“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KatyElizabeth said:
I don’t want to receive the Sacred Host from a young kid in a teashirt, torn jeans and flip-flops. I find it abhorrent.

I have looked around for a Traditional Church and found one close by.

Now…to go to confession :eek:
Click to expand...
We’re all works in progress. I do tell my kids preparing for First Communion that if they show an irreverent attitude in church on their outsides, it may pose a difficulty for other people, even if they have a reverent attitude on the inside. St. James was adamant about not judging based on clothing, but it is an act of charity to keep others in mind when showing reverence.

I hope your confessor doesn’t go too hard on you. 😉
 
bobzills said:
I think that you have a good point there. Where is the reverence? I mean what are we supposed to think if the dress code at a cheap restaurant is more strict than for a Eucharistic minister in a Catholic Church ?
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to where some of you attend Mass, that things are so loose and casual. Even at our Life Teen Masses, the kids are dressed respectfully. Some are in religious tee shirts, but those participating as readers always dress neatly.

I personally can’t imagine a EMHC dressed like that.
 
I think I will surprise some of you when I agree that the dress code is far below what it should be. It all boils down to the pastor. I know mine is very strict on the dress code and speaks out about it at least once or twice a year and has inserts in the bulletin. No, I do not like drums at mass. No I do not like all the music. But this has nothing to do with receiving communion in the hand. It all boils down to the individual pastor in each parish. This has nothing to do with Vatican II, but with the seminaries where they are trained. I even know of one diocese where good, sound men were either kicked out of the seminaries or not allowed in to start because they were considered too orthodox. This reflects back on the individual bishops in that diocese. Some of the most strict, have no problems filling their seminaries with vocations for the priesthood. It is those diocese where the bishop may be lax, that their is a shortage. Again, the answer, which has been the only answer all along is prayer. Pray for the bishops, the priests, the deacons and the seminarians. Pray as though your spiritual life may depend on it, because it does.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
bobzills said:
That’s funny. I thought that the Protestants were not in full union with the Catholic Church. When did this union with the Catholic Church come about? It was not there before Vatican II, was it, because at that time, Protestants were not able to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church unless they converted. So this union between Protestants and Catholics must have come after Vatican II?
Another funny thing is that Protestants are united to the Catholic Church today and allowed to receive Holy Communion, but that many Traditional type Catholics, who prefer the Latin Mass and the daily rosary, such as SSPX and others, are excommunicated and not allowed to receive Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
No no no, I’m sorry if I confused the issue. I think I posted this already, but just in case, let me clarify. Protestants are united to the Catholic Church in many ways, but the union is not complete. In many ways there is still separation. The way the Church words it is “not in full communion.”

They are only allowed to receive communion if the Ordinary allows it and this is not to be a regular thing. The Ordinary has the power to allow it, if he sees that there is serious reason to do so. It’s not to say that the Ordinary can say this will become our daily practice. That’s not what the Church allows. The rules that apply to Protestants also apply to SSPX. If the Ordinary allows it on special occasions, they can receive communion in a Catholic liturgy.

The rule is not just for Protestants. The rule is for anyone who is NOT IN FULL COMMUNION with the Catholic Church, but who believes in the Eucharist. The person must believe in the Eucharist.

The only change that happened as a result of Vatican II was the Church began to look at non Catholics to see if there were any signs of Catholicism in them. When they indeed found some, they had to admit that in those specific areas where non Catholics subscribe in faith to the same things that Catholics do, there is union. You have union in Christology, but you don’t have union in sacris. Therefore, the other ecclesial community is not in full communion. But we don’t say that they are not in communion at all, because they are in union with us in Christology. There is at least this point of union or more.

To be in full communion, you must have full agreement with everything that the Church believes. In other words, there are degrees of union depending on how much of Catholicism you have in you ecclesial community.

This was always there, before Vatican II, but it was really covert. No one really looked at it in such great detail. For examples, the Protestants always had the same Christology as we do, the scriptures, the life of prayer and penance, the martyrdom for Jesus, the one baptism, the sacrament of marriage. But no one on either side ever stopped to remember this.

This is why Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict say that what divided us in the past was hermaneutics. The focus was on the negatives and neither side focused on the positives.

Now Benedict is saying that we have to focus on the positives and correct the negatives. They’re not going away, just because we ignore them. It’s what he refers to as approaching faith enlightened by reason. You have to protect the faith and use logic at the same time.

Does this help?

JR 🙂
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I think I will surprise some of you when I agree that the dress code is far below what it should be…But this has nothing to do with receiving communion in the hand. It all boils down to the individual pastor in each parish…
Click to expand...
Exactly. There are priests who know what is a matter of personal taste and what is not, what is and isn’t allowed, and that is where they draw the boundaries: no less strict, but no more strict, either.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I think I will surprise some of you when I agree that the dress code is far below what it should be. It all boils down to the pastor. I know mine is very strict on the dress code and speaks out about it at least once or twice a year and has inserts in the bulletin. No, I do not like drums at mass. No I do not like all the music. But this has nothing to do with receiving communion in the hand. It all boils down to the individual pastor in each parish. This has nothing to do with Vatican II, but with the seminaries where they are trained. I even know of one diocese where good, sound men were either kicked out of the seminaries or not allowed in to start because they were considered too orthodox. This reflects back on the individual bishops in that diocese. Some of the most strict, have no problems filling their seminaries with vocations for the priesthood. It is those diocese where the bishop may be lax, that their is a shortage. Again, the answer, which has been the only answer all along is prayer. Pray for the bishops, the priests, the deacons and the seminarians. Pray as though your spiritual life may depend on it, because it does.

Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Don’t know of which diocese you speak… but add the Detroit Diocese to the list. My brother entered the seminary as a high school freshman, and received that treatment. He was booted out. This was forty years ago… and he was so crushed, he has not been back to church since.

The seminary did take a positive turn however, under Bishop Vigneron, who is now in Oakland Ca.

yep, pray for priests… and deacons too 😉 who don’t often know how much damage they are capable of.

.
 
JReducation said:
The only change that happened as a result of Vatican II was the Church began to look at non Catholics to see if there were any signs of Catholicism in them. …
Does this help?
Click to expand...
No, it does not. For example, I would disagree that this was the only change which occurred as a result of Vatican II. There were other changes which took effect. For example, there was the change in the Roman Mass, which went from an all Latin Tridentine Mass, to a New Mass, the Mass of Paul VI. At this Mass, we have seen female Eucharistic ministers, clowns, dancing girls, Eucharistic ministers dressed in Satanic costumes, mariachi bands, people rolling and screaming on the floor in charismatic Masses, Peter, Paul and Mary folk music with people swaying to and fro, with hands clapping, priests dressed as monkeys saying Mass, and much more. These were things which were not seen before Vatican II, only after. And there is more. With the general degradation of the reverence in the liturgy, we have seen a corresponding degradation in the support for the family and opposition to divorce. For example, in 1930, in the USA, there were about 9 marriage annulments granted per year, whereas in recent years it has gone as high as 60,000 per year in the USA. And we have read in the newspapers about a Catholic priests cosponsoring organisations such as the North American Man Boy Love Association, and one particular priest had received a letter of very high recommendation from Cardinal Law. At least that is what we read in the news, and that was something which was not read in the news before Vatican II.
 
JReducation said:
No no no,… Protestants are united to the Catholic Church in many ways, but the union is not complete.

Does this help?
Click to expand...
No, because according to what you say, Protestants are united to the Catholic Church, and allowed to receive Holy Communion, but those Catholics who agree with all the teachings of the Catholic Church, but who adhere to the Latin Mass and the daily rosary and the Church services of the SSPX are excommunicated and not allowed to receive Holy Communion.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I think I will surprise some of you when I agree that the dress code is far below what it should be.
Click to expand...
I think that you are correct here, since I see that many cheap restaurants have a dress code which is more strict than the local Catholic Church.
 
bobzills said:
No, it does not. For example, I would disagree that this was the only change which occurred as a result of Vatican II. There were other changes which took effect. For example, there was the change in the Roman Mass, which went from an all Latin Tridentine Mass, to a New Mass, the Mass of Paul VI. At this Mass, we have seen female Eucharistic ministers, clowns, dancing girls, Eucharistic ministers dressed in Satanic costumes, mariachi bands, people rolling and screaming on the floor in charismatic Masses, Peter, Paul and Mary folk music with people swaying to and fro, with hands clapping, priests dressed as monkeys saying Mass, and much more. These were things which were not seen before Vatican II, only after. And there is more. With the general degradation of the reverence in the liturgy, we have seen a corresponding degradation in the support for the family and opposition to divorce. For example, in 1930, in the USA, there were about 9 marriage annulments granted per year, whereas in recent years it has gone as high as 60,000 per year in the USA. And we have read in the newspapers about a Catholic priests cosponsoring organisations such as the North American Man Boy Love Association, and one particular priest had received a letter of very high recommendation from Cardinal Law. At least that is what we read in the news, and that was something which was not read in the news before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
No, not ‘at this Mass’ … at abusive *travesties *of this Mass. Big difference. Just as Black Masses were abusive (and worse, downright sacreligious) travesties of the TLM. All forms of the Mass are vulnerable to abuse, all have been abused and made mockeries of.

The TLM has seen its share - priests who didn’t even know what the proper words of consecration were (according to St Bernardine of Siena) let alone saying them, parodies of liturgy using donkeys, boy-bishops on the Feast of Fools …
 
LilyM said:
No, not ‘at this Mass’ … at abusive *travesties *of this Mass. Big difference. Just as Black Masses were abusive (and worse, downright sacreligious) travesties of the TLM. …
Click to expand...
Not true. We have seen clowns and dancing girls at the Masses of cardinals in the Church. And who has been reprimanded or disciplined for a mariachi band Mass, a clown Mass, a Mass with Eucharistic servers dressed in Satanic costumes? Whereas the penalty for a black Mass, (correct me if I am wrong on this) was excommunication or at least a mortal sin, since it was explicitly satanic.
 
bobzills said:
Not true. We have seen clowns and dancing girls at the Masses of cardinals in the Church. And who has been reprimanded or disciplined for a mariachi band Mass, a clown Mass, a Mass with Eucharistic servers dressed in Satanic costumes? Whereas the penalty for a black Mass, (correct me if I am wrong on this) was excommunication or at least a mortal sin, since it was explicitly satanic.
Click to expand...
And who was ever disciplined for garbling the Latin of the Mass, performing the ‘Song of the A*s’ in church, or giving a boy all the power and authority of a Bishop for the day on April Fool’s Day?
 
