People who do not like traditional Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Saint_Gemma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deacon_Ed_B said:
Having been a student of Thomistic Philosophy and Theology, I agree.whole heartedly that St Thomas Aquinas was our pre-eminent theologian. However, there are several things to consider which you did not post.
  1. A deacon who is an ordinary minister of the Eucharist, does not have his hands consecrated as does a priest. Yet we are ordinary ministers.
  2. St Thomas was not part of the Magisterium. As a monk, under obedience, per Thomistic Theology,if the magisterium would have said that lay people can distribute communion, under obedience, St Thomas would have accepted it. You point out that he said someone else, under necessity, could touch it. This is exactly what the Magisterium has said. Under necessity, lay people can distribute Communion. It is not for lay persons to determine what that necessity may or not be. If the magisterium has said the pastors may determine that, the argument is over.
    Prayers & blessings
    Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Thanks Deacon for your comments. Well at the rate that Catholic Priests are dropping by numbers in the past 30 years or so. We won’t have a choice but to accept communion by lay persons or should I say EHMC’s’. 🙂
 
nice2000 said:
Thanks Robert for the link. I just read it. I learn something new everyday ! 😉 Now i’m trying to see if I can find a picture of a paten on the website. I never noticed a paten in mass…hmmmmm…When I go to mass this weekend, i’m going to see if the Priest is using a paten. 🙂

No problem, about the hearsay. I’m still in a learning process…even though i’ve been Catholic for the past 25 years or so… trust me…I have lots of questions… 🙂
Click to expand...
Here you go… http://www.fadumont.co.uk/acatalog/1564.jpg

More than likely, your priest is using a paten…it is required. However, the ones the altar boys use (D2) are not used in every parish.
 
japhy said:
Definitely. The Compendium of the CCC has Latin-vernacular prayers in the back. Very Cool (capital “C” for “Catholic”).

I’m learning the Rosary and the Chaplet of Divine Mercy in Latin. (By which I mean, learning the prayers in Latin by heart.) The Creed is the hardest thing for me to learn, simply because it’s so long.
Click to expand...
You are such a great poster, Japhy & I admire you for learning the prayers in the Compendium. I just might attempt that myself, at least the rosary. Your posts are always precise as to the teachings of the Church & they’re charititable. I can get a little heated sometimes & am going to use you as an example of finding a way to state my views in a kind way. Pray for me.
 
CradleCath said:
You are such a great poster, Japhy & I admire you for learning the prayers in the Compendium. I just might attempt that myself, at least the rosary. Your posts are always precise as to the teachings of the Church & they’re charititable. I can get a little heated sometimes & am going to use you as an example of finding a way to state my views in a kind way. Pray for me.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the compliment. I’m working at being more charitable in my posts. I think I’ve improved over the past couple months… but I suppose the best judges of that are the people with whom I’m disagreeing, eh? 😉

I am trying to learn to post dispassionately (at least, in terms of the person to whom I’m responding… I am certainly passionate about the Mass).
 
elts1956 said:
Hello Cat. Yep, I am one of these “lackabouts”, love the term. After beginning to read/post on these forums I suddenly realized I knew nothing about the Catholic Church and I had been “going through the motions” all my life, way back since the 50s and before. Since I have begun studying "my Church and its foundations, I am continually pleasantly surprised to find that the Catholic Church has been the most correct throughout all its history as compared to any other denomination. I say most, because none of us will know the full story until we see the face of God. We Catholics may still be in for some surprises, don’t you think?

But in the meantime, I am thoroughly enjoying my late education about MY Church. Thanks to all posters who have helped me in this. You are wonderful people. 👍 Peace.
Click to expand...
Isn’t studying about our Faith, as an adult, a rewarding experience? I can’t tell you how many perceptions about historical Catholicism…that I accepted as regretable truths…that took on a new & quite different look as I began to study these things in depth.

When one knows the whole of the truth about the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Gallileo affair (his theory about heliocentricity was first presented to the Pope by Copernicus, as a scientific theory with no problem. It was Gallileo’s “in your face” confrontation about heliocentricity as it related to theology…time & again…that posed much of the problem. It’s as Augustine put it, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.”

