Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Father Z's blog discusses kneeling for Communion, (Again!)


Dear Friends!


Our cause will not go away! It is the pope's cause! It is the pope's cause because it is our Lord's!!


Father Z's blog revisited this topic several days ago, 28 AUG. One comment seems to indicate that 'old hippies' in the USCCB may try to use the occasion of the introduction of our new English Translation to confuse people about 'obedience' and kneeling......


>>>That being said I have found a “Bulletin Insert” on the USCCB website which is linked to the new Missal Translation area.Link: (http://www.nccbuscc.org/romanmissal/resources-bulletins5.shtml)This insert and description uses language that I have never seen before.Granted, I am an attorney, so my reading may be nuanced and over-technical, but it seems as if there is a slight shift in thinking:
“...The new edition of the General Instruction asks the Conference of Bishops in each country to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing and that a bow will be the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions. ..”
The part that concerns me is: the USCCB “...has determined that in this country Communion WILL BE received standing…”
<<<< “The Conference of Bishops of the United States has determined that in this country Communion will be received standing ” (!!)
Hey Defend Us In Battle!

That USCCB insert to which you are referring is old. I have found posts quoting it going back to 2003. The USCCB site webpage doesn’t have a date. Whoever linked it to the new translation is either not paying attention to its contents, or else is deliberately contravening the Holy Father’s own humble example.

The days of bishops’ conferences usurping the authority of individual bishops or that of the Pope and ‘determining’ things. are over.

to those who say kneeling catholics are drawing attention to themselves:

Is it drawing attention to oneself to follow what your conscience tells you is right even when others don’t see it that way? yes.

Were the few who stood by our Lord in His Agony drawing attention to the themselves?

yes. Sometimes “drawing attention to yourself” is not a bad thing.

Instructing the ignorant is almost always a good thing.

k.c.

Comment by kneeling catholic — 29 August 2010 @ 12:36 am

Friday, August 20, 2010

Holy Father's Communion kneeler was in response to reading Bishop Schneider's book!


Thank you Father Blake for bringing this to light!

http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/08/downside-review-last-installment.html

Thursday, August 5, 2010

The Mass' new translation might disturb Marty Haugen, et.al.

......"Much of the music that has come up over the last 30 years will no longer be useable," said Father Alan Jurkus of St. Alphonsus Parish in Greendale, who sent out a letter this month notifying members of the coming changes.......

http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/99995394.html

(thanks to Gregorian Rite Catholic for finding this!)

Monday, August 2, 2010

Father Ray Blake's Blog answers the question!

Why do no Orthodox or any other early Apostolic splinter churches have Hand Communion ?

Finally an orthodox Christian from St. Mary Magdeline blog answers:
That's the way they have always done it!

Doesn't that just make sense? Why else would they resemble pre Vatican II Roman Catholics in this regard? The only logical explanation is that Communion on the tongue had to have been the general practice of the Catholic Church at whatever time the split of each group occured. In the case of the Copts, Armenians, and Nestorians....we are going back way into the 400s. Any other explanation means that separate churches, each one antagonistic to all the others, all independenty decided to introduce the same identical innovation. [here we count Communion directly on the tongue as the 'innovation']

Hence, in k.c.'s opinion, the oft repeated axiom that: "Hand Communion was commonly practiced in the Catholic Church up until the year 1000": is a big, fat, lie!


k.c.

listen to Scott........


I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and to my limited knowledge Eucharist given in the hand has never been a widespread or accepted practice in the Church. Certainly we Orthodox – Eastern or Oriental - would be horrified at the thought nowadays. St. Basil the Great in the 4th Century wrote very clearly that the practice was only justified during times of persecution, presumably because priests might not be available to distribute the Eucharist in person. The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault. Other references from the first millennium, including references from the Western Church, support the conclusion that the normal and accepted manner of reception of the Holy Eucharist was in the mouth, given by a spoon, as it is still today in the East, and in Eastern rites in communion with the Roman Catholics.It appears that only St. Cyril of Jerusalem (also 4th Century) mentions reception in the hand as if it might be an accepted and legitimate practice, and this is the passage that is typically trotted out as evidence from this early period.In other words, to answer the question, my belief is that the Eastern churches didn’t “abandon” the practice. I think the likelihood is that they never particularly condoned it, but allowed it as a necessary evil during times of extreme persecution. It became unnecessary after the Peace of Constantine in 313, as another contemporary reference appears to indicate.Here is a link with further information. http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.aspI’m sorry I don’t have more information from the Orthodox point of view. It has never occurred to me that such a practice might have been legitimate at any time in the history of the Church. I will certainly look deeper into the history of the practice, particularly its history in our Church.....
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...