B
- Status
G
GangGreen
Guest
So what you’re saying is if a Bishop disagrees with your opinion then it’s just traditionalist propaganda, but yet Brother JR’s opinion is gospel for you? Not only that, but whatever he seems to write is automatically 100% truthful fact regardless of if he backs it up with sources or scripture. Bishop Schneider’s book (which was published by the VATICAN, btw) does plenty of that, but it’s traditionalist propaganda. That makes no sense to me.
There’s plenty out there to show that every single Pope since VII has been against CITH. It’s well known that Pope Paul VI, while he meant well, was not a strong leader. He gave in very easily to his bishops. So when he tried and tried and tried to get these bishops mostly in Northern Europe to stop and they didn’t follow his commands, instead of removing the bishops in these places, he gave in and allowed for an indult. That’s the history whether you feel like believing it or not. Pope Benedict XVI said he doesn’t oppose it in principle, but understands that receiving on the tongue while kneeling more accurately externalizes the reverence necessary for one to receive Christ in the Eucharist. That it puts the exclamation point on the belief of what the Eucharist is. I’ve already clearly pointed out Pope St. John Paul II’s opinion on the matter. Yet, the opinion of the Popes aren’t good enough either I guess.
There’s also plenty of stuff out there to show that many times through history CITH was used by heretics in order to show their belief that the Eucharist was not the BBSD of Christ. This is provable by many sources.
Christ said that we should be like children, yet we do not even let Him feed us, that we have to feed ourselves as a show of our power.
S
Sirach2
Guest
Then I suggest you contact him and straighten out your misinformation. I would trust Brother far more for his orthodoxy and learning, that I would your personal opinion. In effect, you are more or less doubting his word as being true. What does that make you? Simply someone who is able to express his own views, whether or not they are accurate?
It is calumny to impute disobedience to the Bishops when you do not know the facts - only what bloggers have told you. Have you asked those bishops? Is there a ruling from the Vatican labeling them disobedient and applying a disciplinary action? You know nothing for certain, Brendan, and you are treading on dangerous water here.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
My point is that to act before the indult was granted was to act without proper permission from Rome. If no indult was needed then why were indults granted, and why are indults still required to before a bishop may introduce Communion in the hand?
So do you still accuse me of lying and calumny?
S
Sirach2
Guest
Mama taught me never to argue with a stubborn man. If you want the answer, contact Brother Jay, who has much more knowledge than you or I. For my money, I’m betting on Brother!
O
otjm
Guest
You need to qualify that; the best book “by those who are against CITH” would be a more factual statement. Neither of them speak for the Church; it is their own personal opinion.
O
otjm
Guest
Your question is a bit along the lines of the issue of the abrogation, or lack of abrogation, of the EF after Paul VI introduced the OF.
It was nearly universally held that the EF was abrogated, and yet no one did the research to determine that until Benedict XVI had the research done. Oh. No abrogation.
The fact that an indult was granted is not proof that an indult had to be granted; it is only proof that it in fact was granted.
The proof that it had to be granted is the showing of a rule that clearly prohibited CITH. Perhaps, since you are so insistent that the bishops were disobedient, you can state the rule including its proper citation, saying such.
On another issue, you are both right and wrong. Yes, the authority of the Pope has universal, full, immediate and supreme power; but what you don’t say is that the Pope does not micromanage the Church; and does not have a rule for every possible issue that may come up liturgically. The rules which a bishop does not have liturgical authority over are fairly clearly set out; and where the bishops have authority, that too is spelled out clearly. But presuming that answers all questions is presuming that we have far more regulations than actually exist.
I spoke about the Franciscans’ permission to make a point; apparently, from the garbled response you made to Pro Vobis’ response to me, you didn’t get it so I will spell it out.
