Hypocrisy in the Pews

  • Thread starter Thread starter AltarMan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Orionthehunter:
There is a norm in the US approved by the USCCB with the concurrence of Rome. They are instructed to cease by their Pastor and Bishop. They continue to do so and claim they are doing so in obediance. Give me a break.

Just because they are not to be denied Communion because of their stubbornness, ego, and intent to display their own personal piety doesn’t make it right.

Frankly, when I see a girl inappropriately dressed come to Communion, I pray for her. When I see a person receive the Eucharist irreverently, I pray for him. And when I see a person come to Communion and kneel after repeated pastoral requests from the Pastor to please honor the Norm in the U.S., I will pray for him.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Extremely well said.

In reading these posts I have a mounting question – why can’t the Church control these matters better? Or is it impossible given that if people want to introduce delicts and abuses badly enough into the liturgy that they will always find something to justify their angles/desires?
 
If a person objects to disobedience in the liturgy, but they themselves perform an action themselves that Rome specifically states is NOT disobedience, exactly where is the hypocracy?

You seem to be using a definition that I am unaware of.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
However, the USCCB (with Rome’s concurrence) has instructed Pastors to inform the Communicant that the Norm in the US is standing and request conformance. QUOTE]

As gathered from the CDW’s replies to this issue and by Karl Keating’s response on the radio program last night, this last addition was not a term agreed upon by Rome. It is pure conjecture on the part of some people. That is not “slithering”, nor is it hypocrisy. It is a fact.

As an interesting side bar, there is no such explicit provision (for proper catechesis) if a standing Communicant does not perform the normative bow of the head. Why not? Nobody here is advocating that, so please do not think I am trying to cause trouble. I just see far more people displaying outward disregard for the rules altogether than showing appreciation for the Real Presence.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
fix:
The GIRM was interpreted. That is how the Church works. Rome specifically said they are not disobedient. Should I now follow your interpretation over Rome?
Click to expand...
With Rome’s approval, the USCCB has instructed Pastors to pastorally request that the person cease. The person refuses legitimate instruction from his Pastor. I’m trying to see what I’m interpreting. Rome says they are not to be refused but that doesn’t deny they are rejecting publicly legitimate instruction from his Pastor.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
With Rome’s approval, the USCCB has instructed Pastors to pastorally request that the person cease. The person refuses legitimate instruction from his Pastor. I’m trying to see what I’m interpreting. Rome says they are not to be refused but that doesn’t deny they are rejecting publicly legitimate instruction from his Pastor.
Click to expand...
The letter says that are not to be called disobedient and the norm was approved with the understanding those who kneel would not be refused. It also mentions Cardinal Ratzinger’s theology about kneeling.

Now, are you saying you know the heart and conscience of those who kneel?
 
This thread illustrates quite clearly why the celebration of the Mass is so chock-full of delicts and abuses in so many parishes in the USA. Good Lord just look at the disagreement and dissent!

It also shows that the introduction of delicts and abuses is not a monopoly held by the “progressive” fringe of the Church…
 
40.png
fix:
The letter says that are not to be called disobedient and the norm was approved with the understanding those who kneel would not be refused. It also mentions Cardinal Ratzinger’s theology about kneeling.

Now, are you saying you know the heart and conscience of those who kneel?
Click to expand...
All I know is that they have made a decision to deny legitimate instruction from the Pastor and they are doing it in a public manner at Mass while receiving the Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Frankly, it has the appearance of the people who wear rainbow sashes to recieve Communion on Pentecost.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
All I know is that they have made a decision to deny legitimate instruction from the Pastor and they are doing it in a public manner at Mass while receiving the Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Frankly, it has the appearance of the people who wear rainbow sashes to recieve Communion on Pentecost.
Click to expand...
You do not know that at all. That is my point. All you know is they are kneeling. To equate that with the homosexualist sash wearers is beyond belief.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
All I know is that they have made a decision to deny legitimate instruction from the Pastor and they are doing it in a public manner at Mass while receiving the Body, Blood and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Frankly, it has the appearance of the people who wear rainbow sashes to recieve Communion on Pentecost.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Reminds of that thread where someone called all females to wear head coverings on Sunday. They should have called it the rainbow mantilla association.
 
40.png
fix:
You do not know that at all. That is my point. All you know is they are kneeling. To equate that with the homosexualist sash wearers is beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s quite logical – both are in defiance of the Church.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Indeed. Reminds of that thread where someone called all females to wear head coverings on Sunday. They should have called it the rainbow mantilla association.
Click to expand...
Yes, all that kneeling for Christ is quite heretical.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
With Rome’s approval, the USCCB has instructed Pastors to pastorally request that the person cease. The person refuses legitimate instruction from his Pastor. I’m trying to see what I’m interpreting. Rome says they are not to be refused but that doesn’t deny they are rejecting publicly legitimate instruction from his Pastor.
Click to expand...
Technically, the provision empowers the priest to pastorially instruct the communicant on the reasons for the norm.

It actually doesn’t say anything about the priest telling the communicant to cease. Instead it empowers the priest to inform and council the communicant so that they might make a more informed personal decision on the subject.

GIRM #160
Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.
Click to expand...
Legalistic, yes, but it seems this discussion demands attention to liturgical minutae
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Actually it’s quite logical – both are in defiance of the Church.
Click to expand...
That is your opinion, and is incorrect. We can’t know the motivation of each person and kneeling is a sign of respect and has gone on for centuries.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Indeed. Reminds of that thread where someone called all females to wear head coverings on Sunday. They should have called it the rainbow mantilla association.
Click to expand...
I am amazed that you would compare women who will go back to an Historically Catholic tradition (never banned just relaxed) with Homosexuals and those that support them.

Are you sure that you want to continue that comparison?
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
All I know is that they have made a decision to deny legitimate instruction from the Pastor
Click to expand...
Who said anything about dening the instruction given, only accepting it and using that information to make a personal choice between two permitted forms of recpetion.
Frankly, it has the appearance of the people who wear rainbow sashes to recieve Communion on Pentecost.
Click to expand...
This differs from the “Rainbow Sashers”, in that there are NOT permitted alternatives to Church teaching on the objectively disordered nature of homosexuality.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Indeed. Reminds of that thread where someone called all females to wear head coverings on Sunday. They should have called it the rainbow mantilla association.
Click to expand...
Really??

Exactly what teaching of the Church were these women violating?
 
40.png
AltarMan:
It also shows that the introduction of delicts and abuses is not a monopoly held by the “progressive” fringe of the Church…
Click to expand...
That may be true to an extent, depending upon how one defines “delict” and “abuse”. I would argue that there is a difference between continuing an historical practice which has never been explicitly forbidden and introducing a novelty.

Here is one example: The GIRM does not indicate that the faithful are to maintain the practice of striking their breast during the recitation of the “mea culpa” (once or thrice) in the Confiteor. Nevertheless, the USCCB published a bulletin insert after the revised GIRM was issued that recommends this ages-old gesture.
 
40.png
AltarMan:
Actually it’s quite logical – both are in defiance of the Church.
Click to expand...
Defiance?
Wearing a headcovering is defiance?
Homosexuality is a sin. Supporting those that continue that sin and still want to receive Communion is against the teachings of the church.
Would you please show me where women are NOT allowed to cover our heads?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top