EWTN Mass?

[allhers]

Did you even read what I typed?

Your:
“Isn’ t it sad that there Masses are still better, in spite of all your complaints, then the one’s you attend in person?”

makes absolutely no sense when I originally typed:

“…In the end though, their masses are better than most I attend in real life.”

Try again. The word “MOST” has a very definite impact on that sentence.

The single two Mass I attend most often is in my opinion, superior to the EWTN Mass. Next time you might want to actually read what I wrote.

Actually what I understood from when you said: In the end though, their masses (EWTN’s) are better than most of the ones that I attend in real life.
What you actually said was: In the end though, their masses are better than most I attend in real life."

Now, if you had said: In the end though, the masses I attend are superior to the EWTN Mass I wouldn’t have thought you meant something different.

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[japhy]

“Isn’ t it sad that there Masses are still better, in spite of all your complaints, then the one’s you attend in person?”

“…In the end though, their masses are better than most I attend in real life.”

The single two Mass I attend most often is in my opinion, superior to the EWTN Mass. Next time you might want to actually read what I wrote.

I don’t understand what you meant by “The single two Mass”.

Can we start over?

The typical Mass seen on EWTN is better than most of the Masses you physically attend: true or false? (Your first post seems to indicate “true”.) But do you mean “most of the Masses” or “most of the types of Masses”? I ask because of your second statement:

The type of Mass you attend most often is better than the typical EWTN Mass: true or false? (I would guess “true”, based on the post I’m replying to.)

So, are EWTN’s Masses better than most of the Masses you attend, or most of the types of Masses you attend? I’m just trying to clarify your statements. Thanks.

 

[Walking_Home]

Did you even read what I typed?

Your:
“Isn’ t it sad that there Masses are still better, in spite of all your complaints, then the one’s you attend in person?”

makes absolutely no sense when I originally typed:

“…In the end though, **their masses are better **than most I attend in real life.”

Try again. The word “MOST” has a very definite impact on that sentence.

The **single two Mass I attend most often **is in my opinion, superior to the EWTN Mass. Next time you might want to actually read what I wrote.

---

Actually from reading what you said prior --“In the end though, their masses are better than most I attend in real life.”-- to what you are now saying --“The single two Mass** I attend the most often** is in my opinion etc”-- it can be seen that you have changed what the “Most” attributed to. You have tried to changed the focus of “Most” in your first statements (most here being Masses not as good as the EWTN Mass) by adding in the above post --“The single two Mass I attend most often”.

 

[Rickwood]

yes rick i read it…that doesn’t take away from the fact that you don’t get a fuller SACRAMENT maybe a feeling but you don’t get more grace…

I just happen to agree with the Catholic Church:

GIRM 281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

 

[Rickwood]

I don’t understand what you meant by “The single two Mass”.

Can we start over?

The typical Mass seen on EWTN is better than most of the Masses you physically attend: true or false? (Your first post seems to indicate “true”.) But do you mean “most of the Masses” or “most of the types of Masses”? I ask because of your second statement:

The type of Mass you attend most often is better than the typical EWTN Mass: true or false? (I would guess “true”, based on the post I’m replying to.)

So, are EWTN’s Masses better than most of the Masses you attend, or most of the types of Masses you attend? I’m just trying to clarify your statements. Thanks.

Pardon me – typo.

I prefer the two individual Masses I attend 99% of the time (actually one is an Eastern Divine Liturgy.)

 

[Walking_Home]

I just happen to agree with the Catholic Church:

GIRM 281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

---

As do we:

Code of Canon Law

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3A.HTM

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.

