No need for consecrated wine?

[ProVobis]

Yes, there IS a priestly vocations crisis in the US - but it predates Vatican II by 10 years or more.

There might be some truth to that. But remember the reforms to the Mass started some time before Vatican II, the most significant ones being changes to Holy Week and the Canon itself, which hadn’t been changed for over 400 years. Some may argue that Pius X had made significant advances in getting people to participate more in the Mass and getting them to receive more frequently as well.

 

[Corki]

That’s how I remember it too, As a communicant ,I had to be very aware of the next gap in the altar rail, and hurriedly kneel down before the priest got to me and yes, shovelled the Host on to my tongue, then leap up with no real chance to make a thanksgiving beyond a quick ‘;thank you, Lord,’ as there would literally be someone breathing down the back of my neck waiting to take their place.
I have to say, I wish some of the posters who weren’t there before Vat.II would just listen when we old-timers triy to convince them what it was really like. Golden Age it wasn’t.

I don’t doubt that there were some instances of that happening but I don’t think it was a usual occurance.

I attended Mass in four states (seven parishes) and one other country before we started receiving in the hand or standing. All but the last was before any of the Vatican II changes to the Mass were implemented and I never saw anything like you describe.

But this isn’t a question of reverent or irreverent distribution of Communion. It is just as easy to “shovel” into people’s hands - and I have seen this. The discussion was on time. There have been time studies done - it takes less time to Commune the same amount of people using the rail (with the priest moving) than standing in line with the people moving.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Let us judge on the current state of things. Are we really better off now? Not just liturgically, but culturally, as Catholics? Catholic identity is practically dead compared to then, and that’s undeniable.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I totally deny it.

Are we members of the same Church? Because of family commitments, I go to several churches. They are very vibrant.

Please don’t romanticise the old days. I don’t really want to go into the problems back then, but if you ever get a chance you should read some of the accounts of the proceeding of the Second Vatican Council. Xavier Rynne has written a good account which details the various debates. The Council fathers were very councerned that people had no understanding of the mass and only prayed the rosary during mass. They were concerned that the Roman rite no longer followed the Apostolic tradition of communion under both species. They were concerned that Marian devotion was eclipsing the worship of God. They were concerned that the Catholic Chruch was viewed as not the source of western civilization (which it is) but an organization total devoid of any understanding of the modern world. I can assure you these were all valid concerns.

You say, “oh look all these people left the church.?”

The Church certainly did not help itself with the sexual abuse crisis. By the way, this was going on before the Council. Don’t think for a moment that this is not true. I saw it personally before the Council. In fact, if anything the Council helped to set the stage for an openness to deal with it.

In addition of course, the culture of today is aimed at fighting Christianity and Catholicism is really viewed by the enemies of Christianity as its last bastion. The assault is constant. For that reason we never got cable when are kids were small. Now that they have left home we got it a few months ago. I feel sorry for the young people watching it who have no one to guide them.

Having a mass no one understands, reinstating an unchristian distinction between the people and their leaders (clericalism), and taking away ancient apostolic traditions like communion under both species is not going to bring the culture around. The Apostles fought a culture just like ours and they did it with the “Gospels.” And they won! That is why the Holy Spirit sent the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. We need a Church that is more like the Church of Apostles than a Church like the middle ages.

I am also going to give a reason that no one really talks about but I feel is really an underlying cause of many people leaving the Church. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Church was very dishonest with the people. They were teaching them that the mass had to be in Latin, that communion was to be given only in the species of bread, that the nuns and priest were always right, and it was fine to over emphasize Mary, etc. etc.

When Pope John (later Pope Paul) and the Council Fathers put their foots down and said look we want to make sure our faith is pure as possible to its “real traditions” and began to implement needed reforms such the Novus Ordo mass, a collegial episcopal structure, and more of an emphasis on Jesus and the “Good News,” many people got confused. With a great deal of validity, they reasoned, “look you told us all these things and now you are saying something difference. What is it really?” So you see, one of the reasons (not the only one of course) of people leaving the Church was actually the over emphasis on accumulated medevel customs that took on a “sacred nature.” When the real story was taught, many people began to distrust the Church leadership.

