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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eucharisted
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maurin said:
at the root of it all, WH, having the Laity receive from the Chalice–for centuries reserved to the Priest alone, is just one more way to further blur the line between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the faithful. I suspect that it really is just that simple.
Click to expand...
That too — we are all “priests”…
 
Walking_Home said:
Tell me JKirkLVNV — which mode of reception expresses the fuller sign according to our own doctrine–that our Lord is complete (Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and all Grace) in just one species.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it matters in the way you mean. One can receive only ONE of either and receive the Fullness of Both.

And while a doctrine or dogma is true, do we have to constantly demonstrate it in an overt way? Is it so central to the faith that we CAN’T receive from the Chalice without a denial of the doctrine being presumed? The Eastern Church has always received, as did we for the first 1400 years of our own history (tapering off toward the 1400s, anyway).
 
maurin said:
at the root of it all, WH, having the Laity receive from the Chalice–for centuries reserved to the Priest alone, is just one more way to further blur the line between the Ministerial Priesthood, and that of the faithful. I suspect that it really is just that simple.
Click to expand...
Do you really think this? I don’t. Women wearing stoles, the laity gathered around the altar, etc., certainly, but receiving Both has almost always been a part of our tradition (the centuries when we rec. both far outweighing when we didn’t).
 
Eucharisted said:
I am not here to dispute the so-called authenticity of the words of Mother Teresa - and I myself do not believe them - but am here to remind Catholics of a simple truth.

We are the children of the Church, we are not the children of the saints.

A child must respect his mother, according to the Fourth Commandment. This filial piety includes obedience. Hence, we are called to respect Mother Church, to obey her words. She, like Mary, tells us to do whatever Jesus says, for her mind is in tune with His Mind. Hence, if we disobey the Church, we disobey the Lord. And disobedience is a sin, a mortal sin.

A child dose not have to obey his sibling, even an older sibling, unless the mother has said so. The older sibling dose bear a responsibility toward the young, but he has no real authority over him. All authority he may have comes from the mother, who may give him it should she leave the house to go do an errand. Likewise, we Catholics are not required to obey the saints. Unless Mother Church tells us to. But the Church only calls us to imitate the saints in as far as they imitate Jesus Chirst. They remind us, they do not give us new teachings.

So, one cannot use the words of the saints as a source of ultimate authority. The saints, while holy, are fallible. Only the Church is infallible. Whatever opinons the saints have, is but second to the teachings of the Church, which we are called to adhere and to live by. Hence, if the Church allows such and such a practice, yet a certain saint opposes it, it would be improper to follow the saints’ opinion instead of following the Church’s teaching.

And this is where ignorance and truth seperate. Ignorance jumbles everything of the Church into a little ball and says it is the same. The truth, though, sees everything for it is. One cannot say traditions are Tradition, nor can one say discipline is the same as devotion, nor can one say one form of a devotion is the very devotion in itself. At the same time, one cannot be pluarlistic: one must reside within the bounds of the Catholic Faith and not mix up a devotion, a discipline, a tradition, or anything else with one’s own opinions to such a degree that the original thing is not recognizable any longer. This is why it is crucial to learn the Faith, to seek out its roots, and to be not afraid of the truth.

To sum up, you are the children of the Church, not the children of the saints. Be, than, good Catholics. Learn and adhere to the Church’s teachings, or else, you will soon find yourself among the disobedient, the near heretical, the almost schismatic, the deviant. And if you find yourself among such company, and despair in your situation, I tell you, fear not: God is merciful. The Church is compassionate. Repent and rejoice in God your Savior!
Click to expand...
My older brother was always terribly disappointed at this!😃
 
maurin said:
kirk, there’s much that I agree with inside this post. Of course there’s also much I do not agree with. But I’m glad you posted it. A couple of facts remain though: The Traditional posture endured for many many centuries longer than the ancient posture and the posture the modernists initiated in imitation of the protestants of the 16th century.
Click to expand...
I honestly do not know that the Traditional posture endured for many, may centuries longer than the ancient (though you have thereby successfully argued for reception of the Chalice). I’d be glad to read documentation of it (and I mean that). I don’t know about “modernists” copying “protestants,” but here’s a question I’ve wanted to ask for sometime. Let’s use reception of the Chalice as an example. For the salvation of souls, what would Traditionalists be willing to give up? If Holy Mother Church said to the Lutherans (and much more than this one problems lies between us, “much more” that we cannot give way on) “Look, if you will assent to the truth that one recieves both the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood under one of the Sacred Species and that it is not essential to the effectualness of the Sacrament that Both be consumed (and you must because it is Truth), we will certainly admit (and already have, vis a vis Pope John Paul II) that reception of both is a fuller sign and will permit the practice in regular liturgys where there is no danger to the Most Precious Blood. Will you come home?” Saint Paul “being all things to all people,” are Traditionalists willing to follow that example? Is it worth souls falling into hell? I’m just asking.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I don’t think it matters in the way you mean. One can receive only ONE of either and receive the Fullness of Both.

