Search this Topic:
Feb 1 08 4:53 PM
Quote:Each piece of history with the English monarchy was connected...going into the French Monarchy. All was/is connected; even today with Northern Ireland....
Feb 1 08 4:56 PM
Feb 1 08 10:16 PM
Quote:Archbishop Ranjith said, the introduction of the practice of receiving Communion in the hand coincides with the beginning of "a gradual and growing weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred eucharistic species."
Feb 2 08 10:57 AM
Feb 2 08 12:24 PM
Quote:Hear, hear! And that also lead to the use of "extraordinary ministers" who stand there in the aisle in their jeans and sneakers handing out communion wafers as if they're just some crackers.
Feb 2 08 4:11 PM
Feb 3 08 1:09 PM
Quote:Archbishop Piero Marini served as papal master of ceremonies for some 20 years, under both John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict recently appointed him president of the Pontifical Committee for International Eucharistic Congresses, a position that is likely to carry with it a cardinal's red hat. Although it would have been far better if he had succeeded Cardinal Francis Arinze as Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the curial establishment in Rome would have raised a holy ruckus had such an appointment seriously been contemplated.That in itself tells us something about the state of the Church today. There is a small but powerful and determined group within the Vatican who have never accepted the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI. Their resistance is at root ecclesiological in nature.What they oppose is the de-clericalization of the liturgy. In their minds, the Church is identical with the hierarchy and the priests who serve under the bishops. The laity, on the other hand, are simply the beneficiaries of the sacramental ministrations of the clergy, in a process ultimately controlled by the Vatican.The problem for the resisters is not so much that the Mass was put into the vernacular, but that the laity could now fully understand it and actively participate in it.The same applies to the turning around of the altar to face the congregation. It was no longer the priest-in-charge reciting the sacred words and performing the sacred rituals on behalf of the laity, but the laity themselves participating in the Mass along with the priest, making responses, singing various parts, proclaiming the Scripture readings, and even assisting with the distribution of Holy Communion.And the same applies to the removal of the Communion rail and the receiving of Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue, while standing rather than kneeling. Each of these changes signaled again that the laity are not passive observers at Mass, but active participants.The Communion rail is gone because there should be no barrier between the sanctuary and the worshiping congregation. Communion is given in the hand because the laity should feed themselves rather than be fed like infants or very young children.The communicants stand rather than kneel because they approach the priest as co-equals with him in Baptism, not as serfs coming before their lord and master to express their fealty. It is this underlying ecclesiology that is rejected, and not simply the changes in language and rituals. What the resisters oppose is the very idea that the Church is the whole People of God, laity included, rather than the hierarchy and clergy alone.
Quote:The Communion rail is gone because there should be no barrier between the sanctuary and the worshiping congregation. [By this line of thought, the turned around altar is a "barrier".] Communion is given in the hand because the laity should feed themselves rather than be fed like infants or very young children. [This is a common position of the loony left: we are all grown up now. Modern man is so adult and sophisticated. Weve evolved out of the immaturity of past centuries to the point where we now stand in Gods presence, look Him or Her in the eye, stick our hands out and say "Gimme that!". This comment of McBrien reveals something very deeply rooted in the minds of progressivists.]The communicants stand rather than kneel because they approach the priest as co-equals with him in Baptism, not as serfs coming before their lord and master to express their fealty. [This gets at another point: Whereas most clear thinking and faithful Catholics know that at Mass they are not in fact kneeling before the priest, but rather kneeling before God in humility, McBrien and his co-religionists make kneeling an issue of "power" who has it, and how can I get some. This is how feminists see the priesthood: for them, ordination is a power-issue.]
Feb 3 08 3:33 PM
Feb 4 08 1:02 AM
Quote:"It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself (23-24)."
Quote:"Actually, I feel that I'm starting to sound like a lone voice in a wilderness because I haven't seen any other forum members document practices in their parishes that are less than wholly reverent. It's amazing to me, for instance, that Benodette and Unicorn have never experienced any of the bizarre behavior that is almost the norm in the United States."
Feb 4 08 1:45 AM
Quote:Communion is given in the hand because the laity should feed themselves rather than be fed like infants or very young children.
Quote:And that also lead to the use of "extraordinary ministers" who stand there in the aisle in their jeans and sneakers handing out communion wafers as if they're just some crackers. - RcesqThis isn't something that I feel can be excused away by a shortage of priests either. Before I left the Church, two priests or one priest and a deacon were more than enough to distribute communion, along the communion rails (which are no longer used), to a large church bursting at the seams. Unfortunately, from what I've seen in another parish, this seems to be an increasingly common phenomenon. Whilst I feel that the intention is good, it simply doesn't feel right receiving the host from an unordained lay person. To me, it signifies a 'break' in the sacredness of the proceedings. - PaxTibi
Quote:I learnt, within recent months, that the distribution of both species has only just been approved and it has met with a fair amount of resistance. Has anyone else experienced this?
