Life Teen
#11
(06-03-2011, 08:37 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-03-2011, 03:18 AM)OrthodoxMom Wrote: last week, a college friend came to visit and I had to explain to her why we aren't allowed to kneel after receiving Holy Communion. We have been instructed to stand as a sign that receiving the precious Body of Christ is a community action and nobody can kneel or sit until all have been "served."  when our pastor explained this to our parish, he specifically said that we should NOT consider or think of the reception of Holy Communion as a private act of communion with Our Lord. But instead as a community event.  I realize I am not a theologian but this contradicts my understanding.

Your pastor is wrong.  You are allowed to receive kneeling and his reasoning is messed up.  You are receiving bad teaching there and have good grounds to want to go somewhere else.  Perhaps you can find another OF parish where the teaching is better or an EF Mass that is not associated with the SSPX. Perhaps if you had a specific place in mind you could then explain to your husband why you think it is better.

Her pastor didn't forbid kneeling for the reception of Communion, but kneeling after Communion.  When it was explained to us, back in the 90's sometime (I'm also in L.A.), it was not only so that everyone observed the same posture, but to keep people from sitting and yakking it up during Communion.  Unfortunately, in places where I've visited that kneeling has continued to be the norm after receiving Communion, there is actually a lot of sitting and talking.  Somehow, when people remain standing, there really does seem to be less of that.

Edited to add:  And LifeTeen needs to be eliminated, and the happy-clappy babyboomers who are the ones keeping it alive need to be flogged.
Reply
#12
(06-03-2011, 01:56 PM)HolySouls Wrote: Her pastor didn't forbid kneeling for the reception of Communion, but kneeling after Communion.  When it was explained to us, back in the 90's sometime (I'm also in L.A.), it was not only so that everyone observed the same posture, but to keep people from sitting and yakking it up during Communion.  Unfortunately, in places where I've visited that kneeling has continued to be the norm after receiving Communion, there is actually a lot of sitting and talking.  Somehow, when people remain standing, there really does seem to be less of that.

If people are gabbing right after receiving communion, there's a much more fundamental problem than their posture.  No one with a firm belief in the Real Presence would turn outside of himself so soon after receiving Our Lord and start yakking about the weather.

But the point is that standing after communion isn't required - even at the NO.  Authorities much higher than parish priests have addressed this.
Reply
#13
(06-02-2011, 08:37 PM)OrthodoxMom Wrote: Is there anybody here who thinks that Life Teen is a GOOD thing? I am horrified at the vast number of parishes that use it. I had my hopes up (for a brief moment) when Archbishop Gomez took over (we are in Los Angeles) but it doesn't appear as if there are going to be any changes.

I just spent some time searching the internet and I cannot find anything substantial that I can send to parishes or the Archdiocese. One of my children is ready to receive his Confirmation, (meaning he is ready to begin the two program at the parish) but all the local parishes (in our area) adhere to this insane program.

If anybody has any resources (perhaps it has been discussed here before) would you be so kind as to provide them?

I attend daily an SSPX Church, but my husband is not on board and would like our children to receive all their Sacraments at a parish formally connected to the Diocese (though when I ask at the SSPX Church, I am told they are in full communion....though the Pastor at "our" parish Church says otherwise - any help on that would be appreciated as well!).

Thanks so much everybody!

Give the archbishop time; Rome wasn't built in one day. People will be much more accepting of change, even change in the right direction, if it is done slowly.
Reply
#14
It is better to go to confession for missing Mass than go to LifeTeen.
Reply
#15
(06-03-2011, 02:15 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: It is better to go to confession for missing Mass than go to LifeTeen.

This.  And in all honesty, I'd probably be more worried about confessing going.
Reply
#16
(06-03-2011, 01:56 PM)HolySouls Wrote:
Quote:Your pastor is wrong.  You are allowed to receive kneeling and his reasoning is messed up.  You are receiving bad teaching there and have good grounds to want to go somewhere else.  Perhaps you can find another OF parish where the teaching is better or an EF Mass that is not associated with the SSPX. Perhaps if you had a specific place in mind you could then explain to your husband why you think it is better.

Her pastor didn't forbid kneeling for the reception of Communion, but kneeling after Communion. 

