Not just another CITH Thread...

[ConstantineTG]

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

It was only approved after it was clear those clergy that continued to give CITH despite approval, thus disobedience, were going to persist.

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.

The decision to use CITH is by the Bishops and would requrie Recognitio by Rome. Yes, it began somewhere as an abuse, but fact is most other locations today never practiced CITH unless it was granted Recognitio by Rome. So how can you say that for most of the world, it was not “introduced” by Rome?

I wouldn’t know the count of how many regions around the world approved it or not. But in the places I’ve been, I have been able to receive CITH. Would you know of an official list?

The Pope, lest we forget, is also the Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Rome. So he can choose to allow or not CITH for his diocese. So what he decides as a Diocesan Bishop is only for his diocese, not for the entire Church.

 

[Layman]

The Pope, lest we forget, is also the Diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Rome. So he can choose to allow or not CITH for his diocese. So what he decides as a Diocesan Bishop is only for his diocese, not for the entire Church.

Sorry, can’t resist this: Why would he decide something for his own diocese and not prefer it for other R.C. dioceses?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry, can’t resist this: Why would he decide something for his own diocese and not prefer it for other R.C. dioceses?

Ask him → pope@vatican.va

Seriously. He can if he wants to, but because the letter of the law for the entire Church hasn’t changed then we can safely assume he didn’t intend this for the entire Church. The decision to approve CITH in a diocese or not is up to the Diocesan Bishop. The Pope can implement this for Rome because he is the Bishop of Rome. If he wanted to effect this universally in the Latin Rite Church, he would have done so as Patriarch of the Roman Church and would have changed the Church Laws/Documents appropriately that would have removed the option of CITH. Since he can and didn’t, then we can read into it that his intention is not to make a universal change in the Roman Church.

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, can’t resist this: Why would he decide something for his own diocese and not prefer it for other R.C. dioceses?

You have to understand that the Holy Father has two roles here. He is the Ordinary for the Diocese of Rome. What he decides for that diocese or allows the Vicar General to decide for the diocese is based on the needs of THAT diocese. This may have nothing to do with the needs of the universal Church, which he guards as the Pontiff.

The rule is that the Pontiff must also be the Bishop of Rome, not that he govern the entire Church as he governs Rome. This rule comes from the ancient tradition where Peter was the Bishop of Rome. However, Peter’s choices for the Church of Rome, as it was known during his life, did not always have an impact in the other Churches. Remember, originally they were not dioceses. They were sui iuris Churches. Peter did not make rules for the Church of Jerusalem, etc. He watched over the faith of the entire Church, but not over those disciplines that were particular to each Church.

The Churches grew in size and were subdivided into local Churches called dioceses. But they tried to preserve the identity of each local Church and as much autonomy as possible. It was not until Vatican II that the papacy began to involve itself very directly in internal diocesan matters. The papacy has always maintained a hands-off policy when it comes to dioceses and to religioius orders of Pontifical Right. The latter are important, because they often ran dioceses that were attached to abbeys. The abbots governed them without interference from the Bishop of Rome. That tradition has remained alive and well. That’s why the Bishop of Rome may allow or disallow something for Rome, but not impose it on the rest of the Churches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ockham]

Yes, it began somewhere as an abuse,.

Exactly. Think about that for a bit. Then research Archbishop Bernardin.

The Pope is Bishop of Rome and inheritance of the seat of Peter, given by Jesus Christ. Why would you want to do anything contrary to the pope?

I used to receive CITH. Then I learned the history about it and now would never consider it. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[JReducation]

Exactly. Think about that for a bit. Then research Archbishop Bernardin.

The Pope is Bishop of Rome and inheritance of the seat of Peter, given by Jesus Christ. Why would you want to do anything contrary to the pope?

I used to receive CITH. Then I learned the history about it and now would never consider it. Why do you suppose that is?

It is not contrary to the pope. You’re making an a priori assumption here that is incorrect. It is true that he is the pope. It is also true that he has a preference for COTT. What is not true is that he, as pope, has a expressed a preference, even for the Diocese of Rome. Remember, he speaks as pope, he also speaks as an individual, as a theologian, as the Bishop of his diocese, as the Patriarch of the West (when that title existed). He wears many hats. When he speaks, one must know which hat he’s wearing. We can tell this by what he does. If he speaks for COTT, but allows his diocese to have CITH, we can see that he is leaving room for the Ordinary of the diocese to make this decision.

One is not going against the pope on a matter that the pope has not mandated even during the masses where he presides. He may be giving out COTT, but others are giving out CITH next to him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

That’s why the Bishop of Rome may allow or disallow something for Rome, but not impose it on the rest of the Churches.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

But many people feel that he also sets an example for the Church which speaks louder than any local bishop or even those around him. Even people outside the Church recognize the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church (the CEO as one poster likened him) and for good or bad his opinions are heard on matters such as wars, poverty, wealth, etc., That’s why it is a big deal when he meets with world leaders. But I digress.