By the way --this follows GIRM 281

GIRM
282. Sacred pastors should take care to ensure that the faithful who participate in the rite or are present at it are **as fully aware as possible of the Catholic teaching on the form of Holy Communion as set forth by the Ecumenical Council of Trent. Above all, they should instruct the Christian faithful that the Catholic faith teaches that Christ, whole and entire, and the true Sacrament, is received even under only one species, and consequently that as far as the effects are concerned, those who receive under only one species are not deprived of any of the grace that is necessary for salvation.**106

 

[sancte_joseph]

I just happen to agree with the Catholic Church:

GIRM 281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

ARE YOU IMPLYING I DON’T AGREE WITH THE CHURCH

hahaha…i guess you just have to read it better after you keep posting it…Yes it says its a fuller sign because we see wine makes us think blood we see bread makes us think body…and we do think of the heavenly banquet when we see both food and drink but…

The Council of Constance (A.D. 1414 - 1418) This Council can be regarded as ecumenical only in so far as it was in union with the pope. The heretical teaching of John Huss and Wyclif were answered. It was here that communion to the laity under one species was prescribed as a cure to the make it understood that the entirety of Jesus Christ is present under both or either species. In transubstantiation all of the bread is changed into the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ and all of the wine is changed into the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Christ and reception of either species was reception of the total; body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[maryj]

Actually you tried to add your own spin. There is much about EWTN Masses that I like a great deal.

I’m not interested in your guesses. What I do know is if the chalice were offered to the faithful and the kiss of peace allowed, I would like their Masses more.

Please don’t use inflammatory comments like that. The subject of abortion is not to be used in that manner. Do it again with me and I will simply ignore your posts.

Wow, talk about severity, how’s about that kiss of peace now!!

 

[davidcoit]

I think that people who don’t like the EWTN mass is just the effect of the abuse that people see everyday and think its normal…people are confused when they see reverance to the blessed sacrament)

I agree. EWTN is a real blessing.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Wow, talk about severity, how’s about that kiss of peace now!!

 

[allhers]

I agree. EWTN is a real blessing.

I agree too!!

 

[sancte_joseph]

I agree too!!

ME 2 HA!

 

[PacoG]

GIRM 281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

Yes, it could be better.

I have watched EWTN masses for a good 10 years. I have seen them give Communion under both signs through intinction on Sundays and Holy Days several times. They often use those ciboria with the little cups for the Precious Blood.

 

[benedictgal]

GIRM 281. Holy Communion has a fuller form as a sign when it is distributed under both kinds. For in this form the sign of the eucharistic banquet is more clearly evident and clear expression is given to the divine will by which the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as also the relationship between the Eucharistic banquet and the eschatological banquet in the Father’s Kingdom.

Of course, you also need to present the flip side to this issue, as indicated by Redemptionis Sacramentum:

101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

[103.] The norms of the Roman Missal admit the principle that in cases where Communion is administered under both kinds, “the Blood of the Lord may be received either by drinking from the chalice directly, or by intinction, or by means of a tube or a spoon”.191 As regards the administering of Communion to lay members of Christ’s faithful, the Bishops may exclude Communion with the tube or the spoon where this is not the local custom, though the option of administering Communion by intinction always remains. If this modality is employed, however, hosts should be used which are neither too thin nor too small, and the communicant should receive the Sacrament from the Priest only on the tongue.192

That’s why you don’t see the reception of Holy Communion under both species at Papal Masses. Furthermore, the reception of Holy Communion under both species is an option. It’s poor catechesis to think that you are not receiving the complete and whole Christ within the Sacred Host when Christ is contained there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

 

[maggiemay2u]

I admit to being the most simple of servants.

In my simplicity, regardless of the alphabet soup of processes, rules, and regulations, I confess my devotion to Mass on EWTN.

It may be the use of the Latin, it may be the sermons, it may be the sense that everybody there really believes what is happening.

Whatever it is, I’m hooked.

 

[davidcoit]

I admit to being the most simple of servants.

In my simplicity, regardless of the alphabet soup of processes, rules, and regulations, I confess my devotion to Mass on EWTN.

It may be the use of the Latin, it may be the sermons, it may be the sense that everybody there really believes what is happening.

Whatever it is, I’m hooked.

Well maggiemay2u I’m hooked right along with you and I feel that I’m hooked to the right line.

 

[totustuus2345]

Of course, you also need to present the flip side to this issue, as indicated by Redemptionis Sacramentum:

That’s why you don’t see the reception of Holy Communion under both species at Papal Masses. Furthermore, the reception of Holy Communion under both species is an option. It’s poor catechesis to think that you are not receiving the complete and whole Christ within the Sacred Host when Christ is contained there Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.

Well Said…