Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
If the Vatican didn’t allow CITH (e.g. read the GIRM as approved for the U.S.) then who did?
Click to expand...
Sometimes we have to take lessons from the great saints. They learned to be very simple. In the end, it made no difference to them whether communion in the hand was proposed in the garage of the local parish. Once the papacy approved it, that’s what mattered. They were very focused on remaining in communion with the papacy.

St. Catherine of Siena is a wonderful example of this. She wrote the Holy Father encouraging him to go back to Rome and claim the chair of Peter. Everyone remembers her for this part. The part of her letter that people never quote is the concluding sentence. She concluded by asking the pope to forgive her if she was wrong and by promising to obey whatever he chose to do. The other part of Catherine’s communication with him that is rarely mentioned is that this communication between her and the pope was kept a secret until after her death.

Catherine did not know how to write well. She learned late in life. Most of her writings were dictated. But she bound her scribe to silence. She forbade the members of her community from speaking ill of the clergy and the papacy. Her communications with them were very discrete, never public. We have the advantage of history. We know what happened, because we read about it. Those around her never found out half of what we know. She was the epitome of discretion. This is the kind of simplicity that we must adopt today. We too must learn to keep our concerns between us and those who have a need to know. To voice them all over the internet is contrary to what the saints modeled for us.

Another great example of simplicity was Thomas More. He disagreed with the King. But he never spoke a single ill word about the King. The king wanted his head, because More would not publically support his choices, not because More bad-mouthed him. Many people do not know that More was a Secular Franciscan. He went to the superior of the Secular Franciscans and asked for advice. The superior told him two things: 1) remain faithful to the Church and 2) be submissive and quiet before the king. The superior also warned him, “This will cost you your life, but will save your soul and please our Holy Father Francis, because you are doing what Christ commands.”

It’s this interesting relationship that More had with the Church, king, Francis of Assisi and Jesus that made him a great man. He learned from Francis how to please Christ, the Church and the king. If they found fault with him, it was not because of lack of effort on his part. In the end, only the king found fault with him. We’re not too sure about that either. There are accounts that the king was pushed into executing More.

The point is that we are losing one of our holiest traditions, looking to the saints for example. If we did, we would find that they simplified things. They did what the Church said. They accepted what she accepted. They loved those whom God loved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
Sometimes we have to take lessons from the great saints. They learned to be very simple. In the end, it made no difference to them whether communion in the hand was proposed in the garage of the local parish. Once the papacy approved it, that’s what mattered. They were very focused on remaining in communion with the papacy.

St. Catherine of Siena is a wonderful example of this. She wrote the Holy Father encouraging him to go back to Rome and claim the chair of Peter. Everyone remembers her for this part. The part of her letter that people never quote is the concluding sentence. She concluded by asking the pope to forgive her if she was wrong and by promising to obey whatever he chose to do. The other part of Catherine’s communication with him that is rarely mentioned is that this communication between her and the pope was kept a secret until after her death.

Catherine did not know how to write well. She learned late in life. Most of her writings were dictated. But she bound her scribe to silence. She forbade the members of her community from speaking ill of the clergy and the papacy. Her communications with them were very discrete, never public. We have the advantage of history. We know what happened, because we read about it. Those around her never found out half of what we know. She was the epitome of discretion. This is the kind of simplicity that we must adopt today. We too must learn to keep our concerns between us and those who have a need to know. To voice them all over the internet is contrary to what the saints modeled for us.

Another great example of simplicity was Thomas More. He disagreed with the King. But he never spoke a single ill word about the King. The king wanted his head, because More would not publically support his choices, not because More bad-mouthed him. Many people do not know that More was a Secular Franciscan. He went to the superior of the Secular Franciscans and asked for advice. The superior told him two things: 1) remain faithful to the Church and 2) be submissive and quiet before the king. The superior also warned him, “This will cost you your life, but will save your soul and please our Holy Father Francis, because you are doing what Christ commands.”

It’s this interesting relationship that More had with the Church, king, Francis of Assisi and Jesus that made him a great man. He learned from Francis how to please Christ, the Church and the king. If they found fault with him, it was not because of lack of effort on his part. In the end, only the king found fault with him. We’re not too sure about that either. There are accounts that the king was pushed into executing More.

The point is that we are losing one of our holiest traditions, looking to the saints for example. If we did, we would find that they simplified things. They did what the Church said. They accepted what she accepted. They loved those whom God loved.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Amen again. THanks Br. Jr.
 
To JR:

This is the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. CITH is a constant theme here. We are mainly laypeople here. So we’re having a discussion. The obedience of religious or saints to the Pope or a king not really pertinent.

It would be nice if our bishops took a hint from the fact that COTT is the norm. That they grasped that CITH was introduced in an … irregular … way. That those bishops in favour of CITH would come out and state its benefits.

It would be nice if they were obedient to the extent that they mandated that the N.O. should be said in the way its authors envisaged. That they forbade priests getting creative with the Mass.

