Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ockham said:
That’s a good thing. Doesn’t it make you wonder why the priest genuflects or bows during the Consecration yet the recepients at OFs don’t?
Click to expand...
In the U.S., the norm is for recipients to bow. Why doesn’t Canada follow the teaching of the Church? Any ideas?
 
Ockham said:
By ‘proper way’ I mean the universal norm of the Church. The other is an exception to the rule available only by an indult that may be revoked at any time.
Click to expand...
You keep referring to some vague “indult”

Can you share some reference? I’m in the U.S., and to my knowledge the U.S. Catholic Church is not celebrating liturgy via any indults, but rather by the norms approved for the U.S. as particular law by the Vatican.

Can you help? Thank you.
 
Ockham said:
Well then why did Pope Paul VI state the recepient has to bow and say amen if it’s not required? I just recently found out about the bow requirement. I’ve received CITH most of my life incorrectly. Had I known I would have most certainly followed the indult. Does this not seem ludicrous to anyone else?
Click to expand...
The only thing that seems ludicrous is your objection to CITH when the Vatican approves it.
 
Ockham said:
The Dutch Church at the time was very radical. They put out their own catechism that the Vatican pulled due to unCatholic things like married clergy, etc. I have read that CITH was a protest banner of theirs to symbolically show their agenda. I haven’t read of any clergy being disciplined and certainly no one got excommunicated over their disobedience. Why the rest of the world got on the CITH bandwagon is beyond me.
Click to expand...
There have always been married Catholic clergy, and there still are.
 
Ockham said:
So we are better served because disobedient people had the rules changed to suit them?
Click to expand...
What?

Are you saying that people other than the Magisterium changed Church teaching? Please clarify.
 
Ockham said:
Interesting. Why doesn’t this philosophy apply to the SSPX?

Where does it stop? Will liturgical dancing get into the GIRM if enough parishes do it? Lots of people use the Orans Position during the Pater Noster. Should that be normalized too?
Click to expand...
I thought this Thread was about CITH. Please start another thread for SSPX or the orans position. Thanks.
 
Canto said:
CDWDS Notitiae (April 1999)

Response: …Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.

Papal liturgist Monsignor Marini

…it is necessary not to forget that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains, even now, from the juridical standpoint, an **indult **from the universal law, conceded by the Holy See to those bishops conferences which requested it.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about those who restrict reception ONLY on the on the hand. That’s clearly not taught by the Church.

We’re also not talking about 1999, but rather the current GIRM ( as approved for the U.S.).

Can you clairfy?
 
Ockham said:
You may receive Christ in your hand but then you self-administer.
.
Click to expand...
This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Where do you get this idea from? Do you know what the Catholic Church teaches regarding reception of communion? We can provide links if you need references.
 
Ockham said:
If everyone in the Latin rite followed the norms obediently we wouldn’t have CITH while standing.
Click to expand...
This is contrary to Catholic teaching in the U.S., as approved by the Vatican. In the U.S., the normal posture for receiving communion, as approved by the Vatican, is standing (whether on the tongue or in the hand). If you want to read the Vatican-approved norms for the U.S. yourself, you can find them here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Hope this helps! Cheers!
 
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...
Accuse? Wow, sorry, didn’t mean to come across so severely!

You are too much fun!

You say CITH is an indult in the USA. Reference? I’ve read the documents I was told applied (e.g. the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, approved by the Vatican, and all the instructions etc. approved by the USCCB that I know of) and I haven’t come across any indult.

Can you help?

And, thank you, I will make sure I go to confession before receiving communion as obviously I’m in a state of mortal sin LOL…Ockham loquitur, causa finita est?
 
[To: DiggerDoner:

You can respond to all of a person’s points, in one post, if you copy and paste the opening and closing ‘quote’ tags and use them to ‘bookend’ each of the quoted person’s points separately.]

Now, with regard to whether CITH is an indult in the US or not, it seems you may know about the relevant documents already and can give us a precis of the discussion, here. Others may find it interesting.

Still can’t think of any spiritual benefit changing from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman. It’s a weird thing to do, in the context of a religious rite and Who you are handling.

Reminds me once again of a story I read once on here:

Muslim to Catholic: “So you believe your God is in that little gold box up there?”.
Catholic: “Well, yes”.
Muslim: “So why aren’t you on your knees?”
 
diggerdomer said:
There have always been married Catholic clergy, and there still are.
Click to expand...
Errr … when were R. C. clergy last allowed to marry?

Also, ‘The Pope approves of CITH’ is disingenuous. It being allowed does not imply approval, as that word is commonly understood. I would like to read where bishops or a Pope came out and said* “CITH is good, because [insert reasons here], go do it”.* That would be approval.

Dunno when, or if, CITH existed in the RC Church, but it seems to have been dropped at least over 1000 years ago. If so, why revive it now?
 
diggerdomer said:
We’re not talking about those who restrict reception ONLY on the on the hand. That’s clearly not taught by the Church.

We’re also not talking about 1999, but rather the current GIRM ( as approved for the U.S.).

Can you clairfy?
Click to expand...
COTH is an indult granted to some conferences of Bishops, hence the GIRM says COTH only if approved (and the communicant wants).

Marini who is the Papal liturgist noted in 2008 (the Australian GIRM is dated 2007) that COTH is an indult.
 
Vince1022 said:
You say CITH is an indult in the USA. Reference? I’ve read the documents I was told applied (e.g. the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, approved by the Vatican, and all the instructions etc. approved by the USCCB that I know of) and I haven’t come across any indult.
Click to expand...
Technically, yes, because a bishop can disallow it where he feels it is necessary. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t. And I’m sure the Vatican would have no problems with it.

On a wider level, in the next time they vote on the matter, if 2/3rds of the US bishops don’t vote for it, then it gets dropped entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top