And while a doctrine or dogma is true, do we have to constantly demonstrate it in an overt way? Is it so central to the faith that we CAN’T receive from the Chalice without a denial of the doctrine being presumed? The Eastern Church has always received, as did we for the first 1400 years of our own history (tapering off toward the 1400s, anyway).
Click to expand...
You don’t think it matters to fully express doctrine. Our own history has shown that we have this tendency to fall into error in matters of doctrine. Remember the various heresies the Church has had to suppress. The “neccessity” of receiving both being one of them.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I honestly do not know that the Traditional posture endured for many, may centuries longer than the ancient (though you have thereby successfully argued for reception of the Chalice).
Click to expand...
only in your mind.
I’d be glad to read documentation of it (and I mean that). I don’t know about “modernists” copying “protestants,” but here’s a question I’ve wanted to ask for sometime. Let’s use reception of the Chalice as an example. For the salvation of souls, what would Traditionalists be willing to give up? If Holy Mother Church said to the Lutherans (and much more than this one problems lies between us, “much more” that we cannot give way on) “Look, if you will assent to the truth that one recieves both the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood under one of the Sacred Species and that it is not essential to the effectualness of the Sacrament that Both be consumed (and you must because it is Truth), we will certainly admit (and already have, vis a vis Pope John Paul II) that reception of both is a fuller sign and will permit the practice in regular liturgys where there is no danger to the Most Precious Blood. Will you come home?” Saint Paul “being all things to all people,” are Traditionalists willing to follow that example? Is it worth souls falling into hell? I’m just asking.
Click to expand...
that’s ridiculous kirk. the Church has already tried that. And She is beginning to understand that Her experiment has failed. Although the modernist changes have attracted some protestants to the Church–I understand that you are a convert from fundamentalism–it has not only emptied the Churches, it has practically wiped out the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
 
LilyM said:
:tsktsk: 😛 😉

Actually the finger-wagging fellow looks like he just might be making a much ruder gesture if you look closely :eek:
Click to expand...
Lol, that is good, I can’t seem to stop laughing now for some reason. Rude gestures by emoticons shouldn’t be that funny.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Do you really think this? I don’t. Women wearing stoles, the laity gathered around the altar, etc., certainly, but receiving Both has almost always been a part of our tradition (the centuries when we rec. both far outweighing when we didn’t).
Click to expand...
Actually, kirk, you’re right. It took me awhile, but I looked it up and found it. To quote Michael Davies: There is no theological objection to the laity receiving Holy Communion under both kinds. The controversy on this topic was initiated by those who claimed that there is a theological objection to the reception of Holy Communion under one kind only. Communion was normally received under both kinds throughout the Church until the 12th century…(Pope Paul’s New Mass, pg 431.)

but my statement to which you responded was “for centuries.” from the 1500’s till now qualifies, yes?
 
maurin said:
only in your mind.

that’s ridiculous kirk. the Church has already tried that. And She is beginning to understand that Her experiment has failed. Although the modernist changes have attracted some protestants to the Church–I understand that you are a convert from fundamentalism–it has not only emptied the Churches, it has practically wiped out the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
I spent the better part of the afternoon at Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery here in Silver City, NM today and had just this conversation with one of the brothers there.

We have priests teaching error from the pulpit, with no comment from the Bishop. We have disrespectful and immodest people who obviously don’t believe Mass is anything more than a communal meal.

We know the true faith is still here, but it seems to have been hidden under the proverbial bushel and this new experimental faith has been allowed to shine in its place. The touchy feely mess has to go. There is a time and place for charity and reaching out to those who need help, but Holy Mass isn’t it.

