Forgive me for placing your comment as a separate post, but I think your sentiments are so widespread, among ordained and laity, that we kneeling Catholics must either concede defeat or else defeat your arguments ...
gemoftheocean said... I think your argument doesn't hold water.(the argument is that there is a positive correlation between 'hand Communion' and pro-choice Catholicism) Because a chicken appears on main street and a plague didn't happen is not an argument that chickens keep plague away.I guess the Catholic who recieved in the hand for almost 1000 years weren't prolife, by your argument. ...
BTW, the particular bishop in question IS a total *******, I'd agree.Like most euroidiots, he didn't have a clue who zero really was -- just was [over excited] that [the president elect] was "Black." You quoted him accruately. Catholic bloggers pointed this out at the time and excoriated him via private email. Myself included. The upshot was that he was forced to crawl to admit that zero was perhaps not the annointed one and he had to apologize for his statements.I entirely agree with refraining from the common Communion cup, particularly in a time of epidemic. But the fact remains that there are ALWAYS people who will manage to nail a priest or EM's fingers with their tongues by moving, etc. There IS a possibility of spit to pass from one person to another by this way, unless you don't mind if the priest stops everything to go wash his hands.If uou prefer Communion on the tongue, more power to you. I frequently (and lately more often than not recieve that way myself) but lame arguments to bolster that cause simply don't cut it.It's a temporary measure, not a permanent one. July 24, 2009 6:11 AM
POINT 1....The practice we have today is not even 'Communion in the hand' as it was anciently practiced. What we have today is 'Communion any old way AOW! In his book Dominus Est! Bishop Athanasius Schneider demolishes your argument that modern hand Communion is somehow a return to an older practice. An important point Bishop Schneider makes is that even where Communion in the hand was practiced, there was never the casual disregard for the Sacred Crumbs that today's practice necessitates. Today, for example, inspecting and or cleansing palms afterwards is not practiced. Cyril of Jerusalem, of the fourth cty who is hand Communion Catholics' main source, said it would be better to loose a finger than to loose a Crumb of the Sacrament. Honestly! Do you see that sentiment on display at parishes which practice hand Communion? ........
When you take Communion in the hand --not elaborately and ritually cleansing your hand before and afterwards -- as was was the practice for priests and laity whose hands touched the Sacrament), you are not uniting yourself with early Catholics, but instead you are plowing a deep furrow between yourself and the Faith as it has been practiced for a hundred generation of Catholics and incidentally showing your solidarity with the early protestant reformers (whose Communion is the only one today's Catholic hand Communion does resemble). .....
POINT 2.......Another fact that indicates that even the ancient, elaborate hand Communion described was not the primary mode of the first 1000 years is that a survey of the other 'apostolic' churches which split with us yields zero churches which currently practice hand Communion. The Orthodox split in 1054. The Ethiopians, Copts, and Armenians split back in the fifth century. Hand Communion is banned in all these churches...
To me this is signficant. Liturgical 'experts' told us that banning hand Communion was a late development. How can that be? Are you saying the Ethiopians, Copts and Armenians, who haven't listened to us in 1500 years, banned it so they could be like us? .....
POINT 3..........Consider this diagram of my argument:
1. the circle 'I' is all Catholic priests and bishops who are indifferent with regards to the Pope's promotion of kneeling Communion received on the tongue.....
2. the smaller oval 'circle', is all Catholic priests and bishops who are not indifferent 'NI', such as Cardinal Canizares -- the new head of the CDWDS or Cardinal Caffarra of Bologna, and have either spoken against hand Communion or else have taken measures against it....
3. The black circle is 'pro-choice' priests and bishops. .....
4. The white sections of the circles are 'not pro-choice' priests and bishops. I would say 'pro-life' but this definition is losing its meaning. Even President Obama would call himself 'pro-life'. ...
..
If there were no correlation between hand Communion and being 'pro-choice', then wouldn't you expect to see a little black circle in the 'NI' circle also? Instead 'pro-choice' priests are entirely a subset of the huge group of priests who are indifferent to the Pope's 'do-as-I-do' campaign to restore kneeling Communion received on the tongue. ....
If you imagine the white circles to be living cells and the black circle to be a virus, then shouldn't you wonder why one cell is infected while the other isn't? If this does not make you wonder, then perhaps you were not there when they were passing out the curiosity! K. C. has been following, studying, searching, obsessing, .... this subject for some time now and this is why I maintain that there is a correlation. Even though not all liturgical clown dancers are pro-choice, 100% of pro-choice clergy are indifferent to the Pope's campaign to restore kneeling Communion ....
If you want to prove me incorrect, you only need to find me one 'NI' priest or bishop (advocate for a return to kneeling Communion) who is 'pro-choice'. As the Albanian kidnapper said to Liam Neeson in the movie 'Taken'....good luck! ....
K. C.
No comments:
Post a Comment