The Stupid, Never-ending Voris Debate

[the171]

You're welcome.

[EmilyAnn]

:popcorn:

[Basilisa Marie]

Let's dance, boys.   :bananarap:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWOVeH5_QzQ

 

"The Catholic faith encountered the despicable heresy of Priscillianism, which denied the importance of the Blessed Sacrament, and manifested itself in a curious innovation in the reception of Holy Communion. A Priscillian heretic would ask the question, Why would I kneel and receive on the tongue for something which I have no real belief? In the city of Saragossa, in the year of our Lord 380, a group of Catholic bishops gathered in the city's cathedral in what became known and received as the Council of Saragossa. It officially declared that to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand is an excommunicable offense." 

The he talks about the Council of Toledo in 400 "which confirmed the decree of Saragossa and it's opposition to communion in the hand. Pricillianism: of which receiving Holy Communion standing and in the hand was associated, was totally eradicated by the full implementation of Saragossa and Toledo. Delivered from this heresy of Priscillianism, the Catholic Church in Spain became a bastion of fervent Eucharistic love. Pricillianism was a potent blend of Gnosticism and Manichianism [sic]. In a very simplistic way gnosticism can be summarized as spiritual pride that only the precious few can know the truth. Manicheanism summarized as an exaggerated materialism and spiritualism that destroys the childlike wonder and awe for the mysteries of the faith and creation. So it should come as no surprise then that this heresy was represented by a refusal to kneel and receive our Blessed Lord on the tongue. Such a posture could not coexist with heretical ideas of personal enlightenment and a Catholic view of creation." 

"So what a splendid thing it is that a son of Spain who now head the Congregation of Divine Worship which oversees and protects the Catholic Liturgy, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera recently recommended that Catholics receive communion on the tongue while kneeling.  Now to be certain he isn't throwing around words like 'excommunication' but he sure is putting it out there for Catholics who think that the only posture or that the superior posture for the reception of Holy Communion is in the hand while standing.  Among the young people here at World Youth Day they will witness for themselves the vicar of Christ himself distribute the Sacred Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord to the faithful who will be kneeling and on the tongue. Interestingly enough, right here in the same land in which the other method of reception was first condemned 1600 years ago." 


 

Dearest defenders of Voris, please explain to me how the above transcript I just made of the video I just linked above does not equate receiving while standing and in the hand with excommunication and heresy.  I'm going to ignore the blatant misrepresentation of what went down at the councils in Saragossa, the fact that the discipline canons weren't issued until the third council in 691, and that matters of discipline in the Church are completely free to change without danger of heresy or loss of the Holy Spirit.  

[PhuturePriest]

Let's dance, boys.   :bananarap:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWOVeH5_QzQ

 

"The Catholic faith encountered the despicable heresy of Priscillianism, which denied the importance of the Blessed Sacrament, and manifested itself in a curious innovation in the reception of Holy Communion. A Priscillian heretic would ask the question, Why would I kneel and receive on the tongue for something which I have no real belief? In the city of Saragossa, in the year of our Lord 380, a group of Catholic bishops gathered in the city's cathedral in what became known and received as the Council of Saragossa. It officially declared that to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand is an excommunicable offense." 

The he talks about the Council of Toledo in 400 "which confirmed the decree of Saragossa and it's opposition to communion in the hand. Pricillianism: of which receiving Holy Communion standing and in the hand was associated, was totally eradicated by the full implementation of Saragossa and Toledo. Delivered from this heresy of Priscillianism, the Catholic Church in Spain became a bastion of fervent Eucharistic love. Pricillianism was a potent blend of Gnosticism and Manichianism [sic]. In a very simplistic way gnosticism can be summarized as spiritual pride that only the precious few can know the truth. Manicheanism summarized as an exaggerated materialism and spiritualism that destroys the childlike wonder and awe for the mysteries of the faith and creation. So it should come as no surprise then that this heresy was represented by a refusal to kneel and receive our Blessed Lord on the tongue. Such a posture could not coexist with heretical ideas of personal enlightenment and a Catholic view of creation." 

