G
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Not to be picky, but the Church is Christ’s - not ours 
See Matthew 16.18 - a verse not unknown to RCs… Which is why we can’t mess with the Church beyond a certain point
“Gain” ? The fact of being obedient to Christ, “Who came not to be served but to serve”. Christ did not come as Our Redeemer and Reconciler to His Father because He could gain by it - all He gained, was a Cross. He did as He did because (to use His own words) “it is more blessed to give than to receive”. So He gave Himself Totally. Which is what the Church, and we who are in Christ, are called to do as well. This has everything to do with ecumenism, because ecumenism should be a way in which the Church continues the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5) which Christ has begun in her that she may continue it in the world at large. Which she cannot fully do, if she is not united within herself.
So the CC can’t do anything so as to gain from it - that is the wrong attitude and the the wrong timing. ##FWIW, the objectionable passages in the Koran may not be quite as objectionable as often supposed; this is easier to argue for some subjects - the Blessed Trinity, the Passion - than for some others, such as Our Lord’s deity and finality.
As for the Talmud - one has to wonder how well its Catholic critics know it. Apart from anything else, it seems a bit rough to expect the Jews (in this case, the Orthodox) not to read it because we object might to a part of it - we don’t expect Presbyterians not to read Calvin, so why should we expect such self-censorship from others ? Do we practice it ourselves ? ##
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
This is the problem with Ecumenism, the Council fathers opened a pandoras box, and have no way to stop it, until the laity rise up which they are, or leave the church all together, and the “schismatic groups” will become the “real church” and the “church” will become schismatic for allowing something like this to happen, and forget about the nonsense that the bishop was “disciplined” or whatever, he acted on Vatican instructions.
**The *Zenit ***Report
Zenit news posted on January 1 the article “What is Happening in Fatima?” in which the alleged plan to turn Fatima into an Interfaith Shrine was discussed. The article contained various falsehoods, mostly coming from Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra.
http://www.oltyn.com/Buddhist.jpgA**** Buddhist at the pan-religious 2003 Fatima
Fatima Congeess invites members of the
audience to visit the Zenkoji Buddhist Shrine
in Japan. Fatima Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra
stated at this Fatima Congress, “…we rejoice
in the brotherly presence of the representatives
of the various spiritudal schools and we are
sure that their presence here opened the way
for a greater future openness of thes Shrine;
[a] Shrine that seems already vocationed,
thanks to Divine Providence, for contacts
and for dialogue.”"
Reporter Delia Gallagher said that Zenit received a three-page fax from Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva (written in Portuguese) dated December 28, in which the Shrine Rector at Fatima alleged that Father Nicholas Gruner was responsible for the original November 1 *Portugal News *report “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine”.
“It is our conviction”, said Fatima Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra, “that the article in Portugal News has been guided by some members of the group led by Father Nicholas Gruner”. Msgr. Guerra’s assumption was completely false. I can state categorically that Father Gruner has absolutely no connection with Portugal News and is in no way responsible for the November 1 report.
I attended the Fatima Interfaith Congress at the request of Father Gruner’s organization and filed my own report on Father Gruner’s web page “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine? An Account from One Who Was There”.1 It was also published in the December 2003 issue of Catholic Family News.
In that report, I quote the Portugal News article, and I also quote a local newspaper from Fatima, Noticias de Fatima, that ran the headline “Sanctuary for Various Creeds”. But absolutely no one from Father Gruner’s organization had anything to do with the articles appearing in the Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.
*Zenit *also claimed that Father Gruner was involved with the “We Resist You to the Face” statement. This is not true. The Resistance statement was a collaboration between Atila Sinke Guimarães, Michael Matt, Marian Horvat and myself. Father Gruner did not know of or read the “We Resist You to the Face” statement until after it was first published in the May 30, 2000 issue of The Remnant.
Also false is Msgr. Guerra’s claim that the Fatima Center distributed literature against the interreligious congress hosted at the Shrine by Msgr. Guerra. The literature distributed by the Fatima Center, in fact, were Chronology of a Cover-up booklets and flyers promoting the book The Devil’s Final Battle, neither of which contained mention of the interreligious Congress.
It is interesting that Zenit was favored with a faxed response from Fatima authorities, whereas other Catholic reporters were not. Christopher Ferrara, on behalf of The Remnant, contacted the Shrine by fax on November 23, 2003 to pose questions about Fatima’s new pan-religious initiative and to ask Msgr. Guerra to confirm or deny the quotations attributed to him in Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.
