Wimps to the Left of Me, Crazies to the Right

[mullenpm]

ChurchTorch believes me NOT to be a traditional Catholic because I don’t think women need to wear head coverings such as St. Paul suggested to his followers. How silly!!! Men who also consider themselves traditional Catholics do not wear flowing robes and sandles.

A traditional Catholic is one who loves the Catholic church; we love our Holy Father and his authority; we most and forward love the Liturgy.

We do not get all worked up because we now have the Pauline Mass - it can be a beautiful and reverent Mass; we would welcome back the altar rail but we accept the Communion line; etc. etc. etc. I would dearly love to see the return of Holy Communion on the tongue, but I understand that some Catholics prefer a different form.

In summary, we are all Catholics who love our religion and our Church whichever form of Mass we attend. Let’s not argue over small things and let posters who are here just to divide get the better of us.:knight2:

 

[KostyaJMJ]

FIrst you sound like a sat.nite live stand up comedian…you dont really expect any of us here to believe what you just said! This is the age of victimization…no matter what harm you do to others,if exposed ,well then,cry foul and the usual name calling…‘right wing crazies’ etc. Strange,in all of my years of attending Mass I never came across such going ons as you claim you suffered poor thing!.Most folks I know dont care how one is dressed attending mass or how many siblings one as,just as long as you dont insult and take over the hour by noise and sobbing,they are there to pay tribute to God not you. Its always open season on the RCC and when we defend ourselves we are called names…go figure!..thanks for the mild snicker anyway…Pas

Perhaps I should apologize for calling them crazy. I don’t think they are crazy and they actually seem to be really nice people. It is just that the thread title “wimps to the left of me, slightly eccentric people who seem to speak another language than me to the right” doesn’t really fit. It was just hyperbole. I really just need to learn more about the community so that I can fit in and not make any waves as well as avoid any potential land mines in conversation.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

If you don’t dress correctly the liturgical fashion police will drag you from your pew and you will have to face the tribunal of doom never to be heard from again

Not responding to anyone in this thread but I can somehow relate to the OPs points and observations at TLM Sunday Mass. For instance, the large families, veils, meddling lay leaders, disgruntled priests et cetera. Though I was born Catholic-Christian I started attending the Tridentine Mass (weekdays) since Lent of 2009, serving them since last August and then attending (and subsequently serving) Sunday TLMs. The faces of congregants and servers become more familiar as do the rubrics. I’ve encountered great people who give great advice and tips of what to do and what to avoid. One wrong move and BAM! you’re done with (just kidding but remember to do your best to honor him who hath redeemed us). I do my best to dress well when attending Mass (collar shirt, black slacks and shoes to coordinate w/ cassock) because you must give God all the reverence. In my opinion it is also a matter of assimilation, conformity, impression, reverence within the fold itself. I wouldn’t want to stick out like a sore thumb since I’m simply the new kid on the block. Reverence and Worship to God is reflected in our personality, interaction with others, contributions, dress and the way we carry out ourselves overall. Other than Church we can relate to our brethren on other things like sports, music, media, academics and the like. Do your best to get along well with others. It is what Christ wants for us to do instead of sowing seeds of dissent. The Church Militant is inclusive and exclusive. Though we have a reputation to uphold and maintain remember that all you do must be for His Glory Amen

Pics of TLM on my blog at teddybarboza.blogspot.com

Thanks, I really laughed at this. We went out and bought some good Sunday dress clothes which we were really lacking before. I am going to try to make a good second impression this Sunday.

 

[malphono]

Thanks, I really laughed at this. We went out and bought some good Sunday dress clothes which we were really lacking before. I am going to try to make a good second impression this Sunday.

I hope you didn’t go to “prairie dresses R-us” for the outfits. I’m sure they carry men’s clothes too.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I hope you didn’t go to “prairie dresses R-us” for the outfits. I’m sure they carry men’s clothes too.

I think we would gain more points if we had a homemade style dress but we just went and bought a dress that fits the dress code. It is below the knees when sitting and doesn’t show any shoulder or cleavage so I think we should be ok. I have dress clothes from work but my wife didn’t have anything other than her mommy uniform.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I totally agree!!!

