Vatican II

[IntegraCatholic]

As regards ecclesiastical law, I’ll take your word for it.

That’s also in St. Alphonsus. I mentioned the case as being more well-known I guess because that was my personal experience. I had heard others reference this possibility before I read about it in theology. I was a bit surprised when I read about the interpretation of civil law (I had drifted in a legalistic approach to law in my mind), and then when the ecclesiastical example followed immediately thereafter, things began to make much more sense. Because I had studied ecclesiastical law more, especially liturgical law, with all of its exceptions and principles of interpretation, once I put the civil law into the same perspective (for the principles are the same), everything made much more sense.

 

[choy]

You are misunderstanding the CARA surveys. They indicate a declining trend in Mass attendance and belief in the Real Presence. Spin away if you want to but you are falsify data and possibly violating the Eighth Commandment.

no. believe me, i know the basics of interpreting statistical data. and its as clear as day that the CARA survey says that those who come to mass regularly believe in the Real Presence. 90% of those who attend every Sunday to be exact. and of course the less frequent one attends, the more obvious happens is that they tend more not to believe in the Real Presence. and that is already a given because they don’t go to mass often, meaning they’re lukewarm at best about their faith

Now I’m promoting hatred? What’s next…Nazi? If your argument has succumb to this level then it’s best to let it go. I’m impressed that you are starting to cite sources but disappointed you can’t strengthen your argument with them.

what else would you call that tirade where you called out EMHCs, RCIA instructors and the like? is that not targeting this people? is that not what hate is all about? you are specifying a group of people who you see as opponents in your own personal viewpoint, while these people serve the Church and you seek to demean what they do?

By the way, the Church doesn’t ‘teach’ CITH. As a catechist, someone who teaches the faith to others you should know this. It makes me worry what else you pass off as Church doctrine.

i can guarantee you that i pass off none of the sedevacantist mentality that you have

 

[Ockham]

A little over half of all Catholics believe in the Real Presence, choy. That’s down significantly from the introduction of CITH forty years ago. You many not care that the majority of Catholics stopped going to Mass but I do.

“Hatred”, “sedevacanist”. It’s clear you don’t have an argument. I have stated mine and stand behind it. If you and Mark don’t want to continue this discussion I’m good with that.

 

[MarkThompson]

If you and Mark don’t want to continue this discussion I’m good with that.

Well, you have to actually continue it, rather than repeating the same single point over and over.

So for instance, if we take these poll results to be true, then it looks like belief in the Real Presence has not fallen among weekly massgoers, just that the rate of weekly massgoers is down and that belief in the Real Presence has fallen among people who don’t go to Mass that often. You seem unwilling to believe that there might be reasons other than CITH (or, for that matter, post VatII liturgical changes) that could have led to a decrease in Mass attendance, and that in turn it is decreased Mass attendance that has caused the decline in belief in the Real Presence. Yet that seems a reasonably plausible explanation, and at least as well correlated with the facts as yours.

Is the problem simply that you don’t have any polls or other sources that deal with these more complex questions, so you don’t think you could get very far off the ground in trying to “prove your case”?

 

[Ockham]

I’ve never said CITH is the only reason people aren’t going to Mass anymore. If asserting that I did is the best counter argument you have then by all means ignore me. If you want to pretend CITH has had no influence on the state of the Church then go ahead and live that fantasy. I look at the numbers and make a different conclusion.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’ve never said CITH is the only reason people aren’t going to Mass anymore. If asserting that I did is the best counter argument you have then by all means ignore me. If you want to pretend CITH has had no influence on the state of the Church then go ahead and live that fantasy. I look at the numbers and make a different conclusion.

Maybe what I wrote was somehow unclear. You didn’t say that CITH led to decreased Mass attendance, you said that CITH caused decreased belief in the Real Presence. (“Pope Paul VI predicted CITH would lead to a decrease in belief in the Real Presence and guess what? There’s been a decrease in the Real Presence belief. If you want to try and spin this into any other causation then you are grasping at straws.”) With that in mind, reread the alternative I’ve offered: that “reasons other than CITH (or, for that matter, post VatII liturgical changes) that could have led to a decrease in Mass attendance, and that in turn it is decreased Mass attendance that has caused the decline in belief in the Real Presence. Yet that seems a reasonably plausible explanation, and at least as well correlated with the facts as yours.”

