No. gender-neutral language is fine in spots where it makes sense. It’s wrong when speaking of God or in other situations where it’s clear that the intent is for the male pronoun.
He is of course the priest at mass. Just as I am one of the laity at mass. He does certainly preside at mas. In fact, the conservative diocese of Arlington, uses the exact word when describing the mass and I asked about it and the PV said that it was in fact the more correct term.
I am not sure I agree here. Paul wrote letters to Churches in different places, Probably the letter would have been intended for Church leadership. None of which were females. then you have the whole issue of when adressing a group of people in that time no one included women. Not even the political leaders. “Countrymen… Blah blah blah.” Women were probably expected to follow the direction of leading men. In today’s time I think it quite prudent to address brothers and sisters. But to imply that it is somehow the Word of God is probably disingenuous. Someone for the love of Pete, find what the original language of Pauls letters say.
To make clear: While reception in the hand may be common, it is not the norm. Reception on the tongue is the norm, and reception in the hand is an indult.
emphasis:twocents: I would hope that if anyone would present himself to the holy father, wishing to receive in the hand, his holiness would honor his choice (or do the right thing and withdraw the indulgence from the Vatican City State and/or Diocese of Rome) :twocents:
I don’t disagree with this statement but I would rather turn it around. I would hope that a Catholic knowing the wish of the Holy Father to recieve from him kneeling and on the tounge (I think a direct product of the WYD fiasco last year) would in fact honor that prefverence by the Vicar of Christ. OTOH I would be ironic to see Pelosi kneeling out of the Pope’s preference.
Ask and ye shall receive: St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians and his letter to the Colossians uses the word adelfoi, which is translated “brethren” or “brothers”. [The NAB, which has been previously mentioned in this thread, has “brothers”].
Sadly, CITH has become the norm in many places in the world. My wife is an elementary Catholic school teacher and when they are preparing the children for their First Communion, CITH is the only way they instruct. When I questioned her on this she was oblivious to actual Church instruction and sincerely believed CITH is the standard way of receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Up until very recently I wouldn’t have thought any different. This is why I firmly believe we need to react to liturgical abuses immediately and decisively lest they fester into our standard method of worship and belief.
Poor catechisis does not make an indult a norm (though it may cause it to proliferate).
Would it not be better to correct the catechesis?
Sounds to me, you are simply a good Catholic.
I have been doing this for quite a while and I have done that research. I would suggest that you do the same. The Church says that I may recieve in the hand. Who are you to tell me otherwise?
Paw? What makes you make such a slanderous comment? I recieve my Lord just as many if not most Christians did for about 1000 years following Christ. I receive Him in my hand at least as reverently as you do on your un-consecrated tongue.
Not so according to my research. Check the links I provided you.
You may like to believe this is true since it conforms to your own bias, but according to a poll done by CARA in 2008 it is not true.
http://cara.georgetown.edu/sacraments.html
Also, we do not know the numbers in this poll. If 90 some percent of Weekly Mass attendace Catholics believe but there were only 100 of them and there were 1000 of those who maybe go once a month or oncve a year it would affect the actual numbers you are trying to refute. LOL you may look at this poll inacurately because it confirms YOUR bias. That would be hypocritical. And as you pointed out it does not take into account non practicing. which by all sacramental accounts are STILL Catholics. I would say the original statement is probably spot on.
Did you go to the link I provided and read the page? My bias is aganinst those who throw out blanket statements will-nilly without any factual exidence in an attempt to prove their point. Something that is very common on this forum, by the way. I am not a fan of polls but the one I cited does seem, from my own experience, to make sense. Again, I am only referring to Catholics who do attend Mass. Over the past few years I have attended half a dozen retreats or parish missions and the question of belief in the Real Presence has come up in each of them. For example, I attended a week long diocesan retreat during Lent of 2008 at our Cathedral. The average attendance for each evening was around 900 people. We were given a question sheet to fill out the first evening and one of the questions was whether or not we believed in the Real Presence. At the end of the retreat, we were given a summary of the results of all the questions. 95% of those present said that they did believe in the Real Presence. That was the percentage of all the attendees, not only those who attended Mass weekly. And there were many there who admitted to not being regular Mass attendees.
Yes, but the reason they don’t believe would seem to have something with not attending any Mass at all; not regular attendance at the OF Mass, since those who attend the OF Mass on a regular basis have a strong belief in the Real Presence.
What WYD fiasco? I didn’t notice any fiasco there.