 

[Corki]

I am also going to give a reason that no one really talks about but I feel is really an underlying cause of many people leaving the Church. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Church was very dishonest with the people. They were teaching them that the mass had to be in Latin, that communion was to be given only in the species of bread, that the nuns and priest were always right, and it was fine to over emphasize Mary, etc. etc.

How is that dishonest? The Mass was in Latin because that was the discipline of the Church. It is not any different in terms of “honesty” than the Church saying that the Mass can be said in the vernacular. Same thing with Communion. The distribution is a discipline and it sometimes changes. Nothing dishonest about that.

What is dishonest is trying to raise the distribution of Communion under both kinds to some kind of theological doctrine when it is simply a changeable discipline.

And now instead of thinking that priests and nuns are always right, we have rabid anti-clericalism and wide-spread disrespect of those in religious life. Not exactly an improvement, is it.

There is also nothing wrong with “over-emphasizing” Mary as long as one doesn’t lose sight of Christ. Mary points us to Jesus. I teach CCE to kids who have never been to a May Crowning, who never have seen a home May altary and who don’t even know the words to basic Marian hymns. Not exactly progress.

 

[Brendan]

It would only be quicker if the Church returned to the very irreverant way communion was passed out before the Second Vatican Council. .

Our parish uses the Communion rail and it is very reverent, thank you very much.

It is also a lot faster too than what I experience at neighboring parishes with their small army of EMHC’s, and fewer people.

 

[ProVobis]

Trent, Session 21

The Doctrine Of Communion Under Both Kinds …

…
CHAPTER I
LAYMEN AND CLERICS WHEN NOT OFFERING THE SACRIFICE ARE NOT BOUND BY DIVINE LAW TO COMMUNION UNDER BOTH SPECIES

This holy council instructed by the Holy Ghost, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and godliness,[1] and following the judgment and custom of the Church,[2] declares and teaches that laymen and clerics when not offering the sacrifice are bound by no divine precept to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both forms, and that there can be no doubt at all, , that communion under either form is sufficient for them to salvation. For though Christ the Lord at the last supper instituted and delivered to the Apostles this venerable sacrament under the forms of bread and wine,[3] yet that institution and administration do not signify that all the faithful are by an enactment of the Lord to receive under both forms. Neither is it rightly inferred from that discourse contained in the sixth chapter of John that communion under both forms was enjoined by the Lord, notwithstanding the various interpretations of it by the holy Fathers and Doctors. For He who said: <Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you>,[4] also said: ;[5] and He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting,>[6] also said: ;[7] and lastly, He who said: <He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him>,[8] said, nevertheless: [9]

…

CHAPTER III
CHRIST, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, AND A TRUE SACRAMENT ARE RECEIVED UNDER EITHER SPECIES

It declares, moreover, that though our Redeemer at the last supper instituted and administered this sacrament to the Apostles under two forms, as has already been said, yet it must be acknowledged that Christ, whole and entire, and a true sacrament are received under either form alone,[12] and therefore, as regards its fruits, those who receive one species only are not deprived of any grace necessary to salvation.

…
Canon 1. If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist,[14] let him be anathema.

…
Canon 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species,[16] let him be anathema.

…

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT21.HTM

 

[YoungTradCath]

Having a mass no one understands, reinstating an unchristian distinction between the people and their leaders (clericalism), and taking away ancient apostolic traditions like communion under both species is not going to bring the culture around. The Apostles fought a culture just like ours and they did it with the “Gospels.” And they won! That is why the Holy Spirit sent the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. We need a Church that is more like the Church of Apostles than a Church like the middle ages.

I am also going to give a reason that no one really talks about but I feel is really an underlying cause of many people leaving the Church. Before the Second Vatican Council, the Church was very dishonest with the people. They were teaching them that the mass had to be in Latin, that communion was to be given only in the species of bread, that the nuns and priest were always right, and it was fine to over emphasize Mary, etc. etc.

I’ll romanticize whatever I want.

I understand the Tridentine mass. There is a distinction between laymen and clergy, and I acknowledge it fully as a healthy and absolutely necessary aspect of our Church. Communion in both species is only as much of a tradition as the Church says it is.

