B
Beads
Guest
Still, she is now aware, and Our Lord is at work!Go figure some people do not like to be told how to respect the Blessed Sacrament.
PAX!
- Status
PAX!
P
ProVobis
Guest
But it could be a serious distraction for those who oppose CITH (or even COTT for that matter.) Therefore proper disposition may not be attained for some.
S
spn82756
Guest
Are you trying to say that seeing people receive CITT can cause you to be distracted?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Not to worry. Iâve put on ignore the people I consider occasions of sin.
I appreciate the support. Can I go home now?
L
Layman
Guest
What does it say about a Church that goes from:
Communion on the tongue;
Kneeling;
From a priest;
to:
Standing;
In the hand;
From a laywoman?
⌠and canât give a good reason for it?
Like, weâve had additions to our faith from sources like Fatima and the Divine Mercy Chaplet. One can argue their worth both from their practicality (increases piety, salvation of souls) and their source (Jesus and Mary, via impeccable human seers).
Then you have CITH.
**Saying: âThe Church allows itâ wonât cut it, especially given the bureaucratic, disobedient and devious way it has been allowed, if what other posters have said is true.
Imagine Jesus appearing to a living saint and saying "Yes, my dear, I would like lay people to handle My Body and stop kneeling to receive Me at Mass."
**
Boggles the mind, really.
Communion on the tongue;
Kneeling;
From a priest;
to:
Standing;
In the hand;
From a laywoman?
⌠and canât give a good reason for it?
Like, weâve had additions to our faith from sources like Fatima and the Divine Mercy Chaplet. One can argue their worth both from their practicality (increases piety, salvation of souls) and their source (Jesus and Mary, via impeccable human seers).
Then you have CITH.
**Saying: âThe Church allows itâ wonât cut it, especially given the bureaucratic, disobedient and devious way it has been allowed, if what other posters have said is true.
Imagine Jesus appearing to a living saint and saying "Yes, my dear, I would like lay people to handle My Body and stop kneeling to receive Me at Mass."
**
Boggles the mind, really.
S
spn82756
Guest
He has put the magesterium on ignore???Not to worry. Iâve put on ignore the people I consider occasions of sin.
C
Cristiano
Guest
This is the second part of a straw man! The Church did not say not that COTT is not allowed and the Church did not say that the discipline on how to receive Communion is a direct wish from Jesus.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
LookâŚI despise CITHâŚinherently I do not feel it is rightâŚnot too mention in also brings in a whole new dimension of abuseâŚEMHC, apparently some of these people arenât even practicing CatholicsâŚand for them to touch the Most Blesses Sacrament is an abomination. I have brought up a point on this thread that no one seems to have the courage to discussâŚor apparently lacks the concern to even discuss it. There is a âCatholicâ on this boardâŚeven posting on this thread, that holds views that are directly opposed to The Catholic Church. Does ANYONE else think there is a problem when a self professed, non-practicing Catholic is 1) Receiving Communion 2) Touching The Host and distributing to the faithful??? My friends, this is a sacrilege of the worst kindâŚwe have openly anti-Catholics serving as Eucharistic MinistersâŚwhat is next, have someone like Dr. Tiller run the Pro-Life office in the Vatican??? This problem is two foldâWhy would a non-practicing anti-Catholic present themselves for CommunionâŚfurthermore, WHY IS THAT PERSON ALLOWED TO BE A EUCHARISTIC MINISTER----------Problem 2, here is the kicker, if Communion on the tongue was the only acceptable way receive at the Altar rail, then this abomination would not even be allowed to take placeâŚgranted, we wouldnât be able to prevent the sacrilegious CommunionâŚbut we sure could prevent the abominable situation where this person is touching The Most Blessed SacramentâŚhow many people who are EMHCâs arenât even practicing CatholicsâŚthat is a scary thought
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
That may be true, and I can relate to that. However, the problem is with the one being distracted, not with the other communicants. Bearing with others patiently is a command of the Gospel. Working on having patience with a practice that you dislike would contribute wonderfully to receiving communion worthily.
C
Cristiano
Guest
I can see your point of view but the problem is not with EMHCs, it is with our fallen nature. You said : WHY IS THAT PERSON ALLOWED TO BE A EUCHARISTIC MINISTER----------" EMHCs are not Eucharistic ministers but priests are, and that sentence made me think that there are priests that can be more irreverent than lay people. You cannot assume that a set of people are automatically wrong that is a stereotype, a prejudice. Just because we have experienced bad behaviors from people with certain responsibilities we cannot judge all of them for someone fault. Where all the apostles always good? Were all the popes always good? Were all the bishops always good? What about the priests, deacons etc.?
We are to correct our brothers with charity and clarity. The problem is that sometime we are too PC and/or too frustrated to understand what charity and clarity are really about.