**The *Zenit ***Report
Zenit news posted on January 1 the article “What is Happening in Fatima?” in which the alleged plan to turn Fatima into an Interfaith Shrine was discussed. The article contained various falsehoods, mostly coming from Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra.
http://www.oltyn.com/Buddhist.jpgA**** Buddhist at the pan-religious 2003 Fatima
Fatima Congeess invites members of the
audience to visit the Zenkoji Buddhist Shrine
in Japan. Fatima Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra
stated at this Fatima Congress, “…we rejoice
in the brotherly presence of the representatives
of the various spiritudal schools and we are
sure that their presence here opened the way
for a greater future openness of thes Shrine;
[a] Shrine that seems already vocationed,
thanks to Divine Providence, for contacts
and for dialogue.”"
Reporter Delia Gallagher said that Zenit received a three-page fax from Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva (written in Portuguese) dated December 28, in which the Shrine Rector at Fatima alleged that Father Nicholas Gruner was responsible for the original November 1 *Portugal News *report “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine”.
“It is our conviction”, said Fatima Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra, “that the article in Portugal News has been guided by some members of the group led by Father Nicholas Gruner”. Msgr. Guerra’s assumption was completely false. I can state categorically that Father Gruner has absolutely no connection with Portugal News and is in no way responsible for the November 1 report.
I attended the Fatima Interfaith Congress at the request of Father Gruner’s organization and filed my own report on Father Gruner’s web page “Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine? An Account from One Who Was There”.1 It was also published in the December 2003 issue of Catholic Family News.
In that report, I quote the Portugal News article, and I also quote a local newspaper from Fatima, Noticias de Fatima, that ran the headline “Sanctuary for Various Creeds”. But absolutely no one from Father Gruner’s organization had anything to do with the articles appearing in the Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.
*Zenit *also claimed that Father Gruner was involved with the “We Resist You to the Face” statement. This is not true. The Resistance statement was a collaboration between Atila Sinke Guimarães, Michael Matt, Marian Horvat and myself. Father Gruner did not know of or read the “We Resist You to the Face” statement until after it was first published in the May 30, 2000 issue of The Remnant.
Also false is Msgr. Guerra’s claim that the Fatima Center distributed literature against the interreligious congress hosted at the Shrine by Msgr. Guerra. The literature distributed by the Fatima Center, in fact, were Chronology of a Cover-up booklets and flyers promoting the book The Devil’s Final Battle, neither of which contained mention of the interreligious Congress.
It is interesting that Zenit was favored with a faxed response from Fatima authorities, whereas other Catholic reporters were not. Christopher Ferrara, on behalf of The Remnant, contacted the Shrine by fax on November 23, 2003 to pose questions about Fatima’s new pan-religious initiative and to ask Msgr. Guerra to confirm or deny the quotations attributed to him in Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.
Gottle of Geer said:## I have to admit to having missed that rather important qualification :- I suppose that V2 could be attacked for “renewing the errors of the Jansenist pseudo-Synod of Pistoia”
You know your Fathers and Councils
E
Exporter
Guest
“And you have not constructed a logical or fitting argument, ie., “is it or is it not permitted?” and “here’s why.” You have engaged (again) in a trip down memory lane and subjectivism. I wanted to know what the Church REQUIRED. I have not insulted you for rec. on the tongue or for your beliefs about rec. Holy Communion. But in the logic of linquistics, to say “it’s more reverent” is subjective. In your opinion, it is more reverent. I freely aknowledge that I prefer Gregorian Chant and polyphony, but absent heresy in the lyrics, if I’m asked to sing something inane out of Glory and Praise in choir, I sing it; that is to say, subjectively I don’t like it. Absent heresy, there’s nothing objectively wrong with it.”
Oh, I have not constructed a logical or fitting argument? I was not arguring.My previous post was exclamatory not argumentative. I DID state what was done for 50 years of my life. I then said it was being done now. Is that logical? If you see a firetruck at noon, and later you say that you saw a fire truck at noon - is that acceptable? Is it logical to accept that you did see a firetruck at noon? The answer is YES. So what I saw and what I see is undiputible evidence.
The one whose post contained the words “subjectively” and “objectively” frequently uses rhetoric & evasion. As you know rhetoric is used to fill up space when one really doesn’t have anything to say. Politicians are accomplished at dodging the question, aren’t they?