The Church was not dishonest with people. The mass did, in fact, have to be in Latin, because the Church said it did. Communion was only supposed to be distributed in the form of His Body, because the Church says it was. Nowadays, many “modern” Catholics have an infectious disrespect of clergy and religious that borders on insanity; laymen nowadays think they know what they’re talking about, go and “report” something like Latin masses (I’ve seen it) to the bishop, without even having checked their facts, and then get mad when the bishop tells them they’re wrong. Thank God some people are driven to this forum where we can offer our communal opinions to influence people like them and give them the two cents of advice that they have no business “reporting” their priest because the priest is right. There is little true respect for clergy anymore. Sure, people love their priests and thank God for them, but as soon as they do something that they don’t agree with, they’re ready for a witch burning, even if he’s right. God forbid father tells the congregation in his homily that they could very well go to hell after death; somehow, Catholics don’t believe in hell, anymore. God forbid father sings “Kyrie, Eleison” instead of “Lord, Have Mercy,” and then “turn him in” to the bishop for speaking Latin at mass (I laughed when I heard about this once, because Kyrie Eleison isn’t even Latin); apparently, “being Vatican II” means you can only say vernacular masses now. Quite the opposite, actually.

-]I embrace Vatican II. And I’m a traditionalist./-] Actually, I embrace Vatican II BECAUSE I’m a traditionalist. I bet no one saw that coming. However, I detest the “spirit” of Vatican II, because it doesn’t exist, and it stands for nothing except a perversion of the true documents of the Council, which mean everything. I love it when I debate stuff with people, and they say, “Vatican II says…,” and I’m like, “Okay, show me.” I get nothing but a blank stare.

 

[Trishie]

As a Celiac to whom wheat is essentially poison, I receive Communion only from the Chalice. There are many in my situation. Celiac disease is autoimmune, and for those who have this illness, wheat causes intestinal damage, and causes other illnesses to develop, therefore it isn’t a choice.
The only valid matter for consecration of the altar bread, according to Canon Law, is wheat flour mixed with water.
This is a known illness, shared by many.
What provision if any have the relevant dioceses for Celiacs?

“The prevalence in the U.S. is reported to range from 1:250 to 1:1,500. Studies in several European countries indicate prevalence as high as 1 in 250 to 300 of the general population. …[Results of a study by Fasano et.al., published in Arch Intern Med. 2003 Feb 10, suggests a prevalence of 1 in 133 in the U.S. general population.]”
iffgd.org/site/gi-disorders/other/celiac

 

[YoungTradCath]

As a Celiac to whom wheat is essentially poison, I receive Communion only from the Chalice. There are many in my situation. Celiac disease is autoimmune, and for those who have this illness, wheat causes intestinal damage, and causes other illnesses to develop, therefore it isn’t a choice.
The only valid matter for consecration of the altar bread, according to Canon Law, is wheat flour mixed with water.
This is a known illness, shared by many.
What provision if any have the relevant dioceses for Celiacs?

“The prevalence in the U.S. is reported to range from 1:250 to 1:1,500. Studies in several European countries indicate prevalence as high as 1 in 250 to 300 of the general population. …[Results of a study by Fasano et.al., published in Arch Intern Med. 2003 Feb 10, suggests a prevalence of 1 in 133 in the U.S. general population.]”
iffgd.org/site/gi-disorders/other/celiac

It has generally been the practice that those who may not receive His Body for health reasons may receive His Blood in a specially prepared chalice. I’ve never heard of a case in a host-only parish or diocese in which a person with Celiac disease is denied the Eucharist. There are many threads arguing host-only/both species distribution of the Eucharist, and you will find in every one of those threads posts from people who essentially say the same thing I am saying.

No one is advocating for denial of the Eucharist to people who have Celiac disease or whatever other disease prevents them from receiving His Body. Just like back in the day when it was required to kneel to receive the Eucharist every time, people who could not received standing or in their wheelchair or wherever they could; it’s the same way today regarding this in masses celebrated according to the missal promulgated by HH John XXIII.