Anyway, this does take time & because I work, garden, hike & spend much time with children & grandchildren, sometimes it seems slow…but, it’s worth every bit of the effort.
 
Brendan said:
The middle picture here

forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=87670

Shows a paten being used

This is at an OF Mass BTW; it’s my daughter’s First Holy Communion, the altar boy holding the paten is my son.
Click to expand...
Yep. Our altar boys use them at all of our Masses, and we rarely have an EF Mass (two this year…not on Sunday, so I missed both of them due to travel). It isn’t an EF/OF issue. However, typically you will see it in a more (insert adjective you are least offended by here: conservative, traditional, orthodox) parish. 😉
 
As an interesting side note, the legitimate presence of EMHCs (which I have no issues with) makes for an occasionally awkward situation for those in RCIA.

In our Diocese non-Catholics and Catechumens go in the Communion line and, when they reach the Priest or EMHC, cross their arms to show that they cannot receive but would like a blessing. Of course they all want to get to the Priest (or Deacon)! The Priest actually blesses them, the EMHC of course says something along the lines of “Jesus loves you” or something like that, because a layman cannot bless like a priest or deacon can bless.

SO in RCIA they had to tell my wife that it’s okay to line-jump. Everyone else must have wondered why there was so much line-jumping going on! 😃
 
nice2000 said:
Code: 
   "Second, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.

   "Third, because out of reverence for this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency." (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

   Saint Thomas, who is the prince of theologians in the Catholic Church, who towers above all the rest, whose Summa Theologica was placed on the altar next to the Scriptures during the Council of Trent, and whose teaching Saint Pius X said was the remedy for Modernism ... Saint Thomas clearly teaches that it belongs to the priest and only to the priest to touch and administer the Sacred Host, that "only that which is consecrated" (the hands of the priest) "should touch the Consecrated" (the Sacred Host).
Click to expand...
Though I snipped some of your message for the sake of brevity, it is an excellent post. I’d rather receive the Body & Blood of Christ from the consecrated hands of a priest, but I’ll receive it from anyone if I have to. I don’t “line jump” because that is disruptive during a Mass that I feel already has too many disruptions. Of course, that’s no longer a situation I have to deal with, since the Motu Proprio.
 
GemmaRose said:
Japhy, elt1956’s post was perfectly clear. Why do you feel the need to reinterpret it with your own words?

Those who prefer the N.O. are not confused by anything nor are we surprised. We just prefer for N.O. Some of my reasons are personal, some of my other reasons are:
  • I prefer a Mass in my native language. If I wanted to hear Mass in a foreign language, I would move to another country.
  • I prefer a Mass where I can participate, as I should be doing. Reading from a missal is not participation. If I wanted to sit and read for an hour, I would do so at Dunkin Donuts over a large extra-light coffee.
  • I prefer a Mass where I can respond, and not have an altar server respond for me.
  • I prefer a Mass which is less wordy, leaving my concentration freer to worship. (Matthew 6:7 - “In your prayers do not babble as the gentiles do, for they think that by using many words they will make themselves heard.”)
  • I prefer a Mass with more variety (and here I am speaking of the legitimate choices of Eucharistic prayers and others prayers which are found in the Sacramentary) so that the Mass, which is forever the same, can remain forever new.
  • I prefer a greater variety of readings which the NO has as opposed to TLM.
Finally, can someone please tell me why must so many of those who prefer TLM insist on insinuating that those of us who prefer the NO are a group of unchurched morons?:confused:
Click to expand...
Hello Gemma, In all Charity, I am asking why you consider Japhy’s post, ie. to me a clarification of his understanding of what I said to be a re-interpretation? The nuances of the English language and probably any language are difficult to inderstand when written. I have noticed the tendency for misunderstandings on most of the forums of CAF because of this. For myself, I am beginning to give the poster the benefit of the doubt if the meaning of what has been written is hard for me to translate. And although it is probably irratating to some, or may be taken as baiting, I always ask why a person believes this, or that, or ask for proof only because I like to understand what lies behind people’s reasoning.

