Implied accusation of disobedience

[ConstantineTG]

Another way to look at obedience is, remember that we call priests and bishops “father” for a reason. We must compare them to the father we have in our home. Is our father always right? Does our father always have our best interests at heart? And shouldn’t we follow our father no matter what?

I think American culture may be to blame here, partly at least. In the Philippines and I believe the same is true in most of Asia, you grow up taught to respect your parents. You cannot even talk back to them unless you are told you can. When father is angry, you just stand there and take his words. No talking back. Right or wrong, he is your father. And I know that many people from my home country are apalled that American kids grow up talking back to their parents. Especially in the 80s and even through the 90s, it was just too sad culturally for us to see kids talk back to their parents.

Now, we adapt that same attitude. We easily talk back to our Church fathers as we do to our fathers at home. I think that resepect due to a father is missing nowadays.

 

[Ockham]

You said the OF is poorly attended. I’d like to see stats that prove that. Unless you’re pointing to something locally then I will rest my case. But if you are implying that in the entire world the OF is poorly attended, then you have to back that up with a facts because that is a misleading claim.

I"ve given this survey to you before. Could you please do me the favour of reading it this time. Maybe it would be helpful for you to save it as a Favourite.

cara.georgetown.edu/sacramentsesum.pdf

Of note:

23% attend weekly Mass
12% always attend Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation
30% go to Confession less than once a year
45% never
43% don’t believe in Transubstantiation

You inferred I make up stats. Care to back that up?

 

[floresco]

Obedience is a tough thing. Its the ultimate test of humility. There’s a lot of things that would go into obeying someone. First is the recognition of authority, do you recognize and respect the authority of the person telling you what to do? Second is trust, do you trust the person in authority that what they say is for the good of all. Third is of course humility, can you be humble enough to accept what you are being told despite what your personal opinion on the matter is?

If St. Andrew or St. Philip would come up to you right now and tell you not to kneel, would you follow what they say? Don’t forget that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They have the authority of the Apostles passed down to them. Right or wrong, they are our pastors, our elders, and we should follow what they tell us to do. People here will say they cannot face Jesus in Heaven and explain why they didn’t kneel when they think they should have, in front of Him. But aren’t we also afraid that Jesus might ask why we didn’t follow these people whom He himself has authorized and has called into service?

The USCCB by authority granted to them, has decided that standing is the norm in the US for Communion for the OF. Do we follow the Apostles, or do we follow ourselves? As good Christians we should know the answer.

I agree with you about the high value of obedience. However, I don’t live in the US. The USCCB has no authority over me. A few years ago when I felt drawn to kneel to receive (I attended the OF exclusively then) I told my pastor of my local parish that this is what I wanted to do. He said it would be fine and we discussed the logistics of how to do it. I’m not disobeying anybody when I kneel. (Even if I were in the US, it wouldn’t be disobedience, but that is another point.)

However, the concerned lady did not seem worried about my kneeling, but by my practice of only receiving Communion from ordained men. There is no rule that says we must receive from lay people. The norm is to receive from a priest. If you wish to equate following norms with obedience, as you seem to in the case of kneeling, then I am being very obedient.

 

[benedictgal]

Obedience is a tough thing. Its the ultimate test of humility. There’s a lot of things that would go into obeying someone. First is the recognition of authority, do you recognize and respect the authority of the person telling you what to do? Second is trust, do you trust the person in authority that what they say is for the good of all. Third is of course humility, can you be humble enough to accept what you are being told despite what your personal opinion on the matter is?

If St. Andrew or St. Philip would come up to you right now and tell you not to kneel, would you follow what they say? Don’t forget that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They have the authority of the Apostles passed down to them. Right or wrong, they are our pastors, our elders, and we should follow what they tell us to do. People here will say they cannot face Jesus in Heaven and explain why they didn’t kneel when they think they should have, in front of Him. But aren’t we also afraid that Jesus might ask why we didn’t follow these people whom He himself has authorized and has called into service?

The USCCB by authority granted to them, has decided that standing is the norm in the US for Communion for the OF. Do we follow the Apostles, or do we follow ourselves? As good Christians we should know the answer.

But, Peter has already stated that it is licit to kneel. Peter is the head of the Apostolic college. Peter has pretty much spoken, here, ConstantineTG.

Furthermore, the CDWDS has consistently stated that those who kneel to receive Holy Communion are being neither disobedient nor acting ilicitly. The CDWDS acts in and with the authority of the Holy Father.