 

[liturgyluver]

It has generally been the practice that those who may not receive His Body for health reasons may receive His Blood in a specially prepared chalice. I’ve never heard of a case in a host-only parish or diocese in which a person with Celiac disease is denied the Eucharist.

My mother is a Coeliac and sadly she effectively was denied the Eucharist at the parish she had been attending for over 40 years after she was diagnosed. This was a host-only place and the priest refused to make any concessions apart from suggesting that she write to the Pope to ask why gluten-free wafers could not be used. It’s a good job I wasn’t with her when he spoke to her like that as he would have got a piece of my mind.

Luckily she has switched to another parish that is more accomodating, but I was very angry about this, and she was very sad.

 

[Corki]

My mother is a Coeliac and sadly she effectively was denied the Eucharist at the parish she had been attending for over 40 years after she was diagnosed. This was a host-only place and the priest refused to make any concessions apart from suggesting that she write to the Pope to ask why gluten-free wafers could not be used. It’s a good job I wasn’t with her when he spoke to her like that as he would have got a piece of my mind.

Luckily she has switched to another parish that is more accomodating, but I was very angry about this, and she was very sad.

That is a sad story. Obviously, this priest was not only inconsiderate, he didn’t even understand the teaching of the Church on valid matter. The directives for how to accomodate individuals with special needs seem to come from the bishop’s conferences. The USCCB has issued guidelines that include allowances for those suffering from celiac disease to receive from the cup. I don’t know what the directives are in the UK.

Also, 40 years ago, there was no available ultra low gluten hosts as there are now.

But this doesn’t really relate to whether Communion should be offerred all the time under both kinds. If someone’s wheat sensitivity is so severe that even extremely low gluten hosts aren’t an option, then the contamination risk of a shared cup is also going to be a problem.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My mother is a Coeliac and sadly she effectively was denied the Eucharist at the parish she had been attending for over 40 years after she was diagnosed. This was a host-only place and the priest refused to make any concessions apart from suggesting that she write to the Pope to ask why gluten-free wafers could not be used. It’s a good job I wasn’t with her when he spoke to her like that as he would have got a piece of my mind.

Luckily she has switched to another parish that is more accomodating, but I was very angry about this, and she was very sad.

Well, that’s highly unfortunate. That doesn’t defeat my argument, however. The priest was wrong.

 

[Aramis]

It has generally been the practice that those who may not receive His Body for health reasons may receive His Blood in a specially prepared chalice. I’ve never heard of a case in a host-only parish or diocese in which a person with Celiac disease is denied the Eucharist. There are many threads arguing host-only/both species distribution of the Eucharist, and you will find in every one of those threads posts from people who essentially say the same thing I am saying.

No one is advocating for denial of the Eucharist to people who have Celiac disease or whatever other disease prevents them from receiving His Body. Just like back in the day when it was required to kneel to receive the Eucharist every time, people who could not received standing or in their wheelchair or wherever they could; it’s the same way today regarding this in masses celebrated according to the missal promulgated by HH John XXIII.

Actually, I’ve seen several traditionalists claim celiac is demonic posession and grounds for barring them from communion at all. (not online - to my face - implying my mother, a deacon’s wife, was possessed.)

The Host-Only and Latin-only practices have lead a LOT of older traditionalists to minor heresies of their own. Like belief that a consecration not in latin is invald. Like belief that a consecration where the priest faces the people is invalid.

The ignorance of the generation or two prior to me (coming of age in the 40’s and 50’s) about the mass is often quite astonishing in its prevalence and utter misunderstanding of the church. Most of them can rattle off prayers in latin, but can’t tell you what those prayers mean. Many of them attended but did not participate in the mass; they were completely focused on their private prayers, especially if not communing. As a child, I remember clearly one woman who complained to the priest about the music interfering with her private prayers - the music being the singing of the mass parts at a daily mass, chanted by the priest! (She also would put in ear plugs during sunday masses, and say the rosary instead of paying attention. This was in the 1970’s.) I remember many more who stubbornly tuned out everything to say their rosary even into the 1970’s.

