Not just another CITH Thread...

[diggerdomer]

Source? For how many years has it been part of tradition? Are you familiar with the Dutch bishops in the 1960s?

How’s your Cardinal Bernardin research coming along?

It certainly became many things after the modernists got ahold of the Novus Ordo and used the ‘spirit of V2’ to impose a phethora of novelties and alterations. How’s that working out for us?

Could you please bring some facts and sources to this discussion rather than just posting your opinions?

Are you really questioning whether communion reception other than on the tongue has not been part of the Catholic tradition? Really? Care to give any references?

 

[ProVobis]

Well, the liturgical reforms of Vatican II also re-introduced the Prayer of the Faithful (aka General Intercessions) to the Mass, which was eliminated by Pope Gregory the Great around 600 A.D.

CITH has been condemned by at least two councils. Prayers of the Faithful were not.

 

[JReducation]

We can not say with certanty that the NT has Holy Communion in the hand.

In the Eastern Rites and Orthodox churches, do they recieve in the hand or mouth?

Why re-introduce COTH if your ordinary Joe in the pew didn’t seem to have a problem with the practice of COTT? What benefits are there?

For those more up on history than I am, how widespread was COTH in the early Church? Was it everywhere? How long till some places started COTT?

Actually we can. Ask any Jewish person how a seder is celebrated or was celebrated in atiquity. The bread was broken and passed around on a large platter that looked very much like a large patten. The presider did not get up from his place, because you were reclining, not literally sitting.

I have to admit that it sounds like a very uncomfortable way to eat. But that was the proper way to celebrate a seder. Women did not sit at the same table. That’s why the Apostles are alone at the table with Jesus. Remembering that they were about to begin the holy days, it is very likely that Mary and the other women were at another table, either at the same place or at a different place. We just do not know. But they were not at the same table.

We cannot recreate the mass to be identical to the seder that Jesus celebrated with the Apostles if for no other reason that there were no women at the seder. But the tradition tells us that the consecrated bread was passed around the table, even during the first centuries of the Church when the mass was celebrated over the tombs of the martyrs. We know from ancient sources that after the numbers grew, it became impossible to have one table. That’s how we came to have deacons distributing communion. But they were literally waiters. That’s where we get the diagonal stole. They threw a towel over one shoulder. It was a very special towel used for seders. The waiters did not place the bread in the mouths of the recipients. They held out the platter with the broken bread.

In the Christian Breaking of the Bread, as the NT calls it, the consecrated bread was carried from table to table by the deacons on the same platter that the Jews traditionally used for seders.

When the mass reaches the Orient, we see variations of the ritual arise according to the local customs for celebratory meals. Even the garment of the deacon is different. They preserved the theology of the mass, but they adapted the local rituals to the Christian liturgy. That’s how we get the birth of the five rites that are used in the 22 Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches of today.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Layman]

I think antiquarianism is a mistake. I presupposes that: If only we could get back to a form of Mass in the early Church, it would somehow be better.
**
This devalues 1500+ years of accretions by saints and scholars.** We don’t, or shouldn’t, treat the Host like it was ordinary bread. Yet changing from COTT to CITH signifies just that. We have reverted to a celebratory meal. It’s a loss.

 

[Canto]

Actually we can. Ask any Jewish person how a seder is celebrated or was celebrated in atiquity. The bread was broken and passed around on a large platter that looked very much like a large patten. The presider did not get up from his place, because you were reclining, not literally sitting.

Enjoy reading your posts. Thanks for the reply.

Was it a seder meal?
monkallover.blogspot.com/2007/03/popular-mistake-of-thinking-that-seder.html (contains reference to St John’s Gospel)

Cardinal Ratzinger said it was a toda meal, a thanksgiving meal of a sacrificial nature.
wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/quaeritur-catholic-seder-meal/

A custom at the time, as a sign of hospitality and friendship, had the host breaking bread and placing it in peoples mouths.

 

[Ockham]

Are you really questioning whether communion reception other than on the tongue has not been part of the Catholic tradition? Really? Care to give any references?

