a novelty, when in fact the Church did not pull it out of its sleeve, but simply took something that was already in the Church and made it available to a larger population. That’s not innovation. That’s generalization. They invented nothing new.
Words have meaning. When we use terms such as novelty and innovation, we reduce the significance, the value and the intent of an action. At times, people will use these terms with no ill will intended. They are simply repeating what they hear other people say. But very often, the Traditionalist world, one hears these terms deliberately used with the full intent of demeaning, rejecting and even condescending. That’s not part of Catholic tradition.
If we’re going to defend tradition the first tradition that we must protect is respect. If we examine our Catholic tradition one of the hallmarks of our saints and leaders is their demeanor. It’s always a very respectful one in tone and deed. In this world of traditionalism, we often seem to behave as if we have the right or the obligation to be condescending, dismissive and at times even crude in how we refer to the sacred, the clergy, or the Church in general. That’s something that we need to avoid like a plague. It does not make for good evangelization. On the contrary, it only makes enemies. The object must always be to draw men toward divine union, not to repel them with our attitude.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
You mention “articles galore” but only posted one link? And a questionable one, at that. Google and you have not provided an authentic source from the Magisterium, as I asked you to document. Why would anyone believe this google article is anything other than a traditionalist’s opinion hosted on a website that is rated thus:
The other link you gave to EWTN was helpful in giving the guidelines for CITH, but did not state that it was a result of disobedience … which you persist in claiming without credible documentation.
No, but you are strongly advocating the traditionalist position of “disobedience” which offends those who love the Church and are rightly disturbed by these insinuations that are without proof. (See my post above yours. We were posting simultaneously.)