"Wherever I go in the whole world..."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find myself wondering what the intended purpose of all the changes post-Vat. II was.

To increase piety and sanctity amongst the faithful?
To contend with increasing decadence in society?
To increase vocations?
To teach the faithful the core beliefs of their religion?

If so, how’s it working out?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I’ve followed the dialougue and I’ve responded appropriately and LOGICALLY. I have not employed what is, in essence, jingoistic nonsense that seeks to avoid having to confront the paucity of one’s own argument by villifying one’s opponent by name calling. Demonstrate where I did not respond in good faith.
Click to expand...
Very easily. I admitted to you that you were correct and I wasn’t when we were talking about the Faithful receiving both species.

You accused me of “New Math” when I stated that the Chalice was reserved to the Priesthood for “centuries.” 4 centuries still cuts it as “centuries”, your protests not withstanding.

You accused me of something–still not sure what, so your “logic” goes–when I stated that the Traditional Posture for receiving Holy Communion endured for much longer than the current one, which the modernists copied from the protestants, against even Paul VI’s wishes.

It certainly is a “brave new world” you live in kirk. good for you…good for you!
 
Sooo, we believe that Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross for our sins and was resurrected, and ascended in Heaven, who is of one Being with the creator of Everything, is present in the Host. It is Him?

And that the sanctuary is like the Holy Of Holies in the Old Testament, yes?

And Mass is propriatory, where we worship God and make a bloodless sacrifice to Him in expiation of our sins? Where we beg his mercy upon our sinfulness and thank his Son for all he has done for us? Where we re-enact His Son’s Sacrifice upon Calvary, and His Last Supper with his beloved disciples before he faced a terrible ordeal, which He knew, in advance, was upon Him?

Sooo, what do we do, in our time, after two World Wars, genocides, increasing personal sinfulness in the West and general, casual societal decadence that previously was only seen here amongst the Caesars and the Borgias?

What to do? Hmm, what … to … do?

[thinks]

[thinks]

I know!

**Lets strip our Churches, remove the altar rails, smash the altars, move the tabernacle, face the audience, add in the local lingo, play down Hell and damnation, let lay people take over some of the functions of the priest and give them the Host, standing, straight into their hands, quickly, because they might get bored!

Take that, Satan! Ha!**

err … hang on …

.
 
Walking_Home said:
The Church entrusts us to teach --does She not. We do teach by our own actions --do we not. But you have made your stance clear-- big in Talking the Talk --but in the end not willing to Walk the Walk.
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t ask us to teach about the sufficiency of receiving Holy Communion in One Sacred Species by refusing to take the Other Sacred Species. YOU might, but the Church doesn’t.
 
maurin said:
Very easily. I admitted to you that you were correct and I wasn’t when we were talking about the Faithful receiving both species.

You accused me of “New Math” when I stated that the Chalice was reserved to the Priesthood for “centuries.” 4 centuries still cuts it as “centuries”, your protests not withstanding.

You accused me of something–still not sure what, so your “logic” goes–when I stated that the Traditional Posture for receiving Holy Communion endured for much longer than the current one, which the modernists copied from the protestants, against even Paul VI’s wishes.

It certainly is a “brave new world” you live in kirk. good for you…good for you!
Click to expand...
Then please accept my sincere apologies. I will think more carefully before I hit send if you will also. I’m not a modernist by stretch of the imagination. Let us, in the future, stick to the substance of the argument rather than engage in distractions. Again, my apologies.
 
Layman said:
Sooo, we believe that Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross for our sins and was resurrected, and ascended in Heaven, who is of one Being with the creator of Everything, is present in the Host. It is Him?

And that the sanctuary is like the Holy Of Holies in the Old Testament, yes?

And Mass is propriatory, where we worship God and make a bloodless sacrifice to Him in expiation of our sins? Where we beg his mercy upon our sinfulness and thank his Son for all he has done for us? Where we re-enact His Son’s Sacrifice upon Calvary, and His Last Supper with his beloved disciples before he faced a terrible ordeal, which He knew, in advance, was upon Him?

Sooo, what do we do, in our time, after two World Wars, genocides, increasing personal sinfulness in the West and general, casual societal decadence that previously was only seen here amongst the Caesars and the Borgias?