And, out of curiosity, why so you think that weekly massgoers, who presumably see and experience CITH more often than anyone else, retain such a high rate of belief in the Real Presence?

 

[Ockham]

Mark, you have an uncanny ability to construct arguments out of split hairs.

Yes, I agree that there are probably other factors which contribute to a decrease in Mass attendance these past forty years. However, I maintain CITH is one of them.

As I stated earlier, if you truly believe in the Real Presence, what would keep you from Sunday Mass? That’s why the numbers show 91% of weekly attendees believe. Conversely, if you don’t believe in the Real Presence then you probably don’t see the need to attend Mass weekly.

What CITH, EMHCs, simplified prayers, deleted prayers, loss of the sense of sacredness have all contributed to is a decrease in Catholic’s belief in the Real Presence and then their attendance at weekly Mass.

Pope Paul VI was concerned that CITH would begin a trend of lowering reverence to the Blessed Sacrament and in turn other unwanted things would happen. Based on the numbers do not agree with him?

 

[choy]

A little over half of all Catholics believe in the Real Presence, choy. That’s down significantly from the introduction of CITH forty years ago. You many not care that the majority of Catholics stopped going to Mass but I do.

“Hatred”, “sedevacanist”. It’s clear you don’t have an argument. I have stated mine and stand behind it. If you and Mark don’t want to continue this discussion I’m good with that.

so you’re counting Catholics by name with true devout Catholics? the survey has clearly separated REAL Catholics who are devout with the faith or at least weekly mass goers, and the Catholics by name only who only show up for weddings, funerals and Christmas

and i stand by my “hate” statement about you unless you’re willing to explain why are you associating EMHCs and RCIA instructors to bad things going on in the Church and accusing them of having an agenda

 

[choy]

Pope Paul VI was concerned that CITH would begin a trend of lowering reverence to the Blessed Sacrament and in turn other unwanted things would happen. Based on the numbers do not agree with him?

that doesn’t seem to be the case as many weekly mass goers receive CITH and as the survey shows, 90% of them believe in the Real Presence, which is consistent with pre-V2 numbers (according to CARA)

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I receive communion in the hand. So does my entire Church, as well as my entire Catholic High School. I have yet to meet one person who’s actually Catholic that doesn’t believe in the real presence and frankly see absolutely no connection.

BTW, in case you’re wondering, I receive CITH because I guess you could say I’m a bit germophobic and don’t like the Priest putting his hand so close to my mouth. I have nothing but the highet respect for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and if CITH was for some reason disallowed by the Magisterium I would absolutely get CITM in order to receive the Eucharist.

 

[Ockham]

so you’re counting Catholics by name with true devout Catholics?

Yes, I am because I care about their souls. I see a connection between the ‘spirit of V2’ changes, CITH especially, with a decrease in belief in the Real Presence and Mas attendance.

and i stand by my “hate” statement about you unless you’re willing to explain why are you associating EMHCs and RCIA instructors to bad things going on in the Church and accusing them of having an agenda

That’s your prerogative. EMHCs contribute to the decline in the real presence. I never said anything negative about RCIA although I do think the best person for it is a priest. If you don’t think there is a hidden liberal agenda in the Church then you are terribly nieve. Actually, it’s not that hidden.

I don’t know why you keep debating this subject. Your entire argument is “it’s allowed” and “make your palm a throne”. You don’t want to dig any deeper than that so why bother kicking up more dust?

 

[choy]

Yes, I am because I care about their souls. ***I see ***a connection between the ‘spirit of V2’ changes, CITH especially, with a decrease in belief in the Real Presence and Mas attendance.

that says it all, this is personal opinion

That’s your prerogative. EMHCs contribute to the decline in the real presence. I never said anything negative about RCIA although I do think the best person for it is a priest. If you don’t think there is a hidden liberal agenda in the Church then you are terribly nieve. Actually, it’s not that hidden.

my parish’s RCIA is conducted by our parish priest, but not all priests are academics like him. sometimes a better trained lay person would do the job better. the same way that not every great computer programmer will become an ace computer teacher, or a super star basketball player will become a great basketball coach. besides, this issue goes back to the issue of lack of priests, if there were enough priests to teach and to do other ministries, we wouldn’t be filling their spots with laypeople.