As I have posted many times, I was raised during the time when all we had was TLM, so if it were available, I would like to attend it once in awhile again. The NO to me is also equal in stature to the TLM as a wonderful way to celibrate the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Blessings. :harp:
 
elts1956 said:
Hello Gemma, In all Charity, I am asking why you consider Japhy’s post, ie. to me a clarification of his understanding of what I said to be a re-interpretation? The nuances of the English language and probably any language are difficult to inderstand when written. I have noticed the tendency for misunderstandings on most of the forums of CAF because of this. For myself, I am beginning to give the poster the benefit of the doubt if the meaning of what has been written is hard for me to translate. And although it is probably irratating to some, or may be taken as baiting, I always ask why a person believes this, or that, or ask for proof only because I like to understand what lies behind people’s reasoning.

As I have posted many times, I was raised during the time when all we had was TLM, so if it were available, I would like to attend it once in awhile again. The NO to me is also equal in stature to the TLM as a wonderful way to celibrate the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Blessings. :harp:
Click to expand...
Okay, I may have been mistaken, but your post neither said nor implied confusion or surprise.

Maybe I’m hypersensitive, but I am sick to death of posts from some who prefer TLM that those of us who prefer the NO are confused, surprised, uneducated, unchurched, irreverant, heretical, modernists, liberals, etc. etc. etc., whose only agenda is to tear down HMC, yada yada yada… especially when I’ve stated in so many different threads (and we all lurk around the same ones) that for those who prefer TLM, fine! I don’t. The NO helps me to worship. For those who like more traditional music, fine. I don’t. I like more contemporary liturgical music because it helps me to worship. I’m willing to wait a few years to hear from the Lord’s mouth if I was wrong in choosing what helped me to worship Him as best as I could on this earth.

Japhy, if you didn’t mean it that way, I’m sorry… but can you see where I’m coming from?

Incidentally, how anyone (not directed to anyone here personally) can think that they somehow can judge the state of another’s soul is beyond me. But quite frankly, I find myself at times questioning the spirituality of some who would question mine, especially in some threads where I’ve read of a person walking out of Mass because the Opening Song was not a traditional hymn, of another non-hand-holder-during-the-Our-Father of (uncharitably) pulling his hand out of another’s who I can only assume took his hand in Christian charity, accusing those who receive Holy Communion in the hand to be irreverent…

I know that these examples are not indicative of all who attend TLM, but the attitudes of many TLM-goers about, and verbal attacks against, NO-goers really has got to stop.
 
GemmaRose said:
Okay, I may have been mistaken, but your post neither said nor implied confusion or surprise.

Maybe I’m hypersensitive, but I am sick to death of posts from some who prefer TLM that those of us who prefer the NO are confused, surprised, uneducated, unchurched, irreverant, heretical, modernists, liberals, etc. etc. etc., whose only agenda is to tear down HMC, yada yada yada… especially when I’ve stated in so many different threads (and we all lurk around the same ones) that for those who prefer TLM, fine! I don’t. The NO helps me to worship. For those who like more traditional music, fine. I don’t. I like more contemporary liturgical music because it helps me to worship. I’m willing to wait a few years to hear from the Lord’s mouth if I was wrong in choosing what helped me to worship Him as best as I could on this earth.

Japhy, if you didn’t mean it that way, I’m sorry… but can you see where I’m coming from?

Incidentally, how anyone (not directed to anyone here personally) can think that they somehow can judge the state of another’s soul is beyond me. But quite frankly, I find myself at times questioning the spirituality of some who would question mine, especially in some threads where I’ve read of a person walking out of Mass because the Opening Song was not a traditional hymn, of another non-hand-holder-during-the-Our-Father of (uncharitably) pulling his hand out of another’s who I can only assume took his hand in Christian charity, accusing those who receive Holy Communion in the hand to be irreverent…

I know that these examples are not indicative of all who attend TLM, but the attitudes of many TLM-goers about, and verbal attacks against, NO-goers really has got to stop.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I have even wondered–uncharitably–if some of these people are really Catholic. I can see how a person with evil motives (dividing the Church, confusing a new Catholic, discouraging a young man or woman from pursuing a vocation, making people angry, etc.) could be on this Board posting scurrilous stuff and laughing at us while they type.

