Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ockham said:
This is the first I’ve heard of this Archbishop, actually, he rose to Cardinal. Do you have any supporting documents on him as from what I’ve come across there is suspicion and scandal associated with him.
Click to expand...
The Archbishop became the Cardinal in the archdiocese of Chicago. Cardinal Mahony presided over his funeral services in 1996 so I’ll let you form your own opinions. Here is a short biography:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Bernardin

What’s interesting is that he also helped set up 4 TLM’s in the Chicago area shortly after JPII allowed it. Go figure.
 
I’m trying to find information on the votes he called for. Initial reports suggest ballot box stuffing.
 
I’ve come across that site already, thank you. There are some nasty rumours about Cardinal Bernardin and in the interest of keeping this thread open let’s not get into them here, ok? They are certainly worthy of another discussion which would be delicate given forum rules.
 
Ockham said:
Thank you for your explanation Brother. The thread can now get back to the original subject. If you have any insights as to why the general Church rebelled against Pope Paul’s decision of 1969 I would appreciate knowing about it.
Click to expand...
Wow. Can you say more about this? I had no idea there was a general Church rebellion against the Pope regarding matters on this Thread in 1969. thanks for any help!
 
ProVobis said:
They could believe this all they want but they don’t get Christ’s Body and Blood in Lutheran services.
Click to expand...
Is that what the Catholic Church teaches? Where? Thanks for any help…I’m kind of confused on this issue.
 
Canto said:
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/
Click to expand...
I’m just going by what I understand the rules to be in the U.S. Someone showed me these rules on the US Bishops website, I think this is what Rome approved and there’s no mention of an indult, exception, etc. but I may be wrong. Here’s the link: usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
 
Vince1022 said:
I’m just going by what I understand the rules to be in the U.S. Someone showed me these rules on the US Bishops website, I think this is what Rome approved and there’s no mention of an indult, exception, etc. but I may be wrong. Here’s the link: usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
Click to expand...
The GIRM says “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.”

Allowed: via indult from the universal law. If not allowed in an area than it’s COTT.

Mgr Marini said that "from a juridical viewpoint, [COTH is] an indult from the universal law, granted by the Holy See to those Episcopal Conferences who have made a request for it.
 
Vince1022 said:
The Tabernacle has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharistic liturgy.
Click to expand...
I think the Tabernacle is significant in that it is a place reserved for The Body Of Christ. If you don’t have such a place, you don’t think leftover hosts are important and you don’t keep some in reserve for special occasions or emergencies. You also don’t think it good to have Him with you, always, physically present, in your church.

‘Consecrated hands’ is a side issue. What we, as laymen, have lost with CITH is an opportunity to pay obeisance to our King and damp down human Pride. COTT is also a visual lesson to everyone present, including children, the ignorant, the unlettered and possible converts that This Matter Is Important. We are doing as we believe.
 
Layman said:
‘Consecrated hands’ is a side issue. What we, as laymen, have lost with CITH is an opportunity to pay obeisance to our King and damp down human Pride. COTT is also a visual lesson to everyone present, including children, the ignorant, the unlettered and possible converts that This Matter Is Important. We are doing as we believe.
Click to expand...
You say that.

I say not.

The externals COTT v. CITH have nothing to do with the internals of obedience to our King. They also have nothing to do with “importance,” except in a totally subjective way.

If you have a subjective opinion, I can respect that. Let’s call it what it is, though. 😉

Alan
 
And thus it becomes all about what the individual ‘feels’. In a public, mystical, communal, ordered rite of propitiation of a wrathful God.
 
Layman said:
And thus it becomes all about what the individual ‘feels’. In a public, mystical, communal, ordered rite of propitiation of a wrathful God.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that was my point. It is entirely subjective, and is about the way we feel about what we do, and the way we appear to each other. 👍

I don’t know why you mentioned “wrathful” God, unless you think God will selectively punish those who support CITH.

I stand by my objective observation that the importance and reverence of COTT v CITH is subjectivce.

Alan
 
Hee hee, so:

Standing up, instead of kneeling;
Receiving into your hand, instead of on the tongue;
From a laywoman, instead of a priest;

… Has no significance/meaning/value apart from what the individual attendee feels about it?

Here we enter Lewis Carroll territory.

It would be nice if that were so. If what we feel trumped the rubrics. If Mass was some kind of ‘encounter group’ therapy session. But it isn’t.

All mystical rites are aimed at getting favours from otherworldly entities. Want a favour from a god? Making yourself more prominent in the rite isn’t the way to go about it. Our priest is literally turned towards the people. Crazy!

It would be kind of funny how the thing has, literally, been turned 180 degrees if it wasn’t so serious a business. Fascinating how a large section of the RC Church has had its finger on the self-destruct button, ‘celebrating’ all the while.

God is wrathful. I don’t think He stopped being displeased with humanity’s viciousness, post 1969. But maybe that’s what the current generation think?
 
AlanFromWichita said:
The externals COTT v. CITH have nothing to do with the internals of obedience to our King. They also have nothing to do with “importance,” except in a totally subjective way.
Click to expand...
Alan, not all of the issue is subjective. Aside from the Franciscans, the Church has never made CITH a universal right in the West, not since the early centuries anyway, if at all. So it behooves one to respect the conditions that the Church imposes because your “rights” can be withdrawn overnight. If you don’t abide by those conditions you are in fact disobeying the King. But if you’re sure that particles of Christ will never be discarded, that COTT will never be denied, all CITH recipients truly believe they receive the Body of Christ, there never will be any risk to profanity, and that those who are receiving aren’t just doing it to assert their “rights,” then yes, you can say internal obedience to Christ hasn’t been compromised.

It’s like this. You can give the keys to your car to your son for an evening out, but wouldn’t you want assurances that he acts responsibly? Would you be so willing to do it if you found out he was drinking too much or gets repeated traffic citations? CITH is not sinful per se, but from what I’ve seen of it, then I think it’s perhaps time to re-examine whether it should be allowed at all. But that’s me. Sorry to be such a party-pooper.
 
Vince1022 said:
The Tabernacle has nothing to do with the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharistic liturgy.
Click to expand...
When the communion service is over, the Lutherans must believe that the true presence somehow leaves the bread then and they just throw it away??? This is in no way the same as our Catholic belief where the consecrated host is truly the body, blood soul and divinity of our Lord until consumed at some point in the future.
 
Vince1022 said:
Wow. Can you say more about this? I had no idea there was a general Church rebellion against the Pope regarding matters on this Thread in 1969. thanks for any help!
Click to expand...
More has been said about this disobedience in this thread. Maybe you could dig around for it. To refresh your memory, Pope Paul VI ruled against CITH in 1969. For some reason the USCCB made numerous requests to have the indult extended. Who was practicing CITH during the years prior to 1977?
 
AlanFromWichita said:
The externals COTT v. CITH have nothing to do with the internals of obedience to our King. They also have nothing to do with “importance,” except in a totally subjective way.
Click to expand...
Externals do matter Alan. If they didn’t we wouldn’t have a GIRM.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top