I did not say here nor have I told a man in person that they had to recieve on the tongue. That’s between them and God. I would hope that others would not tell my grandson to walk up there and hold his hand out and scurry away.:yup:
Oh, I have not constructed a logical or fitting argument? I was not arguring.My previous post was exclamatory not argumentative. I DID state what was done for 50 years of my life. I then said it was being done now. Is that logical? If you see a firetruck at noon, and later you say that you saw a fire truck at noon - is that acceptable? Is it logical to accept that you did see a firetruck at noon? The answer is YES. So what I saw and what I see is undiputible evidence.
The one whose post contained the words “subjectively” and “objectively” frequently uses rhetoric & evasion. As you know rhetoric is used to fill up space when one really doesn’t have anything to say. Politicians are accomplished at dodging the question, aren’t they?
I did not say here nor have I told a man in person that they had to recieve on the tongue. That’s between them and God. I would hope that others would not tell my grandson to walk up there and hold his hand out and scurry away.:yup:
E
Exporter
Guest
This is from a letter in December '04 issue of Catholic Family News.
"
That prediction was fulfilled on May 5, 2004 when Hindus were allowed to perform a “prayer for peace” at the Catholic altar at the Shrine in Fatima. About 60 Hindus, after worshiping their various gods in their temple at Lisbon, traveled by bus to Fatima. The Hindus went to the Capelinha, the little Chapel of the Apparitions, where the Hindu priest recited the “Shanti Pa” prayer standing at the Catholic altar. The Hindus who made up the congregation in the chapel responded with one of their chants. I have a video copy of the Portuguese SIC television broadcast from the event, and I published photos from it in Catholic Family News and on the internet.
In response to international criticism, Fatima Shrine Rector Guerra issued a Communique claiming that on that day, “… no rite was performed on or off the altar”. I don’t know how he can say this, as the Hindu priest chanted the “Shanti Pa” prayer while standing at the altar, with the Hindus as the congregation. It was a Hindu religious ceremony, whether or not Father Guerra wishes to designate it as a “rite”.
Catholics — and even some Protestants whom I know — are outraged at this profanation of the Fatima Shrine. Yet there are those who allege that this is nothing for a Catholic to worry about. Worse yet, as the recent Letters to the Editor in The**Universe indicate, there are those who claim that the reports we have published on these happenings are not true.
A man from Britain claimed that my reports on the 2003 Fatima Congress were not reliable. This charge is spurious, as he was not at the Congress.
Further, those who were at the Congress and heard Father Dupuis’ speech, including Shrine Rector Guerra, Bishop Serafim da Souza of Fatima, Cardinal Policarpo of Lisbon, the Apostolic Delegate of Portugal, and Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, have had over a year to state publicly that my reports on the Congress were not true. None of them has done so. Shrine Rector Guerra, in two official Communiques on this topic, has not done so. This is because what I reported concerning the Congress is accurate. The evidence is recorded.
The Hindu prayer ceremony at Fatima did indeed take place. One of your readers from Ireland, who said he was there that day, tried to downplay the event’s significance, claiming that no one would have known about the Hindu prayer ceremony if SIC television had not broadcast it. Does this mean it is acceptable for Hindus to pray at a Catholic altar provided no one finds out?
What we have in this entire process — from the Inter-religous Congress to the Hindu prayer ceremony at the Capelinha — is a transformation of our Catholic religion from what it was for 2,000 years to a new pan-religious construct that would have horrified all of the pre-Vatican II Popes.
oltyn.com/jv-univ.htm
In Florida, at least, there are Voodu churches, they kill a chicken during their “worship”. If the ecumenism as displayed at Fatima contenues there may come a day when they will be killing chickens at your Church. Santarista is just around the corner.
"
That prediction was fulfilled on May 5, 2004 when Hindus were allowed to perform a “prayer for peace” at the Catholic altar at the Shrine in Fatima. About 60 Hindus, after worshiping their various gods in their temple at Lisbon, traveled by bus to Fatima. The Hindus went to the Capelinha, the little Chapel of the Apparitions, where the Hindu priest recited the “Shanti Pa” prayer standing at the Catholic altar. The Hindus who made up the congregation in the chapel responded with one of their chants. I have a video copy of the Portuguese SIC television broadcast from the event, and I published photos from it in Catholic Family News and on the internet.
