P
pnewton
Guest
I think this is why there has been some talk about moving the sign of peace to a different part of the Mass.
- Status
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
2 Thessalonians 3 and 2 John 1 are interesting reads. Many other similar passages throughout the New Testament, but those happen to stand out in my memory, especially since it refers our proper course of action under similar circumstances.
My quote of Obama was extreme simply to make a point.
P
pnewton
Guest
2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 (written to the Church in Thessalica)
2 John 7-11
These are two situations spelled out in Scripture for the Church to take action.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
[No intention to hijack this thread]
[thread=78364]Communion Under Both Species[/thread]
[thread=41039]Why do so few Catholics drink the Precious Blood at mass? [/thread]
(* Also legitimate)
tee
It happens from time to time. Not so often, perhaps, as people who look cross-eyed when a parish uses white wine for the consecration*, but here are a couple of threads I found without much trouble.
[thread=78364]Communion Under Both Species[/thread]
[thread=41039]Why do so few Catholics drink the Precious Blood at mass? [/thread]
(* Also legitimate)
tee
P
pnewton
Guest
If I were a priest, I think I could see a really teachable moment here. If on occasion, even if Communion under both species was the norm, one would switch to communion under one kind. Especially if this was done in conjunction with a feast like Corpus Christi, one could then incorporate Church history and doctrine on this Holy Eucharist.
B
Benadam
Guest
Now you guys got me wondering. He is from Ethiopia. I remember him saying that Roman Catholics left the orthodox teaching. I reminded him about the Universal character of the Church and asked which of us is looking more universal.
Anyway, I’ll see him tomorrow and find out. Thanks for the info.
C
ConservativeOne
Guest
I don’t know about at every Mass - but in attending Novus Ordo on occasion in various locations, I’ve noticed that more Churches are doing it. I prefer that Holy Communion be distributed using only the Host and, of course, not in the hand. The topic, “Vatican II change” 
… has something come out recently or are you speaking about a change that came about years ago?
… has something come out recently or are you speaking about a change that came about years ago?
M
Matariel
Guest
Actually, they should be referred to as “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion” because that’s what they are-- only the priest, properly speaking, is a “Eucharistic Minister”.They never used to give the Precious Blood along with the Host… at every single Mass…
It seems that Jesus ‘goes away’ sooner when you have both…
i wonder if this is waht the radicals wanted when they pushed for this at Vatican II??
I’ve heard that many of the changes of Vat II were done to weaken the Church…
obviously, this is not the only change i dislike… but am wondering how others feel about it…
I also hate the way they always use Eucharist ministers, even when there are only about 5 people there (daily Mass)…
Also, canon law states that they should only be used when the clergy are overwhelmed by the amount of people present. They should never be used just for the sake of using them, it’s quite bothersome and distracting, and I think generally distracts from the acknowledgement of the sacred nature of recieving Jesus in the Eucharist.
Lodge a complaint if you see an abuse, inform your priest of the requirements using church documentation and canon law quotations, and if he doesn’t change it, then complain to the bishop. And if he’s doesn’t answer, you can inform the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome. Believe me, it might take time, but they’ll fix it.
B
Benadam
Guest
I went to my dad’s parish to attend mass with him , it had been years since I went to mass there. I didn’t like it. The theatrics was made complete by the priests overdoing it in the emotional inflections department accompanied with swinging arm movements and tweeks of the head I couldn’t help feel horror, it seemed so alien.
After mass I asked my dad…how can you stand that?
He said if God can put up with me, I can put up with His Church.
After mass I asked my dad…how can you stand that?
He said if God can put up with me, I can put up with His Church.
M
Matariel
Guest
Are you talking about during the homily? Or actually the spoken Mass texts?
B
Benadam
Guest
It was most theatric when the Priest said the words of consecration and was lifting up the Host…
M
Matariel
Guest
L
Leopard
Guest
Can you explain exactly what you mean? The priest is supposed to elevate the Host at the Consecration, and as this is the high point of the Mass to that point, it would not be unfitting for the priest to emphasize this. What one man may see as over-theatric emoting another may consider solemn drama.
D
daughteroftruth
Guest
**“If anyone does not obey our word as expressed in this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame.”
“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works.”**
Where does it specify that the hierarchy of the Church is to do this but the laity are not? Are you saying that the priests and bishops are to follow the law of God, but we’re to contradict the priests, bishops, *and *law of God by being buddy-buddy with these people we (or rather, “the Church”) are told to, essentially, cut off?
B
Benadam
Guest
You bring up a good point. Given the high degree of drama already present, maybe the Priest had to dramatize the consecration to a level that seemed innappropriate to me so that it could be experienced as the high point of the mass.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Where does the Church say what the high point of the Mass is? I thought the entire Mass was a “high point.” Thanks for any help.
L
Leopard
Guest
In one sense, yes. But within the Mass some movements are of higher significance than others. I don’t think anyone would disagree that the Consecration is a moment of greater dignity and importance than, for example, the ushers taking up the collection.
P
pnewton
Guest
law of God by being buddy-buddy with these people we (or rather, “the Church”) are told to, essentially, cut off? Not at all. What I am saying is that the first verse specifically addressed an issue of laziness among those claiming to be teachers. They were coming to the Church at Thessalonica for the purpose of getting a free lunch. The word that the Church (laity included) were to obey was not to tolerate this sort of disorderly conduct. For those who do not obey this directive but support and encourage this sort of disorderly behavior, they are not to be associated with.
Do we have this today? Sometimes, though not as often as the Church is organized. Protestants have quite a bit more of a problem with those who come and bilk people for money. Jim Bakker comes to mind.
Likewise John’s directive, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine,” only makes since if you connect the pronoun to its antecedent. Without understanding what “this doctrine” is one can not know who it is one should avoid, whose works are called evil. John pointblank tells us what these deceivers are saying: “those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.” They are denying the reality of Christ. He is speaking against a heresy that was at the core of Christianity.
Yes, laity and priest alike should avoid antichrists and anticatholics. I was not excluding one group. But these scriptures can not have one phrased lifted from them and proof-texted to meet whatever we desire them to mean. To use them in any other way may, or may not, be an application of them, but it is not an interpretation. An application of scripture is not a proof or evidence of anything for the point in question must already be assumed to make the application.
C
CradleCath
Guest
No. That was only PART of the reason. As different plagues spread throughout the world, the Church decided that the dangers of the spread of disease were two great. The most widespread epidemic began in Constantinople & spread throughout Europe (returning Crusaders were a factor), and in less than 20 years is estimated **to have killed three quarters of the population of Europe and Asia. ** Danger of spillage was also a consideration. .
Anyone who has spoken with a 9-12 yr. old about reception of the Blood of Christ knows just how serious the danger of spillage is & how these young children worry about it. They see almost all of the adult congregation receive from the cup &, of course, they want to do that too. I have 3 Grandchildren from age 9-13 & each of them has talked to me re the fear they had before their First Holy Communion about “spilling the Blood of Christ & dropping the Chalice”. They still worry about it. Other problems that I have about receiving the Precious Blood…the fact that some of our hierarchy use the Reception of the Precious Blood as an EXCUSE for having more & more lay people in the Sanctuary.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
This was never a concern I observed with my children or their first communication classes. Never, in all the years at the Catholic grade school with all the school Masses I went to did I ever see this as an issue or concern. I guess I can thank our parish and pastors for having such wonderful catechesis.
Never heard of that either in all the dioceses I’ve lived in and places I’ve been to Mass at. You must certainly have a challenging environment. GOod luck.
- Status