L
Layman
Guest
Now we’re getting somewhere. Do you recall, Brendan, how Communion is offered in the hand in those rites?
However,
holytransfiguration.org/communion.htm :
- Status
However,
holytransfiguration.org/communion.htm :
L
Layman
Guest
Found this while looking for a mention of a particular quote by Cardinal Bugnini. Strong stuff:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/modernism.htm
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/modernism.htm
S
Spirithound
Guest
Because transubstantiation happens! If your whole point is that you need the postures and symbols to raise your heart to God, then you’re allowed that. I pray that you have very fruitful meditation. But some of us don’t need that, and we still communicate just as worthily.
D
dmorgan
Guest
Thank you for that link. Powerful argument.
J
JReducation
Guest
Thank you for the correction. I should have spelled out the names or simply said most of the ones that I’m familiar with which are Coptic, Chaldeans and Syriacs.
But the point remains the same. CITH is not a sacrilege. What is a sacrilege in the Roman Catholic Church is also a sacrilege in the Eastern Catholic Churches. There is a difference between a sacrilege and violation of common laws. I was trying to help the other side see this.
While I’m on this subject, Cyril was not the only Father who wrote about CITH, Origen did too. The Council of Tertullian adopted the rules promulgated by Cyril. This was long after Cyril was dead. The Council took place in 690. The rules were in place until about the 1200s. The practice began to fade earlier. But the rule was not abolished until the Lateran Council. That’s why the Cluniac Reform was allowed to keep CITH. They were one of the groups that were still using it. It was dropped in the Roman Church due to superstitions that arose in the Western world, which were sacrilegious. The other Catholic Churches were not bound to this prohibition. That was up to their traditions and their Patriarchs. It was not a universal law, because it was not a sacrilege. Since these superstitions were not present in the East or among the monks of Cluny, there was no pastoral need to forbid it.
Canon Law for the Oriental Churches did not forbid it, when Canon Law for the Western Church did. The Western Church was not given an option, except for the religious orders of men, while the East had options.
I didn’t think that needed answering, since everyone knows how it happened. Some European bishops began to allow it. The Vatican was not pleased. It’s water under the bridge now, because the Vatican simply gave bishops permission to approve it for their dioceses. It’s not a worthwhile argument as long as Church law allows bishops to do so. I’m not in a position to change Church law, nor am I allowed to ever question the law. That would be a sin of pride.
We were founded before COTT became a law, as were all of the religious orders, except the Jesuits. It was always up to the superior of the house to decide on these matters, since there was no Church law and no specific ruling in the Holy Rule. But the admonitions of St. Francis were to avoid singularizing priests within the order. That’s why we are all called Friar, wear the same habit, have the same rights and duty, and so forth. Whatever was needed to keep the spirit of equality and brotherhood alive was at the discretion of the superior. When the rule for COTT became Church law, we already had our customs.
Canon Law has always protected the customs of religious orders. When something becomes a law for the Church, it is binding on the religious orders under certain conditions. If the conditions are not met, it is not binding on them. That’s why our chapels never looked like the average parish church, we had houses with communion on the hand for those who wanted to do so and other houses that only had COTT, we had no kneeling during the Canon of the mass, we had no communion rail, no Gregorian chant at mass or Divine Office and no private masses. One priest would celebrate mass for the entire house. If there was more than one priest in the house, the other priests attended the mass. He did not singularize himself by saying a private mass, except when the mass intentions book was so full that you needed these masses to fulfill this obligation.
