Not just another CITH Thread...

[Ockham]

It got approved becuase the Catholic Bishops of America wanted it. They could stop it overnight if they wanted to . As has been pointed out it is not correct to say the Magestrium is still against it-unless you are contending the Amercan Catholic Bishops are in open defiance of the Vatican.

As to whether it should have been approved? i could not care less whether one recieves communin in the Hand or in the Mouth. It is a minor issue and ranks very low on the list of issues facing the Church.

IF you don’t care about this subject then please don’t post in this thread.

Everyone knows it is approved. The questions are why and should it be.

Bishops have defied the Vatican before.

 

[ProVobis]

Then why have the Bishops not put a stop to it? Are you really contending that 10s of millions of American catholics and thousands of Catholic clergy are engaing in an illegal practice everyday?

Communion in the hand spread through disobedience to the Pope:

His Excellency Juan Rodolfo Laise, in his book Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, describes three major reasons why Communion in the hand spread throughout the world:

Episcopal Conferences did not follow the conditions outlined by Pope Paul VI: “It is true that the practice spread but this was due only to the fact that the Episcopal Conferences allowed its introduction without the demanded conditions being in existence and without taking into consideration the exhortation of Paul VI.”

The bishops did not want to submit to the law in force (Communion on the tongue): “If the legislation did not change, the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [of Communion in the hand] is that the bishops did not listen to the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed.”

The “fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical” was lacking in many bishops: “Knowing the history of this clandestinely reintroduced rite, and spread based on equivocations and confirmed through incessant disobediences, we cannot doubt that ‘the fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical’ is what was lacking in those who, throughout twenty-seven years [as of 1997] have been imposing a practice that the Pope did not want to authorize because he considered it dangerous for the good of the Church (MD 12), until they finally achieved the spreading of it throughout the world.”

Pope Paul VI established several hurdles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions:

(a) the indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom (i.e., disobedient abuse) in the country, and

(b) if “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” the episcopal conference petitions Rome,

(c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission,

(d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence), or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These conditions are outlined in “En réponse à la demande,” which is attached to the Memoriale Domini instruction.

 

[ProVobis]

As the Bishops of the United States prepared for their May 1977 General Meeting, Cardinal Carberry on March 12, 1977 made an impassioned plea for prayers and help from the Catholic laity:

“We are facing again another struggle in our Bishops’ Conference in May. It has been decided, for the third time now, that we have to talk about Communion in the hand…. So I would be grateful beyond words for any way that you could possibly help by prayer. I’m thinking, I know I can use a great deal of canonical reasons and law and the rest of it, but you don’t get very far with these. People don’t seem to want to listen to this kind of reasoning. But some kind of reasoning that would reach into the hearts of the Bishops, and to place it, I hope, on the basis of danger of irreverence to the Most Blessed Sacrament which is growing and growing and growing throughout our country. And if any of you have any reading matter on this, or any thoughts on how it could be presented; ways that it could be presented; ways that it could be presented before us, I would be so grateful to hear and receive any suggestions. And I pray most earnestly to our Most Blessed Mother that the beautiful prayer, ‘O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine’ might be an ejaculation of all of us who want to preserve the reverence and devotion by the traditional way of receiving Communion, which has the blessing of our Holy Father, the Pope.” (Cardinal Carberry, St. Louis, Missouri, March 12, 1977)

Here is how the American bishops evaded Pope Paul VI’s restrictions: the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. But it was in May 1977 that Communion in the hand was illegally and formally introduced into the United States. The NCCB’s own minutes of the May 3-5, 1977 General Meeting in Chicago, Illinois gives us many of the details.

a) The Holy See’s requirement to prove an already established, prevailing custom of Communion in the hand in the given country:

The agenda for the meeting was presented by Archbishop Bernardin, and he noted that the Administrative Committee had placed the question of Communion in the hand in the open session of the meeting. Bishop Mugavero (interestingly enough, the Bishop responsible for failing to investigate Our Lady of the Roses apparitions), moved that the agenda be approved. Bishop Blanchette and five other bishops objected, and proposed in writing the following amendment to the agenda item concerning Communion in the hand:

“I. A written vote by the Ordinaries as to whether the contrary usage, that of placing Holy Communion in the hand, prevails in this country as is required by the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion [Memoriale Domini] of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, 29 May, 1969, before a vote is taken to see if a national conference of bishops is to seek a dispensation from the common usage;

II. and that the agenda be adopted with the stipulation that the vote on Communion in the hand be taken only if the vote mentioned above is affirmative.”

