It was at one time a symbol of the denial of the real presence. It is not inherently bad, and that symbolism has long past. Let us not forget that it was Jesus who instituted this and reception on the tongue came later. It lasted four centuriesIt was recognized as an abuse and corrected. What changed 1800 years later to make it valid?
cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a007.htmlSt Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in the ‘*Catechetical Lectures’, *ca. 350 AD, the following; “In approaching, therefore, do not come up with your wrists apart or with your fingers spread, but make of your left hand a throne for the right, since you are about to receive into it a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it the AMEN.”
I disagree that the Church is in a state of confusion. In fact, I don’t think the Church has been more sure of itself in the past 100 years than it is now. This is primarily thanks to the effort of the late John Paul II who set the Church on firmer ground by walking a middle line between those who would “reform” the Church out of its Christian identity and those who believe the Church is a marble statue which, with all its beauty, should remain as a museum piece. I’m also confused by your description of a priest attempting to welcome a family into the parish as “protestant.” What makes something “protestant,” as opposed to “catholic?” Would it have been more “catholic” if the priest has sprinkled the family with holy water? Perhaps you’re suggesting it is “catholic” to ignore a new family or not welcome them at all. I hope this isn’t “catholic” since it hardly seems Christian. Now, I agree that the priest’s attempts to welcome the family seem a bit pathetic, especially since the family did not wish to participate in the spontaneous welcoming ceremony the priest concocted, but that hardly makes it “protestant.” I would also note that you mentioned that the priest attempted to welcome the family at the end of the mass. This is usually the time after the communion and before the dismissal when parish announcements are made, so if you are going to welcome strangers, this seems to be an appropriate time to do so. I’m afraid I’m confused by your protest. What would you have had the priest do, other than ignore the family?oh i see. that explains why the Church is in confusion, it seems that the people took VII as to turn into the ways of protestants. and it is getting worse. this new priest in my parish is trying to do exactly as protestants do in their services. at the end of the Mass, he says are visitors here today raise your hands. then he says come on up here. this sunday there was one family who was visiting from Virginia and when the priest invited them to come up front, they refused to go and stayed in their seats even though the priest kept insist on. i am sure was an embarassing moment. i was wondering what in the world is going here? i think the priests think they are supposed to conduct Mass as protestants do. i know this because when i complained about the annoying protestants songs during Mass, the Priest got very agitated and said. “but VII says…” i did not let him finished. i was pretty upset.
That’s such a pat answer. Do you have any idea about the power play that resulted in Communion In the Hand after Vatican II. Perhaps I need to explain that once again.Modernist? Yes, it was banned but the practice precedes modernism by eighteen centuries.
Pathetic?? I read the post that described his insistence that this family come forward to the front of the Church. This priests’ actions were both servile on his part & rude & embarrassing for the family that he insisted be held up to public scrutiny. How awful.QUOTE=Tsuwano;5194642]I disagree that the Church is in a state of confusion. In fact, I don’t think the Church has been more sure of itself in the past 100 years than it is now. This is primarily thanks to the effort of the late John Paul II who set the Church on firmer ground by walking a middle line between those who would “reform” the Church out of its Christian identity and those who believe the Church is a marble statue which, with all its beauty, should remain as a museum piece. I’m also confused by your description of a priest attempting to welcome a family into the parish as “protestant.” What makes something “protestant,” as opposed to “catholic?” Would it have been more “catholic” if the priest has sprinkled the family with holy water? Perhaps you’re suggesting it is “catholic” to ignore a new family or not welcome them at all. I hope this isn’t “catholic” since it hardly seems Christian. Now, I agree that the priest’s attempts to welcome the family seem a bit pathetic,
?especially since the family did not wish to participate in the spontaneous welcoming ceremony the priest concocted, but that hardly makes it “protestant.” I would also note that you mentioned that the priest attempted to welcome the family at the end of the mass. This is usually the time after the communion and before the dismissal when parish announcements are made, so if you are going to welcome strangers, this seems to be an appropriate time to do so. I’m afraid I’m confused by your protest. What would you have had the priest do, other than ignore the family
Very pat.That’s such a pat answer.
