A
Anne1964
Guest
While most people at my church receive COTT at the altar rail we do have a few who receive CITH at the altar rail. It is certainly allowed.
- Status
I have never seen cith done at an Altar rail before (it is not practiced at the churches I mentioned) so I had just made a presumption, I didn’t make a claim that it wasn’t.
O
otjm
Guest
Having a law degree - whether it is civil law or ecclesial law - does not make one an “expert”. It grants the one holding the degree the right to practice that law within that jurisdiction; it most definitely does not confer “expert” status on their opinions, as I have pointed out.
You keep referring to “lawyers” in the plural for you opinion yet you have cited only one Canon lawyer, and given he supports your thesis, you appear willing to grant him “expert” status. As I noted, unless and until an ecclesial court or the proper dicastery in Rome agrees with him publicly, he has an opinion, in this case running in opposition to the Church’s stated answers.
And again, you have noted only your opinion as to absentee votes; please provide citation to support your position. I am not and never have been a fan of Cardinal Bernardin, but that is neither proof nor disproof that he did anything outside the law.
You keep referring to “lawyers” in the plural for you opinion yet you have cited only one Canon lawyer, and given he supports your thesis, you appear willing to grant him “expert” status. As I noted, unless and until an ecclesial court or the proper dicastery in Rome agrees with him publicly, he has an opinion, in this case running in opposition to the Church’s stated answers.
And again, you have noted only your opinion as to absentee votes; please provide citation to support your position. I am not and never have been a fan of Cardinal Bernardin, but that is neither proof nor disproof that he did anything outside the law.
Last edited:
P
puer.dei
Guest
No proof of any “trickery” has been presented.
C
commenter
Guest
To my knowledge, the other canon lawyers, including bishops and theologians who disagreed with CITH, did not say that the vote was invalid.puer.dei:
None that I’m aware of, but it’s not simply a persons opinion it is the opinion of a canon lawyer…
… however if you are OK with the shady practices of Bishop Joseph Bernadin soliciting absentee votes to beef up the numbers so that he may pass his agenda, which was voted down three previous times, well then good for you…
…as for me I’ll stick with what the canon lawyers have to say.
You can argue Bernardin had an agenda, but did all the canon lawyers present at the meeting, and countless other canonists who examined the proceedings in 1969, have the same agenda? Did they all maintain the cover-up for 50 years, even on their deathbeds?
I’d like to hear your canonist’s thoughts on the Kennedy assassination.
I didn’t grant him an expert status, read biographies on him, most reference that he was considered an expert in Canon law…
…but perhaps unless he has some kind of a letter from Rome proclaiming him as such, you probably wouldn’t except that he was an expert, so why bother?
No, and I admitted that, and am admitting it for a third time, I know of no such citation (doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist), apparently me admitting that twice before was not enough.
I gave my opinion, which I then backed up with the opinion of a canon lawyer…
… I also noted that at Conclave. where similarly a 2/3 majority is required, absentee votes aren’t allowed…
…you fail to see how a Conclave with a secret vote involving Cardinals requiring a 2/3 majority, and a Conclave of bishops with a secret vote, also requiring 2/3 majority are similar, I think it’s fair to say since a 2/3 majority is required in both and a secret vote is taking place in both instances that when one disallows absentee votes, so does the other, you see it differently, OK…
…that isn’t sufficient enough evidence for you, OK fine, like I said before we simply will not see eye to eye on this, why do you continue to ask for citations that I have admitted (3 times now) that I don’t have?
Obviously I’m not going to change my opinion and I think I have provided a fair amount of evidence for my view…
…on the other hand I’m not going to change your opinion and you have provided your arguments…
…so unless you have something new to add, I don’t have anything more to say to you on this topic
Peace be with you friend.
I am not arguing that, because of the way Cardinal Bernadin obtained the indult, that it is invalid.
I am only saying that it shouldn’t have been obtained in the first place.
At the end of the day it was obtained and it is valid, and I have never denied that.
P
puer.dei
Guest
Because you keep repeating that the absentee ballots were invalid, even though you cannot provide a citation.
Again, this was not a conclave. This was one country’s bishops conference. I don’t see any claim that all other conclave rules apply to bishops’ conferences.
N
Neithan
Guest
Dear Catholics, it is very good if your piety moves you to prefer receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue as a sign of devotion. If, however, your preference for receiving on the tongue turns into contempt for those who receive in the hand, your piety has become sanctimony.
