Sometimes it is right to judge

[Cristiano]

Yes. Spiritual communion.

Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are not in a state of mortal sin etc…)?

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are not in a state of mortal sin etc…)?

You are confused. This is from the Catechism of Trent:

Threefold Manner Of Communicating
That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

 

[Cristiano]

You are confused. This is from the Catechism of Trent:

I am not confused and you proved my point by underlining the statement of people eating and drinking the judgment upon themselves. You still have to prove that my statement is wrong.

My question was:
Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are not in a state of mortal sin etc…)?

 

[ProVobis]

I am not confused and you proved my point by underlining the statement of people eating and drinking the judgment upon themselves. You still have to prove that my statement is wrong.

My mission in life is not to prove people wrong, so you know. I like to agree. But let’s look at your “statement” again.

Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are not in a state of mortal sin etc…)?

First of all, you’re asking a question. It’s not possible for me to disprove a question but I can question your assumptions on which the question is formed, if any. When you say “do not have,” do you include the possible “may not have” or “do not automatically have” in your question? If you mean either of those two, I think the answer is obvious. I can’t judge whether you have spiritual communion when you receive.

 

[Cristiano]

My mission in life is not to prove people wrong, so you know. I like to agree. But let’s look at your “statement” again.

First of all, you’re asking a question. It’s not possible for me to disprove a question but I can question your assumptions on which the question is formed, if any. When you say “do not have,” do you include the possible “may not have” or “do not automatically have” in your question? If you mean either of those two, I think the answer is obvious. I can’t judge whether you have spiritual communion when you receive.

Hey you are the one who said that i was confused!

Let me rephrase my question for simplicity:

Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are allowed to receive according to Canon Law)?

 

[ProVobis]

Are you saying that we do not have spiritual communion when we receive the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus (assuming that we are allowed to receive according to Canon Law)?

No.

But I could have spiritual communion when I don’t receive It sacramentally.

 

[Cristiano]

No.

But I could have spiritual communion when I don’t receive It sacramentally.

Completely agree with you, and I wish that the people that go in the communion line with their arms crossed would have your understanding and stay in the pews.

I guess that I am wrong to judge that behavior too.

 

[Julianna]

***A cautionary NOTE:

For those who may not know; Carl Jung is one of the voodoo doctors of NEW AGE! ***Proceed at yor own risk.

God’s continued Blessings,******

oh brother here we go…

The Meyers Briggs was done at work…it was a great activity!

and more voodoo for ya…

Our DRE did the Ennegram with the catechists at a training session

…I am in this order highest to lowest

The Peacemaker. The easygoing, accommodating type. #9
The Helper. The caring, nurturing type. #2
the above were a tie, scored 7 on both

The Skeptic. The committed, security-oriented type. #6

The Generalist. The enthusiastic, productive type. #7
The Artist. The intuitive, reserved type #4
the above were also a tie

The Thinker. The perceptive, cerebral type #5

these were at the bottom on my type
The Reformer. The rational, idealistic type.
The Motivator. The adaptable, success-oriented type.
The Leader. The powerful, aggressive type.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Timothysis
Is not the culmination of Mass the sanctification of our souls by receiving Christ in the form of Bread and Wine? Are the prayers of the sacrament more important/efficacious than the sacrament itself??? Am I missing something here?

Threply

Yes. Spiritual communion.

My Cmments:

***I certainly do not wish to in anyway deminish the GREAT value of Spiritual Communion.

But allow me to make two points:

If I were to promise you One Million dollars or GIVE yo One million dollars; which is of greater value to you?

The Hewbrew nation through Manna was fed “The Spirit of God.”

The purpose of the OT is to lead to the NT.***

The NT COMPLETES and PERFECTS the OT; thus we have the REAL Jesus Christ being received in Catholic Holy Comunion. Both are Good; By Jesus implies His Real Presence is Better with the Words: **" Luke.22 Verses 19 to 20 "**And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, **“This is my body which is given for you. **Do this in remembrance of me.” ****[20] And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood

 

[floresco]

It may not be judgmental, but it is definitely wrong. The two forms are equal. What you mean to say is that you prefer the traditional form, but it is not superior.

I meant what I said. I believe that the TLM is objectively better than the new form. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with this and needing to see evidence in support of my assertion. I object to my view being labelled as judgmental and automatically dismissed.

 

[floresco]

In my original post to the thread I was trying to make a point about the nature of judgment and the accusation of being judgmental. I used various issues to illustrate my point and the vast majority of replies have been about these issues. There are already many threads discussion these issues and it was not my intention to discuss them further here.

There is a misunderstanding that sees judgment as a bad thing. This is not the Catholic view. Another name for the virtue of prudence is “right judgment”. It is a good thing and we are to seek to make part of our lives. This is what the CCC says about prudence:

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

There is a negative sense of judgment (such as when Jesus says not to judge) which, to distinguish it from right judgment is called “rash judgment”. This is what the Catechism says about it:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
  …]

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

It seems to me there is a confusion between the virtue and the sin which is leading people to avoid the virtue.

 

[CWBetts]

I meant what I said. I believe that the TLM is objectively better than the new form. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with this and needing to see evidence in support of my assertion. I object to my view being labelled as judgmental and automatically dismissed.