Yet another way to elevate the laity at the expense of the ordained priesthood.
V
I was not questioning the prudence of it, just saying that it is not a modernist invention.
First, the passage above is the basis for Sacramental confession. No one has ever suggested anyone but a priest can hear confession.A “facit of the Church”? Really now, Christ created the priesthood “And I will give unto thee [Peter] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” He did not give these powers to the laity.
In this, each believer is both priest and sacrifice. As St. Peter put it:I urge you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship.
And again:I Peter 2: 5:4 Come to him, a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God,
5 and, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
i dont know what Church teachings you come, but the one i come from i never heard a priest calling visitors to the from of the of Church than have people clapping for them. sorry, maybe you are used to that. i am not. i could be wrong. what i see is the priest trying to find ways to bring people into the Church with some weird practices. what happened to the rosary prayers?I disagree that the Church is in a state of confusion. In fact, I don’t think the Church has been more sure of itself in the past 100 years than it is now. This is primarily thanks to the effort of the late John Paul II who set the Church on firmer ground by walking a middle line between those who would “reform” the Church out of its Christian identity and those who believe the Church is a marble statue which, with all its beauty, should remain as a museum piece. I’m also confused by your description of a priest attempting to welcome a family into the parish as “protestant.” What makes something “protestant,” as opposed to “catholic?” Would it have been more “catholic” if the priest has sprinkled the family with holy water? Perhaps you’re suggesting it is “catholic” to ignore a new family or not welcome them at all. I hope this isn’t “catholic” since it hardly seems Christian. Now, I agree that the priest’s attempts to welcome the family seem a bit pathetic, especially since the family did not wish to participate in the spontaneous welcoming ceremony the priest concocted, but that hardly makes it “protestant.” I would also note that you mentioned that the priest attempted to welcome the family at the end of the mass. This is usually the time after the communion and before the dismissal when parish announcements are made, so if you are going to welcome strangers, this seems to be an appropriate time to do so. I’m afraid I’m confused by your protest. What would you have had the priest do, other than ignore the family?
You must be kidding?? I would have assumed that if this family was thinking of joining the Church, they would have told the people who brought them…who, in turn would have made an appointment for the priest to talk with them privately. BTW., if I were me who brought guests to Church, I would have been angry & ashamed at the priest’s actions that embarrassed my friends. .Pathetic?? I read the post that described his insistence that this family come forward to the front of the Church. This priests’ actions were both servile on his part & rude & embarrassing for the family that he insisted be held up to public scrutiny. How awful.
?
Actually, I have been to many churches where visitors are routinely welcomed and even introduced if there is time. In fact, having grown up in the military, I am quite used to it. I don’t think welcoming people to the parish is a “wierd practice,” though I do think the priest you mentioned could have found a better way to do it. I think your priest certainly intended well. Still, I don’t think his actions can be described as “protestant.” They just seem foolish to me.i dont know what Church teachings you come, but the one i come from i never heard a priest calling visitors to the from of the of Church than have people clapping for them. sorry, maybe you are used to that. i am not. i could be wrong. what i see is the priest trying to find ways to bring people into the Church with some weird practices. what happened to the rosary prayers?
another thing that saddens me is that i never hear in the Church is that no priests remembers or prays for those Catholics who are distants suffering persecution. no one remembers them on the prayers of the Church. St Paul was clear on that we should pray for them. no mention on the Church of today. it is all about us here, forget them out there. this is not a true practice of the Catholic Faith.
i did not mean all churches. i meant only the ones i have been to it. i go to a Franciscan parish. although i love the priests and i revere them. i cannot deny the fact that they take the VII in a very modernist ways. i go to confession and the priest is dressed on tshirt and pants. i dont know i am just shocked about how priests act before. i just perceive them as proud men instead of those of the old where they appear to me being very humble men.Actually, I have been to many churches where visitors are routinely welcomed and even introduced if there is time. In fact, having grown up in the military, I am quite used to it. I don’t think welcoming people to the parish is a “wierd practice,” though I do think the priest you mentioned could have found a better way to do it. I think your priest certainly intended well. Still, I don’t think his actions can be described as “protestant.” They just seem foolish to me.
