The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A Protestant preacher is a layman.There is no Apostolic succession in any Protestant denomination, hence no “real” priesthood.
 
Last edited:
OraProNobis333 said:
Nowadays, the unfortunate consequence of embracing modernism at the Second Vatican Council, has led to the Roman Church losing both her liturgical language and her liturgical identity.
Click to expand...
The phrase “modernism” is the boogeyman of the far right conservatives who seem to believe that the Holy Spirit has fled the Church.

The liturgical identity has not been lost in any way shape or form; for starters, there ins not one liturgy in the Church; there are multiple liturgies including all the Eastern ones. Further, anyone who actually knows the liturgy of both the EF and the OF knows that they share far more in common than in differences.

And the Catholic Church founded by Christ has not had one liturgical language; it has had multiple liturgical languages; and even the Roman Rite has had Aramaic and Hebrew at its start, then primarily Greek, and then finally Latin when it was the secondary language of many European countries when the Romans had conquered a significant part of it.

Eventually Latin faded away as a second language, and as a means of uniting the multitudinous tribes, Latin was retained for liturgy, and people became more and more removed from any meaningful participation in worship. That is the source of the move in Vatican 2 and subsequently, to allow people to worship in their own language with the priest.

And as far as losing its liturgical identity, that is, to put it politely, laughable.

I was raised on the EF when that was all we had, in the 1950’s. I ahve heard even more egregious comments about the OF, of people saying they have no idea where they are in the Mass when attending the OF; that is nothing more than emotional blather. I have attended Mass in the OF in both Spanish, which I don’t speak, and in Vietnamese, which I also don’t speak, and even in a language of which I know nothing, I know where we are in the Mass. I wass riased up using a missal with Latin on one side and English on the other, and I find the Mass in English far easier to follow along with and [pray along with the priest.

If you don’t like the OF, that is fine, but please spare the allegations which are baseless. Traditions are simply thing repeated; and just as anyone who is old enough to remember family traditions going back two generations, each family set (current family, parental family, and grand parental family) knows that each has different traditions as well as shared ones.

So how many years does it take to acknowledge a new tradition? 2 generations? Three? We are now half way into the third generation.

The vast majority of people attending Mass world wide attend the OF. Those who think they are going to roll back the OF and get rid of it are not even cognizant of the reality that it is the Ordinary Form - that which is in most use.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
That’s not an option available to all. The Latin Mass was never supposed to go away. Even the conciliar documents mandated the usage of Latin for the Liturgy. The fact that the modernists have largely abandoned it contradicts the teachings of the Second Vatican Council itself, yet here we are. Going to the TLM “is” the answer. But the TLM needs to be at every single parish in the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
I agree, or at least once a week (on Sundays) in a parish within easy driving distance of everyone in the diocese. My nearest one is two hours away, and two hours each way, with an hour for lunch after Mass, basically takes up the whole day on Sunday, not to mention being pretty “beat” from the drive. Not something that could be done every Sunday (though there are people who do).
 
Agreed wholeheartedly. I was talking about protestant ministers who convert to Catholicism and are welcomed into the Church by being ordained as Catholic priests. Personally, I think it’s wrong to do this. If a protestant minister is going to come into the faith, they should do so as laymen like the rest of us converts. I don’t see what makes them any more special than the rest of us that they should have special privilege extended to them to be ordained priests? Last I read, the priesthood was not something someone is entitled to. I guess I was wrong.
 
You have a very grave misunderstanding of how a former Protestant minister becomes a Catholic priest. It is not an automatic or easy process, and it also needs the consent of the wife. It is not just done willy-nilly as you imply.
 
Again, your ignorance of the subject is astounding.
I am done here. I am starting to believe you are nothing but a troll.

Good day.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
The Latin Mass was never supposed to go away. Even the conciliar documents mandated the usage of Latin for the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
It continues to amaze me that people treat Sacrosanctum Concilium as if it were a document binding in all particulars rather than a sketching out of changes to be made, with those changes to be formed and decided subsequent to the Council. Latin is still retained in the liturgy but rarely used in many areas. That upsets a few people, but most either have no interest in pursuing the use of it, or are not even particularly aware of it being missing.

It is clear to anyone who has studied Vatican 2 that there was not absolute unanimity among the bishops of the world on any of the documents of Vatican 2, including the one on liturgy. Some bishops wanted no vernacular at all, some wanted limited vernacular, and many wanted vernacular from start to finish; and it was acknowledged at the time SC was in consideration that many priests knew little or no Latin, and so the LOTH was allowed to be all vernacular to those who would benefit from it.