As a child of the change, I can say that it was clear those not embracing it were also not participating in it. We don’t see that near as much now. And priest friends have commented often about how much more participation there is.

I can also say in no uncertain terms, if the Tridentine were the only mass, I’d have left the church post-haste. As did many of the generation before me.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Actually, I’ve seen several traditionalists claim celiac is demonic posession and grounds for barring them from communion at all. (not online - to my face - implying my mother, a deacon’s wife, was possessed.)

The Host-Only and Latin-only practices have lead a LOT of older traditionalists to minor heresies of their own. Like belief that a consecration not in latin is invald. Like belief that a consecration where the priest faces the people is invalid.

The ignorance of the generation or two prior to me (coming of age in the 40’s and 50’s) about the mass is often quite astonishing in its prevalence and utter misunderstanding of the church. Most of them can rattle off prayers in latin, but can’t tell you what those prayers mean. Many of them attended but did not participate in the mass; they were completely focused on their private prayers, especially if not communing. As a child, I remember clearly one woman who complained to the priest about the music interfering with her private prayers - the music being the singing of the mass parts at a daily mass, chanted by the priest! (She also would put in ear plugs during sunday masses, and say the rosary instead of paying attention. This was in the 1970’s.) I remember many more who stubbornly tuned out everything to say their rosary even into the 1970’s.

As a child of the change, I can say that it was clear those not embracing it were also not participating in it. We don’t see that near as much now. And priest friends have commented often about how much more participation there is.

I can also say in no uncertain terms, if the Tridentine were the only mass, I’d have left the church post-haste. As did many of the generation before me.

What does this have to do with my argument? It doesn’t defeat it, in any sense, nor does it support it. So…?

Receiving the host only is not a traditionalist practice. It’s a Latin Rite Catholic practice.

I don’t understand what the part about the generation prior to you has to do with anything, either. Sometimes my pastor likes to crack jokes during his homilies in otherwise orthodox masses, to my horror, and to several peoples’ delight. At that, I begin to pray the rosary. If I find the music exceedingly Protestant (very rarely), like Amazing Grace (eek), I begin to pray the rosary. I don’t buy the, “If you don’t participate, you’re very very bad,” argument.

 

[liturgyluver]

Well, that’s highly unfortunate. That doesn’t defeat my argument, however. The priest was wrong.

I wasn’t arguing against you - in any way. Just giving an example of this unfortunate incident and what some coeliacs have to contend with, when priests act in error.

 

[ProVobis]

Like belief that a consecration not in latin is invald…

Quite ironic then that it is commonly acknowledged that something like “Haec est enim caro mea” is significantly different to invalidate a consecration but its English translation “This is my flesh” isn’t.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Quite ironic then that it is commonly acknowledged that something like “Haec est enim caro mea” is significantly different to invalidate a consecration but its English translation “This is my flesh” isn’t.

Looking at the Eucharistic formula across the Church from all Rites, it seems the Church has the authority to determine the Eucharistic formula and its not something set in stone. So if the Church says the English words are valid, they are valid. Same way if the Church says the Anaphora of Addai and Mari are valid even though they do not say those words, then they are.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I’ll romanticize whatever I want.

I understand the Tridentine mass. There is a distinction between laymen and clergy, and I acknowledge it fully as a healthy and absolutely necessary aspect of our Church. Communion in both species is only as much of a tradition as the Church says it is.

The Church was not dishonest with people. The mass did, in fact, have to be in Latin, because the Church said it did. Communion was only supposed to be distributed in the form of His Body, because the Church says it was. Nowadays, many “modern” Catholics have an infectious disrespect of clergy and religious that borders on insanity; laymen nowadays think they know what they’re talking about, go and “report” something like Latin masses (I’ve seen it) to the bishop, without even having checked their facts, and then get mad when the bishop tells them they’re wrong. Thank God some people are driven to this forum where we can offer our communal opinions to influence people like them and give them the two cents of advice that they have no business “reporting” their priest because the priest is right. There is little true respect for clergy anymore. Sure, people love their priests and thank God for them, but as soon as they do something that they don’t agree with, they’re ready for a witch burning, even if he’s right. God forbid father tells the congregation in his homily that they could very well go to hell after death; somehow, Catholics don’t believe in hell, anymore. God forbid father sings “Kyrie, Eleison” instead of “Lord, Have Mercy,” and then “turn him in” to the bishop for speaking Latin at mass (I laughed when I heard about this once, because Kyrie Eleison isn’t even Latin); apparently, “being Vatican II” means you can only say vernacular masses now. Quite the opposite, actually.