 

[benedictgal]

No, she isn’t that sort of person. I’m sure she was speaking out of genuine concern for me.

Floresco, there is no rule that requires you to receive from an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion. Unfortunately, in these forums, it is a common misnomer to address EMHCs as Eucharistic Ministers. Only the priests and bishops are Eucharistic Ministers because they confect (cause to happen) the Sacrament, the Euchairst. The bishop, priest and deacon are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The lay faithful who have been deputized to assist them are called Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Bear in mind something else: only the bishop and the priest can administer Holy Communion via intinction. The reason that I bring this up is because there are places down here where the EMHCs intinct and this is not licit. I will not receive Holy Communion via intinction from an EMHC because it is ilicit.

It is your right to receive from whomever you wish. It is also your right to receive in your preferred manner (COTT/CITH, kneeling/standing).

 

[Ockham]

"The fire sale of Catholic churches in Quebec continues unabated; they are victims of a population that, more than elsewhere in Canada, has turned its back on organized religion.

Fewer than 10 per cent actually attend mass."

thestar.com/News/Canada/article/594474

"It’s an established trend abroad where “parishes are often sacramental filling stations — people come for the Eucharist, baptisms, marriages and funerals, but little else,” writes John Allen, Vatican columnist for the weekly National Catholic Reporter, a weekly newspaper.

“American Catholics have become consumers, church-shopping like their Protestant neighbors and choosing their parish by the school or the theological perspective or the music that matches them,” says Brian Reynolds, chancellor for the Archdiocese of Louisville. “We have people coming from 30 or 40 or 50 ZIP codes to the church they prefer.”

No one knows the ZIP codes of the no-shows.

Mass attendance dwindling

The “most damaging change in Catholic life is the precipitous decline in Mass attendance. It’s the sign of a church collapsing,” says Catholic University sociologist William D’Antonio, co-author of statistical studies of American Catholics.

Nationally, attendance slid from 44% in 1987 to 37% in 1999. D’Antonio predicts it will be 33% in 2005. "

usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-11-07-church-main_x.htm

“Weekly attendance among Canada’s 14 million Catholics has been on a steady decline for decades. A survey of 3,500 Canadians conducted in 2000 shows that outside Quebec, 32 per cent go to church regularly, compared to 75 per cent in the 1950s. In Quebec, which accounts for about 24 per cent of Canada’s population, the weekly attendance has dropped to 20 per cent, from 88 per cent.”

cbc.ca/news/background/catholicism/churchattendance.html

 

[ProVobis]

That is what I am asking for. Where are the stats to base such claims?

I didn’t make any claims other than express from my own experience such as you did. But what good is saying that your two or three Masses are packed to the rafters when 40 years ago we might have had seven Sunday morning Masses packed to the rafters? Or 20 Masses with only half the Church full, for that matter? Where are your comparison studies? And what does one packed house prove anyway? Baseball teams like one on the north side of Chicago draw a “full” house every game and they’ve been under .500 most of the year. Or megachurches for that matter. I know it’s perhaps not the best comparisons but I’m trying to make a point here.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I"ve given this survey to you before. Could you please do me the favour of reading it this time. Maybe it would be helpful for you to save it as a Favourite.

cara.georgetown.edu/sacramentsesum.pdf

Of note:

23% attend weekly Mass
12% always attend Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation
30% go to Confession less than once a year
45% never
43% don’t believe in Transubstantiation

You inferred I make up stats. Care to back that up?

Wow, thanks! I’ve actually been looking for that these past few days.

You shouldn’t be throwing stats around without hard data. C’mon, this is not the first time you’ve done that. Case in point, you’ve blamed V2 and the OF for many things in the past. But I don’t want to get into that in this thread. I just want to answer your question.

 

[qui_est_ce]

This weekend I attended the local parish’s OF with my family. I was sitting next to a very sweet lady who has noticed that I only receive Communion from the priest and was clearly concerned about me. After Mass she asked me about why I do this. I told her both my practical reason and my theological one. I receive on the tongue and kneeling which few EMoCs have been trained to expect. It would be awkward at best and, at worst, the Blessed Sacrament might fall. My theological reason is a wish to acknowledge the special link between the Sacraments of Ordination and Eucharist.