One of the things that I see come up over and over again is this argument: “It was good for almost 2000 years. Why did it have to be changed?”

or “It was an abuse for 2000 years. The Vatican just caved in to errant bishops when they decided to allow it.”

I really have no patience with these statements. If the Church has the Authority from Jesus Himself, then they can make changes in the practices of the Church (not the faith and morals)! Right?! It doesn’t matter if was an “abuse” once–if the Church has declared it “clean” now, it is absolutely CLEAN, right?!

II fear that if we don’t accept the Authority of our Church in these matters of practice, eventually we will stop accepting the Authority of the Church when it comes to faith and morals.
 
Cat said:
Thank you.

I have even wondered–uncharitably–if some of these people are really Catholic. I can see how a person with evil motives (dividing the Church, confusing a new Catholic, discouraging a young man or woman from pursuing a vocation, making people angry, etc.) could be on this Board posting scurrilous stuff and laughing at us while they type.

One of the things that I see come up over and over again is this argument: “It was good for almost 2000 years. Why did it have to be changed?”

or “It was an abuse for 2000 years. The Vatican just caved in to errant bishops when they decided to allow it.”

I really have no patience with these statements. If the Church has the Authority from Jesus Himself, then they can make changes in the practices of the Church (not the faith and morals)! Right?! It doesn’t matter if was an “abuse” once–if the Church has declared it “clean” now, it is absolutely CLEAN, right?!

II fear that if we don’t accept the Authority of our Church in these matters of practice, eventually we will stop accepting the Authority of the Church when it comes to faith and morals.
Click to expand...
This forum is pretty set up to attack traditional Catholics who are trying to keep Catholic culture alive.

No Pope or prelate can prevent a priest from saying the traditional Mass, ever, under any circumstances, if past papal decrees have any validity.

And no, the Church cannot “clean” an abuse any more than she can “clean” a sacrilege. It’s a sign of a weak Church when abuses are allowed just to placate certain segments.

And it’s certainly not the traditional Catholics who have rejected the Church’s teachings on Faith and Morals.
 
GemmaRose said:
Gemma,

You have a misunderstanding about what is meant by ‘participation’.

In Baptism, we became priests. A priest offers Sacrifice, but a priest may only Sacrifice what they have.

A Ministerial, Ordained priest is in persona Christi, he ‘becomes’ Christ so that he may offer Christ Himself.

We, the Common Priesthood, participate by offering ourselves at the same time that the Minsterial Priest offers Christ.

THAT is our participation, and it may occur in any language.

Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” goes into great depth on what Vatican II meant by “active participation”, he devoted an entire chapter to it. I would highly recommend that you pick up a copy and read it. It is an excellent look at the mind of the Church on the liturgy.

Basically, active particpation requires silence. We participate fully in the actio* of the Mass when we listen attentively to the readings and the homily, and offer ourselves to God at the same time as the priest offers Christ.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said about particpation in an address to the US bishops (Oct, 1998)
Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Cat said:
I have even wondered–uncharitably–if some of these people are really Catholic. I can see how a person with evil motives (dividing the Church, confusing a new Catholic, discouraging a young man or woman from pursuing a vocation, making people angry, etc.) could be on this Board posting scurrilous stuff and laughing at us while they type.
Click to expand...
I, too often wonder the same thing.

The Church has changed dramatically over the last 1800-2000 years. But, for some reason, groups seem to only focus on the last 50. So be it.

In Matthew 15, Christ speaks of old, time-honored traditions, making clear that what one takes in doesn’t make them “unclean” but rather what comes out of them that does.

Some people are just chronic complainers. They don’t complain about things they CAN control or have authority over, like their house, job, weight, etc. Sooner or later, those subjected to their complaining will say, “then DO something about it”.

That is why they target things like the Church. They KNOW they have no authority or ability to change things, so they have endless fodder for their complaining. They complain constantly, knowing full-well, that their complaints can not/will not be addressed, thus giving them personal martyrdom of sorts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top