Not just another CITH Thread...

[gospel_life]

So your position is because there is no scientific study proving CITH leads to a diminished belief in the Real Presence the two are in no way related?

No, my position is that if you want to prove a correlation you have to provide something besides random opinion that shows a correlation, not that just an event occured at the same time as other events. If you want someone in authority to take some kind of action you need to show valid reasons why they should take that action.

I’m not opposed to your position though I don’t necessarily 100% support it either since I know an awful lot of very holy people who receive CITH and even LOOK reverent while doing so. I make that point though only because that “appearance” seems to be of such importance to a couple people here.

The whole point is that if nobody is going to do anything about providing what is needed to show that what you contend is actually the case, then this is in fact nothing more than just another CITH whine fest that accomplishes nothing more than another chance to rant.

 

[Ockham]

its a matter of people choosing where they’re comfortable at. the Church gave us the option, why can’t we choose?

The Church did not give us CITH, disobedient modernists with a change agenda did. Look up the history.

The CITH argument is starting to sound uncomfortably ‘pro-choice’. God gives us Free Will but also Commandments. To some things in life there are no choices.

 

[momor]

I"m not sure what personal attacks and abuse you are under. Please provide examples.

So your position is because there is no scientific study proving CITH leads to a diminished belief in the Real Presence the two are in no way related?

**It was disobedient forty years ago. ** Other than the indult what changed?

Along those same lines, it wasn’t until the 20th century that daily reception of the Eucharist by laity became acceptable. In fact, St. Therese (late 19th century) wrote that one of the Prioresses of her Carmel thought it was downright bad even for the nuns and actively fought against it.

What changed? Should we stop daily communion? Is it being disrespectful to partake of Jesus so often? Does the daily practice diminish how sacred we view it?

I don’t expect an answer to this topic. I am merely trying to point out that saying something is not the way we used to do it is a poor argument against change.

 

[Ockham]

When Jesus fed the multitudes, he did not place the food in their mouths, but it was still Jesus who was feeding them, and not themselves.

The loaves and fishes weren’t the Body of Christ.

 

[Ockham]

and you find that through COTT. good for you
other people find that in CITH

you know whats bad about this thread, is people forget the 8th commandment. “thou shalt not bear false witness.” are you 100% positive that what you say about those who receive CITH is what actually is going on in their minds when they receive? or are you merely painting a stereotype made by those who have never received CITH in their lives.

It’s about the **EXTERNAL **choy. You’ve made this strawman before.

 

[momor]

The Church did not give us CITH, disobedient modernists with a change agenda did. Look up the history.

The CITH argument is starting to sound uncomfortably ‘pro-choice’. God gives us Free Will but also Commandments. To some things in life there are no choices.

Oh WOW! Are those who receive CITH now on a moral par with those approving of abortion? And COTT now rises to the level of a Commandment. Keep going. You only making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

 

[Ockham]

No, my position is that if you want to prove a correlation you have to provide something besides random opinion that shows a correlation, not that just an event occured at the same time as other events. If you want someone in authority to take some kind of action you need to show valid reasons why they should take that action.

It is hardly my random opinion. There are several surveys indicating belief in the Real Presence has declined dramatically since the ‘spirit of V2’ changes such as CITH. I"m not suggesting CITH is alone to blame but certainly one of the chief contributors. The Novus Ordo itself with it’s shifted focus from Sacrifice to meal is another.

 

[Ockham]

Along those same lines, it wasn’t until the 20th century that daily reception of the Eucharist by laity became acceptable. In fact, St. Therese (late 19th century) wrote that one of the Prioresses of her Carmel thought it was downright bad even for the nuns and actively fought against it.

What changed? Should we stop daily communion? Is it being disrespectful to partake of Jesus so often? Does the daily practice diminish how sacred we view it?

I don’t expect an answer to this topic. I am merely trying to point out that saying something is not the way we used to do it is a poor argument against change.

How about providing some theological reason for the change. Has a pope or saint promoted CITH as a better way?

 

[MarkThompson]

The loaves and fishes weren’t the Body of Christ.

While true, that has zero connection to my point.

 

[Ockham]

Oh WOW! Are those who receive CITH now on a moral par with those approving of abortion? And COTT now rises to the level of a Commandment. Keep going. You only making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

The point is CITH is along the moral relativist’s mantra of ‘choice’ with no distinctions. CITH is the same as COTT. We need options, creativity, amusement at Holy Mass (so they say). Holy Mass is supposed to be about God, not us and our personal choices.

