New rules for taking communion issued

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 17, 2003 | CATHLEEN FALSANI

[tridentine]

While the changes might seem minor, the first revisions the Vatican has made to the mass since 1975 will affect every Roman Catholic who walks forward for communion.

Before they take the bread and wine, they'll have to bow, as a sign of reverence for the Eucharist, the bread and wine Roman Catholics believe becomes the actual body and blood of Christ during the mass.

Catholics also must be quieter during the mass, sitting meditatively in silence before it begins, after the homily, and after they receive communion instead of chatting with neighbors, or whispering to the kids.

[rogator]

Deacon
The only time I would willingly choose a priestless parish would be if my only option were a priest who celebrated invalid, grossly illicit Masses or constantly preached heresy.
I would accept a priest even from a totally unfamiliar eastern orthodox rite rather than do without the Mass.

[ninenot]

On reflection...

The concept of having a Mass celebrated specifically for a congregation of "gays" (which is practiced around the country, but not everyplace, nor all the time) is based on a flawed understanding of the Church, as your post makes clear.

It demonstrates the mush-brained 'thought' prevalent at NCCB and in certain Chanceries during the 70's and 80's--and ought to be stopped.

[TradicalRC]

It seems that you and lots of other "conservatives" consider any disagreement or dissaproval of homosexuality and the gay agenda as gay bashing.

Being supportive of homosexuality is not particularly Catholic, what gives?

[homeschool_dad]

Protestants don't bow.

[sinkspur]

It seems that you and lots of other "conservatives" consider any disagreement or dissaproval of homosexuality and the gay agenda as gay bashing.

That's not true, and you know it. Many (VERY MANY) of those who disagree with homosexuality on this website despise homosexuals, as human beings. They hate the sin, AND the sinner.

Just read a few threads, and it will come through loud and clear.

Being supportive of homosexuality is not particularly Catholic, what gives?

I'm not supportive of homosexuality. I take the Church's position: homosexuality itself is not sinful; acting upon homosexual inclinations is.

And, I leave it at that.

I don't see a need to use the word "fag" fifteen times in a post just so I can avoid being called a "supporter of homosexuality."

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

My father is Episcopalian. My grandfather was an Episcopalian deacon then priest. They bow.

[Thorondir]

But you DO explicitly support Sodomites being ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, even though canon law has always expressly forbiden it.

[sinkspur]

But you DO explicitly support Sodomites being ordained to the priesthood of Jesus Christ, even though canon law has always expressly forbiden it.

I do not. I've always said you cannot keep celibate gays out of the priesthood because there's no way to tell, if a man is celibate, whether he's homosexual or heterosexual, unless he tells you.

Practicing homosexuals obviously should not be ordained to the priesthood.

But you're fooling yourself if you think there aren't, and have always been, a good number of celibate homosexuals in the priesthood.

[Thorondir]

Now that's another big change of tune, on your part. Keep it up and I may invite you over for dinner some day. Nonetheless, homosexuality is a very serious mental and spiritual disorder. Seriously disordered men should not be leading the flocks of the faithful. Just look at the hideous damage they have wrought so far, not just to the countless boys of our Church, but to the very credibility of our Church, not to mention their abysmal failure to teach the faith that stands in opposition to their precious lifestyle deathstyle. And the priests of Sodom CERTAINLY should NOT be allowed access to boys.

They need to be removed when they are found out. Those who are in the closet are living a lie and willfuly lying to the Church about their forbidden disorder. Doesn't that bother you? Those who are living in direct opposition to canon law need to go before they do any more damage.

Peace.

[Thorondir]

FURTHERMORE, the Secret Sodomites infecting the priesthood need to be found and removed before they cause any more damage to the truth and destroy more innocent lives. This must be done carefully and compassionately.

It won't be done, of course, because the Amchurch loves its special, gentle ones most of all, because they are best at replacing those mean old doctrines of the Church with new-age feel-good liberal pablum.

[sinkspur]

Those who are in the closet are living a lie and willfuly lying to the Church about their forbidden disorder. Doesn't that bother you?

No. If they're not sinning, I don't care.

Oh, and the Church teaches that homosexuality, in itself, is not sinful, so they have no obligation to tell the Church anything about their orientation if they're celibate.

[Thorondir]

Canon law forbids them from the priesthood. That they lie about their status and remain obstinate in their breaking of canon law does not bother you? Priests all take a vow of obedience, and they willfully break this vow every day. This does not bother you? Lying is a sin, and their wows of priesthood constitute a lie about their degenerate status, from which they have not repented by disclosure. This does not bother you?

Come on, my man. You are too intelligent for that. Think about it. Do you want unrepentent liars and vowbreakers in the priesthood; the very ones that the Church has strictly forbidden for 2,000 years? The very ones who have committed over 95% of the mollestations that plague our Church and have destroyed so many innocent lives.

Come on, sinkspur. It is better to have a sortage of shepherds than to hire wolves to fill in the empty slots.

[Thorondir]

Whether homosexuality is sinful or not aside, don't you think it is just a bit disordered for a man to be thinking, dreaming and lusting after another man's anus and genitalia? Do you want this disordered vowbreaker and unrepentent liar teaching your son about the Catholic faith that he himself obstinately defies? Do you want him alone with your son?