S
spn82756
Guest
I cannot disagree with much of what you say. As Iâve stated I receive COTT. I prefer it because to me it is more reverent. I would prefer to also receive kneeling at the rail as I did as a child. I do however see many people very reverently receiving CITH. Very reverently. I cannot see them as doing anything remotely wrong. There are people that are not very reverent receiving CITH. They have to be educated.
I used to be an EMHC and no longer am because I do not feel as though I should be handling the consecrated host. That does not mean that those who reverently receive CITH are remotely doing anything wrong. And then to say that that is a distraction to ones self would tell me that personâs concentration is on what others are doing and not on what he/she is doing. That in itself may be a near occasion of sin. He/she should be concerned with themselvesâŚnot watching what other people are doing.
Some of what ProVobis has said has been flat out schismatic by saying the magesterium is wrong. He seems to know better than the rest. If Iâm on his ignore listâŚI consider my self blessed for having conveyed a valid point (as others have) that he is wrong.
Peace
To call me or others that defend the magesterium âthe near occasion of sinâ is ridiculous. ProVobis is trying to say that he knows better than the Church.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
And furthermoreâŚI promise I am not sexist, but I understand the difference in genders and the respective roles each should have, even though we fail to rememberâŚand it just bothers me when I see women just walk up to the Sanctuary and dilly dally around the Altar all non-chalantâŚlike they own the placeâŚtalking, etcâŚThen when it comes time for Communion, there are 15 people in Church, and there will be the priest and 4 women distributing CommunionâŚwhat gives???
L
Layman
Guest
Errr ⌠Iâm not sure what youâre trying to say here.
Iâm saying introducing CITH after 1500+ years of COTT, into a Roman Catholic diocese, makes no sense.
Stand back from it. Imagine explaining this change to a non-Catholic: âWe believe Christ, our Lord, who is of one being with God, is present in the Host, but weâre going to stop kneeling to receive Him and allow laypeople to handle Him, while standing up, because âŚâ
Itâs bonkers.
It only seems normal because âobedienceâ and âthe magisteriumâ are used to hush objections: How can The Church do any wrong? Be quiet, listen to the new hymns and offer it up (offering up something that occurs as part of Mass???)
Neo-Catholics! Take the red pill!:whacky:
P
paperwight
Guest
L
Layman
Guest
I use laywoman or âMrs. Goodladyâ to contrast with previous practice.
Women werenât allowed in the sanctuary during Mass, unvested laymen werenât either, as far as I know.
I am also being satirical. Having been to TLMs over two years or so, I am by turns angered and amused at N.O. masses to see old women in overcoats trooping up to the altar at a key point in the Mass, then standing side by side with the priest to hand out communion. Especially when the congregation is not very big.
Itâs one more mundane element added to a supposedly sacred rite.
And then people wonder why people behave casually at Mass or donât go at all. I submit one reason is that theyâre being cued that itâs not important: Look, thereâs the old lady who runs the newsagents up there with a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Add simple hymns and kids drawings about the place and the effect is of being at a school recital.
The barque of Peter is slow to turn around.** I think itâs taken forty years to realise that priests need to lead people to holiness rather than chase after them with mundane alterations and additions. **
Saw a display for a local order of sisters/nuns in the narthex of my local church. All elderly, all in civvies. Sad. Youâd think theyâd realise that, even in pure marketing terms, their habit is a terrific advert for what they do.
I think it was Einstein who said that to keep doing the same thing, while expecting different results, is a definintion of madness.
Women werenât allowed in the sanctuary during Mass, unvested laymen werenât either, as far as I know.
I am also being satirical. Having been to TLMs over two years or so, I am by turns angered and amused at N.O. masses to see old women in overcoats trooping up to the altar at a key point in the Mass, then standing side by side with the priest to hand out communion. Especially when the congregation is not very big.
Itâs one more mundane element added to a supposedly sacred rite.
And then people wonder why people behave casually at Mass or donât go at all. I submit one reason is that theyâre being cued that itâs not important: Look, thereâs the old lady who runs the newsagents up there with a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Add simple hymns and kids drawings about the place and the effect is of being at a school recital.
The barque of Peter is slow to turn around.** I think itâs taken forty years to realise that priests need to lead people to holiness rather than chase after them with mundane alterations and additions. **
Saw a display for a local order of sisters/nuns in the narthex of my local church. All elderly, all in civvies. Sad. Youâd think theyâd realise that, even in pure marketing terms, their habit is a terrific advert for what they do.
I think it was Einstein who said that to keep doing the same thing, while expecting different results, is a definintion of madness.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
Because in realityâŚand I know I will get flamed for this, because I always doâŚA woman has no place in the Sanctuary or anywhere around The AltarâŚcall me old fashioned or whatever you mayâŚThey shouldnât be EMHCâs, they shouldnât be servers, etcâŚNow, I donât agree with EMHCâs, but apparently it is not going anywhereâŚbut I certainly donât remember any instances in The Bible or tradition where women were allowed to touch and distribute The Most Blessed SacramentâŚas far as the servers go, I have exhausted that topic on numerous thread. There is a clear distinction between genders and in modern times, people that hold my view are considered sexistâŚbut if you call me sexist, you are calling God sexist, because this is how he willed it to be.
