Cardinal Canizares on reception

[JKirkLVNV]

Receiving while kneeling is the most reverent way, and everyone knows it whether they admit it of not.

This is an example of the (probably unintentional) insulting misinformation of some so-called “traditionalists.” The liturgical practices of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome also are reckoned as dating from Apostolic times and almost all of them, IIRC, have NEVER knelt. Are you accusing THEM of lacking in reverence?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

“The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand”
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Again, to be clear, I receive on the tongue. If I received in the hand, but the Church ended the indult, I would submit in obedience to the Church. It is, however, wrong to attempt to coerce the consciences of the faithful where the Church has allowed a liberty (just as wrong as it would be were a priest to refuse Communion to someone kneeling or to refuse to administer Communion on the tongue).

 

[TrueLight]

I knew that it would not take long for this to turn into an a debate, with people lobbing “quote-grenades” from different sides.

It is so sad that we all can’t just accept the fact, at least here in the US,
that CITH is an option.

Don’t like it, don’t do it!

But don’t imply that I am irreverent
or lack any belief in the Real Presence because I choose to receive in my hand.

I just had a debate about this with someone, and he asked me,
what would you do if Jesus was standing in front of you?
Would you stand there, or would you fall to your knees?

Me, my first instinct, I would run to Him, throw my arms around Him in a big bear hug, and never let go!

Which is why I prefer CITH, for one brief moment, I am giving Jesus a big bear hug!! ;

You think you would give Jesus a big bear hug?

This is the vision of Christ, that Saint John (the “disciple whom Christ loved”, and who used to rest his head on Jesus’ bosom) saw and this is how he reacted.

And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Not to say Jesus wouldn’t reach out and hug you, but your first reaction would probably be to go comatose.

 

[At_Trent]

This is an example of the (probably unintentional) insulting misinformation of some so-called “traditionalists.” The liturgical practices of the Eastern Churches in Communion with Rome also are reckoned as dating from Apostolic times and almost all of them, IIRC, have NEVER knelt. Are you accusing THEM of lacking in reverence?

They can do as they please. The topic and this sub forum are about Roman Catholicism.

Frankly, I’d guess it is what is in one’s heart when they receive that matters to God. I just don’t believe in changing rubrics at the parish level. And frankly, when those who have such opinion are belittled, and referred to as “so-called” this and that, I feel it is born of ignorance and denial.

The info is out there, but many won’t accept it of even consider it. Archbishop Schneider explains the manner in which Communion was once received in the hand. The right hand, not the left. And the communicant took the Host into his mouth out of the right hand. What do we do today ? The opposite.

That is the issue the traditionalists have in all of this. The changes don’t just add or subtract, they flip everything over and place it as far away from the traditional way as possible.

“But the Church says”… Sure, fine. But here recently, the Church is starting to say things the trads have been saying. Still early on, and the Church doesn’t just flip a switch to implement a change.

But again, there are many at the parish level who take the liberty to do whatever they think is a good idea. Not how it’s supposed to work.

 

[At_Trent]

“The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand”
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Again, to be clear, I receive on the tongue. If I received in the hand, but the Church ended the indult, I would submit in obedience to the Church. It is, however, wrong to attempt to coerce the consciences of the faithful where the Church has allowed a liberty (just as wrong as it would be were a priest to refuse Communion to someone kneeling or to refuse to administer Communion on the tongue).

Some real traditionalists will admit that yes, communion in the hand was a common occurrence traditionally and will also admit that liturgical law does allow the practice of receiving Our Lord by communion in the hand, but they just don’t like it being practiced the way that it is. This piece is not really aimed at those who make such admissions.matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Well, I suppose most trads here are real traditionalists…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

They can do as they please. The topic and this sub forum are about Roman Catholicism. No, you don’t get off that easy. You clearly stated that “receiving while kneeling is the most reverent way, and everyone knows it whether they admit it of not,” thus discounting or accusing of a lack of reverence most if not all the sui juris Churches in union with the Holy See. The standard for the qualitative amount of reverence contained in a gesture is dependent on the tradition you were born into or the patriarch that governs your liturgical practices? Because “more” and “most reverent” implies a degree. You were plainly wrong.