Bishop Blanchette also moved that the amendment be adopted by a written ballot. The Chair indicated that this would be done, since five bishops had seconded the motion. What Bishop Blanchette wanted to make clear to the assembled American bishops was that Pope Paul VI specifically stated that they could not vote on the matter without first establishing that Communion in the hand was the “prevailing” custom in the United States (which it was not). As Bishop Blanchette told the National Catholic Register:

“I said, we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails. The ordinary should know, he is the shepherd of the diocese. He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey, and his laity have been asked to obey, so if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step—finding out whether or not the usage prevails—could be verified, and if it were verified, then we could go on with the rest of the agenda. But if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second step? That was my motion.” (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

 

[estesbob]

IF you don’t care about this subject then please don’t post in this thread.

Everyone knows it is approved. The questions are why and should it be.

Bishops have defied the Vatican before.

It should continue to be approved because it is a reverent way to receive communion and is the prefered method of recieving communion by 10s of million of Catholics. As long as people have a choice there is no reason not to approve it.

 

[ProVobis]

At this point, the game of deception and disobedience began.

An appeal was then made to declare Bishop Blanchette’s motion out of order. A show of hands was made, and it was declared that the motion was out of order. Recalling this incident, Bishop Blanchette stated:

“As you know it [the motion] was seconded, it was supported in writing by five bishops, which therefore permitted a written vote, and it was sustained by the parliamentarian. It was sustained by the president of the conference, and it was only by an appeal from this that it was ruled out of order, and it was not done by voice vote because from voice vote there was an inconclusive answer. It was done by show of hands or standing up, and the answer came out was that it seems the majority of the bishops present consider the chair to have erred in ruling the amendment in order. You heard Cardinal John Krol state that he thought a parliamentary device was used to get rid of a valid motion that would’ve enabled us to discern the conditions that actually prevail in our country.” (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

The NCCB’s own minutes report:

“Cardinal Krol said that he was distressed that on the previous day a parliamentary device had been employed to deprive the bishops of a survey, suggested by Bishop Blanchette, of the Ordinaries on the current extent of the practice of giving Communion in the hand. He feared that the bishops were beginning a policy of legalizing any abuse of law, and said that far from being an abuse of freedom, law is in reality a protection of freedom.”

The minutes also record the opposition of Cardinal Carberry:

“Cardinal Carberry cited the view of the Holy See expressed in 1969 that the long-received manner of giving Communion to the faithful not be changed. He noted that a picture in L’Osservatore Romano which appeared to show the Holy Father giving Communion in the hand was explained upon inquiry, as showing the presentation of the Rosary. He said that there was great danger of irreverence in administering Communion in the hand, and in this connection mentioned the concerns of both the Holy Father and of Cardinal Knox. To adopt the Committee’s propose he felt would only contribute to the desacralization of the Eucharist. Finally, he deplored the lack of a survey to determine the wishes of the faithful in this matter. He noted the extraordinary volume of mail sent to the bishops opposing the introduction of the optional practice and said that there was no mandate from Catholic people for the Committee’s proposal.”

 

[ProVobis]

(b) The Holy See’s requirement that the bishops determine “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” to petition Rome for the indult:

Even though Pope Paul VI had expressly stated that the indult could not be requested where the disobedient practice of Communion in the hand did not prevail, the American bishops nevertheless went around this requirement and put it to a vote. From the NCCB’s own minutes:

“Later in the meeting Archbishop Bernardin reported that the vote had fallen short of the required two-thirds of all de jure members and that the matter could not be concluded until the absent bishops were polled.”

What Bernardin really meant by “the matter could not be concluded” was that they were going to get Communion in the hand one way or another, even if it had just been voted down. To get around the lack of votes, bishops who were not present, bishops who were retired and bishops who were dying were “polled”. According to Fr. Kunz, a canon lawyer, using a proxy vote of absent bishops would invalidate the petition for the indult and it would thus have no status. The maneuver employed by Cardinal Bernardin to get the necessary votes was therefore invalid, as only the members present at the meeting could vote.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J. declared on November 1, 1997 in Detroit, Michigan:

“To get enough votes to give Communion on the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be an affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Cardinal Bernardin played a pivotal role in manipulating the American bishops into promoting Communion in the hand. As Our Lady’s warned on July 15, 1978:

“Again and again I wander to and fro directing My children to remain close to the Eucharist, the Bread of life. But do not become misguided: Do not accept My Son’s Body in your hands. Satan, Lucifer, came as an angel of light and set his agents among the hierarchy of My Son’s Church and deluded them. All manner of abominations are being committed upon My Son’s Body now.” - Our Lady, July 15, 1978

(c) The Holy See grants permission for the indult:

Bishop Blanchette told the National Catholic Register:

“What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient—and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline—then we’re very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all.” (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

As Fr. Alfred Kunz has pointed out, permission given under deceit is no permission at all.

