Would you like altar rails to return?

[Leeta]

the Church teaches that the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper. It doesn’t mean that there was an ordination rite such as we have now, but the apostles definitely according to the Church became priests.

JNvV you forget that there is development in the liturgy as well as in doctrine. The practice of communion under one species is much more practical for large numbers and for the young and infirm. The Latin rite is characterized by this practicallity. Aren’t we hoping we will have overflowing churches? When they were, communion was distributed under one species. Do you want to risk spilling the Precious Blood? As a mother of boys who cleans up a lot of messes, spills are worse than crumbs.

Anne SFO, I have seen many elderly at churches with communion rails. At communion those who are unable to kneel, simply stand. If they are able to make even a head bow, they do so. If they can’t walk to the communion rail even, they sit in the first pews, and the priest and altar boy with paten go to them.

Actually, the altar rail makes it easier to kneel, that is why thwy were developed. I have been great with child often or simply carrying a baby in my arms. Without one, it takes much longer and for older folks it can be impossible to kneel when there is not one.

JNvV, there is a document called Redemptoris sacrementum, which is the binding liturgical document for the new Mass. EMHC’s are to be used only when there are great numbers of communicants, so much so that the Mass would be unduly prolonged. And it says that a few minutes is not to be considered unduly long.
Jesus is in us 15 minutes after Communion. St. Peter Julian Eymard recommended at the minimum, a thanksgivng of 15 minutes because of this and that we can never be thankful too much for the gift of the Eucharist. We need to spend that time adoring Him and thanking Him for Himself. Getting out of Mass 5 minutes after receiving Him is conducive to forgetting Him and being ungrateful, especially when everyone else exits the church with great shuffling, noise and even talking.

Why would young men ever have the idea that priests are in short supply when the Mass seems to go fine with only one priest and many EMHCs? After all, everything a priest does, except the actual consecration and hearing confessions, can and is done by laity with great encouragement by the diocese and the local parish apparatus. Why should he give himself exclusively to God when as a lay person he could do almost everything a priest does? and be greatly praised for his ‘service to the parish’ in doing so?

There is a great blurring of the priestly roles and those of the laity. Young men have difficulty seeing much of a practical differnce betrween the lay and the ordained as it is experienced in the parish. That is one reason we have a vocations crisis.

 

[AJV]

palmas85:

It is true, I admit it, I am against the laity receiving the Chalice. Well no, not really so much against it as I just don’t understand the desire nor the need for us to do it.

Because the early Church took Our Lord’s command very seriously when he said “Drink this all of you.” With intinction the act of drinking is not present. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not denying the validity of intinction jut pointing it out

Ioannes:

A good compromise which may work is intinction:
The two species are together, so there is no confusion that they are seperate.

I would have thought it would be the other way around. After all, when the priest offers the Host alone he says “The Body of Christ” whereas when he intincts it he says “The Body *and Blood * of Christ”

As to the Precious Blood increasing the need for lay involvement… well if some priests really want to er…involve lay people I don’t think withdrawing the chalice will stop them.

Regarding spillage…I was an Episcopalian before I became Catholic and not once have I seen the chalice bearers spill the wine. In fact I think that restoring kneeling at the altar rail would decrease accidents and help people receive more reverently since, as many posters on this thread have stated, receiving while standing seems to increase the spillage(unless the EMHC is standing on a platform)

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

Document, please, the following:

Much the same as occurred prior to discontinuing the Chalice, people rubbing the blood on their eyes, smearing on their faces, soaking clothing it it etc.

As for the following:

Explain to me how receiving under both species is a “fuller sign” than receiving under one?

Do you know better than the Church, who gives that teaching in the Catechism? It’s a fuller sign to take It that way because that’s how It was given to us, by Our Lord’s Own Hand, and it’s a fuller sign because that’s how the Magisterium describes it.

I cannot believe that, given the above, anyone could then describe the administration of the Chalice as a plot to promote greater lay involvment. Again, if YOU don’t want to recieve it, then don’t. No one forces you to do so, or constrains your conscience to do so. I haven’t said that you MUST recieve it, which should be ample demonstration that I fully believe what the Church teaches, ie, that the fullness of Grace, of both the Body and the Blood, is contained in both Species. The fact that I avail myself of the Chalice, allowed me by the Church, is no concern of anyone else. This is what I mean by a “party line.” We don’t have to walk in some rigid goose step to be Catholics.

