T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
Or they’re too busy, or, since it’s America, secretly, they agree with him.
Michael
- Status
Michael
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
T. More:
The guys are right. The american Church is in a lot of trouble, and the Pope andd the Bishops who sstick to the faith have their hands so full they can’t chase down every priests that’s like the one referred to here…
…So, since it is the repsonsibility of individuals within the Church ot know the teahcings of the church and to take themselves away from sources of heresy and dessension such as this priest, it becomes incumbant on those who know to do what those who know are doing here, which is to alert th rest to the heresy and rebellion the man is preaching, living and promoting.
What you and others who agree with you choose to do with that is your business.
But the Magisteriunm of the Church is hardly confined to one priest. It’s the consensus of the Church devoloped and expressed for 2000 years in Ecumenical Councils, the 4 Great Creeds, the writings of the Church Fathers and in the Papal Bulls.
If you want to know the Teaching of the Church, try EWTN and Ignatius Books and check out the Vatican website:
vatican.va/phome_en.htm
And stay away from the priest who’s in rebellion against the Church. He’ll just lead you astray. I don’t think any of us wants that.
Blessings and peace, Michael
The guys are right. The american Church is in a lot of trouble, and the Pope andd the Bishops who sstick to the faith have their hands so full they can’t chase down every priests that’s like the one referred to here…
T. More said:
…So, since it is the repsonsibility of individuals within the Church ot know the teahcings of the church and to take themselves away from sources of heresy and dessension such as this priest, it becomes incumbant on those who know to do what those who know are doing here, which is to alert th rest to the heresy and rebellion the man is preaching, living and promoting.
What you and others who agree with you choose to do with that is your business.
But the Magisteriunm of the Church is hardly confined to one priest. It’s the consensus of the Church devoloped and expressed for 2000 years in Ecumenical Councils, the 4 Great Creeds, the writings of the Church Fathers and in the Papal Bulls.
If you want to know the Teaching of the Church, try EWTN and Ignatius Books and check out the Vatican website:
vatican.va/phome_en.htm
And stay away from the priest who’s in rebellion against the Church. He’ll just lead you astray. I don’t think any of us wants that.
Blessings and peace, Michael
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Traditional Ang:
Thanks
Peace
Great post Michael!
Thanks
Peace
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
In theory it may look like someone is individually interpreting the CCC to ‘judge’ the errancy or non errancy of a priest.
In practice, here’s what happens: A priest does something. Or says something. It strikes you as weird. You think about it. It seems to you like the action or speech is contrary to what you remember of Church teaching. You look it up in the CCC. You think about it again and pray about it. If it continues to bug you and you believe, from your reading of the CCC, that the matter is serious then you go to another priest and you ask for direction.
T
T.More
Guest
Ok, we are back to the sacrament of communion. In terms of what the early church looked like I suggested that communion under both kinds was the norm. This is what Protestants do. Historically, later Catholics have tended to permit the laity to commune under only one kind. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
IN any event, I think that we can see that as far as what the early church “looked like” - in this respect it appears to follow the Protestant tradition, which it appears some Catholic parishes are now imitating.
Thanks
What is the current ecclesiastical law on the matter?
IN any event, I think that we can see that as far as what the early church “looked like” - in this respect it appears to follow the Protestant tradition, which it appears some Catholic parishes are now imitating.
Thanks
T
T.More
Guest
Hey - I am obviously not a carbon copy of More, as I am not even Catholic!
Anyway, I did a little research and I was thinking of the “Utraquist” interpretation, which actually sees the necessity of communion under both.
M
Mickey
Guest
T. More:
Both are present in either species. The Body is present in the Blood and the Blood is present in the Body.
T
T.More
Guest
"Who on this list do not?
And you never fully answered by previous post."
Rayne89 on this therad, for example, said she has never had or seen the cup offered. I think there were others. You might go back and check.
What did I not answer?
And you never fully answered by previous post."
Rayne89 on this therad, for example, said she has never had or seen the cup offered. I think there were others. You might go back and check.
What did I not answer?