If you have a parish that is given over to a religious order, that parish must accommodate to that order’s customs, not the other way around. The customs of the order are binding by vows. The customs of the parish are not.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
dmorgan
Guest
Brother, Unless i misread this part of your answer, you just passed off on the fact that several Bishops began a practice which was at the time not in Communion with Rome, and rather than enforce Church Law H.H. Pope John Paul II gave in and allowed the practice to spread. If this is true, does any Bishop have the right to change any tradition or Liturgical norm with impunity? Does the Pope as successor of St. Peter head the Church or do the Bishops now have that authority? This is something that concerns me: Is The chair of Peter the head of the Church, or has the current colliegiality within the various Bishops conferences now have an equal power to the Holy See? Do Bishops have the right to pick and choose what they want to adhere to?I didn’t think that needed answering, since everyone knows how it happened. Some European bishops began to allow it. The Vatican was not pleased. It’s water under the bridge now, because the Vatican simply gave bishops permission to approve it for their dioceses. It’s not a worthwhile argument as long as Church law allows bishops to do so. I’m not in a position to change Church law, nor am I allowed to ever question the law. That would be a sin of pride.Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
MarkThompson
Guest
If you mean the alleged quotation, “We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is for the Protestants,” that’s a fabrication and a slander.
B
Brendan
Guest
Yes, there are quite a number of Chaldean parishes in my area. Not only does a Chaldean bishop ( +Ibrahim) have in cathedra here, our local Seminary, Sacred Heart, is the only seminary outside of Iraq that also trains Chaldean priests.
I take my children to the Divine Liturgy a few times each year. It’s a good experience to hear the liturgy in Aramaic.
Communion is distributed using unleaven bread, in host form very similar to the Latin Rite.
Communion in the hand is done in the same way as is often done in the Latin Rite. I still recieve COTT, as that is my custom. COTT is also allowed in the Chaldean Rite, and it’s about 50/50 as to how the people recieve
The one Melkite parish I was at (O.L.of Redemption in Detroit) offered the Sacrament as a single species. Based on your link, that might be a ‘Latinization’, and therefore should be removed per Vatican II)
There was a Rutherian parish near where I grew up, and they, like all the Byzantine sui juris Churches, use intinction only. Even to the extent that when the species of bread alone is offered ( Liturgy of the PreSactified), it is mixed with wine and still distributed via chalice and spoon.
J
JReducation
Guest
This is a very legitimate question. Let me begin with a little history. What happened was that in the past, prior to Vatican II, under the code of 1917 and the codes that came before that, the bishops had much more autonomy than they do today. They had more authority than they do today. The faithful were not aware of it, because the means of communication were not there. You hardly ever heard about what this bishop in Japan did and the other bishop in the USA did. The bishops were always granted autonomy.
The teaching of the Church was that the bishops ruled in communion with the pope on matters of faith and morals. Matters of discipline were not a sign of communion with the Chair of Peter. Bishops and Religious Superiors of man have always had the authority to exercise autonomy on matters of discipline. That’s why they can do certain things, that the Vatican does not like, without impunity.
Collegiality was for the benefit of the pope, not the bishops. What John XXIII believed was that the papacy had become too powerful and too distant. Popes were not viewed as bishops, but as monarchs. He wanted to bring the papacy back to the earlier model of the Church. Peter was the primate, but he was also a bishop, not a monarch. He was very much involved in the affairs of the Church, as much as he could be given the limitations of the time. He was not distant from the Church as popes had become. The only times that the faithful heard from the pope was when he issued an encyclical. There were no mandatory reports to the papacy by the bishops of the West or the Patriarchs of the East. To this day, the Patriarchs of the East, even though they are in full communion with the papacy, do not have to report to the pope. They are autonomous and can make their own disciplines for the Catholics in the Eastern Churches. But they are truly Catholic and in full communion with Rome. But since they are Patriarchs and the pope is a Patriarch, they are equals. They do not report to him as our bishops do. For example, they do not have to ask for permission to ordain a bishop. The patriarch can give a Metropolitan that permission. Whereas in the Roman Church, the bishops must get that permission from the pope, because he is the Patriarch of the Roman Church.
What happened with CTH was that the bishops changed the discipline for their dioceses and the Holy Father had to approve it, because there was no legal reason for him to deny it. He could not deny it on the basis of faith and morals, because it’s not a matter of either. He could not deny it on the basis of canon law, because canon law does give the bishop authority over the certain disciplinary practices. He had two choices. He could reluctantly grant an indult, which is what he did or he could order the bishops to stop the practice without offering an explanation, which he has the legal right to do. But that would have looked capricious.
