Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for discussion for anyone who adheres to the Extraordinary form of the mass and any issues related to the practices of Eastern Rite Catholicism.

Saint Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Athanasius

Mar 23rd 2013 new

(Quote) Gabor-19025 said: Ed, I suggest you re-read my post and address what I have actually written ra...
(Quote) Gabor-19025 said:


Ed,

I suggest you re-read my post and address what I have actually written rather than what I am "implying" which is distorted beyond belief by you. The reason for my post was primarily in response to what you have written in a similar fashion to the previous gentleman (quite aggressively in tone in my humble opinion) and I don't blame him for not replying. We could write pages of opposing "personal views" about Catholic dogma, disciplines and beliefs and the reasonable point I have made is that you are either RIGHT or WRONG and the same goes for me. I also think that just because something is "permissible" does not make it right in God's eyes.


Re Pope Francis, there is no greater example of a Catholic than St Francis. Why didn't St Francis ever become a priest? It was because he did not consider himself worthy to touch the Body of Christ. What a great example the Saint is to us all. I suppose that today he would operate differently because "the times are a changin".

--hide--

Why do you think there is something wrong with the faithful being allowed to touch the Eucharist?

Although it was a prctice for a long time to not allow it, it is what was done in the earliest days of the church. Or have you forgotten that the earliest masses were in the form of a meal. Leavened bread was used and each person in turn tore a piece of the loaf.

Who is allowed to touch the Eucharist is a discipline not dogma. A discipline can be changed at any time.

Personally, I prefer receiving on the tongue. But will accept it in the hand if I am unable to receive it from a preist or deacon. That is my preference.

LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new
I agree with Gabor's statement that just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's right. I've personally witnessed the Precious Blood spilled twice, a consecrated host dropped on the floor once and a priest chase someone out the door who stole a consecrated host. These things almost never happen outside of the Novus Ordo Masses. There have been people who have stolen hosts with an apparatus placed in the mouth but priests are now trained to spot these. Realizing the horrible, unspeakable abuses Our Lord suffers when the hosts are stolen and taken to black masses, shouldn't everything possible be done to prevent this from happening? Walking up the aisle to receive Him in the hand generally runs a much greater risk of loss of faith in the Real Presence and that can easily be proven. Look up the statistics of people who believed before and after the new Mass was introduced, as well as how few Catholics even go to Mass at all anymore. I know there are devout and not so devout Catholics at both the TLM and the NO, but what I've witnessed is at the TLM almost everyone stays after Mass to pray in Thanksgiving. I can't even try to pray after Mass at the NO, the instant the priest walks out it becomes louder than a bingo hall.

This topic can be argued back and forth all day long, but in the end it just seems clear to me. He is Jesus! Our Lord, Our Kind, Our Redeemer! He didn't have to come to earth and endure our abuses and save us from our sins but He did so out of His love for us. The very least we can do is fall on our knees and receive him reverently. If we were face to face with him we would drop down to our knees. At Mass we really do come face to face with Him, we just don't recognize Him as easily and it only increases our faith when our bodily actions reflect our inward affections. Lex orandi, lex credendi
LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new
Meant to say "Our King"...typo embarassed
LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I agree with Gabor's statement that just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I agree with Gabor's statement that just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's right. I've personally witnessed the Precious Blood spilled twice, a consecrated host dropped on the floor once and a priest chase someone out the door who stole a consecrated host. These things almost never happen outside of the Novus Ordo Masses. There have been people who have stolen hosts with an apparatus placed in the mouth but priests are now trained to spot these. Realizing the horrible, unspeakable abuses Our Lord suffers when the hosts are stolen and taken to black masses, shouldn't everything possible be done to prevent this from happening? Walking up the aisle to receive Him in the hand generally runs a much greater risk of loss of faith in the Real Presence and that can easily be proven. Look up the statistics of people who believed before and after the new Mass was introduced, as well as how few Catholics even go to Mass at all anymore. I know there are devout and not so devout Catholics at both the TLM and the NO, but what I've witnessed is at the TLM almost everyone stays after Mass to pray in Thanksgiving. I can't even try to pray after Mass at the NO, the instant the priest walks out it becomes louder than a bingo hall.

This topic can be argued back and forth all day long, but in the end it just seems clear to me. He is Jesus! Our Lord, Our Kind, Our Redeemer! He didn't have to come to earth and endure our abuses and save us from our sins but He did so out of His love for us. The very least we can do is fall on our knees and receive him reverently. If we were face to face with him we would drop down to our knees. At Mass we really do come face to face with Him, we just don't recognize Him as easily and it only increases our faith when our bodily actions reflect our inward affections. Lex orandi, lex credendi
--hide--

You cannot blame it on the NO Mass. Just remember, coincedentally with the introduction of the NO was a time when the great exodos of Priests and religious began. That exodos was not a result of the NO. With that exodos there was a general decline in the proper teaching of religion in our Parochial schools and from the pulpits. Those things occurred with no direct connection with the NO and would have occurred with or without it.