"So what a splendid thing it is that a son of Spain who now head the Congregation of Divine Worship which oversees and protects the Catholic Liturgy, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera recently recommended that Catholics receive communion on the tongue while kneeling.  Now to be certain he isn't throwing around words like 'excommunication' but he sure is putting it out there for Catholics who think that the only posture or that the superior posture for the reception of Holy Communion is in the hand while standing.  Among the young people here at World Youth Day they will witness for themselves the vicar of Christ himself distribute the Sacred Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord to the faithful who will be kneeling and on the tongue. Interestingly enough, right here in the same land in which the other method of reception was first condemned 1600 years ago." 


 

Dearest defenders of Voris, please explain to me how the above transcript I just made of the video I just linked above does not equate receiving while standing and in the hand with excommunication and heresy.  I'm going to ignore the blatant misrepresentation of what went down at the councils in Saragossa, the fact that the discipline canons weren't issued until the third council in 691, and that matters of discipline in the Church are completely free to change without danger of heresy or loss of the Holy Spirit.  

 

I watched the video. Nowhere does he say that Bishops should be excommunicating anyone for it. He shows an obvious bias towards kneeling and receiving on the tongue, but he merely says it's wonderful that the Cardinal is showing the Catholics that believe receiving while standing and in the hand is superior that there is an alternative.

[Basilisa Marie]

Right, he just spends most of his video talking about how at one time receiving in the hand was an excommunicable offense, quickly mentions that the Cardinal isn't technically using the word excommunication, and then connects events happening in the present to the history of it being an excommunicable offense. 

 

You'd have to be a "stupid Catholic" to not get the message that receiving in the hand while standing should be an excommunicable offense. 

Edited February 27, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[PhuturePriest]

Right, he just spends most of his video talking about how at one time receiving in the hand was an excommunicable offense, quickly mentions that the Cardinal isn't technically using the word excommunication, and then connects events happening in the present to the history of it being an excommunicable offense. 

 

You'd have to be a "stupid Catholic" to not get the message that receiving in the hand while standing should be an excommunicable offense. 

 

He highly disapproves of it. This much is certain. Nowhere did he say "The Cardinal did good, but he needs to be sure to throw the word "excommunication" around a little more, so those 'stupid Catholics' will get the hint!"

[Basilisa Marie]

He highly disapproves of it. This much is certain. Nowhere did he say "The Cardinal did good, but he needs to be sure to throw the word "excommunication" around a little more, so those 'stupid Catholics' will get the hint!"

 

People communicate with more than literal words. 

[PhuturePriest]

People communicate with more than literal words. 

 

Indeed they do. But I never once sensed he was suggesting that we excommunicate people for it, and I was totally expecting to when I watched it.

[Basilisa Marie]

So your argument is, "Nah, I don't see it."  

 

:|

[PhuturePriest]

So your argument is, "Nah, I don't see it."  

 

:|

 

To be fair, your argument is "Nah, I see it."

[Basilisa Marie]

To be fair, your argument is "Nah, I see it."

 

No, I made the effort to transcribe his video, highlight particularly problematic passages, and ask you guys to explain how it doesn't make the connections I see there.  Your answer is "meh".  

 

Okay.  Do you see how his video can be a huge pastoral problem, and why it is so offensive to me? 

[KnightofChrist]

Based on his actual words it appears he's saying the Church has in the past forbidden the practice of communion on the hand. That is true. And that in this case made receiving this way punishable by excommunication. Which also appears to be true. And that communion on the hand has been linked with the denial or disbelief of the Real Presence. Which is also true.

I don't see him calling for the excommunication of those who today receive on the hand. He also clearly understands that the current way to receive on the hand is allowed by the Church, but it is not the Church's preferred way. Which is also true, this is why communion on the tongue remains the Church's Universal Norm, and the other way is still a limited indult.

