Posted on 08/31/2006 8:24:33 AM PDT by NYer
Thus says from my Li’l Bro Thom, no Bush-lover, he, who very much appreciated seeing this:
Non-Catholics and Catholics who have not yet gone through the process of formally receiving the sacrament of reconciliation and their first communion, but who wish to “participate” in that part of the Mass are invited to process to the minister dispensing the Holy Eucharist with their hands crossed upon their chest (not a humiliation, but a practical measure, so that there may be no confusion on the priest’s part that they are NOT receiving the Eucharist), whereupon the priest will simply touch his hand to their head and ask God’s blessing upon them. Here we see President and Mrs. Bush doing it the way we ask it to be done, and believe me we surely appreciate and honor their respectfulness.
That “arrogant” president, Bush, did Catholics the world over honor when he respected our ways.
And here we see how a Non-catholic disrespectfully communes at Mass:
Bill Clinton, obviously. A Southern Baptist with a penchant for carrying around big bibles took communion during a Roman Catholic Mass in Africa in 1998. When New York’s Cardinal John O’ Connor, doing his job, called Clinton on it, he was told that his (Cardinal John O’ Connor’s) understanding was deficient. “They do things differently in Africa,” was the answer from the Clinton administration. When pressed on the fact that even the African Bishops Conference complained about it, things devolved into “well, we understood it this way…”
The transcript: Clinton Press Sec’y Mike McCurry and the press (all boldface emphasis added - admin)
Q: …as you know, Cardinal O’Connor had some very strong things to say yesterday about the President’s taking of communion. In that light, I wanted to ask you three things. One, the Cardinal suggested that no one should take communion who’s not in a state of grace. Did the President feel he was in a state of grace, one? Two, does he regret taking communion? And three, the White House suggested it had contact with officials at the church who thought it appropriate but the pastor has said he was not one of them. Can you give us some names of who said it was okay?
MCCURRY: …our team on the ground indicated that the conference of bishops in South Africa had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance…And that includes the priest, and I thought also the bishop who officiated as well, is my understanding, but we can double check that.
[…]
Q: It’s a question about what the Cardinal is saying.
MCCURRY: Cardinal O’Connor may not be familiar with the doctrinal attitude towards the holy eucharist that the conference of bishops in South Africa brings to that question.
Q: The South African bishops have apparently now criticized the minister for having offered communion to the President or permitted him to take it. Does the White House have any reaction?
MCCURRY: I’m not aware of that. That’s contrary to the guidance that the President and his traveling delegation were given at the time of the service.
Q: Well, apparently they say he was supposed to have asked the local bishop for permission before permitting the President to take communion.
MCCURRY: Our understanding was that the invitation was extended on behalf of the Conference of South African Bishops.
Q: Mike, can you be specific about who extended it?
MCCURRY: I can find out if our advance people have got any idea who they spoke with.
Q: As I understand it, only Catholics are supposed to receive Catholic communion. Did that come up in the President’s mind?
MCCURRY: That is the attitude and posture of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, but our understanding is that the Conference of Bishops in South Africa have a different view of holy communion.
All so very vague, all so very arrogant…”someone told us…this was indicated…I’ll have to see if we know any names…” and “I’m not aware of that,” which seems to mean “that can’t be true…” It was all so very typical of that president and his administration which never admitted a mistake, not even one time. And boy, the press sure hates the Bush administration for not “admitting to mistakes…”. But different presidents, different letters after the name…they get treated differently, after all.
But you know, I don’t think I ever heard the besotted press call Clinton arrogant. “Not even one time.”
I’m frankly surprised to see that the issue came up at all, but then John O’ Connor was mighty, mighty - an enormous and heroic presence - and no one to be simply dismissed. Sadly, his successor - who hides out in his seat and keeps his mouth shut - seems to be a self-protective, aching void of a man. And we in NY feel the void keenly. I miss Cardinal O’ Connor.
For doing his job, Cardinal O’ Connor was also, apparently, targeted by the Clinton White House for surveillance.
This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition…the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
[…]
So if you were close to the late Cardinal O’Connor, or called him to discuss personal or family problems – even personal sins – to him, you may have been wiretapped and recorded by the Clinton’s VAAPCON surveillance. In that sense, the Clinton administration may have literally bugged the confessional.
That’s stretching it a bit, but the fact remains that America’s formost prelate seemed to pay a price for asking the president to just, you know…act respectable.
John Cardinal Connor, Priest, Patriot, Veteran and Holy Man - pray for us.
Just trying to figure out when ALL Christians were simply Catholic ~
Once again for everyone:
The priest is the ONLY Eucharistic minister at the Mass!!!!!
Did you folks notice how Clinton compromised by not demanding the wine.
You are absolutely right!