It was also a time when the ranks of the Bishops were stuffed with and continued to expand with new and very liberal (in the worst sense of the word) men. Again, not a result of the NO but of the failure of Pope Paul VI and, in the early years of his reign, JPII to properly enforce better selection criteria. If one wishes, they could further fault JPII for not taking more positive action to remove the worst of these liberals and instead choosing to let nature and old age takes its course to rid the Church of them. In the later years of His reign, JPII did a fairly good job of installing good Bishops. The ranks of orthodox Bishops greatly expanded under Benedict XVI.

But it was not the NO that caused this problem, as it began even before Vatican II.

LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new

Gabor,


In your prior post you wrote that there were things that I attributed to you that "... I (Gabor) am "implying" which is distorted beyond belief by you (Ed). What specifically did I distort? It was not my intent. I was simply trying to understand what you had written and reflect my understanding (of it) back to you. Did to not mean those things in your prior post that I wrote that you implied (or stated)? I do not understand.


Also, Bernard is quite capable and certainly not bashful of responding to my posts when he sees fit to do so. That I may disagree with him on some particular matter has certainly not prevented him from responding in the past.


I will not get deep into the "permissible" vs. "what is right" discussion... as it would be pointless here. I do not understand how some claim to know what is "right in God's eyes" when the Pope (Vicar of Christ) may differ. As I understand, when Christ handed the keys of the Church to Peter, he said (paraphrasing)... "Whatever you bind in Earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatever you allow loosed on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." I would say that gives the Pope all of the authority that he needs to make such decisions.


On the Eucharist... We touch the Eucharist every time that we go to communion, whether it be with our hand or and/or our tongue. We are certainly never worthy of the Eucharist, no matter how it is received. We do, however, make the confession prayer so as to have forgiven venial sins before we receive the Eucharist ....

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,
[All strike their breast]
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;

therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.


On February 28th, Pope Emeritus Benedict told a gathering of all Cardinals that “Among you is…the future pope, to whom I promise my unconditional reverence and obedience,...” . Why is it that Benedict can pledge reverence and obedience to the future Pope, whomever he may be, yet some lay persons are determined to remain skeptical of a new Pope?

>>>> My reference >>> www.latimes.com


Ed

LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new
(Quote) Paul-866591 said: You cannot blame it on the NO Mass. Just remember, coincedentally with the introduction of the N...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:



You cannot blame it on the NO Mass. Just remember, coincedentally with the introduction of the NO was a time when the great exodos of Priests and religious began. That exodos was not a result of the NO. With that exodos there was a general decline in the proper teaching of religion in our Parochial schools and from the pulpits. Those things occurred with no direct connection with the NO and would have occurred with or without it.



It was also a time when the ranks of the Bishops were stuffed with and continued to expand with new and very liberal (in the worst sense of the word) men. Again, not a result of the NO but of the failure of Pope Paul VI and, in the early years of his reign, JPII to properly enforce better selection criteria. If one wishes, they could further fault JPII for not taking more positive action to remove the worst of these liberals and instead choosing to let nature and old age takes its course to rid the Church of them. In the later years of His reign, JPII did a fairly good job of installing good Bishops. The ranks of orthodox Bishops greatly expanded under Benedict XVI.



But it was not the NO that caused this problem, as it began even before Vatican II.

--hide--


I agree that the problems began before the NO was introduced. Obviously the NO didn't come out of nowhere. The new Mass wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms at Vatican II, with many opposed and many others approving but with reservations. All we can do now is look at the result of it all. Most of what we see at NO now are abuses that were never intended to happen. And speaking only from personal experience (I've heard of the NO being offered reverently but have never witnessed it personally) when I go to the NO I see attire appropriate for a dance club (if even then), people chattering, chewing gum, long lines for communion but no one at Confession, girls and women on the altar, guitars and tamborines, etc... and when I'm at the TLM I see respect and reverence, the priest facing God instead of the people, appropriate dress and modesty, long lines for Confession and homilies that actually mention the word sin. Here's a link to a great article by The Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider about what happens at the new Mass vs. what is actually supposed to happen:

catholictradition.blogspot.com
LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new
Our new Holy Father, Francis I, seems a good compromise, if one could say that about a pope, for most all Catholics.

As an attendee of the TLM, I sincerely hope that it will not be at risk, although I doubt that it would be. I say this, as I doubt that Pope Francis I would undo the encouragement for the mass, of Pope Benedict XVI.