LilyM said:
No, not ‘at this Mass’ … at abusive *travesties *of this Mass. Big difference. Just as Black Masses were abusive (and worse, downright sacreligious) travesties of the TLM. All forms of the Mass are vulnerable to abuse, all have been abused and made mockeries of. …
Click to expand...
It is a big difference. Can you give me the name of one Catholic Church where was held a Black Mass? However, the clown Mass, the monkey Mass, the Satanic Eucharistic server Mass, the falling down and rolling on the floor charismatic Mass, the dancing girl Mass, the mariachi band Mass, the cowboy Mass, the Peter, Paul and Mary folk music Mass, the gay Masses in SF, etc., all of these were held in Catholic Churches.
 
I hope many of you will reflect upon the last 5-10-15 posts and see the abuses that have been chronicled. I can assure, these are not the result of Communion in the hand. Are those abuses? Yes they are. But Communion in the hand is not the cause. It seems like we are on round 3 or 4 rehashing the same thing. Communion is not what caused this.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
bobzills said:
It is a big difference. Can you give me the name of one Catholic Church where was held a Black Mass?
Click to expand...
You missed her point. Location was not even mentioned. The point is that if a priest is going to dress as a clown to perform Mass, he is just as likely to do so if the TLM is required as the ordinary form. If we had one form tomorrow, there would not be a sudden transformation to obedience on the part of disobedient priests.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
I hope many of you will reflect upon the last 5-10-15 posts and see the abuses that have been chronicled. I can assure, these are not the result of Communion in the hand. Are those abuses? Yes they are. But Communion in the hand is not the cause. It seems like we are on round 3 or 4 rehashing the same thing. Communion is not what caused this.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
However, it was stated that: “The only change that happened as a result of Vatican II was the Church began to look at non Catholics to see if there were any signs of Catholicism in them. …” I thought that there were other changes besides the one mentioned there. The question on this thread concerns Holy Communion in the hand. Now the fact is that there are those who claim that this practice is less reverent than the method of reception before Vatican II. Obviously, it is difficult to prove a cause and effect relationship here, but it is found that certain things are correlated, in the sense that they have occurred at roughly the same time.
 
bobzills said:
I think that you have a good point there. Where is the reverence? I mean what are we supposed to think if the dress code at a cheap restaurant is more strict than for a Eucharistic minister in a Catholic Church ?
Click to expand...
There is no dress code anymore. It has been done away with. That this “lack of” should carry over to attendance at Mass is no surprise to me. Lack of discipline, responsibility for one’s own actions, ethics and values is very apparent in the world today, especially here in the US. From some of the other posters, on various threads, I understand this lack is no where more predominant than in some areas of the Golden state of California.
This is a bit of a suprise to me because of the large number of those people from Mexico, whom I would think would have more Traditional values.
 
bobzills said:
No, it does not. For example, I would disagree that this was the only change which occurred as a result of Vatican II. There were other changes which took effect. For example, there was the change in the Roman Mass, which went from an all Latin Tridentine Mass, to a New Mass, the Mass of Paul VI. At this Mass, we have seen female Eucharistic ministers, clowns, dancing girls, Eucharistic ministers dressed in Satanic costumes, mariachi bands, people rolling and screaming on the floor in charismatic Masses, Peter, Paul and Mary folk music with people swaying to and fro, with hands clapping, priests dressed as monkeys saying Mass, and much more. These were things which were not seen before Vatican II, only after. And there is more. With the general degradation of the reverence in the liturgy, we have seen a corresponding degradation in the support for the family and opposition to divorce. For example, in 1930, in the USA, there were about 9 marriage annulments granted per year, whereas in recent years it has gone as high as 60,000 per year in the USA. And we have read in the newspapers about a Catholic priests cosponsoring organisations such as the North American Man Boy Love Association, and one particular priest had received a letter of very high recommendation from Cardinal Law. At least that is what we read in the news, and that was something which was not read in the news before Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Bob when I said, “that the only change since Vatican II was that we look at Protestantism differently” I was responding to your question regarding the unity between Protestantism and Catholocism, not everything else.

The only change that I was refering to had to do with eccesiology, not with all of the other stuff that you mentioned.

These other things may have happened, but they were not part of what you asked. You asked me when did we start giving Protestants communion. I was responding to that question, nothing else.

Again, the answer is that any non Catholic, even the SSPX can be given persimission by the Ordinary if he sees that its warranted.

This has nothing to do with everything else that you brought up above.

In fact, what you brought up above has nothing to do with communion. It has more to do with some people going off the wall.

Fortunately, I have never seen any such nonsense.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top