Frankly, I’d guess it is what is in one’s heart when they receive that matters to God. I just don’t believe in changing rubrics at the parish level. And frankly, when those who have such opinion are belittled, and referred to as “so-called” this and that, I feel it is born of ignorance and denial. **I’m sorry, but what rubrics have been changed at a parish level? The Church actually does not specify which hand must receive the Host nor which hand must convey it to the mouth, ie. there is no specific rubric, so I don’t really know what you means “I just don’t believe in changing rubrics at the parish level.” Do you see people flipping the Host into their mouth like a chip? Catching it with their mouth like a piece of popcorn thrown up into the air? Somehow I doubt it and I doubt you’re seeing the violation of a rubric. No one is belittling you for the opinion that rubrics should be followed (you did not mention rubrics until this post). “So called” refers to the numerous factual errors that SOME so-called “traditionalists” make with regards to Church history and discipline, and their OWN picking and choosing as to what really is “traditional” (I think it’s pretty traditional, according to the Catechism, to assume the best intent on other people’s part, something I see regularly failing in this forum). As for ignorance, well, you’ve confused your opinion with objective, demonstrable fact. You’re entitled to your opinion, you’re just not entitled to present it as fact. **

The info is out there, but many won’t accept it of even consider it. Archbishop Schneider explains the manner in which Communion was once received in the hand. The right hand, not the left. And the communicant took the Host into his mouth out of the right hand. What do we do today ? The opposite. **REALLY? You’re upset because people are receiving the Host into, what…the wrong hand!!! I guess that speaks for itself. **

That is the issue the traditionalists have in all of this. The changes don’t just add or subtract, they flip everything over and place it as far away from the traditional way as possible. I’m not even sure you’re representing “traditionalist’s” concerns.

“But the Church says”… Sure, fine. But here recently, the Church is starting to say things the trads have been saying. Still early on, and the Church doesn’t just flip a switch to implement a change. But the Church is what we have to go on. It IS what she says that matters. And no, the Church isn’t saying things the trads have been saying, because HH Pope Benedict’s “I’m not opposed in principle to communion in the hand” is WAY different from what the “trads” (your word) have been saying. Certainly, there have been a few prelates who have called for a return to COTT, but they don’t resort to YOUR arguments or YOUR way of putting it…which means there’s a chance the faithful might listen to them.

But again, there are many at the parish level who take the liberty to do whatever they think is a good idea. Not how it’s supposed to work.

** I don’t know where you go to church, but I rarely, in my 23 years as a Catholic, have seen the faithful behave as you seem to alledge. Some priests, yes, I’m been to a couple of doozy Masses, mostly visiting California, but the faithful, in the reception of Holy Communion? No, not much at all.**

 

[Oneofthewomen]

They can do as they please. The topic and this sub forum are about Roman Catholicism.

OK, you have a point here. So here is what the Romans say-The ***norm ***for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant *bows his or her head *before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.

Frankly, I’d guess it is what is in one’s heart when they receive that matters to God. I just don’t believe in changing rubrics at the parish level. And frankly, when those who have such opinion are belittled, and referred to as “so-called” this and that, I feel it is born of ignorance and denial.

• again the Church disagrees, and allows the Ordinary certain latitudes which extend down to individual priest.

The info is out there, but many won’t accept it of even consider it. Archbishop Schneider explains the manner in which Communion was once received in the hand. The right hand, not the left. And the communicant took the Host into his mouth out of the right hand. What do we do today ? The opposite. That is the issue the traditionalists have in all of this. The changes don’t just add or subtract, they flip everything over and place it as far away from the traditional way as possible.

I have read a lot of this information, and yet, the Church still allows it, and for many of us- receiveing standing in with the option of receiving in the hand IS ALL WE KNOW!!! And to be told that it is wrong, disrespectful, irreverent, etc, is like telling me that the people who taught me both modes of reception, and encouraged me to do what was best for me to experience the Real Presence in the most meaningful way, were wrong.

“But the Church says”… Sure, fine. But here recently, the Church is starting to say things the trads have been saying. Still early on, and the Church doesn’t just flip a switch to implement a change.

But again, there are many at the parish level who take the liberty to do whatever they think is a good idea. Not how it’s supposed to work.

And here, I agree with you 100%! This is the issue we need to address, lack of good & meaningful catechesis.

For me, where I am at in my spiritual journey at the moment, I am seeing and understanding what obedience really is. And, IMHO, this is the heart of just about every issue there is in the Church right now, at least from where I stand. I don’t have to like or even understand what the Church says or does. What I have to do is humbly submit to her demands, and pray for the grace to understand why. I don’t have to like it, but what I can never do is make* my *will more important than God’s will. And there is only one person on this earth who can speak for Him, and it’s not me, or you At Trent!
So until HH Benedict XVI or one of his successors says otherwise, this really is a moot discussion.