I don’t know why you keep debating this subject. Your entire argument is “it’s allowed” and “make your palm a throne”. You don’t want to dig any deeper than that so why bother kicking up more dust?

i’ve already made various arguments but for the sake of you wanting to win, you keep bringing the same thing over and over. obviously you either are intentionally ignoring my posts and just replying to the few lines you bother to read and react negatively, or anything that doesn’t agree with your viewpoint doesn’t really get through to you no matter what

 

[Ockham]

choy, I see the connection stated. If you don’t then fine. Your argument is nothing more than how I described it. The moderators have stated this is supposed to be a forum for Traditional Catholics. Of course you are free to post here, but at some point your repetitive objection becomes badgering. If you have nothing more substantial to add then please do everyone a favour and move on. I honestly am starting to believe people like you and digger purposely swarm threads like these in order to drone out productive discourse. You are like a vuvuzela at a chess match. If it makes the noise stop I’ll admit defeat: CITH is allowed.

 

[diggerdomer]

For the last time, the Magisterium does not teach CITH. It is approved by indult which could be taken away at any time. The specifics of the indult actually did not apply to the USA so actually it is an abuse. The universal norm of the Church is COTT.

For the not last and umpteenth time, because you have your own definition of the Magisterium that is not coherent with the Catholic Church’s, the Magisterium has approved CITH for the U.S. It is not an indult. And even if it is currently an indult, so what? Indults are also approved only by the Magisterium.

Have you ever read the GIRM approved by the Magisterium for the U.S.? I sense you are not a big fan of the GIRM, which is too bad…it is, after all, what the Catholic Church teaches. What do you read there about CITH? Show me where the Magisterium says it’s not allowed, or is an indult? Or are you arguing that the GIRM is not from the Magisterium? Or not liturgically binding on the Catholic faithful in the U.S.? Please…for once…a straight answer?

The only abuse is those who deny the teaching of the Magisterium.

Did the Catholic Magisterium approve the GIRM for the U.S. (not to mention the universal GIRM, as well as approved adaptations similarly approved for other regions)?

If Catholics in the U.S. are not bound to faithfully follow the GIRM, approved by the Magisterium, can you please share your opinion on what us U.S. Catholics should follow instead?

 

[diggerdomer]

The original indult stated that the requests for CITH were denied. However, in countries were it was already being practiced (i.e. Holland) it may continue with certain conditions. CITH was not being practiced in the USA therefore did not qualifiy for the indult.

Yes, the original indult was 1969, right?

Are you aware of all the subsequent Magisterial teachings and liturgical laws authoritatively promulgated, by the same Magisterium, since then?

You seem stuck in 1969. Or earlier. Catholics live according to the whole Tradition, not just parts.

 

[Layman]

So because it’s allowed, it’s therefore good and should be promoted?

RC Diocese:

Before: COTT, kneeling, from a priest
Now: CITH, standing, from a laywoman.

How does this help us in our quest for santification?

Or are we now more holy, and the Host less so, that we can change to touching it?

Frankly, if we believe that Jesus is present in the Host then it’s weird to change over to this practice. Crazy, in fact.

 

[Ockham]

So because it’s allowed, it’s therefore good and should be promoted?

Exactly.

“It’s allowed!”, “It’s in the GIRM” they say, (for five pages now) but never one word as to how the Church is better off. Was there a sudden increase in conversions, ordinations, attendance, or unity after CITH? In fact the opposite has occured but CITH can’t have anything to do with it, right?

Many popes ruled against it as did Paul VI. It’s history is of liturgical abuse. The indult conditions were ignored and not always fully enforced today.

Perhaps it’s pride. Not feeling it necesary to humble oneself in front of our Lord. To be able to ‘pick Him up in my own hand’. To be able to walk into the Sanctuary and perform priest duties as an EMHC.

This thread has become fillibustered. There are others running on the original topic of V2.

 

[jpy15026]

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

 

[CWBetts]

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

None of these are irreformable.

 

[MarkThompson]

None of these are irreformable.

And the one I recognize immediately, from JPII’s Domenicae Cenae, is so selectively quoted as to look like the opposite of what he was trying to say. Makes you wonder what you’d find if you looked any harder into these quotations than merely cutting and pasting from somewhere.
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.
(Source)