D
diggerdomer
Guest
If you think Chauvet opposes either the Pope and/or Aquinas, you have obviously not read him
Have you?
Or is this just another diatribe?
- Status
Have you?
Or is this just another diatribe?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
No kidding. The point is, in the U.S., as approved by the Vatican, both are allowed. No preference indicated.
If you have any doubts, please read the GIRM as the Vatican approved for the U.S.:usccb.org/liturgy/current/revmissalisromanien.shtml
V
Vince1022
Guest
I have no idea about Digger, but why I am I off topic?
It seems the only purpose you have here is to reject Church teaching.
Care to clarify?
Thankyou.
C
Canto
Guest
Then why ask for the quote
-Originally I was noting that COTH is an indult after another poster implied it wasn’t
-I quoted the CDWDS and the Pope’s master of ceremonies to back this up
-I also noted that GIRM says you can only recieve COTH if approved
-I further noted that it is allowed in America as the USCCB has an indult
Post Vat II Popes have shown their preference for COTT. The GIRM says if allowed. So if there are no preferences, why the clarification for COTH?
Out of intrest, does the US GIRM say COTH is approved in the US and if so which paragraph?
O
Ockham
Guest
What course was this book taught in?this was the hardest book to get through that semester, probably because it was originally written in French!) Fr. Chauvet put into words exactly how I feel about receiving CITH
Who’s that?DISCLAIMER: I am in no way saying “Layman” that you have not been respectful. This debate seems to bring out the worst in some people who think that others who do not share the same POV are somehow “less Catholic”.
O
Ockham
Guest
O
Ockham
Guest
That’s the funniest thing you’ve ever posted.
L
Layman
Guest
Boy, that’s a lot of replies.
So we have a Fr. Chauvet who made a comment alluding to the benefits of CITH. Is that it?
I still don’t get, from all the replies, why a church, parish or diocese, previously practicing COTT, kneeling, should now go for CITH, standing, from a laywoman.
All the rejoinders still centre around “It’s allowed, therefore it’s good”, “It was/is done in other rites or by the Franciscans or special circumstances or long ago in ours”, “internal disposition is what matters”.
The last one may go to explain some of the activities that occur at some Masses today.** If it’s mainly about what you feel, the form doesn’t matter.** It also fits in with the idea of ‘The People’s Mass’; the laity are more to the fore. The use of EMHCs points to this.
It’s a great pity. A chance to humble yourself at the moment of reception of our good King has been dropped. It’s dramatic. Affecting. I can’t think of another area in our modern lives where an adult would do something as submissive as COTT, kneeling.
I don’t know where the O.F. can go, now, in terms of further populism. I suspect people will gradually return to the TLM once liberal dioceses run out of priests, people get wind of this unusual old rite, the pedophilia scandals take out less strict bishops, harsh times puts people on their knees and maybe makes them less tolerant of experiment, the Pope gives further clues, etc.
Might not happen near you, if you live in a major city or near a cathedral. I used to feel sad about dioceses complaining about having few vocations. Then I saw some Masses and heard how they filter applicants.
If Mass is casual, friendly, populist, with CITH and folksy hymns and women bustling about the sanctuary, I believe a man would think twice before giving up marriage and family to become a priest. It just doesn’t look as impressive any more.
I propose that CITH is part of a wider iconoclasm that I suppose was meant to revive the Church. I don’t think it worked.
So we have a Fr. Chauvet who made a comment alluding to the benefits of CITH. Is that it?
I still don’t get, from all the replies, why a church, parish or diocese, previously practicing COTT, kneeling, should now go for CITH, standing, from a laywoman.
All the rejoinders still centre around “It’s allowed, therefore it’s good”, “It was/is done in other rites or by the Franciscans or special circumstances or long ago in ours”, “internal disposition is what matters”.
The last one may go to explain some of the activities that occur at some Masses today.** If it’s mainly about what you feel, the form doesn’t matter.** It also fits in with the idea of ‘The People’s Mass’; the laity are more to the fore. The use of EMHCs points to this.
