|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/19/2013 5:52:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
Skip to comments.Catholic Evangelization and the Role of the “Eucharist” in This End-Time Deception
Posted on 10/18/2013 11:50:16 PM PDT by jodyel
For those who are not aware of the Catholic Churchs New Evangelization program, let me provide a brief overview. The Catholic Church plans to establish the kingdom of God on earth and win the world to the Catholic Jesus (i.e., the Eucharistic Christ). This will be accomplished when the world (including the separated brethren) comes under the rule and reign of Rome and this Eucharistic Jesus.
The Eucharistic Jesus is supposedly Christs presence that a Catholic priest summons through the power of transubstantiation, the focal point of the Mass. Many Christians believe the Christian tradition of communion is the same as the Catholic tradition of the Eucharist. But this is not so. The Eucharist (i.e., transubstantiation) is a Catholic term for communion when the bread and the wine are said to be transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Catechism states:
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.1
The host is then placed in what is called a monstrance and can then be worshiped as if worshiping Jesus Himself. The implications are tied directly to salvation itself. With the Eucharist, salvation becomes sacramental (participation in a ritual) as opposed to justification by faith in Christ alone, described in Galatians 2:16. While this mystical experience is a form of idolatry (as well as the very heart of Catholicism), there is a growing interest by evangelical Christians in this practice, particularly by the emerging church.
The Catholic Church leadership, concerned with apathy for the Eucharist within the Catholic ranks, is hoping to rekindle the amazement2 of the Eucharist through what is called their New Evangelization program.3 With a two-fold purposeto keep present Catholics and to bring evangelicals into the Catholic Churchchurch leadership has a plan to re-emphasize the Eucharist as the focus of the Catholic faith. By saying rekindle the amazement, they mean bring out the mystical, supernatural element of the Eucharist.
All Catholics are expected to worship the host (Eucharistic Adoration of the transformed wafer), and church leadership says it is anathema (to be accursed) to reject this teaching.
While it is true that during the Reformation and Counter Reformation, many who refused to believe in transubstantiation were tortured and executed for their faith in the Gospel, time has a way of forgetting the facts of history.
In April of 2003, the pope wrote an encyclical promoting the New Evangelization program for the purpose of rekindling amazement for the Eucharist.4 Then in October of 2004, John Paul II initiated The Year of the Eucharist as part of his evangelistic plan to bring the world to the Eucharistic Christ. Following his death in April of 2005, Pope Benedict XVI picked up Pope John Pauls mission immediately. He called the faithful to intensify devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus, and said the Eucharist is the heart of Christian life.5
The New Evangelization program plans to revitalize the Catholic faith by reigniting strong interest in the Eucharistic Jesus. It is not just the pope who is enthusiastic about thiscardinals, bishops, and priests all over the world are joining in to help with the mission. Something very significant is happening. Eucharistic adoration is becoming the foundation for the new evangelization of the Catholic Church.
In speaking of the popes view on the Eucharist, Protestant-turned Catholic Scott Hahn states:
The coming of Jesus Christ what the Greek New Testament calls his parousia is not simply some far-off event. It is his presence in the Eucharist. Fundamentalists reduce the meaning of parousia to Christs coming at the end of time; but for the first century Greek speakers the word meant presence. Catholic theology holds on to that original meaning.6
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the Second Coming Catholic style. Unfortunately, many evangelical Protestants are not even aware of this.
While Eucharistic adoration contradicts biblical Christianity, a growing number of popular evangelicals (especially those leaning toward emerging spiritualities) seem to find no offense in such a doctrine. And with the increased acceptance of mysticism and an attraction to imagery within evangelical circles, it only makes sense that many evangelical Christians find nothing wrong with the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. Such acceptance, however, is neutralizing former evangelical resistance to all things Catholic.
