O
otjm
Guest
One incident does not make for a uniform practice. I have been to Mass in North Dakota, Montana, Washington, Oregon and northern California and have never seen COTT denied. and that is by no means one parish per state.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I can’t say I have ever seen anyone denied COTT blatantly then most at an English OF receive in the hand and I don’t know what their real intent is. Are they doing it just to follow what everyone else is doing? I know I always feel very self-conscious when I receive COTT and I don’t think it should be that way. And, please, no lectures on this. 
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
1.- It sits out in the middle and has no altar stone. There is a difference between a table and an altar. Just because it’s called an altar doesn’t mean it is. If I put a cloth over my kitchen table and call it an altar, would you believe it is?
2.- Christ didn’t set up CITH or everyone drinking from the cup. Even when the early Church received CITH they put cloths on their hands but eventually stopped receiving it that way because they realized it was wrong. I would like to see what sources you are using because I don’t know where you got that they’ve been doing CITH for thousands of years when in reality they have done COTT longer. Christ had them drink from the cup because it was an actual meal. At Mass, the people are not supposed to drink from the cup.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
I’m sorry, I wasn’t trying to get you angry. That was only my first post in this thread. Just a few things to point out here.It is an ALTAR, whether you believe it or not, and there is no such thing as an NO parish,we are ONE HOLY, CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, PRACTICING THE ROMAN RITE, WHICH HAS TWO VALID FORMS THE OF AND EF PLEASE, ENOUGH OF THIS ALREADY!!:banghead:
Every Mass I have ever be too has a Eucharistic Minister, all the time- THE PRIEST, what you are talking about is an EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER OF HOLY COMMUNION,
and yes, while this practice is often times abused in the fact of too many EMHC’sare sometimes used, it is still a practice that is allowed by the Church. (And don’t bother asking which one, there is only ONE, and BXVI is her Supreme Pontiff!)
CITH is a valid option! COTT ***CANNOT BE DENIED!!! ***
And finally, ***NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO RECEIVE THE PRECIOUS BLOOD!! IT IS OPTIONAL!!! *** Again the Church (see above) in her wisdom, has said that offering the Eucharist under both species is valid. It does not change the fact that Jesus is FULLY PRESENT IN THE BREAD ALONE.
You are entitled to your opinions, Spiritus Sanctus, as mis-informed as they are. What you should not do is spread misconceptions, half-truths and outright lies. It makes ALL of us look bad!
1.- CITH was considered sacreligious before Vatican II. It was only done for a brief peroid of time in the early days of the Church and then they stopped doing it.
2.- By Eucharistic Ministers I mean lay people. The lay people are not supposed to be giving out Communion.
3.- I’m standing up for what I believe in, not “spreading half-truths and outright lies”. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not trying to come off as being mean or offensive, I apologize for getting you angry, but I am only doing what I am allowed to do. I’m just standing up for what I believe in.
Z
Zacdecat
Guest
Pray and have Faith in the Lord!
O
otjm
Guest
(sigh). You are right, it shouldn’t be that way. In most areas it seems to be nearly “universally” accepted that one recieves CITH. That can be intimidating even if no one makes any mention whatsoever - even by a look. The great majority in my parish receive CITH; when I teach RCIA we go through thoroughly the whole issue and then it is up to them to decide (they are told what an indult is). Almost all choose CITH, but for those who choose COTT, they pretty much stick to it.I can’t say I have ever seen anyone denied COTT blatantly then most at an English OF receive in the hand and I don’t know what their real intent is. Are they doing it just to follow what everyone else is doing? I know I always feel very self-conscious when I receive COTT and I don’t think it should be that way. And, please, no lectures on this.
O
otjm
Guest
That is not true. It was practiced up into the 10th century. Not universally, but certainly within the Roman rite until into the 10th century; and as that is for about 1/2 the life of the Church, it does not qualify for the term “brief”.
It is not that difficult to use the correct term. And since Rome has specifically given permission, you are again wrong. You may not like it, but according to those who make the rules, lay people have permission to do so. You may disagree as to when and how many, but you are not free to disagree as to anyone doing that since Rome made the decision for you.
You may believe in it, but trhat does not make it true. You may not intentionally be spreading half truths, and if you do not know the facts, then mis-statements are not lies (as lying is intentional), but you are most definitely wrong in a number of things you say. Wherever you got your catechesis, it most certainly did not follow what Rome teaches in a number of matters.
C
CAnnElizabeth
Guest
So, let me get this straight.
If we turn the clock back almost 50 years and everyone returns to TLM with all its incumbent rubrics and traditions, THAT will solve all the cultural, moral and theological problems we have?
I think, based on my personal experience, that much of this problem originates from the OF not being introduced with sensitivity and education in many areas – for whatever reason, whether it was from resistance from the Bishops or pastors or just plain ignorance as to how difficult change is for many people.
In the diocese where I lived during this transition, we had great pastors and many younger priests who took the time to educate, train and make changes slowly and with great sensitivity toward those who were unsure and uncomfortable with the differences. As far as I know, there are NO Latin masses celebrated in that diocese today because no one feels a driving need or desire for them.
It seems so simple to me – if you want to attend a Latin Mass, do so – but surely you must realize, as other posters have written, that the OF has become the norm worldwide.
A priest friend, who is also an international scriptural scholar and speaker, assured us at Mass one day that the uproar since VII about the liturgy is nothing compared to that which Pope Gregory endured during the time of his reforms. I really imagined (silly me) that all this turmoil and upset would have been over by now. It’s certainly not an issue where I live now – where we’ve had to build two new churches in two years because of parish growth. There are still overflowing celebrations at every Sat/Sun Mass and a large group at daily Mass – doesn’t sound like people dislike the OF here.
