Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[Aramis]

And which rites, exactly, is CITH part of, in the East?

Armenian.
Also sometimes used in the Chaldean and Syrian Rites.

 

[otjm]

The norm for centuries. And then dropped for centuries. And then added in again by … some priests in Holland off their own bat, as far as I can gather. And which rites, exactly, is CITH part of, in the East? And why should we in the Roman Rite adopt their method, anyway? I don’t see how it’s an improvement.

You also appear to think that the only way anything shouldever get done is by some bureaucrat in Rome or the Pope himself coming up with the idea. That, however, would seem to relate to your lack of knowledge of the documetns of Vatican 2, which clearly carried on the work or Vatican 1 (delayed by wars), and that was explaining the role of the bishop. the bishop is in direct descent from the Apostles just as is the bishop of Rome, and shares in the charism to the bishop of Rome and of the Apostles. We cn all agree that the bishops of Holland got ahead of the curve, and all need to go to Confession for their disciplinary lapses, if they have not already done so. But a disciplinary infraction does not mean that the substance of what they propose is tainted, as you would seem to hold.

And we are not “adopting their method”, since it was our method also; we are reinstituting it. And the reinstitution allows those who prefer to not do so, to receive on the tongue. As NCJohn notes, it appears that you ahve the attitude of “my way or the highway”; interestingly, the same attitude that the liberals have had in pushing some of their agenda; makes for some strange bedfellows when you, in criticizing them adopt the tactics you so loudly complain about.

I’m not calling for the O.F. to be crushed. It would be nice to see it said as Pope Paul VI envisaged: with Latin, Gregorian chant and the priest ad-orientem.

Again, an ignorance of teh documents you seem so disdainful of, which called for use of the vernacular. And the issue of Gregorian Chant is amusing, as it entered into the documents because Gregorian Chant was already on a significant downhill slope before Vatican 2.

I think, if it continues at the current rate of development, it will implode under the weight of the increasing number and variety of contradictions inserted into it. Or rather the congregations that favour such experimentation will.

Yes, these are my opinions. Argue against them.

Actually, there are no contradictions in the OF, except as figments of your imagination.

 

[I_Believe]

1. Catholic means universal, not identical; and 2) that is a slap at the other 20+ rites of the Eastern Church, as well as the rites continuing since Trent in the latin or Western Church.

Again, I’m being specific here. I’m talking about the Latin Rite. I could care less about how the Eastern Catholics worship. It’s none of my business. I accept that Roman Catholics are not the only Catholics. I know about the Mendicant Rites.

Anyhow, I do wander as you say. I’m fortunate to live in an area with a lot of old Roman Catholic churches, and I like assisting Mass at all of them. I’m making my rounds I especially like going to weekday Mass at these old churches. Even though 95% of them pray the OF, at least there is no monkey business usually at the weekday Masses. You can bet those weekday Mass goers are there because of a spiritual need. Sunday’s you find so many just going through the motions. But that’s another thread topic lol.

I’ve said about all I can on this thread. Our Pope prefers COTT and so do I. It’s more reverent and fitting imho.

 

[Layman]

I would like to know where in the Vat. II documents it was mandated that Latin and chant could be dropped entirely. That would be useful. Because I’ve heard the opposite.

No contradictions?

• COTT, kneeling for hundreds of years, then CITH. As I’ve said before, it implies the Host has become less worthy of respect, or lay people are now holier, or our spiritual forefathers were going to too much trouble all that time. Or is it that we know a bit more liturgical history, now, so let’s give it a go?

Even if it’s now much more trouble to police what people do with the Host? It also invites the idea, symbolically, that we’re lining up in front of a lay person in a food queue. For ordinary bread.

• The priest faces towards the west, the people and away from the Orient and the Crucifix. And the tabernacle. Is it because they’re a bit self-conscious about that, that they get it moved? I know of a handsome church in London which has a plain wooden board where the tabernacle use to be. It’s ugly and it’s telling about what’s happening to our rite.
• The sanctuary is holy ground, yet just about anyone can now walk there, especially with the altar rails gone. Implies it’s just another part of the church.
• The priest is consecrated and vested, spent seven years in a seminary, is celibate and performing a sacred rite of propitiation, yet there’s Mrs. EMHC standing beside him in her street clothes fulfilling another of his functions.

I think I see where this is heading. Individually, you can argue the validity of this or that change, but collectively, ah, they are leading us in a very … interesting … direction.

Already we have closed churches and parishes because we can’t get the vocations. Because the rite, being made more ‘people-friendly’ and with more lay participation, doesn’t seem to be something a man, with drive, would need to sacrifice family life for.

**If those participating are working towards making it more easy-going and ‘inclusive’ it looks less like something there should be any urgency about. Add in kids drawings on the altar, more female participation, folksy songs and no mention of Hell and damnation and you have something quite convivial and pleasant. **

Therefore, not something a man with ambition and ability truly needs to worry about. Anything that smacks of the supernatural, the hierarchial and the awesome has been played down.