M
michaeldaniels
Guest
and Josef Goebbels said something to the effect âIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."âŚwhich reminds me of the modernist interpretation of Vatican II and the innovations that have been done in its âspiritâ
M
Malleus_01
Guest
<<<< It only seems normal because âobedienceâ and âthe magisteriumâ are used to hush objections: How can The Church do any wrong? Be quiet, listen to the new hymns and offer it up (offering up something that occurs as part of Mass???) >>>>
Mal: One of the things I have noticed in this discussion is the false perception that we are to blindly obey our superiors because they are our superiors in all things. Now certainly there have been many treatises on this discussion itself - but many have misinterpreted the purpose for Obedience. Obedience can be blind only if that obedience is given to those maintaining fidelity to the Deposit of Faith. This point cannot be stressed enough. Many of the Modernist novelties implemented since Vatican II were implemented falsely. We have seen instances of Clown Masses - Liturgical Dance - Bhuddism - Cultural deviations and the like and are we to likewise sit back and be blindly obedient to such things as well? Where does it end? If one takes the time to understand that Obedience is given for fidelity to the Teachings of Holy Mother the Church protected by the Holy Ghost and for that reason alone - then our understanding takes on new meaning. Yes we are to obey. But we are not to obey false Shepherds who come to us dressed as sheep but inwardly are as ravening wolves. The simple fact remains - Communion in the Hand is a modernist novelty and opposing a modernist novelty is not an act of disobedience. In fact - worshipping GOD in tradition is not an act of disobedience either. Catholic restoration is not an act of disobedience. Revisiting the Athanasian Creed confirms this. We are to keep the Faith whole and undefiled. And refusing to accept modernist novelty given in a misinterpreted methodology and rush to embrace false ecumenism with the non catholic religions in place of fidelity to Orthodoxy - especially as it relates to the Blessed Sacrament isnt disobedience. It is ultimately obedience to Almighty GOD.
Pax
Mal: One of the things I have noticed in this discussion is the false perception that we are to blindly obey our superiors because they are our superiors in all things. Now certainly there have been many treatises on this discussion itself - but many have misinterpreted the purpose for Obedience. Obedience can be blind only if that obedience is given to those maintaining fidelity to the Deposit of Faith. This point cannot be stressed enough. Many of the Modernist novelties implemented since Vatican II were implemented falsely. We have seen instances of Clown Masses - Liturgical Dance - Bhuddism - Cultural deviations and the like and are we to likewise sit back and be blindly obedient to such things as well? Where does it end? If one takes the time to understand that Obedience is given for fidelity to the Teachings of Holy Mother the Church protected by the Holy Ghost and for that reason alone - then our understanding takes on new meaning. Yes we are to obey. But we are not to obey false Shepherds who come to us dressed as sheep but inwardly are as ravening wolves. The simple fact remains - Communion in the Hand is a modernist novelty and opposing a modernist novelty is not an act of disobedience. In fact - worshipping GOD in tradition is not an act of disobedience either. Catholic restoration is not an act of disobedience. Revisiting the Athanasian Creed confirms this. We are to keep the Faith whole and undefiled. And refusing to accept modernist novelty given in a misinterpreted methodology and rush to embrace false ecumenism with the non catholic religions in place of fidelity to Orthodoxy - especially as it relates to the Blessed Sacrament isnt disobedience. It is ultimately obedience to Almighty GOD.
Pax
T
tweetymom
Guest
Gal3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek,there is neither bond nor free, there is neither Male nor Female,for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal3:29 And if ye be Christâs, then are ye Abrahamâs seed, and heirs according to the promise.
M
Malleus_01
Guest
Gal3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek,there is neither bond nor free, there is neither Male nor Female,for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal3:29 And if ye be Christâs, then are ye Abrahamâs seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And Likewise :
1 Corinthians Chapter 11
Women must have a covering over their heads. He blameth the abuses of their love feasts and upon that occasion treats of the Blessed Sacrament.
11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.
11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.
11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
11:6. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
A power⌠that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.
11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
11:13. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?
11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
11:15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Gal3:29 And if ye be Christâs, then are ye Abrahamâs seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And Likewise :
1 Corinthians Chapter 11
Women must have a covering over their heads. He blameth the abuses of their love feasts and upon that occasion treats of the Blessed Sacrament.
11:1. Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.
11:2. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.
11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.
11:4. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head.
11:5. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
11:6. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head.
11:7. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
11:10. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
A power⌠that is, a veil or covering, as a sign that she is under the power of her husband: and this, the apostle adds, because of the angels, who are present in the assemblies of the faithful.
11:11. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.
11:12. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.
11:13. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered?
11:14. Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?
11:15. But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
- Status