Replies

This was just a few years ago, does that age make it less worth discussion?

It makes it highly likely that, on a news forum, it was discussed within the period of the last several years. This is not news, it is another in a line of your postings of articles encouraging schismatic sensibilities. Vennari, along with a handful of other schismatic and quasi schismatic journalists who promise to resist the Pope to his face, is hardly a good source for anything. From what I have seen in the last couple days you have posted:

(1) this early 1999 article from one resistor/schismatic/whatever he is whining about the Mass; (2) a 1996 article complaining about Communion in the hand; and (3) a 2002 article (a recent one!) complaining about Assisi.

It seems to be a pattern of dissent that you are encouraging, and that I disagree with.

Ir is it dissent per se that offends you? I assure you that wasn't my intent. I can remove you from my ping list if you want. Maryz kindly explained the ping list to me and shared her list, but certainly if the issues raised are not of interest to you I wouldn't want to be a bother.

What bothers me is trolling for schismatics, which from all outward signs is what you appear to be doing.

patent +AMDG

I'm new here so perhaps I've misunderstood the purpose of posting. You accuse me of "trolling" for "schismatics" based on three posts:

What bothers me is trolling for schismatics, which from all outward signs is what you appear to be doing.

Fascinating. You ignore the dozens of other posts I've made and focus on these. The two older posts were in response to others posting regards related issues and on subjects that I thought explained them well.

See CATHOLIC PASTOR: SHEPHERD OR HIRED HAND? for example. An older article also, but one that supports the majesty and dignity of the Church and the role of the cleric in Her. What causes you to accuse me of "trolling for schismatics" again? My POSTING of articles for discussion? What next, an Index for Articles vetted for orthodoxy according to your lights?

patent, I am reluctant to get in the middle of this discussion, however I think you are being slightly unfair to narses.

It makes it highly likely that, on a news forum, it was discussed within the period of the last several years. This is not news...

One, this was posted in the Religion forum, er, ghetto. Two, there are many philosophical, cultural and scientific discussions on FR (from before the News/Religion split) that aren't exactly newsworthy (nor directly related to rooting out corruption or the Constitution) and Jim Robinson has deemed them OK to remain.

...a 1996 article complaining about Communion in the hand...

From the thread, Eucharistic Ministers, SMEDLEYBUTLER posted the following list of citations (emphasis mine):

St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
"The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
The Synod of Rouen (650)
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274),
"Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
"The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
"This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)
Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)
"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Are you saying that St. Thomas Aquinas and the dogmatic Council of Trent are schismatic? I don't think that is exactly what you meant. The Modernists are and have been using the obedience of faithful Catholics against them in order to achieve their diabolical goal. The good news is the Modernists won't prevail, but it is quite a struggle to fight against their insidious ideas. Modernism is the synthesis of all heresies.