Also thank you for going to all the trouble of writing a transcript! Wow!

[Evangetholic]

*Violates self-imposed exile, again*

 

The Church needs heroes right now. Voris compares the current levels of dissent to the days of the Arian heresy, I think he is correct. My grandmother had nine children all raised in the Church by a holy woman and a non-obstructive father, 8 of them are Protestants and one of them makes Shelby Spong look orthodox. This believe it or not is the story of many (most in the South) Catholic families. My complaint about Voris mostly is about the words that he chooses when defending the faith and that he dares and suggest that people who are already only weakly attached to the Church (those are preserving a Catholic identity, but not faith) go ahead and formalize their errors by leaving this Ark outside of which no men may be saved. His haranguing might turn the lukewarm hot, but it seems apt (his audience is small, so maybe not) to drive the cold (the hardly Christian) straight out of the Church and into the arms of what? Speak truth, God knows that the Church is bearing the wounds of a half century of truth not being spoken in plain and accessible terms; but speak it with gentleness. How many of the people he's  talking about, the irreverent, the immoral, the heretical are apt to hear him and be turned to repentance? Our God is the God who slew the first born of Egypt and who drowned Pharaoh's Army, but He's also the one who ate with sinners and prostitutes and the one who has given us the Sacraments which save men's lives. 

 

This will become a standing caveat: If my "romanticism" and my "purple prose" give you  offense then phatmass comes with a button that allows you to hide me from before your eyes.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Evangetholic

[PhuturePriest]

No, I made the effort to transcribe his video, highlight particularly problematic passages, and ask you guys to explain how it doesn't make the connections I see there.  Your answer is "meh".  

 

Okay.  Do you see how his video can be a huge pastoral problem, and why it is so offensive to me? 

 

He never said to excommunicate them. He said it was at one point an act that you got excommunicated for, he said that the Cardinal is encouraging people to receive on the knees and on the tongue, but never did he say to excommunicate people for it.

 

I can see why it would be offensive to you if you were totally against receiving on the tongue and on your knees. I don't know why you would, since the Pope and tradition have stressed this as the correct way to do it (I say that being a person that receives standing up), but I can see it.

*Violates self-imposed exile, again*

 

The Church needs heroes right now. Voris compares the current levels of dissent to the days of the Arian heresy, I think he is correct. My grandmother had nine children all raised in the Church by a holy woman and a non-obstructive father, 8 of them are Protestants and one of them makes Shelby Spong look orthodox. This believe it or not is the story of many (most in the South) Catholic families. My complaint about Voris mostly is about the words that he chooses when defending the faith and that he dares and suggest that people who are already only weakly attached to the Church (those are preserving a Catholic identity, but not faith) go ahead and formalize their errors by leaving this Ark outside of which no men may be saved. His haranguing might turn the lukewarm hot, but it seems apt (his audience is small, so maybe not) to drive the cold (the hardly Christian) straight out of the Church and into the arms of what? Speak truth, God knos that the Church is bearing the wounds of a half century of truth not being spoken in plain and accessible terms; but speak it with gentleness. How many of the people he's  talking about, the irreverent, the immoral, the heretical are apt to hear him and be turned to repentance? Our God is the God who slew the first born of Egypt and who drowned Pharaoh's Army, but He's also the one who ate with sinners and prostitutes and the one who has given us the Sacraments which save men's lives. 

 

This will become a standing caveat: If my "romanticism" and my "purple prose" give you  offense then phatmass comes with a button that allows you to hide me from before your eyes.

 

Actually, he has a very big following. He doesn't go country to country all throughout the year doing talks because two people have heard about him.

[KnightofChrist]

Okay. Do you see how his video can be a huge pastoral problem, and why it is so offensive to me?

I can see how you could be offended, but I also see someone could be offended over anything anyone says about religion or politics. I don't see a pastoral problem.