In Europe, it was most likely not a tremendous secret that the Franciscans received CITH; after all, it had been going on for about 700 to 750 years. Not each and every bishop - in fact a goodly number of them - are not experts in all matters of the Church. I certainly would not go into shock if I were to find that a) bishops knew of the Franciscan practice; b) some priests requested permission to do so, and c) the bishops granted it, on an assumption that it was not forbidden (the point you seem to be making without a citation), based on the 700+ years of the Franciscan practice. Factually, it was permitted; and was not a recent innovation as it had been going on since the 1200’s.
Disobedience is a strong charge. As Brother JR has said, it appears the only people using the term are traditionalists, and none of them ever cite anything to back the statement up. This is an issue that elicits strong opinions among traditionalists, opinions so strong that they make statements like “grabbing it and popping it in their mouth”.
In all the years I have seen CITH, I have never, ever seen anyone grab a Host; nor have I ever seen anything that would fit the term “popping it in their mouth”. Never. The whole tenor of such statements reeks of “I’m holy and all of them are profaning the Eucharist”. It may well be that it occurs in some areas; and if it does, it is a matter of catechesis. And if the person receiving is not catechized, whose fault is that - theirs, or the number of priests before that day who had multiple opportunities to do so and didn’t?
So I invite you to cite the rule that the bishops disobeyed, which would at least be intellectually more honest than simply parroting the same statement; that would at least get us to the technical stage. From there, we would still have to show fault, which is to say, we would have to show that they were even aware of the rule cited. Assuming for the moment that you will cite the rule, a broad statement of “disobedience” has the underlying element of knowledge. If there was know knowledge, then the most that could be said was the bishops were in error - statement that is far more charitable than a charge which has a component of willfulness.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That depends on how one sees it.
My godfather, for example, taught me (maybe it was back in the U.K., I don’t remember) never to extend my hands unless someone is in the act of actually handing something to me. Maybe it’s a Polish cultural thing, I don’t know, but I do see a lot of cases where others seemingly don’t quite have that same view of etiquette, and it’s more than just CITH.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Once again – even if true, what does that have to do with receiving in the hand now?
It’s like complaining that people used to drive 70 on the freeway when the speed limit was 60. It’s 70 now, so what’s the point of bringing this up over and over and over again to people who drive 70 there now?
S
Sirach2
Guest
I commend you for your excellent post!I agree that I have never seen anyone “grab” a host out of the priest’s or EMHC’s hand; it seems to me the minister wold never distribute unless they saw the open “throne” of their hands first. This is similar to the isolated clown mass that has been cited ad nauseum as though it were the norm. Vicious attacks from traditional holier than thou’s.
Even if the poster cites the alleged broken “rule,” how does he prove interior intent, motive, willful knowledge? The persistence in labeling bishops as disobedient smacks of rash judgment, which is a far worse offense in God’s eyes than those who they charge. It reminds me of the scripture where they all ashamedly walked away when Jesus wrote in the sand … let him who is without sin …
I would love to have you for my lawyer!!! :yup:
A
AlexV
Guest
Curious that traditionalists…and in a traditional forum…can be derided repeatedly as, e.g., “holier than thous”…and that’s apparently just fine…but one imagines the same sort of thing would not be welcome in reverse…denunciations of lack of charity would abound. Curious indeed.
S
Sirach2
Guest
If the shoe fits…
P
ProVobis
Guest
So if what was done in the ancient church or in a 12th century monastery, it’s okay to bring up, but if something in the 40’s and 50’s is brought up, it must be a traditionalist who brings up that era?
A
AlexV
Guest
An excellent question, ProVobis.
O
OraLabora
Guest
One must be careful to distinguish between tradition, and nostalgia. And when looking at tradition, one needs to consider that the Church is universal, but not uniform, thus there are numerous valid traditions that either still exist (e.g. monasteries) or that have been lost in the mists of time.So if what was done in the ancient church or in a 12th century monastery, it’s okay to bring up, but if something in the 40’s and 50’s is brought up, it must be a traditionalist who brings up that era?