Hi Floresco-
Thanks for bringing up this topic. A year ago, on the feast of Corpus Christi, I made the decision to receive on the tongue only, and to receive only from an ordained minister. You have put words to the connection I made then. I don’t kneel because I don’t want to draw attention to myself. I have noticed an increase in the number of people receiving on the tongue only in my parish in the past year. In our parish, only the priest or the deacon gives the host. EME’s are used for the cup on Sundays. My mother’s parish have EME’s give out the host on Sundays. Almost no one receives on the tongue.

I’m convinced reverence is the connection connection.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree with you about the high value of obedience. However, I don’t live in the US. The USCCB has no authority over me. A few years ago when I felt drawn to kneel to receive (I attended the OF exclusively then) I told my pastor of my local parish that this is what I wanted to do. He said it would be fine and we discussed the logistics of how to do it. I’m not disobeying anybody when I kneel. (Even if I were in the US, it wouldn’t be disobedience, but that is another point.)

Ah, good for you then. Same here, in Canada there is no prescription to kneel or to stand. I don’t know if its the CCCB or the Vatican thats dragging their feet here.

Its best to find out what your Bishop’s conference wants, standing or kneeling, and follow it for OF Masses.

However, the concerned lady did not seem worried about my kneeling, but by my practice of only receiving Communion from ordained men. There is no rule that says we must receive from lay people. The norm is to receive from a priest. If you wish to equate following norms with obedience, as you seem to in the case of kneeling, then I am being very obedient.

In the Philippines, Communion isn’t orderly. Its a free for all to go to the lines. I’ve seen several instances where the priest’s line was longer, and they would ask people to go to other lines. I think they are just enforcing the Church teaching that the Eucharist is about who you are receiving, not who you are receiving from. It doesn’t matter who gives the Eucharist. I know I’m guilty of this, when our Bishop came to our parish I jumped lines to receive from him. But truth is, did that make the Eucharist any better? Of course not. Neither does receiving the Eucharist from anyone else make it worse. I don’t think its a matter of obedience but just a matter of right teaching. The person should be reinforcing teaching, not discipline, as there is no disciplinary issue.

I avoid EMHCs nowadays because they try to give a blessing to my son. Once we received from the EMHC and I wasn’t asking for a blessing for my son who at that time my wife was carrying (he’s still an infant), but the EMHC did so anyway. So to avoid that, I receive from the priest. But if I go to Mass alone, I don’t mind. But I receive from the priest anyways because of where I sit. Its just at that time we were sitting close to the exit just in case my son starts crying. So far my son has been praised by people in the parish for being a good baby throughout Mass. He is, generally.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi Floresco-
Thanks for bringing up this topic. A year ago, on the feast of Corpus Christi, I made the decision to receive on the tongue only, and to receive only from an ordained minister. You have put words to the connection I made then. I don’t kneel because I don’t want to draw attention to myself. I have noticed an increase in the number of people receiving on the tongue only in my parish in the past year. In our parish, only the priest or the deacon gives the host. EME’s are used for the cup on Sundays. My mother’s parish have EME’s give out the host on Sundays. Almost no one receives on the tongue.

I’m convinced reverence is the connection connection.

Shouldn’t the deacon minister the Cup if its offered?

 

[ProVobis]

In the Philippines, Communion isn’t orderly. Its a free for all to go to the lines. I’ve seen several instances where the priest’s line was longer, and they would ask people to go to other lines. I think they are just enforcing the Church teaching that the Eucharist is about who you are receiving, not who you are receiving from. It doesn’t matter who gives the Eucharist.

Seems we had a poster here, choy, who wrote almost the same things you do. Hmmm, I wonder…

 

[qui_est_ce]

Shouldn’t the deacon minister the Cup if its offered?

At our parish, communion lines are long, (10 minutes including the cup). We usually have three priests and a deacon ministering the host. Only the priests and deacons minister the host, even if there are only two. That leaves the cup for the 6 EMHC’s.

I don’t mind receiving the cup from the EMHC, they are not actually touching the body or the blood.

I thought our parish was liberal! I should count my blessings.

 

[ConstantineTG]

At our parish, communion lines are long, (10 minutes including the cup). We usually have three priests and a deacon ministering the host. Only the priests and deacons minister the host, even if there are only two. That leaves the cup for the 6 EMHC’s.

I don’t mind receiving the cup from the EMHC, they are not actually touching the body or the blood.

I thought our parish was liberal! I should count my blessings.