What to do? Hmm, what … to … do?

[thinks]

[thinks]

I know!

Lets strip our Churches, remove the altar rails, smash the altars, move the tabernacle, face the audience, add in the local lingo, play down Hell and damnation, let lay people take over some of the functions of the priest and give them the Host, standing, straight into their hands, quickly, because they might get bored!

Take that, Satan! Ha!

err … hang on …

.
Click to expand...
**Much of that is the result of the “Spirit of Vatican II,” a much different thing than the council itself. There is no question that there needs to be a “reform of the reform,” given what the reform has devolved into in certain places. That does NOT mean that (for example) the Mass of Paul VI should be done away with (the Pope does not seem to think it should be) or that Mass should not be celebrated in the vernacular (a legitimate discipline approved by the Holy See) or that the Latiy should not receive under both Sacred Species. **
 
Layman said:
Sooo, we believe that Jesus Christ, who died on the Cross for our sins and was resurrected, and ascended in Heaven, who is of one Being with the creator of Everything, is present in the Host. It is Him?

And that the sanctuary is like the Holy Of Holies in the Old Testament, yes?

And Mass is propriatory, where we worship God and make a bloodless sacrifice to Him in expiation of our sins? Where we beg his mercy upon our sinfulness and thank his Son for all he has done for us? Where we re-enact His Son’s Sacrifice upon Calvary, and His Last Supper with his beloved disciples before he faced a terrible ordeal, which He knew, in advance, was upon Him?

Sooo, what do we do, in our time, after two World Wars, genocides, increasing personal sinfulness in the West and general, casual societal decadence that previously was only seen here amongst the Caesars and the Borgias?

What to do? Hmm, what … to … do?

[thinks]

[thinks]

I know!

**Lets strip our Churches, remove the altar rails, smash the altars, move the tabernacle, face the audience, add in the local lingo, play down Hell and damnation, let lay people take over some of the functions of the priest and give them the Host, standing, straight into their hands, quickly, because they might get bored!

Take that,** Satan! Ha!

err … hang on …

.
Click to expand...
What? You don’t smell the flowers and see all the pretty rainbows?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The Church doesn’t ask us to teach about the sufficiency of receiving Holy Communion in One Sacred Species by refusing to take the Other Sacred Species. YOU might, but the Church doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the Pope --himself–teach by example --the fuller sign of our doctrine - by administering Holy Communion via one species. That is teaching JKirk. If people are already falling into error (and this time its within the time frame of 40+ years) --why not use the best mode we have that teaches our doctrine – Communion via one species. But then --it would actually be walking the walk —not just talking the big talk.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
The Church doesn’t ask us to teach about the sufficiency of receiving Holy Communion in One Sacred Species by refusing to take the Other Sacred Species. YOU might, but the Church doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Are you saying when I recieve the sacred body of our Blessed Lord and not the cup that I receive less of the sacrament?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Then please accept my sincere apologies. I will think more carefully before I hit send if you will also. I’m not a modernist by stretch of the imagination. Let us, in the future, stick to the substance of the argument rather than engage in distractions. Again, my apologies.
Click to expand...
I accept your apologies with this clarification. There were no distractions. I make no apologies for being a big bad trad, kirk. you should not make any for your modernist tendencies. But if we’re gonna have a conversation, honesty and forthrightness is the only way one can have it–and that includes being honest about our own strengths as well as our own weaknesses. We don’t have to agree–we just need to be honest with each other.

And one thing I have complimented you on in the past is that at the end of the day you are always a gentleman. Thank you for being a gentleman.
 
Walking_Home said:
Doesn’t the Pope --himself–teach by example --the fuller sign of our doctrine - by administering Holy Communion via one species. That is teaching JKirk. If people are already falling into error (and this time its within the time frame of 40+ years) --why not use the best mode we have that teaches our doctrine – Communion via one species. But then --it would actually be walking the walk —not just talking the big talk.
Click to expand...
At papal masses, the Chalice is never extended to the laity. It is impractical to do so to such a large number of people. The Holy See has stated that at very large gatherings this is the case, but has not impeded bishops from allowing Its reception at parish masses.