In Doug Pagitts book Church Re-imagined, he describes his initial attraction to rituals associated with the Eucharist:
The first day of Lent this year brought the first Ash Wednesday gathering in our churchs history and in mine . Until this point, Ash Wednesday had not been part of my Christian faith experience. Not only had I never applied ashes to anyones forehead, but I had also never had them applied to mine. After this experience I wondered how I could have celebrated 19 Easters as a Christian without this tremendous experience.7
Scot McKnight, another emerging church influencer and the author of The Real Mary and The Jesus Creed, in referring to an Anglican service, McKnight speaks of the Eucharistic focus. He states:
[T]he point of an Anglican gathering on a Sunday morning is not to hear a sermon but to worship the Lord through the celebration of the Eucharist First some scripture readings and then the sermon and then some announcements and then the Eucharist liturgywith everyone coming forward to kneel and participateâpubliclyin the body and blood.8
McKnight says that the Eucharist profoundly enables the grace of God to be received with all its glories and blessings.9 No doubt, McKnight will have an impact on those in the emerging church movement, and his views on the Eucharist will rub off. He has been a popular speaker at many events including Willow Creeks Small Group Conference and the National Pastors Convention. Both of these events have reached the postmodern generation.
The late Robert Webber was very influential in closing the gap between Eucharistic adoration and the evangelical church. A document he authored called A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future states: We call for a renewed consideration of how God ministers to us in Eucharist.10 Two well-known evangelical publishers, Baker Books and InterVarsity Press (both of which now publish emerging church authors) sponsored the document as did Christianity Today. The AEF, which the document is called, is endorsed by various emerging church leaders such as Brian McLaren who calls it a preaching resource that emphasize[s] the importance of Advent or Lent.11
Participants of the AEF include numerous Christian seminaries like Bethel Seminary in Minnesota, Dallas Theological Seminary, and pastors from many different denominations including Nazarene, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Reformed, and Baptist.
To those who traditionally havent had much ritual in their lives (i.e., Protestants), the ambience of the Mass would have great appeal because of its religious novelty thus the interest in the Eucharist by those who promote contemplative spirituality. And for many Catholics, the Mass (where the Eucharist is presented), in, and of itself, is not a mystical experience. However if the contemplative dimension is added, one actually can enter the mystical realm. On the surface, this phenomenon seems complex, but once we begin to understand mysticism, it all makes sense. Within the contemplative prayer realm, the meditator is actually getting in touch with a spiritual power or force. Combining the tradition of the Eucharist, which appeals to many raised in the Catholic Church, with the relatively recent explosion of contemplative practice, the Catholic Church sees this as a way to recover its robust state of previous decades.
Right now, some may be asking, is the physical presence of Jesus held inside the elements of the Eucharist? Or as some evangelicals and emergents have suggested, is there a special presence and power in the Eucharist? The answer to both is a resounding no! Jesus Christ indwells the heart of every person who is born again and who belongs to Him by faith through grace. He promises never to leave or forsake us, meaning that His presence is in our lives at all times. We are not required to partake in a ritual to experience His presence, nor is He confined in benign, lifeless wafers and wine (or juice). As Jesus said:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit [spiritual as opposed to physical], and they are life. (John 6:63, emphasis added)
Jesus said this in response to his disciples confusion over His statement my flesh is meat indeed (vs. 55). Paul adds further clarity in writing to the Romans that all we need to do is call upon the true Jesus, and He is there:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)
At this point, we see the great chasm that separates Catholicism from the light of the Gospel a light the reformers saw, for which many of them gave their lives. They recognized that participation in the sacraments is not what saves people.
The Catholics New Evangelization is no small issue. Darkness has fallen over the Christian church the same way an avalanche sweeps down a mountain. Every day new unsuspecting victims are being swept away and buried. And the role the emerging church plays in bringing this about is something that should alarm every discerning Christian.
To read more about the emerging church, read Roger Oaklands expose, Faith Undone.
WUERL: A new morning with Pope Francis
Notes: 1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1374, page 383.6 2. H. J. Schroeder, The Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978), page 79, Canon 1. 3. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The New Evangelization (http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm). 4. Zenit: The World Seen From Rome, Why the Pope Would Write an Encyclical on the Eucharist: To Rekindle Amazement, cited April 17, 2003, http://www.zenit.org. 5. Pope Benedict calls on faithful to intensify devotion to Eucharistic Jesus, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3686. 6. Interview with Scott Hahn, Eucharist in the Pontificate of Benedict XVI (Pontifications, June 12, 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20070209234229/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=940). 7. Doug Pagitt, Church Re-Imagined, p. 103. 8. Scot McKnight, An Anglican Service (Jesus Creed blog, http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2258 link no longer online). 9. Scot McKnight, Turning to Jesus, (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 2002 edition), p. 7. 10. Robert Webber, A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future (Online at: http://www.aefcall.org/read.html. 11. Brian McLaren, The AEF Document as a Preaching Resource (From the AEF Call website: http://www.aefcall.org/documents/TheAEFDocumentasaPreachingResource_000.doc).
