Quick help needed - proving it's okay to receive on the tongue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Isidore said:
Excellent this is correct. Cite where this is correct in Church law.

True Again, look into HOW bishops are appointed.

All are welcome to learn the truth. It is the duty of Catholics to make the Modernist movement understand their err.🙂 **I’m not a modernist, I am a Catholic. Answer one question, St. Isidore: Do you believe that Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, and Blessed John XXIII are true and legitimate popes? **

Cor Jesu, You must keep up your efforts and always increase them. :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Just make sure they’re informed by the Church.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Can we have a source or a link?
Click to expand...
🙂 Yes sure. unavoce.org/cith.htm
I think this website supports your views, correct?
We accept that the 1969 Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI is a valid rite of Mass. We accept that the Second Vatican Council was a valid Ecumenical Council of the Church and we hold that its teachings are to be given the appropriate respect in relation to authority of its decrees.
Click to expand...
(UnoVoce website About tab 2007)
BTW, this indult was recently extended to Poland and it already exists in Italy and the Holy See.
Click to expand...
not sure if you got the memo (check new thread), Traditional Latin Missal sales are soaring in Italy. Amen.:signofcross:
 
St. Isidore,

Why is it that we (any one of us?) should put the opinions of this person above the teachings of the Pope and the Church? This website “Unavoce” is well-known for reflecting its —
“continuing rejection of the liturgical reforms of the last three Popes as well as some of the work of the Second Vatican Council. In Catholic Culture’s judgement, the impact of Una Voce’s web site is to undermine the authority of the Church.”
Click to expand...
Linked Example within the review:
Click to expand...
While seldom technically guilty of formal error, both the web site and the movement as a whole tend to view the exercise of papal authority over the past generation – especially regarding the liturgy – as nothing less than an abuse of authority leading to the destruction of the Church. The net effect of Una Voce’s argument is to make Catholics feel they must make a choice between obeying papal authority and watching it destroy the Church or disobeying papal authority in order to save the Church. For this reason, the web site, the movement and at least some of its leaders, including Michael Davies, have been responsible for leading many souls into disobedence and even schism.
Click to expand...
The choice to which Una Voce leads is both dangerous and false, but it is not inadvertent. It arises directly from Una Voce’s flawed perception of reality, and it is a clear demonstration of Una Voce’s departure from the mind of the Church.
Click to expand...
In reading your last post which reprinted once again the teaching of Pope John Paul II’s Dominicae Cenae in a false light, I would have to agree with their “site review.” Rev. McDonald’s teaching may naturally appeal to you, but the rest of us have a higher source to whom we give our complete fidelity and assent. 😉
 
Edit: It appears the message I am quoting has been edited. Suffice to say, what I quoted appeared when I began my reply. The only change I have made is the underlining of an opinion which I take offense to.
St_Isidore said:
From what you replied it can be seen that you mock St. Thomas Aquinas. Is this is the trend of the modernist movement now to belittle Saints and mock them? Is that all you have to say with regards to those 12 points? It is a growing trend that the modernist movement utilizes, unlike Catholics, to use partial quotes/passages etc., to prove their agenda. Let us stay on the topic of Communion on the tongue and stop the mockery of Saints. It would be appreciative to comment on those points in a positive manner and to try and explain your position, for or against, concerning Communion on the tongue.
Click to expand...
If you read my previous posts in this thread, you will see that I am trying receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, and that I recognize the possibility for mistreatment of the Host when it is not placed directly on the tongue.

I do not mock Thomas Aquinas. I am not in some “modernist movement”. I have already asked before (post #59, and it still has not yet been answered) why the tongue is worthy to receive the Host. Why, if only the priest’s consecrated hands may hold the Blessed Sacrament, is it allowed to touch my tongue?

I will address the 12 points later today.
 
Rykell said:
St. Isidore,

Why is it that we (any one of us?) should put the opinions of this person above the teachings of the Pope and the Church? This website “Unavoce” is well-known for reflecting its —
In reading your last post which reprinted once again the teaching of Pope John Paul II’s Dominicae Cenae in a false light, I would have to agree with their “site review.” Rev. McDonald’s teaching may naturally appeal to you, but the rest of us have a higher source to whom we give our complete fidelity and assent. 😉
Click to expand...
Your description of Unavoce is entirely false.

“The International Una Voce Federation has played an important role in supporting the use of the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal in obedience to the directives of the Holy See. For this valuable service I express my gratitude to the members of the Federation and extend my blessing.”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, speaking to the Una Voce Federation,
25 July 1996

We stress that Una Voce does not support or countenance any schismatic or heretical movements. Our mission is to support only the celebration of the Tridentine/Gregorian Rite Mass within the Church, in union with the Holy See and the bishops united with the Supreme Pontiff of the Church as permitted through the 1988 indult, Ecclesia Dei adflicta.
 
Rykell said:
I did look the document up myself, Uxor, from the Vatican. The document was still misquoted in entire context, whether from EWTN or directly from the Holy See; it makes little difference.

