FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: For all the NOers here: Jesus in on the floor
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(08-19-2012, 10:04 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 10:02 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 09:59 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Communion in the hand IS an abuse. 

Not if the Communion in question isn't really Our Lord.  And let's be honest here.  All Fisheaters know the NO is invalid and worse.  It's impossible to abuse a piece of bread.  Q.E.D.

Haha, of course. 

But in seriousness, I'm not so sure that that many fisheaters think the NO is invalid, as in transubstantiation doesn't take place.  Maybe we should have a poll. 

An excellent idea, sir!  Sadly, I've had my poll-taking privileges revoked.  It's a sad situation.
I've taken care of it.
What a powerful video!  It really hit home.

(08-18-2012, 01:37 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I strongly feel that reception of Communion in the hand should be abolished, for reasons including that it does lead to fragments of the Host being left on the ground. I myself once found a relatively large, 1 by .5 centimeter Host fragment that had been dropped on the ground before the sanctuary.  In this case, Christ's Body was indeed dropped on the ground and left there, something that could have been avoided with Communion only on the tongue. (This isn't to say that Communion in the hand is an incentive to impiety.)

At the same time, though, I don't think it's theologically accurate to say that flakes that break off from a Host--flakes indistinguishable from dust--are the Body of Christ.  Once the Host loses the appearance of bread, Christ is no longer substantially present there. We should still exercise the greatest caution in dealing even with the smaller particles (caution exemplified by the priest's clamping together his "canonical digits"), though, out of reverence for the sacrament in general and because larger crumbs that do maintain the accidents of bread are also possible.

Resurrexi,
Please consider:
"If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. 4: Denz. 886).

and also:
"[T]he Real Presence of Christ continues as long as the species... remain;" it ceases "when the species are corrupted" (Dr. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387).



fatiam13,
How about using The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism?  I've read that Bible history should be taught alongside Catechism.
(08-19-2012, 03:18 PM)lumine Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 02:00 PM)Spooky Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The important part is that I receive my Lord and Savior.

Who cares about reverence for the Sacred, as long as I get mine!


Is that supposed t be my thought that YOU are posting?  It isn't.  I have great reverence for the Body and Blood of my Lord.  How would you know?

But reverence isn't just about internal dispositions.

One may feel great respect for his country, but if he fails to put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, I wouldn't describe him as practicing reverence for it.
(08-19-2012, 10:02 PM)fatiam13 Wrote: [ -> ]JC

Fr. McMahon that's his name.
As I understand it the school is grades 8 thru 12. That's a long way off. My biggest concern is what kind of catechesis will my grandson get in those formative years. His parents will be unable to pay to have him go to Catholic school. Is there any way I could take a course to teach catechism in a traditional way? After he receives his first communion in the hand I'll get my son and daughter in law's permission and take him with me to TLM and introduce him to COTT. Was it Cardinal Burke who said the NO is faith endangering?

Again, as I said, the money is not the main thing.  If the family is committed, then Fr. will find a way for him to be able to come.  However, if they're intending his first communion to be in the hand, it's going to be more difficult, for sure.

As to Cdl. Burke, I have no idea, but it does sound like him.
(08-19-2012, 09:31 PM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 09:10 PM)fatiam13 Wrote: [ -> ]Junior Councilor

Funny you should ask, I was planning on visiting this weekend. When we were on the Chartres Pilgrimage this spring we met a couple from Michigan who spoke highly of the priest there. I can't remember his name but he's was supposed to be attending the Roman Forum at Lake Garda this past July. After hearing of the school I decided to check it out online. It's intrigued me and I have a grandson who'll be entering the first grade tomorrow. I guess I fantasize about saving up the money and sending him to school there.

The reason I ask, is because I worked there as a teacher for two years, and lived in the vicinity for another.  Fr. McMahon, the headmaster, is indeed an incredible priest-- not always the easiest to live with, but in my humble opinion, a very holy and wonderful priest.  The other two priests there, Fr. McBride and Fr. Dailey, although young, are also quite good.

Think seriously about sending your grandson there, if you can.  It's a great place.  The money is not really the main issue.  Don't get me wrong, it's a huge issue, but at the same time, Father is very willing to work with you in order to help  your kid get a really Catholic education.  You have the advantage, as I understand it, of living not that far away.  If you could come up some time and do some kind of volunteer work for the school-- Father absolutely loves that sort of thing.  Small but steady contributions also have an effect.  I would definitely say sending your grandson there is not out of the question-- just a question of sacrifice!  If you want to talk more about it, feel free to PM me.

La Salette!

Lovely place.  I occasionally attend Mass there.  Fr. Dailey (who offers Mass at the SSPX Indy chapel) is wonderful, as well.

If you can, definitely send your boys to La Salette. 
(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]What a powerful video!  It really hit home.

(08-18-2012, 01:37 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I strongly feel that reception of Communion in the hand should be abolished, for reasons including that it does lead to fragments of the Host being left on the ground. I myself once found a relatively large, 1 by .5 centimeter Host fragment that had been dropped on the ground before the sanctuary.  In this case, Christ's Body was indeed dropped on the ground and left there, something that could have been avoided with Communion only on the tongue. (This isn't to say that Communion in the hand is an incentive to impiety.)

At the same time, though, I don't think it's theologically accurate to say that flakes that break off from a Host--flakes indistinguishable from dust--are the Body of Christ.  Once the Host loses the appearance of bread, Christ is no longer substantially present there. We should still exercise the greatest caution in dealing even with the smaller particles (caution exemplified by the priest's clamping together his "canonical digits"), though, out of reverence for the sacrament in general and because larger crumbs that do maintain the accidents of bread are also possible.

