J
- Status
I
I_Believe
Guest
Of course the Church hasn’t, but many churchmen did. There is only one way Liturgical abuse can occur.
If I were to name what I thought was the worst fruit of the VII reforms, it would be the two mindsets that have emerged. The original one and the new one. It’s just how it is, and it can’t be denied really. The proof is here on the TC forum.
I accept VII as a valid Council. I’m just saddened by what it has enabled for far too long, and what has been tolerated. Then again, with the world being such a big place and the days of Papal Monarchy gone, having been dealt the decisive blow by the concept of the new collegiality, I can’t really blame H.H.JPII as some trads do. It was a done deal before he came along.
You and I can disagree and still have a chance to meet in Heaven.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Ha, you beat me to it as I was typing.Individuals have, but not the Church.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I don’t understand what you mean by “there is only one way liturgical abuse can occur” and what the two mindsets you refer to are.Of course the Church hasn’t, but many churchmen did. There is only one way Liturgical abuse can occur.
If I were to name what I thought was the worst fruit of the VII reforms, it would be the two mindsets that have emerged. The original one and the new one. It’s just how it is, and it can’t be denied really. The proof is here on the TC forum.
I accept VII as a valid Council. I’m just saddened by what it has enabled for far too long, and what has been tolerated. Then again, with the world being such a big place and the days of Papal Monarchy gone, having been dealt the decisive blow by the concept of the new collegiality, I can’t really blame H.H.JPII as some trads do. It was a done deal before he came along.
You and I can disagree and still have a chance to meet in Heaven.
But maybe it’s beyond the scope of this thread.
Thank you for your response.
T
Tsuwano
Guest
Exactly!!
P
paperwight
Guest
And in the UK, where I live. And I daresay many other countries as well.
P
paperwight
Guest
That is outrageous, Ockham!!
It seems to me that your true nature is being exposed more and more.
Are you jealous, perhaps?
O
Ockham
Guest
Nice research. Unfortunately, facts seem to go right past this crowd.
O
Ockham
Guest
Arrogance? CITH began as a liturgical abuse. Some people continued with it against the direct orders of the Vatican. That’s arrogance.
Arrogance is also to be found in the decision to rip Communion rails out and smash high altars in our churches. Where was the teaching authorizing that?
Arrogance can be found in other liturgical abuses such as liturgical dance.
Perhaps requesting a theological argument wasn’t the best description, but it is clear no one can make a good argument for CITH. You can’t argue “it’s in the GIRM” when it wasn’t back in the “spirit of V2” glory days and only through disobedience and rebellion did it get in there today. And the earliest Christians were corrected in their practice. The Church has been clear in its position for the vast majority of its history. I have provided support for my position unlike the CITH horde.
O
Ockham
Guest
My, my, it’s astonishing how easily outraged some people can be. Were you offended also? Are you searching for your victim card or is it being played somewhere else at the moment.
What do you think I am jealous of…EMHCs? Actually I do pray for them; I pray that one day they will come to realize they should remain in their seats. It is sad to watch a gang of laity storm the Sanctuary during the Agnus Dei and pretend to be priests. If you read the guidelines on EMHCs most aren’t necessary. However, it seems the 'spirit of V2" crowd’s tactic is to continue with disobedience long enough to get it into the GIRM. To borrow the brother’s Mother Church analogy, they are the spoiled children who stomp and protest long enough to get their way.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Liberty taken with the Liturgy is the only way. Adding things or omitting things.
As far as mindsets, those who see nothing wrong with CITH can’t see why those who oppose it, do so in such a passionate manner, despite CITH being allowed by the Church.
Those who oppose CITH can’t understand why those who accept it can do so, despite the reasons Bishop Schneider explains so well in calling for a return to COTT.
Now, we can try and convince each other that our position is correct. But we probably won’t as long as the Church allows both manners of reception.
I accept CITH and EMHC are allowed by the Church at this time. My conscience will not allow me to receive CITH, but I don’t believe one can be said to be sinning by receiving in the hand. I don’t believe it’s fair to look at EMHC in a bad light either.
But I must pray both practices are suppressed by the Church for the reasons explained by the Bishop. I have never seen or read a single thing that explains why CITH can be justified. I’ve seen the indult, but nothing explaining why it can be justified. Where can I find a document explaining the decision to allow non-consecrated hands to touch the Host ? I can find the conditions and guidelines, but no explanation of why, what the Church has always held regarding consecrated hands of the priest, can be reinterpreted. By it’s nature, it would have to be, in order to allow CITH and EMHC.
I’ll need a link to the words of an orthodox Bishop or a Church document, not just a message board opinion, before I’ll reconsider my stand on the issue. I’ve provided my source, and can’t think of a single thing I’d add to or question in the Good Bishop’s words. I think he’s a man of deep Faith and knows what he’s talking about.