And I don’t see any claims that they don’t, so using common sense, seeing as there are other similarities laid out in this particular voting instance in that document (2/3 majority, secret vote), One can deduce that the same rules apply, furthermore I have given the opinion of a canon lawyer, please give me an opinion of a canon lawyer that says the absentee votes in this instance are allowed.
Lastly I am only providing evidence from my point of view, others can take and do with it as they please, I believe my point of view to be true, as I am sure you believe yours to be true as well, but there is no definitive evidence either way…
… so you and I must agree to disagree, and let’s leave it at that.
Last edited:
There are many in this thread who have tried to put words in my mouth and have tried to say that I have said things or given opinions that I have not given…
… Some have tried to claim that I said receiving in the hand is not valid, I never once claimed that…
… Others have tried to claim, that I said the indult granted wasn’t valid, I never once claimed that either…
The same people in this thread that have said these things about me have also tried to say that I come off as arrogant, yet it is they who put words in my mouth and it is they who make false claims about me…
… I have been told that I was uncharitable, because I was short with somebody, however people who are lying on me and putting words into my mouth are not uncharitable?
I have admitted when I have been wrong and if you read through my posts on this thread you will see that…
…when I was called uncharitable for being short with somebody I apologized and corrected it…
…yet when I pointed out the people who were putting words into my mouth or when people lied about what I had said, those same people, did not make one correction or apologize…
…I think it shows who was charitable and who was uncharitable and I’m really just done with this conversation.
Peace be with you my brothers and sisters
… Some have tried to claim that I said receiving in the hand is not valid, I never once claimed that…
… Others have tried to claim, that I said the indult granted wasn’t valid, I never once claimed that either…
The same people in this thread that have said these things about me have also tried to say that I come off as arrogant, yet it is they who put words in my mouth and it is they who make false claims about me…
… I have been told that I was uncharitable, because I was short with somebody, however people who are lying on me and putting words into my mouth are not uncharitable?
I have admitted when I have been wrong and if you read through my posts on this thread you will see that…
…when I was called uncharitable for being short with somebody I apologized and corrected it…
…yet when I pointed out the people who were putting words into my mouth or when people lied about what I had said, those same people, did not make one correction or apologize…
…I think it shows who was charitable and who was uncharitable and I’m really just done with this conversation.
Peace be with you my brothers and sisters
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Im not saying it isn’t wise. I am saying they don’t have authority to do it per law.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Are we? I never noticed.
Not according to what I have seen.
Mediator Dei.
No, it is explicitly stated that Priest must give prior catechesis before it is allowed and that he can prohibit that form of receiving … in individual case or otherwise. It’s all in Memoriale Domini.
Last edited:
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
I don’t think you’ve been uncharitable at all.
O
otjm
Guest
You really need to read and cogitate on what I have said. There is an indvidual, a Canon lawyer, one who has written a number of books, and has a reputation of being an expert in Canon law, who got into a public dialogue concerning whether or not married deacons were/are required to be continent. Which means, for those who do not understand the term, to not have sexual relations with their wife.
Is opinion was that they were required to be continent.
Rome said, in so many works to that fairly well acknowledged expert “You are wrong.”
You cite one Canon lawyer, say (not cite) biographies of him as being an expert, you rely on his opinion when it runs counter to what Rome and the Church practices, and in essence you say of your expert “He said it, I believe it, and that ends it” and then counter my comments as my personal opinion.
O
otjm
Guest
That was written in 1969. I have participated in giving the catechesis directly in RCIA for the better part of 25 years, and indirectly in adult faith groups.
I am not going to reiterate what has occurred in my parish over the last 25+ years except to say that parishes which have Adoration - either Perpetual or frequent - seem to have a very strong catechesis concerning the Eucharist, and I would be among the first to promote it.
B
billsannie
Guest
What I really want to know is, what kind of wafers does your church use that are so crumbly? The main reason I never had a problem with CitH is because of the sort of wafers used by every Catholic church is my home town. These were made by nuns and very thin. They were also rather hard, with the consistency and crunch of very thin cardboard. It would have been very difficult to have them break into particles without deliberately breaking them. Indeed, I never saw any particles except when the priest broke the Host over the ciborium, and then they were fairly large with an audible crunch. It’s difficult for me even to imagine why there are so many problems with particles. Maybe it’s more because of the way the wafers are made than in the way people receive the Eucharist.
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Was it ever changed though?
Great. And Priest can still refuse to grant Eucharist that way as documents clearly states.
Last edited:
- Status