The church I attend regularly prays for those who are suffering persecution. We also remember the “poor souls in Purgatory,” those whose lives are taken through abortion, those serving in the military and those who suffer from injustice. Perhaps you should mention your concerns to your pastor rather than assuming other churches don’t pray for others.
You have never heard of the “Altar Calls” used in many Protestant & evangelical Churches? They are calls by the preacher to “Come on Down & accept Jaysus as your Savior”. Some Protestant preachers have finally come to the conclusion that “Altar Calls” are not very successful.Yes, I used the adjective “pathetic” to describe a priest’s failed attempt to introduce a visiting family to the parish at the end of mass. I suppose the adjectives "rude, “embarrassing” or “awful” would work just as well. Whichever of the above adjectives you choose to use, I fail to see how the adjective “protestant,” as opposed to “catholic” applies. The person who told this story in his post insinuated that the pastor was somehow being “protestant” in his actions. Perhaps you can explain how the pastor was being “protestant” in this incident, as well as explain what a “catholic” action would have been.
I was referring to your words that it is the antiquity of the Tridentine Mass that turns it into a “museum piece” & I think that you know that. It is not the age of a thing that makes it a “museum piece”. It’s the success of the thing. Very seldom is something or someone who failed put into a museum.The Model T was a highly successful automobile, but I don’t think it would be wise to drive one on a modern highway. I don’t believe 95% of the world’s Catholics attend the Tridentine Mass, so I’m not sure what you mean by “wildly successful.”
These are SO the words of a modernist. Modernists deviate between the “fact” that CITH is from antiquity, in the same breath they make statements such as the one above.[The Model T was a highly successful automobile, but I don’t think it would be wise to drive one on a modern highway. I don’t believe 95% of the world’s Catholics attend the Tridentine Mass, so I’m not sure what you mean by “wildly successful.”
I didn’t know that. Thanks for telling me about it.Truth is some US parishes had been legitimately using CITH… but they were Armenian Catholic, not Roman Catholic.
Awesome. V2 documents contain some of the best Christian writings since the New Testament.I’m just beginning to learn about Catholicism. I’ve been reading all the books I can, and I’ve recently been learning about the changes that took place after the Second Vatican Council.
I’m wondering what the average Catholic thinks about these changes. A good thing? Bad? Both?
Thank you!
Heather
As long as the “whole” includes only things pre-Vatican II. Anybody who doesn’t believe that all the ills of the Church come from Vatican II will most certainly not be embraced. Anyone who dares to prefer the Pauline Mass will most certainly not be embraced. Anyone who agrees with the Pope that the two Masses are equal in dignity will most certainly not be embraced. I would say there is plenty of intolerance to go around. “Pot, meet kettle.” And of course the continued application of references to heretical positions as derogatory terms for anyone who supports the Council is really pure ad hominem.I find that the “tolerance” that liberal/modernist Catholic claim to posess is greatly overated. They will tolerate just about anything but their fellow Catholic who embrace the** whole** of the Catholic Church.
Let me set your mind at ease on this one little point. We do this quite often, both as a parish and diocese. We hada a diocese wide day where every Sunday Mass was offered for those in India who were suffering for their faith recently. In my particular parish we always offer prayer intentions for those who suffer from disaster, natural or man-made.another thing that saddens me is that i never hear in the Church is that no priests remembers or prays for those Catholics who are distants suffering persecution. no one remembers them on the prayers of the Church.
What’s even worse? Even when we do pray, we leave it at that. We ARE the body of Christ - we need to pray to the Father about it, but as His Sons and Daughters we are also the ones commissioned to do something about it.another thing that saddens me is that i never hear in the Church is that no priests remembers or prays for those Catholics who are distants suffering persecution. no one remembers them on the prayers of the Church. St Paul was clear on that we should pray for them. no mention on the Church of today. it is all about us here, forget them out there. this is not a true practice of the Catholic Faith.