We don't need any more wolves in shepherd's clothing.

[sinkspur]

Whether homosexuality is sinful or not aside, don't you think it is just a bit disordered for a man to be thinking, dreaming and lusting after another man's anus and genitalia? Do you want this disordered vowbreaker and unrepentent liar teaching your son about the Catholic faith that he himself obstinately defies?

If he's celibate, he's breaking no vows, nor is he "lying" to anybody, nor is he defying the faith.

And, if he spends lots of time lusting after men, he should leave, just like heterosexual seminarians who spend lots of time lusting after women.

[Thorondir]

If he's celibate, he's breaking no vows

A priest takes a vow of obedience to the Church. The Church forbids the ordination of Sodomites. Being ordained as a Sodomite automatically breaks the vow of obedience.

nor is he "lying" to anybody

He is living a lie by defying the Church's strict ban on Sodomite priests. He knows how canon law forbids his ordination and decieved the Church in this regard, even if he didn't decieve some lavendar-mafia controlled seminary that pollutes the church.

And, if he spends lots of time lusting after men, he should leave, just like heterosexual seminarians who spend lots of time lusting after women.

Both cases of lust are inordinate, but one of them represents a serious mental and spiritual disorder. One of them is more seriously condemned in scripture than any other sin, save blasphemy against the holy Spirit. One of them got fire and brimstone rained down on two cities full of people. There is no moral equivalence here.

But the unanswered question remains, do you want a seriously disordered liar, vowbreaker and sexual degenerate in close and unsupervised contact with your little boy or anybody's little boy? The Sodomite priests are responsible for more than 95% of all the mollestations committed in our Church. They have devastated us and destroyed countless young innocent lives. Do you deny this obvious truth? Why do you still support them when the Church stricly forbids their being priests?

You stand in opposition to the Church here. Do not be obstinate in that defiance.

[sinkspur]

The Church forbids the ordination of Sodomites. Being ordained as a Sodomite automatically breaks the vow of obedience.

A celibate homosexual is not a "sodomite". He's a celibate who happens to be homosexual.

Both cases of lust are inordinate, but one of them represents a serious mental and spiritual disorder. One of them is more seriously condemned in scripture than any other sin, save blasphemy against the holy Spirit. One of them got fire and brimstone rained down on two cities full of people. There is no moral equivalence here.

I agree with you, but the only instance of "lust" Jesus Himself ever condemned was that of a man lusting after a woman.

They have devastated us and destroyed countless young innocent lives. Do you deny this obvious truth?

Yes. I don't think celibate homosexual priests have devastated any lives.

Why do you still support them when the Church stricly forbids their being priests?

I don't support them, but how do you know which priests are heterosexual and which are homosexual if they're celibate?

You're mad about something that does no good to get mad about. When chaste homosexual priests begin to be a danger to young men, then I'll worry.

So far, it's only the unchaste ones who are a problem.

[Thorondir]

A celibate homosexual is not a "sodomite". He's a celibate who happens to be homosexual.

Nonetheless, the canon law of the Church strictly forbids and always has forbidden homosexuals in the priesthood. You cannot deny this. Do you support them in the priesthood?

I agree with you, but the only instance of "lust" Jesus Himself ever condemned was that of a man lusting after a woman.

Come on, sinkspur, you know I am not about to follow that false lead. how silly it would have been for our Lord to stand there and list every possible sin of lust for his apostles. Don't throw goofy dodges at me, sir.

You're mad about something that does no good to get mad about.

The devastation of countless innocent young lives IS something to be angry about. Doncha think?

So far, it's only the unchaste ones who are a problem.

Yeah, it's only the sinners who are committing sins. It's only the perverts who rape women. It's only the thieves who steal things. Wow! What a revelation! And it is only those who have a lust for men's genitalia who mollest and destroy little boys. So let's just defy the Church laws and get more of those sick, but oh-so-chaste, degenerates with a prediliction for extremely disordered sex to shepherd the children of God.

Ordaining your precious "chaste" sodomites to the priesthood is like stacking boxes of dynamte, nitroglycern and blasting caps in a daycare center and saying, "It's no danger! None of these bombs have gone off yet!"

[Thorondir]

ping

[sinkspur]

Do you support them in the priesthood?

If they're celibate and chaste, I don't care. If they're not, kick them out.

[Thorondir]

Just in case you missed it: Ordaining your precious "chaste" sodomites to the priesthood is like stacking boxes of dynamte, nitroglycern and blasting caps in a daycare center and saying, "It's no danger! None of these bombs have gone off yet!"

Such, sexually/mentally/siritually disordered adults have stistically PROVEN themselves to be a grave danger to children. Just because the bombs have not yet gone off does not make them any less dangerous.

What sort of man wants to put children at risk? What sort of man approves of the defiance of the canon laws of the Church? I am struggling to believe that you mean well, but your support of the unsupportable and other things you have posted (i.e. "Rome is the Problem.") make that belief impossible.

(sigh)