My biggest problem with what I see in Church. Opinions?

GateXII · Jan 11, 2002

My biggest problem with what I'm witnessing at Church is the ludicrous LACK OF RESPECT & REVERANCE to God. Most of the people I see at mass (especially those involved such as choir, lecters (sp?), and Eucharistic Ministers - these EM people [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] me off every time I see them.) show absolutely NO respect. Makes me wanna walk up to every one of them & wack 'em. But that wouldn't be very Christian of me, would it.

The least they can do is f*#king KNEEL during the Eucharistic Liturgy. They obviously do not realize what's going on at that point.

Here's a brief list of everything that is WRONG with the mass at my church & many that I've visited in my lifetime (the ones that offend me anyway - and God I'm sure):

1. Everyone NOT kneeling during the Eucharistic Liturgy. That is SO WRONG!!!!

2. Alter Girls (you know what's next)

3. Eucharistic Ministers - what business do these LAYFOLK have passing out Communion. OK, maybe I could understand because of the "lack" of clergy, but definitely NO women. The closest women should be allowed to participate with the service for the reading of the Scriptures - NO GOSPEL though. Also, what's even worse than them passing out the Communion, is the blasphemous "blessing" (by laying of hand) of children they do when kids come up with their parents. Makes me wanna puke when I see it.

4. People obviously not praying (I realize this is subjective) after receiving Communion. Well, how could they when they start chatting in the lobby right after receiving. How disrespectful!

5. "Special" speakers ALWAYS asking for $$$ for one reason or another, which replaces the homily/sermon. 'That's right, there's your F'n homily, now pay up'.

Well, I know there's more that irks me, but these are the biggeys that come to mind. I'd love to hear everyone's opinions.

KC Catholic · Jan 11, 2002

Gee Gate, don't hold back..tell us how you reallyfeel.

Here is one that'll boil your blood:

In Lenexa, KS., there is a Parish that has a group of people actually protesting that they have to kneel during the Mass of the Eucahrist. They actually stand during the entire communion despite being asked by the priest, fellow paraishioners and the bishop to follow the rubics of Mass.

I guess they are gathering a petition to challenge the Bishops authority to make them kneel - amazing. This parish has had other troubles in the past.

AND..

A couple of Sunday's ago I was in the vestibul with my fussy 1 yr old. I observed a vanload of kids show up at the front door as Communion was starting...they jumped out of the car, mom drove around the parking lot as they went into Mass, got in line, took communion and then promptly exited the church.

My biggest Mass Pet peeves:

1. People who show up as the readings begin or are just finishing.

2. People who look like they'd rather be anywhere else but at Mass. Or appear to be merely participating.

3. People who leave immeditately after receiving the Eucharist.
(Which disciple left mass early? -Judas!

)

4. People that race the Priest out of the church before the last hymm even starts.

5. Parents who refuse to control their children in Mass.

Avila · Jan 11, 2002

Gate, are you taking offense of all children being "blessed" or just by the EMs?

I don't know any different about some of the things you're talking about, but I do agree about altar girls, "recieve and leave" Catholics, not praying after recieving our Lord, and lack of reverence. I don't see a problem with standing. In the old days, only the rich sat, and standing was a form of reverence. That being said, though, I don't think people should stay standing just because they don't want to kneel. One time, DH and I got so enraptured by the mass, we forgot to kneel. It was totally out of reverence, though, not disrespect.

KC, I also don't like people who can't control their kids. When Tommy gets fussy, we take him out to calm him down, then right back in. No problems.

nyj · Jan 11, 2002

Eucharistic Ministers - what business do these LAYFOLK have passing out Communion.

I do it because my parish priest asked me if I would help and because the archbishop of our Archdiocese appointed me to a three year term as an EM (extraordinary minister). People may accuse our parish of using EMs to excess, but I don't agree. We typically have 6 EMs per Mass. Four dispense the Holy Blood of Christ and two serve as holders for the plate for both our priest and our deacon as they dispense the Holy Body of Jesus to the community. We use unleavened bread (according to the approved Archdiocese of Chicago recipe) and so it takes two people (one to hold the plate/paten, the other to break the bread and hand it out).

OK, maybe I could understand because of the "lack" of clergy, but definitely NO women.

And your reasoning?

The closest women should be allowed to participate with the service for the reading of the Scriptures - NO GOSPEL though.

