Not just another CITH Thread...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ockham
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
Before Vatican II, you weren’t even allowed to chew It. Tough to do today with the bigger hosts used.
Click to expand...
I’m Asian and we’re told as children not to spit for one hour after receiving. Spitting is just too common from where I come from 😃

But I remember we were also told not to chew because Jesus might say, “ouch!” No really that was true when I was young. Thankfully that didn’t come from priests or catechists.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Sometimes the Church doesn’t do something because the practice in itself is a greater good. Sometimes we need to stretch the boundaries of the discipline of the faith so that more people may be saved. I guess this goes into what I’ve been saying why Jesus chose a fisherman to head His Church. Sometimes he needs to move the boat where more fish can be caught. Sometimes he just needs to cast a bigger net. The interest of the Church is to save as many souls as it can, its the entire purpose of why Jesus established the Church. The Church should be more inclusive, not exclusive.
Click to expand...
That’s lovely. Whatever it means. But it’s not a reason to change over to CITH.
 
Layman said:
That’s lovely. Whatever it means. But it’s not a reason to change over to CITH.
Click to expand...
Thats not lovely, its a cheap imitation. This one is lovely:
JReducation said:
This is where I was trying to help before with the example of the saints. The practice began ilegally. But the indult itself was given by the Vatican. In our quest for holiness, if we look to our saints, we find that they accept what the legitimate authority accepts, regardless of how it begins. Once it is accepted by the legitimate authority in the Church, it becomes permissible.

The same can be said for many other practices. There are many that began without the permission of the Church, but were eventually approved by the Church. I’ll give you one simple example. In 1209, Francis of Assisi forbade the use of Gregorian chant at mass and at the Divine Office. He established that the ordained friars would not single themselves out, but should be known as Brother, serve and work alongside the non-clerical friars as equals. He established that at the conventual mass the friars were to avoid all semblances of distinctions between the ordained and the non-clerical except in matters that pertained to the sacrament itself, which was to be revered by all.

All of this was contrary to the existing laws of the time. Houses were monastic and usually run by priests. Non-clerical monks were called lay brothers and were servants to the ordained. The mass and the Divine Office was chanted in Gregorian Chant. Most religious lived in an enclosure that they rarely left. While Francis designed the enclosure to be flexible. The laity did not enter, but the friars and the nuns went out, such as Mother Angelica and her sisters do to this day.

One can question whether it was legal to do all of this. It certainly was way out of the ordinary. But once Pope Honorius put a papal bull on Francis’ rule in 1223, there was no doubt as to the licaity of these rules. They were accepted, because the pope accepted them. Prior to 1223, there were many arguments about their liceity, especially the rules that governed the clerics and that forced them to be anonymous and on equal footing with the non-clerics. The concept took on a new meaning in the Church. Eventually people forgot how it all began and the important thing became that it was accepted by the Church and therefore accepted by those in communion with the Church.

In the 1950s many of our men decided that they wanted Gregorian Chant and introduced it in some of our houses. They decided that they wanted altar rails and introduced them in our churches and chapels. By the mid-1960s the practice was becoming common, but it was illegal. In 1970 a General Chapter was called and Pope Paul VI wrote an indult to allow Gregorian Chant, altar rails and a number of other practices that were contrary to the law.

These things are done, because the Church in her mercy does not want people in spiritually dangerous situations that can be remedied by an indult, sometimes by a complete change in discipline. We’re seeing this again today with the ordination of married men to the Roman Rite. It is a pastoral provision, not the norm. But we accept the Pastoral Provision, because it is approved by the pope. Those who do not like attending mass with a married priest have other choices.

On the journey toward holiness, we must remain focussed on the center of our faith: Christ, the avoidance of sin, the conversion away from sin when we do fall, and the perfection of charity. Every other concern should be measured against this backdrop.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
We are not changing over to CITH. We’re accomodating those who seek it. COTT is still the norm.
 
ProVobis said:
That’s severe. We just had a 15 minute post communion fast. 🙂
Click to expand...
If you think about it, there is that possibility that some particles may remain in your mouth. That is why recently I started a practice of drinking a glass of water as soon as I get home.
 