I think your Mass will depend on your bishop. It’s up to them. Liberals seem to be closing seminaries, while traditionalists get good numbers of vocations. So Darwinism will play its part, too. However, if we laypeople politely petition for the TLM and COTT, and support those priests who dare say it (if only to have a break from noisy/casual/personalised Masses) that will help too.
 
Layman said:
To JR:

This is the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. CITH is a constant theme here. We are mainly laypeople here. So we’re having a discussion. The obedience of religious or saints to the Pope or a king not really pertinent.

It would be nice if our bishops took a hint from the fact that COTT is the norm. That they grasped that CITH was introduced in an … irregular … way. That those bishops in favour of CITH would come out and state its benefits.

It would be nice if they were obedient to the extent that they mandated that the N.O. should be said in the way its authors envisaged. That they forbade priests getting creative with the Mass.
Click to expand...
Amen,

It’s bizarre how the defence of 'Obedience" is used to legalize an abuse that became normalized after “Disobedience”.
 
If I could institute changes in my parish around the reception of communion, I would:
  1. Do away with EMHCs.
  2. Have all of the priests and deacon candidates in the parish be a the Mass for distribution of Communion.
  3. Place a kneeler (I know there’s a latin word for it) in front of the Priest and Deacon candidates.
  4. Have everyone receive on the tongue while kneeling.
 
PaulinVA said:
If I could institute changes in my parish around the reception of communion, I would:
  1. Do away with EMHCs.
  2. Have all of the priests and deacon candidates in the parish be a the Mass for distribution of Communion.
  3. Place a kneeler (I know there’s a latin word for it) in front of the Priest and Deacon candidates.
  4. Have everyone receive on the tongue while kneeling.
Click to expand...
That’s the direction the Church is leading us.
 
Ockham said:
Amen,

It’s bizarre how the defence of 'Obedience" is used to legalize an abuse that became normalized after “Disobedience”.
Click to expand...
You are right on that. AMNESTY would be a better word than obedience here. One doesn’t “obey” a permission; he obeys a command. And no one in the Vatican has commanded we receive CITH to my knowledge. In fact, they imposed conditions that are consistent with divine law of the utmost respect for God and against profanity. But these conditions are seldom obeyed, and that’s where the irony lies.
 
ProVobis said:
You are right on that. AMNESTY would be a better word than obedience here. One doesn’t “obey” a permission; he obeys a command. And no one in the Vatican has commanded we receive CITH to my knowledge. In fact, they imposed conditions that are consistent with divine law of the utmost respect for God and against profanity. But these conditions are seldom obeyed, and that’s where the irony lies.
Click to expand...
But, at the same time, you can’t blame the poor pew potatoes who are ignorant of this whole debate. They are just doing what they are told to do.
 
PaulinVA said:
But, at the same time, you can’t blame the poor pew potatoes who are ignorant of this whole debate. They are just doing what they are told to do.
Click to expand...
True, but how do you punish their “teachers” who should have known better? And when we start talking like we can receive CITH on the same level of permission and approval as dad’s giving us the keys to the car or the state allowing us to drive, we have a major problem.
 
ProVobis said:
True, but how do you punish their “teachers” who should have known better? And when we start talking like we can receive CITH on the same level of permission and approval as dad’s giving us the keys to the car or the state allowing us to drive, we have a major problem.
Click to expand...
I’m much more inclined to just start from here, CITH isn’t working, let’s do something to rectify it.

I think it lies with the USCCB, doesn’t it? (At least in the States)
 
It will take a changing of the guard. Thankfully, the new bishops are more traditional and should get things back on track.
 
Layman said:
To JR:

This is the Traditional Catholicism sub-forum. CITH is a constant theme here. We are mainly laypeople here. So we’re having a discussion. The obedience of religious or saints to the Pope or a king not really pertinent.
Click to expand...
It is very pertinent, because the end that we are all looking for is holiness. The example of these men and women can help us reach holiness.

There is nothing wrong with discussion on the subject. There is something very wrong with the manner in which the subject is discussed. The manner is filled with anger, distrust and there seems to be a call to rally the troops against something that the Church has already spoken on.

No one has said, especially I, that people cannot receive communion on the tongue in whatever position is more meaningful to them. In fact, I believe that I have repeated over and over again that people have a right to communion on the tongue and that it is the ordinary form. But is there really a need to campaign to eliminate what the Church has approved, since both forms of receiving communion are allowed?

If you can receive communion on the tongue and that is your preference, then let others receive it on the hand, because that’s also allowed. I shared the example in reverse that we have. Communion on the tongue is an indult for us. I make use of it. But my brothers never mention it. It’s a given that as long as it’s allowed, there is nothing to begrudge the other person for doing it differently from what is usual and customary. What would be wrong would be to do something that is forbidden. If something is allowed by legitimate authority, we should leave it alone. It’s not a matter of what we think about it. It’s a matter of authority.