MY GUESS, is that the Holy Father felt that there were more important issues and he needed the bishops on board. The indult saved the day, because those bishops who did not want CITH didn’t have to do it. Those who wanted it, could do so. Everyone was happy and the Church could move on to more important issues, the most important of which was the youth. By the time that John Paul II becomes pope, the youth in Europe and North America are in serious spiritual danger: drugs, sex, and relativism, rebellion against the family and authority, and all the other things that we know about the youth movement from 1960 to 1990. It was from this generation of young people where we needed to get our priests, brothers, sisters, nuns and deacons. So John Paul goes on this major campaign to bring the youth back to the Church and it worked.
If you speak to young priests, friars, monks, brothers, sisters, nuns, and deacons, most will tell you that they were inspired by John Paul. In my own community we have what we call the John Paul generation of friars. This is an entire generation of friars who have created new houses to return to life in the 13th century. They live very much as Francis did. The movement is spreading. There are now over 100 houses in the USA alone and more in other countries. John Paul was definitely influential in the lives of the young people during his papacy and today.
Going back to the bishops, remember that this is what happened in diocese. This does not account for what was being done in religious houses or institutions run by religious orders. They have different rights and obligations.
None of these thing were known to the laity before Vatican II, because the Church forbade priests and religious from talking about these things within ear-shot of the laity. Vatican II brought the laity on board.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Spirithound
Guest
Thank you, Brother JR for another very informative post.
But, the “common” sequence that I have heard (and please forgive me for not providing a quote), is "Bishops allow CITH, Pope says no, Bishops do it anyways, Pope issues indult. So is it false that the Pope first said no?
J
JReducation
Guest
If the Holy Father said, no, I have never seen anything official on that. I know that he was not pleased, but he did issue the indult.
We have to understand history here. Prior to Vatican II, bishops were very autonomous. It was Vatican II that introduced the concept of collegiality. This came from John XXIII. He wanted a model of the papacy that approached that of Peter. Peter was the Vicar of Christ, but he was also a bishop, not a monarch. The papacy evolved into a monarchy.
What happened was that the pope dealt more with global matters, both civil and religious and the bishops dealt with local matters, these included disciplines. The model that the Roman Church had, before Vatican II, was very similar to the model that the Eastern Churches have today. They are in communion with Rome. However, the metropolitans (bishops) run their own dioceses and anser to the Patriarch, not the pope. The Patriarchs have a lot of freedom when it comes to matters of discipline. In matters of faith and morals, every one has to tow the same line. But disciplines are another issue.
With the emergence of modern communications, we begin to hear about things that a bishop does outside of our immediae diocese and it shocks us and makes us wonder whether the pope is really in charge. The fact is that these things are not new. We just did not know about it in the past.
It was not until the code of Canon Law of 1983, that the role and powers of the bishops in the Roman Church get better defined. Under the canons of 1917 and those that came before, bishops were very free to do whatever they needed to do in their dioceses. They didn’t have the means to communicate with Rome everytime they had a question or an idea. To get an idea to the pope and get a response could take over a year. So it was understood that as long as it was not faith or morals, the bishop was the head of the local Church.
When this issue of CITH comes up, there is a conflict between this new aggiornamento that Pope John XXIII had introduced, which requierd the bishops work as partners with the pope and the old custom that the bishops could change disciplines in their own dioceses provided that they did not violate dogma or morals, which CITH does not do. If it did, those Eastern Churches that practice it and those religious orders that have practiced it for centuries would be in serious moral trouble and they are not.
It was more an issue of accountability. The pope had several choices. He could have looked away. He could have ordered the bishops to stop or he could issue an indult. He opted for the indult. The popular opinion is that he opted for the indult because looking the other way would have sent the wrong message to everyone. It would have looked as if we were going back to the days when popes lived in ivory towers with very little contact with the rest of the Church. If he ordered them to stop, it would have raised some canonical questions. Because there was nothing in canon law that said that the bishops could not change this discipline. The pope can stop canonical questions, because he is the supreme law giver. He does not have to explain himself to anyone. But that was not John Paul’s style, unless it was a grave matter. So he opted for an indult.