It’s a great pity. A chance to humble yourself at the moment of reception of our good King has been dropped. It’s dramatic. Affecting. I can’t think of another area in our modern lives where an adult would do something as submissive as COTT, kneeling.
I don’t know where the O.F. can go, now, in terms of further populism. I suspect people will gradually return to the TLM once liberal dioceses run out of priests, people get wind of this unusual old rite, the pedophilia scandals take out less strict bishops, harsh times puts people on their knees and maybe makes them less tolerant of experiment, the Pope gives further clues, etc.
Might not happen near you, if you live in a major city or near a cathedral. I used to feel sad about dioceses complaining about having few vocations. Then I saw some Masses and heard how they filter applicants.
If Mass is casual, friendly, populist, with CITH and folksy hymns and women bustling about the sanctuary, I believe a man would think twice before giving up marriage and family to become a priest. It just doesn’t look as impressive any more.
I propose that CITH is part of a wider iconoclasm that I suppose was meant to revive the Church. I don’t think it worked.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Sacramental Theology (at the Master’s Level), along with 3-4 other texts and the VII documents.
My disclaimer was not aimed at any one person in particular, just a general observation.
I just wanted to make sure that Layman did not think I was “attacking” him or his POV.
O
Ockham
Guest
Was Prof Chauvet comparing the two modes of receiving or just describing the Sacrament of Holy Communion on its own merits?
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
The book itself did not go into the manner in which one receives at all.
It was more about the “theology” of the Eucharist through the ages.
This particular quote was from the Introduction, which I had to summarize and present to the class as part of an assignment.
O
Ockham
Guest
Given your knowledge of the subject, what do you make of this review: opwest.org/Archive/2006/200605/blankenhorn_article.pdf
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Don’t have time now to read and and respond- will try and do so over the weekend.
O
otjm
Guest
No, I am describing the reactions of those who comment on Paul 6
L
Layman
Guest
Should clarify. By this I mean how some dioceses and religious orders filter applicants.
A
At_Trent
Guest
:clapping:
Very ironic isn’t it ? A practice introduced without permission from Rome, without the discernment by Rome, and a liturgical abuse from day one. And the only support it gets is from those (the majority anyhow) who have no clue as to how CITH was done in the early Church. Just as those who introduced it illicitly did not take the time to research the conditions and rubrics used in the early Church.
To those who support CITH, and no I don’t condemn you for receiving in that manner, I must ask. Please tell me what you know about the rubrics and conditions that were to be followed for receiving CITH. If you don’t know anything about it, then please answer, do you even care ?
See the first link below if you do V
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Do we even need to follow how it was exactly in the first century? There are proper instructions for today on how to receive CITH, why is that not good enough? It has approval from the Holy See.:clapping:
Very ironic isn’t it ? A practice introduced without permission from Rome, without the discernment by Rome, and a liturgical abuse from day one. And the only support it gets is from those (the majority anyhow) who have no clue as to how CITH was done in the early Church. Just as those who introduced it illicitly did not take the time to research the conditions and rubrics used in the early Church.
To those who support CITH, and no I don’t condemn you for receiving in that manner, I must ask. Please tell me what you know about the rubrics and conditions that were to be followed for receiving CITH. If you don’t know anything about it, then please answer, do you even care ?
See the first link below if you do V
A
At_Trent
Guest
Are you Roman Catholic ?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes
A
At_Trent
Guest
ok, you didn’t answer the question in my post you quoted, but I’ll answer yours.
I did note I don’t condemn anyone for receiving CITH. How could I ? It is as you say, permitted via indult. And I’m in no position to condemn anyone anyway, but the problem I see with CITH is :
- it was not introduced by Rome
- it can be argued it was an abuse before it’s approval
- the worlds Bishops were asked and the majority didn’t approve of it
Ok, fine, it’s allowed now. But one can’t blame those who don’t think it’s a good idea, when Bishops speak against it and our Papa himself requires COTT when he administers The Most Blessed Sacrament.
Dominus est after all
- Status