The bizarre part is how these people demand obedience to something that was originally an abuse. CITH and altar girls were ruled against yet disobedient people did it anyway to the degree that they were allowed. And now they have the hypocrisy to cry “obedience”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The bizarre part is how these people demand obedience to something that was originally an abuse. CITH and altar girls were ruled against yet disobedient people did it anyway to the degree that they were allowed. And now they have the hypocrisy to cry “obedience”.

No one is crying “obedience,” for pity’s sake. It’s just wearying to hear the ill-informed call a discipline of the Church an abuse. The Church cannot promulgate an abuse, cannot, in her discipline, propose anything that will lead the faithful into impiety. That is REAL Catholic thought, real TRADITIONAL Catholic thought. These things you go on about are approved by the Church, REGARDLESS of their origin. Even if Communion in the hand began again in the 20th Century as an abuse, ie, without permission, it may have been an Apostolic practice and WAS at least a Patristic practice, so of itself, it isn’t an abuse…most particularly now that the Church permits it.

 

[ProVobis]

The Church cannot promulgate an abuse, cannot, in her discipline, propose anything that will lead the faithful into impiety.

Cannot? Call me a heretic because that’s difficult to believe, if your definition of impiety is the same as mine.

impiety ɪmˈpaɪɪtɪ]
n pl -ties

1. lack of reverence or proper respect for a god
2. any lack of proper respect
3. an impious act

People-centered worship is NOT reverent to God, almost by definition.

 

[Opelske]

Well, in all charity, that may be your opinion, but it is not a rule of the Church. I will take a moment to inform you that putting such opinions on here only stirs up trouble and discord. In fact, the person that you just posted your reply to has been stirring up discord with his opinions that are not done charitably…have you not read the past couple of pages??

I am totally lost on this thread. Why is it wrong to have a mere ‘opinion,’ that perhaps differs from other’s opinions? I found nothing disturbing in any of the responses including the responses of SpiritusSanctus. This is what I mean about the ever-changing rules of the Church to keep up with the times…it is the Church that has caused more discord than people’s opinions. Some people prefer more tradition than other people, and are as unwavering in their customs and dress as they are in their Faith.

 

[Ockham]

No one is crying “obedience,” for pity’s sake. It’s just wearying to hear the ill-informed call a discipline of the Church an abuse. The Church cannot promulgate an abuse, cannot, in her discipline, propose anything that will lead the faithful into impiety. That is REAL Catholic thought, real TRADITIONAL Catholic thought. These things you go on about are approved by the Church, REGARDLESS of their origin. Even if Communion in the hand began again in the 20th Century as an abuse, ie, without permission, it may have been an Apostolic practice and WAS at least a Patristic practice, so of itself, it isn’t an abuse…most particularly now that the Church permits it.

If CITH isn’t an abuse then what is it? Pope Paul VI and many others ruled against it, some with the threat of excommunication.

Changing for the times at the will of modern trends leads to uncertainty and perhaps moral relativism. Isn’t that what Catholic for Choice is all about? I doubt many of them receive COTT.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Cannot? Call me a heretic because that’s difficult to believe, if your definition of impiety is the same as mine.

impiety ɪmˈpaɪɪtɪ]
n pl -ties

1. lack of reverence or proper respect for a god
2. any lack of proper respect
3. an impious act

People-centered worship is NOT reverent to God, almost by definition.

Sorry, ProVobis, I’m not the one who said or says it, it’s the Magisterium of the Church. AND it means that the practice is not, ontologically or “of itself,” bad. So Communion in the hand isn’t, of itself, bad, nor is Communion in procession. Can we do better? That’s a subjective opinion. I agree that kneeling for reception is an outward sign of reverence or proper respect, but I’m not prepared to say that the Eastern Rite Churches are showing a “lack of proper respect” or are indulging in “an impious act” by not kneeling, since their disciplines are also Apostolic in origin (as is CITH).

