Vatican II

[Ockham]

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.

Mark I was going to make that point but I knew you wouldn’t miss it.

So that’s one off the list. Is the whole therefore faulty?

 

[MarkThompson]

Mark I was going to make that point but I knew you wouldn’t miss it.

So that’s one off the list. Is the whole therefore faulty?

Not necessarily, of course, but it calls into question what you would find if you reviewed the context (and translation) of the other quotations. Somehow lists like these never come with actual links to the things they’re quoting.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

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

Apostolic Tradition until modern day was always considered untouchable, even if in theory it could have been changed. It is unfortunate that something so important can be brushed away without a second thought by those in authority today (more, accurately, in the 20th century–fortunately, it seems that the Vatican is making a move in the opposite direction slowly but surely).

 

[Genesis315]

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.

Can you provide a cite for the above? This quote and commentary seems to be a misquote and misunderstanding of the following (which defends taking the Eucharist home in persecution and communicating without a priest present–he justifies this by saying Communion is normally received in the hand anyway from a priest in the church). It makes me wonder if the rest of the quotes you cut and pasted are as sloppy.

“It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

 

[CWBetts]

Apostolic Tradition until modern day was always considered untouchable, even if in theory it could have been changed. It is unfortunate that something so important can be brushed away without a second thought by those in authority today (more, accurately, in the 20th century–fortunately, it seems that the Vatican is making a move in the opposite direction slowly but surely).

I will use one of your own arguments: your quote from Trent is not infallible because it is pastoral, rather than dogmatic, in nature. This is talking of practice, not of doctrine. How can I get it through to you that liturgical form is not a matter of infallible doctrine. It has changed over the centuries.

 

[diggerdomer]

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

Not sure who you are replying to, or what “it” means in your comment…but if “it” is something approved by the Church, then yes of course! The Church would not approve something that is not good, would She? And if it’s truly good, then shouldn’t it (whatever you mean by “it”) be promoted?

Or, are you saying perhaps that the Church approves things that are not good?

Thanks for any clarification.

 

[diggerdomer]

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.

What is wrong with people presenting what the Church teaches, i.e. what the Church allows? If you don’t think the Church is better due to what the Church teaches, why not follow your own Church, then?

You seem to know better than the Magisterium. Right?

 

[jeff417]

I began this thread looking for responses to the maxim, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” and how the application of it has changed since Vatican II. It has been quite a while since this thread has been on topic.

 

[diggerdomer]

I began this thread looking for responses to the maxim, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” and how the application of it has changed since Vatican II. It has been quite a while since this thread has been on topic.

I agree. Again, see the Catechism para 846-848.

 

[Layman]

Not sure who you are replying to, or what “it” means in your comment…but if “it” is something approved by the Church, then yes of course! The Church would not approve something that is not good, would She? And if it’s truly good, then shouldn’t it (whatever you mean by “it”) be promoted?

Or, are you saying perhaps that the Church approves things that are not good?

Thanks for any clarification.

By “it”, I mean CITH. One of the arguments for CITH is that it should be allowed because the Church currently allows it. This is bad reasoning. No good reason has been given for changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice.

I’m told CITH is a discipline and that disciplines can change. I’m told it’s an indult, a special permission and that it was only granted to countries where it was already established (illicitly?), like Holland. I do not think it was established in the USA, the UK or Ireland, yet the indult was used as an excuse to introduce this practice.

The Roman Catholic Church has allowed something to be introduced that is not as good as the previous practice. As this is not a matter of faith, dogma or morals and simply a matter of discipline, I think I’m free to disagree with it.
**
I’m waiting for proponents of CITH, standing, from a laywoman to explain how changing an RC Diocese over to this practice helps the faithful in their quest for sanctification.**

 

[Ockham]

I began this thread looking for responses to the maxim, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church” and how the application of it has changed since Vatican II. It has been quite a while since this thread has been on topic.

Sorry about that. I made one comment about ambiguous documents leading to things like CITH and five pages of “it’s approved” broke out.

The new catechism suggests that non-Catholics can find salvation. It too is ambiguous as I read it to mean they have to come to the Church eventually (Purgatory?). That was my point with ambiguity. It brings about personal interpretation; a hallmark of Protestants (and look at the mess they are in).

