M
Mysty101
Guest
I did many times, did you bother to read my posts
:banghead:#139
#126
#40
#36
- Status
:banghead:#139
#40
M
Mysty101
Guest
PS **union with God … consists in nothing except the surrender and subjection of our will." **
P
pnewton
Guest
TNT said:
On what do you base this assumption? These are non-profit groups not sanctioned by the Church. One site is dedicated to those who claim they were abused. A little common sense would suggest, since they are run by donations, that the more dirt they can show, the greater the donations. This does not promote unbiased thinking.
I found the RCF site as sensationalistic as the National Enquirer.
I am reminded of the time when St. Paul preached against Caiphas in Jerusalem. When he was made aware that he was the high priest, he apologized for speaking against the God’s chosen leadership.
Pray for our leaders. Pray they be removed if you wish, but until then, they are the ones God has placed in charge. Be cautious lest you find yourself fighting God.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have to interject that while TNT and I have had our differences I have found most of his post respectful. We must be a little forgiving if occasionally emotions get the best of us. We all fall into that fault sometimes.
T
TNT
Guest
Thanks,
I truly think Mysty101 and TNT
should get elected into the USCCB liturgy commitee. That way we’d have eternal deadlock, and the poor liturgy would have a rest. Imagine, month after month…noooo change forthcomng.
Drive the libs crazy. Tradition would prevail…mass the same when one was 8yrs old is the very same as when they were 7.
ps. I’m always in complete contol of my emotions. It’s this **** keebord. I can’t even shut the “bold” off.
BTW:
Who was it that exposed bp. Ryan for what he was?
RCF or USCCB?
F
fix
Guest
I have not followed this entire thread, but what I have read really shows a divide present in the Church. IMO, this is the fruit of bishops not Shepherding for many years, too much experimentation with the mass and failure to discipline liturgical abuse and novelty.
I rarely see anything written about kneeling as a liturgical abuse. With all the handholding, questionable music, non ordained preaching, illicit ingredients into the bread for communion, changing of Eucharistic prayers, questionable theology, etc. I find the entire debate over the top. I have read that standing was introduced in an attempt to bring unity back into the mass. This has not happend so far. Rome allows each bishop just enough room to interpret one part of the mass, or another, enough to make the Latin rite a different experience from Church to Church.
I guess I am saying that one can go into a Burger King anywhere and know what to expect, the same cannot be said of the Latin rite of the Church.
BTW, I live a very liberal N.O. parish and see this stuff every week.
I rarely see anything written about kneeling as a liturgical abuse. With all the handholding, questionable music, non ordained preaching, illicit ingredients into the bread for communion, changing of Eucharistic prayers, questionable theology, etc. I find the entire debate over the top. I have read that standing was introduced in an attempt to bring unity back into the mass. This has not happend so far. Rome allows each bishop just enough room to interpret one part of the mass, or another, enough to make the Latin rite a different experience from Church to Church.
I guess I am saying that one can go into a Burger King anywhere and know what to expect, the same cannot be said of the Latin rite of the Church.
BTW, I live a very liberal N.O. parish and see this stuff every week.
M
Mysty101
Guest
I repeat
J
jlw
Guest
Mysty101, so your big reason for the decision that standing (for all) is the same (or even better) as kneeling before our Lord is because of the growing amount of aged parishioners that cannot kneel??
At least you give a reason beyond “Cause they sez so”. I know they say so, but I wanted to get a practical (JKirkLVNV, otm, and you have given your thoughts), political, or theological reason that they say so…
By the way, by your logic, because there are a few in my parish that cannot partake of the Eucharist because of wheat allergies, then EVERYONE must only drink from the chalice to keep the unity???
The solution for the elderly (my grandfather included) or disabled is that those who cannot move well, nor kneel without pain SIT IN THE FRONT ROW, and the priest comes down off the altar and offers the Body of Christ to them one by one FIRST.
The explanation that this is all about the out-of-whack ratio between parishioners and priests these days in US parishes and that efficiency is called for makes some sense practically. I just don’t think that is all there is, that’s all.
I am not one of those overscrupulous “masters of suspicion”. I am just looking at this issue and asking as I have since day #1 of my conversion story…WHY.
M
Mysty101
Guest
OK you don’t accept the reason, but stop saying none have been given, and above all Let TNT stop disrespecting the USCCB. Would he show those posts to his confessor? I think I’ll show them to mine, and see what he says—or better yet, send them to the Q&A section of the USCCB website.
