[quote=JKirkLVNV]My own inclination is to stress greater catechisis. I understand that Our Lord is, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, completely present in Both Species and Either Species. If some one doesn’t, then they need to be taught better. Our Lord gave Both, there is no reason NOT to take both (obviously, not at huge papal masses, etc.). It could be argued that by denying the Chalice and giving the Host, we could potentially raise the Chalice in the minds of some to a “higher” level than the Host (ie, only the priests are “worthy” to receive it). Are we going to then reverse and give only the Chalice until they catch a clue? Our Lord gave BOTH, there is no indication that He intended that we should do other than receive BOTH, it is within the Church’s legitimate, Christ-given authority to govern Her Sacraments and to either permit the Chalice or withhold it and She has again allowed it to the laity. It is neither more holy to refrain from the Chalice (we are not worthy of either the Most Sacred Body or the Most Precious Blood) nor is it more “traditional” (in the history of the Church, it was only denied from about the 12th century, so we HAD it for more years (400) than we didn’t have it). And, as you said, “There is a reason the Church changed practices.” Well, here’s a reason she’s changed them again. She had a good think and decided to shift her discipline. Regardless of what we do, the Church is always, absent the Parousia, going to confront problems from within Her ranks and without. It’s been that way from the beginning and will be that way until He comes in glory.
Whether Michael Davies was a good guy or a bad guy can be debated endlessly, but he was certainly correct about some things, such as the fact that the liturgy post Vat II does resemble a Protestant liturgical service more so than prior to Vat II. That is right before our eyes, ears and noses every Sunday at the Novus Ordo rite Mass. Sure it is “valid” in the sense that it was promulgated by the Magisterium, but in as much as it wasn’t supposed to have doctrinal impacts (only disciplinary/procedural ones) we can still question whether it has had good or bad results for the Church. Personally, I think it has made it easier for Protestant converts as it is less foreign to them than the TLM would have been. If those converts are faithful to the Magisterium and help in building the kingdom, that seems like a good thing. If the new Mass helped all Catholics to be properly catechized, that would be wonderful. If new Masses were always and everywhere reverently celebrated, awesome.
But the reality of the last 40 years tells a different story for the Church. See link before for devastating stats on the state of the Church since Vat II reforms from Ken Jones book: Index of Leading Catholic Indicators.
Letters in response to New Oxford Review article on the same:
“After the Council…in the place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it…with a fabrication, a banal-on-the-spot product.”
endorsement of the book, The Modern Rite, by Klaus Gamber (2002. St. Michael’s Abbey Press) by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from back cover of the book