Quote:The communicants stand rather than kneel because they approach the priest as co-equals with him in Baptism, not as serfs coming before their lord and master to express their fealty.
Quote:Weve evolved out of the immaturity of past centuries to the point where we now stand in Gods presence, look Him or Her in the eye, stick our hands out and say "Gimme that!".
Quote:This is a common position of the loony left ...
Quote:It's amazing to me, for instance, that Benodette and Unicorn have never experienced any of the bizarre behavior that is almost the norm in the United States.
Quote:How do we expect non-believers to take us seriously when we call each other names and hunker down in our own little ideological bunkers? We shouldn't be each other's enemy taking potshots at every opportunity Whatever one's taste is for different forms of the liturgy, sacred music, vestments, etc. we ought to be able to agree to disagree respectfully and act like the Christians we claim to be. From its very beginnings, there have been tensions within the Church and perhaps that is not altogether a bad thing. We can all learn from each other if it is done in the proper spirit of love of God and obedience to His Commandments with the understanding that there are answers that will always be hidden from us.
Feb 4 08 2:11 AM
Feb 4 08 2:24 AM
Feb 4 08 3:20 AM
Feb 4 08 3:39 AM
Quote:Distribution of the Body and Blood of the Lord41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words "The Body of Christ." The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: "When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost." 42. Among the ways of ministering the Precious Blood as prescribed by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Communion from the chalice is generally the preferred form in the Latin Church, provided that it can be carried out properly according to the norms and without any risk of even apparent irreverence toward the Blood of Christ. 43. The chalice is offered to the communicant with the words "The Blood of Christ," to which the communicant responds, "Amen."44. The chalice may never be left on the altar or another place to be picked up by the communicant for self-communication (except in the case of concelebrating bishops or priests), nor may the chalice be passed from one communicant to another. There shall always be a minister of the chalice.45. After each communicant has received the Blood of Christ, the minister carefully wipes both sides of the rim of the chalice with a purificator. This action is a matter of both reverence and hygiene. For the same reason, the minister turns the chalice slightly after each communicant has received the Precious Blood.46. It is the choice of the communicant, not the minister, to receive from the chalice.47. Children are encouraged to receive Communion under both kinds provided that they are properly instructed and that they are old enough to receive from the chalice.Other Forms of Distribution of the Precious Blood48. Distribution of the Precious Blood by a spoon or through a straw is not customary in the Latin dioceses of the United States of America.49. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: "the communicant, while holding the paten under the chin, approaches the priest who holds the vessel with the hosts and at whose side stands the minister holding the chalice. The priest takes the host, intincts the particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: 'The Body and Blood of Christ.' The communicant responds, 'Amen,' and receives the Sacrament on the tongue from the priest. Afterwards, the communicant returns to his or her place." 50. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
Quote: The Conference of Bishops allows the reception of the Body of the Lord in the hand. However, the choice whether to receive in this manner is the prerogative of the communicant. By tradition the deacon ministers the chalice. Beyond this, no distinctions are made in the assignment of the consecrated elements to particular ministers for distribution. Therefore when a concelebrating priest or priests and other ministers share in the distribution, the elements are not assigned on the basis of any distinction between the ministers, cleric or lay, male or female. All may minister either element. This avoids any seeming depreciation of one or other of the consecrated elements or of a particular ministry. If Communion under both kinds is given by intinction (which is not recommended in England and Wales), the communicant may choose to receive under the form of bread only. When Communion in the form of intinction is given, the following formula is said, The Body and Blood of Christ, and the communicant responds, Amen. Intinction can only be administered by a minister and may not be self-administered.
Feb 4 08 4:55 AM
Quote:Whatever one's taste is for different forms of the liturgy, sacred music, vestments, etc. we ought to be able to agree to disagree respectfully and act like the Christians we claim to be.