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If CITH isn’t an abuse then what is it? Pope Paul VI and many others ruled against it, some with the threat of excommunication.

Changing for the times at the will of modern trends leads to uncertainty and perhaps moral relativism. Isn’t that what Catholic for Choice is all about? I doubt many of them receive COTT.

Communion in the hand was an Apostolic and Patristic practice. It could not, therefore, have been an abuse. It is now permitted by the Church (Pope Benedict extended the indult to Poland, that most Catholic of nations, in 2007). It is, therefore, not an abuse. You may not like it, but you can avail yourself of the other option.

 

[ProVobis]

Sorry, ProVobis, I’m not the one who said or says it, it’s the Magisterium of the Church. AND it means that the practice is not, ontologically or “of itself,” bad. So Communion in the hand isn’t, of itself, bad, nor is Communion in procession. Can we do better? That’s a subjective opinion. I agree that kneeling for reception is an outward sign of reverence or proper respect, but I’m not prepared to say that the Eastern Rite Churches are showing a “lack of proper respect” or are indulging in “an impious act” by not kneeling, since their disciplines are also Apostolic in origin (as is CITH).

Apples and oranges. Eastern Rites didn’t have their customs and traditions changed as much as the Western Rites. I could start introducing here all the same liturgical dancing they “allow” in Africa but that doesn’t mean it will be as reverent here. This is not opinion. You’re only proving that converts seem to lack the proper understanding of maintaining local customs, which are protected by canon law, by the way. Allowing options is breaking custom.

 

[Ockham]

The Last Supper
But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

1. Take and eat . . .
   Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, “Take and eat”? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[ProVobis]

Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

Good points. Literalism could even be extended to bread being passed around in the pews, just like it’s passed around at dinner tables.

However, we’re dealing with translations and as multilinguals know, something always gets lost in the translation.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Last Supper
But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

1. Take and eat . . .
   Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, “Take and eat”? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful “took” and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

This is simply bad history, the taking of a belief held now (by some) and trying to force it backwards into history. It doesn’t work. There is no evidence that the Apostolic Church had this understanding or that this understanding was part of their practice. Likewise, the notion that the Apostles, as bishops, COULD touch the Sacred Species. It doesn’t wash as it doesn’t seem to have been a part of the Apostolic Church’s thinking.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Apples and oranges. Eastern Rites didn’t have their customs and traditions changed as much as the Western Rites. I could start introducing here all the same liturgical dancing they “allow” in Africa but that doesn’t mean it will be as reverent here. This is not opinion. You’re only proving that converts seem to lack the proper understanding of maintaining local customs, which are protected by canon law, by the way. Allowing options is breaking custom.

I don’t think, as a convert, I lack understanding of local customs. My point was the INHERENT good or evil of an act.

Popes are the source and constitutive element of canon law (they are it’s source and interpreter). If they allow options, then canon law isn’t broken. The option is then part of the law.

 

[Ockham]

This is simply bad history, the taking of a belief held now (by some) and trying to force it backwards into history. It doesn’t work. There is no evidence that the Apostolic Church had this understanding or that this understanding was part of their practice. Likewise, the notion that the Apostles, as bishops, COULD touch the Sacred Species. It doesn’t wash as it doesn’t seem to have been a part of the Apostolic Church’s thinking.

Then provide evidence, sources, quotes, documents, anything instead of your opinion.

Do you dispute the following:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

 

[franklinf]

Then provide evidence, sources, quotes, documents, anything instead of your opinion.

Do you dispute the following:

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]

POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm

Hey! Let’s not let facts get in the way!

 

[franklinf]

I don’t understand at all this antique view of the liturgy. The original Christians might have done X in year 50 so now me must ignore the next 1950 years of doing Y and go back to X.

Organic development is key. As fuller development and understanding came, the Church organically developed. Not even 100 years into its history, CITH is already being denounced. Why return to that and ignore what tradition has handed down? Isn’t it odd that early popes forbade CITH while protestant heretics reintroduced it as an attack on the Real Presence? And yet, we follow what the protestants did!