The contention was its against divine law. So if its against divine law, why does it exist anywhere in the Church? To disregard what other orders, rites or sui juris Churches has done is to limit conversation that only favors one position. Every accusation against CITH have so far not been consistent with the position of the ENTIRE Church. What happened in the Latin Church is purely disciplinary and not doctrinal or any violation of divine law as some have claimed. If it were, the Church wouldn’t have allowed it to exist in the past, nor would have let it exist anywhere in the Church regardless of Rite.
Note the words preference vis a vis the Vatican. I continue to contend this is a disingenius use of the term “teaching,” because to teach is to define, which the manner of reception of the Holy Eucharist is not.
Because morality and social justice are not matter that are under contention. They are acknowledged as necessary and reasonable, so why would anyone discuss them extensively?
This is not an argument.
I’m not arguing about why people are not arguing. I’m asking where’s the involvement, the desire? It doesn’t seem to match.
No, it wasn’t you. But that is what I responded to and that is what the context of my post is, which you replied to.
No, that is not correct.
Well, I guess since this is a subjective quantification of observation, we cannot really come to a conclusion on this score, can we?
And in that same thirty years, we have seen the fruits of the change that was 40 or so years ago - the change from teaching the faith to children via the Baltimore Catechism, which took a doctrinal approach, the catechesis that emphasized “love” and de-emphasized anything doctrinal.
I do not think this is a matter of right and wrong in the moral sense, but in the propriety sense. The fact that bishops feel the need to warn about abuse and seek to institute elaborate safeguards for one practice and not the other seems to me a sufficient ground for concern regarding any practice.
So why are people complaining about CITH and not about receiving the Precious Blood?
Take it as more of a reflective statement. People who contend about reverence for the Eucharist should also think if they show the proper adoration to the poor and needy where Jesus is as present as He is in the Eucharist according to His own teaching. I’m not really asking for an answer, I’m asking people to think about it because it seems that when the question is about the Blessed Sacrament, we see an army coming in. But this same army doesn’t seem to be fighting the other battle.
Defining is one form of teaching, but not the only form. The manner of reception of the Eucharist is arguably teaching the same thing whether it is by COTT or CITH. Both have existed continually the the Church (although not the Rome rite) for 2000 years.
I certainly never said it was. Has anyone else?
Absolutely. The misinterpreted ‘spirit of V2’ gave us many changes and poor results. The Pope and other high ranking clergy are beginning the rebuilding process. Getting people to stop taking the Blessed Sacrament in their hands would help that cause.
Its good you cleared that up. So why the fuss about reinstating its use? Its not a bad practice as you have said.
Okay, we understand that part. So where is the paten in the discussion of preventing particles from falling to the floor? Seems as if should be part of the equation too, no?
