L
LightBound
Guest
That thread certainly had a lot of now-banned people posting in it.
- Status
C
curlycool89
Guest
It’s pretty obvious from this that you’ve ignored everything that Brother JR has said in this thread.
That’s not surprising. When you have a position you’re not willing ot change, the easiest thing is to ignore those who disagree with you and ignore their reasoning when you have no ability to respond to it (heck, I see it all the time on this forum in the Popular Media section. I won’t mention the threads, but people who’ve been around will know what I’m talking about).
Just philosophically speaking this is just terrible phrasing.
If something is allowed then it is allowed. That’s it, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
What is that even suppose to mean? “They don’t, isn’t that interesting?” Why is that interesting? Did you conduct a sociological experiment with data to back up how “interesting” this phenomenon is? Or are you just spewing derogatory phrases just because they support your position?
I
Indyann
Guest
Knew it wasn’t Roger. He seemed to have a sense of humor and was never as ugly as this person is in his posts. Busted, indeed.
T
terrig
Guest
I
Indyann
Guest
:yup::yup:
P
ProVobis
Guest
The way the conditions are written up, it seems the burden is on the those who receive communion in the hand to show that they fall within the conditions. But that said, I’d prefer this be not a legal issue but a spiritual one or a unification one which St. Francis seemed to favor. As do the Lutherans. Or Poles for that matter with their oplatki. Friction doesn’t seem to exist there.
S
SuperTrad
Guest
‘Austerity’ in a Mass, a propitiatory sacrifice, is almost a contradiction in terms. We offer you less, O Lord?
By all means, be ascetic as a person, but cut things out of a Mass? In diocesan churches?
The Protestant influence is obvious, if you stand outside and look: the hymns, the minimalism, the gaudy vestments, Mass as the Lord’s Supper.
We’re experimenting. We’re changing, all right. I think it’s time to change back.
By all means, be ascetic as a person, but cut things out of a Mass? In diocesan churches?
The Protestant influence is obvious, if you stand outside and look: the hymns, the minimalism, the gaudy vestments, Mass as the Lord’s Supper.
We’re experimenting. We’re changing, all right. I think it’s time to change back.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Francis & Dominic predates the reformation by how many years? The Cisterians predate Luther by how long?
Why do you insist on ignoring the authentic traditions of religious orders, when said orders have given you several traditions you must hold dear?
E
Esrb99
Guest
Just wondering: Is it legitimate development for the Secular/Diocesan Roman Rite to adopt customs from Religious orders with differing charisms? I’m not against the adoption of customs in theory, but I think it’s a fair question to ask the same thing Vatican officials did when petitioned for an indult for CITH. Will this be a vehicle for fostering Eucharistic piety? Will it be able to equally underscore for the laity the due reverence and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament? As stated earlier in this thread, Curial members were nervous about this. Considering the widespread lack of belief in the real presence and poor catechesis, perhaps it is time that bishops looked at the reasoning behind CITH and COTT more closely.
I know CITH in and of itself did not lead to the widespread disbelief in the real presence. However, I think it is a perfectly reasonable position to hold that CITH-combined with the widespread liberties taken with the Missal of Paul VI and public dissent of church teaching, not to mention the rise in secularism-all have combined for a perfect storm of trials for the church. This does not mean I feel that CITH should be immediately expunged as an option. Far from it. Instead, I would argue that among many things, the question of CITH’s ability to underscore the sacredness of the Eucharist should be revisited by the Holy See, and considered in the light of the current times.
S
severus68
Guest
Exactly and then there is recommending such sites on CAF.
S
severus68
Guest
Then please stop recommending that site on CAF or linking it here,
E
Esrb99
Guest
I may have read the thread wrong, but the first mention of Fisheaters in this thread wasn’t even someone ‘recommending’ the site. On the contrary:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10059848&postcount=29
The post quoted above had absolutely nothing to do with what the Original Poster or people earlier in the thread had said. Fisheaters was brought up from left field only to be trashed. Only after this, did someone come out and mention possible merits of the site. The kind of baiting from post #29 in this thread to distract from the topic just doesn’t seem right.