 

[At_Trent]

** I don’t know where you go to church, but I rarely, in my 23 years as a Catholic, have seen the faithful behave as you seem to alledge. Some priests, yes, I’m been to a couple of doozy Masses, mostly visiting California, but the faithful, in the reception of Holy Communion? No, not much at all.**

lol, you can have your goat back now

 

[At_Trent]

OK, you have a point here. So here is what the Romans say-The ***norm ***for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant *bows his or her head *before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.

• again the Church disagrees, and allows the Ordinary certain latitudes which extend down to individual priest.
  
  I have read a lot of this information, and yet, the Church still allows it, and for many of us- receiveing standing in with the option of receiving in the hand IS ALL WE KNOW!!! And to be told that it is wrong, disrespectful, irreverent, etc, is like telling me that the people who taught me both modes of reception, and encouraged me to do what was best for me to experience the Real Presence in the most meaningful way, were wrong.
  And here, I agree with you 100%! This is the issue we need to address, lack of good & meaningful catechesis.

For me, where I am at in my spiritual journey at the moment, I am seeing and understanding what obedience really is. And, IMHO, this is the heart of just about every issue there is in the Church right now, at least from where I stand. I don’t have to like or even understand what the Church says or does. What I have to do is humbly submit to her demands, and pray for the grace to understand why. I don’t have to like it, but what I can never do is make* my *will more important than God’s will. And there is only one person on this earth who can speak for Him, and it’s not me, or you At Trent!
So until HH Benedict XVI or one of his successors says otherwise, this really is a moot discussion.

You are right about the bolded part especially. And I agree with most you say.

I was just trying to get JKirkLVNV’s goat though

 

[Oneofthewomen]

You are right about the bolded part especially. ***And I agree with most you say.***I was just trying to get JKirkLVNV’s goat though

Re: the bolded part-
Oh no, did the world just stop spinning?!
You and I actually agree about something?!

 

[At_Trent]

Re: the bolded part-
Oh no, did the world just stop spinning?!
You and I actually agree about something?!

Miracles happen

 

[dmorgan]

I posted the link to H.E. Cardinal Canizares’ statements as a glimmer of hope for traditionalists who hope to see a return to a more reverant attitude from the faithful, and in the Mass. I expected the usual suspects to crawl out from their respective holes and begin blasting away at the possible return of "t"radtional forms of reverence toward the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ!
What pains me is that any attempt to return a level of sacredness to Holy Mass is recieved by some as an attempt to return to the dark ages. Have we as a church become so pridefull and self absorbed that we fail to recognize the errors that have befallen our Church in the past fifty years? Have we as Catholics become so dumbed down as to really want the weak, sometimes more protestant than Catholic forms of Mass that are so prevelant now?
The westernization of the Church is going to destroy many Parishes and cause the loss of many Souls. The current crisis in the Church will make the Arian crisis seem like a minor disagreement in comparison.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I posted the link to H.E. Cardinal Canizares’ statements as a glimmer of hope for traditionalists who hope to see a return to a more reverant attitude from the faithful, and in the Mass. I expected the usual suspects to crawl out from their respective holes and begin blasting away at the possible return of "t"radtional forms of reverence toward the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ!

I find this attitude offensive. I don’t see anyone here "blasting away at “traditional” forms of reverence. What I see is people saying that yes, while that may work for you it does not for me, so I will exercise an option the Churhc allows.

What pains me is that any attempt to return a level of sacredness to Holy Mass is recieved by some as an attempt to return to the dark ages. Have we as a church become so pridefull and self absorbed that we fail to recognize the errors that have befallen our Church in the past fifty years? Have we as Catholics become so dumbed down as to really want the weak, sometimes more protestant than Catholic forms of Mass that are so prevelant now?

So, anyone who does some thing contrary to what ***you ***think should be done is prideful & self-absordbed? Again pretty offensive here, especially considering that the Church herself allows options.

The westernization of the Church is going to destroy many Parishes and cause the loss of many Souls. The current crisis in the Church will make the Arian crisis seem like a minor disagreement in comparison.

