Communion in the Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrick_Gray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_C said:
This sounds like McCarthyism. They shouldn’t be red-listed. I know more than a few good Catholics who are not allowed here anymore. Their company is really pleasant and their faith is inspiring. Should they be dead to me?
Click to expand...
Rich, we’ve locked horns on this issue before, and I don’t want to get into it with you. It was a FYI only for the poster that I addressed.

And speaking of red-listed, I trust you were aware that there is a RED-danger site review listing at CatholicCulture.org.?
 
SuperTrad said:
When a revolution comes it’s terribly exciting. If you’re young at the time, it forms your character. It’s hard for members of an organisation to say later: “We made a mistake”.

None of the things that were introduced from the 60’s onwards were innovative or helpful to the Faith. They’ve all been done previously by the Church itself and were abandoned or were done by Protestants. Or both.

Acheologists say: “X was done in the year 300, let us revive it”. Now, often it’s the case that X was not done in the way they’ve revived it and/or X was abandoned for good reason. Or the only grounds for X is a shaky quote from a cleric most Catholics have never heard of.

The real reason, I say, that all these changes have happened is that there has been a concerted, semi-conscious push in the Church to make the Mass more like a communal meal and to play down uncomfortable aspects of our Faith.

A Catholicism which is easy-going on things like divorce/annulments, liturgical rigour, contraception, sin, Hell, discipline and the roles of men and women makes it much easier for clergy to liaise with the modern world and much easier for a layman to do as he wishes and still claim to be faithful.

Catholics and Christians generally are now slowly realising, once gain, that the World hates Christ, as it has always done. You’re not helping us by permitting CITH and other archeolgisms. The trend is towards ‘Religion is easy and fun. You are important’ instead of ‘Repent, sinner and seek the Sacraments. Humble yourself before Christus Imperator’.

The proposed ideal: an enthusiastic, learned laity seeking their own sanctification in beautiful churches at beautiful masses.

The reality: Mass which gets increasingly ‘phoned in’ in bland churches, as standards are dropped left, right and centre, attended by laity who don’t believe in the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
👍

I really fail to see how any catholic who loves the church could hold and defend an opinion other than what you have stated here.

It really honestly is a source of confusion for me these days.

Sirach2…I ask you especially. You seem to have a deep knowlege and love of the faith but vigorously speak out against traditionalism and champion the post 1962 changes…why?
 
Sirach2…I ask you especially. You seem to have a deep knowlege and love of the faith but vigorously speak out against traditionalism and champion the post 1962 changes…why?
Click to expand...
You might understand if you knew the saints whom I follow, notably St. Teresa of Avila. She had a vision to found a particular convent in Spain and shared it with her confessor/director, Father Gracian. He set the order aside, preferring that she found it in another location instead, even though he knew how authentic her guidance was from Jesus. Dismayed about the conflict, she asked Jesus what to do. He explicitly told her, “Daughter, obey, but I will hold him responsible for the consequences.”

And on her deathbed, she triumphantly exclaimed three times, “I am a Daughter of the Church!” I never forgot either of these incidents, and they make up my spirituality.

Perhaps the Hierarchy are not prudently shepherding, as was noted with Fr. Gracian, but that does not excuse us from obedience. If that is the case, the Shepherds will answer to the just Judge of all, not you or I. But if we proudly raise our necks in disobedience, how can we expect the Holy Spirit to dwell in the temple of our hearts?

I have never said at CAF whether I prefer one item of legislation over another, and you will not find it in my posts. But what you will find in all circumstances is a defense of the Church’s teachings and whatever it is She has lawfully permitted us to follow. This is for the sake of those who are demeaned by the pseudo-holiness of extremists. I think you might agree that these were the very ones who caused Our Lord the most pain in His public ministry. Nitpickers to the core! Need I elaborate?

And this saint in whose order I have made final promises is not the only one whose works have repeatedly advocated obedience to those Christ places over us in the Church. St. Catherine of Siena, in particular, was given much instruction from Jesus about the sin of speaking against His anointed, just like David of old.

It may interest you to know that the name I took in Religion is “Mary (N) of the Blessed Sacrament.” My love for the Eucharist is the highlight of my spirituality.

God bless you.
 
Perhaps the Hierarchy are not prudently shepherding, as we see with Fr. Gracian, but that does not excuse us from obedience. If that is the case, the Shepherds will answer to the just Judge of all, not you or I. But if we proudly raise our necks in disobedience, how can we expect the Holy Spirit to dwell in the temple of our hearts?
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
Saints_Alive said:
Boy oh boy. I feel like I walked in the wrong door of the an Inquisition now :rotfl:

Here is a thread I started.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=732056
There is a 10pm Mass on Sunday that is prayed by candlelight. It’s in the Ordinary Form and as simple as it is, I find it as inviting and spiritually nourishing as the local diocesan EF. Some Sundays I assist both Masses.