L
LightBound
Guest
I don’t think that post about FE came out of left field- I think FE was either referred to or had a link in a post that was either deleted shortly after being posted or was removed by the mods. (In fact, the first post on this thread and a couple more show being edited by the moderator of this sub-forum).
But the fact remains that people were attempting to promote that site on here and many of those reading this thread are probably unaware of what occurs regularly on that forum. Not to mention the fact the actual site doesn’t adhere to what the Magisterium teaches. That right there is the reason people, myself included, are compelled to let others know that it’s not just a “sweet little site that tells about all the lovely traditions of old”! No one was attempting to derail the thread’s original topic, but when something as important as trying to use FE as a reliable, “faithful to the Magisterium” type of source, people need to be aware it’s not.
S
SuperTrad
Guest
There’s nothing authentic about introducing CITH to the laity in the late 20th Century. It was
wholly artificial. It offers no benefit and has significant demerits. It remain an indult, a
special permission.
It’s high time it was revoked. Your bishop could do it tomorrow.
C
curlycool89
Guest
sigh
Do people not read the thread at all?
Tabernacle in the middle? Franciscan tradition. Tabernacle in a side chapel? Benedictine tradition. The EF? Originated as a missal given to the Franciscans (with some adaptation, obviously). Rosary? Dominican.
Seculars adopting the practices of Religious is THE story of the Roman Rite.
And now for our daily lesson in statistics.
Correlation does not equal causation. Nor do you give any reason behind whether CITH is behind “lack of belief in the real presence” except as a dogmatic assertion (which is probably just parroted from other traditionalists who have been saying the same thing just as dogmatically for a long time)
So, what does CITH have to do with it at all then? Again, there’s no explanation of why CITH is responsible at all other then “I’m going to blame it because I don’t like it”.
The Holy See does not seem to see a problem at all, considering that they continue to allow an indult. I think you’re seeing a problem (or trying to read in a problem) that doesn’t exist.
The actual historical evidence provided by Br. JR and Melchior_ seem to suggest otherwise. If you want to refute it, you have to give actual evidence and not just pontificate that your opinion is right just because you said so.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Especially when members of Secular Orders bring the spirituality and traditions of their orders to their local parishes. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that I use Francis, Bonaventure, and Scotus, when teaching the youth of my parish are being taught.
Eight hundred years Franciscans have receiving on the hand, and that includes the Order of Secular Franciscans. Originally known as the Brothers & Sisters of Penance, the “Third Order of Francis” likely would have carried their traditions over to local parishes. If they did, that’s one way CITH would have caught on in an organic and authentic fashion.
If my bishop revoked CITH tomorrow it wouldn’t affect me the slightest, for a couple of reasons.
M
Mike30
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
Slow down here. For a valid mass you need matter, form and intent. This really narrows it down to the validly ordained priest, bread and wine, words of consecration (in most rites) and the intent to consecrate. Even if the rest is missing, you still have a mass.
There are wonderful examples of priests who have been in prison and all they had was a few drops of wine and a morsel of bread, not even unleavened bread, just regular bread. They celebrated mass in the palm of their hands.
It’s not really that interesting if you stop to think that there is no mandate to do so. We cannot impose on people what the Church does not impose. I remember when we wrote our constitutions and this question came up. The Holy See told us that we could not demand that our brothers kneel for Holy Communion, because Francis did not demand it. We could allow them to do so, but we could not demand that they do so. The letter continued and said that no one can demand what the Church does not demand, unless it is approved by the Church for that particular group. Since the Church saw no reason to demand that the brothers kneel for Holy Communion, the Holy See struck that paragraph out of the constitution. The Holy See felt that it was desirable, but not mandatory. We were allowed to say that, but not to command it. We have to be very careful in what we expect of others, because our expectations may be in conflict with those of the Church. What the Church believes to be desirable and what she believes to be necessary are not always the same thing. The current law is that either a genuflection, profound bow or kneeling are all options. One must choose a, b or c. Kneeling is desirable, but not required if one chooses one of the other options.