He condemned proposed legislation backed by Catholic mayor Rudolph Giuliani that would grant homosexuals, lesbians, and unmarried couples the same legal rights as married couples. In a homily at St. Patrick’s he proclaimed that "It is imperative that no law be passed contrary to natural moral law and Western tradition by virtually legislating that marriage does not matter." Likewise, he opposed Mayor Ed Koch’s executive order requiring all social service agencies, including those run by the Church, to provide equal services to homosexuals. The cardinal refused on the grounds that it would make the Church appear to be sanctioning homosexual practices and lifestyle. He also prohibited a pro-homosexual group from meeting in New York parishes, while at the same time celebrating Mass with Father John Harvey’s Courage, a ministry to homosexual men and women who seek to live by the Church’s teachings on human sexuality.
For this and other statements and actions he was not endeared to the New York gay and lesbian population. In fact, they turned out to be the cardinal’s most bitter enemies. In 1989, for instance, homosexual activists chained themselves to pews during a Mass at St. Patrick’s, throwing condoms at the cardinal during the consecration. Thereafter, the gays and lesbians hi-jacked the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade and hurled blasphemous insults while passing by the cathedral, where Cardinal O’Connor watched the parade year after year. Meanwhile the cardinal was opening houses for AIDS patients and making unannounced visits to Catholic hospitals where he ministered to AIDS patients, most of them homosexuals. In fact, USA Today once reported that he "washed the hair and emptied bedpans of dying AIDS patients, some too sick to know who he was."
Precisely! (I wasn't quite sure how to phrase that but you succeeded :-). Thank you!
I remember during the funeral saying to my mom, Cardinal O'Connor had to be dead for Clinton to get into St Patricks
Or, the other way around to get both of them there eh! (wink, wink).
There are reasons that will allow a priest to give communion to a non-Catholic. I don't know the details, but I know they exist. John Paul II gave the Eucharist to Tony Blair, who is not Catholic. I think he even wrote an encyclical about the ecumenical administering of the Eucharist to non-Catholics.
You wrote: " I much better like the remarks of a truly pastoral priest who before communion said words to the effect." 'Catholics believe that Holy Communion is what Jesus said it was - His body and blood , really and not symbolically. If you share that belief you are most welcome to receive, if you find this difficult to accept, honesty might suggest you not approach the table at this time but join in a prayful mood in your pew '
What you call a truly pastoral priest, Catholics who know their faith call a heretic. Communion is not a feel good, get together with the neighbors kafee klatch. To Catholics it is the receiving of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To reduce it to anything less is an insult to the very Person of Christ.
The priest might have meant well but he was in grave error.
Even though others present might believe in the real presence there is no general allowance for them to recieve the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. There may under canon law be specific occasions but I would have to research such exceptions from the norm.
LOL. The better for thunking the Clintons of the world over the head with. I am quite sure that most Southern Baptists who truly practice and live their faith would not receive communion in a Catholic Church. I have the greatest respect for those who acknowledge differences and still can agree on certain matters.
But if someone says they are Baptist and they receive communion a light goes off. Either they do not truly know and/or practice their faith. Or they think communion in the Catholic church holds no special meaning and rules regarding its reception can be flouted.
Sounds like someone who goes through the motions but does not have any actual faith.
Having just become an Anglican, I beg to differ with points of your post. The Church I attend does not disagree with every single thing you believe, not in the least.
I would not be insulted to not have Holy Communion in your Church. I would not even think to go up there to do it, as I do not believe in Transubstantiation. ( at least as far as my tiny brain can understand it! ) But I don't get upset that you do okay?
I respect your beliefs, and hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
I would not be insulted to not have Holy Communion in your Church. I would not even think to go up there to do it, as I do not believe in Transubstantiation. ( at least as far as my tiny brain can understand it! ) But I don't get upset that you do okay? I respect your beliefs, and hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
Don't know what the problem is. It seems we are in violent agreement with one another. We have theological differences which keep us from Communion. My response was to someone who was telling us that people are insulted when they can't take Communion.
Actually, that isn't right either. There was no such thing as the Catholic church in the 1st Century. The Catholic church, just like all denominations, is a man-made institution.
Not entirely true...both low and high church Episcopalians are taught the the Holy Sprit is present during the Eucharist (but you are correct that many believe that "present" does not mean literally in substance with the Host or the Chalice)
...beg your pardon, but you may want to re-study the history of the church during the first 500 years of its being.
In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian Church is described as being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." These are known as the four marks of the Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
The church of Christ was founded by Christ. The doctrine of the church is based on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. In the sense that "catholic" means universal, I don't disagree. There is one church, founded by Christ, and it's only head is Christ. That is the church that God added me to on the day I obeyed the Gospel.
The Nicene Creed was written in the Fourth Century, not the First.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.