Not sure how much orthodox I can get.
Click to expand...
Again…the externals. Perhaps, you could get more orthodox, by forgetting about how it looks, how it feels, how it smells, how it sounds and concentrate only about WHO it is that you are receiving.👍
 
Melchior said:
You know, by ignoring valid and authentic traditions that have been around for 800 - 1500 years, you’re not actually being a traditionalist, you’re being something else entirely.
Click to expand...
You can’t have a major revision in sacraments and discipline and also claim its traditional. There’s nothing traditional about reviving CITH in a time of non-persecution and loosening morals. They do it because they want to. They think it’s what happened at the Last Supper. As for the reasons it was forbidden: ignored. 1500 years swept away. Not very traditional. Doesn’t make much sense if you’re trying to convey the idea of the Real Presence either.
Indyann said:
Again…the externals. Perhaps, you could get more orthodox, by forgetting about how it looks, how it feels, how it smells, how it sounds and concentrate only about WHO it is that you are receiving.👍
Click to expand...
Without the externals, there is no Mass. So then the question is: what’s good enough for God, given our resources?
Sirach2 said:
Perhaps the Hierarchy are not prudently shepherding, as was noted with Fr. Gracian, but that does not excuse us from obedience. If that is the case, the Shepherds will answer to the just Judge of all, not you or I. But if we proudly raise our necks in disobedience, how can we expect the Holy Spirit to dwell in the temple of our hearts?
Click to expand...
CITH is not a matter of obedience. It’s an indult. It’s optional. The indult could be withdrawn tomorrow. Your bishop could stop it tomorrow. Catholics can kneel to receive on the tongue if they want to.

But they don’t. Interesting, isn’t it?
 
Sirach2 said:
Rich, we’ve locked horns on this issue before, and I don’t want to get into it with you. It was a FYI only for the poster that I addressed.

And speaking of red-listed, I trust you were aware that there is a RED-danger site review listing at CatholicCulture.org.?
Click to expand...
I am not too stubborn to admit that the site includes erroneous opinions among the good Catholic material, but the way you talk about the people there is nearly as bad as the way they talk about the people here. You’ve lost much of your moral high ground in my view.

Why not limit yourself to mentioning Fish Eater’s CatholicCulture.org rating, if their opinion carries such weight?
 
SuperTrad said:
CITH is not a matter of obedience. It’s an indult. It’s optional. The indult could be withdrawn tomorrow. Your bishop could stop it tomorrow. Catholics can kneel to receive on the tongue if they want to.
But they don’t. Interesting, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Layman, Decourcy, (or both) whomever …

My post went right over your head. If you read it again, you’ll see I was not addressing CITH. That seems to be your obsession. Interesting, isn’t it?
 
Sirach2 said:
Layman, Decourcy, (or both) whomever …

My post went right over your head. If you read it again, you’ll see I was not addressing CITH. That seems to be your obsession. Interesting, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Wait, is Roger DeCourcy gone?

Half the humor in the forum went with him.

😦
 
SuperTrad said:
You can’t have a major revision in sacraments and discipline and also claim its traditional. There’s nothing traditional about reviving CITH in a time of non-persecution and loosening morals. They do it because they want to. They think it’s what happened at the Last Supper. As for the reasons it was forbidden: ignored. 1500 years swept away. Not very traditional. Doesn’t make much sense if you’re trying to convey the idea of the Real Presence either.
Click to expand...
I can certainly claim it’s traditional, since it belongs to the Franciscan tradition. 800 years or so of receiving CITH. When I finish my formation, I will officially be a part of that tradition.

Unless you mean to say that Franciscan tradition isn’t "real tradition. But hey, if you want to argue with the Mirror of Perfection, I won’t stop you.
SuperTrad said:
Without the externals, there is no Mass. So then the question is: what’s good enough for God, given our resources?
Click to expand...
This is outright laughable. There are many, many elements of the Mass which are not essential for the Mass to be Mass. There is nothing wrong with an austere Mass.
 
Armor_of_Light said:
👍

I really fail to see how any catholic who loves the church could hold and defend an opinion other than what you have stated here.

It really honestly is a source of confusion for me these days.