In response to international criticism, Fatima Shrine Rector Guerra issued a Communique claiming that on that day, “… no rite was performed on or off the altar”. I don’t know how he can say this, as the Hindu priest chanted the “Shanti Pa” prayer while standing at the altar, with the Hindus as the congregation. It was a Hindu religious ceremony, whether or not Father Guerra wishes to designate it as a “rite”.
Catholics — and even some Protestants whom I know — are outraged at this profanation of the Fatima Shrine. Yet there are those who allege that this is nothing for a Catholic to worry about. Worse yet, as the recent Letters to the Editor in The**Universe indicate, there are those who claim that the reports we have published on these happenings are not true.
A man from Britain claimed that my reports on the 2003 Fatima Congress were not reliable. This charge is spurious, as he was not at the Congress.
Further, those who were at the Congress and heard Father Dupuis’ speech, including Shrine Rector Guerra, Bishop Serafim da Souza of Fatima, Cardinal Policarpo of Lisbon, the Apostolic Delegate of Portugal, and Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, have had over a year to state publicly that my reports on the Congress were not true. None of them has done so. Shrine Rector Guerra, in two official Communiques on this topic, has not done so. This is because what I reported concerning the Congress is accurate. The evidence is recorded.
The Hindu prayer ceremony at Fatima did indeed take place. One of your readers from Ireland, who said he was there that day, tried to downplay the event’s significance, claiming that no one would have known about the Hindu prayer ceremony if SIC television had not broadcast it. Does this mean it is acceptable for Hindus to pray at a Catholic altar provided no one finds out?
What we have in this entire process — from the Inter-religous Congress to the Hindu prayer ceremony at the Capelinha — is a transformation of our Catholic religion from what it was for 2,000 years to a new pan-religious construct that would have horrified all of the pre-Vatican II Popes.
oltyn.com/jv-univ.htm
In Florida, at least, there are Voodu churches, they kill a chicken during their “worship”. If the ecumenism as displayed at Fatima contenues there may come a day when they will be killing chickens at your Church. Santarista is just around the corner.
S
steve_b
Guest
This quote does not appear in an official church source that I can see. Do you have the source?
Here is the “directory” document you discuss. On the specific items you mention, I see what is permitted under this climate of ecumenism, but I also see limitations and qualifications on what is permitted and not permitted. I suppose one might have a concern, if a local bishop doesn’t watch the process closely in his diocese, and abuses occured.
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUECU.HTM
Cardinal Kasper remarks. ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUPEAC.HTM .
“Ecumenical dialogues are not only based on the tolerance and respect due for every human and religious conviction; nor are they founded solely on liberal philanthropy or mere polite courtesy; on the contrary, ecumenical dialogue is rooted in the common faith in Jesus Christ and the reciprocal recognition of baptism, which means that all the baptized become members of the one Body of Christ (cf. Gal 3,28); 1 Cor 12,13; Ut unum sint, n. 42) and can pray the "Our *Father” *together,as Jesus taught us. In other religions the Church recognizes a ray of that truth “that enlightens every man” (Jn 1,9), but is revealed in its fullness only in Jesus Christ; only he is “the Way, the Truth and the Life” (Jn 14,6; cf. Nostra aetate, n. 2). It is therefore ambiguous to refer to interreligious dialogue in terms of macro-ecumenism or of a new and vaster phase of ecumenism.
Christians and the followers of other religions can pray, but cannot pray together. Every form of syncretism is to be excluded."
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Exporter said:
What?!?!? I’m the one whose post used the words “subjectively” and “objectively!” I do NOT use rhetoric and evasion, and I challenge you to find a post in which I’ve done so! You also listed 4 reasons why one should rec. Our Lord on one’s tongue (“4. It is more reverent to recieve on the tongue.”). The point about “subjectively” and “objectively” was intended to respond to that.
S
steve_b
Guest
Deacon Ed:
St Mother Teresa was correct in her feeling. And her opinion was spot on with the Church.
**6. Dictating the manner of reception of the Eucharist.
**"Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it.
Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice. The indult that allowed it specified that reception in the hand “must not be imposed” (CSDW, En réponse, 1969). Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Your right to determine which lawful manner you use is stated in the GIRM (Appendix for the United States, 240b). "
for context
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
This entire subject was discussed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=33022
I hope that some of the information will be of help in clarifying where things are now.