Resurrexi,
Please consider:
"If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. 4: Denz. 886).

The original Latin of the relevant bit is, "in hostiis seu particulis consecratis." As far as I can tell, the Fathers of the Council of Trent are using "consecrated particles" as being practically synonymous with "hosts." You'll find the hosts the people receive in Communion not uncommonly referred to as "particles" in Latin works from the period.

(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]and also:
"[T]he Real Presence of Christ continues as long as the species... remain;" it ceases "when the species are corrupted" (Dr. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387).

Does a microscopic speck indistinguishable from dust really retain the accidents of bread in any meaningful sense?
(08-19-2012, 10:33 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]What a powerful video!  It really hit home.

(08-18-2012, 01:37 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I strongly feel that reception of Communion in the hand should be abolished, for reasons including that it does lead to fragments of the Host being left on the ground. I myself once found a relatively large, 1 by .5 centimeter Host fragment that had been dropped on the ground before the sanctuary.  In this case, Christ's Body was indeed dropped on the ground and left there, something that could have been avoided with Communion only on the tongue. (This isn't to say that Communion in the hand is an incentive to impiety.)

At the same time, though, I don't think it's theologically accurate to say that flakes that break off from a Host--flakes indistinguishable from dust--are the Body of Christ.  Once the Host loses the appearance of bread, Christ is no longer substantially present there. We should still exercise the greatest caution in dealing even with the smaller particles (caution exemplified by the priest's clamping together his "canonical digits"), though, out of reverence for the sacrament in general and because larger crumbs that do maintain the accidents of bread are also possible.

Resurrexi,
Please consider:
"If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. 4: Denz. 886).

The original Latin of the relevant bit is, "in hostiis seu particulis consecratis." As far as I can tell, the Fathers of the Council of Trent are using "consecrated particles" as being practically synonymous with "hosts." You'll find the hosts the people receive in Communion not uncommonly referred to as "particles" in Latin works from the period.

(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]and also:
"[T]he Real Presence of Christ continues as long as the species... remain;" it ceases "when the species are corrupted" (Dr. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387).

Does a microscopic speck indistinguishable from dust really retain the accidents of bread in any meaningful sense?

The preceding canon is also quite explicit:  "If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema" (Op. cit., can. 4: Denz. 885).  And again:  "For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species..." (ch. 3: Denz. 876).

If I am to believe that Christ is present under the appearance of bread, then even the tiniest particle, so long as it hasn't been corrupted, is truly the Body of Our Lord.
(08-19-2012, 09:39 PM)moneil Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 09:19 PM)Spooky Wrote: [ -> ]What's the percentage of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence? 20%? I'm going to go out on a limb and blame that pathetic number directly on how Holy Communion is treated in the NO, either thru abuses or the inherent de-emphases on the sacrificial aspect.

I don't know where you got your "20%" but it is just plain wrong.

http://cara.georgetown.edu/genreal.jpg

I don't remember where I read it, and it could have been 30% who believe. If 70% do believe He is Really and Truly Present, then why do they treat Him so awful? That seems even worse; not believing would explain their sacrileges and abuses. But to believe Jesus Christ is Present in the Blessed Sacrament and still act that way...SMH
(08-19-2012, 10:49 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 10:33 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]What a powerful video!  It really hit home.

(08-18-2012, 01:37 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: [ -> ]I strongly feel that reception of Communion in the hand should be abolished, for reasons including that it does lead to fragments of the Host being left on the ground. I myself once found a relatively large, 1 by .5 centimeter Host fragment that had been dropped on the ground before the sanctuary.  In this case, Christ's Body was indeed dropped on the ground and left there, something that could have been avoided with Communion only on the tongue. (This isn't to say that Communion in the hand is an incentive to impiety.)

At the same time, though, I don't think it's theologically accurate to say that flakes that break off from a Host--flakes indistinguishable from dust--are the Body of Christ.  Once the Host loses the appearance of bread, Christ is no longer substantially present there. We should still exercise the greatest caution in dealing even with the smaller particles (caution exemplified by the priest's clamping together his "canonical digits"), though, out of reverence for the sacrament in general and because larger crumbs that do maintain the accidents of bread are also possible.

Resurrexi,
Please consider:
"If anyone says that after the completion of the consecration that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ is not in the marvelous sacrament of the Eucharist, but only in use, while it is taken, not however before or after, and that in the hosts or consecrated particles, which are reserved or remain after communion, the true body of the Lord does not remain: let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. 4: Denz. 886).

The original Latin of the relevant bit is, "in hostiis seu particulis consecratis." As far as I can tell, the Fathers of the Council of Trent are using "consecrated particles" as being practically synonymous with "hosts." You'll find the hosts the people receive in Communion not uncommonly referred to as "particles" in Latin works from the period.

(08-19-2012, 10:11 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]and also:
"[T]he Real Presence of Christ continues as long as the species... remain;" it ceases "when the species are corrupted" (Dr. L. Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 387).

Does a microscopic speck indistinguishable from dust really retain the accidents of bread in any meaningful sense?

The preceding canon is also quite explicit:  "If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema" (Op. cit., can. 4: Denz. 885).  And again:  "For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under any part whatsoever of that species..." (ch. 3: Denz. 876).

If I am to believe that Christ is present under the appearance of bread, then even the tiniest particle, so long as it hasn't been corrupted, is truly the Body of Our Lord.

I'm not denying anything quoted from Trent above. I firmly and sincerely believe that the Christ, whole and entire, is contained under any part of the species of bread in the Eucharist. What I am not about to accept is that a fleck of microscopic dust constitutes the species of bread.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13