(Archdiocese of Detroit:) Statement regarding Real Catholic TV and its name

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does anyone know (or even maybe have a good idea? A guess even?) WHY the archdiocese has done this?

There are hundreds if not thousands of Catholic bloggers, vloggers, commentators, etc. online that give news and opinion. I’ve never heard of any of these sites being censured. I’m just not understanding this one.

:confused:
 
Ok, I’ve actually listened to Jimmy’s response that someone posted here in the thread. Here was the jist:

Voris insinuated that CITH was self-communication, which is absolutely false. My own personal comment is that he also made the usual completely false assumption that people who receive CITH are less reverent (did I mention this is a false assumption).

Jimmy also takes Voris to task when Voris talked about “priests setting aside their own ego” regarding CITH. As Jimmy explained, the GIRM disallows self-communication and “handing around” communion (I have never seen this, this is different than CITH from a EMHC/priest). Jimmy also points out that CITH is explicitly allowed. Jimmy also quotes the GIRM in saying “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” (see US GIRM #160, 2011 version, approved by CDW).

So Jimmy points out that it’s not about “priests egos” at all. Voris’ plan would actually contradict the norm in the United States (again, see GIRM 160).

n.b. Jimmy Akin is a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, and if I recall correctly, he is the senior (chief?) apologist here. Last time I checked, Catholic Answers also operates using this name with permission from the Bishop of San Diego (where CA is located I believe).
 
ac_claire said:
Does anyone know (or even maybe have a good idea? A guess even?) WHY the archdiocese has done this?

There are hundreds if not thousands of Catholic bloggers, vloggers, commentators, etc. online that give news and opinion. I’ve never heard of any of these sites being censured. I’m just not understanding this one.

:confused:
Click to expand...
I’m thinking the diocese may need prayers.
 
ac_claire said:
Does anyone know (or even maybe have a good idea? A guess even?) WHY the archdiocese has done this?

There are hundreds if not thousands of Catholic bloggers, vloggers, commentators, etc. online that give news and opinion. I’ve never heard of any of these sites being censured. I’m just not understanding this one.

:confused:
Click to expand...
Very few have ascended to the level of fame and resources that Voris currently occupies, for instance having an archbishop/cardinal (Cardinal Burke) arrive at their studio to bless their website and equipment. Corapi-like fame and resources, if you will.

This situation needs to be sorted out, immediately. Too many famous Catholics already operate on the fringes of the church–let alone the whole ‘real’ Catholic issue.
 
homosexuals are no longer allowed into the priesthood.
kneeling is only stopped in the usa
why did bishops ban it in the usa but the bishops in rest of the world didn’t. that makes absolutly no sense. if it is wrong somewhere to do then it should be wrong everywhere.
why did bishops in the usa find it so absurd to kneel before our lord that they banned it.
 
saveusfromhell said:
kneeling is only stopped in the usa
why did bishops ban it in the usa but the bishops in rest of the world didn’t. that makes absolutly no sense. if it is wrong somewhere to do then it should be wrong everywhere.
why did bishops in the usa find it so absurd to kneel before our lord that they banned it.
Click to expand...
False false false false false false false false false.

Kneeling is not banned in the US. See the GIRM #160 (just the relevant part)
GIRM 160:
The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling
Click to expand...
As you can see, people can kneel if they choose, but the norm has been established as standing (as Jimmy Akin says in his podcast, by a vote of the US bishops, and accepted and approved by the CDW and the Vatican).

It’s not just he US either. Canada did the same thing (see the Canadian GIRM)
In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling
Click to expand...
 
curlycool89 said:
False false false false false false false false false.

Kneeling is not banned in the US. See the GIRM #160 (just the relevant part)

As you can see, people can kneel if they choose, but the norm has been established as standing (as Jimmy Akin says in his podcast, by a vote of the US bishops, and accepted and approved by the CDW and the Vatican).

It’s not just he US either. Canada did the same thing (see the Canadian GIRM)
Click to expand...
i had deleted my post as i i realised my mistake as soon as i posted. obviously not before you saw it. by the way one false will surfice it’s not a competition.
 
curlycool89 said:
Ok, I’ve actually listened to Jimmy’s response that someone posted here in the thread. Here was the jist:

Voris insinuated that CITH was self-communication, which is absolutely false. My own personal comment is that he also made the usual completely false assumption that people who receive CITH are less reverent (did I mention this is a false assumption).

Jimmy also takes Voris to task when Voris talked about “priests setting aside their own ego” regarding CITH. As Jimmy explained, the GIRM disallows self-communication and “handing around” communion (I have never seen this, this is different than CITH from a EMHC/priest). Jimmy also points out that CITH is explicitly allowed. Jimmy also quotes the GIRM in saying “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling” (see US GIRM #160, 2011 version, approved by CDW).