You are right.  I misunderstood her post.  Fortunately Pheo did a better job than I.  He understood the situation and gave an excellent response.
Reply
#17
(06-03-2011, 02:15 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote: It is better to go to confession for missing Mass than go to LifeTeen.

If Our Lord goes to that Mass, surely you could go too? It's excruciating- but Christ is there. And there is a precept to attend Mass on Sundays. If even if that entails terrible liturgy. But sometimes, it is the only way.

And before anyone brings out the analogy of "Would you go to a black mass"- the cases can't be compared, because at least in lifeteen, people's hearts are usually in the right place- they just don't know better.
Reply
#18
(06-02-2011, 09:53 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(06-02-2011, 08:37 PM)OrthodoxMom Wrote: Is there anybody here who thinks that Life Teen is a GOOD thing? I am horrified at the vast number of parishes that use it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it is good, but it isn't necessarily bad.  It depends on how it is being implemented in the parish. 

There are many good things that can be said about the SSPX but it is not in full communion with Rome.

Your husband is the spiritual head of your family.
SSPX ARE IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

10/02/11 14:59





The record needs to be set straight on this...

(www.RemnantNewspaper.com)One of the advantages of being a columnist for The Remnant is the great therapeutic value of a forum in which to vent a Catholic’s frustration over the prevailing confusion in what Italians call il dopoconcilio—the period following the Second Vatican Council. Who knows how many serious health consequences I have averted by discharging on these pages the burden of angst over so much of what is dopey in the dopoconcilio? It is time to vent again.

Speaking of dopey, the executive producer of RealCatholicTV.com has just issued this “official position” concerning the Society of Saint Pius X: “The SSPX are not in full communion with the Church and are invited by the Church to rediscover this path.”

Ah yes, that mysterious “path” to the ever-elusive spiritual goal of “full communion.” It seems to suggest a neo-Catholic analogue to the eightfold path of Buddhism which, if only SSPX could “rediscover” it, would lead all its adherents to that exalted platform of enlightenment attainable only through a joyful abandonment to the ineffable teachings of the Second Vatican Council: a council the same, yet different, from all the other councils; novel yet traditional; new, yet old; pastoral, yet doctrinal; an opening of ecclesiastical chakras to certain energies of the modern world; an “event” whose meaning can only be intuited, but never made explicit, according to a “true interpretation” that is lurking somewhere, surely, but has yet to be found. Listen carefully, Grasshopper, and you will hear the Council in soft breezes flowing through poplars on Roman hills. It is the sound of one hand clapping.

Quite simply, have we not had far more than enough of this gnostic twaddle? Let us reason together. Let us do what traditionalists have always done: confront obscurantism and intellectual dishonesty with a few statements of the obvious. Right reason, the Jesuits called it, back when they were still in the right reason business. Back when the Church was still in the right reason business. A few statements of the obvious, then. A dozen, to be exact:

First, thanks to Pope Benedict, the four bishops of the SSPX are no longer under a sentence of excommunication, if indeed they ever were.

Second, the priests and faithful of the SSPX were never excommunicated in the first place, which is why Pope Benedict had no need to revoke any excommunication as to them.

Third, one who is not excommunicated from the Church is able to receive all the sacraments of the Church, including Holy Communion, and no one in the Vatican, much less the Pope, has even suggested otherwise regarding the SSPX.

Fourth, neither the SSPX bishops, nor its priests, nor its religious, nor its lay faithful stand accused of heresy, which would involve obstinate doubt or denial of an article of divine and Catholic faith.

Fifth, one who is (a) baptized in the Church, (b) not excommunicated, © able to receive all the Sacraments, and (d) not a heretic, is—I have this on good authority—a Catholic.

Sixth, Catholics are in communion with the Catholic Church.

Seventh, there is no such thing as a “partial” Catholic, and thus no such thing as a true Catholic in “partial communion” with the Church.

Eighth, the SSPX are true Catholics.

SUBSCRIBE TO THE REMNANT

Ninth, no one at the Vatican has ever claimed that the SSPX are not true Catholics, but on the contrary numerous Vatican prelates and the Pope himself have declared that they are true Catholics whose organization is in a canonically irregular situation (which could be rectified by an appropriate decree).

