Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff417
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CWBetts said:
You still have not produced the document. Until you do, I will not regard CITH as a liturgical abuse.
Click to expand...
CITH is not a liturgical abuse

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter%20IV

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
 
choy, you are citing objective and reputable sources, congratulations, there is hope for you! And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m not a canon lawyer, or any type of lawyer, but it strikes me that although CITH is legal now it was granted that status on illegal grounds. In law doesn’t that make the current legality invalid? That’s my argument, your honour.
 
Ockham said:
choy, you are citing objective and reputable sources, congratulations, there is hope for you! And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m not a canon lawyer, or any type of lawyer, but it strikes me that although CITH is legal now it was granted that status on illegal grounds. In law doesn’t that make the current legality invalid? That’s my argument, your honour.
Click to expand...
Ockham, i’ve always followed what the Church taught, recommended, or laid down as law. i didn’t see the necessity in past discussions to link because it was already linked by you or someone else and i only offered what the actual explanation was.

lets put forth a different example. priests and bishops were allowed to marry in the early Church, and other Rites still allow the presbyters to be married today. would that make the Latin Rite discipline on its presbyters illegal and invalid?
 
Ockham said:
choy, you are citing objective and reputable sources, congratulations, there is hope for you! And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

I’m not a canon lawyer, or any type of lawyer, but it strikes me that although CITH is legal now it was granted that status on illegal grounds. In law doesn’t that make the current legality invalid? That’s my argument, your honour.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn’t. You’re confusing (1) a legitimately-enacted change in the law, prompted by other people’s prior illegal conduct, with (2) a change in the law that was itself illegally promulgated. To use an example I’ve used before, if the state patrol gets tired of policing Route 110 because there are so many speeders*, and the state accordingly raises the speed limit, then the speed limit has legally been raised.

*I know this would never happen in reality, because police like giving out tickets.
 
Interesting point. I’m liking the new choy. It’s much more interesting to discuss things when someone isn’t incessantly refraining, “it’s allowed” or “it’s in the GIRM”.

Thing is, priest celibacy is the norm, not an indult. There are good reasons for it. Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church have endorsed it. Can you provide one example of that for CITH (other than the "make your palm a throne thingy)?
 
Ockham said:
Interesting point. I’m liking the new choy. It’s much more interesting to discuss things when someone isn’t incessantly refraining, “it’s allowed” or “it’s in the GIRM”.

Thing is, priest celibacy is the norm, not an indult. There are good reasons for it. Popes, saints, and doctors of the Church have endorsed it. Can you provide one example of that for CITH (other than the "make your palm a throne thingy)?
Click to expand...
so one example from St. John Chrysostom is not enough? sure, CITH has been banned longer than it was allowed and perhaps thats the reason not a lot was written on it. but the Church does recognize that CITH is part of its history and it was a valid practice in the past, which brought about approving the indult. if people brought in abusive practices that has no historical basis within the Church, i doubt the Church will allow it for any reason under any circumstance.

i think Mark made a better point with the speed limit analogy. i have made the same analogy on another thread in the same discussion with you
 
I like the speed limit analogy so let’s expand on it. If the speed limit on the major highways is 100km/hr (metric) and the defacto speed is 120km/hr that’s clearly disobedience and the police have the right to enforce the law. If the law is then changed to reflect the defacto condition of 120kn/hr and then people start doing 140km/hr, accidents become more frequent, injury and death totals go up, the roads become unsafe.

Pope Paul VI had serious concerns about CITH - specifically a disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament leading to a decrease in Transubstantiation belief, sacrilige, etc. Surveys and recent events prove he was right. Our current pontiff’s example is COTT, the norm of the universal Church. It’s time to bring the speed limit back to its traditional setting for the good of the Church.
 
choy said:
so one example from St. John Chrysostom is not enough?
Click to expand...
No it’s not. Let’s just say I meet your quote with St. Thomas Aquanus and raised you with multiple quotes from Popes. What pope has ever endorsed CITH? Sure JPII may have distributed it but did he ever write the virtues of it or provide theological support?
 
Ockham said:
I like the speed limit analogy so let’s expand on it. If the speed limit on the major highways is 100km/hr (metric) and the defacto speed is 120km/hr that’s clearly disobedience and the police have the right to enforce the law. If the law is then changed to reflect the defacto condition of 120kn/hr and then people start doing 140km/hr, accidents become more frequent, injury and death totals go up, the roads become unsafe.
Click to expand...
lets clean this analogy up a bit

the speed limit is 100km/h. let this symbolize COTT-only
receiving CITH is worht another 20km/h. so those who are receiving CITH in the past would be overspeeding, breaking the law, because they are beyond 100km/h
now, the State raises the speed limit to 120km/h. so those who are recevingin CITH are still travelling 120km/h and are now within the law, not outside of it. so those who travel 120km/h today are not breaking any laws. CITH is only worth 120km/h in this analogy, not 140km/h
Ockham said:
Pope Paul VI had serious concerns about CITH - specifically a disrespect for the Blessed Sacrament leading to a decrease in Transubstantiation belief, sacrilige, etc. Surveys and recent events prove he was right. Our current pontiff’s example is COTT, the norm of the universal Church. It’s time to bring the speed limit back to its traditional setting for the good of the Church.
Click to expand...
as i have said many times in the past, there are many reasons today where the belief in the Real Presence has decreased. i don’t think anyone has scientifically linked it to CITH. there are people who have denied the Real Presence in the past, even when the Church was COTT only. and some of these people end up establishing their own denominations that not only has nothing that resembles belief in the Real Presence, some of them has disregarded the need for the Eucharist entirely
 