The view that the TLM is “objectively better” is nothing short of ignorance. You prefer it. That does not make it “objectively better”

 

[ProVobis]

If I were to promise you One Million dollars or GIVE yo One million dollars; which is of greater value to you?

You don’t want to ask that question of a person with a masters in finance and has read a lot of Ayn Rand and Harry Browne. You see, a promissory note may have as much value as a Federal Reserve Note. And a Federal Reserve Note (which you hold in your wallet) is essentially acceptance of someone else’s debt. But I digress.

Seriously, though, the value of spiritual communion obviously comes into play when there is no sacramental communion available or if the communicant is not disposed to receive it sacramentally. Should go without saying, I would think.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What’s the difference between classifying judgment as right v wrong, compared to classifying it as useful v not useful?

For example: if I see something I believe to be wrong, is it useful to me to judge it? For example, if I see somebody flipping the bird I can choose to judge it as a “wrong” thing to do. Now, is it “wrong” for me to pass that judgment? Maybe. Is it “useful” for me to do so? Probably not.

I got the idea of differentiating right/wrong v useful/not useful from two places; a psychologist, and St. Paul.

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up.

Alan

 

[floresco]

The view that the TLM is “objectively better” is nothing short of ignorance. You prefer it. That does not make it “objectively better”

I have done a fair bit of research to reach my conclusion, so it is inaccurate to ascribe it to ignorance. If one does a side by side comparison of the two forms of Mass, it is clear that there is a difference in theological emphasis. That of the TLM conforms more closely to Church teaching on the Eucharist. It is a clearer, richer and more authentic presentation of Catholic doctrine. Various experts on liturgical theology have written about this and pointed out objective flaws in the new form, including our current Pope before he came into office.

(For the record, this is a tangent from the point I was trying to make in this thread.)

 

[yoopersenior]

Catholics are REQUIRED to exercise moral judgment every waking hour of every single day.

God created the human race and endowed us with free will. Every day we are faced with temptation. Judgment is a gift from God - which is further developed by the teachings of our Holy Faith - to assist us in identifying and avoiding the both sin and the occasion of sin.

Properly formed Catholics know that to reject this gift is to put their own salvation at risk.

I agree. Maybe discernment is a better word.

 

[Timothysis]

I have done a fair bit of research to reach my conclusion, so it is inaccurate to ascribe it to ignorance. If one does a side by side comparison of the two forms of Mass, it is clear that there is a difference in theological emphasis. That of the TLM conforms more closely to Church teaching on the Eucharist. It is a clearer, richer and more authentic presentation of Catholic doctrine. Various experts on liturgical theology have written about this and pointed out objective flaws in the new form, including our current Pope before he came into office.

(For the record, this is a tangent from the point I was trying to make in this thread.)

To maintain that one form of a valid liturgy is “superior” to another is akin to saying that red is a “superior” color compared to blue. A personal opinion is fine but when it is put forth as an objective fact, when there is no objective measure to compare it to, then things begin to go awry. Objective superiority does not rely upon a majority of personal opinions backing it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If I consider one Mass superior, then the other must be inferior.

I went to an inferior Mass Sunday. They had an inferior Communion service with lay ministers. I played inferior music while inferior people wretchedly sang lame, meaningless songs.

In my parish, the only Mass we even have is inferior.

Why would the Church promote inferior services?

Or is it that “inferior” is only my personal judgment? Actually I have more confidence in my Church than that. I say give the Church a break and respect its rituals as they exist in the here and now. Nothing wrong with having a preference, but there definitely is something wrong about claims one is “objectively” superior and the other inferior.

Alan

 

[ProVobis]

Or is it that “inferior” is only my personal judgment?

Maybe it has something to do with the definition of it?

In the Novus Ordo Mass, we find a new definition of the Mass in the General Preface, which reads:

“The Lord’s Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest presiding to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of the Church: ‘Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in their midst’” (General Instruction to the Novus Ordo, April 6, 1969).

“Apparently the designation of the Mass in the first edition of the Novus Ordo as ‘the Lord’s Supper or the the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord,’ has its source in the Protestant theology of the Abendmahl rite, the commemorative meal. The fact that this particular definition of the Mass appears in a document bearing the signature of Pope Paul VI, and that it became necessary later to correct it, is a painfully obvious indication of how confused things are in our Church today.” Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, Una Voce Press, 1993

 

[PJM]

=floresco;6745762]I meant what I said. I believe that the TLM is objectively better than the new form. I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with this and needing to see evidence in support of my assertion. I object to my view being labelled as judgmental and automatically dismissed.

Originally Posted by CWBetts
It may not be judgmental, but it is definitely wrong. The two forms are equal. What you mean to say is that you prefer the traditional form, but it is not superior.

***I must agree with floresco: The TLM is actaully better for the salvation of souls! WHY?

It is want Mass is supposed to be: God centred Divine focused worship.***

2007 PEW Report

***1970 about 75% of self professed Catholics regullarly fulfilled there Sunday and Holyday Mass Obligations. By 2007 that number had dropped to below 25%. Confessions at least Once per yar dropped from about 65% to 10%.

Is the Novus Ordo the ONLY reason? NO; but it is the chief reason!***

God’s continued blessings,

Pat