And please do not insult me by comparing the number of those with wheat allergy to those who find it hard to kneel.
Also the reception from the Chalice is not the norm, and there are many more who cannot take alchol than wheat.
We are talking about putting personal preference over the norm, which your Bishops have asked you not to do.
And please do not insult me by comparing the number of those with wheat allergy to those who find it hard to kneel.
Also the reception from the Chalice is not the norm, and there are many more who cannot take alchol than wheat.
We are talking about putting personal preference over the norm, which your Bishops have asked you not to do.
F
fix
Guest
Has this been cited here?
The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 1§), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared.** Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.
**In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.
**
ourladyswarriors.org/index.html
**
The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 1§), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared.** Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.
**In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.
**
ourladyswarriors.org/index.html
**
J
jlw
Guest
You are a bit more combative than you need to be. I am not insulting you. (Really??)
I was just pointing out the small flaw in your logic. I KNOW the chalice-only isn’t the norm (just as universal standing wasn’t). I was demonstrating how the practical reasoning can be bordering on absurdity.
I was just looking for you to tell me what you thought and I was confused, because on one hand you say essentially “shut up, the bishops have spoken up on high, they are the successors to Peter, for goodness sake” implying that they don’t need to give us any reason, because this is “directed by the Holy Spirit, so no other explanation necessary, so get over it” BUT then…
you give a very plausible explanation in my opinion–that the US Bishops, in caring for the elderly who can’t kneel anymore, decided that standing for everyone, out of respect for those who can’t kneel, and for uniformity’s sake, is best. I’ve never recieved that explaination from the bishops office, by the way. Still, it’s a decent theory.
No, while it’s true I don’t necessarily agree with your theory, I’m glad i understand what your practical answer was as to why this directive came about.
I was also looking for a THEOLOGICAL explanation to go along with the “They are the successors to Peter, jlw, so obey!” argument. I haven’t found someone to give me one yet, whether from a member of the clergy or laity.
O
otm
Guest
I find the Wanderer highly polemical. I will agree tyhat they address issues that need to be dug up, but I feel that the way they do is often more damaging than helpful, as they tend towards the extreme. It is difficult to speak intelligently with someone who wants to take a polemical approach. There are other approaches which I fell are more useful in motivating people to change.
I would suggest reading the National Catholic Register, although if what you want is old “blood 'n guts”, you won’t find it there. What you will find is a more reasoned, thoughtful approach that is true to the Magisterium.
O
otm
Guest
No, it wouldn’t. What broke the whol mess open was the lawsuits and the secular press. The Wanderer had been harping on the issue long before that, but because that is what the Wanderer does, it got scant attention. The Wanderer, and those who read it regularly, rejoice in poelmical muckracking, and in an attitude of how bad everything is. They lose their impact because everyone else syas “Oh well, there they go again!”. One gets as much or more editorializing as news in their articles. There is a reason for the editorial page; they seem to think it should be an editorial paper.
You again are blaming things on ecuminism that have nothing to do with it. I really don’t think you have the first clue of what ecumenism is about, how it is conducted and by whom, nor do you seem to have any sense of history or the causes of many, if not most of the problems the Church and the world both face.
I strongly feel that you are someone beset by the problems surrounding us and have a very romanticized view of “how it used to be”.
It is very appealing to want simple answers to complex questions, but simple answers distort the substance of the questions, as they do not truly answer them.
O
otm
Guest
I don’t know that there is a particularly theological reason for any of the postures during the litury of the Mass. There are, however, liturgical reasons for the various postures. Among them are adoration and respect, and a parallel of postures that we find throughout societal interactions (such as sitting when a speaker is addressing a group). there are certain postures and movements that have one meaing in one culture, and another meaning in a different culture.
As I tried to explain, certain postures have been used at various times historically, and unless you are an historical liturgist or have a background in liturgy from a historical perspective, it is likely that you will react to what we do as “that’s the way it has always been”.
T
TNT
Guest
ECUMENISM
*]A movement promoting unity among Christian churches or denominations.
*] A movement promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding.
n : (Christianity) the doctrine of the ecumenical movement that promotes cooperation and better understanding among different religious denominations: aimed at universal Christian unity [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ecumenicism”]ecumenicism, ecumenicalism]
But then, dictionaries “don’t…have a first clue”
Ecumenism: The destruction of internal unity in the false hope of gaining external unity.
Now, you may present your definition, the source of it, without becoming an essay…ready.