Ockham said:
No it’s not. Let’s just say I meet your quote with St. Thomas Aquanus and raised you with multiple quotes from Popes. What pope has ever endorsed CITH? Sure JPII may have distributed it but did he ever write the virtues of it or provide theological support?
Click to expand...
i wasn’t aware that it works that way. you mean to say that if one Pope says one thing and 5 other Popes says another thing, automatically 5 beats 1? what happened to, “the Church is not a democracy?”

you also have to look at the greater context when each statement was said. COTT as we know became exclusive to fight abuses of the Eucharist. the Church has seen that today people are ready to receive the Eucharist in CITH again. the popes said what they needed to say to fight the abuses and heresies of their time.
 
Ockham said:
I like the speed limit analogy so let’s expand on it. If the speed limit on the major highways is 100km/hr (metric) and the defacto speed is 120km/hr that’s clearly disobedience and the police have the right to enforce the law. If the law is then changed to reflect the defacto condition of 120kn/hr and then people start doing 140km/hr, accidents become more frequent, injury and death totals go up, the roads become unsafe.
Click to expand...
That’s right. So it doesn’t do much good at this point to say to the people who are doing 130, “130 is not the preferred speed! The Popemobile tops out at 110! And you wouldn’t even be allowed to drive this fast unless some people a generation ago had been speeding!”
 
What pope has said anything good about CITH?

Sure, some people may just continue along at 120km/hr but the reality is more people will up their speed and crash. The numbers speak for themselves pre and post CITH. If you argue or deny then you are sticking your head in the sand.

Since the ‘speed limit has been raised’
Belief in the Real Presence: Down
Attendance at Holy Mass: Down
Attendance at Confession: Down

Result
A massive spiritual crash. The eternal destination of souls is at stake.
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s right. So it doesn’t do much good at this point to say to the people who are doing 130, “130 is not the preferred speed! The Popemobile tops out at 110! And you wouldn’t even be allowed to drive this fast unless some people a generation ago had been speeding!”
Click to expand...
I’m not sure where you are heading here Mark.
 
Ockham said:
I’m not sure where you are heading here Mark.
Click to expand...
It’s that a lot of your arguments, Ockham, have been of the nature, “CITH is not preferred! The Pope practices COTT! And you wouldn’t even have CITH as an option unless some Belgian bishops had been disobedient a few decades ago!”

Now you are on the right track (a track I suggested long, long ago): to point out specific practical areas where one practice is better than another. Most people, I think, will agree that COTT is better than CITH as regards the possibility of unintentional loss of fragments of the Host. And many people (myself included) are ready to believe that COTT, kneeling, fosters a sense of reverence and will help inculcate an awareness of the Real Presence. It’s important to remember that that’s different from merely saying that COTT, kneeling, is more reverent, or that CITH is a rejection of the Real Presence. One is a value/judgment call, the other involves an empirical observation and estimation of effects.
 
Perhaps I have spent too much time on certain aspects of my argument, but you’ve summarized the complete argument very well.
 
MarkThompson said:
That’s right. So it doesn’t do much good at this point to say to the people who are doing 130, “130 is not the preferred speed! The Popemobile tops out at 110! And you wouldn’t even be allowed to drive this fast unless some people a generation ago had been speeding!”
Click to expand...
source? 😃

i mean, just for a fun fact, does the Pope Mobile top at 110?
 
Ockham said:
What pope has said anything good about CITH?

Sure, some people may just continue along at 120km/hr but the reality is more people will up their speed and crash. The numbers speak for themselves pre and post CITH. If you argue or deny then you are sticking your head in the sand.

Since the ‘speed limit has been raised’
Belief in the Real Presence: Down
Attendance at Holy Mass: Down
Attendance at Confession: Down

Result
A massive spiritual crash. The eternal destination of souls is at stake.
Click to expand...
i think for one to make such claim, it should be substantiated with facts rather than circumstancial evidence. if there was a murder and the victime died of a gunshot and you found me in the same area with a discharged gun, would i be immediately be the culprit? what if i was just walking back home from the shooting range and happen to pass by?

i believe in today’s world the belief in the Real Presence would decrease whether CITH was allowed or not. just look at the media and see which Christian denominations dominates it. a lot of people get their information there, Catholics included. the truth is not a lot of people will spend time to learn more about the Faith and the information they receive is contrary to Catholic teaching. sadly they cannot distinguish which is which, and they fall into error. and this has nothing to do with the mode of reception of the Eucharist
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top