-]I embrace Vatican II. And I’m a traditionalist./-] Actually, I embrace Vatican II BECAUSE I’m a traditionalist. I bet no one saw that coming. However, I detest the “spirit” of Vatican II, because it doesn’t exist, and it stands for nothing except a perversion of the true documents of the Council, which mean everything. I love it when I debate stuff with people, and they say, “Vatican II says…,” and I’m like, “Okay, show me.” I get nothing but a blank stare.

There is the same valid distinction between the priest and the people in any valid mass. The Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Syrian, Bzyantine, Maronite,etc. have the same distinction and I might add the same unity. Remember the priest is offering the sacrificial meal on behalf of, for, and with the people. “Every high priest has been taken out of mankind and is appointed to act for men in their relations with God…” (Hebrews 5:1). I don’t understand what you are saying. Is your point that the Novus Ordo does not maintain the proper role of the priest? I think the Church would have a problem with that.

As far as communion under both species being a tradition because the Church says it is so is really a relativistic answer. Pope Benedict wouldn’t like that at all! The reason it is the tradition of the Church is because it is what the Apostles taught us to do. The Church would never agree with your view of how traditions are made. The Apostles and the early church left us these traditions and we as the Church pass them on. The Church recognizes the importance of the tradition of receiving under both species by calling it the fuller sign. That is a pretty heavy endorsement by the Chruch.

I love the Catholic Church. I also know that many times it make mistakes. It did indeed teach at least to me and many other people that somehow Latin was divinely ordained as the best language for the mass. That was being dishonest.

As far as quoting the documents of Vatican II, you won’t get any blank stares from this crowd. There are a whole lot of people posting here who have done their homework, have read the documents and know accurate Chruch history. They are not reticient about cogently taking on controversial subjects. I sure you must have realized that.

Don’t denigrate the spirit of Vatican II. It was an incredible time during and just after the council when people lead by a wonderful group of bishops who really began to feel the true nature of the Church. They began to look at how the Church could be made more like our Apostolic traditions. There nothing wrong with that. What you are complaining about is the use of the “Spirit of Vatican II” as a way to get around solid Church teachings. Of course that is wrong, but many medievelist (I don’t like to use the word “traditionalist” because most of the time they want to bring back later medieval traditions) use the “Spirit of Vatican II” as a whipping boy to attack the reforms of ther Councils.

As far as disrespecting clergy, the US is actually pretty darn good. Believe it or not, it is actually one of the best places in the world to practice a religion. One of the main reasons that many of the churches of Europe are empty is because the Church abused its position in the past to gain political power. People have not forgotten that. If the incidents occured as you indicated, they are pretty minor. Think about what happened during the French revolution to the Church.

As far as complaining to the bishop, any Catholic has a right to do that. And I might add should do it if they feel there is a major problem. Of course they shouldn’t get mad, but isn’t that more human nature.

You know, God and the Church want and need thinking men and women. If something is not right in their eyes, they have the duty to tried to make it right. In a Christian way of course.

God Bless.

Oh by the way - Thanks for acknowledging, by your remark about the Kyrie, that Latin isn’t the original language of the Roman rite - the vernacular at that time, Koine (common) Greek is.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Looking at the Eucharistic formula across the Church from all Rites, it seems the Church has the authority to determine the Eucharistic formula and its not something set in stone. So if the Church says the English words are valid, they are valid. Same way if the Church says the Anaphora of Addai and Mari are valid even though they do not say those words, then they are.

