No More Communion in the Hand!
#41
(02-09-2013, 01:07 PM)Meg Wrote: In the recent EWTN interview that Bishop Athanasius Schneider gave on the importance of restoring the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, I think he mentioned that in former days long ago, when communion was received in the hand, there were strict precautions that were used which are not used today. For instance, the hands had to be folded in a certain way, and women had to wear gloves. Also, they never actually touched the Sacred Host with their fingers, but rather the host was picked up with the tongue from the palm of the hand. And any leftover fragments on the hand also had to be picked up with the tongue. They were quite fussy in those days, and for good reason.

Yes, they received in the right hand, not the left. Today they tell us to make a cradle with our left hand to receive the Host. Another total about face.

Reply
#42
(02-08-2013, 01:35 AM)mortify Wrote:
(02-07-2013, 06:24 PM)quo warranto Wrote: Because of terrible abuses like this happening in our churches; Isn't it time to put an end to communion in the hand? And how can we make this much needed change happen?

Just to jot back to the original post here, I'm not so sure that restrictiong communion to on the tongue would solve such a problem. It's easily conceivable that someone could simply receive on the tongue, not swallow and then remove the Eucharist from their mouth.
I remember hearing about just such a situation many years ago in Haiti. There was a "pius" old lady who went to mass every day. She recieved communion on the tongue every day. In reality she was a witch who recieved the host to use in voodoo ceremonies.
Reply
#43
(02-10-2013, 02:26 AM)charlesh Wrote: This is the surest sign that the priests at that church do not believe in transubstantiation. If they did, they would not have reacted with indifference. How do you know what people really believe? Ignore what they say; pay attention to what they do.

This is exactly right.  And if these priests don't believe in transubstantiation, that means their intent in concecration is lacking.  Right?  Which in turn means it really isn't the Real Presence, right?

The general festive tone set by many priests in the novus ordo at least subtly indicates they don't believe in transubstantiation.  Today I am shaking the dust from my feet and going to Mass at an independent chapel I have visited a couple of times and I am praying for the resolve to not return to the diocesan TLM.
Reply
#44
So... If a priest cracks a joke in his homily... He's denying the Real Presence of Our Lord and thus his Mass is invalid...

Okay... Then... Makes... Sense?
Reply
#45
(02-10-2013, 09:19 AM)OHCA Wrote:
(02-10-2013, 02:26 AM)charlesh Wrote: This is the surest sign that the priests at that church do not believe in transubstantiation. If they did, they would not have reacted with indifference. How do you know what people really believe? Ignore what they say; pay attention to what they do.

This is exactly right.  And if these priests don't believe in transubstantiation, that means their intent in concecration is lacking.  Right?  Which in turn means it really isn't the Real Presence, right?

The general festive tone set by many priests in the novus ordo at least subtly indicates they don't believe in transubstantiation.  Today I am shaking the dust from my feet and going to Mass at an independent chapel I have visited a couple of times and I am praying for the resolve to not return to the diocesan TLM.

I am confused. How does what happened in the OP make you want to leave a diocesan TLM and go independent?
Reply
#46
(02-10-2013, 11:00 AM)verenaerin Wrote: I am confused. How does what happened in the OP make you want to leave a diocesan TLM and go independent?

I'm not deciding based on this incident.  This incident merely coincides with my decision and is one more reason to doubt that some (I think many) priests even believe in the Real Presence.  But no--I am not so rash as to let this isolated incident play a major role in my decision.
Reply
#47
(02-10-2013, 12:38 PM)OHCA Wrote:
(02-10-2013, 11:00 AM)verenaerin Wrote: I am confused. How does what happened in the OP make you want to leave a diocesan TLM and go independent?

I'm not deciding based on this incident.  This incident merely coincides with my decision and is one more reason to doubt that some (I think many) priests even believe in the Real Presence.  But no--I am not so rash as to let this isolated incident play a major role in my decision.

Oh, ok. But if you will... Why would you assume that a priest who is saying the TLM doesn't believe in the Real Presence. We all know that these diocesan priests go through hell to be able to say the Mass. I know so many that have been so unjustly persecuted from their Bishop because of it. And as far as FSSP, they are the best priests I've ever met. I can't speak for the other groups- St. John Canthus, etc. but from what I have read, it is very clear how orthodox they are. I am not trying to start an argument. I have just seen others say the same as you and always wondered. If you prefer not to answer that's ok.
Reply
#48
verenaerin,

I appreciate your inquiry and your concern.  I do not take offense at your statements or questions.  Please don't be offended by what I have to say either.

I am troubled by the new rite ordinations and episcopal consecrations (granted, given the age of the priest at the diocesan Mass I was attending that's probably not an issue); I am troubled by the ambiguity and double-speak with regard to moral conduct; I am troubled by the Assisi events--I believe these events are inherently evil and the result of them has been many Catholics now think it is perfectly fine to attend heretical services based on the example of 2 popes; I am troubled that traditional Catholics are grated like the step-children and that the other extreme is embraced; I am troubled by the novus ordo even continuing to exist in the church, particularly in light of the abuses and irreverancies which are inherent as it is "protestantized" and the sacrificial nature thereof is watered-down at best.  I believe that the existence of the SSPX is the only reason we have the FSSP and the motu.

I am afraid that if the SSPX is assimilated "back in" that in a few years the practice of tradition will be tightened down again.  It is hard for me to think that the novus ordo which de-emphasizes at best, does away with at worst, the sacrificial nature of the Mass and the inherently resulting irreverancies and abuses, and the unclear stands and teachings regarding moral conduct are occurring under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  I have been placated with the TLM for quite sometime.  But the recent SSPX rumblings got me to looking around.  The "mainstream" church is same mushy watered-down to non-existent Catholicism that it has been all of my life.  I believe truer and purer Roman Catholicism still and will always exist and I shall partake of it.

I understand that these are hard words.  I am not attacking anyone.  I am not faulting anyone for believing the conciliar church is where they need to be.  How could I?  I too believed that for all these years.  But nothing has changed (despite the scantly offered motu); nothing is going to change in the near future; and as soon as the SSPX is duped (more likely as soon as the SSPX leadership dupes the faithful) "acceptable" options for tradition will be decimated and tradition will soon be assimilated with modernism.
Reply
#49
OK, thanks for taking the time to explain. It's like you are going down to your bunker till later, better times. While I don't agree with you, I certainly can understand the motives for your actions.

Like I said, I really appreciate your cordial response. :)
Reply
#50
(02-10-2013, 09:46 AM)City Smurf Wrote: So... If a priest cracks a joke in his homily... He's denying the Real Presence of Our Lord and thus his Mass is invalid...

Okay... Then... Makes... Sense?

Boy, they'd have problems with some of the Masses I heard before the Council! :LOL: Fr O'Shea, a priest ordained on the Ould Sod in, I would guess the late 20s or early 30s, was famous for cracking jokes to emphasise points in his solidly orthodox sermons. :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)