Quote: * * *3) Insufficient Weight Given to Magisterial Teaching While Catholicism is concerned to include a wide range of voices in the theological conversation, the teaching of the pope and bishops is often reduced to just another voice alongside those of private theologians. By presenting the range of views, the text is obviously intended to reflect the fact that there is serious debate over certain questions in the contemporary church. The problem is not that the book describes positions in opposition to those of the magisterium, but rather that its presentation often lends them more weight than the magisterium itself. The method in several controversial questions is to present the official teaching and then to follow it with a rebuttal by Catholics who disagree. The impression is thus given that the "official" teaching is only one among a number of opinions, in no way binding on the faithful. For example, the presentations of the questions of contraception, homosexuality and women's ordination all take for granted that these are open questions; the official church teaching appears as merely one of the options for the reader. Different positions are presented, and it is left to the reader to make a choice, while the text implies that the "official church position" is erroneous on all three points.In the treatment of contraception-one of those matters pointed to in the Committee on Doctrine's 1985 statement as "confusing and ambiguous"--it might have been appropriate to mention that five popes since 1930 have consistently taught that contraception is intrinsically evil. For this and other reasons, Catholics who reject this teaching would be invited to reconsider their positions. The treatment of contraception in Catholicism, however, does not encourage such Catholics to undertake a reconsideration of their views on the matter, but rather confirms them in their lack of acceptance of magisterial teaching. Likewise, the question of women's ordination is another problematic aspect of the book cited in the 1985 statement that has not been corrected. Again, the issue is handled simply as a "disputed question" in theology. The official teaching of the church is inserted in a section headed "arguments against," thus giving the impression that whatever doctrine the church may have on the question is not binding. A further weakness is that the arguments on each side are presented so succinctly that they are hardly intelligible unless one consults the documents to which the book refers. In particular, Catholicism gives an oversimplified summary of the 1976 report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The book maintains that the commission "reported that it could find no support for the exclusion of women from the ordained priesthood on the basis of the biblical evidence alone" (p. 776, emphasis added). It does not report the commission's statement that "the masculine character of the hierarchical order which has structured the church since its beginning thus seems attested to by Scripture in an undeniable way." While acknowledging that the New Testament by itself alone does not settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the priesthood," the report did say: Some think that in the Scriptures there are sufficient indications to exclude this possibility, considering that the sacraments of eucharist and reconciliation have a special link with the person of Christ and therefore with the male hierarchy, as borne out by the New Testament." Finally, there are passages in the book that speak of popes having "erred in matters of faith" (p. 781; cf. p. 762) and having come down on the side of a heretical position" (p. 479) without explaining the scope and significance of such errors. In the absence of further explanation, such statements could serve to cast doubt on the reliability of church teaching. Catholicism gives insufficient clarification on such issues. * * *
Feb 4 08 6:31 AM
Feb 4 08 12:20 PM
Feb 4 08 7:01 PM
Quote:"BUDWUD", You say you never read a liberal blog???? I mean no harm when I say that their strategy has worked well on you, as well as "BENODETTE" and UNICORN". Just like the Media, Radio and TV who predominate with "pop" and "rock" music...(never if extremely rarely playing classical-composition)...atuning one's ears only to the sound of popular music...and flooding the market with its shallow and superficial sound, destoying the capacity to relax, contemplate and appreciate works of "true devotional-art": You all mean well; but [believe it or not] their [the "Progessives"] propaganda has subtly been brainwashing you all, all along.... sneaky little devil....
Feb 4 08 9:11 PM
Quote:"Oh, I have never experienced anything like RCESQ has described..."
Feb 4 08 11:37 PM
Quote:...I've GROWN accustumed to "MY" Mass....The stolling, holding hands, use of the word "FRIENDS" (instead of disciples), the feminizing of the S c r i p t u r e s (where a standard pronoun used to appear), etc. and the "informality" of it all...(where one need not genuflect before sitting in a pew or passing-before the Holy Altar; or, need to keep silent until one is out of the Chapel)....Where "Fr. So & So" gives us such nice homilies and "Jean and Bob" have entertained us with such envigorating music! that I was bouncing in my seat...and I knew the "song" [It did not demand concentration , as "it is played all the time on my favorite 'Christian' radio-station"....]*"
Quote:That is why the Latin seems foreign to you, clerical symbolism appears mundane or has no important meaning,sung declamation of the Word and Reponses and The Proclamation of the Gospel seem redundant, "classical music" bores the majority. Reception of the Host on the tongue seems rare and strange ("Why do some people still feel they must receive Christ 'that' way?" , candelabras and the Crucifix adorning the Altar appears "excessive and interferring the sight of the view"...and mention of Our Holy Father is only heard rather jumbled and quickly in the one line of the Mass (for "WE are the Body" .... Do I need to go on?"
Quote:"I was beginning, once again, to see this Forum, turning into a liberal exercise of a superficial, relatative perspective...of all things are "goody, goody" as long as we all love Jesus...."
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.