how do you feel about this Vatican II change?

[distracted]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??

I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…

obviously, this is not the only change i dislike… but am wondering how others feel about it…

I also hate the way they always use Eucharist ministers, even when there are only about 5 people there (daily Mass)…

 

[baltobetsy]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??

You can’t be serious.

 

[tee_eff_em]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

• 
  *]Our eastern brethren have a long and continuous history of distribution via intinction.
  *]Perhaps you do not get around enough? I seldom attend a Mass where both species are proffered.
  

  It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

  I have no idea what this might mean, nor how this misunderstanding might be remedied?
  You do realize that the celebrating priest *always *receives under both species? Does it seem to you that *Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner *from him??
  
  tee

 

[Leopard]

When the Blessed Sacrament is offered to the faithful under both species at Mass, communicants are not required to receive both species. They may receive only the Host, only the Precious Blood, or both.

I also don’t understand what you mean by Jesus going away sooner when one receives the Eucharist under both species, but if it is your preference not to receive the Precious Blood when it is offered, you are certainly free to decline.

 

[diggerdomer]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??

I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…

obviously, this is not the only change i dislike… but am wondering how others feel about it…

I also hate the way they always use Eucharist ministers, even when there are only about 5 people there (daily Mass)…

Vatican II was an ecumenical council. There is no higher form of teaching authority in the Church. If you don’t like what Vatican II taught, I’m sorry, but faithful Catholics really don’t have a choice on whether they obey the teachings of Vatican II.

Cheers

 

[Eileen_T]

Vatican II was an ecumenical council. There is no higher form of teaching authority in the Church. If you don’t like what Vatican II taught, I’m sorry, but faithful Catholics really don’t have a choice on whether they obey the teachings of Vatican II.

Cheers

I am reminded of GK Chesterton’s remark “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.”

I remember a conversation with someone regarding the Liturgy and what the VII document actually stated, which was vastly different from what was taking place in our Liturgies. I was KO’d with the comment, “Yes, but it is all about the SPIRIT of Vatican II”.

That was when I began to wonder if the “spirit” was the one named “Legion”.

As I wait in breatless hope for the coming of the Saviour, I also wait for the implementation of Vatican II and the reform of the widespread abuses that have crept in the name of the ‘Spirit’ of Vatican II.

 

[Benadam]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…

i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??

I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…

obviously, this is not the only change i dislike… but am wondering how others feel about it…

I also hate the way they always use Eucharist ministers, even when there are only about 5 people there (daily Mass)…

I think the door the Father opened in front of St Peter opened a better suited view because of the VII Council and like he did when it first opened Satan swooped through to alter it’s meaning.

 

[maurin]

They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…

every single NO Mass that I have been to, both Species were offered.

[quoteIt seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…
[/quote] I don’t know what you mean by “Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner.”

I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…

I’mnot sure about that, but how can one deny that the innovations have in fact weakened the Church, and the Faith of untold millions of Faithful? Out of the Billion Catholics that we trumpet, how many actually practice seriously their Faith?

 

[cspb56]

I do not understand why people have an issue with communion under both forms. If one chooses not to receive the precious blood thats fine. At the Last Supper Jesus’ command was to “Take and Eat” and “Take and Drink”. In John 6 vs 53 Jesus says " I tell you solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood you will not have life in you." If anything Satan succeeds when we don’t follow what Jesus said.

 

[maurin]

I do not understand why people have an issue with communion under both forms. If one chooses not to receive the precious blood thats fine. At the Last Supper Jesus’ command was to “Take and Eat” and “Take and Drink”. In John 6 vs 53 Jesus says " I tell you solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink of his blood you will not have life in you." If anything Satan succeeds when we don’t follow what Jesus said.

Keep in mind though that Jesus was speaking only to the first Priests that He Ordained at the Last Supper. Only these Apostles, whom Jesus Ordained to the Priesthood, were present and participants at the Last Supper.

 

[Phemie]

• 
  
  I have no idea what this might mean, nor how this misunderstanding might be remedied?
  You do realize that the celebrating priest *always *receives under both species? Does it seem to you that *Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner *from him??
  
  tee

• 
  While I totally disagree with what the OP wrote I think he/she means that the Host dissolves more quickly when receiving under both species so that the True Presence is gone more quickly.
  
  I seriously doubt that taking a sip of the Precious Blood has much physical effect on the accidents of the Host and it certainly would have less than the enzymes in one’s saliva or stomach secretions at any rate. The OP’s seems to fail to recognize that the Precious Blood is also Jesus.

 

[DavidPalm]

Vatican II was an ecumenical council. There is no higher form of teaching authority in the Church. If you don’t like what Vatican II taught, I’m sorry, but faithful Catholics really don’t have a choice on whether they obey the teachings of Vatican II.

What the council said on the matter was:

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact [40], communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

It would seem that what the council fathers envisioned was the **exceptional **reception under both kinds on **special ** occasions. As usual, what was viewed as exceptional has become the norm.

