Angry Priests And Laity....?

[Wikitiki]

This . . . this'll be Vatican II all over again, won't it?

But far, far, FAR more overreaction-y.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Wikitiki

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1294789677' post='2199135']

I would also suggest not receiving the Blessed Lord in ones hand, particles break apart when He is placed on ones hand and then those particles fall to the floor. Which are then stepped upon by those behind the individual. Also the Church allows us to receive on the hand, but receiving on the tongue is how the Church asks us to receive, it is the norm we should obey.
[/quote]

As for the particles, unless a considerable chuck falls off, it would be against the laws of physics for a microscopic particle to fall on the floor that quickly. If anything, it would cling to the person's clothes as if "walking into" the slowly falling particle. Irregardless, I understand your main reasoning- to not take chances having part of our Lord anywhere that is unworthy. I'll think about it. Thank you!

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294793832' post='2199175']
As for the particles, unless a considerable chuck falls off, it would be against the laws of physics for a microscopic particle to fall on the floor that quickly. If anything, it would cling to the person's clothes as if "walking into" the slowly falling particle. Irregardless, I understand your main reasoning- to not take chances having part of our Lord anywhere that is unworthy. I'll think about it. Thank you!
[/quote]

Thank you as well and God Bless you sister!

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294793832' post='2199175']
As for the particles, unless a considerable chuck falls off, it would be against the laws of physics for a microscopic particle to fall on the floor that quickly. If anything, it would cling to the person's clothes as if "walking into" the slowly falling particle. Irregardless, I understand your main reasoning- to not take chances having part of our Lord anywhere that is unworthy. I'll think about it. Thank you!
[/quote]

I began to receive on the tongue back in May. I was debating with myself over it, and after Mass on week inspected my hands but I found no particles (they still could have been there, of course). The next week, I inspected my hands again, and saw at least three particles. I have not received on the hands since.

[CatherineM]

I've been receiving on the tongue since I hurt my knee a couple of months ago and had to go to two crutches. My hands are kind of full. Maybe we should talk people into carrying the missal with them to sing while in line. That would fill their hands up.

[Papist]

Why would anyone be against a more accurate translation of the original text. A priest refusing to say mass. That serious. I sure hope we don't have another Land O' Lakes like statement coming. Look where that took the Catholic Universities.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1294793998' post='2199178']

I began to receive on the tongue back in May. I was debating with myself over it, and after Mass on week inspected my hands but I found no particles (they still could have been there, of course). The next week, I inspected my hands again, and saw at least three particles. I have not received on the hands since.
[/quote]

Wow... I'll do the same.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1294786867' post='2199114']
This is a key statement and that is all I will say concerning that. : )



The new changes coming in Advent are a blessing. But, there is no reason to be fighting or bickering nor pointing out who 'disagrees' etc. Of course some people will not sit with it correctly and others are cheering it on.

Personally, I was Catholic before the new translation and it'll be the same thing after that. Just as Vatican II, people had problems with the changes then (some still do) yet the Church was brought into the new century and there has been blessed fruit coming from that Council.

The fact that other Catholics that want to pick apart other positions and speculate on the reception of the changes is more or less disgusting, since it resembles a lot of how politics function in Washington D.C. with new policies and etc.

Just let God move in His Church and live without worry about if someone else's holiness (or unholiness) is cramping your faith, goodness.
[/quote]

I'm really confused by your statement. The changes that happened at Vatican II were much more than tightening up of translation. That was a complete overhaul of the Mass. This is nothing like that. NOTHING!!!! There are no rubrical changes (sadly), and there is no change in language (unfortunately). Also, the move to a translation that is more faithful to the Latin helps to catechize the faithful in a more complete way. How can that be bad?

The fact that other Catholics want to pick apart others positions is not disgusting, it is a matter of clarification so that we can understand the mindset of those who are opposed authentic growth within the Church. All of this is important.

While God will move in His Church, it is through his faithful that this movement will be made manifest. To have genuine concern is not cramping my faith with worry, it is bearing down on my soul, especially when I can catechize and make manifest the truth.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294799144' post='2199205']
I'm really confused by your statement. The changes that happened at Vatican II were much more than tightening up of translation. That was a complete overhaul of the Mass. This is nothing like that. NOTHING!!!! There are no rubrical changes (sadly), and there is no change in language (unfortunately). Also, the move to a translation that is more faithful to the Latin helps to catechize the faithful in a more complete way. How can that be bad?
[/quote]

I never said it was bad. I thought it was bad that you were criticizing those that had opposing opinions on it. I was comparing this criticism to those that opposed Vatican II when it first came out. Sorry, if it wasn't clear on my end.


[quote]
The fact that other Catholics want to pick apart others positions is not disgusting, it is a matter of clarification so that we can understand the mindset of those who are opposed authentic growth within the Church. All of this is important.
[/quote]

Oh, so I guess what the Protestants do with all the division of their different denominations is helpful in clarification as well. Go to know.

The way you 'give' samples of what people think, is not a matter of clarification by connotation to me. It comes across as more (excuse if this comes off as rude) [i]omgosh! priests and others dissenting from what Mother Church proclaims!!!! They aren't good Catholics! They aren't Catholics at all!!!! etc. etc. /more ranting.[/i]

I don't mean that as demeaning or mean, just saying how it hits my mentality.