It doesn’t invalidate though, what was done in the 40s and 50s but is it really any more tradition than what was done in the 60s or 70s?
I love old steam trains. The true “tradition” in North American railways is that most were standard gauge (4 ft, 8-1/2 inches). A few were narrow gauge (mostly 3ft) and constitute a valid but minor “tradition” that is preserved mostly for historical and tourist purposes (in Colorado mostly). A few steam engines were also preserved for tourist purposes.
But now railways, since the early 60s run with diesel and electric locomotives, and though I’m nostalgic for old steam engines, one has to recognize that the steam era has passed. Diesels have also now been around long enough that many are museum pieces in their own right. At first almost all railway enthusiasts hated them, but now more than a few of them love some of the colorful diesels of the 50s and later.
The OF Mass is a bit the same, it was a shock at first but over time, many appreciate some of its qualities and differences when they really take the time to consider where it came from and how it was developed (how it is celebrated in different places is another issue). And for some, the vernacular does make it more accessible to them and better fuels their spirituality. But it doesn’t mean it’s bad to be nostalgic about another era and doesn’t detract from the validity of the EF Mass or its inherent aesthetics, just like a steam engine that is well-maintained can still pull a train at 100 mph but it’s unrealistic to expect all trains to be run by steam engines today, the cost would be overwhelming.
I don’t want to insinuate that the EF is a “museum piece”; there are greater theological and pastoral reasons than that to preserve it. My poor analogy was to illustrate how people adapt (or fail to adapt) to change and become nostalgic for an allegedly superior lost era. The 21st century is not 1950 and the Church is no longer Euro-centric, but truly global. What happened at a Catholic Mass in 1948 in our local parish is bound to be different than what happens in a new parish in Africa, or Asia.
P
ProVobis
Guest
By the same token, what happened in a 1948 Catholic Mass in the U.S. probably happened the same in a 1948 Catholic Mass in Africa or Asia. We tend to forget that practices allowed in the U.S. NOW are not necessarily allowed in Africa or Asia and vice versa. Heck, some Americans can’t even accept the Spanish culture (music, language, percentage who don’t receive, etc.) within their own parishes. And vice versa. Maybe these parishes should welcome all the traditionalists as they can find.
I like your train analogy, btw. Europe is still big on them, last I heard.
S
Sirach2
Guest
May I take your analogy a step further, more in line with what I observe today?
If the nostalgic folks who love steam engines begin to cast aspersions on the new diesels, rather than quietly maintain their preference, that’s where I would say their nostalgia has turned to rancor and is divisive, having no positive advantage other than to incur enmity.
S
simple_soul
Guest
From what I have observed on these numerous threads is that when those who want COTT exclusively bring up how we should do away with CITH and go back to COTT only and start grabbing from the past to back themselves up then those who take CITH try to follow there example by trying to show them that they can reach into the past to defend themselves. Then this whole cycle of cat-and-mouse argument starts up.So if what was done in the ancient church or in a 12th century monastery, it’s okay to bring up, but if something in the 40’s and 50’s is brought up, it must be a traditionalist who brings up that era?
It’s like the saying round and round we go, where or when it’s going to stop, only God knows!
And yes I can safely say that it is those advocating for COTT only that seem to instigate these kind of threads. Seemingly to only or purposefully trying to entrap others in some kind of miss-spoken word or two and then try to use it to try and prove how wrong or irreverent CITH is. To me if those who want everyone to stop CITH would stop trying to prove to others that COTT is more reverent … It would help themselves and others to have more time to just contemplate the Mysteries of God verses spending it all in defending or attacking each other’s integrity.
Anyways it’s just an observation… Maybe just some more food for thought
A
AlexV
Guest
Yeah, because calling peole “holier than thous” would never be an instance of divisiveness.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Maybe, but in this case it wasn’t the OP. Just sayin…
- Status