Logically speaking, something that is fuller is probably more complete as well. So again logically, receiving only the body is now incomplete as opposed to receiving under both. I would have to assume that the two cannot be equal given the statement that one method is somehow fuller than the other. You cannot have it both ways. They are either equal or not.

However, I do think this topic has been beaten to death. You are obviously much more in line with the current church teaching. I fold my tents and withdraw.

Your statement about goose stepping did bother me though. Maybe you should take a hard look at a few things in your own posts before you make such statements. Goose stepping can sometimes go both ways. Quite often the goose steppers don’t realize that they are.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Leeta:

JNvV you forget that there is development in the liturgy as well as in doctrine. In the years that I was an Episcopalian, I never saw the chalice spilled, though we rec. kneeling at a communion rail. There are all sorts of risks that are run when handling the Sacred Species (droppage, flies landing in/on Them). Should They be denied to the laity because there’s a risk (minimal, at any rate, with a modicum of care)? Why don’t we just let the priest rec. Communion on our behalf? I haven’t forgotten anything about the development of the liturgy. It seems some others have, however, forgotten that they aren’t the pope nor are they the whole of the Church. The Chalice is allowed by those in lawful authority. It isn’t required, but it’s allowed. If you don’t want to rec. it, then don’t. This is almost an elevation of the Most Precious Blood above the Most Sacred Body! They’re both HIM and the Church says we can receive Both under Both Species.

JNvV, there is a document called Redemptoris sacrementum, which is the binding liturgical document for the new Mass. EMHC’s are to be used only when there are great numbers of communicants, so much so that the Mass would be unduly prolonged. And it says that a few minutes is not to be considered unduly long. BUT Bishops can allow them. In my parish, there are always great numbers of communicants, at every Mass.

We need to spend that time adoring Him and thanking Him for Himself. Getting out of Mass 5 minutes after receiving Him is conducive to forgetting Him and being ungrateful, especially when everyone else exits the church with great shuffling, noise and even talking. I don’t rush, I stay until the priest has departed the Altar and out the door, then I go venerate the Divine Mercy Shrine. What’s your point, EMHCs exist because people don’t want to wait?

Why would young men ever have the idea that priests are in short supply when the Mass seems to go fine with only one priest and many EMHCs? After all, everything a priest does, except the actual consecration and hearing confessions, can and is done by laity with great encouragement by the diocese and the local parish apparatus. Why should he give himself exclusively to God when as a lay person he could do almost everything a priest does? and be greatly praised for his ‘service to the parish’ in doing so?

There is a great blurring of the priestly roles and those of the laity. Young men have difficulty seeing much of a practical differnce betrween the lay and the ordained as it is experienced in the parish. That is one reason we have a vocations crisis.

**I’m sorry, I think the last two paragraphs are completely and totally incorrect, and I believe that it is a sadly naive take on the vocations crisis (I’m not criticising you, I’m looking at the argument). The vocations crisis can be blamed on a materialistic society. The vocations crisis can be blamed on a “me first,” narcissistic society. The vocations crisis can be blamed on a society where young men (and young women, for that matter) are oversexualized and where this happens at much too young an age. The vocations crisis can be blamed on gays in the seminary and already in the priesthood, but I do NOT believe it can be blamed on EMHCs! EMHCs rose to support and help priests, so they weren’t spread so thin. This supposed blurring of the priestly role with the lay role is something I’ve seen, but not with EMHCs. I’ve only seen it with radical nuns, none of whom were EMHCs that I recall. Ya know, I think EMHCs can be abused, but I think they get dumped on far to much in these forums. There are sick and elderly people, shut-ins, who would not be able to recieve Our Precious Lord in the Sacrament if it were not for EMCHs. To say that EMHCs are even partly to blame for the vocations crisis is, to my mind, reaching for straws.