The Church cannont and should not stay frozen in time. We need to meet people where they are, and help them to see what they are missing. There needs to be more good & meaningful catechesis, **and a lot less of the “I am holier than you are because I *(fill in the blank pious practice du jour)” ***

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

I agree, the only thing we can really do is pray. Here is a little verse from scriptue that I like to use when I am feeling a little *“holier than thou”. *

Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity–greedy, dishonest, adulterous–or even like this tax collector.
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I posted the link to H.E. Cardinal Canizares’ statements as a glimmer of hope for traditionalists who hope to see a return to a more reverant attitude from the faithful, and in the Mass. I expected the usual suspects to crawl out from their respective holes and begin blasting away at the possible return of "t"radtional forms of reverence toward the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Most Holy Lord Jesus Christ!
What pains me is that any attempt to return a level of sacredness to Holy Mass is recieved by some as an attempt to return to the dark ages. Have we as a church become so pridefull and self absorbed that we fail to recognize the errors that have befallen our Church in the past fifty years? Have we as Catholics become so dumbed down as to really want the weak, sometimes more protestant than Catholic forms of Mass that are so prevelant now?
The westernization of the Church is going to destroy many Parishes and cause the loss of many Souls. The current crisis in the Church will make the Arian crisis seem like a minor disagreement in comparison.

Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host -
by the Divine Power of God -
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Amen.

I don’t think the people who oppose the idea of a universal return to COTT post in these fora. I think they avoid Catholic Answers like the plague. No one has blasted the idea of a universal revocation of the indult at all. What has been blasted are statements like “it’s the most reverent way and everybody knows it” (that trashes the Apostles, the Fathers, and the sui juris Churches) and the arrogant attitudes of SOME (I use a qualifier, if you don’t think it applies to you, then pay no attention) so-called “traditionalists” (who are woefully misinformed on the evolution of the disciplines that surround the Sacraments). Of course, there are some “liberals” and “progressivists” that will howl over the change should it come. They aren’t posting here.

I’ll give you another example: I was reading last night some “paleotraditionalists” take on Archbishop Bugninni, where he was constantly referred to as the “Mason” Bugninni. The Holy See quite sternly and emphatically denied that there was any evidence that the Archbishop was a Mason and there never had been. A great number of “traditionalists,” however, continue to refer to him as such. Now, given what the Holy See has said, how is this other than the sin of calumny? Aren’t we “traditionally” supposed to be concerned with this? Isn’t that “traditional” thought? Obviously not, as long as we have a fiddleback chasuble and the correct number of candles on the altar.

Motes and beams.

 

[dmorgan]

I rest my case.

 

[ProVobis]

I posted the link to H.E. Cardinal Canizares’ statements as a glimmer of hope for traditionalists who hope to see a return to a more reverant attitude from the faithful, and in the Mass.

Including a 3-hr fast before Mass if you are to receive communion, if health allows.

 

[At_Trent]

Lima, Peru, Jul 28, 2011 / 01:56 pm (CNA).- Spanish Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera recently recommended that Catholics receive Communion on the tongue, while kneeling.

“It is to simply know that we are before God himself and that He came to us and that we are undeserving,” He recommended that Catholics **“receive Communion on the tongue and while kneeling.” **Receiving Communion in this way, the cardinal continued, **“is the sign of adoration that needs to be recovered. I think the entire Church needs to receive Communion while kneeling. In fact, if one receives while standing, a genuflection or profound bow should be made, and this is not happening.”

“If we trivialize Communion, we trivialize everything, and we cannot lose a moment as important as that of receiving Communion, of recognizing the real presence of Christ there, of the God who is the love above all loves, as we sing in a hymn in Spanish.”**

In response to a question about the liturgical abuses that often occur, Cardinal Canizares said they must be** “corrected, especially through proper formation: formation for seminarians, for priests, for catechists, for all the Christian faithful.”**

Such a formation should ensure that liturgical celebrations take place ** “in accord with the demands and dignity of the celebration, in accord with the norms of the Church, which is the only way we can authentically celebrate the Eucharist"

“Bishops have a unique responsibility” in the task of liturgical formation and the correction of abuses, the cardinal said, “and we must not fail to fulfill it, because everything we do to ensure that the Eucharist is celebrated properly will ensure proper participation in the Eucharist.”**

Here is a man (Cardinal Canizares) who had devoted his life in service of Holy Mother Church. He is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. His opinion is one of great value.

Cardinal Arinze asks, “why don’t you kneel… why don’t you crawl ?”

Cardinal Ranjith has banned CITH and eliminated liturgical abuse in Sri Lanka. While Archbishop he suggested CITH be "abandoned altogether.

In the preface to a new book by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan, Dominus Est: Meditations of a Bishop from Central Asia on the Sacred Eucharist, Archbishop Ranjith notes that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity. Instead, he argues, the established practice of piety — receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue — was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.