And it was not a far march from there to the Mass. There are about 17,000 parishes in the US. and about 97% of them say the OF only; of the remaining parishes, some are all EF parishes, and others have the Of with an EF Mass. In short, the vast majority of people attend the OF in the vernacular, and those who want a revision are ignoring the vast majority.

It has been said that watching law being made is similar to watching sausage being made, and most people are not interested in watching either. All of the documents of V2 were approved in final form with give and take with all sides.

SC was signed by 2,147 bishops in favor, and 4 opposed.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
I guess Pope St. Pius X was a boogeyman/conspiracy theorist then
Click to expand...
He was speaking not of liturgy but of scriptural scholarship which started in Germany in the mid to late 1800’s among Protestant scholars and had evloved into an approach to scripture that essentially had removed God for the study - it was evolving into a purely literary critique. As that evolution in scripture research started to appear in Catholic scholars, he moved to stop it.

Most people cannot even describe what modernism actually referred to, let alone define it, and they use it as their boogeyman word for anything with which they disagree. Nor can they define what was occurring; it has become the catch phrase for people who have not even a minimal exposure to it’s source, but like to sound officious. Even the Church does not use the term; they identify trends which are going astray by their sourcing of departure, such as relativism, or Marxism (in the case of liberration theology) or other specifics, rather than an amorphous term which lacks any agreed definition.
 
I have, long ago before my vision deteriorated.
College masses with big old hunks of bread and huge crumbles for which the priest joked that it was easy to see how after the multiplication of the loaves and fishes that they wound up with twelve wicker baskets of leftovers and did anybody want any of the leftover crumbs for salad croutons. .
 
OraProNobis333 said:
Communion in the hand is not a “teaching”. It is a practice. An incorrect one. The Church can err and can change practices. The Roman Church used to ordain married men to the priesthood but changed to a celibate priesthood. This didn’t contradict any previous teaching as it was a matter of practice. Same with the reception of Holy Communion. It does not diminish the Church at all to say that those entrusted with guiding her committed a mistake (an especially grave one) when it comes to a non doctrinal/non teaching issue.
Click to expand...
It is a discipline and can be changed. The Church has the authority to change discipline so YOU cannot say it is wrong. The Church has said receiving in the hand is valid. You may prefer receiving on the tongue but you cannot be disobedient to the Church by not accepting that receiving in the hand is valid.
Doctrine you may not disagree with. Discipline you may disagree with but you must accept it.
 
OraProNobis333 said:
But the TLM needs to be at every single parish in the Roman Church.
Click to expand...
I will give you an example of the demand for the EF. I live in a suburb of the capitol of Oregon. There is a main parish in the capitol with 3,000+ families; and there are three other parishes surrounding that main parish, all less than 5 miles away, with somewhere between 2 and 3,000 more families.

The main parish has an EF on Sunday along with 10 other Masses, 1 in Vietnamese, several in Spanish, and one of the other parishes has a Mass in Tagalog for the Philippine community, plus some more Masses in Spanish.

Of those 5,000 or so families, the EF attracts something less than 100 individuals on a weekly basis. All within less than 5 miles away.

Are there other areas in the US where there may be more demand for the EF? I have no doubt. But every parish? It might help to read what Pope Benedict wrote as to the setting up of an EF Mass, and his accompanying letter. He was and is a very bright theologian and was a wonderful Pope. And he most clearly saw that there would be a very low demand for the EF. Time has not proved him wrong.
 
Last edited:
It’s not that simple. There are differences in CITH in the early church and CITH now.
 
Back to the issue of COTT, I’ve only been a Catholic for a few years but this seems like such a dead horse. I myself believe that to receive kneeling, on the tongue is the better way. That’s how my fiancee and I commune. When, God willing, we get married and have children, I will teach them to receive kneeling and on the tongue. There the problem is solved. Everyone who I have any business with advising on how to receive will be receiving the way I prefer. You can’t convince 95% of people who have been raised with CITH, especially older people. Maybe eventually enough people will teach their children to receive on the tongue, and we’ll be back to that being the norm (yay). But these threads just seem only to be a near occasion of sin for Catholics to be uncharitable towards one another.
 
It’s like when people say Communion “kneeling” is the traditional posture. Whilst in the hand isn’t really a thing there, communion is distributed whilst the faithful stand in the East.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top