8-year-old's first Holy Communion invalidated by Church

Newsday ^ | August 12, 2004 | John Curran

[mtbopfuyn]

Stupid church dogma rules that have nothing to do with our Savior.

Amen. Just another point to add to my ever growing list of why the Catholic Church is so wrong. BTW, the list was begun in 1st grade at Catholic school.

[MozartLover]

:(

[ultima ratio]

"Furthermore, you literally pray to people (saints, Mary, etc). It's like you are worshiping them, too, especially Mary"

Not at all. We believe in survival after death. And so we speak to those who have passed from this life to the next and ask for their intercession on our behalf. It's not unreasonable. Many people who have lost loved ones speak to the loved one, hopeful of being heard. It's a universal instinct--built into human nature. We affirm it as a dogma of faith--the communion of saints. It is not worship at all. Neither is having statues of saints a mode of worship. We have statues and paintings the way people have photos of loved ones around the house--or portraits of ancestors. Same difference. It is not at all the same as idol-worship--worshiping the statue or painting for its own sake. The images are reminders only--aids to keep them close to our hearts.

[quidestveritas]

The USCCB also approved unnecessary extraordinary Eucharistic ministers - including women, altar girls, Communion standing only as "normative", standing after Communion "as a sign of respect", nodding before receiving, --- this is all just weird stuff just to be different from the Traditional practice, just to please Protestants, just to make Communion like a soup kitchen, efficient, quick, irreverent and painless. Naturally any Catholic should be wary of what is "approved" these days. And the Vatican just caves on everything because of "collegiality".

They were quick to approve these altar breads because of all the orchestrated negative publicity of which the article that prompted this thread is an example. Even so, the USCCB left it to the local bishops whether they would be approved for use in the local dioceses, so it is possible (though I would guess rather doubtful) that the local bishops would recognize the dubious validity of these breads just like Bp. Tissier did.

The USCCB didn't even end the discussion.

I think that you are more ready dismiss traditonalists than I am to dismiss the novus ordin-Arians.

Excuse me for being stupid but what is a "flack"? That is a new one to me. Obviously, it is an uncharitable pejorative, but give me a definition.

[sinkspur]

You are obviously a follower of the SSPX.

Why do care what the USCCB says?

Doesn't Richard Williamson dictate your observances?

[broadsword]

Regarding this blatant personal attack against you: You are obviously a follower of the SSPX.

I am so blasted sick and tired of EVERY religion thread on the FR being reduced to this cheap, sleazy, redundant personal attack! For God's sake, GROW UP!

Truth is truth, regardless of who speaks or writes it. Stop with the immature personal attacks already, especially if one is going to CLAIM to be Catholic clergy!

The "You have nothing to say because you are a bad guy!" mantra is waaaaaay past getting old. It's just frikkin stupid. Argue the point and quit with the sandbox disputation and caterwauling!

[sinkspur]

An excommunicated bishop from the SSPX cannot, by definition, rule on a dispute for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

He may rule on an SSPX matter.

If you attend and follow the SSPX, then you are free to follow Tissier's ruling.

However, for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, the ruling from the USCCB, that the hosts from the Benedictine Sisters are valid matter, are directive.

[quidestveritas]

How can allegiance to tradition be misguided if it was so good for so many saints? Your allegiance to the post- conciliar revolution would be considered as gross presumption by the same saints.

I am quite satisfied with my spiritual communions. St. Teresa of Avila said that one good spiritual communion is of more value than 1000 Communions received without recollection. Besides that, your option is that horrid abomination of the new mass, which is so inimcal to recollectiion as to make a good Communion nearly impossible. No thanks.

I see no malice in my pastor. He is one of the kindest priests I know. He understands my desire and need for Sacramental Communion. His only reluctance has been unsureness about the exact manner of doing it. I am patient with him, maybe too patient. The last time Bishop Tissier was here I cornered him with Father and he essentially said, "Just do it". The only thing that remains now is to locate one of the gold-plated Eastern Rite spoons.

Thankyou for your concern for my spiritual welfare, but instead of railing against my priest and tradition, please say a Hail Mary for me.

JMJ --- Roger

[quidestveritas]

I am a Cahtolic. I adhere to the Faith - what has always been taught, in the same sense, nothing confused or equivocated. The SSPX is only doing what the saints did for 1960 years.

I am a convert to the Faith. My primary teachers were old books - lives of the Saints. What I saw in my first years as a Catholic in the novus ordo had little resemblance to those books. It was more like a bad performance of play-acting Protestantism. My first taste of sanity from modern writers was in the New Oxford Review. One thing led to another until I found the least compromise and silliness in traditional priests.