 

[ProVobis]

It should continue to be approved because it is a reverent way to receive communion and is the prefered method of recieving communion by 10s of million of Catholics. As long as people have a choice there is no reason not to approve it.

How many of those believe in the Real Presence?

(d) Conditions in the indult:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

1. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

1. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ’s Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

1. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

1. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

1. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

 

[ProVobis]

It is naïve to think that these conditions are being followed.

Fr. Alfred Kunz maintained that by pastoral experience (his pastoral experience) he was morally certain that there would be loss of particles by placing Communion in the hands at any given Mass. This loss of particles is an act of irreverence by the priest and he is bound not to do anything that would violate his conscience. This irreverence to God by losing particles is against the Divine Positive Law and therefore, regardless of its canonical status, cannot be done. And this is due to that fact that to drop a consecrated fragment of the Host to the ground is the same as dropping the consecrated Host to the ground. Even if done through negligence it is still a sin of sacrilege. The danger of irreverence is to be avoided by Divine Law. Not even the Pope can change this law. It is the personal responsibility of the minister of the Sacrament to see to it that all danger of irreverence towards the Blessed Sacrament be avoided. And for this reason there are priests who have decided in conscience that they cannot give Communion in the hand, because they are convinced that the danger of irreverence, sacrilege and loss of true faith is too great.

As Bishop Laise warns, “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.”

The first condition above is: “The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice.” A catechist conducted a survey of 19 Catholic teenagers from different parts of the United States in 1999 to find out if Communion in the hand was being imposed. The students were asked if they were told, when they were first Communicants, to receive only in the hand. The majority replied yes. These students told their personal experiences of C.C.D. teachers mocking the traditional manner of receiving on the tongue.

Condition # 3 is “The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article.” One youngster in this survey said he didn’t believe Jesus was truly present in the Eucharist, until he began receiving Communion on the tongue. He said he was confused and doubted while receiving in the hand because, he said, how can the Host really be God if he was allowed to touch it? Another student shared the experience of a priest calling his mother (who didn’t want her son receiving in the hand) a “crumbologist” because of her concern over lost particles.

How many bishops and priests today will admit to the numerous acts of irreverence, sacrilege, and loss of faith occasioned by Communion in the hand? How many bishops have had the faith and courage to ban Communion in the hand to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament, and to safeguard the faith of the people?

A Gallop poll several years ago among Catholics showed that only 30% held the true Catholic teaching concerning the Eucharist. The other 70% represented various shades of Protestant belief, or no belief at all. Communion in the hand has certainly been an occasion of this loss of faith. Fr. John Hardon has affirmed: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”

tldm.org/news5/cinh2.htm

 

[gospel_life]

Ah, anctedotal evidence. So popular and common yet so shallow.

Well, I guess you would know since that and personal attacks are pretty much the only thing you’re offering. At least my anecdotal evidence doesn’t come with an agenda beyond trying to help identify what has to be confronted if you want to change things.

Georgetown’s CARA institute has several surveys showing Mass attendance and belief in Transubstantiation dropped after V2 and CITH.

Surveys of events and conditions that exist with no assignment of causality. Your decision that there is causality does not make it so. It doesn’t make it NOTso either; it just renders it useless as evidence.

You are appealing to the absurd. Do you honestly thing surveys are conducted on such things? Check the CARA surveys for an idea of what’s been going on in the Church these past forty years.

If you want to prove a case and make an actual difference instead of just whining about things then find things that prove your point instead of offering unsubstantiated opinions and surveys that don’t prove anything relative to what you’re discussing. If surveys haven’t been done on such things help them get done.

If you are going to make such a statement please provide supporting documentation, not just opinion.

The document speaks for itself in the Pope’s own words. If you dispute the document that the Pope issued it is your burden to show why it is false.

False. The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence we are better off with CITH.

