A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
I agree they matter, as I’ve noted on another thread. I just don’t believe that they have to do with obeying God; they have to do with following a human tradition.
- Status
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
And the GIRM, at least in the US, says that CITH is ALLOWED!!!
Enough of this already, Ockham.
It is apparent that you feel COTT is the only way!
Thanks be to God that you are not the one to make this decision
for the universal church.
My Bishop allows CITH, the Pope has allowed my Bishop to stay Bishop-
that is the way the Magisterium works,
so as far as I am concerned- the case is closed, at least in my little corner of the US.
Does not matter how, does not matter why-
it is what it is!!
If and when it changes, I will adapt.
Until then, this in-fighting over “externals” really makes us all (Catholics) look bad!!
P
ProVobis
Guest
Precisely. And the Church through Canon Law protects those traditions. (Actually they refer to them as customs.)
So if Canon Law protects the custom of not touching the host by laypeople, why not extend this EF custom to the OF as well? Or doesn’t the OF have any established customs to protect?
O
Ockham
Guest
They have to do with how we worship God. As we worship so we believe. It is no coincidence our worship has decreased in reverence lately and our collective belief in the Real Presence, Mass attendance, seminary enrollment.
O
Ockham
Guest
Please read posts #1 & 239.
Who is fighting here? This thread is intended to discover and discuss the history of CITH and how it got into the GIRM. From what I learned last night there is some dubious credibility to the USCCB voting.
If this subject is not of interest to you why do you post here? Some people like to know why things happen the way they do.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
The subject interests me only when others try and say that their way is the only way.
The highlighted portion above makes me think that you believe that the USCCB, and in turn the Pope(at the time, and our current Pope for that matter) are wrong!
I hear may times, from my more traditional aquaintances, that “the Church is not a democracy”, but it seems that is what you are trying to make it out to be.
If I am wrong, please correct me.
You are free to receive COTT, no one is stopping you.
I was not alive in 1969, so I have no idea how or why CITH came about in the US,
and I really don’t care. The Church has said it is OK, it is OK-
I am not really sure what your problem with this is? Why you think that you can judge the reverence or beliefs of anyone who chooses to receive CITH?
If you read through all of the posts (which I have) there is a “theme” running through it that COTT is more reverent than CITH-
we, (as Catholics in general) need to stop this. I receive CITH, it is how I was taught, and is the most common way in my area. I have also received COTT at the communion rail- to me, there is absolutly no difference- either way I am receiveing the most precious gift there is in the world!!
O
Ockham
Guest
Thank you for bringing this to the discussion. It is duly noted that you do not care about the topic we are discussing. Some of us are interested in how and why CITH got into the GIRM and are trying to have a mature and fairly intelligent discussion about it. Please feel free to make a contribution if your attitude changes. In the interests of free speech and thought there is much more to discuss here.
P
paperwight
Guest
But WHY, Ockham? What’s the point of trying to ferret out just how and why CITH got into the GIRM?
Do you really think that you are going to uncover some deadly secret, and the whole church will then say ‘Gosh, Ockham! We never realised! What a good job you found this out! Holy Father, look at this! The GIRM must be changed immediately to take account of what Ockham had found out!’.
The church now, in 2010, says CITH is allowed. What more do you need to know?
Oh, and I thought your email was most unpleasant in tone.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not always true at the OF. And even if you can get them to give on the tongue, many look at you with disgust, like you don’t belong in their community. Let’s face it, it’s now become the de facto OF birthright. That hardly seems as if it’s complying with the spirit of the Vatican documents on the matter. And, unlike the Novus Ordo, the new practice isn’t even necessary.
But I’ll agree with you about the divisiveness of the practice, especially since it seems to be a major obstacle in merging the two forms of the Latin Rite, if that indeed is Vatican’s ultimate goal.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps this is what they said when someone found the practice had a precedent in the early church?
P
ProVobis
Guest
It is most disingenuous to say this. It has heavy conditions, it is not universal, and it has been forbidden by some bishops in Argentina and the Philippines. I know if I were a CITH advocate, I wouldn’t be too happy about that.