Actually, it is not a contradiction It is a venerable Catholic tradition that goes back to the Carthusians, Camaldolese, Cistercians, Franciscans, Servites and Augustinians.
Before the revision of the mass, each of the above named communities had their own missals. If one attended two parish masses, one by a Franciscan and another by a Servite, one would notice that certain things were missing or added. This is actually part of tradition that was lost with the revision of the mass. Most of the religious orders changed over to the Roman Missal, which is the one that is commonly used by secular clergy. There are very few orders that have their own missal with their own rubrics. However, after SP, this seems to be returning. Because SP said that those missals in use in 1962 could be used. You may find yourself attending an EF presided by an Augustinian that looks “protestant” as people say. The truth is that it’s Augustinian, not Protestant.
We have to remember that the Protestant liturgy was a carryover from Catholicism, not the other way around. Luther was an Augustinian Canon. The only form of the mass that he knew what the Augustinian form, which is very austere, almost bare bones. We have not seen it in 50 or so years. If the Augustinians ever go back to it, we will see it’s beauty and austerity at the same time.
The Cistercians have kept their austerity. The chapel is whitewashed. There are few if any statues. There is no adornment. The vestments are very simple and the altar is a fixed table This has been their practice for almost 1,000 years.
The Franciscans were very much influenced by the Camaldolese Monks. The Camaldolese are a branch of the Benedictine Family, but their liturgy is less elaborate with less gestures, less prayers, very little chant and their vestments are usually Roman in style. The early Franciscans who were priests, which were few, borrowed this model and this is what they took with them around Europe. They carried it over from the Camaldolese abbey to the local parishes where they served.
There are some things that we should change back, because they did not work. There are some things that worked very well and we should keep. I believe that’s the direction where we’re heading. Eventually, we will have one Roman Rite mass instead of two. It will be a hybrid.
J
JReducation
Guest
Yes. The preservation and development of liturgy has always been entrusted to religious, not to secular clergy. Secular clergy were always trained by religious. The idea of a secular seminary is a very recent concept that dates back to the late 1700s or early 1800s when the Sulpicians were founded. The Sulpicians did not have a liturgical tradition of their own. They were founded to run secular seminaries, but they took their liturgical cue from the religious orders. It is a very good question to ask, because many people know nothing about the Society of San Sulpice and the birth of secular seminaries.
What many dioceses are doing is revisiting how they do adult faith formation. That’s where the real problem lies. Our faith formation programs are horrific.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
E
Esrb99
Guest
I disagree. Due to how it was first mentioned, I think it is possible that Fisheaters was brought up in a purposefully disparaging way to paint people on one side of the CITH & COTT debate as unfaithful catholics. The distinction of which side Fisheaters members fall on may not have been explicitly stated in the post, but in the context of the thread (and the posts after) it seemed that it was used as an excuse to dismiss concerns regarding CITH as dissidents from Fisheaters. If people want to point out what they think are magisterial errors on FE’s part, then fine. Create a new thread. But the mention of FE in this thread was completely unwarranted and possibly uncharitable.
Tell me how april’s post was not painting COTT advocates as ‘totally against the magesterium, dropping f-bombs’. There was no mention of FE until she came in, and knowing FE’s stance on CITH and the reactions of the posts after, any reader unfamiliar with the issue may be led to think that COTT advocates=FE Goers=not good. This is uncharitable. Not only is declaring that those on fisheaters are not catholic judgmental in and of itself, but leading readers here to make the above jump of logic is downright sneaky.
Careful. Those are some strong words. The burden of proof that something is wrong rests on the accuser. We assume each mass contains valid matter when we’re sitting in the pews. Until we have evidence of something wrong that is documentable, we should have good faith. If you have such evidence from reliable sources within the faith, it would be best to share them. If not, it’s best to tone down the rhetoric.
- Status