Again, the document speaks for itself. Unless you have evidence that the Pope acted in bad faith you have nothing to stand on. As to providing evidence that we are better off with CITH, I have stated twice now that I do NOT promote it nor do I mention it anywhere so I have no burden to prove any such thing. I am simply challenging you to do something effective about it by actually producing something to substantiate your opinions.

The surveys speak for themselves.

They can’t speak for themselves because they make no claims about causation.

Such as?

Seriously? You’re not aware of the events of the 60’s and 70’s? If there is a decline in belief in the Real Presence it is far more attributable to catechesis than CITH. Regardless, if you’re going to try to cite things as proof it is your burden to show that they are the actual root causes. If you can’t do that nobody is going to listen to you.

Again, see the CARA numbers.

Again, meaningless without a showing of causality.

CITH is the only legalized liturgical abuse I know of in Church history. If you know of another I’d be happy to learn about it. If CITH was disobedient forty years ago, why is it legal now - other than “it’s approved”?

It wasn’t disobedient the second it was approved and isn’t disobedient now because that approval has not been withdrawn. To even make such claims diminishes your credibility in anyone’s eyes to which you would be trying to make your argument.

All this though is exactly why this is indeed “just another CITH thread.” Even in trying to support your position I get written off because I bring up that you need meaningful proof if you want to sway people to change. Instead it’s just more of the abuse for anyone who doesn’t accept your statements as gospel that need no further proof. I’ll not trouble you any further.

 

[ProVobis]

…
Even in trying to support your position I get written off because I bring up that you need meaningful proof if you want to sway people to change. Instead it’s just more of the abuse for anyone who doesn’t accept your statements as gospel that need no further proof. I’ll not trouble you any further.

Would this sway people to change?

youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s

 

[nice2000]

Not just another CITH Thread…
Seriously?? In what way?

I’m curious what you base this opinion on. I personally don’t see any more people looking oblivious to the whole thing than before Vatican II. Was the whole meaning of communion already gone then also? For the record, I would opine that the majority have never been much in touch with either the liturgy or reception of communion and that which way it is received really doesn’t have anything to do with it. There are always those there for true worship and they will receive reverently whichever way they receive. I think unfortunately that most are, and were before, there to fill their “Sunday obligation” and don’t really give it much thought one way or another.

This article is so full of misinformation and personal “spin” on what the Pope and his spokesman have said as to be totally worthless.

And for what it’s worth, I am not a CITH “promoter”. If it’s truly wrong I hope the Church gets rid of it tomorrow. All the handwringing and hyperbole don’t make for valid arguments though when the majority of the bishops, at least in countries where it was given, asked for the indult. Using the “they’re trying to destroy the church” argument falls along the same line as the revisionist arguments that claim that Vatican II was “hijacked” when all but a small handful approved every single document.

I just can’t imagine, after the Pope’s strong initial reluctance, that he would have been swayed without solid arguments from a solid group who believed it would be beneficial. Without proof that there was bad will involved somehow, making the argument that it was somehow fraudulently promulgated again just doesn’t fly.

It may well be that time has shown that it isn’t a good idea and that it is time to reconsider. If so then the arguments should be made on why that is the case. But those arguments need to be supported by facts that are incontrovertable enough to sway the bishops to withdraw their support for the indult. Even now, if I’m not mistaken, no bishop is required to allow it in his diocese, indult or no, but I don’t recall hearing of any stopping its use in this country or Canada at least, even the most conservative. Instead of all the heat why not work on coming up with the facts that will get at least some of them taking action and get the ball rolling.

The Pope is the head of the Church. He wants us to receive Christ on the Tongue and Kneel. There is no misinformation of what The Pope ask of us.

 

[nice2000]

Just taking two of the ideas expressed:

#1 Do all of you who agree that all communicants should kneel and receive COTT, kneel before the Eucharist the entire time you are at adoration? If not, why not?

#2 What do you propose should be done about taking communion to the sick and homebound parishioners. Do you think it can only be allowed if and when the priest has the time?

The Pope said to Kneel while receiving communion on the tongue. He did not say kneel the entire time.

There has been a drastic decrease in men becoming Priests since Vatican II, there are not enough Priests, but to answer your question. Yes, I think the Priest should be only allowed to take communion to the sick and homebound.

 

[Vince1022]

St Cyril went on to say “When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them.”

GIRM 161: The communicant replies: Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, **where this is allowed **and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.

One can always receive on the tongue, but to receive on the hand it has to be approved (i.e. an indult) for a particular area e.g. US, Australia etc.