T
T.More
Guest
“Both are present in either species. The Body is present in the Blood and the Blood is present in the Body.”
I understand that is what you believe. Still, the practice was different, even if it realtes only what you see as the species. People in the early church actually drank and did not just eat. The Roman Church varied this practice later.
So in terms of what the early Church “looked like” - if you went in you would see people eating and drinking. In RC, that has not been true for a large portion of her history.
Did the ecclesiastical law officially change to allow communion under both species?
I understand that is what you believe. Still, the practice was different, even if it realtes only what you see as the species. People in the early church actually drank and did not just eat. The Roman Church varied this practice later.
So in terms of what the early Church “looked like” - if you went in you would see people eating and drinking. In RC, that has not been true for a large portion of her history.
Did the ecclesiastical law officially change to allow communion under both species?
T
T.More
Guest
“Or they’re too busy, or, since it’s America, secretly, they agree with him.”
Secretly? They are not secret.
Secretly? They are not secret.
T
T.More
Guest
“The guys are right. The american Church is in a lot of trouble, and the Pope andd the Bishops who sstick to the faith have their hands so full they can’t chase down every priests that’s like the one referred to here…”
Michael: You try and cast the situation as if there are a handful of rogue priests out there. From my reading of conservative Catholic sources, the problems with heresy are endemic and systemic in American Catholicism. This is not a matter of a few overworked leaders failing to respond. This is a matter of wilful indiference and ratification by silence.
This is a matter of church-approved seminaries teaching heresy that differs little in substance from mainline Protestantism. There is nothing secret and this is not a case of not knowing. These guys publish books and speak out.
Now a layman can appeal to higher authorities, and progress as possible through bishop, archibishop, and their organizations etc. What happens when these guys agree with the priest, as if often the case? Archbiship Rembert Weakland was at the top of the American Catholic Church. His views were very different than those offered in the forum. He is not going to sympathize with a conservative’s qualms about his priest. Indeed, he would likely agree with the priest.
I have have heard Catholics (ItsJustDave on this forum, for example), likening the Church to a military heirarchy. He insisted that the RC is what he called a “taught church” - meaning listening to the living voice of the officers actually placed in authority over you. If you have problems, you appeal down the line. Let the appeal resolve the issue. Now, I suspect he was satisfied because he had a conservative priest and bishop.
The guys on this thread are not willing to let the living Church be the authority. They instead appeal to a text, the CCC. This is very Protestant, just with a different text. Instead of the scriptures, they use the CCC. The process is similar, though.
T. More
Michael: You try and cast the situation as if there are a handful of rogue priests out there. From my reading of conservative Catholic sources, the problems with heresy are endemic and systemic in American Catholicism. This is not a matter of a few overworked leaders failing to respond. This is a matter of wilful indiference and ratification by silence.
This is a matter of church-approved seminaries teaching heresy that differs little in substance from mainline Protestantism. There is nothing secret and this is not a case of not knowing. These guys publish books and speak out.
Let’s look at this statement. We all agree that the magisterium are not confined to one priest. Yet, by canon law a member of a parish owes his duties to the priest of that parish. The parish priest likewise owes duties to the Catholics in his parish (geographic jurisdiction). The priest is the court of original jurisdiction. Canon law defines this relationship and it is established geographically (in spite of conservatives willingness to often find a parish that suits his private judgments - much like Protestants do in shoping for churches).
Now a layman can appeal to higher authorities, and progress as possible through bishop, archibishop, and their organizations etc. What happens when these guys agree with the priest, as if often the case? Archbiship Rembert Weakland was at the top of the American Catholic Church. His views were very different than those offered in the forum. He is not going to sympathize with a conservative’s qualms about his priest. Indeed, he would likely agree with the priest.
I have have heard Catholics (ItsJustDave on this forum, for example), likening the Church to a military heirarchy. He insisted that the RC is what he called a “taught church” - meaning listening to the living voice of the officers actually placed in authority over you. If you have problems, you appeal down the line. Let the appeal resolve the issue. Now, I suspect he was satisfied because he had a conservative priest and bishop.