C
CrusaderNY
Guest
With the following taken right from the Koran, the Talmud and Orthodox teachings. In reviewing the V2 documents especially “The Declaration on Religious Liberty” and “Declaration of the Church to Non Christian Religions”, what is stated in these Council documents are misleading…
Islamist teachings
If Anyone Desires a Religion Otherthan Islam It Will Never Be Accepted** **
Qur’an 3:83-86 Surah Ale-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran)**
********Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah? While all creatures in the heavens and on earth have willing or unwilling bowed to His Will (accepted Islam) and to Him shall they all be brought back.
Teachings right from the Talmud:
In order not to leave any loose ends on the subject of the Talmud’s reference to Jesus, to Christians and to the Christian faith aresummarized translations into English from the Latin texts of Rev. Pranaitis:
Sanhedrin, 67a – Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
Kallah, 1b. (18b) – Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
Sanhedrin, 67a – Hanged on the eve of Passover. Abhodah Zarah II – Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
Sanhedrin, 43a – On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
Schabbath, 104b – Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
Sanhedrin, 103a. – Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
Zohar III, (282) – Died like a beast and buried in animal’s dirt heap.
Orthodox Oppostition to the Church
Greek Orthodoxy has always rejected the West, since the time of the Byzantine Empire. Before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 there was a saying: “Better the Turkish turban the Papal tiara”. School books are still full of resentment. **Children are brought up to hate the Catholic Church. **
HagiaSophia:
Islamist teachings
If Anyone Desires a Religion Otherthan Islam It Will Never Be Accepted** **
Qur’an 3:83-86 Surah Ale-'Imran (The Family of 'Imran)**
********Do they seek for other than the Religion of Allah? While all creatures in the heavens and on earth have willing or unwilling bowed to His Will (accepted Islam) and to Him shall they all be brought back.
Teachings right from the Talmud:
In order not to leave any loose ends on the subject of the Talmud’s reference to Jesus, to Christians and to the Christian faith aresummarized translations into English from the Latin texts of Rev. Pranaitis:
Sanhedrin, 67a – Jesus referred to as the son of Pandira, a soldier
Kallah, 1b. (18b) – Illegitimate and conceived during menstruation.
Sanhedrin, 67a – Hanged on the eve of Passover. Abhodah Zarah II – Referred to as the son of Pandira, a Roman soldier.
Sanhedrin, 43a – On the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus.
Schabbath, 104b – Called a fool and no one pays attention to fools.
Toldoth Jeschu. Judas and Jesus engaged in quarrel with filth.
Sanhedrin, 103a. – Suggested corrupts his morals and dishonors self.
Zohar III, (282) – Died like a beast and buried in animal’s dirt heap.
Orthodox Oppostition to the Church
Greek Orthodoxy has always rejected the West, since the time of the Byzantine Empire. Before the fall of Constantinople in 1453 there was a saying: “Better the Turkish turban the Papal tiara”. School books are still full of resentment. **Children are brought up to hate the Catholic Church. **
D
Deacon_Ed
Guest
steve b:
Reception of communion in the hand, as I have noted before, is a choice the communicant may make. The normative method is communion on the tongue. Neither form may be “imposed” by the minister distributing communion.
Deacon Ed
But Mother Teresa’s feelings do not constitute Church law nor do they define acceptable praxis. Therefore, her feelings, while significant for herself, are not significant in terms of what the Church permits or does not permit. Further, there is no supporting evidence that this was, indeed, her feeling. The “report” from Fr. Rutler has been denied in several occasions.
*This Rock *is not an official organ of the Catholic Church. Opinions it might express are its own, not that of the Church. It is, however, quite correct that communion in the hand is an indult, an exception to law, permitted by the Church for those areas where the National Conference of Bishops have requested it in accordance with provisions laid down by Pope Paul VI. This was not an issue that was directed by Vatican II, but rather by the bishops of the various national conferences. In the United States it is permitted.
Reception of communion in the hand, as I have noted before, is a choice the communicant may make. The normative method is communion on the tongue. Neither form may be “imposed” by the minister distributing communion.
Deacon Ed
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
steve b:
That quotation from 1969 is from before Paul VI issued *Memoriale Domini *- so it no longer has the force it had before he did so: unless you have info to the contrary ?
It suffices that the practice is allowed - and whether popes or other bishops like or dislike a practice, is of no force: they think what they wish, as we all do; what matters is whether they manifest their approval or allowance or disapproval or allowance of a thing, or not. The Christian people cannot be expected to treat a bishop’s preferences or aversions as a rule for their conduct: which is why some kind of public utterance is required, such as a motu proprio or other letter. In the absence of such things, the Pope’s attitudes are of no more weight than anybody else’s. ##
E
Exporter
Guest
Hey guys, look at what has happened on this thread. There are perhaps eight posters who have attempted to state what the Pope wants (or what he said). I know that each person is dedicated and wants to reach the truth, but look, there are several “opinions”, all worthy but somewhat questionable.
