Posted on 01/25/2010 9:55:04 AM PST by NYer
I’ve been running a Catholic blog for a few years now and have inadvertently come across certain words and phrases that just drive self described “progressive” Catholics crazy. Tweeters have been doing this a while concerning politics but I thought we could have some fun here coming up with 3 word phrases that just unhinge “progressive” Catholics. Take a look at my suggestions and then I encourage you to add your own in the combox.
1) Traditional Anglican Communion
2) The Catechism states…
3) Abortion is murder
4) Communion on Tongue
5) Scott Hahn said…
6) “Caritas in Veritate”
7) Archbishop Raymond Burke
8) Latin Mass Society
9)Ineffable. Ineffable. Ineffable.
10)Three letters C. D. F.
11) For the many
12) An Apostolic Visitation
13) Hermeneutic of continuity
14) Mary Ann Glendon
15) Mandatory retirement age
Bonus: God Bless America
I’d love to hear your suggestions as well.
Scripture says....
Yep, this has been openly ignored for decades.
Your tagline tells it the way it is with me.
In that same vein: “Immaculate Conception” and “Ever Virgin”.
Read the Catechism.
Sacred Heart Devotion.
Pray the Rosary.
great minds think alike
Welcome home!
The issue of Communion on the tongue is one of those issues that’s still debated. The short answer to your question is that it’s not a dogmatic issue and thus, you should not let anyone tell you you “must receive” on the tongue. I do it because I had a rather distressing experience one time when I received on the hand. (crumbs everywhere).
I don’t do it all the time though, and I’d say we should still have the option to receive in the hand. This is because, as some have pointed out with respct to the Precious Blood, there can be a risk of spreading colds or flus. I used to not believe this but have become convinced it can be a concern. So, if it’s a concern with the Blood, why not the Body? Specifically, it might subject the priest to infection.
I suppose one could argue “simply don’t receive that week” , and that’s a valid point. But having the option of receiving on the hand pretty much solves the potential problem without depriving one of the opportunity to receive our Lord. IMO
What I’d like to know is, why are altar girls bad? I realize that traditionally that hasn’t been done, and I both enjoy and respect the rich traditions the Church has been blessed with over the centuries. All traditions are not “Tradition” however (”Tradition” as in the Word of God), so if the only reason to oppose female altar servers is because “that’s always the way it’s been done”, this is not a sufficient reason IMO.
Ours is a faith that is reasonable. The Catholic Faith embraces all of humanity, nit just our spiritual nature but also our physical. While there are some aspects of our faith that will always remain a Mystery on Earth, this doesn’t mean we ignore the human need for “reason”. In this case it seems to me this need should not be ignored, and additional reasons other than an appeal to tradition (note the lower case “t”) should be given. IMO
Supposed to? Sez Who? ;'}
I will offer my own personal opinion, FWIW.
I believe that "the communion wafer" is really the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that He offered himself on the cross for my (yes "my" ... up there on the cross, 2000 years ago, in His infinite divine mind, he was thinking about me personally ... you too) salvation, redemption, and sanctification. He did so as a free gift, to me, which I in no way earned and of which I am completely unworthy. Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue is (IMHO) a sign of humility which I find to be appropriate. It is also a reminder that the "communion wafer" isn't just a piece of bread ... it's "different" and should be treated "differently".
That's just my thoughts ... take them for what they're worth.
The GIRM doesn’t tell you what you can’t do, it tells you what you can.
If it does not say that you can hold hands, add words, add gestures, usurp gestures or make parts gender neutral then you cannot do it in the Holy Liturgy.
That includes the “Hands extended” (orans) position which is reserved for Priests and Deacons.
Just as it does not say that you cannot BBQ in the choir loft, nor shokel up the aisle, it’s not going to tell you not to hold hands. Only do what it says you can do.
(that used to make liberal heads explode on Catholic Answers Forums)
Male priests only
Genuflect
>>What I’d like to know is, why are altar girls bad?<<
Because girls can’t become priests. Leaving girls out, makes the boys feel special.
We have 275 Altar Boys in our parish. We have seven seminarians. In the 6 years I’ve been here, five men have been ordained from our parish.
And understand, I have daughters. They sing in the Latin choir and the older one is a lector. They have a place in the liturgy.
In the old rite priests hands were consecrated. I had a parish priest who served in a very traditional manner showing concern for his flock, Alphonse Memesheimer, who had a deformed thumb and he had to get special dispensation from Rome to become a priest.
I don’t know if todays current crop of Catholics even know this.
For comments on the differences in the celebration of Christmas checkout
http://www.theusmat.com/natldesk.htm
Do we have, “Go to Mass” and “Pray the Rosary” yet?
Roma locuta est!
Follow the rubrics
A new encyclical
Not an option
The Holy Trinity
Pontifical Biblical Commission
Increased priestly vocations
New hermeneutics, bah!
Peter Kreeft says...
The Wanderer Press
Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz
Swimming the Tiber
Irrelevant Jadot bishops
No tie-dyed vestments
Approved Eucharistic prayers
Improved English translation
Catholicism is back!
Those are good ones!
“priestesses” (they prefer “women priests”, even though it doesn’t make sense)
“abortifacient”
“Mass” (it’s simply another community celebration to them)
“Authority of the Vatican”
“re-marriage after divorce is adultery”
“sin”
Freegards, thanks for all the pings
Obedience.
Lots of us grew up with Communion on the tongue -- and kneeling! As I understand it, Communion in the hand was introduced in a rather underhanded way -- several bishops (of the "liberal" or "progressive" stripe) introduced it without permission, then told Rome it was a "popular groundswell" and what could they do??? So Rome made it an option. But it was born in an unsavoury neighborhood.
When it was first introduced, people used to take the Host in their hands, step to the side for a moment, and then reverently put it in their mouths. Most of them I see now look more like someone walking along the street eating potato chips! I don't think they mean any irreverence, just gotta keep traffic moving!
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.