**Again, I think there are people here who have merely taken what they perceive to be the “proper” line on this, the “correct” take and who cannot give a well-grounded argument for not permitting the chalice, ESP. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT’S PERMITTED BY THE CHURCH! It wouldn’t wash in my very orthodox parish (crowded for all masses, so the Chalice should be forbidden, right? But the 6:30 AM daily Mass isn’t crowded, so we could have the Chalice…but wait, if it isn’t crowded, Father doesn’t need an EMHC, so He can just communicate everyone, but wait…that would mean we still couldn’t receive the Chalice, because it IS too crowded for everyone to just stand around until everyone’s been communicated with the Host and THEN have the priest communicate everyone with the Chalice). Most in my parish avail themselves of the Chalice. I’m sure the assumption will now be made that we’re all a bunch of liberal liturgical dancers! Why? Well, isn’t that the party line? **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

Logically speaking, something that is fuller is probably more complete as well. So again logically, receiving only the body is now incomplete as opposed to receiving under both. I would have to assume that the two cannot be equal given the statement that one method is somehow fuller than the other. You cannot have it both ways. They are either equal or not. Then you have an issue with the Church. It is she, through the pope and the magisterium, who has said it is a fuller sign.

Your statement about goose stepping did bother me though. Maybe you should take a hard look at a few things in your own posts before you make such statements. Goose stepping can sometimes go both ways. Quite often the goose steppers don’t realize that they are.

I can honestly say I’m sorry if you were offended, but I can also honestly say I’m not a goose-stepper. See, I don’t pay attention to what other people are doing, usually, esp. in Mass. I don’t notice who’s wearing shorts, unless they are cut so high you can see their business. I don’t notice who genuflects the lowest nor who forgets to bow at the Incarnation in the Creed (though I think we should bow). I don’t notice because I’m not looking for what CAN go wrong or what IS going wrong. I try very hard not to let the “liturgy police” that sit inside my own head drown out the purposed for which I’m in Mass in the first place (once or twice, their gasps of “Omigosh, did he just do that?!” are entirely justified). I just try to be obedient Catholic. I don’t always pull it off, but it’s my goal. And I think part of it has to be “I’m not more Catholic than the Pope and I’m sure not more Catholic than the Catholic Church.” If the Holy Father permits something, it’s permitted. If he allows Bishops to exercise their discretion and judgement, then he’s allowed it. And again, this is permitted, allowed, encouraged! It isn’t required, so if you don’t want to partake, I will understand. I probably won’t notice. I only know that it’s desired in my parish, because the Chalice is emptied long before Communion ends.

 

[Olympia]

** This argument of blurring the line between priests and people: the only time I’ve seen that has been when it was encouraged by the PRIEST! A good priest can eliminate that in about a week’s time. Of course, I still see no reason why the Church isn’t encouraging more men to seek the permanent diaconate.**

We have one priest, a deacon, and and sometimes an extra priest at Sunday masses. We also have anywhere from 8 to 14 EMHCs, the reason being that there are a total of 5 aisles arranged in a semi-circle.

As to deacons, there is not only one deacon available. We have a total of four available to us.

I suspect the priest LIKES all those people around the altar with him. I suspect he thinks this is “more laity participation.” I disagree with this whole concept, and find it extremely distracting.

 

[palmas85]

JKirkLVNV:

I can honestly say I’m sorry if you were offended, but I can also honestly say I’m not a goose-stepper. See, I don’t pay attention to what other people are doing, usually, esp. in Mass. I don’t notice who’s wearing shorts, unless they are cut so high you can see their business. I don’t notice who genuflects the lowest nor who forgets to bow at the Incarnation in the Creed (though I think we should bow). I don’t notice because I’m not looking for what CAN go wrong or what IS going wrong. I try very hard not to let the “liturgy police” that sit inside my own head drown out the purposed for which I’m in Mass in the first place (once or twice, their gasps of “Omigosh, did he just do that?!” are entirely justified). I just try to be obedient Catholic. I don’t always pull it off, but it’s my goal. And I think part of it has to be “I’m not more Catholic than the Pope and I’m sure not more Catholic than the Catholic Church.” If the Holy Father permits something, it’s permitted. If he allows Bishops to exercise their discretion and judgement, then he’s allowed it. And again, this is permitted, allowed, encouraged! It isn’t required, so if you don’t want to partake, I will understand. I probably won’t notice. I only know that it’s desired in my parish, because the Chalice is emptied long before Communion ends.