 

[diggerdomer]

Keep in mind though that Jesus was speaking only to the first Priests that He Ordained at the Last Supper. Only these Apostles, whom Jesus Ordained to the Priesthood, were present and participants at the Last Supper.

You have no way of knowing who was there in addition to Jesus and the Twelve. There may have been others, or not. And it’s a bit of an anachronism to speak of them being ordained priests…they are never referred to as priests in the New Testament.

Regardless, the Church clearly allows communion under both kinds, and no one is forced to receive both if they don’t want to.

Cheers

 

[maurin]

You have no way of knowing who was there in addition to Jesus and the Twelve. There may have been others, or not. And it’s a bit of an anachronism to speak of them being ordained priests…they are never referred to as priests in the New Testament.

Regardless, the Church clearly allows communion under both kinds, and no one is forced to receive both if they don’t want to.

Cheers

You’re hysterical! Do you think Scripture would have mentioned it? Or at least it would have been part of the Oral Tradition?

c’mon, digger.

 

[daughteroftruth]

i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??

I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…

They were.

obviously, this is not the only change i dislike… but am wondering how others feel about it…

Permit me to underline my point

1390 of the CCC

But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.”

Anyone else reminded of Luther?

 

[Peccavi]

I was raised in the Anglo-Catholic tradition of the Church of England…(I converted to Rome while at university). In the Anglican tradition communion has always been in both kinds, a tradition which the Anglicans brought from the old medieval Catholic church in England…At Walsingham (the national shrine to Our Lady - shared by Catholics and Anglicans) Communion is always in both kinds by both traditions in respect of the Old pre-Reformation Church forms of worship. Recieving Communion in both kinds is seen as obeying Jesus instruction to do this in memory of him. Jesus never said only priests should do this in memory of him…

 

[distracted]

• 
  *]Our eastern brethren have a long and continuous history of distribution via intinction.
  *]Perhaps you do not get around enough? I seldom attend a Mass where both species are proffered.

• 
  i know of RCC priests who do this… but havne’t seen it done often… The Precious Blood, from my understanding, is not supposed to be done every single Mass but only on special occassions… Maybe you or someone else out there knows more about this??? All i know is that it all seems (all the changes seem) to add up to IRREVERENCE!! There is far more reverence in the Latin Tridentine Mass… which i haven’t been to in years…
  

  I have no idea what this might mean, nor how this misunderstanding might be remedied?
  You do realize that the celebrating priest *always *receives under both species? Does it seem to you that *Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner *from him??

  tee

  I heardthat the presence of Jesus goes away as soon as the Host is fully digested… so any liquid in the mouth is obviously going to make that happen a lot faster than if not…
  
  Actually this is NOT the most maddening change of Vat II… I should have focused more on the over-use of Eucharistic ministers… Use to be Only a validly ordained priest could handle the Host… which is why it went directly into our mouths… Now almost eveyone receives in hand… and we know all the abuses that can come from doing it that way…

 

[maurin]

I was raised in the Anglo-Catholic tradition of the Church of England…(I converted to Rome while at university). In the Anglican tradition communion has always been in both kinds, a tradition which the Anglicans brought from the old medieval Catholic church in England…At Walsingham (the national shrine to Our Lady - shared by Catholics and Anglicans) Communion is always in both kinds by both traditions in respect of the Old pre-Reformation Church forms of worship. Recieving Communion in both kinds is seen as obeying Jesus instruction to do this in memory of him. Jesus never said only priests should do this in memory of him…

Peccavi,

this is not accurate. It was the deformers of the Church who introduced Communion under both Species to the Faithful.

Allow me some time to find Cranmer’s writings on this issue in order to confirm. Thanks.

 

[distracted]

I was raised in the Anglo-Catholic tradition of the Church of England…(I converted to Rome while at university). In the Anglican tradition communion has always been in both kinds, a tradition which the Anglicans brought from the old medieval Catholic church in England…At Walsingham (the national shrine to Our Lady - shared by Catholics and Anglicans) Communion is always in both kinds by both traditions in respect of the Old pre-Reformation Church forms of worship. Recieving Communion in both kinds is seen as obeying Jesus instruction to do this in memory of him. Jesus never said only priests should do this in memory of him…

like i just said to another poster… this is not one of the things that bothers me the most… not sure why i worded things the way i did in OP… (i was “distracted”, i guess… by not having much time to say all i wanted to…) but anyway… the real issue is REVERENCE… it just seems that the old way of doing Mass was very reverent and now it is less so… just my opinion… I’ve been to Tridentine Masses and i feel that is the way things should be done… all this greeting each other in the middle of Mass, holding hands and all that… i hate it…

 

[daughteroftruth]

like i just said to another poster… this is not one of the things that bothers me the most… not sure why i worded things the way i did in OP… (i was “distracted”, i guess… by not having much time to say all i wanted to…) but anyway… the real issue is REVERENCE… it just seems that the old way of doing Mass was very reverent and now it is less so… just my opinion… I’ve been to Tridentine Masses and i feel that is the way things should be done… all this greeting each other in the middle of Mass, holding hands and all that… i hate it…

As any lover of Christ would.