Tenth, the SSPX are not non-Catholics.

Eleventh, according to the principle of non-contradiction the clergy and laity of SSPX cannot be Catholic and not Catholic at one and the same time.

Twelfth, according to the principle of the excluded middle, the statement “the SSPX are Catholics” is either true or false, objectively speaking (subjective dispositions of particular individuals being beyond our ken).

Conclusion: the contention that the Catholics of the SSPX are not in “full communion” with the Catholic Church of which they are indubitably members is nonsense. Just as nonsensical is the idea that the likes of Mahony and Gumbleton are in “full communion” with the Church but not the SSPX bishops, or that legions of pew Catholics every bit as heterodox as the most liberal of Protestants are in “full communion,” but not the laity of the SSPX, who accept every single binding teaching of the Magisterium on faith and morals.

The SSPX affair demonstrates how the ambiguous conciliar neologism “full communion” and its flipside, “partial communion,” cause enormous damage to the Church. At one and the same time non-Catholics, now hailed and feted at ecumenical gatherings, are no longer viewed as heretics or schismatics because they are deemed to have a nebulous “partial communion” with the Church, while Catholic traditionalists are denounced and ostracized for lacking an equally nebulous “full communion”—denounced and ostracized by the same critics who praise the “partial communion” of a vast array of actual heretics and schismatics that rejects practically everything the Church teaches.



SUBSCRIBE TO THE REMNANT

By the way, concerning the Koran-kissing scandal, one neo-Catholic commentator, having concluded reluctantly that there is no way around it—the Pope kissed the Koran—suggested that “Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.” I happen to agree with this commentator that the gesture may have been impulsive, but it was never repudiated, not even after the Chaldean patriarch, Raphael Bidawid, publicly praised the Pope for having “kissed it [the Koran] as a sign of respect.”

The Church has been turned upside down in the name of an ecumenical council whose “true interpretation” continues to be debated more than half a century after it closed. The Vatican itself has invited none other than the SSPX’s theological experts, and only them, to a series of sessions to discuss with Vatican experts this “true interpretation,” which of course cannot simply be put to the SSPX–or to us, for that matter—in so many words. For no formula of mere words could ever capture the essence of “the real Council.”

Meanwhile, Catholic churchmen continue their futile post-conciliar “dialogue” with morally bankrupt Protestant clergy, perpetually indignant liberal rabbis, and fiercely fundamentalist Imams. The whole Western world succumbs to silent apostasy. No longer facing opposition from pathologically irenic Churchmen who wish only to befriend it, Islam rises everywhere without impediment. It is rising most rapidly in France, whose government, crippled by its own rigid laicism, attempts ridiculous secular countermeasures, such as banning burkas on the grounds that they constitute illegal identity concealment, at the same time it relentlessly dismantles what is left of the moral order in that once most Catholic of nations.

Yet, in the midst of civilizational apostasy and vast ecclesial wreckage provoked entirely by purported “mandates” of Vatican II, the only Catholics accused of lacking “full communion” with the Church are a group of traditionalists who not only had no part in the wreckage but have steadfastly resisted it. The wreckers, on the other hand, are presumed to be in “full communion” with the very Church they have wrecked.

Let’s give the “full communion” crowd what they deserve for their laughable defamation of faithful Catholics: the rhetorical equivalent of a custard pie in the kisser, the classic American way of deflating the pompous and the sanctimonious. Really. Enough of this nonsense.

There, I feel better now. Thank you, Mr. Editor
Reply
#19
(06-03-2011, 03:18 AM)OrthodoxMom Wrote: last week, a college friend came to visit and I had to explain to her why we aren't allowed to kneel after receiving Holy Communion. We have been instructed to stand as a sign that receiving the precious Body of Christ is a community action and nobody can kneel or sit until all have been "served."  when our pastor explained this to our parish, he specifically said that we should NOT consider or think of the reception of Holy Communion as a private act of communion with Our Lord. But instead as a community event. 

Are you sure your priest has the intent to confect the Eucharist?
Reply
#20
This thread is unbearable, I feel my blood pressure go up.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)