Read the thread Digger. There have been several quotes from popes, saints, and councils. You and the other CITH supporters are left with ‘it’s approved!’ which I don’t dispute. The questino is should it be and how did it get into the GIRM in the seventies.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

I hear ya Ockham and agree with you…I wonder if Digger and the others like him/her support abortion, since it is “allowed” to take place in this country…Law doesn’t prevent it, so it must be ok

Read the thread Digger. There have been several quotes from popes, saints, and councils. You and the other CITH supporters are left with ‘it’s approved!’ which I don’t dispute. The questino is should it be and how did it get into the GIRM in the seventies.

 

[Lux_Ad_Orientum]

I think antiquarianism is a mistake. I presupposes that: If only we could get back to a form of Mass in the early Church, it would somehow be better.
**
This devalues 1500+ years of accretions by saints and scholars.** We don’t, or shouldn’t, treat the Host like it was ordinary bread. Yet changing from COTT to CITH signifies just that. We have reverted to a celebratory meal. It’s a loss.

Right on! The (Novus Ordo) Church is sending a STRONG signal to anyone with two eyes that the wafers they are handing out are JUST BREAD and nothing sacred. Could it be because tht’s the Truth in the Novus Ordo mass. I’M not saying their mass isn’t valid, but if you wanted to pick a not so secret way to tell everyone that your “New Order” is NOT valid, isn’t this what you would do?? Unconsecrated womenfolk passing out the wafers like movie tickets. I think it is a not very secret message that Bugninni and his pals knew EXACTLY what they were doing and they were doing it on PURPOSE.

At the Mass of ALL TIME performed by faithful Traditional Bishops and Priests EVERYONE knows that the Lord’s Body is Sacred.

 

[paperwight]

I hear ya Ockham and agree with you…I wonder if Digger and the others like him/her support abortion, since it is “allowed” to take place in this country…Law doesn’t prevent it, so it must be ok

This post has really plunged to new depths.

Firstly in the nastiness of the insinuation that Digger could be in favour of abortion.

And secondly, in terms of sheer stupidity and irrelevance. What have the laws of the land got to do with the laws of the Church?

Oh, and by the way, Dum_Spiro_Spero, some of us are still waiting for the explanation at length (which you assured us existed) of ProVobis’s claim that he had seen people ‘grabbing the Host’ at Holy Communion. How are you getting on finding the post in question? Or were you mistaken?

 

[Lux_Ad_Orientum]

This post has really plunged to new depths.

Firstly in the nastiness of the insinuation that Digger could be in favour of abortion.

And secondly, in terms of sheer stupidity and irrelevance. What have the laws of the land got to do with the laws of the Church?

Oh, and by the way, Dum_Spiro_Spero, some of us are still waiting for the explanation at length of ProVobis’s post that you assured us existed. How are you getting on finding the post in question? Or were you mistaken?

TRADITIONAL Popes taught that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. So if you support any piece of the Modernist (Devil-sent, like all heresies) heresy, you support them all. True Traditional Catholics do not make that mistake because we do allow ourselves to be tainted with Modernism in the first place!

Dum_Spiro_Spero_ is speaking TRUTH to ears that don’t want to hear it! Check out the MIchael Voris related thread for another truth teller that people are trying to silence!

 

[ProVobis]

Right on! The (Novus Ordo) Church is sending a STRONG signal to anyone with two eyes that the wafers they are handing out are JUST BREAD and nothing sacred.

Now that you mention it, I wonder how much the new definition of the Mass in the Preamble to the General Preface of the NOM (first edition) influenced CITH:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in their midst’” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

 

[otjm]

Objectively speaking which act of receiving the Eucharist shows more reverence to the presence of our Lord? 1. Receiving the body and blood of our Lord while standing in line, in the hand, by a layman? Or. 2. On your knees at the alter rail receiving the body and blood of our Lord on the tongue, from only the consecrated hands of a Priest acting in Persona Christi?

