Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Layman said:
**- Hee, hee, no ‘externals’ = no Mass.
  • Therefore, if there are ‘externals’, they should be as beautiful, pious, reverent and impressive as possible.**
Post-1940’s the Roman Catholic Church decided on iconoclasm. CITH is part of that false revolution. It has not revived our worship, if it needed such.

God may care more about your ‘internals’ (heh) as an individual, but as a congregant, server and a priest, is he going to be pleased that:
  • A language set aside for worship has been dumped and the local lingo, which has and can attract worldly and vulgar connotations, is used instead?;
-That beautiful and reverent prayers have been dropped?;
  • That beautiful, mysterious and ancient hymns have been dropped and drab, droning modern ones used instead?
  • That Mass can now be a cacaphony?
-That the boundaries, both physical and procedural, that separated the sacred space from the rest of the church, are removed. Unvested laywomen can enter there. What now is special about it?
  • That the priest now faces those he should be trying to save, instead of the Saviour?
  • That beautiful altars were destroyed at the command of those He thought his servants?
  • That the RC Church, receiving His Son in a most reverent way, decided, on top of all the other changes, to stop kneeling and let laywomen hand Him out instead?
Utter madness. Or stupidity. Or herd behaviour. I can’t figure it out.

Imagine the Devil sitting down to wreak havoc on the R. C. Church. Just mess it up, so the sheep now think they can receive Communion while contracepting and that Mass is a play they can adapt to suit their tastes, distracting the sinners from its central purpose. I doubt he could have done better.
Click to expand...
It’s a good thing that none of these things are doctrines. We can always work with them and get them right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Please refrain from making statements that demean the liturgy in any form, OF and EF. If it happens again, the thread will be closed and infractions will be issued. Labels that offend the liturgy, clergy or other posters are never allowed.

Thank You,

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
=Vince1022;6936172]Just because certain liturgical practices are “banned” at a certain time, for certain circumstances, does not mean they are absolutely and eternally prohibited.
Click to expand...
Read Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei, esp para 50.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Roman (not, simply the Catholic) Church decided to regulate the reception of communion solely on the tongue, at one point. That doesn’t mean it’s some eternal or divine law, or that other traditional practices cannot be reinstated.
Click to expand...
While this is true in that we are iscussing “Church Practices” which are changeable. Th reason for he chnage is nevertheless valid. That can’t change.

We are speaking of the God that Created us, sustains us and with a precise goal provides us [and only humanity can respond] in a manner that permits us to freely choose not only what i GOOD, but also what is THE BETTER; MORE PIOUS AND MORE SACRED choice, by "receiving Christ in our tongues without caliming some right to touch and hold Him, rather than taking God in our very unworthy and unconsecratd hands.

Isaiah 43 vs. 7 and 21

“every one who is called by my name,whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”

"the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise."

How we choose to receive Jesus Christ currently is our personal and pious choice. It reflects our understanding of God; our relationship to God, and our signifiance relative to Almigty God. Choose wisely. God understands even if you don’t.

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
=Vince1022;6936176]What is the difference between the Vatican “approving” something, and “allowing” something?
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting the Vatican can approve things that are not allowed, or allow things that are not approved? I’m confused. Please help.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which:

Did YOU KNOW that The Church Fathers of Vatican II voted NOT to permit Communion in the Hand or that they voted to permit Communion under both species ONLY UNDER VERY LIMITED CONDITIONS:

Every day, nearly every where, by nearly every one WAS NOT ONE OF HE APPROVED APPLICATONS.

Might makes right? NOT IN GOD’s CHURCH; NOT in GOD’s OPINION.

READ:Memoriale Domini a document of the Post Concilar Vatican II

And NO! They did not change there mids; a GREAT MANY American Bishops and Prist choose to ignore them and our Pope!

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
PJM said:
Speaking of which:

Did YOU KNOW that The Church Fathers of Vatican II voted NOT to permit Communion in the Hand or that they voted to permit Communion under both species ONLY UNDER VERY LIMITED CONDITIONS:

Every day, nearly every where, by nearly every one WAS NOT ONE OF HE APPROVED APPLICATONS.

Might makes right? NOT IN GOD’s CHURCH; NOT in GOD’s OPINION.

READ:Memoriale Domini a document of the Post Concilar Vatican II

And NO! They did not change there mids; a GREAT MANY American Bishops and Prist choose to ignore them and our Pope!

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
Right, the indult from the Vatican came in the 70s, not during V2
 
PJM said:
Speaking of which:

Did YOU KNOW that The Church Fathers of Vatican II voted NOT to permit Communion in the Hand or that they voted to permit Communion under both species ONLY UNDER VERY LIMITED CONDITIONS:

Every day, nearly every where, by nearly every one WAS NOT ONE OF HE APPROVED APPLICATONS.

Might makes right? NOT IN GOD’s CHURCH; NOT in GOD’s OPINION.

READ:Memoriale Domini a document of the Post Concilar Vatican II

And NO! They did not change there mids; a GREAT MANY American Bishops and Prist choose to ignore them and our Pope!

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
I do know for a fact that Communion under both speceis was the doing of Pope John Paul II. He had it written into the Code of Canon Law of 1983. If you go there you will find that it is allowed and how it is to be done. A pope can overrule a council on a matter of discipline.

Communion on the hand was never allowed or forbidden by the Council. The Council Fathers may have voted on their preference. But the pope can overrule that too, because it’s a discipline. Essentially, the indult does just that. It allows for CITH under the rules given in it.

In Church law, as in civil law, the newest legislation is always the one that governs, unless the legislation makes exceptions For that reason, when we go to Canon Law, we find notes on certain canons that refer the reader to other canons or to older laws. When they rewrote the canons, at the end of the 1970s, the Canon Law Society tried to be very careful to refer people back to the proper laws and documents that they wanted to preserve from the past. You will often find a symbol that looks like this => which refers you to another law or document.