First of all, even lay men shouldn't read the Gospel. And I find this qualifier by you (they can read but not the Gospel) quite ironic. Didn't Paul say that women should be quiet in Church? So why are you willing to go against Scripture on this one issue and make a stir on a Traditional issue?

Also, what's even worse than them passing out the Communion, is the blasphemous "blessing" (by laying of hand) of children they do when kids come up with their parents.

Well Gate, what would you suggest they do when the child comes up, with arms crossed over their chest and looks at them for a blessing? Why cannot an EM give a blessing? Are people disqualified from giving blessings because they're not a priest or deacon?

Makes me wanna puke when I see it.

Just don't do it after you've received Communion.

AngelAmidala · Jan 11, 2002

KC...I could apply some of your Pet Peeves in Mass to pet peeves of mine in my own church!

Very well said!

GateXII · Jan 14, 2002

In Lenexa, KS., there is a Parish that has a group of people actually protesting that they have to kneel during the Mass of the Eucahrist. They actually stand during the entire communion despite being asked by the priest, fellow paraishioners and the bishop to follow the rubics of Mass.

I guess they are gathering a petition to challenge the Bishops authority to make them kneel - amazing. This parish has had other troubles in the past.

Wow!!! I'm speechless. To me it sounds like a blatant slap-in-da-face to God. All I can say is, "Satan is definitely smiling upon those people."

Also, I agree with your pet peeves as well. Actually, two more, which I can't believe I left off my list, are:

- Layfolk putting their grubby little hands into the Tabernacle. Wow, how wrong! Drives me nuts!

- The Tabernacle itself is anywhere but right near (behind) the alter. This is pretty rare, I hope, but at my church it just so happens to be way in the corner of the BACK of the church. Way to put Jesus/God behind everyone. I see a pun in there somewhere.

Thanks for the feedback. Maybe we should start a grievance list. Hmmm, maybe after I'm done responding to everyone. [

]

Take care.

GateXII · Jan 14, 2002

Gate, are you taking offense of all children being "blessed" or just by the EMs?

Of course NOT against "blessing" children. To be perfectly honest, when I see a member of the CLERGY bless a child, it brings me great joy. However, being the father of an 18 month old, I REFUSE to have those nobody layfolk schmucks bless my child. No one has given them the true right, definitely not God. Unless a person has gone through the sacrament of Holy Orders, they do NOT have the authority to officially bless ANYONE. Remember, this is NOT the same as "giving your blessing", such as a father would to a man wishing to wed his daughter. We're talking about a blessing given by someone standing in for Jesus/God (clergy are OFFICIAL representatives). I will only wait until a member of the clergy is available to have them bless my child.

That being said, though, I don't think people should stay standing just because they don't want to kneel. One time, DH and I got so enraptured by the mass, we forgot to kneel. It was totally out of reverence, though, not disrespect.

Agreed. ...to a point. I think it's quite alright that you were "enraptured". It's only when people do it out of laziness or thinking it's "just as good". Well, you know what, it's NOT just as good. That would be the same as thinking that it's just as good if you go to mass even though the last thing on your mind is the actual mass. Have you really kept the Sabbath holy? Uh...NO! I'm sorry, but how can anyone possibly show reverance to God while standing. Unless you can't kneel due to physical ailments, or "enrapturement"

(I'm not doubting, just wanted to be clear), there is no excuse.

Actually, IMO, I believe that layfolk are not even worthy to look up during the consecration part of the Eucharistic Prayer (when the priest lifts the Body, then the Blood after saying "do this in memory of me", etc).

Thanks for the feedback & take care.

GateXII · Jan 14, 2002

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eucharistic Ministers - what business do these LAYFOLK have passing out Communion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do it because my parish priest asked me if I would help and because the archbishop of our Archdiocese appointed me to a three year term as an EM (extraordinary minister). People may accuse our parish of using EMs to excess, but I don't agree. We typically have 6 EMs per Mass. Four dispense the Holy Blood of Christ and two serve as holders for the plate for both our priest and our deacon as they dispense the Holy Body of Jesus to the community. We use unleavened bread (according to the approved Archdiocese of Chicago recipe) and so it takes two people (one to hold the plate/paten, the other to break the bread and hand it out).