I know I read that somewhere that the Cup must be ministered by a Deacon if the Cup is offered and a Deacon is present. But I cannot find it now, maybe its not an official text that I read.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I know I read that somewhere that the Cup must be ministered by a Deacon if the Cup is offered and a Deacon is present. But I cannot find it now, maybe its not an official text that I read.

Let me know. I have to believe it’s not true, though.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I know I read that somewhere that the Cup must be ministered by a Deacon if the Cup is offered and a Deacon is present. But I cannot find it now, maybe its not an official text that I read.

Ya well…you all are lucky! We only have one priest…that is it! No deacon. And we are not the only parish in town in that same situation.

By the way…our OF masses are ALWAYS full! I’m just pointing that out as someone made a snide comment about the OF masses. Some people have to get their digs in…

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

To the OP–I’m sure your friend meant no more then the concern for you that Fr. Vincent Sherpa gave in his reply in the apologetics thread. Something to think about anyway.

QUOTE "Dear friend,

The Church has given permission for certain lay people to administer the Eucharist. These are people that have not consecrated the bread and wine. Only the priest can do that. They are simply people who have been incorporated into the Body of Christ by their baptism and are helping the priest distribute the sacrament. We are all called to obey the Church in such matters. Faith is not a matter of feeling. It a matter of the will. You have allowed the matter of who gives you the Eucharist to be more important to you than Who it is you are receiving. Think about it and will to accept this in spite of your feelings. The feelings will eventually diminish.

If you were starving, would it matter who the person would be who saved your life by giving you some food? Well we all are starving spiritually for the Lord. What a sublime gift the Eucharist is! I suggest that you read the following reflection on the passion and focus on the price He paid that you might receive Him in the Eucharist from anyone—and thank Him for all those who have ministered the Eucharist to you.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P." QUOTE

 

[zab]

This weekend I attended the local parish’s OF with my family. I was sitting next to a very sweet lady who has noticed that I only receive Communion from the priest and was clearly concerned about me. After Mass she asked me about why I do this. I told her both my practical reason and my theological one. I receive on the tongue and kneeling which few EMoCs have been trained to expect. It would be awkward at best and, at worst, the Blessed Sacrament might fall. My theological reason is a wish to acknowledge the special link between the Sacraments of Ordination and Eucharist.

The concerned lady did not respond directly to what I said but told me a story about a time she had been tempted to not receive Communion from an Extraordinary Minister (because she didn’t like him) but she knew that it was important to be obedient so she did it anyhow. Her point seemed to be that I should stop my “disobedience” and receive Communion from lay people. Since she was so clearly well-meaning, I just smiled and thanked her, but it is a bit depressing to know that people think of me as disobedient to the Church.

First of all, we do not know what the lady was implying. We only have your interpretation of what she meant when she shared her own experience. I believe this is an opportunity for you to grow in virtue. You have your reasons for wanting to receive from the priest. Don’t spoil that practice by worrying what others may or may not think.

 

[Ockham]

Wow, thanks! I’ve actually been looking for that these past few days.

You shouldn’t be throwing stats around without hard data. C’mon, this is not the first time you’ve done that. Case in point, you’ve blamed V2 and the OF for many things in the past. But I don’t want to get into that in this thread. I just want to answer your question.

Let’s stay on point, shall we?

You accused me of falsifying statistics. You challenged me on Mass attendance. I proved my statement with surveys from CARA and the CBC among others and your retort is that I’m 'throwing stats around without hard data"? Is that all you have to say for yourself?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Let’s stay on point, shall we?

You accused me of falsifying statistics. You challenged me on Mass attendance. I proved my statement with surveys from CARA and the CBC among others and your retort is that I’m 'throwing stats around without hard data"? Is that all you have to say for yourself?

I don’t want to turn this thread into a you vs. me petty argument thread. But just for clarification I never said you falsified stats. I asked you if you have hard evidence on your claim or if the statistics are made up. Falsification is changing real stats. I doubted that you had real stats. But also, I never said you never had it. I presented my doubt in a question so you can answer. I never gave a definitive statement that you are making a false claim. I had doubts, I aired it in a way you can respond to it. Now you have, it has cleared my doubts.

If you want to continue this disucssion, lets do so via PM. I replied publicly just so its clear to me and you and the people who may have read our posts that I did not say you are lying. I have doubts and questioned you, but never did I make a conclusive judgement. I dared you to produce factual data, and you did.