Fraternally,

Br. Jr, OSF 🙂
 
=ConstantineTG;6973790]Right, the indult from the Vatican came in the 70s, not during V2
Click to expand...
And why was the indult granted?

Because the abuse had become so widespread that the Vatican feared that not granting it would also be ignored. I suspect the Pope was correct.

So an Illicit abuse was “approved” because of being bulied into it. Does Might make right?

WWJD or does it not matter?

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
PJM said:
And why was the indult granted?

Because the abuse had become so widespread that the Vatican feared that not granting it would also be ignored. I suspect the Pope was correct.

So an Illicit abuse was “approved” because of being bulied into it. Does Might make right?

WWJD or does it not matter?

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
Sigh, this argument has been rehashed time and time again. If I had a dime for everytime someone says, “why was the indult granted? Because of abuse…” I would be able to afford repair and renovation of our old parish, plus pay off my mortgage and car. Really, our parish repair bill would be about $2million. It seems that any offer of logic is dismissed.
 
WWJD?

Jesus would eat with sinners, and wouldn’t worry about externals unless somebody else tried to make a big deal out of it by calling down his friends because they didn’t follow the rituals properly. At least that’s what He did when He walked the earth.

If Jesus had a login to make one post on this thread, I wonder what it would say?

Alan
 
Ockham said:
You accuse me of using ‘random and selective internet links’ then go on to base your entire argument on ‘inference’?

I have provided many quotes and links from popes, saints, councils, and clergy. You haven’t provided one relevant to the discussion. In the first post I gave three givens therefore not worth debating. The issue here (thus why this was intended not to be just another CITH thread) is whether it should be approved using historicial references rather than emotional opinion.

CITH is an indult in the U.S.A. This is a fact. If you deny this you are either misinformed or deliberately misleading the discussion. As I have provided the proof that it is an indult and you claim to have read this thread then it could be concluded you are intentionally trying to mislead. This could be considered bearing false witness and I urge you to consider that very seriously as it is a mortal sin.

Unless you can provide support for your opinion this exchange between us has run its course.
Click to expand...
I’ve provided you the reference to indicate that today, in this year/decade/century, communion in the hand is not an indult. The reference is the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Sorry if I missed your opposing reference, where do you have CURRENT church teaching that says otherwise (i.e. not something from the 1960’s?)

I recognize inference alone may not be sufficient. So, again, sorry if I missed it, but where do you have any objective and reliable evidence that communion in the hand was a common practice in the Catholic Church in the first 5 centuries?

Thank you for your patience, understanding, and of course, wisdom.
 
Ockham said:
COTT and the TLM were yanked from under our feet. As the seminarian here just posted it is often difficult to receive COTT while kneeling now.

All Catholics have a duty to protect and practice the faith. People have always been talking about changes to the Church so it’s a bit outlandish to suggest we have no right to be discussing these things. Leading clergy are talking publically about rethinking CITH so all we’re doing is following their lead.
Click to expand...
COTT was never prohibited, was it?

And how is Vatican II’s revision of the Mass different from Trent’s? Both Councils made radical changes and suppressed many traditional practices. Can you clarify why you think COTT were "yanked from under our feet? I’ve never been unable to receive communion on the tongue in the past 50 years.
 
Ockham said:
If everyone in the Latin rite followed the norms obediently we wouldn’t have CITH while standing. Prior to the mid-seventies in the US you would have been refused.
Click to expand...
This is completely untrue. As a faithful Catholic in the U.S., I follow the Latin Rite strictly.

The Vatican (and Popes) allow Catholics in the U.S. to receive CITH while standing. In fact, in the U.S., standing is the norm.

Where do you get your ideas from? How do you reconcile your ideas with what the Magisterium actually teaches? Thanks for any clarification.
 
AlanFromWichita said:
WWJD?

Jesus would eat with sinners, and wouldn’t worry about externals unless somebody else tried to make a big deal out of it by calling down his friends because they didn’t follow the rituals properly. At least that’s what He did when He walked the earth.

If Jesus had a login to make one post on this thread, I wonder what it would say?

Alan
Click to expand...
We are not going there again, are we? ;)😃
 
Ockham said:
Most OFs I attend I don’t receive Holy Communion. So often out of curiosity I’ll watch the Communion line. Yes, I know I should be focused on the Bridegroom,etc, I know those retorts. What I don’t see from those receiving the Blessed Sacrament via the indult are all the conditions. No one bows first. Anywhere between 1/4 to 1/3 walk away from the Minister before consuming the Host. Most of the EMHCs break their rules too.

You don’t have to worry about such things at an EF.

Is it any wonder only 25% of Catholics attend weekly Mass and a diminishing percentage believe in the Real Presence? These things were predicted by Pope Paul VI and ignored by his bishops.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you receive, when the Church teaches/recommends that you should? Do you know something the Church doesn’t?

I mean, I’m just baffled why someone who has the opportunity to receive Christ would refuse? Thanks for any clarification.
 
Ockham said:
Because I go to an EF that same day. I should have stated that. Also, because I prefer to practice the Church’s universal norm and receive on the tongue while kneeling. That’s difficult in most OF Masses, contrary to the indult.
Click to expand...
You keep referring, interestingly, to an indult. Can you give us a reference for such that is currently in effect? Thank you.
 
Ockham said:
The indult clearly states the recepient is to bow and then say “Amen” prior to receiving the Blessed Sacrament in their hand. Why would you need to appeal to Canon Law?
Click to expand...
What current and effective indult are you referring to? I’m assuming it’s available online, thought I haven’t found it. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top