So Jimmy points out that it’s not about “priests egos” at all. Voris’ plan would actually contradict the norm in the United States (again, see GIRM 160).

n.b. Jimmy Akin is a staff apologist for Catholic Answers, and if I recall correctly, he is the senior (chief?) apologist here. Last time I checked, Catholic Answers also operates using this name with permission from the Bishop of San Diego (where CA is located I believe).
Click to expand...
Actually, he agreed with a Spanish Cardinal that stated that the Church should go back to what used to be the norm of kneeling. So I don’t see how appealing to the current GIRM makes an opinion invalid. It’s an opinion.

Where does he says people who receive kneeling are more reverent then those standing?
Source please.
 
40.png
Jam:
Actually, he agreed with a Spanish Cardinal that stated that the Church should go back to what used to be the norm of kneeling. So I don’t see how appealing to the current GIRM makes an opinion invalid. It’s an opinion.
Click to expand...
Jam, you have seemingly not listened to the video nor the podcast. Sure, Voris agreed with the Cardinal, but Jimmy inferred that he took his words out of context. Furthermore, Voris did not state it as his opinion in agreement with the Cardinal but went further into saying that priests should bring this instruction to their congregations by multiple means, such as homilies, bulletin announcements, training sessions, and the like. That is far more than just opinion, particularly when he demeans them by telling them to set aside their personal egos. Waaaaay over the top in respect, and in full opposition to the GIRM.

It is rather annoying to try and discuss the particulars while you are posting with a hood over your head and blocking your eyes and ears. If you want to believe in him, please do so, but kindly refrain from misrepresenting him to the rest of us someone who is fully teaching “real” catholicism.

Thanks!
 
40.png
Jam070406:
Could you provide the quote where he said the entire priesthood (all) of Christ are unfaithful, reprobate? Thanks.
Click to expand...
It would derail the thread and it would take a great deal of time to replay the videos I have on file and point to the specific sentence, so I’ll consider a PM after the holidays. But in reality, it would be a futile effort, because you most likely would not accept the facts. Would you please keep on topic … it has to do with the Statement from the Archdioces regarding the name “real Catholic.”

By the way, I am a “she.”
 
jam070406 said:
Where does he says people who receive kneeling are more reverent then those standing?
Source please.
Click to expand...
What exactly was this in response to?

I’ve been around the debate-block a few times before; I hope you’re not trying to discredit me by throwing out accusations of things that were not even in my response.
TrueLight said:
I think there is a difference between saying those who kneel are more reverent as opposed to that the act itself is more reverent.

Would anyone argue that getting down on one’s knees is not a more seemingly reverent act than standing up in the Western church?
Click to expand...
The only thing I have to say to respond to that is that the Pharisees would agree with you.

Before anyone jumps all over me (because you know it’s going to happen. I’m just glad this isn’t the Traditional forum), you can just as easily receive “more” recently on the knees without even acknowledging the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (I’m not saying that people who receive on the knees don’t just to be clear).

My bigger problem with this is that you’re cosigning people who can’t kneel to “2nd-class-Catholic” status. I argue you can be just as reverent standing (or sitting; I often sit during adoration as my knees just can’t take it that long) as kneeling. That’s my opinion, and I recognize not everyone agrees.
 
curlycool89 said:
What exactly was this in response to?

I’ve been around the debate-block a few times before; I hope you’re not trying to discredit me by throwing out accusations of things that were not even in my response.

The only thing I have to say to respond to that is that the Pharisees would agree with you.

Before anyone jumps all over me (because you know it’s going to happen. I’m just glad this isn’t the Traditional forum), you can just as easily receive “more” recently on the knees without even acknowledging the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (I’m not saying that people who receive on the knees don’t just to be clear).

My bigger problem with this is that you’re cosigning people who can’t kneel to “2nd-class-Catholic” status. I argue you can be just as reverent standing (or sitting; I often sit during adoration as my knees just can’t take it that long) as kneeling. That’s my opinion, and I recognize not everyone agrees.
Click to expand...
Calling me a Pharisee doesn’t bother me one bit. Sticks and stones and all that.

Reread what I said again.

I said there is a difference between stating that someone who stands is not as reverent as someone who kneels, and speaking of the act of kneeling itself, without any interior considerations as being more reverent.

Obviously one can have more interior reverence and be standing than someone who is kneeling.

My question, I guess not to you, is does anyone agree that the physical act of kneeling in itself is more reverent or encourages reverence solely by the fact that kneeling in front of someone is a humble act?

I think it encourages more reverence, although of course one can just go through the motions.

So I pray that eventually the Church goes back to kneeling as the norm for those who are physically capable.

You don’t have to agree with me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top