Obviously, you missed the point.
Were you being sarcastic? If so my appologies. I’m off my game lately.
***In the year 2000, we learned that a mantra-style meditation coupled with a mystical spirituality had been introduced to the evangelical,***
I remember reading back in the late 1960s of some Liberal seminary students being given LSD while reading the Bible to “enhance” their “understanding” of the Bible.
I don’t think it worked to enhance it as I see what the Lib churches have become.
No where in any of the accounts of the Last Supper does it say that Jesus ate or drank what He gave the Apostles.
By what definition do you make such an absurd claim?
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. [John 6: 49-71]
As far as that "insult them-- but pray for them" biz goes, it can be a two-way street (more than one party or individual doing the same or similar enough) leaving either or both guilty of some hypocrisy.
Since there is that element to it, you were in part correct in saying the point was moot, but in my view, only half-way to "moot", since being in disagreement or having taken offense at what another says, does not justify going for the "getting personal" route, then saying "oh, but I.." (you know, me, the guy who just insulted you, but is somehow super-spiritual and "righteous" nonetheless and God will really really listen to me no matter how much a hypocrite I may be-- yeah, that guy) "...will be praying for you" (isn't that special?). Lot's of sarcasm in that last, but none of it aimed at you personally...
So as far as that goes, it should be I that apologizes to you. I do thank you kindly for your consideration.
As to the point being fully moot however, most of what I did was just return the choice of words to see how well they fit, and if they were comfortable, doing so for as much for blandly generic-like demonstration of the principles involved hoping to get the message across -- maybe don't do it or say it *quite* like that, rather than offering my comment as more personalized critique or judgement. Discussing the message, and the form of it, rather than the messenger...
If it were to be hard and fast irrevocable judgment (rather than just instructional) then there is enough rope laying around to hang most of us, myself included.
Another poignant use of Perpetual Adoration is as perhaps the premiere alternative to the mass media's monopoly of our time and manipulation of our minds, especially through television and personal computers. When exploring this subject on his popular EWTN show, Life on the Rock, host Jeff Cavins talked about how many people (Catholics included) sit in front of a TV and/or computer several hours a day. First, the proliferation of stations due to cable and satellite dishes increases our television choices making it harder to turn the set off. Secondly, the use of remote control allows us to watch (if not comprehend) several shows at one time. Our mind is literally flooded with images until the shows practically overwhelm our senses and our ability to find any goodness or truth or beauty in what we are viewing. Similarly, browsing endless websites, entering random chat rooms, or spending hours on computer games can eventually lead us to deny the necessity to bear witness in the real world, if not the belief of His Real Presence in it.Tom intereviewed Frs. Fanelli and Lane in the late 90s, and whereby Fr. Fanelli started up the first Adoration Chapel in Cook County, Chicago, in 1986, there are now over 200. I've spent many hours in Adoration throughout the years, myself, and if I'm not filled with the Holy Spirit while there, I don't know what it is that makes me more tolerant and patient (after I leave), if only for a few hours or days. In other words, there's a discernible difference [a peace] in one's attitude after spending time with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. It's undeniable, and can only be experienced (or understood) by one who attends, with the belief that Christ is Truly present. http://www.therealpresence.org/chap_fr.htm
By contrast, the eyes of a soul who often looks upon the Lord in the Blessed Sacrament see not random images, but a single Light. Unlike television viewing, where the TV dominates the exchange, in Eucharistic Adoration there is constant communication, the Lord listening as the soul speaks, then the soul listening as the Lord responds. And while many agnostic computer experts dream of capturing time and space by literally plugging us (complete with tiny microchips in our foreheads) into the "Net," Fr. Hardon in his article "Prayer Before the Blessed Sacrament," explains that "The prayer before the Eucharist believes that time is erased by the miracle of the Real Presence, and so is distance and space." Computer technology may lead you to believe that through the information highway man can someday conquer the world, but faith in Christ's Death and Resurrection, strengthened by belief in the Real Presence convinces us that Christ already has. --Tom O'Toole
In an ontological sense, yes they do. Certainly God can do as He pleases and we should expect to be surprised by His miracles. But we know we have seen a miracle why? Because it falls within the precedent of what a miracle *is.* All of the miracles in Scripture, from front to back, that involve God's intervention in the material world, are discernible to the observers by physical inspection. The alleged Eucharistic miracle would be the sole exception.
