Empurpled means being “raised to the purple” - raised to the nobility. Tyrian dye made from a certain shellfish in Tyre, Phoenician (Lebanon) was reserved to the imperial family during St. John’s time. St. John C. is using metaphor in that all of us are raised to nobility. Guess what gang, our cardinals are “raised to the purple” even this day.
You’re right. But in some respects things have changed even in the TLM. These days there are some receiving at the communion rail with their hands placed under the railing cloth and with a paten under their chins and then walk back chewing the Host with everyone to see. I guess some of us wonder why they’re so eager to consume the Host when they could spend a minute or two with Christ Himself after they returned to their pews. But I’m sure they have their reasons.
I didn’t do the Beatles then and I don’t do the Beatles now - sorry folks the closest I come to anything approaching rock music is Steeleye Span out of Britain. However, if you get a chance, there was a TV program from those days which I did watch live on TV in glorious black and white. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. Youtube has lots of Bishop Sheen’s old shows. They might give you an idea of where I’m coming from.
The very idea of working my finger on the roof of my mouth much lest chewing…Sister Mary Evaristus would have had a kitten!
You’re welcome. But I didn’t provide the proof as a testament in favor of either Pope; I just don’t like inaccuracies. I don’t believe for a moment that the Vatican is against the practice. They are almost all modernists. I still believe it is wrong and the practice should be abolished.
Unless and until you can show that there is credible evidence that people took the Precious Blood and covered themselves with it, I am not buying it. The statement you quoted simply does not say what you indicate it says.
Oh get over it. We are no longer dealing with Mondernism, having now moved on to post-Modernism, as well as any number of other isms. You wouldn’t know a Modernist if they came and bit you in the back side. Quit throwing around Big Impressive Words as if you actually knew what they meant; some people who read your posts actually do.
Sorry, I don’t play that game; I challenged you to provide evidence of your statement; you cannot duck the question by telling me I have to provide counter proof. Where is your evidence? It is your quote. Oh, and read Brotherolf’s comment as to the meaning or “empurple”.
Oh, I think I do. Happens all the time…
I am not hateful. But I am sick and tired of people who think they are more Catholic than the Pope criticiszing some of the holiest men we have had in that position. I am particularly tired of the ranting and whining and nit picking and belittling of the Church and its leaders as straying from the True Faith. This is off topic, but I truly can see why so many bishops have spoken out against the Motu Proprio; the issue of the Tridentine rite is not half so much a matter of the actual ritual as it is a banner for those who outright reject Vatican 2 documents and the legitimate actions of the Church to carry out those documents. I am not arguing liturgical changes (I have actually read all of the documents, unlike many of the critics of them); what I am getting at are the pie-in-the-sky fairy tale mentality of the very conservative to ultra conservative group who get caught in the trap of thinking that pre Vatican 2 the Church was in great shape. It wasn’t, period. There was a sore need for reform; in Moral Theology (and I do not suggest that what we got did that; but it is starting to come back to the track it was supposed to be on) and in liturgy. I am old enough to remember the abuses of pre-Vatican 2, unlike many of the critics who weren’t even in diapers then.
You can rant and rave all you want, but you have no right to spew out your anger on me and personally insult me and my intelligence. It is possible, you know, to disagree with someone, and quite vehemently, too, without insulting them.
In fact, they have it all wrong all the way around. The Church all the way back to Christ was wrong; it took 1960 years for them to realize that the Church never had real holy men and women. The Church had been wrong on Latin, penance, sacrifice, rosaries, art, music, private devotions, sin, hell. Vatican II was the energy drink the Church needed. The smoke of Satan really didn’t enter the Church; it was only an illusion. Yeh right.
Your post above made me recall the occasion when Jesus was walking through a dense crowd and many people were pushing and shoving to get close to Him. There was a woman who was stricken with hemorrhaging and thought, “If I can just touch His garment I will be cured…”When you think about it, you’re taking a piece of Jesus Christ’s body and eating it. The whole idea seems disrespectful!
None of us are worthy to even be in the same room with the Eucharist. That’s what makes this sacrament so phenomenal! Not only is Christ really present at every single Mass, but God has invited us to come and partake in this feast!
The Eucharist is going to be in our mouths and digestive tracts, so I don’t think receiving it in the hand is a problem. The important thing is our attitude.
Jesus himself said; “Take and EAT, Take and DRINK”. He wants us to TAKE. He didn’t say open your mouth and close your eyes.
As long as we are going to take Christ literally, perhaps we can discuss whether the Eucharist is “for many” or “for all,” forget whether it’s “take” in the mouth or in the hand.
I dunno, I guess it doesn’t matter, We aren’t worthy to touch the Eucharist, just like the garment story. It must mean Jesus died for Catholics only. It should state for all Catholics.****As long as we are going to take Christ literally, perhaps we can discuss whether the Eucharist is “for many” or “for all,” forget whether it’s “take” in the mouth or in the hand.
He said, …TAKE…" to His Apostles (priests) and at another time he said, “…FEED My sheep…”