ConstantineTG said:
If you think about it, there is that possibility that some particles may remain in your mouth. That is why recently I started a practice of drinking a glass of water as soon as I get home.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with wine or beer? 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
What’s wrong with wine or beer? 🙂
Click to expand...
It actually serves two purposes. One is to make sure there are no particles of the Host left in my mouth. Second is because I live two blocks uphill on a steep hill from my parish. And I normally walk to church. Beer isn’t a good way to rehydrate after an uphill climb unless your aim is to get buzzed on the first bottle.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Thats not lovely, its a cheap imitation. This one is lovely:

We are not changing over to CITH. We’re accomodating those who seek it. COTT is still the norm.
Click to expand...
You’re correct. That’s why it’s called an indult. It an allowance, not a change in the norm. The change in the format of the mass was a change in the norm. That’s how the form came to be called the Ordinary Form. It is the intention of the Holy Father that it remain the norm for the Roman Church. The Church is very careful in how she uses words. But if we take our cue from her words, we will be OK.

What often happens is that people impose exceptions as norms. That is not right and should never be done. People must always know what is normative and what is extraordinary, the choices they have and the choices they do not have. In this case, adopting Communion in the hand is allowed, but no one may ever be refused communion on the tongue. That is a violation of the person’s right.

I know of only one situation where there is a restriction to communion on the hand and even that situation is not a norm, it’s an exception. I believe that I may have mentioned that I know a priest who is legally blind. He cannot distribute on the tongue. The motor planning is almost impossible, because of his poor vision. He holds the host and everyone knows to raise their hands up to meet his hand. In that case, asking everyone to receive on the hand, unless there is a deacon or EMHC present, is a necessary restriction, just as it would be necessary for the priest to sit if he has a physical impairment. This too happens often. A priest will have a stool at the altar. The point is that norms and exceptions are not the same. Exceptions and indults should be treated as such, not as norms. But there are times when the exception is the only option and the other way around. There are times when the indult is not available.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
But slow down here, deacons do not perform the ritual either and they have the right to distribute communion. They are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not the intention of the Church that only those who wash their hand and recite the ritual prayer distribute communion. It never was. Priests concelebrating do not was their hands either and they too distribute Communion. The point is that the prayer and the ritual is not tied into the distribution of Communion. The six rites and the 22 Catholic Churches that make up the universal Catholic Church have deacons distributing communion since the Apostolic age. The ritual has never been tied in to the ministry of Holy Communion. It was meant for the celebrant.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Click to expand...
Touche. Still the difference in the two forms still illustrates the simplification of the new rite.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The mouth has been proven to be dirtier than the hand, both in a spiritual point of view (we sin more withour mouths than our hand) and in a biological sense
Click to expand...
Well then I guess the congregation should stop saying the Kyrie, Gloria, Psalms, etc.
 
JReducation said:
The amen is part of the communion rite. But you may not withhold the sacrament because ther communicant does not say it.
Click to expand...
So the indult says the recepient is to bow and say amen, but if they don’t that’s ok?
 
Ockham said:
So the indult says the recepient is to bow and say amen, but if they don’t that’s ok?
Click to expand...
Its not okay but at the same time there is no Church directive to withhold Communion from people who do not follow the rubrics
 
JReducation said:
This is where I was trying to help before with the example of the saints. The practice began ilegally. But the indult itself was given by the Vatican. In our quest for holiness, if we look to our saints, we find that they accept what the legitimate authority accepts, regardless of how it begins. Once it is accepted by the legitimate authority in the Church, it becomes permissible.
Click to expand...
This is a very long reply that still doesn’t answer the question. Brother are you on personal time or is this chatroom your ministry?
 
Ockham said:
So the indult says the recepient is to bow and say amen, but if they don’t that’s ok?
Click to expand...
No, the person ought to have bowed. But it is not a reason to deny the Sacrament. It’s not an issue of crime and punishment. Likewise a person is supposed to respond to the preface dialogue, but no priest would be justified in refusing to administer the Sacrament because someone had failed to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top