So one must ask, why do miracles occur at all? Why does God do them? Because they testify of Him. They show His power. They are, in the final analysis, a form of communication, certifying to us that God is real, and is the absolute sovereign ruler of all things, and is intimately concerned with us personally. A supposed miracle that does none of these things fails in its central reason for being. It falls short of what all other true miracles have been.
Now some may object that some miracles are spiritual in nature, and I would agree, taking for example the miracle of being born again by an act of God, being carried from spiritual death to spiritual life. But even those miracles change the life of the recipient in obvious, discernible ways. The demoniac encounters Jesus and goes from being a chain-breaking wild man to a calm and thoughtful disciple of Christ. This change was so discernible it frightened the community into asking Jesus to leave. They were terrified of such obvious, visible power.
So again, even the so-called purely spiritual miracles are of the same precedent. They testify in some discernible way to the power of God, as a witness of God to the people of God, and even to the unbelieving.
Either way then, whether physically or spiritually, the alleged transubstantiation event fails the definition of what a miracle is. Rather, as it appears from it's very late appearance, transubstantiation seems more akin to a telling the emperor he has clothes, only he cannot discern them in any way, so he must trust the tailor at all costs, even if he must defy his own God-given sensory apparatus in the process. By which the tailor gains spiritual power over the poor naked emperor.
This is all such a far cry from the simplicity of the Gospel, which Christ said was accessible to even a child, and I would dare say I know of no children who could at all grasp Aquinas' inversion of substance and accidence to arrive at transubstantiation (let alone most adult readers here), but I can name you several children who can grasp what it means that they were sinners for whom Jesus died, and who have no trouble understanding His love for them through a regular and reverent remembrance of His sacrifice for them.
I think that sometimes Communion is still given "in one kind," as they say, under certain conditions: celiac disease, esophageal cancer (communicant can't swallow/digest the wheat Host); alcoholism (communicant wishes to avoid Consecrated Wine); or sometimes just the Sacred Host if there are large crowds e.g. at a World Youth Day with a couple million people.
Latin Masses also do not offer the Chalice to the laity for communion,
Was the Mass you attended in Latin?
So you keep Jesus in the Catholic churches...And apparently Jesus can't leave your churches, either because he is restrained, or he just doesn't want to leave...
One must go to a Catholic church to experience Jesus...
Thank God real Christians have the words of God to guide us and keep us from falling into the trap that is the Catholic religion...
And you have to have a light on to let people know that Jesus is in...Oh brother!!! A religion built on so many lies...
Mat_18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Can someone imagine, a couple of Christians praying together out on someone's front porch with a candle burning nearby??? Well it wouldn't happen since Jesus can't leave the Catholic church...
What are all the links for??? You can’t just summarize what they say???
How do you consider us fellow Christians when we don't eat Jesus??? And we wouldn't if we could...
Christianity was anonymous in its understanding of the Real Presence until the Protestant Revolt. If Christianity was wrong prior to the 1500s in understanding the Real Presence, then Christ lied when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church to all Truth and protect His Church from all error, and all Christians believe in vain.
No, this denial of the Real Presence and posts that repeat it are simply demonic. Those posting them deserve our pity and our prayers.
What i said was the substance of bread and wine is said to be "really" changed, though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, which is contrary to the miracles which the Lord and His followers did. For in miracles in which a physical change took place then it was manifest, so that water that became wine tasted like wine, and those who were healed actually were changed, and not being different persons with no actual or manifest changes.
In contrast to the claims for transubstantiation, God was not transubstantiated, but incarnated, with the body God the Father had prepared for Him, (Heb. 10:3) so that He "took on him the seed of Abraham," " and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2:7, but by the body of someone else being transubstantiated into God.