P
paperwight
Guest
Correction to my last post. CITH is allowed in pretty much the whole world except in one ot rwo dioceses; for example, in some parts of Argentina and the Philippines.
But not really relevant, as Ockham lives in Canada.
You worry unnecessarily about whether CITH advocates are unhappy about the decisions of some bishops in South America, I’d imagine. Local conditions, local decisions.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
Great info. If I remember correctly , one of the minor orders suppressed you spoke about was “Exorcist.” I saw a Priest on EWTN that was speaking about how there will no doubt be a need in the coming years for more Exorcists. Since these orders are suppressed - how today would someone become one? I dont mean to hijack the thread - I was just curious.Yes. Absolutely. A deacon shares in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. The term is no longer “major order” because minor orders were suppressed in 1983. They were redefined as ministries and some were eliminated completely. Now we say that we have the three orders of the priesthood:
Deacon, Presbyter and Bishop.
It is important to note, that the deacon is not a lay man, even if he is married, any more than a married priest is a lay man. A married deacon or priest is still a cleric or clergyman. Our permanent deacons are clergymen with all of the rights and duties of every clergyman. They are part of the hierarchy of the Church.
Getting back to the point of consecrated hands touching the host, this has never been a teaching of any of the 22 Catholic Churches or any of the Orthodox Churches either. No one really knows how this came to be believed. As I said before, my guess is that it’s Thomistic influence.
At the same time, we must remember that while Thomas Aquinas was writing theology, so was Bonaventure. In fact, they were colleagues at the University of Paris. They disagreed on several major points and some minor points too. One of the points of disagreement was Thomas’ position on consecrated hands necessary for touching the host.
Br. JR, OSF
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
No , but perhaps thats one of the reasons I am here
J
JReducation
Guest
Slow down here. There is no prohibition in the code of canon law of 1983 that says that lay people may not touch the host. The code says that the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the deacons, priests and bishops. But it also says that extraordinary ministers may be selected from among the laity to take communion to the sick or to help move the communion line a little more quickly when time is an issue.
Lay people touching the host is not included as part of the form of the mass. Canon law does not deal with the form of the mass.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s a good question, but not germain to this thread. Too answer quickly, any priest can exorcise provided he has the permission of the local bishop. This permission is rarely granted.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Externals do matter. With all due respect, I’ll refer back to our constitutions. The wording is very specific. Whether the friar receives communion on the hand or the tongue he must observe all the proper reverence for the Eucharist and the priesthood. If the deacon or priest distributing communion is a friars, he must observe all the proper behaviors and attitudes to avoid singularizing himself as a cleric above his brothers. But his external behavior and attitude must be that of one who serves his brothers.
I’m paraphrasing, because it’s a long chapter. It goes into the whole question about the place of priests in religious life. But the point is that the General Chapter felt that it was very important to remind both the communicant and the minister of Holy Communion of the importance of the external expression of reverence for the sacrament of the Eucharist, sacrament of Holy Orders, and the equality appropriate for religious life.
But it is helpful to see that the externals are not limited to what we do (i.e. communion in the hand or communion on the tongue). But the external that we choose must reflect our internal reverence and respect for all the elements: Eucharist, Holy Orders and the communicant.
You see, as the Missionaries of the Poor wrote in their constitutions, “Love of God and love of man are inseparable. Therefore, the brothers may never separate the Eucharist from the poor, nor the poor from the Eucharist. In both, we find Christ who is truly alive and truly broken.”
When we receive Holy Communion our external behavior is important, because it must speak about our love for God and man. It is not about how much holier we are than the guy next to us.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
Canto
Guest
I thought most countries *didn’t *have COTH. Could be wrong. Do you happen to know of a list? Thanks.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Can anyone deny here that this is profanity at its best?
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/about-communion-in-the-hand/
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/02/about-communion-in-the-hand/
O
Ockham
Guest
I’'m curious. If you are not that’s your perogative but hopefully you are not suggesting a censorship of this subject. It’s puzzling why I have to continually defend such a pursuit of knowledge. Perhaps there is something some people wish to keep hidden.
Actually, yes, I do believe more people should be aware of the history of CITH. Knowing history is a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?
I want to know how and why it is approved.
What email?
- Status