Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paperwight said:
Robert Burns;6837481:
I expressed my opinion just as you expressed yours. I dont. It has its roots in Protestantism. Luther denied the real presence. QUOTE]

I can’t let that pass. I don’t know what Luther believed, but I can tell you that Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence. They don’t believe in the theory of Transubstantiation to explain the Real Presence, preferring to explain it by ‘consubstantiation’.
But they DO believe in the Real Presence, however it is explained.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ as did the Church at Trent :

Lutherans:
In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of “the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills…He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper…”

Council of Trent 13th Session :

CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the
Eucharist.
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
Robert_Burns said:
paperwight;6839663:
I beg to differ as did the Church at Trent :

Lutherans:
In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of “the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills…He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper…”

Council of Trent 13th Session :

ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

CANON V.-If any one saith, either that the principal fruit of the most holy Eucharist is the remission of sins, or, that other effects do not result therefrom; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one denieth, that all and each of Christ’s faithful of both sexes are bound, when they have attained to years of discretion, to communicate every year, at least at Easter, in accordance with the precept of holy Mother Church; let him be anathema.

[Page 84] CANON X.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate himself; let him be anathema.

CANON XI.-lf any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burthened with mortal sin, how contrite even soever they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for all the information from the Council of Trent, Robert, but it wasn’t all relevant.

The quickest and most accurate way of finding out what an organisation believes is usually to go to that organisation’s own website.

So why not consult www.lutheran-resources.org and follow up the heading ‘Real Presence’.
 
paperwight said:
Thank you for all the information from the Council of Trent, Robert, but it wasn’t all relevant.

The quickest and most accurate way of finding out what an organisation believes is usually to go to that organisation’s own website.

So why not consult www.lutheran-resources.org and follow up the heading ‘Real Presence’.
Click to expand...
If you read what the Council of Trent Decreed Closely enough and what the Lutherans actually believe - you should be able to dicern that they do not believe in the Real Presence in the same sense as Catholics do.
 
ProVobis said:
👍 The Magisterium of the Centuries, as it’s now being referred to.

We seem to be slowly getting back on track. 🙂
Click to expand...
Well obviously the teachings of the Church are not the same today as prior to Vatican II and whether or not you agree or if you think it prudent to forward the opinion that the Teachings of the Church have advanced and thus are what they are today as a result of this advance then you have to likewise entertain the slippery slope you have created in acknowledging that it can change once again going forward and not preclude the possibility that it may one day return to prior understandings. We can see this as true in relation to the Return of the TLM can we not? Do try to not be so rigid as though the Church is standing still. .
 
The Church is certainly not standing still but it did go off the rails post V2. Putting it back on is more work than the derailment that occurred

The Truth didn’t change so neither did our liturgy.

The method of receiving Communion didn’t change either. The universal norm is and has been COTT. The Church allowed CITH but that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do.

I can think of no better sign of the times than this issue.
 
Robert_Burns said:
I think the overemphasis on CAN we do this misses the larger point of SHOULD we do this. Statistics show that belief in the Real Presence has suffered just a Dietrich Von Hildebrand predicted it would since the practise has been allowed. For that reason I oppose the practise. And no , I am not going to argue whether we CAN or not. Its a waste of time.

Pax
Click to expand...
I’ve heard similar reports about belief in the Real Presence. Very sad. A huge challenge for our Church.I don’t think it’s due simply or only or even primarily to CITH though.
 
Canto said:
St Cyril went on to say “When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them.”

GIRM 161: The communicant replies: Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, **where this is allowed **and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.

One can always receive on the tongue, but to receive on the hand it has to be approved (i.e. an indult) for a particular area e.g. US, Australia etc.

Does anyone know how many countries have applied for the indult?
Click to expand...
“i.e. an indult” is not accurate. ONE method of approval can be by indult, but it’s not the ONLY one, and not how the practice in the U.S. is currently approved.
 