One thing about those who attend the EF, is that they are plenty devout and regularly practicing Catholics. Pope Francis I's strong focus is on humility. What more humility is there than in allowing a freedom of practice among Catholics. If the mass should become at risk, I think that we could petition to Pope Francis I, to let us keep the mass that we love. If I started such a petition, I would state not political reasons for keeping the mass, but simply that the quiet mass helps me to more strongly focus on prayer.
LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new
(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I agree that the problems began before the NO was introduced. Obviously the NO didn't come out of now...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said:

I agree that the problems began before the NO was introduced. Obviously the NO didn't come out of nowhere. The new Mass wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms at Vatican II, with many opposed and many others approving but with reservations. All we can do now is look at the result of it all. Most of what we see at NO now are abuses that were never intended to happen. And speaking only from personal experience (I've heard of the NO being offered reverently but have never witnessed it personally) when I go to the NO I see attire appropriate for a dance club (if even then), people chattering, chewing gum, long lines for communion but no one at Confession, girls and women on the altar, guitars and tamborines, etc... and when I'm at the TLM I see respect and reverence, the priest facing God instead of the people, appropriate dress and modesty, long lines for Confession and homilies that actually mention the word sin. Here's a link to a great article by The Most Reverend Athanasius Schneider about what happens at the new Mass vs. what is actually supposed to happen:



catholictradition.blogspot.com
--hide--


At least in the USA, the NO mass came about just after the baby boom. The masses were plumb-full of children. Having gone to the NO mass for most of my life, I would say that children are most likely better accomodated at the NO mass, rather than the EF. I do not know if the population demands at the time of Vatican II influenced the changes, but it certainly appears likely in regards to the USA population at the time.

If asked in the 1960's, which mass I liked better, I would have quickly answered, the NO, due to the English and the folk mass.
LOCKED
Mar 23rd 2013 new

(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I agree with Gabor's statement that just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's...
(Quote) Monica-730858 said: I agree with Gabor's statement that just because something is permissible doesn't mean it's right. I've personally witnessed the Precious Blood spilled twice, a consecrated host dropped on the floor once and a priest chase someone out the door who stole a consecrated host. These things almost never happen outside of the Novus Ordo Masses. There have been people who have stolen hosts with an apparatus placed in the mouth but priests are now trained to spot these. Realizing the horrible, unspeakable abuses Our Lord suffers when the hosts are stolen and taken to black masses, shouldn't everything possible be done to prevent this from happening? Walking up the aisle to receive Him in the hand generally runs a much greater risk of loss of faith in the Real Presence and that can easily be proven. Look up the statistics of people who believed before and after the new Mass was introduced, as well as how few Catholics even go to Mass at all anymore. I know there are devout and not so devout Catholics at both the TLM and the NO, but what I've witnessed is at the TLM almost everyone stays after Mass to pray in Thanksgiving. I can't even try to pray after Mass at the NO, the instant the priest walks out it becomes louder than a bingo hall.

This topic can be argued back and forth all day long, but in the end it just seems clear to me. He is Jesus! Our Lord, Our King, Our Redeemer! He didn't have to come to earth and endure our abuses and save us from our sins but He did so out of His love for us. The very least we can do is fall on our knees and receive him reverently. If we were face to face with him we would drop down to our knees. At Mass we really do come face to face with Him, we just don't recognize Him as easily and it only increases our faith when our bodily actions reflect our inward affections. Lex orandi, lex credendi
--hide--



All I can say about the simple yet profound words of Monica is Amen, Christ the King, thy Kingdom come!

You can get technical, discuss the Rubrics of the Mass, Sacred Tradition and many things. However the simple answer as to why I believe that we should kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue from the Consecrated hands of a priest is quite simple.... it is because we are receiving the Body of Christ.

Sursum Corda!




LOCKED
Mar 24th 2013 new

(Quote) Gabor-19025 said: ... point I have made is that you are either RIGHT or WRONG and the same goes for...
(Quote) Gabor-19025 said:

... point I have made is that you are either RIGHT or WRONG and the same goes for me. I also think that just because something is "permissible" does not make it right in God's eyes.

--hide--

You are making the assumption that God sees everything as a binary option set (right, wrong), and you do not appear to consider the possibility that God might be perfectly happy with more than one possible choice.

God doesn't just look at our external appearance and actions. He knows our innermost thoughts and motivations.

It is do doubt far better in God's eyes to be receiving communion in the hand while wearing tie-dye and blue jeans at a novus ordo Mass where they are playing the music on a banjo, but recieving it with a humble and contrite heart than it is to receive it on the tounge kneeling in a three piece suit at a Tridentine Mass where the music is played on an organ but recieving it with an arrogant and proud heart. In the latter case one is far more at risk of commiting the sin of eating and drinking the body and blood unworthily.

This isn't to say there is a single thing inherently wrong with recieving on the tongue, kneeling, dressing up, or the Tridentine Mass.

A lot of the things that get people all worked up are in the end nothing but arbitary human conventions. Humanity could have just as easily decided that standing on one foot, not bowing, was a sign of respect, or that nodding your head, not extending the middle finger was insulting. God is looking at what we really are trying to do, not the motions we are going through.

I do not personally care to go to Mass in blue jeans, nor would I care to go to one where they are playing the banjo. But I don't delude myself that those are questions of moral right and wrong; they are my preferences.

LOCKED
Posts 51 - 60 of 200