The reason I wrote the above was to set the stage for this paragraph. All of you probably have been a member of an organization or maybe a team. When there are two or three people calling the “shots” things get done the wrong way. People dont know who the boss is so they make up their own rules. THERE HAS TO BE ONE PERSON IN CHARGE.
I know at least one of you ( maybe 2) has tried to tell us the situation as it exists today, and I say thanks. But when a significant number take the Eucharist in their hands aand the remainder take the Eucharist on the tongue, that makes for disunity. I said THAT MAKES FOR DISUNITY.
The reason I wrote the above was to set the stage for this paragraph. All of you probably have been a member of an organization or maybe a team. When there are two or three people calling the “shots” things get done the wrong way. People dont know who the boss is so they make up their own rules. THERE HAS TO BE ONE PERSON IN CHARGE.
I know at least one of you ( maybe 2) has tried to tell us the situation as it exists today, and I say thanks. But when a significant number take the Eucharist in their hands aand the remainder take the Eucharist on the tongue, that makes for disunity. I said THAT MAKES FOR DISUNITY.
T
TNT
Guest
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS:
The VATII Revolution is OVER! :dancing:
My first Encyklikal:
ps. Am I a born VATII leader, or what?? :dancing::clapping: :tiphat:
H
HagiaSophia
Guest
A great deal of that ended with National Councils in every couintry. As far as I’m concerned they ought to be not only disbanded, but barred by canon law for a variety of reasons which is an entire thread unto itself.
Having said that since they do exist, each nation has its variants in liturgical practice based on what the national council votes for or against…
As the Deacon and I have tried to point out, unity is not always everyone doing everything identically the same thing at the same time. In a Japanese parish you will see people give a small bow of the head as they approach, I’ve seen eastern rites cross themselves prior to receiving, I’ve seen others approach with arms crossed over their chest, all of them are respectfully receiving the Eucharist. It does not cause disunity.
Our Eastern Rites have different gestures, different prayers, different music and different style of reception - they are certainly in unity with the Pope and the church.
And I’d like to gently point out this is a post out of “thread context” - there is another thread on Communion Reception and perhaps this topic more properly belongs there?
T
TNT
Guest
*ZENIT NEWS :
*The New VATII leader in his Sunday night audience said in reference to the infamous disunity on the Catholic.com Forums:
*The New VATII leader in his Sunday night audience said in reference to the infamous disunity on the Catholic.com Forums:
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Sorry. NO communion Rail.
Look VERY closely.
Most Methodists are like “Low Church” Epicopalians in their view towards Communion - NO Transubstantiation. (no “Real Presence” - Just symbolic), Once a Month, just to commemmorate Jesus’ Death and Resurrection.
But, it is a beautiful picture, and I’m sure, a beautiful building. We have one of two remaining “The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary” by De la Rubio over our High Alter (The other is in STORAGE at Hearst Castle in San Simeon-It’s too valuble for public display):
stmaryoftheangels.org/
Please pray for our Webmistress, Tanya, she has Multiple Sclerosis, and has had an attack over much of the past week…
Thank You, Michael
T
TNT
Guest
Traditional Ang:
The pic on the site is lovely…the presbyters do not face the people??
Will a Rosary be appropriate?
The pic on the site is lovely…the presbyters do not face the people??
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Why?
Both have been common practice in the Anglican Communion since the time of Thomas Cramner.
The person kneeling on the communion rail next to me takes the Host the hand, and REVERENTLY takes it up to has mouth without letting his fingers touch the Host (Anglican Canon), while I REVERENTLY take the Host on my tongue as I was taught by my father some 33 years ago.
The Deacon (or priest) then comes and offers us the Cup, taking the Hosts out the hands from those who have held it for Intinction (NOT Self-Intinction - Canon same as the Roman Catholic Church here).
ALL is done in REVERENCE and in the REALIZATION THAT WE ARE TAKING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST INTO OUR BODIES.
In my mind, the key words are REVERENCE and “DISCERNING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST”!
Hand v. tongue is a question of PRACTICE. There are things worth dividing over. That’s NOT one of them - NOT by a long shot!
I hope this helps this conversation.
In Christ, Michael
- Status