If we turn the clock back almost 50 years and everyone returns to TLM with all its incumbent rubrics and traditions, THAT will solve all the cultural, moral and theological problems we have?
I think, based on my personal experience, that much of this problem originates from the OF not being introduced with sensitivity and education in many areas – for whatever reason, whether it was from resistance from the Bishops or pastors or just plain ignorance as to how difficult change is for many people.
In the diocese where I lived during this transition, we had great pastors and many younger priests who took the time to educate, train and make changes slowly and with great sensitivity toward those who were unsure and uncomfortable with the differences. As far as I know, there are NO Latin masses celebrated in that diocese today because no one feels a driving need or desire for them.
It seems so simple to me – if you want to attend a Latin Mass, do so – but surely you must realize, as other posters have written, that the OF has become the norm worldwide.
A priest friend, who is also an international scriptural scholar and speaker, assured us at Mass one day that the uproar since VII about the liturgy is nothing compared to that which Pope Gregory endured during the time of his reforms. I really imagined (silly me) that all this turmoil and upset would have been over by now. It’s certainly not an issue where I live now – where we’ve had to build two new churches in two years because of parish growth. There are still overflowing celebrations at every Sat/Sun Mass and a large group at daily Mass – doesn’t sound like people dislike the OF here.
P
paperwight
Guest
P
ProVobis
Guest
I have a problem with such statements. While the official line is that we don’t need to receive from the chalice, take communion in the hand, stand when we receive, receive from EMHC, etc., nevertheless the overwhelming majority do receive in that fashion. At least in the English OF’s that I attend. The question facing us then is should we stick out like sore thumbs and risk being publicly humiliated or do we just not rock the boat, so to speak, and go with the flow? I always sense some uneasiness even around those whom I’m in line with. Seems as if somehow the proper spirit of receiving communion has been lost. I find it much different with the communion rail and COTT only at the EF and some OF.
L
Layman
Guest
Here’s an article which states to the contrary re: the history of CITH. I’ve seen it before. Perhaps someone more learned than me can critique it:
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
From memory: I think Cardinal Arinze said “If you believe that Jesus is present in the Host, never mind going down on your knees, why don’t you crawl?”
From another poster on this forum: He was in a Catholic church in a Muslim, who asked:
“Let me see if I understand you correctly: You think that your God is in that little gold box up there?”
“Well, yes”, said the Catholic.
“Then why aren’t you on your knees?” asked the Muslim.
franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html
From memory: I think Cardinal Arinze said “If you believe that Jesus is present in the Host, never mind going down on your knees, why don’t you crawl?”
From another poster on this forum: He was in a Catholic church in a Muslim, who asked:
“Let me see if I understand you correctly: You think that your God is in that little gold box up there?”
“Well, yes”, said the Catholic.
“Then why aren’t you on your knees?” asked the Muslim.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Surely this has to be a rhetorical question. Of course we can’t go back 50 years. No one has managed to reverse the course of entropy and invent a time machine yet. And how do you solve any divergent problem such as you describe, as opposed to a math problem which can be solved once and its solved forever?
I realized that there are very hardened feelings on the matter, but can we CONTINUE the centuries-old TLM and maintain old customs just for their own sake?
O
otjm
Guest
From what observations I have made (and they certainly are not universal), I would hazard a guess that most people are not even going to notice how one receives - either CITH or COTT. On a rare occasion I have asked what people notice. Most of them don’t notice how others are receiving. I understand your feeling, and I am not trying to be dismissive; I just suspect that no one else particularly notices or even really cares that much about what means you use to receive the Host (unless, of course you are speaking with someone who is very much against CITH, at which point you won’t be castigated by them). thaqt is to say, you feelings are real, but not based on what others really think or notice. Just carry on and receive in the format you wish.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Convert that Muslim to Catholicism, quick!
Y
Yggdrasil
Guest
I’ve heard this, too, but I don’t quite know what to make of it. Certainly whatever “uproar” was caused by St. Gregory’s reforms did not include the embarrassing fact that forty years afterwards, another pope had to come along and issue a declaration that the pre-Gregorian rite had never been abrogated—that it was allowed for any priest who preferred it, and that it would be permitted to co-exist with the post-Gregorian Mass as, bizarrely, “two forms of the same rite.” I also don’t know of any schismatic or sedevacantist fraternities that sprouted up based primarily on their disdain for the Gregorian changes.
I guess it all depends on where you are. The Catholic diocese where I live is shuttering several churches every year, and merging (they call it “twinning”) parishes to make up for a priest shortage. Masses are attended regularly by a small but devoted segment of the faithful, while most Catholics go only sporadically. All of this is strictly anecdotal, of course, but I think the situation in my area is more indicative of what is going on nationally, according to the statistics.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t know where to find the precise statistics on it, but if the NO is growing, it is growing in certain vernaculars such as Polish and Spanish, and that’s where you see the larger families too. The number of vernaculars in Chicago alone is over 130. The flight to the suburbs has perhaps caused an imbalance of attendance amongst parishes but I can’t see where overall the English OF is gaining popularity in the U.S.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
1.- Cite your source for how long CITH was used and I’ll cite mine.
2.- The Traditional Rome or modern Rome gave permission? There’s two Romes. Traditional and modern Rome. Today’s Rome is the modern Rome since modernism has invaded the Church.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
C
CradleCath
Guest
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
:banghead:
Dude (or Dudette!),
YOU ARE WRONG!!
There is only one Church and Benedict XVI is her Surpreme Pontiff.
HE MAKES THE RULES!! IF HE ALLOWS IT, IT’S OK!
I mean this with no disrespect and say this out of charity,
please get some help! You are seriously mis-informed.
I would suggest contacting the Adult Education/RCIA programs in your Diocese for some guidance.
Peace be with you on your journey.
I will pray for you.
- Status