Does anyone know how many countries have applied for the indult?

“Being approved” is not the same as “an indult.” As my pastor explained to me, in the U.S. the option to receive communion in the hand is part of Church law, not an indult.

 

[Vince1022]

The Pope is the head of the Church. He wants us to receive Christ on the Tongue and Kneel. There is no misinformation of what The Pope ask of us.

The Pope has never asked nor directed such from everyone in the Church.

 

[Vince1022]

It’s not an obsession but rather a passionate desire for all to follow the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaching and help each other get to Heaven. How we worship is how we believe. God deserves our best worship, not narcistic fellowship customized from one parish to the next. That type of behaviour is better suited to the KC hall or church basement following Mass.

Of course all Catholics should follow the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Why is communion in the hand such a problem for you, if that same Church approves it?

I see you’re in Canada, so as I am in the U.S. I don’t know the rules Canadian Catholics follow. But, here in the U.S., communion in the hand has been approved by the Church for most of my life. I remember growing up it was always on the tongue, but then when I was in primary school things changed. The nuns in my grade school taught us how to receive, properly, in the hand, if we wanted to, as that’s what Pope Paul VI allowed for U.S. Catholics. It’s not required, nor better or worse, just another option.

 

[Layman]

CITH was approved because it’s better than the old way.

The changes to our religion since the 1940’s are helping us become more holy as individuals, families, communities and nations.

The old rite had serious problems that the new rite corrected. Because these were serious problems, serious changes were made.

 

[ProVobis]

The Pope has never asked nor directed such from everyone in the Church.

That’s very debatable.

youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

youtube.com/watch?v=gkOZg0xty6s&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=3Nmk9ty1clc&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=A3zHpo3gtN0&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=TBps9wpc0QE&feature=related

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[ProVobis]

in the U.S. the option to receive communion in the hand is part of Church law, not an indult.

Actually this particular Church law applies to the entire Latin Rite. If your country’s bishops approve it by 2/3rds, then you may receive CITH in that country provided all other conditions are met and they are tough ones. If 2/3rds of bishops do not approve, then CITH cannot be given under any conditions. There is no universal permission to receive in the hand. Why do you think the Church keeps it that way?

 

[Lycorth]

One thing Ive learned in CAF is the quickest way to hell is to hold hands at the Our Father followed by Recieving Communin in the hands. i have often wondered why people are so obsessed with what i am doing with my hands during Mass?

Because we are not islands unto ourselves. Selfish individualism may prompt people to say things like that, but those of us who actually care about the direction the Church is going know that, per the Cain and Abel story, we are our brothers’ keepers. We’re responsible, in a very definite way, for each other. In an ideal Catholic society, we all try to help each other grow in faith and love for the Lord, not just worry about Number One and get snippy when others point out what might be problems we need to address.

CITH was approved because it’s better than the old way.

No, it wasn’t, and no it isn’t. The Church permitted CITH but not because it was “better” than kneeling. Read post #2 on this thread; the Church doesn’t even want CITH to supplant COTT, so how could the Church think that CITH is “better”?

The changes to our religion since the 1940’s are helping us become more holy as individuals, families, communities and nations.

In what way? You must live under a pretty big rock to not see how bad Western culture has become since the 1940s. Unless you think that a more vulgar, sexually shameless, secularized culture where abortion and contraception are accepted as norms and the Church is marginalized out of social life is a good thing…

The old rite had serious problems that the new rite corrected. Because these were serious problems, serious changes were made.

What problems? Being too reverent? Insisting on certain behaviors to help ensure reverent behavior? Yeah, serious problems

I think modernists need to step back and take a look at how the ancient Israelites treated the tabernacle, how they guarded it and veiled it and revered it and didn’t just let anyone waltz up to it for whatever reason - because they knew God was present. Compare that with how religious life is treated by Catholics today, how casually our churches are regarded, how little reverence is shown to the Blessed Sacrament.

Consider how far we’ve fallen. Little wonder this is an age wherein no saints are made.

 

[momor]

The Pope said to Kneel while receiving communion on the tongue. He did not say kneel the entire time.

.

Aren’t you splitting hairs here? Here is the quote from the article:

The Holy Father’s reasoning is simple: “We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God.” (May 22, 2008)
According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. “Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today” (May 22, 2008)

Is the Eucharist in the adoration chapel not the Real Presence? Why should you be any less reverent during adoration?