While both the incarnation of the Lord and in regeneration then there is a spiritual reality that physically is not evident, except in its expressions, this is not the same as transubstantiation, in which physical elements are said to undergo a actual change of substance so that they are actually said to be something else, and your own church does not see the incarnation as the same as transubstantiation.
See the link on the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano posted above.
If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?
And if so one would think that the Vatican would have DNA testing carried out on the tissue to trace the genetic origins of the person, and thus silence skeptics and bloester RC faith, rather than use some obscure poorly documented Italian medieval story.
Be back later.
If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?
Is it fitting that Christ's Body and Blood become present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine?Eucharistic Miracles
Yes, for this way of being present corresponds perfectly to the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ gives himself to us in a form that employs the symbolism inherent in eating bread and drinking wine. Furthermore, being present under the appearances of bread and wine, Christ gives himself to us in a form that is appropriate for human eating and drinking. Also, this kind of presence corresponds to the virtue of faith, for the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be detected or discerned by any way other than faith. That is why St. Bonaventure affirmed: "There is no difficulty over Christ's being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious" (In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).
Are the consecrated bread and wine "merely symbols"?
In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of ChristBy no means!but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: This is my body'; not a foreshadowing of my body' but my body,' and not a foreshadowing of my blood' but my blood'" (The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).
At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form. We cannot presume to know all the reasons behind God's actions. God uses, however, the symbolism inherent in the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the natural level to illuminate the meaning of what is being accomplished in the Eucharist through Jesus Christ.
There are various ways in which the symbolism of eating bread and drinking wine discloses the meaning of the Eucharist. For example, just as natural food gives nourishment to the body, so the eucharistic food gives spiritual nourishment. Furthermore, the sharing of an ordinary meal establishes a certain communion among the people who share it; in the Eucharist, the People of God share a meal that brings them into communion not only with each other but with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, as St. Paul tells us, the single loaf that is shared among many during the eucharistic meal is an indication of the unity of those who have been called together by the Holy Spirit as one body, the Body of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). To take another example, the individual grains of wheat and individual grapes have to be harvested and to undergo a process of grinding or crushing before they are unified as bread and as wine. Because of this, bread and wine point to both the union of the many that takes place in the Body of Christ and the suffering undergone by Christ, a suffering that must also be embraced by his disciples. Much more could be said about the many ways in which the eating of bread and drinking of wine symbolize what God does for us through Christ, since symbols carry multiple meanings and connotations. --http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php
Perhaps posting of some of that might stimulate some interesting discussion. The current thread will surely be the same old, same old that has been gone over ad nauseum, ad infinitum
Nah...They haven't gone off the rails...John MacArthur quoted a true, accurate statement from a fella who happened to have differing views about another topic over 20 years ago...
And Charles Stanley is as main stream non-New Age as they get...
What it amounts to is these relatively famous people quoted statements or phrases by people who had other beliefs as well...It would be like me quoting something Obama said that had nothing to do with why I dislike the guy...
For example, if Obama said 'another recession is heading this way', I could quote that without people thinking I supported Obama...
And these famous preachers have many staff people who handle most everthing and likely were not even aware of the full beliefs of those they quoted...
It however may be a fun story for you to post...
Aww c'mon...You searched the site high and low to find something negative about the source but you couldn't find it...So now you resort to THAT???
“...I noticed they were only distributing the host to communicants, without offering the cup to drink from as well. When did that become practice?”
It was first commonly shared up until the High Middle Ages. Because of cost, worries about spilling the cup, and heretical groups like the Hussites, the practice ceased in the Late Middle Ages. It was revived experimentally in the 1950s in Europe if I am not mistaken. It became common in the U.S. in the 1970s with the permission of the Vatican (because such a practice is not explicitly seen in the rubrics of the Mass). That permission was believed by some to have ended in 2010. One diocese - Phoenix - tried to restrict the sharing of the cup (as would have been proper since the permission was believed to have expired), but the bishop (a good bishop, Bishop Olmstead) has apparently waffled on that because of the outcry from Mass goers: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/11/20111111phoenix-bishop-reverses-ruling-wine-communion.html Apparently the permission was about a related matter and not the actual sharing of the cup. The sharing of the cup can only happen at the “new” liturgies: i.e. the new Mass since Vatican II and the Anglican Use Mass. It CAN NEVER happen at the old Latin Mass from before Vatican II.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.