 

[choy]

I’m waiting for proponents of CITH, standing, from a laywoman to explain how changing an RC Diocese over to this practice helps the faithful in their quest for sanctification.

how about the case for the opposite?
does CITH, EMHCs and standing communions NOT help the faithful in their quest for sanctification?

 

[Layman]

how about the case for the opposite?
does CITH, EMHCs and standing communions NOT help the faithful in their quest for sanctification?

Simple: An opportunity to express humility, chief amongst the virtues, in the presence of Christ The King, in the central rite of our religion, publicly, for all to see, pagan and Christian alike, has been lost.

Also: if before we thought the Host was so special that we laymen weren’t worthy to even touch it, but now Mrs. Goodlady from No. 37 Acacia Crescent can hand it out in front of the sanctuary into the hands of laymen, during our most sacred rite, what message are we sending to Heaven, ourselves, pagans and the faithful?

I see it as simple decadence, mirroring the wider culture.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Simple: An opportunity to express humility, chief amongst the virtues, in the presence of Christ The King, in the central rite of our religion, publicly, for all to see, pagan and Christian alike, has been lost.

I understood a deep bow was considered a sign of humility and respect. While this practice started, I was on kind of a hiatus from the Church. When I got back I would not take CITH until I was taught how to do it properly, including the bow.

Also: if before we thought the Host was so special that we laymen weren’t worthy to even touch it, but now Mrs. Goodlady from No. 37 Acacia Crescent can hand it out in front of the sanctuary into the hands of laymen, during our most sacred rite, what message are we sending to Heaven, ourselves, pagans and the faithful?

The message we are sending into Heaven is the same as it always was, the form of reception doesn’t change that. The message to ourselves is that there is more than one way to accept Communion; the Blessed Sacrament transcends particular methods of distribution. The message to pagans is that externals are not as important as internals, and the message to the faithful – well I included that in “ourselves.”

I see it as simple decadence, mirroring the wider culture.

I understand how you can feel that way but I am sorry that you do, because I don’t see it as destructive.

OP please forgive me for responding to those questions in this thread. I’ll not type another word about CITH in this thread. If more needs to be discussed about it, I will open a new thread rather than reply here.

To get back on the OP topic, when my mother was little she was taught, in no uncertain terms, that anyone who was not Catholic would go to hell. I was never taught that as a young Catholic. If Vatican II helped to clarify this, then I’m all for it because my mother was very anxious a good portion of the time, worried sick that her friends were going to hell.

Alan

 

[Layman]

The mass is all about externals. Otherwise, you could sit at home and send out for an EMHC. It’s a public rite, full of external symbolic actions, dress, fixtures. Otherwise, no Mass.

A deep bow in place of COTT, kneeling? Doesn’t happen in any church I’m familiar with. They don’t even do the ‘make a throne of your palm’, as far as I can recall; the only approving quote available to proponents of CITH.

We need all the help we can get to draw nearer to God. More beauty, more outward reverential acts, not less. The changes post-1955 are one long act of iconoclasm. ‘You don’t need this, you don’t need that’, like a mean-spirited maiden aunt. I propose that a Roman Catholic could safely ignore the lot of them and still be a Catholic in good standing.

How, when many saints were ascetics, does it help people, spiritually, by making things easier for them, to the point of absurdity e.g. 1 hour fast before Communion?

Run, don’t walk, to the nearest TLM and wait out the agony of the Counter-Reformation in relative peace.

 

[choy]

The mass is all about externals.

no its not

 

[Ockham]

how about the case for the opposite?
does CITH, EMHCs and standing communions NOT help the faithful in their quest for sanctification?

Layman asked you a direct question and you answered it with a question. He has since answered your question. The proper thing for you to do now is answer the original question.

 

[choy]

Layman asked you a direct question and you answered it with a question. He has since answered your question. The proper thing for you to do now is answer the original question.

i believe it was him an i in conversation and you are not part of it
how about some manners here

 

[AlanFromWichita]

**
I’m waiting for proponents of CITH, standing, from a laywoman to explain how changing an RC Diocese over to this practice helps the faithful in their quest for sanctification.**

One way is that the homebound can now participate, as our parish has about a dozen lay ministers who can cover many more people than the pastor could hope to.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

i believe it was him an i in conversation and you are not part of it
how about some manners here

Manners? Proper manners dictates not answering a direct question with a question. I’m challenging you to answer the question. This is a public forum, not a private exchange. If you refuse, then the honourable thing would be to withdraw from this thread.