Obedience, yes that was always the mark of a good Catholic, obedience. Often times blind obedience, iron faith in the Priests and Bishops. Complete trust in the magesterium to do the right thing. It is exactly how we ended up with clown masses and a general lack of reverence towards the mass itself. We trusted those above us and obeyed what they said. It was only much later that we realized just what a slippery slope we were taken down.

JKIRK, I have no doubt as to your sincerity and love of God. I have read many of your posts, I don’t agre with a lot of them, but your sincerity shows through. As to the goos stepping statement, maybe it was a bad choice of words on your part who knows. But i will say this, and I hope you accept it in the spirit that I say it, with no disrespect intended. My opposition to Extraordinary Ministers is well documented on this forum. My not understanding why anyone would want to partake of the Chalice is also well documented. In my discourse with you, you have said repeatedly, the Magesterium says I can partake of the Chalice the Pope says I can, so I do. Not exact quotes but close enough.
No other explanation. Just because they say I can. I have never received an answer in any way as to how it is a fuller sign of anything except to say, the magesterium says so.

To answer every question about faith with the answer, because the magesterium says so, to me speaks volumes about the state of the Church today. Maybe had someone stood up and asked why are we having clown masses anyway, why are we forgeting our faith, whats going on here, we would not be in the situation we are in with the problems that we have.

And I’m not in any way saying the Chalice is a problem. I would just like to hear one reason, thought out, verbalized that can explain to me why and how it is a fuller sign , instead of hearing the old obedient line, the church says so, or its a mystery.

Despite the obvious fact that I am fairly conservative and traditional in my views, I have never accepted anything that came out of the Vatican blindly. I have always tried to think and asked why? The remnant of Jesuit education I guess. In any event, I hope we can be friends, even though we stand on opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues

May God bless you and keep you always.

COR JESU SACRATISSIMUM MISERERE NOBIS.

 

[tee_eff_em]

palmas85:

Obedience, yes that was always the mark of a good Catholic, obedience. Often times blind obedience, iron faith in the Priests and Bishops. Complete trust in the magesterium to do the right thing. It is exactly how we ended up with clown masses and a general lack of reverence towards the mass itself. We trusted those above us and obeyed what they said. It was only much later that we realized just what a slippery slope we were taken down.
…
To answer every question about faith with the answer, because the magesterium says so, to me speaks volumes about the state of the Church today. Maybe had someone stood up and asked why are we having clown masses anyway, why are we forgeting our faith, whats going on here, we would not be in the situation we are in with the problems that we have.

I have never seen a “clown mass”, nor heard of one in my area. But I’ve seen pictures, and believe they must have happened.

But I’ve never seen a document of the Magisterium that *teaches *(which is a bit more than just a say-so, if you don’t mind my saying) that they ought to occur. Do you know of one?

Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent, by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire ), the sign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

Eucharisticum Mysterium​

tee

 

[JKirkLVNV]

palmas85:

JKIRK, I have no doubt as to your sincerity and love of God. I have read many of your posts, I don’t agre with a lot of them, but your sincerity shows through. As to the goos stepping statement, maybe it was a bad choice of words on your part who knows. But i will say this, and I hope you accept it in the spirit that I say it, with no disrespect intended. My opposition to Extraordinary Ministers is well documented on this forum. My not understanding why anyone would want to partake of the Chalice is also well documented. In my discourse with you, you have said repeatedly, the Magesterium says I can partake of the Chalice the Pope says I can, so I do. Not exact quotes but close enough.
No other explanation. Just because they say I can. I have never received an answer in any way as to how it is a fuller sign of anything except to say, the magesterium says so.

.

Palmas: Thank you for your kind words. With respect, though, I gave you something other than “the magisterium says so.” I also said that the Sacrement was given to the Church in BOTH Species by Our Lord’s Own Hand. The early Church obviously understood it as such (as opposed to the notion that it was reserved only for the clergy) or she wouldn’t have taken It that way. This is Tradition AND Scripture (and the CCC, so that’s the Magisterium). We’ve reverted back to the most ancient manner of receiving the Sacrament. It isn’t required to be rec. that way, no one is denying that the fullness of Both the Body and the Blood are contained in only One Spcies, but it is allowed and permitted and, largely, encouraged, except when it is just plain impractical (a Papal funeral in Saint Peter’s square).