Bishop Williamson is not a dictator nor is he the founder of a new religion. At present he is the rector of the seminary in Argentina. That is the only thing he has direct authority over. He is actually under the District Superior for South America. The Society bishops do not exercise jurisdiction. The SSPX is not a parallel church. Their purpose is the formation of priests and the care of the souls served by those priests.

The Society recognizes the Hierarchy of the Church and the respect that is due to their office. What they do not recognize is is their actions which are unlawful. The US Supreme Court had no right to legalize abortion. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has no right to change the Mass or Church teachings. When this hierarchy acts outside the law of God the Catholic is still obliged to obey God and not these men.

[broadsword]

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has no right to change the Mass

Actually, my friend, they do. The problem is that in the most recent case, Satan affected them enough to give us a ridiculous clown show with rarely a modicum of reverence or dignity. However, even the most hideous and clownish protestantized NO Mass is a valid Mass if they follow enough of the rubrics for it to be so.

Ugly, clownish, banal, gay, unfocused, irreverent, liberal and stupid may please certain folks as much as it disgusts you and I, but it does not necessarily make the Mass invalid. If the Pope says we must stand on our heads for three minutes of every Mass, then you will see me standing on my head (and grumbling, of course).

(Shhhhh! Don't let that standing on the head thing get out, or the lavender liberal modernists might make it the newest innovation in the Amchurch liturgy.)

[Fifthmark]

Sure, that works too - a spade's a spade.

[quidestveritas]

The new mass and its implementation were in oppositon to the law of God as given in Quas Pimas by Pope St. Pius V. This law is the law in perpetuity for liturgical matters in the Latin Rite. The result has been that the Church has become the object of the wrath of Sts. Peter and Paul.

What was done had no legal basis even without Quas Primas because the Pope is the guardian of Tradition, not its father, not its creator, not its destroyer.

It is licit and even the duty of Catholics to resist a superior, even a Pope, who opposes the Law of God and the good of souls.

I wouldn't stand on my head waiting for sanity to return to the Church without there being first an abolition of the new mass, a suppression of the Secomd Vatican Council, and the excommunication of any and all bishops who refuse these first two acts. Counter-Revolution may be bloody but it is the surgeon's knife that heals. It could cause a schism but it would give us a firm foundation to start the rebuilding of the Church and Christendom.

I won't be standing on my head waiting for these things to happen but I will be on my knees praying for it.

JMJ --- Roger

[sinkspur]

The new mass and its implementation were in oppositon to the law of God as given in Quas Pimas by Pope St. Pius V. This law is the law in perpetuity for liturgical matters in the Latin Rite

Not true. No Pope can bind another pope in matters liturgical, since the form of the Mass is not dogmatic.

You mean to tell me you are avoiding the Precious Blood for lack of a gold spoon?

[ejo]

To digress: Why doesn't momma just sue the Church and force the courts to recognize whatever they say as the Body of Christ

Seems the hoopla about molestations has reached it's peak...now a new attack is beginning to take place..Ho! Hum! when are we all going to Grow Up...

[dangus]

Not this bishop!

[quidestveritas]

You asked:

"You mean to tell me you are avoiding the Precious Blood for lack of a gold spoon?"

Yes, that is what is needed for me to be able to receive the Precious Blood. I cannot drink from the Chalice. The Sacred Vessels are reserved to the priest.

And Tradition binds every Pope in liturgical matters. He cannot make things up from scratch. He can only pass on what he has received.

Nor can he take dictation from "Old Scratch" like that Masonic Satanist Bugnini did.

You say a Pope cannot bind a successor in liturgical matters. St. Pius V intended to bind by means of Quas Primas. Was he mistaken? It seems we have two opposing opinions here. Which is the safer opinion?

For over four centuries Quas Primas was respected. For the past three decades the Popes and the Vatican bureaucracy have simply pretended it does not exist. When pressed for an answer concerning it even they admit that it still has the force of law. They know that they are scofflaws. The Traditional Mass just does not fit their agendas, so they do all they can to destroy it. I'll side with those who oppose them - the Catholic Counter-Revolution. Not because I prefer what they stand for, but because it is my duty before God.

JMJ --- Roger

[sinkspur]

You say a Pope cannot bind a successor in liturgical matters. St. Pius V intended to bind by means of Quas Primas. Was he mistaken?

Yes.

Remember, the sacraments were made for man, not man for the sacraments.

Not receiving the Precious Blood for lack of a gold spoon indicates that something is wrong with your understanding of the Eucharist.

[ejo]

something is wrong with understanding of Eucharist.

When one unconditionally and faithfully believes that during the consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ is now present. Why then couldn't this woman accept that wheat may not be present, that it is now truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Give it a chance, you may be pleasantly surprised.