Posted on 02/02/2020 5:50:43 PM PST by marshmallow
KAMPALA — Kampala Catholic Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga has directed that no Christian or practicing Catholic will be allowed to receive the Holy Communion by hand.
He has also decreed that Holy Mass will no longer be celebrated in homes, as is the current norm, in a bid to “fend off abuses in the liturgical life of the Church”.
The directives are contained in a decree he issued on Saturday, February 1, 2020 following a high level meeting with the clergy and senior executive committees of parishes at Rubaga Cathedral in Kampala. A decree (Latin: decretum) is an order or law made by a superior authority for the direction of others.
Previously, Catholics have been receiving the Eucharist either by the palm of the hand or by mouth. But under the new decree, the priest will only be allowed to distribute the Holy Eucharist (bread) by mouth. Archbishop Lwanga said the measure is in keeping with the liturgical and canonical norms of the Church Universal under Canon Law 392: 2.
"Henceforth, it is forbidden to distribute or to receive Holy Communion In the hands. Mother Church enjoins US to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in the highest honor (Can. 898). Due to many reported instances of dishonoring the Eucharist that have been associated with reception of the Eucharist in the hands, it is lilting to return to the more reverent method of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue,” the letter reads in part.
(Excerpt) Read more at pmldaily.com ...
Which is about as Scriptural as the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper itself.
He must have a picture of Christ placing a wafer of bread on the tongue of the apostles, and maybe even one of the early church only meeting in special church buildings, and with the Lord's supper only being conducted by a unscriptural separate class of sacerdotal priests , offering it as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food.
They must be pictures for along with other distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), neither are these.
Good, His body should be absorbed, and not handled.
Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood....
Take that, Fr. James Martin. This is not discrimination against gay cohabitors. Anyone openly engaging in fornication OR an adulterous second marriage, is not eligible to receive.
This should be enforced everywhere.
This is to prevent desecration of The Host.
Many opponents of the Church have tried and some succeeded in taking The Host away for purposes more linked to satan and his worship, than the Worship of G_d the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is merely a method to prevent such apostasy.
Good for the Archbishop. I’ve never accepted communion by the hand. Never will. There is some positive news to end the evening with.
They have Catholics literally worshipping idols, and sodomy orgies in the Vatican, and cover-ups of horrendous crimes...
...and THIS is what matters?
Seriously?
Ping
“This should be enforced everywhere.”
True. Catholic ethics are clear. Catholic moral theology is solid. Every person is 100% human. Every person deserves 100% respect, because every person has the potential to worship the Lord. Communion on the hand is sloppy. Intimacy outside of marriage is rude. Every Catholic Bishop should just state the obvious.
Sola scriptura is not mentioned in you Bible. Without the Eucharist, which is the Body,Blood,Soul, and Divinity of Christ whose institution is recorded in the New Testament the e would all still be lost.
Your opening statement belies your bias.
The Catholic Church is full of sinners, as you point out. Still, one does what one can. The Bishop has authority in his diocese, no where else, and so exercises it appropriately. Not all the Catholics in his diocese will listen to him, but I applaud his efforts.
Oh, but it is mentioned...... “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16–17
That not scripture is all you need. And the conclusion you draw ignores most of the New TEstament which shows Jesus picking Apostles and instituting sacraments like confession and communion. If these things are unnecessary then why would they be mentioned in the Bible?
RichardMoore, once again all you have are bare bombastic assertions, which apparently you think make then true because your church says so, despite the absence of distinctive Catholic teachings in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed.
And then you repeatedly refuse to answer the questions such assertions provoke and and actually interact with the refutation of them, with their strawman, which we are still waiting for you to do on the last thread, including as regards the necessity of receiving the Catholic Eucharist in order to obtain spiritual life.
Which means RichardMoore's replies make it look as if RCs simply repeat assertions of RC propaganda with their strawmen as if doing so obtains an indulgence or gives them comfort, regardless of the fact they are refuted and thus makes RC's look bad.
Again, you are so far behind in this that it would be better no to post such until you deal with what you have ignored.
Nowhere is regular confession to Catholics priests commanded or shown in the NT, nor receiving the Catholic wafer-god , while by your own logic, if such were necessary then why would they not be mentioned in the Bible?
For the first Christians were those of the New Testament (NT) church. Which church, as manifested in the only wholly inspired-of-God substantive record of what the New Testament church believed, which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels.
1. Was not based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
2. Never promised or taught ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility was essential for preservation of truth, including writings to be discerned and established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent as the stewards of Scripture means that such possessed ensured infallibility.
3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the prominent paramount practice as the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming the “real” flesh and blood of Christ under the appearance and manifest materialism of non-existent bread and wine, even to the smallest particle (until such begins to decay, at which point Christ also is said to cease to exist under that “appearance”). Which is in contrast to preaching the word being the primary active function of pastors (see below). And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once (besides “feast of charity” in Jude 1:12) in the inspired record of the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.
4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as denoting a separate sacerdotal class (and (thus translating the distinctive Greek word for such, hiereus,” as “priest,” but which word the Holy Spirit never used for NT clergy, as all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood — hieráteuma — in the NT church), whose unique sacrificial function was that of confecting the Eucharist, turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sin, and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, versus preaching the word being their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) eeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28)
Which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).
6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)
7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)
8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.
9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)
11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.
12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.
14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.
15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”
16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).
17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction)
*Such as being a sinless perpetual virgin, who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sins," [De Maria Nun quam Satis] "in exact duplication," [Mary of Agreda] and was bodily resurrected and crowned as an omnipotent (by God's grace) Queen of Heaven, whose command all obey, even God [Alphonsus Liguori], as "the greatness of the power which she wields over one who is God cannot be conceived," with angels "begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests," [Montfort] ...and the dispenser of all graces, with there being "no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own," [Manteau-Bonamy] that "through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation...we obtain everything through Mary," [Pope Pius IX] with "all the treasures of the mercy of God" being in her hands, [St. Peter Damian] without whom the Holy Spirit does not act, and who is actually “like unto Him” "when she acts, it is also He who acts; and that if her intervention be not accepted, neither is His," who is the "Mother of her Creator," [Cardinal Newman] who is is a debtor to her, [St. Methodius] and who "could not be more closely united to God without becoming God," who alone is solicitous for us in Heaven, [Liguori] thus “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus" [Eadmer] "therefore we have recourse, to thee alone" [Liguori].
That's about all this guy brings to the table. He is very unfamiliar with Scripture.
Really??
Matthew 26:26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Ground hog day was yesterday; yet you are trying to peddle the same old stuff; over and over again.
Good luck!
Call no man father IS mentioned in the Bible.
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.