Holy Mass is a time to enter in to the mystical, the majestic presence of our Blessed Lord himself.
 
maurin said:
only in your mind. C’mon, you used the very same, the identical argument of “many, many centuries.” Be fair.

that’s ridiculous kirk. the Church has already tried that. And She is beginning to understand that Her experiment has failed. Although the modernist changes have attracted some protestants to the Church–I understand that you are a convert from fundamentalism–it has not only emptied the Churches, it has practically wiped out the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that “modernist changes” are what attracted me to the Church? You very nearly sound as though you believe that those of us who converted since Vatican II are somehow lesser Catholics. You also have NO evidence that it was the changes that have reduced belief in the Real Presence
 
maurin said:
Actually, kirk, you’re right. It took me awhile, but I looked it up and found it. To quote Michael Davies: There is no theological objection to the laity receiving Holy Communion under both kinds. The controversy on this topic was initiated by those who claimed that there is a theological objection to the reception of Holy Communion under one kind only. Communion was normally received under both kinds throughout the Church until the 12th century…(Pope Paul’s New Mass, pg 431.)

but my statement to which you responded was “for centuries.” from the 1500’s till now qualifies, yes?
Click to expand...
So “many, many” would be what in “Traditionalist” math? From the 1500’s would 509 years as opposed to 1200. . And again, the Eastern Churches have always followed the Apostolic practice.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
So “many, many” would be what in “Traditionalist” math? From the 1500’s would 509 **years as opposed to 1200. ** . And again, the Eastern Churches have always followed the Apostolic practice.
Click to expand...
1200 years --1200 years and we ended up with heresy.
 
maurin said:
only in your mind.

that’s ridiculous kirk. the Church has already tried that. And She is beginning to understand that Her experiment has failed. Although the modernist changes have attracted some protestants to the Church–I understand that you are a convert from fundamentalism–it has not only emptied the Churches, it has practically wiped out the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
She is beginning to understand no such thing. Her mission has always been to lift up Christ, Who would thereby draw the world to Himself. Vatican II is quite different from the “Spirit of Vatican II.”

And tell me WHY it is ridiculous? If we maintain what we must (immutable truth), but bend what we can (mutable discipline) and thereby save souls, isn’t it worth it? I should think that one soul would be worth all the Latin or traditionalists having to distastefully put up with the laity receiving the Chalice or Eucharist ministers or whatever it is that so constantly upsets you.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
What heresy? And ended up? You’re serious? ** When has the Church not had to deal with heresy?**
Click to expand...
Exactly. She has to deal with heresy --because doctrine gets eroded. Just as doctrine ended up being eroded within those 1200 years of receiving both species --that we ended up with Utraquism.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
I honestly do not know that the Traditional posture endured for many, may centuries longer than the ancient (though you have thereby successfully argued for reception of the Chalice). I’d be glad to read documentation of it (and I mean that). I don’t know about “modernists” copying “protestants,” but here’s a question I’ve wanted to ask for sometime. Let’s use reception of the Chalice as an example. For the salvation of souls, what would Traditionalists be willing to give up? If Holy Mother Church said to the Lutherans (and much more than this one problems lies between us, “much more” that we cannot give way on) “Look, if you will assent to the truth that one recieves both the Most Sacred Body and the Most Precious Blood under one of the Sacred Species and that it is not essential to the effectualness of the Sacrament that Both be consumed (and you must because it is Truth), we will certainly admit (and already have, vis a vis Pope John Paul II) that reception of both is a fuller sign and will permit the practice in regular liturgys where there is no danger to the Most Precious Blood. Will you come home?” Saint Paul “being all things to all people,” are Traditionalists willing to follow that example? Is it worth souls falling into hell? I’m just asking.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what Pius IV did in 1564. It was only suppressed in some areas when the wars between the Catholic and Protestants began (Hungary in 1604, Bohemia in 1621) .
 
JKirkLVNV said:
She is beginning to understand no such thing. Her mission has always been to lift up Christ, Who would thereby draw the world to Himself. Vatican II is quite different from the “Spirit of Vatican II.”

And tell me WHY it is ridiculous? If we maintain what we must (immutable truth), but bend what we can (mutable discipline) and thereby save souls, isn’t it worth it? I should think that one soul would be worth all the Latin or traditionalists having to distastefully put up with the laity receiving the Chalice or Eucharist ministers or whatever it is that so constantly upsets you.
Click to expand...
By bending or twisting the discipline as you call it, the truth has become obscured. Souls were saved in a most efficacious manner by the Mass of All Time, not so much now. The Liturgy must be allowed to develop in an organic manner as it has throughout the centuries. To cut it off completely from tradition is like cutting off the roots off a tree. The tree that loses its roots falls when the smallest wind blows, but the tree that is allowed to grow free from molestation will withstand even the strongest gust. The problem isn’t change, but the manner in which change has been forced. If the Mass needed to be changed, it should have been dealt with in a MUCH different manner. The NO mass truly represents a protestant communion service, instead and in place of a Holy Sacrifice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top