G
gospel_life
Guest
Umm…yeah, actually I totally understood what you were saying and was also answering literally. Along with not being as irreverent as you think we are, we’re not as stupid as you think we are either.
Now I am going to get metaphorical though. Every time you and your group of self-appointed judges come in here insulting and denigrating the Catholic faithful for daring to follow what the Church teaches and allows because it doesn’t meet your own personal standard of worthiness, you are casting the Body of Christ down on the ground and trampling it.
For all the “theological proofs” being offered, the simple fact is that this is an issue of discipline and the Church is empowered to make and alter its disciplines. No theological “proof” is needed for lay people to follow the disciplines that the Church lays down. As JR noted, one is either the giver of the law or the servant of the law. The Pope is the giver of the law and has spoken; the laity does not get to make judgments about other Catholics adhering to the given law without being in disobedience both to the Church and to the very adminitions given by Jesus himself.
That this stubborn need to impose your own standards of righteousness exists isn’t surprising. Jesus himself had to deal with those who felt that they were holier and above everybody else and had all the answers for how everyone else should live. Nothing much has changed.
However noble your desires may be in wanting to protect Jesus in the eucharist, I again say shame on you for being willing to desecrate him by trampling him in his people. This discussion has quite frankly left me feeling like I’ve been swimming in a septic tank with the level of disrespect for fellow devoted Catholics being expressed.
Father, thank you for not making me like those other Catholics who don’t know how to worship you properly like I do.
Adieu
T
tcm22
Guest
Whatever the origins, the simple fact that CITH is an approved practice by the Church removes all argument.
Why don’t you seem to grasp that? The Congregation for Divine Worship and Bishops around the world (who have authority in their own areas) continue to allow the practice.
Your failure to grasp the reasons behind the approval for CITH does not weaken the argument that it it is an approved practice.
The simple fact is that Church approval trumps anything you may argue otherwise. It’s that simple. Yes it’s in the GIRM. Case closed. Why argue further? Your continued rejection of the practice is more a reflection of your own mindset than some flaw in our Mother Church.
What part of “approved/valid/licit/in the GIRM” don’t you get? To argue otherwise suggests you know better than the Church itself. That’s pretty arrogant, IMO.
E
estesbob
Guest
My Bishop (Archbishop Chaput) is in full commion with Rome and he says it appropriate to receive Communion in the Hand. Do you care what he says?
L
Layman
Guest
Doesn’t look to me like it’s approved. More like tolerated. It started as an act of disobedience, a break with standard practice. I would be very dubious about anything liturgical coming out of Holland, Belgium or Austria right now. Those countries are known for ‘experimentation’ and I don’t like being a lab rat in something so important. The Mass shouldn’t be a tinker-toy.
CITH was banned for hundreds of years. At a time of ferment in the wider society and in the Church itself, it was re-started. For what spiritual or didactic reason(s)? I sincerely don’t know. And still don’t.
Did CITH in practice get going in most parishes, outside the countries above, when the more progressive or liturgically-fashion-conscious parishioners started putting their hands out at Communion? Hard to imagine a priest or Bishop announcing that it was going to be done and explaining why.
Anyone’s acutal memories would be good, here. How did it start in your diocese? I didn’t go to Mass for twenty years, except maybe at Christmas. Noted CITH and altar girls, but didn’t see them make their debut.
Someone made a good point earlier on. Ockham and others have given many links and quotes as to why CITH should not be done. There seem to be very few offered for it, beyond St. Cyril and the GIRM.
You’d think more clergy would defend why it should be done. It’s a big change from the past.
And I wonder which St. Cyril would choose, if he were a Roman Catholic bishop in the 1980’s., if he could, between retaining COTT, kneeling, from his hand or changing to CITH, standing, from a laywoman’s hands?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Liturgical law is indeed “approved” by the Church. Take a closer look. The Rites of the Church are not for us to simply tolerate once they Church approves them.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Please explain the difference between an indult and an approval.
An indult is an approval of something to be used.
It is more polite but I had no problem understanding what tweety was saying.
While ignoring what the Latin Church is teaching today. I would caution you on the use of the blanket use of Church when you are speaking of the Latin Catholic Church only.
An indult is an approval of a practice for an area, it in no way goes against the Church and it is not, nor can it be, a disobedience as the Church officially allows for it by the indult. An idult removes the aspect of disobedience.
P
paperwight
Guest
As does my Bishop, (Archbishop Kelly). Join in, everybody.
This could run and run! Perhaps it’s the only way to get the point across.
L
Layman
Guest
Sure. And could you give his/their reasons for such? I sincerely wish to know the reasoning - the benefits it gives, or the deficits it remedies.
T
tweetymom
Guest
And my Bishop soto, and our Bishop Weigan before him:thumbsup:
- Status