 

[Ockham]

While true, that has zero connection to my point.

You had a point?

 

[momor]

How about providing some theological reason for the change. Has a pope or saint promoted CITH as a better way?

It is enough for me that CITH is the norm in every Catholic Church I have attended since the change was implemented. You can malign it all you want at your own peril.

 

[Ockham]

It is enough for me that CITH is the norm in every Catholic Church I have attended since the change was implemented. You can malign it all you want at your own peril.

To what peril?

If your parish started worshipping a golden calf would you go along?

 

[MarkThompson]

You had a point?

That kind of response ought to be beneath you. Whether or not this is “just another CITH thread,” it’s definitely just another Ockham thread.

 

[momor]

The point is CITH is along the moral relativist’s mantra of ‘choice’ with no distinctions. CITH is the same as COTT. We need options, creativity, amusement at Holy Mass (so they say). Holy Mass is supposed to be about God, not us and our personal choices.

And given that you probably go out of your way to attend the TLM or EF that is not about personal choice? And you make very clear the distinction in your choice, that it is better than the NO and CITH.

 

[estesbob]

I have nothing to add to what I posted. I share the opinion of Dr Dietrich von Hildebrand over yours. If you want to know what that is - read what he wrote. Secondly - no one brought up VII , the Pedophilia Scandal , televangelism the internet or wild theories other than you.

Pax

And I share the teachings of he Magestrium over yours.

 

[momor]

To what peril?

If your parish started worshipping a golden calf would you go along?

Your peril is that you assume you know the mind of Christ on this better than the bishops. What happened to the traditional Catholic acceptance of obedience to the hierarchy?

 

[estesbob]

The point is CITH is along the moral relativist’s mantra of ‘choice’ with no distinctions. CITH is the same as COTT. We need options, creativity, amusement at Holy Mass (so they say). Holy Mass is supposed to be about God, not us and our personal choices.

The magestrium are moral reletavists???

 

[Robert_Burns]

I’m content that you now acknowledge your position as your opinion rather than fact as I believe you attempted to do previously by the use of statistics. I don’t disagree that Catholics have less belief in the Real Presence today but I think it is due to much more complex reasons than CITH or the NO Mass as others here would like to assert.

I expressed my opinion just as you expressed yours. I dont. It has its roots in Protestantism. Luther denied the real presence. There are reasons why the Church does the things it does and I think that in minimilizing basic changes had unforseen complex ramifications by accomodating Protestants which is what Vatican II has done -and it has caused a loss of Catholicity in some ways - as in the decline in the belief in the dogma of the real presense.

 

[choy]

I’ve said nothing, AFAIK, about people who receive CITH. In fact, I’ve said I don’t know what’s going on in their minds. How can I?

I want to go a Holy Mass where, ideally, every vestment, action, text and ornament is a worthy offering geared towards propitiating God and getting me nearer to Him by elevating my mind out of the mundane and into the Eternal.

I’ve asked about the benefits of changing over to CITH. The replies are along the lines of:
*
“The Church allows it so it we should do it”;
“It was done in other rites, or long ago so in the RC one, so we should do it, now”;
“Reverence is an internal matter, so we should do it”;*

Or at least, that seems to be the implication.

Really, if you truly believe Jesus is present in the Host and that the denizens of Heaven are in the sanctuary at the Consecration, changing over to CITH, standing, from a laywoman, is the work of, what … the ignorant, at best. The Holy Sacrifice Of The Roman Catholic Church: a plaything of mere intellectuals. That’s the only charitable conclusion I can draw.

see, thats my point. you’re accusing those who practice CITH as ignorant. its right there

thing is, why would we see something allowed by the Church as something less reverent? we put our faith and our obedience in the Church. if the Church says a practice is acceptable, then we believe its allowed because its good. its really as simple as that. i think Traditionalists overanalyze the issue to find justification against CITH. but those who accept and practice CITH don’t. we really don’t. its not as complicated an issue for us. its a matter of faith and obedience to the Church, that what she prescribes is good. honestly, between you and my priest and bishop, who should i listen more in matters of the faith and the practice of it?

I think I discern a trend towards anti-clericalism, anti-hierarchy, anti-restriction and likewise towards populism, socialism and ease.

I mean: ‘The People’s Mass’? Sounds like something you’d find in South America.

your opinion. again, you’re putting words and thoughts into other peoples mouths and minds when there’s not there. thats what bearing false witness is all about