The legitimate authority gave amnesty, allowedd, approved, call it what you want. The fact is that authority did what it did. That’s its right. Once that is done, it becomes the right of the faithful to make use of the indult without criticism. This is what we can learn from the saints.

The spiritual life has many dimensions to it. We reach holiness when we walk with the Church. I believe that we stain within the parameters that have been given to us. Currently, communion in the hand and communion on the tongue are both witin those parameters.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
If you can receive communion on the tongue and that is your preference, then let others receive it on the hand, because that’s also allowed.
Click to expand...
Dearest Brother,

I believe only Moderators are authorized to give instruction on what can be posted here. Are you a Moderator?

It is my understanding that this forum exists for discussion on traditional Catholic subjects. Currently there are Archbishops and Cardinals discussing the subject of CITH publically, so it is relevant.

There is no hatred, intolerance, or any other sin in this thread. It is supposed to be a mature discussion on a contemporary issue. If you go back to the first post, ‘it’s approved’ is a given and not intended to be debated.

Thank you for taking so much time out of your day for this thread.

Peace,

Ockham 🙂
 
JReducation said:
No one has said, especially I, that people cannot receive communion on the tongue in whatever position is more meaningful to them. In fact, I believe that I have repeated over and over again that people have a right to communion on the tongue and that it is the ordinary form. But is there really a need to campaign to eliminate what the Church has approved, since both forms of receiving communion are allowed?

If you can receive communion on the tongue and that is your preference, then let others receive it on the hand, because that’s also allowed.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. I/We say it shouldn’t be allowed. That it should not be a matter of personal preference. That changing the RC church en-masse over to CITH is a mistake.

I have given reasons for this. Many eminent churchmen have spoken against it, as far as I can gather. None have come out in favour of it and stated why changing to it is of benefit to the RC Church, given what we had before.

Coupled with the other changes post-1940, it’s part of a long, drawn-out iconoclasm, for a mortal man, or a mere blip in the long history of the Church (hopefully), from a wider persepctive.
**
Is Christ present in the host? Then why change to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?**
 
Ockham said:
Dearest Brother,

I believe only Moderators are authorized to give instruction on what can be posted here. Are you a Moderator?

It is my understanding that this forum exists for discussion on traditional Catholic subjects. Currently there are Archbishops and Cardinals discussing the subject of CITH publically, so it is relevant.

There is no hatred, intolerance, or any other sin in this thread. It is supposed to be a mature discussion on a contemporary issue. If you go back to the first post, ‘it’s approved’ is a given and not intended to be debated.

Thank you for taking so much time out of your day for this thread.

Peace,

Ockham 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to moderate. I’m trying to share a pastoral advice that I give to anyone when I come across this or many other issues where people get angry and frustrated and can do something to avoid it. That’s the point I’m making. Much frustration and anger can be avoided.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Layman said:
That’s the point. I/We say it shouldn’t be allowed. That it should not be a matter of personal preference. That changing the RC church en-masse over to CITH is a mistake.

I have given reasons for this. Many eminent churchmen have spoken against it, as far as I can gather. None have come out in favour of it and stated why changing to it is of benefit to the RC Church, given what we had before.

Coupled with the other changes post-1940, it’s part of a long, drawn-out iconoclasm, for a mortal man, or a mere blip in the long history of the Church (hopefully), from a wider persepctive.
**
Is Christ present in the host? Then why change to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?**
Click to expand...
We are all entitled to our own opinions. But the call whether its good or not is not ours to make. It is for the leadership of our Church. In many instances in life we always think we know better. We think we can run a city better than our mayor, we think we can run a country better than our president (or in my case, our prime minster). Even in our jobs, oftentimes we think we can be better than our manager, thinking his job is so simple and we wonder why it seems he makes a lot of mistakes. But truth is, we do not know their situations fully. For one thing they receive more information than us regarding the decisions they have to make. Second, they have to play the political game which we from where we are we do not understand. We say it is so easy to just do what is right, but there’s two things here. First, its not easy. Second, what we think is right may not be actually whats right at all.

By openly being negative about something, we promote nothing but negativity. The beauty about the Church and our faith is that we can always rely on the ultimate authority, God. We pray and pray and leave it up to Him to influence the right people. But we should not expect to get what we ask for. When we were young we ask God for silly things like money, a nice car, a chance to date that beautiful lady you saw on the bus, etc. But did God just give us all those things? No. We should pray to God, submit our petitions, then surrender ourselves to His will. If CITH stays, then let us trust that God has heard our prayers and it is in His will that CITH stays. We should always submit to God’s will, for God only wills what is good for all.
 
Chalk said:
Is Communion In The Hand a euphemism for masturbation?
Click to expand...
Chalk, its fine if you do not believe, that is your choice and you have the free will to choose. But please repect the beliefs of others. Not just because you have a different set of beliefs means you have the right to disrespect other people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top