Our doctrine is not “communion via one species” in the sense you state. Otherwise, we could not countenance the Eastern Churches in union with Rome practicing otherwise. It will never BE a doctrine of the Church, because Communion in Both Species came down to us via the Apostles. If you mean “the sufficiency of reception via One Species,” we still cannot claim that the laity cannot inherently receive both for the same reason (and the Church never has). The Holy See, having the power to regulate the discipline of Her Sacrments, permits reception via the Chalice, our bishops do as well, restricting it when it seems appropriate to them to do so.

YOU say it is the best mode to teach our doctrine. The Church seems to disagree with you. As for walking the walk and talking the talk, you don’t know me well enough to make that assessment.
 
maurin said:
I accept your apologies with this clarification. There were no distractions. I make no apologies for being a big bad trad, kirk. you should not make any for your modernist tendencies. But if we’re gonna have a conversation, honesty and forthrightness is the only way one can have it–and that includes being honest about our own strengths as well as our own weaknesses. We don’t have to agree–we just need to be honest with each other.

And one thing I have complimented you on in the past is that at the end of the day you are always a gentleman. Thank you for being a gentleman.
Click to expand...
I don’t apologize, I DENY I HAVE ANY MODERNIST TENDENCIES, at least not as the Church defines modernism.

I have to clarify as well: I do not see where I have failed to be honest and forthright. If you wish to indict me on the charge of sarcasm, I can certainly plead guilty, but I have been as honest as I know to be, before God.
 
n4mgr said:
Are you saying when I recieve the sacred body of our Blessed Lord and not the cup that I receive less of the sacrament?
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t say that nor do I believe that. I said this: “The Church doesn’t ask us to teach about the sufficiency of receiving Holy Communion in One Sacred Species by refusing to take the Other Sacred Species. YOU might, but the Church doesn’t.” That means that the Church does not ask us to proclaim what she teaches BY A CERTAIN ACT OR BY REFRAINING FROM THAT ACT. It does not mean that what the Church teaches is not true (what the Church teaches can only be true).
 
n4mgr said:
Are you saying when I recieve the sacred body of our Blessed Lord and not the cup that I receive less of the sacrament?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that kirk is saying that, n4mgr, but I’ll let him respond.

We ought to remember that the Church has no theological objection to receiving Our Lord under either one or both species. This is only an issue because one of the arguments used (and kirk has used this argument quoting the late Holiness John Paul II in a post above) that the sign is “fuller” when receiving Our Lord under both species; this of course is according to my own understanding of what kirk wrote in the above post.

Our Lord is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either species. How He can be more fully present under both is beyond my imagination.

My take on the subject remains that it is the modernists’ attempt to further blur the distinctions between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the laity.
 
maurin said:
I don’t believe that kirk is saying that, n4mgr, but I’ll let him respond.

We ought to remember that the Church has no theological objection to receiving Our Lord under either one or both species. This is only an issue because one of the arguments used (and kirk has used this argument quoting the late Holiness John Paul II in a post above) that the sign is “fuller” when receiving Our Lord under both species; this of course is according to my own understanding of what kirk wrote in the above post.

Our Lord is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either species. How He can be more fully present under both is beyond my imagination.

My take on the subject remains that it is the modernists’ attempt to further blur the distinctions between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the laity.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Maurin. I still don’t understand the last, esp. given the practice for the first 1200 years AND given WHY the Chalice was witheld (to combat the Ultraquist heresy, which I’ve never heard to have included an attempt to blur the line between the priesthood and the laity) AND given the practice of the Eastern Churches (which we admit is of Apostolic Tradition). I grant the caveat that modernists DO wish to blur the line between the sacrificing priesthood and the laity AND that that may somehow mistakenly be included in the mind of Sr. Edith “I burned my bra on the altar,” we surely agree that OF ITSELF, the practice is not wrong? If you’re talking about banning Sr. Edith from it, that’s fine, but I didn’t do anything.
 