Ockham said:
I made my First Communion in the mid-seventies and don’t remember COTT being taught even as an option. My wife is a primary teacher in a Catholic school and tells me the children are only instructed for CITH. If so many Catholics don’t know CITH is only an exception it’s understandable most think it is the norm. Only those so inclined to research Church practices and history uncover the truth as I doubt much catechesis comes from the pulpit these days.
Click to expand...
In the U.S., CITH is not an exception. It’s one of the two licit ways to receive communion as approved by the Vatican. Things must be different here “south of the border” LOL
 
ProVobis said:
Actually this particular Church law applies to the entire Latin Rite. If your country’s bishops approve it by 2/3rds, then you may receive CITH in that country provided all other conditions are met and they are tough ones. If 2/3rds of bishops do not approve, then CITH cannot be given under any conditions. There is no universal permission to receive in the hand. Why do you think the Church keeps it that way?
Click to expand...
Sorry if I don’t understand, but as my pastor showed me, there’s a “General Instruction” for the U.S. that was approved by the Vatican that allows Catholics in the U.S. to receive either way. I don’t recall anything about any other tough conditions, it’s simply permitted. Thanks for any clarification.
 
Robert_Burns said:
If you read what the Council of Trent Decreed Closely enough and what the Lutherans actually believe - you should be able to dicern that they do not believe in the Real Presence in the same sense as Catholics do.
Click to expand...
I know a number of Lutherans who express a belief in the Real Presence that is entirely coherent with Catholic belief.
 
Vince1022 said:
Sorry if I don’t understand, but as my pastor showed me, there’s a “General Instruction” for the U.S. that was approved by the Vatican that allows Catholics in the U.S. to receive either way. I don’t recall anything about any other tough conditions, it’s simply permitted. Thanks for any clarification.
Click to expand...
the Bishop’s conference for a particular country would need to apply for it and seek permission from the Vatican to allow CITH

on one hand yhou can say that its not universally allowed. on the other hand, you can simply say that every Bishop’s conference around the world can simply apply for it. there’s nothing thats stopping them from applying
 
estesbob said:
The why is becuase Bishops requested it. The how is the Pope approved their request.
Click to expand...
Why did the Bishops request?
Did they think it would increase the faith of their flocks or something?
Did they think it would reduce the risk of particles falling?
Were the laity banging on their doors demanding it?

Did the Pope happily approve their request?
 
Vince1022 said:
“i.e. an indult” is not accurate. ONE method of approval can be by indult, but it’s not the ONLY one, and not how the practice in the U.S. is currently approved.
Click to expand...
Mgr Marini said to Osservatore Romano…

I think so. Regarding it, it should not be forgotten that the distribution of communion in the hand still remains, from a juridical viewpoint, an **indult **from the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those Episcopal Conferences who have made a request for it. The mode adopted by Benedict XVI tends to underline the force of the norm valid for the entire Church. In addition, a preference could perhaps be seen for the use of this mode of distribution, which, without eliminating anything from the other, puts into light better the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, aids the devotion of the faithful, introduces with greater ease the sense of mystery. Aspects which, in our age, pastorally speaking, it is urgent to underline and recover.

The following, while I don’t get the story nor agree with some of the points shows some great pictures of communion from prisoners, royalty and Orthodox in the mouth vs in the hand

hallowedground.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/good-reasons-for-receiving-in-the-hand-none/
 
Vince1022 said:
I know a number of Lutherans who express a belief in the Real Presence that is entirely coherent with Catholic belief.
Click to expand...
So they believe the bread and wine completely cease to exists and that Christ thus exists risen body, blood, soul and divinity fully and whole even in a little particle/fragment?
 
Vince1022 said:
I know a number of Lutherans who express a belief in the Real Presence that is entirely coherent with Catholic belief.
Click to expand...
They could believe this all they want but they don’t get Christ’s Body and Blood in Lutheran services.
 
Canto said:
Why did the Bishops request?
Did they think it would increase the faith of their flocks or something?
Did they think it would reduce the risk of particles falling?
Were the laity banging on their doors demanding it?

Did the Pope happily approve their request?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if this is true or not but I heard the bishops of the Philippines have rescinded the practice and several bishops in Argentina have prohibited the practice in their diocese. I’ll see if I can find a link.
 
Canto said:
Were the laity banging on their doors demanding it?
Click to expand...
I could understand why those not believing in the Real Presence wouldn’t want it on their tongues.

I still can’t understand why those who do believe in the Real Presence would want to take any risks dropping the particles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top