Sirach2…I ask you especially. You seem to have a deep knowlege and love of the faith but vigorously speak out against traditionalism and champion the post 1962 changes…why?
Click to expand...
So…let me get this straight…If a hold and defend an opinion other then what they posted…then I don’t love the Church? Do tell how you can proceed to have the only truth…but Holy Mother Church who has made a decision and allows CITH and COTT doesn’t…seriously because that confuses me.🤷
 
Sirach2 said:
With all your overt efforts to convince the majority of members that one should not receive CITH, the fact is “we’re allowed.”
Click to expand...
Thing is…
From my very first post on this thread.
Saints_Alive said:
Two things have been said in this thread that need clarification imo.

But first we must accept that the Church has given us a choice. We can receive CITH or COTT. No matter how strongly we feel about each method of receiving, we have no right to state falsehoods in arguing in favor of one method over another.
Click to expand...
So now we see the truth. You are here to argue and bully.

Look up calumny and detraction
oce.catholic.com/
 
Melchior said:
This is outright laughable. There are many, many elements of the Mass which are not essential for the Mass to be Mass. There is nothing wrong with an austere Mass.
Click to expand...
You’d really deny that some externals are necessary for Mass, just to spite him? Really, he’s like 99% correct in what he’s posting this week (IMHO). There must be better ways to correct the 1% than mocking. If you don’t have the time, why post?
 
SuperTrad said:
You can’t have a major revision in sacraments and discipline and also claim its traditional. There’s nothing traditional about reviving CITH in a time of non-persecution and loosening morals. They do it because they want to. They think it’s what happened at the Last Supper. As for the reasons it was forbidden: ignored. 1500 years swept away. Not very traditional. Doesn’t make much sense if you’re trying to convey the idea of the Real Presence either.

Without the externals, there is no Mass. So then the question is: what’s good enough for God, given our resources?

CITH is not a matter of obedience. It’s an indult. It’s optional. The indult could be withdrawn tomorrow. Your bishop could stop it tomorrow. Catholics can kneel to receive on the tongue if they want to.

But they don’t. Interesting, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
SuperTrad said:
You can’t have a major revision in sacraments and discipline and also claim its traditional. There’s nothing traditional about reviving CITH in a time of non-persecution and loosening morals. They do it because they want to. They think it’s what happened at the Last Supper. As for the reasons it was forbidden: ignored. 1500 years swept away. Not very traditional. Doesn’t make much sense if you’re trying to convey the idea of the Real Presence either.

Without the externals, there is no Mass. So then the question is: what’s good enough for God, given our resources?

CITH is not a matter of obedience. It’s an indult. It’s optional. The indult could be withdrawn tomorrow. Your bishop could stop it tomorrow. Catholics can kneel to receive on the tongue if they want to.

But they don’t. Interesting, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
The Church shared your concerns in the 1960s but in Her generosity allowed CITH anyway. The Magisterium seemed concerned that CITH held more risks and needed more catechesis to avoid diminishing the laity’s adoration for the Blessed Sacrament. Their fears seems to have come true, not because of inherent problems with CITH but because of lack of catechesis. Perhaps the next Holy Father will revoke the option, who can say?

But it is reality now, so why argue about it here? You will anger people who sincerely try to make CITH as reverent as possible. Also, its hard for a layman to be in the right when publicly criticizing the Church’s policies, no matter whether he is right or wrong.

I happen to agree with your sentiments but we have to be realistic here. We are nobody. Let’s try to be humble and be as holy as we can. Perhaps you can bring others to your way of seeing the thing by a holy example.

Internet forums are the worst place to try to convince anyone of anything. Don’t make the CAF forum out to be more important than it is. There’s a whole world out there.

I’m going to take my own advice now and visit my wife at work.

/CAF
 
Rich_C said:
You’d really deny that some externals are necessary for Mass, just to spite him? Really, he’s like 99% correct in what he’s posting this week (IMHO). There must be better ways to correct the 1% than mocking. If you don’t have the time, why post?
Click to expand...
This is sort of like me saying “if you’re only going to focus on one part of a post, why bother replying to it”?

Rich, going “back to the manger” has long been within Catholic tradition. You can see that in the past several centuries, looking at chapels and churches being built and run by Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, and Cisterians (to name a few). These are just as much a part of Catholic tradition (and Tradition) as any other.

What is being lost here is that by focusing on euro-Catholicism and the traditions you (and others) are used to, you’re excluding whole swaths of tradition within the Roman Rite.

I’m not saying the externals are inherently bad. But there’s also is nothing wrong with a simple chapel, simple vestments. No statues, no chant. Just you going back tot he manger and meeting Christ Jesus in the Eucharist.

It’s Advent coming up. Perhaps instead of looking on the outside, maybe we should all focus on the inside, and focus on the Divine simplicity of the manger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top