S
soflochristmas
Guest
No…the Church says pro life issues are paramount issues, Democrats are pro abortion and Republicans are pro life…you figure out the rest…
- Status
S
soflochristmas
Guest
Keep it up savienu…don’t take “time away” from here…that’s what the dissenters want…to run faithful Catholics like you and I off…we are in a battle and nothing should be surrendered to them.
S
soflochristmas
Guest
For real? Who voted against legislation to grant comfort and medical attention to babies who survived abortions and who supported this legislation? I really don’t want to believe Democrats and dissenters are this dumb.
S
soflochristmas
Guest
so sensitive…nothing like this was said. How is it dissenters can see what isn’t there so clearly but can’t see the pink elephant in front of their face?
S
SHW
Guest
Great priest!
However, he also could have placed a handkerchief over It and picked it up to be later placed in water thereby dissolving the Real Presence and this water then poured into the sacrarium or into the ground.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=344958
I found a partial host on the floor under a pew and gave it to our deacon and I am sure that this is what he did. He soon gave a homily on taking extra care with the Holy Eucharist and told us what to do if It falls out of our mouths or if Crumbs land on the floor. We are not required to eat Particles of the Eucharist which land on the floor. (I attend a parish which is in a retirement community.)
S
soflochristmas
Guest
I’m kind of stunned anyone would have any response to this story ther than awe. Incredible. Not the kind of spirit I would have expected.Are you sure that they do not have this “right?” I was told they did. Do you have a directive which states that they do not have this right? Thanks!
I would say that you have a priest who is good at persuading his “captive 10 minute homily audience” to come over to his own preference as to how they should receive Holy Communion.
Sure, it is possible that crumbs are lost. **But, since the early church fathers distributed Holy Communion in the hand, don’t you think that they were aware of this possibility? **Knowing this possibility certainly did not change their method of distribution. How many adults in the real world are “fed” on their tongues by someone else? Since the early church fathers did not require it and probably never even thought of receiving it on the tongue, why do people think we must? And if communion on the tongue is made mandatory again, then we also need to go back to priests and deacons only distributing Holy Communion.
No one should be receiving Holy Communion who does not believe in the Divine Presence! This is where the true fault lies. Poor catechesis before reception of First Communion and lack of Real Presence reinforcement in continued catechesis from the pulpit is the cause.
Is this a new priest? If not, then why hasn’t he been preaching on this every year from the pulpit?
Well, you did ask for my thoughts…
S
soflochristmas
Guest
He only spoke the truth…which while you apparenlty are unmoved many others in the pew and on the altar were. Fortunately I don’t have to worry about what happened 1,500 or 1,900 years ago…the past is prologue. I’m concerned with serving God TODAY…with all my might, mind, body and soul.Are you sure that they do not have this “right?” I was told they did. Do you have a directive which states that they do not have this right? Thanks!
I would say that you have a priest who is good at persuading his “captive 10 minute homily audience” to come over to his own preference as to how they should receive Holy Communion.
Sure, it is possible that crumbs are lost. **But, since the early church fathers distributed Holy Communion in the hand, don’t you think that they were aware of this possibility? **Knowing this possibility certainly did not change their method of distribution. How many adults in the real world are “fed” on their tongues by someone else? Since the early church fathers did not require it and probably never even thought of receiving it on the tongue, why do people think we must? And if communion on the tongue is made mandatory again, then we also need to go back to priests and deacons only distributing Holy Communion.
No one should be receiving Holy Communion who does not believe in the Divine Presence! This is where the true fault lies. Poor catechesis before reception of First Communion and lack of Real Presence reinforcement in continued catechesis from the pulpit is the cause.
Is this a new priest? If not, then why hasn’t he been preaching on this every year from the pulpit?
Well, you did ask for my thoughts…
As for those who don’t believe not receiving HC…if they don’t believe they see nothing wrong in receiving so it really isn’t an issue at that point is it? No he is a rather old priest. No doubt he was subject to calls to the Bishop or rectory office as a result of his homily by many of the “tollerant” dissenters within the Church. I suppose it’s possible he has regularly homilized on this subject and it’s equally possible those parishoners like dissenters on this group make life hell for him…so it may be easier to just surrender this ground the way some others are considering doing here.
S
SHW
Guest
Innocent life always takes precedence when speaking of life issues. Any country which legislates the killing of the unborn, disabled, or sick loses the protection of Almighty God and He sends scourges to make us turn from our wicked ways.
2 Chronicles 7:12-14
hen the LORD appeared to Solomon by night, and said to him: “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. 13 **When I shut up heaven and there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among My people, 14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land. **
I have no party loyalty. I vote for the person whom I think will do the least amount of evil. Sad that our country has evolved into total disregard for God’s commandments. We all will be punished by God for these transgressions.
S
SHW
Guest
For the record, McCain was very pro-life.
hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/mccain_pro_life.php
S
SHW
Guest
Hey, I find nothing wrong with his sermon. He is entitled to his own opinion. But, I do find your “moralizing” against every person who does not share your rigid opinion rather offensive; no offense meant.
The Church allows Holy Communion on the tongue and also in the hand. Until this changes by Papal decree, I think it is silly to make a big deal out of it. And btw, precedence for “how to receive” goes to the early church fathers so any arguments concerning “on the tongue” as “better” are moot since the ECF knew the “Jewish traditions concerning the Passover” much better than we do today!