There is no comparison.

The Novus Ordo is grossly irreverent and treats sacred things in an unworthy and disrespectful manner.

You apper to be a very well educated individual on the matter.

Then perhaps you could enlighten me (and those of this thread) as to why the following exists:

My parish, and a number of others in Oregon, (one of the most, if not the most unchurched states in the Union) has, and has had for about 15 years now, 24/7/362 (not done during the period from Holy Thursday evening to Holy Saturday Night), Perpetual Adoration of the Eucharist.

Oh, did I mention, we have only the OF (as well as almost all of the other parishes with Perpetual Adoration out here); and the vast majority of people receive CITH?

Given your profound and obviously well-based opinion concerning the OF and CITH, well, just how does this occur?

Or is it possible that your opinion is merely an opinion unfounded on actual facts? Somewhat akin to halitosis - widely prevalent and practically useless?

Have you ever read what Christ said about the Pharisees? Not that it would apply…

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

My friend…I am innocent of all charges. I was wondering it is was possible based on diggers logic…thats all. Because when one uses false logic…common sense goes out the window…anything is possible. I never insinuated anything…I simply asked a question.

This post has really plunged to new depths.

Firstly in the nastiness of the insinuation that Digger could be in favour of abortion.

And secondly, in terms of sheer stupidity and irrelevance. What have the laws of the land got to do with the laws of the Church?

Oh, and by the way, Dum_Spiro_Spero, some of us are still waiting for the explanation at length (which you assured us existed) of ProVobis’s claim that he had seen people ‘grabbing the Host’ at Holy Communion. How are you getting on finding the post in question? Or were you mistaken?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Right on! The (Novus Ordo) Church is sending a STRONG signal to anyone with two eyes that the wafers they are handing out are JUST BREAD and nothing sacred. Could it be because tht’s the Truth in the Novus Ordo mass. I’M not saying their mass isn’t valid, but if you wanted to pick a not so secret way to tell everyone that your “New Order” is NOT valid, isn’t this what you would do?? Unconsecrated womenfolk passing out the wafers like movie tickets. I think it is a not very secret message that Bugninni and his pals knew EXACTLY what they were doing and they were doing it on PURPOSE.

At the Mass of ALL TIME performed by faithful Traditional Bishops and Priests EVERYONE knows that the Lord’s Body is Sacred.

The Lord’s body is sacred because it is handled a certain way? Subjectivity aside, there is nothing here. People know what the host is if they’ve been taught it is sacred, and if they haven’t it is not obvious from watching from a third person point of view.

Can’t we agree that these types of observations and conclusions are entirely subjective? I’d accept people giving personal opinions, but it drives me nuts to see them classified as “objective.”

Alan

 

[otjm]

**I think antiquarianism is a mistake.**While I would agree with you on the point, it does not particularly assist in the discussion, as antiquarianism too often is simple defined by “I don’t like this”. There is a presumption it would seem, that anyone who looks back to what the Early Church did liturgically is engaged in antiquarianism. That, however, is often simply because the one so charging doesn’t like the change.

This devalues 1500+ years of accretions by saints and scholars.

Accretions may or may not be valuable. There is a legitimate point of evaluating whether the accretion was simply a matter of time and culture, or whether it really has value to the universal Church. It so happens that about 2000 bishops came together and made decisions that it was time to look at the accretions. We can all agree with our Holy Fathjer that the changes to the Mass were far too abrupt and not organically related to the EF in ways they should have been. We can agree that the OF (for lack of a better term) dumbed down aspects of the EF. However, the Holy Father, while castigating the abruptness of the changes to the Mass, has not condemned the OF in any way, and seeks to organically and slowly make changes necessary.

We don’t, or shouldn’t, treat the Host like it was ordinary bread. Yet changing from COTT to CITH signifies just that. We have reverted to a celebratory meal. It’s a loss.