What I mean to say is that I have no trouble believing that there are those who want to blur the line of distinction between priests and laity. I’m having trouble believing that this is part of their M.O.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
At papal masses, the Chalice is never extended to the laity. It is impractical to do so to such a large number of people. The Holy See has stated that at very large gatherings this is the case, but has not impeded bishops from allowing Its reception at parish masses.

**Our doctrine is not “communion via one species” in the sense you state. ** Otherwise, we could not countenance the Eastern Churches in union with Rome practicing otherwise. It will never BE a doctrine of the Church, because Communion in Both Species came down to us via the Apostles. If you mean “the sufficiency of reception via One Species,” we still cannot claim that the laity cannot inherently receive both for the same reason (and the Church never has). The Holy See, having the power to regulate the discipline of Her Sacrments, permits reception via the Chalice, our bishops do as well, restricting it when it seems appropriate to them to do so.

YOU say it is the best mode to teach our doctrine. The Church seems to disagree with you. As for walking the walk and talking the talk, you don’t know me well enough to make that assessment.
Click to expand...
Never said that was our doctrine --JKirk. So please --don’t spin what I have said into something else. Actually JKirk —since the Church has already held a Council (Trent) to address the erroneous interpretations of Communion via both species and withheld the Chalice from the laity. And the Church today still calls to that Council (Trent) when referencing Communion via both species --this means that Communion via one species is still the mode that best exemplifies our doctrine (Christ whole and entire in one species) and the mode the Church Herself has used to fight off error.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Thank you, Maurin. I still don’t understand the last, esp. given the practice for the first 1200 years AND given WHY the Chalice was witheld (to combat the Ultraquist heresy, which I’ve never heard to have included an attempt to blur the line between the priesthood and the laity) AND given the practice of the Eastern Churches (which we admit is of Apostolic Tradition). I grant the caveat that modernists DO wish to blur the line between the sacrificing priesthood and the laity AND that that may somehow mistakenly be included in the mind of Sr. Edith “I burned my bra on the altar,” we surely agree that OF ITSELF, the practice is not wrong? If you’re talking about banning Sr. Edith from it, that’s fine, but I didn’t do anything.
Click to expand...
JKirkLVNV said:
What I mean to say is that I have no trouble believing that there are those who want to blur the line of distinction between priests and laity. I’m having trouble believing that this is part of their M.O.
Click to expand...
Ok, I think I understand what you’re asking now, and I hope this will serve as answer.
maurin said:
**We ought to remember that the Church has no ** theological ** objection to receiving Our Lord under either one or both species. ** **This is now only an issue **because… the sign is currently seen as “fuller” when receiving Our Lord under both species;

Our Lord is fully present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity under either species. How He can be more fully present under both is beyond my imagination.

**My take on the subject **remains that it is the modernists’ attempt to further blur the distinctions between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the laity.
Click to expand...
It should be understood that my take on the issue is an unqualified take and is not necessarily the right take, but I’ve come to that conclusion, it’s my conclusion, and it need not be anyone else’s, although I suspect I’m not the only one who has reached the same or similar conclusion.

And you’re welcome. You are a gentleman. Most of us recognize that even while opposing you vehemently.
 
Walking_Home said:
Never said that was our doctrine --JKirk. So please --don’t spin what I have said into something else. Actually JKirk —since the Church has already held a Council (Trent) to address the erroneous interpretations of Communion via both species and withheld the Chalice from the laity. And the Church today still calls to that Council (Trent) when referencing Communion via both species --this means that Communion via one species is still the mode that best exemplifies our doctrine (Christ whole and entire in one species) and the mode the Church Herself has used to fight off error.
Click to expand...
A) You said “the fuller sign of our doctrine - by administering Holy Communion via one species.”

B) That was how the Church decided to deal with it at the time, to address that one error/heresy. She has since permitted the discipline that BOTH Sacred Species may be received by the laity (and the Eastern Church always has permitted it). You have not logically demonstrated that what you suggest is the BEST mode of instruction. I acknowledge that it COULD be one mode, but the Church seems to disagree with you that it is the BEST. You cited the example of the Holy Father, but again, the Chalice is never given at the large papal masses and the fact that the Holy See continues to permit our bishops to make the decision seems to indicate that the Holy See doesn’t see the issue the way you do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top