The indult would make everyone happy. Those bishops who wanted CITH were happy. Those who did not want CITH did not have to do so. They were happy.
Some may ask, what about the laity? That’s a valid question. The answer to that is not a very pleasant one. The only people whom the pope has to keep on his side are the bishops. Priests, deacons, brothers, sisters, and laity are not essential to the existence of the Church. Bishops are essential. Only they have the fulness of the priesthood and only bishops have Apostolic Succession. If a pope can make everyone happy, he tries. But if he has to choose, he must always choose the bishops. All it takes is one angry bishop to cause a schism. A lay person cannot create a schism. He’s not a bishop.
Even in with this in mind, there are often problems, because not all of the bishops agree and not all are willing to obey. But you try to work with the majority. The pope is very aware that he does not govern the local Churches. It is the bishop. If he takes that away from the Roman bishops, he would have to take it away from the Eastern bishops too. If he did that, there would be heck to pay. The Eastern bishops would not put up with it. They have been autonomous from the time of the Apostles. The Apostels shared the priesthood with Peter and acknowledged Peter as the Pontiff. But Peter did not interfere in their Churches. That’s why we have 22 Catholic Churches and about nine rites between them. No pope every interfered with the development of the local Churches, unless it was a matter of heresy or urgency.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Layman
Guest
Well, by that reasoning, you could just have it done in a bare room where not much happens at all. Or nothing at all; as long as there’s a consecration. Or even then, you could just distribute pre-consecrated hosts. By laymen. No priest needed.
L
Layman
Guest
Re: JREd’s posts:
I reckon the Pope should risk schism if a Bishop is taking the mickey. I’d say the pederast scandals have tipped Catholic opinion his way. Also, the experience of Abp Lefebvre is instructive: when you’re out, you’re invisible, I think. You can rant and rave in the wilderness. You’ll not be heard by most of the flock thereafter.
- I did not know that priests did not share in the Apostolic Succession. That’s interesting. I know that Bishops have a lot of autonomy and, post-Vat II, Bishop’s Conferences can ignore the Pope if they want to.
I reckon the Pope should risk schism if a Bishop is taking the mickey. I’d say the pederast scandals have tipped Catholic opinion his way. Also, the experience of Abp Lefebvre is instructive: when you’re out, you’re invisible, I think. You can rant and rave in the wilderness. You’ll not be heard by most of the flock thereafter.
- Re: reception in the hand in Eastern Catholic Rites (Melkite, Chaldean, Coptic): a) Is there any accompanying purification of the hands? b) Do they let laypeople distribute?
K
KC91
Guest
Is there a video of the mass available on the internet?
L
Layman
Guest
No, that’s not it. Can you show how it is a fabrication? It’s mentioned here: catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/modernism/modernism.htm
The quote I was looking for is bolded below:
S
Spirithound
Guest
Well firstly, we know that there is more spiritual benefit in assisting at Mass, where there is a consecration, than at a communion service where there is none.
And by your reasoning, as a previous poster noted, someone might opine that every Mass should be a High Mass.
L
Layman
Guest
So a consecration occurring is of benefit. How about hymns, vestments, statues, symbolic gestures and the like?
A High Mass is the norm, at least in the old rite. The standard. If God is making Himself present then all the reverence you can muster, inner or outer, is surely pertinent.
A High Mass is the norm, at least in the old rite. The standard. If God is making Himself present then all the reverence you can muster, inner or outer, is surely pertinent.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Did you know that in the 4th/5th century Saint John Chrysostom radically cut, edited, abridged the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil, which itself was a radical cut, editing, and abridgment from the Divine Liturgy of Saint James. Yet, that Liturgy has been praised and used for nearly 1600 years now.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
I agree, we should always give 110% reverence at Mass. However, reverence doesn’t equal opulence or verbosity.
L
Layman
Guest
No one can see your inner reverence. It’s a public rite. Other people are present. So to represent and encourage what we hope will occur internally, we have opulence and beautiful, ornate language. Also as a sign of respect to a King and as a mirror of Heaven.
Symbols are important. They carry meaning.
Symbols are important. They carry meaning.
- Status