Thanks Constantine. Yes, the eucharist isn’t magic.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is the same valid distinction between the priest and the people in any valid mass. The Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Syrian, Bzyantine, Maronite,etc. have the same distinction and I might add the same unity. Remember the priest is offering the sacrificial meal on behalf of, for, and with the people. “Every high priest has been taken out of mankind and is appointed to act for men in their relations with God…” (Hebrews 5:1). I don’t understand what you are saying. Is your point that the Novus Ordo does not maintain the proper role of the priest? I think the Church would have a problem with that.

As far as communion under both species being a tradition because the Church says it is so is really a relativistic answer. Pope Benedict wouldn’t like that at all! The reason it is the tradition of the Church is because it is what the Apostles taught us to do. The Church would never agree with your view of how traditions are made. The Apostles and the early church left us these traditions and we as the Church pass them on. The Church recognizes the importance of the tradition of receiving under both species by calling it the fuller sign. That is a pretty heavy endorsement by the Chruch.

I love the Catholic Church. I also know that many times it make mistakes. It did indeed teach at least to me and many other people that somehow Latin was divinely ordained as the best language for the mass. That was being dishonest.

As far as quoting the documents of Vatican II, you won’t get any blank stares from this crowd. There are a whole lot of people posting here who have done their homework, have read the documents and know accurate Chruch history. They are not reticient about cogently taking on controversial subjects. I sure you must have realized that.

Don’t denigrate the spirit of Vatican II. It was an incredible time during and just after the council when people lead by a wonderful group of bishops who really began to feel the true nature of the Church. They began to look at how the Church could be made more like our Apostolic traditions. There nothing wrong with that. What you are complaining about is the use of the “Spirit of Vatican II” as a way to get around solid Church teachings. Of course that is wrong, but many medievelist (I don’t like to use the word “traditionalist” because most of the time they want to bring back later medieval traditions) use the “Spirit of Vatican II” as a whipping boy to attack the reforms of ther Councils.

As far as disrespecting clergy, the US is actually pretty darn good. Believe it or not, it is actually one of the best places in the world to practice a religion. One of the main reasons that many of the churches of Europe are empty is because the Church abused its position in the past to gain political power. People have not forgotten that. If the incidents occured as you indicated, they are pretty minor. Think about what happened during the French revolution to the Church.

As far as complaining to the bishop, any Catholic has a right to do that. And I might add should do it if they feel there is a major problem. Of course they shouldn’t get mad, but isn’t that more human nature.

You know, God and the Church want and need thinking men and women. If something is not right in their eyes, they have the duty to tried to make it right. In a Christian way of course.

God Bless.

Oh by the way - Thanks for acknowledging, by your remark about the Kyrie, that Latin isn’t the original language of the Roman rite - the vernacular at that time, Koine (common) Greek is.

I never said there actually was a lack of difference between priest and laity at any mass, or type of mass, or rite, or whatever. My point is that our Catholic culture has undeniably degenerated and that the appearance of the difference between priest and laity has degenerated as well. This is due in no small part to both laity and clergy.

I write for the forum, not His Holiness. I’m not going to agree or disagree with how the Church views traditions are made. I’ll leave that up to them.

That’s a highly unfortunate experience with the teaching about Latin in that it is a divinely ordained language. But I think you’ll find many scholars who will agree with the sentiment that Latin is one of the supreme languages of our world. It’s so beautiful in its austere, uncompromising form. I agree.

There are actually many people on here who will use the “Vatican II says…” argument. Not you, though, I gather. I thank you for that.

The spirit of Vatican II is NOT Vatican II!! If the bishops wanted to express half of the unfortunate things that occurred in the spirit of Vatican II, they would have done it in its documents! But they didn’t. No, my use of the spirit of Vatican II argument is a way to support Church teachings. I detest your use of the word “medievalist.” The overwhelming majority of what we have nowadays in the realm of abuses were not “called for” by Vatican II. That’s what traditionalists complain about.

The US is poor at respecting clergy. Perhaps our freedom of religion is (comparatively) good, but our respect of the clergy is nil compared to poorer countries.

Any Catholic has a right to complain to his bishop, sure. But I think that right is abused. My friend’s grandma wrote a letter to His Excellency because he began to offer EF masses and he made a homily that it was not age, but health, that dispensed one from mass, and she thought “that’s not allowed.”

Yes, the Church does need more thinking men and women.