M
maurin
Guest
SHW,And btw, precedence for “how to receive” goes to the early church fathers so any arguments concerning “on the tongue” as “better” are moot since the ECF knew the “Jewish traditions concerning the Passover” much better than we do today!
would you mind clarifying what you mean by ‘precedence for “how to receive” goes to the ECF…’, and ‘since the ECF knew the “Jewish traditions concerning the Passover” much better than we do today.’
I’m especially interested in your understanding of the Jewish tradition of the Passover, Our Lord’s Passion, and the Blessed Sacrament.
S
soflochristmas
Guest
I think you’re the only person “moralizing” and holding a rigid “opinion”…accusing me of something I didn’t do or say…I shared a story. Good grief. No offense taken.Hey, I find nothing wrong with his sermon. He is entitled to his own opinion. But, I do find your “moralizing” against every person who does not share your rigid opinion rather offensive; no offense meant.
The Church allows Holy Communion on the tongue and also in the hand. Until this changes by Papal decree, I think it is silly to make a big deal out of it. And btw, precedence for “how to receive” goes to the early church fathers so any arguments concerning “on the tongue” as “better” are moot since the ECF knew the “Jewish traditions concerning the Passover” much better than we do today!
I agree…the Church allows both. Doesn’t make them equal and doesn’t mean there aren’t dissenters in the Church and doesn’t mean the Church in American isn’t sick and doesn’t mean you can’t make observations about people’s belief in the real presence or the catechisis about it.
Like I’ve said before…you have the option to only receive communion once a year…doesn’t mean receiving it weekly (or daily for that matter) isn’t prefered or reflective of a person’s spiritual “state” to receiving it once a year. YOu can go to confession once a year…you have that “option” and the Church hasn’t issued an excommunication, bull, encyclical, letter or statement saying you have to do it more often…but …
Well…you probably get the point.
S
SHW
Guest
Lighten up, please! I was giving another opinion of what might be thought by persons other than yourself, as to his reasoning for producing this particular homily, which showed his own preference as “superior” over any other. Did you not see my “winking” icon?
S
SHW
Guest
Regarding your statement above: “I agree…the Church allows both. Doesn’t make them equal and doesn’t mean there aren’t dissenters in the Church and doesn’t mean the Church in American isn’t sick and doesn’t mean you can’t make observations about people’s belief in the real presence or the catechisis about it.”
Regarding your quote: “He only spoke the truth…which while you apparenlty are unmoved many others in the pew and on the altar were. Fortunately I don’t have to worry about what happened 1,500 or 1,900 years ago…the past is prologue. I’m concerned with serving God TODAY…with all my might, mind, body and soul.”
You also stated: “Bottom line is you’re right…you have that OPTION. Only point being made here is recieving our Lord on the tongue is preferable for MANY different reasons…all outlined here.”
So, if a person receives Holy Communion in the hand, then we are to conclude that you think that we are most likely dissenters since you prefer Holy Communion on the tongue only and you declare that this way is preferable even though the ECF apparently did not since they did not implement it? I call this moralizing.
P
pnewton
Guest
FYI - I am not a dissenter to Church teaching, so your color lesson, slanderous and uncharitable as it is, does not apply.
S
SHW
Guest
The ECF distributed Holy Communion in the hand, not on the tongue. Since these ECF bishops/priests were actually Jewish converts, I am sure that they were very much aware of the Jewish traditions regarding the Passover. They still chose to distribute Holy Communion in the hand.
1 Corinthians 11:27-29
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm
S
savienu
Guest
The quote from Corinthians does not say that they distributed in the hand. We eat it whether it is placed in our mouth or not. I wish that I could remember what episode it was, but I watched a wonderful EWTN Live that had Fr. Mitch interviewing a fellow priest and discussing this whole issue, of communion in the hand, and how they really did it in the early Church. The gist of it is that it wasn’t done the way we do it now, and in fact women couldn’t touch the host with their bare hands, they had to wear a white glove. I’m sorry I don’t have more details, but it was a very good show.
M
maurin
Guest
Noone argues against how Communion was received in the early Church, SHW.
You say that the ECF’s were Jewish converts, and because of that you are sure they knew about the Jewish Passover. This is debatable. I think you have more in mind the first Bishops and Priests that Our Lord Consecrated. Normally when we refer to the ECF’s we are referring to the Greek and Latin Fathers, although I will leave it up to someone who knows their Patristics to set me straight.
What is the correlation, according to your understanding, between the Jewish Passover and Our Lord’s Passion? That’s really the meat and potatoes of your response above, and my subsequent question.
S
SHW
Guest
Sounds mighty interesting! I suppose that women could not touch It directly because this was to be an added “punishment” for all women’s “unworthiness” because of Eve’s sin? Eve caused us all a heap of trouble, but then I probably would not have acted any differently.
Genesis 3:16
To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
1 Timothy 2:15
Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.
However, since we do have proof of Holy Communion in the hand in the ECF’s own writings, I’ll continue to go with that proof rather than Fr. Mitch’s, however much I admire him.
Did they have “gloves” 1700 years ago? Perhaps this was an “invention” of the Middle Ages?
S
SHW
Guest
You are correct. Sorry.
Who did these ECFs learn from? The first apostles, who were all Jews. Scott Hahn can explain the “Mass” as “Passover Feast fulfilled” a whole lot better than I can:
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/ech.html
- Status