[quote]
While God will move in His Church, it is through his faithful that this movement will be made manifest. To have genuine concern is not cramping my faith with worry, it is bearing down on my soul, especially when I can catechize and make manifest the truth.
[/quote]

Good, same goes for me.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1294790621' post='2199145']
Wrong, the norm for receiving Holy Communion in the United States is on the hand, if you like it or not.

I choose not to comment on the rest of your rant.
[/quote]

You're incorrect. The norm is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. It is an indult given to the US to allow for reception of Holy Communion in the hand. Notice what is listed first....tongue...

[quote][b]Universal Norm[/b]
From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, March 2002.

The following norm is the universal norm found in the Roman Missal. Note that each Bishop Conference determines the particular norm for its own country. By the general law, each adaptation is then submitted to the Holy See for recognition.

160 The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take up the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice themselves, and still less hand them on to one another. The faithful may communicate either standing or kneeling, as established by the Conference of Bishops. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate gesture of reverence, to be laid down in the same norms, before receiving the Sacrament.

[b]U.S. Norm[/b]
The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

[/quote]

My argument would be that by reception of Holy Communion in the hand, one is actually self communicating, because rather than receiving our Lord, he is taking our Lord, as stated in the universal norm...still further, I would argue that reception from the cup is an even bigger abuse, based upon the same reasoning...that one takes the cup rather than receiving it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294789047' post='2199129']
There are some Catholics who receive Communion in the hand who have greater love for the Eucharist than those who receive it on the tongue who are simply stuck in their old ways. Just because I don't wear a veil in Church does not mean that I am sinning, unworthy, or disrespectful. Man looks at outward appearance, while the Lord looks at the heart. It's kind of ridiculous to say that those who don't adhere to traditional ways are doing so for the sake of rebellion. It is not our right to judge anyone. Only God can do that. The Lord does not love a woman in church wearing a veil more than He loves me or anyone else for that matter. In my personal situation, if I were to wear a veil, people in my Church would be distracted. I'd rather not have that happen and have them focus on the Mass instead.

We are all One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Rather than tearing each other down for their ways of worship, we should build each other up for the common love of the truth in the Catholic faith and the Eucharist. I don't see what's so hard about that..
[/quote]

While there are some, I would argue that you are using an extreme example to prove a point. It has been my experience that the majority of those who receive on the tongue are far more reverent than those who receive in the hand. To make the allusion to your wearing a veil on the same level as the reception of Holy Communion is not the same, because there is no requirement to wear a veil. That is purely your choice.

As far as rebellion goes, the point is that by and large, those who lived through the 60s and became involved in Church leadership either on a lay or on heirarchical level were affected by the rebellious attitudes. Look into history and you will see that it has born itself to be true. They were/are rebellious for the sake of social change....that is a proven fact.

While we cannot judge the person, we can judge his acts. And rebellion is an action. That is fully within our privy to do.

We are One, Holy, catholic (not just Catholic) and Apostolic. To hold one accountable for how he worships is not to tear him down, but to show him that there is a standard and that this standard applies for all, in a universal way, not just a few, in the way that they want. To fall into that trap is to fall into the trap that the SSPX fell into in the 1970s culimnating in outright suspension in 1988. I, for one, would like to NOT see that happen.

[Cam42]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1294792784' post='2199166']
I understand that the new translation will be more faithful to the Latin, but your friend makes it sound as if the entire NO Mass is getting a make-over. I guess I am asking - how much of a change in language will we see? I just thought it was going to be a few sentences here and a few sentences there.
[/quote]

No, the whole of the translation changes...they are not minimal. I would have you look to the [url="http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/"]Roman Missal[/url] for the changes.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Wikitiki' timestamp='1294793551' post='2199174']
This . . . this'll be Vatican II all over again, won't it?

But far, far, FAR more overreaction-y.
[/quote]

Not even close....this will be much smoother...the problem that we'll face this time is that the libby dibby's will be really, REALLY loud. Let 'em scream, I say.

[Cam42]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1294799823' post='2199210']
The way you 'give' samples of what people think, is not a matter of clarification by connotation to me. It comes across as more (excuse if this comes off as rude) [i]omgosh! priests and others dissenting from what Mother Church proclaims!!!! They aren't good Catholics! They aren't Catholics at all!!!! etc. etc. /more ranting.[/i]

I don't mean that as demeaning or mean, just saying how it hits my mentality.
[/quote]

Dude, when one dissents from what Holy Mother Church proclaims, they AREN'T being good Catholics. I won't go so far as to say they are not completely Catholic, but they are separating themselves from the Church....

BTW, say what you got to say, you won't offend me. Just be prepared for a rebuttal.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1294793263' post='2199171']
I think there are legit pastoral concerns with introducing the new translation. Changing the responses, etc is bound to be quite an adjustment for people, especially the 50-75% of people who only show up on major holidays and may be blindsided by the changes, regardless of how much prep work the parishes do. You hate to alienate people who already feel like they don't have a place in the church, or that a relationship with the Church isn't important. This could all have been avoided if the original translators of the liturgy weren't so intent on giving us raw carp the first time around.
[/quote]
all the more reason for those progressive priests to stop wasting energy on inventing their own liturgy and to start using that energy to go out and EVANGELIZE their neighborhoods.