The guys on this thread are not willing to let the living Church be the authority. They instead appeal to a text, the CCC. This is very Protestant, just with a different text. Instead of the scriptures, they use the CCC. The process is similar, though.
T. More
M
Mickey
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
T. More:
T. More:
The CCC in no way contradicts Church teaching which includes oral, personal, transformative teaching as well as written works of faith. In fact, as has been pointed out, the CCC summarizes Church teaching: the informative part of Church teaching. There are dimensions to Church teaching which are not just informative, not just textual. Bottom line: a Catholic refers to the CCC (‘appeal’ is rhetorical and inaccurate) as well as (not instead of) referring to Church teaching authority in the person of those She has authorized to teach and as well as (not instead of) offering up the question to God in prayer.
T. More:
T. More:
I disagree.
T. More:
I disagree. The term **‘instead’ **is abitrarily and inappropriately imposed on the option of appealing to the CCC which takes the form of a text.
The CCC in no way contradicts Church teaching which includes oral, personal, transformative teaching as well as written works of faith. In fact, as has been pointed out, the CCC summarizes Church teaching: the informative part of Church teaching. There are dimensions to Church teaching which are not just informative, not just textual. Bottom line: a Catholic refers to the CCC (‘appeal’ is rhetorical and inaccurate) as well as (not instead of) referring to Church teaching authority in the person of those She has authorized to teach and as well as (not instead of) offering up the question to God in prayer.
T. More:
Imposing one’s individual interpretation on a text or the interpretation of those who agree with one’s individual interpretation is very Protestant. Referring to Church writings (including Scripture) as well as referring to persons whom the Church has authorized to teach as well as offering up questions to God in prayer as well as ultimately submitting to the Magisterium is not Protestant at all; it is Catholic.
T. More:
It is dissimilar.
T
T.More
Guest
“You can read about it at. . .”
I did not see anything on when it changed back to communion of the laity under both species. Can you point that out to me?
I did not see anything on when it changed back to communion of the laity under both species. Can you point that out to me?
T
T.More
Guest
“The CCC in no way contradicts Church teaching which includes oral, personal, transformative teaching as well as written works of faith.”
My friend, your argument is enitrely circular. You are presupposing your own conclusion.
My friend, your argument is enitrely circular. You are presupposing your own conclusion.
M
Mickey
Guest
T. More:
Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved – viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception. Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers – the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it. Of the doctrinal points mentioned above, the only one that need be discussed here is the question of the existence or non-existence of a Divine precept imposing Communion sub utraque. Of the texts brought forward by Utraquists in proof of such a precept, the command, “Drink ye all of this” (Matt., xxvi, 27), and its equivalent in St. Luke (xxii, 17, i.e. supposing the reference here to be to the Eucharistic and not to the paschal cup), cannot fairly be held to apply to any but those present those on the occasion, and to them only for that particular occasion. Were one to insist that Christ’s action in administering Holy Communion under both kinds to the Apostles at the Last Supper was intended to lay down a law for all future recipients, he should for the same reason insist that several other temporary and accidental circumstances connected with the first celebration of the Eucharist (e.g. the preceding paschal rites, the use of unleavened bread, the taking of the Sacred Species by the recipients themselves) were likewise intended to be obligatory for all future celebrations. The institution under both kinds, or the separate consecration of the bread and wine, belongs essentially, in Catholic opinion, to the sacrificial, as distinct from the sacramental, character of the Eucharist; and when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke, xxii, 19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Sola Catechism. [/QUOTE said:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
T. More said:
This is a mere statement of opinion. Please demonstrate that my argument is circular.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Mickey, could you please use a larger font next time and break up your posts into paragraphs? It was difficult for me make out what you were saying, although what you said did turn out to be interesting. Thank you.
T
T.More
Guest
Mickey: Isn’t that a defense of why the Church may offer only one species to the laity? The Roman Church made it illegal per ecclesiastical law at some point to offer both (as the same article says). I am wondering if and when that changed to be optional. VII?
- Status