Does the Novus Ordo church possess the Four Marks of the Church?
#31
(06-03-2021, 12:42 AM)Bushum Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 04:46 PM)AlNg777 Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 03:36 PM)Bataar Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 01:23 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: What errors do you mean, Bataar, and why will people be damned for accepting them?
Taking communion in the hand for example. That used to be considered a grave sin. 
At the last Supper, did the Apostles commit a grave sin by taking communion in the hand?

The apostles were bishops.


Not to try to derail the thread but at what point were the apostles bishops.

Which of the times they received the Holy Spirit was the one which anointed or ordained them bishops?

At different times during our Church's history, communion in the had of the people was practiced.   If one prefers to receive on the tongue, great that is an accepted method according to the Church, but so is reception in the hand.
Reply
#32
(06-03-2021, 01:33 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: Not to try to derail the thread but at what point were the apostles bishops.

Which of the times they received the Holy Spirit was the one which anointed or ordained them bishops?
When Christ said "Do this for a commemoration of me.".
Reply
#33
(06-03-2021, 12:45 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 01:33 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: Not to try to derail the thread but at what point were the apostles bishops.

Which of the times they received the Holy Spirit was the one which anointed or ordained them bishops?
When Christ said "Do this for a commemoration of me.".
We’re the apostles bishops? Or were the first bishops appointed by the apostles by the laying of hands?
"Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."  Matthew 9:10-14
Reply
#34
(06-03-2021, 12:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 12:45 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 01:33 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: Not to try to derail the thread but at what point were the apostles bishops.

Which of the times they received the Holy Spirit was the one which anointed or ordained them bishops?
When Christ said "Do this for a commemoration of me.".
We’re the apostles bishops? Or were the first bishops appointed by the apostles by the laying of hands?

I don't have an answer for that.   Based on my simple understanding, Priests are ordain and the Holy Spirit is asked to come upon them.  

There are several times when the Holy Spirit was conveyed upon the Apostles.  In the upper room after Christ had risen, and they were given the ability to forgive men's sins.

Prior to Christ's ascension, it appears that the Holy Spirit was once again conveyed upon them, and Christ instructed them to baptize all nations.

It is not fully clear as to when the Apostles were actually ordained by Christ, whether it was before or after the last supper.
Reply
#35
(06-03-2021, 12:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: We’re the apostles bishops? Or were the first bishops appointed by the apostles by the laying of hands?
Christ was the first bishop of the New Testament. He made the apostles bishops.
Reply
#36
(06-03-2021, 02:40 PM)Marmot Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 12:54 PM)The Tax Collector Wrote: We’re the apostles bishops? Or were the first bishops appointed by the apostles by the laying of hands?
Christ was the first bishop of the New Testament. He made the apostles bishops.


At what point?
Reply
#37
(06-03-2021, 01:03 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(06-03-2021, 12:42 AM)Bushum Wrote: The apostles were bishops.

So? Even a Bishop receives on the tongue if he's not celebrating the TLM. However, we know that reception in the hand, in a very reverent manner totally unlike the horrid method today, was practised in the Early Church.
He asked if they were committing a grave sin by receiving in the hand.  My answer was that they were bishops making the question moot as they would be allowed to touch the host either way.
Reply
#38
(06-02-2021, 03:36 PM)Bataar Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 01:23 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: What errors do you mean, Bataar, and why will people be damned for accepting them?
Taking communion in the hand for example. That used to be considered a grave sin. Only a priest with consecrated hands was permitted to touch the sacred host. If it was true then, it's true now. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that it's okay for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist. If a non Catholic receives it, it is a mortal sin. Granted, if a person is ignorant of this, their culpability is likely lessoned, but if the Code of Canon Law is followed, mortal sins will be committed.

Ish on the true then vs now argument. The church has the power to bind and loose. In the case of communion on the hand, it was bound by the church under pain of sin. However, since Vatican 2, that has been loosed once again, thus the punishment is now no longer connected to receiving on the hand. An argument can be made for receiving in a manner not becoming of our Lord, but that is a separate issue.
Reply
#39
(06-07-2021, 10:59 AM)Sword of St. Michael Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 03:36 PM)Bataar Wrote:
(06-02-2021, 01:23 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: What errors do you mean, Bataar, and why will people be damned for accepting them?
Taking communion in the hand for example. That used to be considered a grave sin. Only a priest with consecrated hands was permitted to touch the sacred host. If it was true then, it's true now. The 1983 Code of Canon Law states that it's okay for non-Catholics to receive the Eucharist. If a non Catholic receives it, it is a mortal sin. Granted, if a person is ignorant of this, their culpability is likely lessoned, but if the Code of Canon Law is followed, mortal sins will be committed.

Ish on the true then vs now argument. The church has the power to bind and loose. In the case of communion on the hand, it was bound by the church under pain of sin. However, since Vatican 2, that has been loosed once again, thus the punishment is now no longer connected to receiving on the hand. An argument can be made for receiving in a manner not becoming of our Lord, but that is a separate issue.
Was it though?  As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, receiving on the hand was and still is an indult granted for grave reasons.  It seems incrementalism and the slippery slope has more to do with it than the Church changing its teaching.
[-] The following 2 users Like Bushum's post:
  • Fortunabeargirl, jovan66102
Reply
#40
(06-09-2021, 11:15 PM)Bushum Wrote: Was it though?  As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, receiving on the hand was and still is an indult granted for grave reasons.  It seems incrementalism and the slippery slope has more to do with it than the Church changing its teaching.

Yep. Communion on the tongue is still the norm and that's why there was such an uproar when the Bishops illegally and unjustly banned it during the CCP virus pandemic. It is the right of any Latin Rite Catholic to receive on the tongue according to the legal norm at any time. It simply meant that there was no distribution of Holy Communion at TLMs and many people at NOs couldn't receive Communion because they wouldn't accept the Bishops' cuckoo land reasoning. So, thanks to their 'shepherds' loving care for their immortal souls they were deprived of the grace of Holy Communion to 'protect' their corruptible bodies.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)