J
jam070406
Guest
:bluelite:
npatrol:
- Status
npatrol:
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This made my evening:bluelite:
P
ProVobis
Guest
The first vote went overwhelmingly negative. Then I understand they polled all the retired and dying bishops and got their “2/3.” Some thought it was illegal. I don’t know when it comes up for renewal again. Maybe with a new slate of bishops? But then someone would have to bring it up for a vote.
As for instruction, you got that right. When it was first introduced, they gave us several instructions on how to do it. I remember them making so many corrections to those who received CITH that most vowed never to receive again. I would say 90% are still doing it wrong but they don’t bother with the corrections anymore.
F
floresco
Guest
I think you are referring to my post. Choy had claimed that those of us who believe that COTT is better should not try to convince others of this because it would make them feel bad. I was using an analogy to explain my reaction to this claim. It was not a comparison on the objective level but rather subjective. I was making the point that I am just as sure that COTT is better than CITH as Choy is sure that Catholics need to attend Sunday Mass. That is how clear this issue seems to me.
I doubt that Choy (or just about anybody) would refrain from trying to convince others of that which they believe to be true. Yet that is what he is saying that I ought to do. I was asking him to think about how he would react to someone telling him not to tell Catholics they ought to go to Mass, so that he could understand the subjective impact of his statement.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Either that or begin to have doubts about the practice.
P
Pug
Guest
floresco, thanks for the explanation. It helped, actually. It is still hard for me to overcome the comparison, but I think I now get what you meant by it. It is a subjective comparison from the perspective of the person trying to convince of something, and then being told not to try to convince, when they consider the subject important. You were trying to explain how important or clear it feels/is to you by using an analogy that would be familiar to the others on the thread. Thanks again for clarifying.
P
Pug
Guest
Just to give you some hope, I have seen corrections. Our entire parish was instructed to make a sign of reverence before receiving, and it has *mostly *stuck. I think it could do with regular booster shots, sort of like tetanus. I’d like to see everyone instructed to the mea culpa breast strike as well. Sigh. I have to keep my interest low in liturgical matters to keep myself from getting overzealous.
The conference votes on the CITH thing, then, and the other bishops in the conference must accept it, even if they didn’t vote for it? Or is it more that they figure it would cause confusion if their diocose was the one place where everyone drives on the left, in a vast sea of roads driven on the right?
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Disagree may be too strong a term.
This statement does not reflect my experience of receiving COTT,
but that is not to say that for some, this statement is true for them.
I prefer CITH because I have a very brief moment of personal adoration,
a moment when I hold the presence of God, in the body of His Son,
in my hand and feel a oneness with Him.
It is a moment that often moves me to tears,
and something that I have never felt when I have received COTT(and yes I have received this way, both standing and kneeling at the altar rail)
I am fortunate to live in a Diocese where CITH is allowed.
If that changes tomorrow, I will adjust.
For now, as long as it is allowed, I will continue my present practice.
C
choy
Guest
still trying to get rid of me i see
so afraid of the truth, tsk tsk tsk :dts:
C
choy
Guest
i said that you cannot make people feel bad for doing something that is valid
that last part is essential
is it just our personal belief that CITH is valid? are you denying that i has been made valid by the Church?
and no, receiving CITH is not the same as not going to mass. its a great big difference of two things that are in no way similar. it has been explained why, i don’t need to repeat it again.
O
Ockham
Guest
choy, I’m willing to bet everyone understands your argument - it’s approved. Yes, it is approved (by indult) the point I’m making is that it shouldn’t have been.
*"From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful."*
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Issued on May 29, 1969.
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm
*"From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful."*
MEMORIALE DOMINI
Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
Issued on May 29, 1969.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmemor.htm
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Isn’t this internet thingy great! People can state their opinion, and then others are free to disagree.
CITH and EMHCs are a contributing factor to a lack of reverence brought on by a lack of belief.
If people don’t believe, don’t say they weren’t told (poor catechesis). You can’t be over twenty in the Church and say you were never told that the Host is the Body of Christ. You are told that every time you receive!
There is a difference between “the Host can only be touched by the ordained clergy because it is the Body of Christ” and “anyone can touch it because it’s the Body of Christ”. We are telling people, in what the Church allows, that the Host must not be that special. We didn’t mean to, but that is what it has devolved to.
P
paperwight
Guest
Mmm… well, there is another thought. The Church is saying that we can and should distinguish between the accidents and the substance of the Body of Christ.
In other words, we are not touching the Body of Christ. We are touching the accidents of the Host - its dryness, its weight, its shape and so on. We are not touching the Body because no-one can, priest or not. The substance is not perceptible to the senses - isn’t that basic catechesis? We cannot touch the substance, only the accidents.
So, it’s irrelevant who touches the Host.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
I don’t think that’s right. If it were, then someone who picked up an unconsecrated host, whose essence is that of bread, could equivalently say, “I’m not touching ‘bread,’ really; I’m touching dryness, weight, shape.” That’s fairly nonsensical.
O
Ockham
Guest
Source?
C
choy
Guest
well, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. but the Church is the one that makes these decisions and she is the one that has the authority on this matter, not you and me. my position on it will always depend on what the Church says. if the archdiocese i am in allows it, then i accept it. if it doesn’t, then i will accept that position as well. its part of being a good Catholic to be obedient to your elders, and these are the Bishops. remember, “when in Rome do as the Romans do.” that saying came from St. Ambrose who follows the practice of Rome when he is in Rome. he doesn’t insist on what is done in Milan, even though he’s a bishop. if you are in a place that allows it, then you must humbly accept it. and if one who prefers CITH is in a place where it is not allowed, they must humbly accept it.
C
choy
Guest
no, it really isn’t. because there were many in the past that didn’t believe even if EMHCs and CITH were non-existent. the data is as simple as that.
well, you can’t just say, “this is the Body of Christ” and people will suddenly accept it. that is why proper Catechisis is important. is it enough to make a simple statement to convince people of the truth?
when the host touches your tongue, it touches you. its not like the host doesn’t have any physical contact with your body. what makes your tongue more worthy than your hand?
O
Ockham
Guest
It’s not my opinion, it is factual - historical. You are being extremely obtuse to not understand the situation. The Church allows it as an exception pressured by disobedience. If that’s the example you want to follow please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by hiding behind obedience.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
And you say this with what authority? Are you a Bishop?
Regardless of how the indult came about- it has been granted in certain areas.
From what I gather from your opinions, Paul VI was being a “wimp” and caved to the pressure of people whom he believed to be wrong when he allowed
the idult to be granted, instead of emphatically squashing the notion of CITH once and for all. And that this decision, along with “Novus Ordo” are what is destroying the Cahtolic faith. Am I understanding correctly?
Quite honestly, and quite thankfully, your opinion on this matter ,Ockham, is not the one I need to listen too.
- Status