 

[JReducation]

But many people feel that he also sets an example for the Church which speaks louder than any local bishop or even those around him. Even people outside the Church recognize the Pope as the leader of the Catholic Church (the CEO as one poster likened him) and for good or bad his opinions are heard on matters such as wars, poverty, wealth, etc., That’s why it is a big deal when he meets with world leaders. But I digress.

Your point is well made. It is very hard for people to know when Benedict XVI is speaking as the Bishop of Rome or when he’s speaking as the Pontiff. One really has to pay attention to what he does and what he says. In this case, what he does in the Diocese of Rome and what he says about the whole subject are not the same. One can easily conclude that he’s being inconsistent. But he’s not. When he speaks about COTT, he is speaking as theologian. Theologians always speak in objective terms. When he allows something in Rome or at the Vatican, he’s acting as a pastor, not a theologian. There he factors in details that are not covered in his theological exposition, because they are not common to the universal Church. His theological exposition must limit itself to what is common to all Catholics. What he allows in his diocese or at the Vatican may be influenced by what is good for those Catholics who are within the territory of either Vatican City or the Diocese of Rome.

When it’s all said and done, this is not an easy job. As you say, everyone hangs on to his every word. I guess that’s why no one wants the job when the Chair of Peter is vacated. Peter wears too many hats.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Peter wears too many hats.

Titles of the Pope, according to TU ES PETRUS:

• His Holiness The Pope;
• Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
• Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
• Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
• Patriarch Of The West;
• Servant Of The Servants Of God;
• Primate Of Italy;
• Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
• Sovereign Of Vatican City State.

thepopeblog.blogspot.com/2004/06/titles-of-pope.html

 

[JReducation]

Titles of the Pope, according to TU ES PETRUS:

• His Holiness The Pope;
• Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
• Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
• Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
• Patriarch Of The West;
• Servant Of The Servants Of God;
• Primate Of Italy;
• Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
• Sovereign Of Vatican City State.

thepopeblog.blogspot.com/2004/06/titles-of-pope.html

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, because I don’t keep up on Vaticanalia . . .yes, I just made up that word . . . I believe that I read that Pope Benedict has deleted Patriarch of the West from that list. But everyone is waiting for an explanation as to why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Vico]

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, because I don’t keep up on Vaticanalia . . .yes, I just made up that word . . . I believe that I read that Pope Benedict has deleted Patriarch of the West from that list. But everyone is waiting for an explanation as to why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, that was in 2006. The unclear title became obsolete, the Vatican says.

"The title “Patriarch of the West” was adopted during the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Subsequently, this title has been very rarely used, and without very clear meaning.

Currently, the meaning of the term “West” refers to a cultural context that is not only related to Western Europe, but extending the United States of America to Australia and New Zealand, differing cultural and other contexts. Naturally, such a meaning of the term “West” does not describe an ecclesiastical territory or be used as defining a patriarchal territory."

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_fr.html

You can use Google to translate to English.

Also catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19144

 

[ProVobis]

Correct me if I’m wrong on this, because I don’t keep up on Vaticanalia . . .yes, I just made up that word . . . I believe that I read that Pope Benedict has deleted Patriarch of the West from that list. But everyone is waiting for an explanation as to why.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Interesting. Wonder why the East isn’t specifically mentioned on that list.

Congratulations to Vico on the 1000th post.

Also to Ockham.

 

[JReducation]

Interesting. Wonder why the East isn’t specifically mentioned on that list.

Congratulations to Vico on the 1000th post.

Also to Ockham.

The Holy Father is not the Patriarch of the Eastern Catholic Churches. He is their Pontiff, but he does not govern them directly as he does the Roman Church. They are sui iuris, self-governing, but fully Catholic and in full communion with the Roman Church. In other words, he is not their Father, which the meaning of the word Patriarch. He is their Pontiff. They a have their own fathers who trace their lineage back to other Apostles, not Peter and Paul.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Congratulations! You folks made it to the 1,000 mark. When I came on board as moderator I was concerned; but I only had to edit a post here and there. You have proven that this topic can be discussed with diversity of opinions yet remaining civil.

If I may make a suggestion, give this subject a rest for at least a week (Sep 4, 2010). It is only a suggestion. I’m not prohibitting the subject. Sometimes, it’s good to step back from a subject with good feelings, instead of frustration. Enjoy your positive success.

Thank you for participating and for your contributions. I’ll see you around TC Forum. Remember . . . post by the rules.

Thomas Casey
Moderator