I agree that the Eucharist is worthy of our greatest respect. I simply disagree with you that CITH does so. Catechesis was to be and still is required where CITH is allowed. You simply want to throw the baby out with the bath water, rather than allowing a means of reception that was practiced in the Church for 10 centuries. Issues of irreverence need to be addressed but that does not require doing away with CITH; it requires adequate catechesis. Your presumption that doing away with CITH will cure the problem simply ignores what the problem actually is. The problem is not CITH, the problem is catechesis. Where catechesis occurs, people do not treat the Eucharist as “ordinary bread”. My parish (and others in Oregon) are prime examples - we are predominately CITH in reception, almost but not entirely exclusively OF, and have 24/7/362 Perpetual Adoration.

So it is not a given that CITH induces or results in lack of reverence. Reverence is as reverence does, and the mode is not the issue but rather the understanding of the ultimate by the individual. In short, if the individual is properly catechised, CITH or COTT becomes merely a personal option rather than an issue about treating the Eucharist as “ordinary bread”. Proper catechesis brings the individual to an understanding of what reception of the Eucharist means and is. It is not the mode of reception, but the training and understanding. Fail to catechize (which is the result of the dumbing down of the catechetical materials when the Baltimore Catechism was tossed out about 50 years ago)and get rid of CITH, and you will simply have people receiving unworthily and without any real understanding by COTT. Catechize, and the mode becomes merely a personal choice.

 

[ProVobis]

My friend…I am innocent of all charges.

I believe you are too. If they need to know the posts are #s 349, 352, 357. And if they can’t understand those then let me say it again in another language: Widziałem ludzi chwycić w przyjmującym. Sorry I can’t do ASL here for them.

 

[Dum_Spiro_Spero]

You crack me up my friend…I love reading your posts

I believe you are too. If they need to know the posts are #s 349, 352, 357. And if they can’t understand those then let me say it again in another language: Widziałem ludzi chwycić w przyjmującym. Sorry I can’t do ASL here for them.

 

[ProVobis]

The Lord’s body is sacred because it is handled a certain way? Subjectivity aside, there is nothing here. People know what the host is if they’ve been taught it is sacred, and if they haven’t it is not obvious from watching from a third person point of view.

Can’t we agree that these types of observations and conclusions are entirely subjective? I’d accept people giving personal opinions, but it drives me nuts to see them classified as “objective.”

Alan

How’s it going, Alan? I have no great comeback lines for that post so I’ll just say that I acknowledge it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Read the thread Digger. There have been several quotes from popes, saints, and councils. You and the other CITH supporters are left with ‘it’s approved!’ which I don’t dispute. The questino is should it be and how did it get into the GIRM in the seventies.

It got into the GIRM because the Church thought it would be appropriate and beneficial. So what’s your beef?

The Prayer of the Faithful was removed from the Mass by Pope Gregory the Great around 600 A.D. Vatican II restored this. Same with CITH…VII restored a traditional practice that had been removed for a period…

So what’s your beef?

 

[Vince1022]

I’d say re-introducing it, in defiance of custom and Tradition, after, what, 1500+ years(?), counts as a novelty. Especially when there is no spiritual reason for doing it that I can see.

The real question is; Why drop COTT, kneeling, from a priest, for it?

All the changes to the Mass make sense if you want to emphasise the communal meal aspect. AFAIK, it used to be called, primarily, ‘The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass’. Now it’s ‘The Lord’s Supper’ or ‘The Liturgy Of The Eucharist’. Altogether more genial.

COTT, kneeling, makes no sense at a meal. CITH, standing, from a laywoman, does.

Then people complain that Masses are more casual.** Well, that’s because everything occuring at them is cueing the participants that it’s a casual affair:** Edited text, versus populum, unvested laypeople involved, lightweight sermons, stylized vestments, folksy hymns etc. CITH is just part of the package.

The usual rejoinder is: “We must cathecize people more”. Well, you could do that in and by the type of Mass you say. Learn by doing.

So when the Prayer of the Faithful was “reintroduced” to the Mass following Vatican II, that was also a novelty in defiance of custom and Tradition?