My insistence on “it’s allowed, it’s permitted,” etc., probably stems from interactions with extremely “traditional” Catholics (and this is not aimed at you at all, I’m merely explaining) in which I feel as though those of us who choose to avail ourselves of the Chalice have something to defend or that we are less righteous for doing so. We don’t have to defend it. Jesus gave us Both, the ancient Church understood that He did, and the Magisterium confirms it.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

So, if we really want to revert back to ancient practices, why don’t we celebrate Mass in people’s homes and burst into Jewish synagogues proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Messiah? After all, that’s the way they did it in the early Church.

Or are we being selective about which ancient practices we want to revert to?

No AC in the early Church, either. Floridians, take note. :tsktsk:

 

[MrS]

Dr. Bombay:

No AC in the early Church, either. Floridians, take note. :tsktsk:

Weren’t the early Masses down in the Catecombs… where it may have been dark, but it was probably pretty cool
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_3_6v.gif

 

[Dr.Bombay]

MrS:

Weren’t the early Masses down in the Catecombs… where it may have been dark, but it was probably pretty cool
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_3_6v.gif

Yes, but I understand it could get stinky down there with all the rotting corpses.

Maybe we need to go back to celebrating Mass in underground crypts? That’s the way it was done in the early Church! :whacky:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

So, if we really want to revert back to ancient practices, why don’t we celebrate Mass in people’s homes and burst into Jewish synagogues proclaiming Jesus Christ as the Messiah? After all, that’s the way they did it in the early Church.

Or are we being selective about which ancient practices we want to revert to?

No AC in the early Church, either. Floridians, take note. :tsktsk:

Now, Dr. Bombay, I take your posts seriously and you know this a spurious argument. Besides, I cited both Tradition, Scripture, and the Living Magisterium of the Church. I could just as easily say something about so-called “traditionalists” begin selective about the tradition they’ll accept. Again, if people don’t wish to avail themselves of the Chalice, THEY DON’T HAVE TO DO SO! No one beats up on people for NOT rec. the Chalice, but others feel perfectly okay beating up on or copping a superior/holier than thou attitude toward people who DO rec. the Chalice. Why?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

Now, Dr. Bombay, I take your posts seriously and you know this a spurious argument. Besides, I cited both Tradition, Scripture, and the Living Magisterium of the Church. I could just as easily say something about so-called “traditionalists” begin selective about the tradition they’ll accept. Again, if people don’t wish to avail themselves of the Chalice, THEY DON’T HAVE TO DO SO! No one beats up on people for NOT rec. the Chalice, but others feel perfectly okay beating up on or copping a superior/holier than thou attitude toward people who DO rec. the Chalice. Why?

There’s your first mistake, Kirk. Taking my posts seriously.

I don’t know why people beat up on others. If you want to receive the Blood, more power to ya. I don’t for several reasons, mainly because I don’t like the taste of wine and I object to drinking after other people. Backwash. Yuck! (BTW, you don’t like to receive the Host on your tongue because you don’t like people to have their hands near your mouth, but you don’t mind swallowing the detritus that lurks inside their mouths? Freud might have fun with that one. )

I think there are practical objections to distributing the chalice to the laity, some of which I stated above. While it may be a “fuller sign” that’s all it is, a sign. Jesus cannot be received any more fully under both species than He is under one.

In the early Church, the laity were allowed to take home portions of the Eucharistic bread and communicate privately. So, I ask again, where do we draw the line at reintroducing early Church practices? Why should we adopt some and not others?

And I don’t think the Fathers of Vatican II wished for the chalice to be offered to the laity at *every *Mass or even every Sunday Mass. That is a ridiculous overreaching of what was intended.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

There’s your first mistake, Kirk. Taking my posts seriously.

