Posted on 01/28/2005 6:54:01 AM PST by Aggie Mama
"Now it's okay for everyone to drink out of the same cup. It's going from one extreme to the other."
Amen. And how do the polls say the overall Faith of Catholics has responded? Are we more reverent? Do we revere Christ more? Do we really believe it him truly and substantially abiding in the Holy Eucharist?
All the polls since this began indicate otherwise. Of course most Catholics don't know and could care less. This is called sacrilege.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. The Priest at my church is definitely an "old school" type of person, so I would have been surprised if he was doing something not "by the book". :)
Regarding "intinction," the U.S. bishops recent "norms" (which ones? there have been so many issued!!!) specifically state that intinction should NOT be used especially if it is intended to reduce or eliminate "extraordinary" ministers of Holy Communion. The U.S. bishops "norms" were again approved by the Vatican even though they specifically rejected many of the "norms" laid out in the GIRM. For more information on the orthodoxy of the GIRM, you can go here. http://www.webspawner.com/users/droleskey/
Christ's Apostles were Bishops. Bishops and priests have ALWAYS received under both species. They have to in order for the Mass to be valid.
The Apostles were PRIESTS. Your argument is the same exact one Protestants used during the revolt in the 16th century. It is exactly the same argument. It denigrates the sacred priesthood.
**Are we more reverent? **
I always received Holy Communion reverently, but after seeing "The Passion of The Christ", my heart just aches as I look up at the crucifix and make the Sign of the Cross after receiving Communion -- my sins are why Christ was crucified.
How fortunate and blessed am I to receive Him into my body under the species of the consecrated bread and wine!
A reverent bow of the head or genuflection is also a part of receiving Communion. I don't know if that has been mentioned.
"The irony is that Vatican II did nothing to harm the Church, but the people who misinterpreted the document "in the spirit of Vatican II" did and the council will be forever scarred by that"
There are some "elements of truth" in your statement. Unfortunately, the very same people who were at Vatican II and ratified it were the ones who came back and implemented it. Are you saying those who wrote and approved and signed the documents didn't implement what they wrote, signed and approved?
No, this is a textbook line from the NeoConservative "reform of the reform" Catholic camp who are anti-traditionalists. I'm not saying you are, but it makes entirely no sense whatsoever.
Will the next generation AFTER the Council better interpret and implement it than those bishops who attended it? Come on...
I was on church council awhile back and the sanitary issue was raised. I made a suggestion and was "shouted down".
I was sincere about using a wine skin. The communion assistant would take aim and give a squeeze. The communicant would just open his/her mouth. Of course, safety glasses would be provided.
I quote the words of the consecration during the third Eucharistic prayer, and you post this about Protestantism???
I disconnected, but maybe I haven't had my third cup of coffe yet.
"I always received Holy Communion reverently"
My question has to do with the overal demeanor of Catholics at Novus Ordo parishes across the country. I am not doubting your particular piety.
The NORM for the universal Church is STILL to receive communion KNEELING and ON THE TONGUE. The U.S. Bishops guidelines, however, have negated that practice. In the U.S., the "norms" are to receive standing, but ON THE TONGUE is still the norm. Receiving in the hand is called an "indult", an exception granted to the norm of law. The universal NORM of the Church is to receive kneeling. I am a Roman Catholic who happens to live in the U.S. I am NOT an American Catholic. I am a Roman Catholic.
There is absolutely no reason the priest cannot administer communion himself. These ministers are supposed to be "extraordinary" and the ordinary use of them in the West was condemned by Rome in 1997. But do you think anyone listened?
Thanks! I've never participated(?) in a Maronite Liturgy ... my comments refer specifically to Melkite-Greek and Ukrainian practice.
My parents have been long gone, but I really don't share a cup which someone else is drinking from. I remember when our kids were young, it would send my wife crazy that when one of the little ones would take a drink from my cup, I'd give them that cup and get myself a new one. However, in the spirit of complete foreclosure, I have, occasionally, taken from my wife's drink.
To be honest, I was a little shocked the first time I saw it. It isn't something that is done at every Mass. I have only seen it happen a couple of times.
This is patent nonsense, and you know it.
Anything to play the fool on a post-Vatican II Catholic thread.
Anyone who does not want to receive the Precious Blood, or in the hand, is free not to.
"Fact of the matter is that Vatican II was an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church and if you're going to write it off as illegitimate, where do you stop? Vatican I? Council of Trent? This is the very same predicament Martin Luther got himself into."
What??? Please re-read my post. Something is not connecting. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Would you like to address the key point and main content of my post or simply accuse me of calling Vatican II illegitimate? Address my post. You are now obfuscating.
I accept Vatican II in light of Tradition as a solemn General Council of the Church and accept its contents primarily as a pastoral Council, as intended and specifically called by Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Paul VI and Pope John XXIII.
Now, would you like to make a public Profession of Faith.
How can the bishops who were at the Council, wrote and approved its documents come back home and implement them incorrectly. The problem is that we have focused TOO MUCH on ONE General Council of the Church to the detriment of the traditional Catholic Faith (which includes 20 other Councils, many of which were failures--Lateran V for one).
The latest GIRM leaves the decision about offering the Cup up to the discretion of the pastor.
Intinction is not permitted in the Latin Rite in the United States.
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.