The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world’s bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline * should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful."4 After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand, that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes:

**The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence toward this sacrament nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity — for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.***  [catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616

](http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8616)

Now, let’s hear the argument FOR CITH, besides “the Church says we can”. There isn’t one is there ?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe4Tv_9I05tl5P-Q7l-iDN-9XIhmgeopZZrfLEfdy5WqquYZWm

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here is a man (Cardinal Canizares) who had devoted his life in service of Holy Mother Church. He is the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. His opinion is one of great value.

Cardinal Arinze asks, “why don’t you kneel… why don’t you crawl ?”

Cardinal Ranjith has banned CITH and eliminated liturgical abuse in Sri Lanka. While Archbishop he suggested CITH be "abandoned altogether.

Now, let’s hear the argument FOR CITH, besides “the Church says we can”. There isn’t one is there ?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTe4Tv_9I05tl5P-Q7l-iDN-9XIhmgeopZZrfLEfdy5WqquYZWm

You’ve heard the arguments for it (I don’t argue FOR it) and if you haven’t, then you’ve been paying even LESS attention than I suspect, and you can search the forums on this very site. It has NEVER, NEVER ONCE, been a point that we should NOT return to the universal discipline of Communion on the Tongue in the Latin Rite. Let me say that again clearly: IT HAS NEVER, NEVER ONCE, BEEN A POINT THAT WE SHOULD NOT RETURN TO THE UNIVERSAL DISCIPLINE OF COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE IN THE LATIN RITE.

The point has been, and continues to be (for me, at least) the way the argument FOR COTT continues to be put by those who self-identify as “traditionalists,” put in a way that it insulting to the faithful (I know many devout and reverent people who receive in this way and I attend Divine Liturgy where no one kneels at all), insulting to the Church (it is a matter of “traditional” Catholic theology that the Church cannot, in Her sacramental disciplines, suggest or impose on the faithful anything that is contrary to Her own teaching or that can lead the faithful into impiety), and completely ignorant of the developmental history of the sacramental disciplines (the Church in the Apostolic Age probably dispensed Holy Communion in this way and the Church in the Patristic Age certainly did). Not only that, they ACTUALLY say that to receive this way is to receive like PROTESTANTS, which would astound my anabaptist forbears, who made a point of sitting for the Lord’s Supper and self-communicating, as do my Baptist relatives today, which would astound the Episcopalians with whom I worshipped for five years, who always knelt at a rail, as well as the Methodists, who always knelt at a rail, etc., etc., which betrays the fact that these “traditionalists” don’t actually know what goes on at most protestant worship services, but are certainly willing to throw the term around as an insult. The prelates who are advocating for the change, THANKFULLY, do not put the argument forward as do many of the “traditionalists” who agree with them.

You don’t like “the Church says we may” as an argument. This is astonishing to me as Catholic, as much as I am astonished by the liberal progressives who don’t like “the Church says we may not.” When it comes to questions like this (more acutely to matters of faith and morals), the Church, in the authority exercised by Her hierarchs, is the only reliable voice. When the Church has then granted a liberty of choice to the faithful, then who are you to imply that it is bad that they should exercise it?

It would be different if you just said,“I don’t like it and I don’t do it. I think we should return to the former discipline” (which is all these prelates said). I don’t agree with those who say we should end priestly celibacy, but I acknowledge their right to hold to that opinion of a discipline and I manage to discuss it without insulting the sui juris Churches who permit the ordination of married men, their wives, etc., the Anglican priests who’ve converted along with their wives and children, etc.

Here’s the interview/session with Cardinal Arinze that you mention, in toto:
youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM

Here’s another, with Cardinal Arinze again:
youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4&NR=1

In both, he mentions the freedom of the people and he talks about how other people “punish others” at the “supreme moment of Holy Communion.” If we attempt to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has given a liberty, a freedom, aren’t we trying to punish them at, again, this "supreme moment? Also, “what the Church says” seems kind of important to him.

If you genuinely dislike CITH, then don’t do it. If you genuinely dislike CITH, pray for the restoration of the discipline. Don’t insult the integrity, virtue, and holiness of those who are simply exercising a liberty given them by the Church.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I rest my case.

Me, too. We’ll let God judge, shall we?

 

[agnes_therese]

Now, let’s hear the argument FOR CITH, besides “the Church says we can”. There isn’t one is there ?

Surely you’re not saying that the authority of the Church isn’t enough?