T
TNT
Guest
Did this answer the question I had:
**** BTW:
Who was it that exposed bp. Ryan for what he was?
RCF or USCCB? (or the secular press all on its own)
T
TNT
Guest
I’ll repeat what I posted on another thread:
Dear Firend,
I remember you are converted from the COC. How great that makes me feel, as I have expressed that before during one of our insomniac episodes.
At one time the Bishops and priests (to protestants) and missionaries (to non-believers) did most of the work of conversion. Here are some sites that illustrate this:
Fr Damen (1860)
Bishop Geo Hay (1780)
Francis De sales (1600) and here.
The many thousands they converted are their testimony, and without compromising or “ecumenically reinterpreting” the Catholic Doctrines. Their conversions were through intellectual persuasion.
We have always talked to each other…Catholic evangelists and those outside.
The laity was not so much involved, as they had no mass communication ability, except for authors who could get published like:
O Brownson
or H Belloc and G K Chesterton
Now that virtually anyone, Cath or Anti-Cath. can publish via the I-net, 1000’s of laity have become evangelists. This is, so far the main stay of conversions…still one-to-one
Witness this forum and their sponsors and the many who come over to the Church by this site.
Also, there are evangelist sites specifically focused on nearly every sect out there:
This one is typical.
“Mass ecumenism” is not really productive and it never has been. I know of no sect that has had a mass conversion in 50 years. It’s an experiment that has produced great disunity inside the Faith, and next to nothing, in bringing whole sects into the Catholic Church. That type of ecumenism is not addressing one-to-one. It is a mass marketing promotion plan that is not working, and so far very harmful to the Faithful.
Today, the laity are just about the ONLY group remaining who actually do evangelising in the traditional conversion sense.
Code:
The clergy are primarily:- Redefining or “modernizing” the Catholic faith to try to promote “we are not so different than you” to other sects or religions (“We worship the same God as Islam”, Allah) (“The Old Covenant has never been revoked”) (“We no longer proselytize since VATII did away with that…”) etc. etc.
- Having endless dialogues, which, if the prot. sect is close enough to the Cath beliefs may be productive, such as Trad Anglicanism. However, even their main impetous is the disintegration of the faith by their bishops, and not so much the dialoguers.
3. Promoting social justice and humanitarian issues, sans the conversion.
So, real conversions are still being done one-to-one by those who have the very same zeal and methods as those in the distant past.
I could give more proof on this, but out of time for now.
Mainly I wanted to assure you that the Traditional old time Catholic faith was evangelised effectively from time immemorial and we did talk about it constantly to all outside the Faith. It’s only the rank of practitioners that have changed through the centuries.
.
P
pnewton
Guest
I understand what it is like not to understand the “why” of something. I do not agree with everything my bishop does either. I even did not understand basic Marian dogma when I joined the church.
Belief in the church’s authority is not enough to shut up and be quiet, but it should be enough for obedience. For now, though, I understand the need to discuss such matters and satisfy one’s conscience.
I for one do not have an issue with proper humility while standing. I am the most humble person here.
Two reasons (not suggesting they are good, just postulating there existence.)
Expediency - Keep the line moving. When we had people kneeling for reception at my parish each kneeler took 2-3 times longer.
Unity - Like it or not, a goal of the GIRM, that postures be uniform. Now if all the priest would agree that unity (conformity to the GIRM) was important, we wouldn’t have as much to post about.
J
jlw
Guest
Thanks otm. Good thoughts.
J
jlw
Guest
Thanks pnewton. I appreciate you understanding where I have been coming from.I understand what it is like not to understand the “why” of something. I do not agree with everything my bishop does either. I even did not understand basic Marian dogma when I joined the church.
Belief in the church’s authority is not enough to shut up and be quiet, but it should be enough for obedience. For now, though, I understand the need to discuss such matters and satisfy one’s conscience.
I for one do not have an issue with proper humility while standing. I am the most humble person here.
Two reasons (not suggesting they are good, just postulating there existence.)
Expediency - Keep the line moving. When we had people kneeling for reception at my parish each kneeler took 2-3 times longer.
Unity - Like it or not, a goal of the GIRM, that postures be uniform. Now if all the priest would agree that unity (conformity to the GIRM) was important, we wouldn’t have as much to post about.
In regards to expediency…does your parish have a communion rail?? Our parish does, so there are literally twenty people kneeling at once, as the priest and altar boy move down the row. Pretty expedient. Without a communion rail, I see your point.
- Status