I don’t know why people beat up on others. If you want to receive the Blood, more power to ya. I don’t for several reasons, mainly because I don’t like the taste of wine and I object to drinking after other people. Backwash. Yuck! (BTW, you don’t like to receive the Host on your tongue because you don’t like people to have their hands near your mouth, but you don’t mind swallowing the detritus that lurks inside their mouths? Freud might have fun with that one. )

I think there are practical objections to distributing the chalice to the laity, some of which I stated above. While it may be a “fuller sign” that’s all it is, a sign. Jesus cannot be received any more fully under both species than He is under one.

In the early Church, the laity were allowed to take home portions of the Eucharistic bread and communicate privately. So, I ask again, where do we draw the line at reintroducing early Church practices? Why should we adopt some and not others?

And I don’t think the Fathers of Vatican II wished for the chalice to be offered to the laity at *every *Mass or even every Sunday Mass. That is a ridiculous overreaching of what was intended.

That’s great, but it’s an opinion only, in light of the practice of the Church. The “if we’re going back to this, why don’t we go back to that” argument (and I raise it myself) is can also go both ways. Why don’t we go back to extremely infrequent communion by the laity, something remedied by Saint Pius X?

 

[Kielbasi]

Why don’t we go back to extremely infrequent communion by the laity, something remedied by Saint Pius X?

It was only partially remedied by Pius X. As a kid in the 60s, only about 1 in 5 Catholics in attendance at Sunday mass received communion, it was the 70’s before more than 1/2 received and onward to the current day where the vast majority of Catholics in attendance are in the communion lines.
Maybe that is one of the reasons two or three priests were able to effectively distribute communion back in the day, as opposed to the corp of EMHC’s we have today?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Kielbasi:

It was only partially remedied by Pius X. As a kid in the 60s, only about 1 in 5 Catholics in attendance at Sunday mass received communion, it was the 70’s before more than 1/2 received and onward to the current day where the vast majority of Catholics in attendance are in the communion lines.
Maybe that is one of the reasons two or three priests were able to effectively distribute communion back in the day, as opposed to the corp of EMHC’s we have today?

Maybe we have more saints in the Church today? Back in the day, people would stay in the pew if they were conscious of a mortal sin on their soul. Today, I doubt few if any American Catholics are conscious of any sin on their soul, mortal or venial.

We are blessed to live in a time of such widespread sanctity. What’s that smell??? Ahhhh…smells like a new springtime. :getholy:

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

And I don’t think the Fathers of Vatican II wished for the chalice to be offered to the laity at *every *Mass or even every Sunday Mass. That is a ridiculous overreaching of what was intended.

Also:

I can’t really answer that, but…should the Most Precious Blood (under It’s seperate species) be saved for special occasions or what? Every Sunday is a Feast of the Resurection. And is the Most Precious Blood MORE special or sacred than the Most Sacred Body? Are we worthy enough to receive the Most Sacred Body, but we don’t quite rate the Most Precious Blood? That’s almost the tone or attitude one somtimes hears. Both of them are Christ Himself. We aren’t worthy to receive either, save He says the Word that heals us. Really, I don’t get it. You emphasized the word every. Does that mean some?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

JKirkLVNV:

Also:

I can’t really answer that, but…should the Most Precious Blood (under It’s seperate species) be saved for special occasions or what? Every Sunday is a Feast of the Resurection. And is the Most Precious Blood MORE special or sacred than the Most Sacred Body? Are we worthy enough to receive the Most Sacred Body, but we don’t quite rate the Most Precious Blood? That’s almost the tone or attitude one somtimes hears. Both of them are Christ Himself. We aren’t worthy to receive either, save He says the Word that heals us. Really, I don’t get it. You emphasized the word every. Does that mean some?

I don’t know. Judge for yourself.

The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

Does that “for instance” indicate to you that they meant *every *Mass? If so, why didn’t they say, “for instance, at every Mass celebrated in the Latin Rite.”

But, as we’ve all seen, “intent” and “reality” are two different things when it comes to Vatican II. Some day I’m going to hunt down that Spirit of Vatican II and, as Fr. Groeschel advised, drive a stake right through its wicked heart.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Dr. Bombay:

Does that “for instance” indicate to you that they meant *every *Mass? If so, why didn’t they say, “for instance, at every Mass celebrated in the Latin Rite.”

No, in fact, it would appear not. Are bishops prohibited from extending it all the time (the bit about times/situations approved by the Holy See)?