Stating only the isolated sentence you posted gives a meaning that the Pope did not intend, i.e., to justify a belief that no person may receive in the hand or to distribute the Eucharist but the priest. One needs to be careful when quoting official documents to preserve the exact teaching of the Pontiff.
Click to expand...
Show me in the document where He did approve of Communion in the Hand if you think I misquoted…
 
japhy said:
Why, if only the priest’s consecrated hands may hold the Blessed Sacrament, is it allowed to touch my tongue?
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to sound snotty, but how else would you be able to consume the Body and Blood of Christ? It doesn’t have to touch your hands, so why? It isn’t like someone is forcing you to accept communion for you to be complaining.
 
St_Isidore said:
Some more points by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald:
To show that communion in the hand was once a universal practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: this text is of dubious origin. In fact, it is more likely from Bishop so and so, a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have texts of Leo the Great… and Gregory the great… and St. Basil, as well as…
( by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald)🙂
Click to expand...
If John the Bishop of Jerusalem was Nestorian, he definitely had some sort of foresight, since Nestorius became Bishop of Constantinople and starting his heresy after him.

And St. Basil has been adequately misrepresented and half quoted while St. Leo the Great does not go one way or the other.
 
Your description of Unavoce is entirely false
Click to expand...
It was not mine, but was a highly reputable site that many turn to when discerning the reliability of other websites that purport to teach truth. You should recognize the Webmaster, for he regularly quotes in EWTN’s library and is highly revered.

You’ll pardon me, Uxor, if I ask for a source and a date, since your last quote in this thread was taken out of context? Nevertheless, even though that was allegedly the opinion of then Cardinal Ratzinger, it was written 11 years earlier than this review which is far more current.
 
Show me in the document where He did approve of Communion in the Hand if you think I misquoted.
Click to expand...
You have been here a long time and know the many threads and posts that have discussed the Church’s permission for communion in the hand, regardless of which pope stated it or gave approval. It is approved. Period.

Your words are illusory, and I ask you to read the ENTIRE quote of Sect. 11 in Dominae Cenae again. I don’t believe I need to spell it out any further, for the context is entirely clear to anyone who reads it. 🙂
 
Rykell said:
It was not mine, but was a highly reputable site that many turn to when discerning the reliability of other websites that purport to teach truth. You should recognize the Webmaster, for he regularly quotes in EWTN’s library and is highly revered.

You’ll pardon me, Uxor, if I ask for a source and a date, since your last quote in this thread was taken out of context? Nevertheless, even though that was allegedly the opinion of then Cardinal Ratzinger, it was written 11 years earlier than this review which is far more current.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with providing a source. My last quote was not taken out of context at all, easy to read and comprehend by Pope John Paul II and not Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement, I thought you read the document?

Further I don’t consider a site highly reliable that falsely accuses other sites of being schismatic when they are not. What is this site that is so highly reliable you read?. .
 
Rykell said:
You have been here a long time and know the many threads and posts that have discussed the Church’s permission for communion in the hand, regardless of which pope stated it or gave approval. It is approved. Period.

Your words are illusory, and I ask you to read the ENTIRE quote of Sect. 11 in Dominae Cenae again. I don’t believe I need to spell it out any further, for the context is entirely clear to anyone who reads it. 🙂
Click to expand...
That is a detour if I have ever seen one. Those are not my words you call illusory but Pope John Paul II’s…shame.
 
I gave the link in my post. It would be an extremely serious matter if he did not print the truth and be able to back it up. Considering the tremendous expense of a lawsuit for defamation, nobody in their right mind would consider rating a site unless they were absolutely sure of the content. I trust the reviews, because I respect the publisher.

Edit:

Agreed they are John Paul’s words … no debate. They were spoken out of context [edited by moderator], and that is where you erred.
 
Uxor said:
Further I don’t consider a site highly reliable that falsely accuses other sites of being schismatic when they are not.
Click to expand...
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: <= clapping
 
Rykell said:
I gave the link in my post. It would be an extremely serious matter if he did not print the truth and be able to back it up. Considering the tremendous expense of a lawsuit for defamation, nobody in their right mind would consider rating a site unless they were absolutely sure of the content. I trust the reviews, because I respect the publisher.

Edit:

Agreed they are John Paul’s words … no debate. They were spoken out of context to justify your belief system, and that is where you erred.
Click to expand...
You are making false accusations again…
 
Rykell said:
I gave the link in my post. It would be an extremely serious matter if he did not print the truth and be able to back it up. Considering the tremendous expense of a lawsuit for defamation, nobody in their right mind would consider rating a site unless they were absolutely sure of the content. I trust the reviews, because I respect the publisher.

Edit:

Agreed they are John Paul’s words … no debate. They were spoken out of context [edited by moderator], and that is where you erred.
Click to expand...
I looked at your site no where do I see where the Pope addresses this particular site or gives His specific approval of itl. Whereas Unavoce, the Pope has said to UInavoce they have played an important role, they have been obedient to the Holy Father, it is a valuable service, and further He expressed His gratitude to its members and blessed them. So you want me to believe this author over the Pope?
 
You failed to provide your source showing a current review by Pope Benedict. The “Cardinal” mentioned this in 1996, but not presently as Pope. At that time, perhaps in these initial stages when he spoke of Unavoce, there were no apparent oppositions to Church Authority.

I don’t ask you to believe anything, Uxor. My only wish is that you print the Pontiff’s words in their correct context, and I’ll not continue to state this over and again. Once was sufficient, and the members who are following the thread have seen both sides in order to make their own decisions, for which I am not responsible once the truth has been disclosed.

Good night. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top