Of course, nothing against you personally, because I definitely commend you on your willingness to help, but I don't believe it matters who asked you or who appointed you. I don't care if it was the Pope himself that annointed you. Either way it's a "human" that is making these revisions to the church - as "OK" as those changes may "seem" to most people. Remember, God gave us all freewill. Therefore, even those most revered & "closest" to God (Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, Saints, etc) can screw up.

If a layMAN (even married) wants the privilege of handing out Communion, etc, they can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders & become a Deacon. Unfortunately for you in this regard (now don't get all huffy & I-am-woman-hear-me-roar on me - just stating facts), you are a woman, and do not have that option.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, maybe I could understand because of the "lack" of clergy, but definitely NO women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And your reasoning?

I could add more to it if you want, but this sums it up:
www.catholic.com/library/...sthood.asp

Let me know if you want more background. Hint - Genesis, Eve, Punishment, etc.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The closest women should be allowed to participate with the service for the reading of the Scriptures - NO GOSPEL though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, even lay men shouldn't read the Gospel. And I find this qualifier by you (they can read but not the Gospel) quite ironic. Didn't Paul say that women should be quiet in Church? So why are you willing to go against Scripture on this one issue and make a stir on a Traditional issue?

You are absolutely RIGHT! Laymen should NOT be able to read the Gospel either. And I believe Paul was right as well. That's probably how all this mess got started in the first place - by allowing women to read any of the Readings. Thanks for clarifying that for me, I forgot that was the case as well.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, what's even worse than them passing out the Communion, is the blasphemous "blessing" (by laying of hand) of children they do when kids come up with their parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well Gate, what would you suggest they do when the child comes up, with arms crossed over their chest and looks at them for a blessing? Why cannot an EM give a blessing? Are people disqualified from giving blessings because they're not a priest or deacon?

This argument is moot because you shouldn't be up there in the first place. But in answer, you should just hand out the Communion (as wrong as that is) & NOT bless the child, for it is INVALID ANYWAY.

For a response to your second & third questions, see my response to momoftommy.

Lastly, I hope you realize I am not trying to be sexist (although it may seem as such), I am only trying to point out what I believe to truly coincide with God's laws. As per the Bible & Jesus's teachings anyway. I'm not saying that I'm absolutely right, but all I know is when there is change in the Church (of any sort), you are questioning/changing God's/Jesus's original Word/teachings.

If you disagree, that is your God-given right.

I do thank you for your feedback, & I hope you don't resent me for my opinions/beliefs.

Take care.

sullijo · Jan 15, 2002

In Lenexa, KS., there is a Parish that has a group of people actually protesting that they have to kneel during the Mass of the Eucharist. They actually stand during the entire communion despite being asked by the priest, fellow parishioners and the bishop to follow the rubrics of Mass.

I grew up in that parish and, to be fair, that isn't the whole story. This community began in the 1970's as an outreach by the Capuchin Franciscans to Catholics who no longer attended Mass. They first worshipped in the common room of an apartment complex; later they moved into a larger facility. This site was supposed to be temporary; it ended up serving them for 20 years. This was a multi-purpose facility and the "pews" were inter-locking chairs; thus there were no kneelers and the bishop granted the parish a dispensation from kneeling during the Eucharistic prayer.

The parish moved into a new church building (with kneelers) about two years ago; the bishop has now asked that they begin kneeling. However, old habits die hard. Indeed, some of the older members of the parish see standing during the Eucharistic prayer as part of their parish identity.

Are some members of the parish disobeying the bishop? Yes. Are their feelings understandable in light of their communal history? I would say yes. That is not to excuse them in any way; it is only to fill-in-the-blanks of the story.

Also, what's even worse than them passing out the Communion, is the blasphemous "blessing" (by laying of hand) of children they do when kids come up with their parents. Makes me wanna puke when I see it.

All the baptized have the authority to bless by virtue of their common priesthood in Christ (as distinct from ordination). This is not an official blessing (that is, there are no rubrics for the blessing of children during the communion procession), thus no authority is needed beyond baptism.

The Tabernacle itself is anywhere but right near (behind) the alter. This is pretty rare, I hope, but at my church it just so happens to be way in the corner of the BACK of the church. Way to put Jesus/God behind everyone. I see a pun in there somewhere.

The Church has given parishes the option of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a side chapel since the 1960's. Indeed, this is how it is done in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The reason for this option is a) to allow people to adore the Blessed Sacrament in an intimate, reverential setting, and b) to distinguish between the communal, active action of the Eucharistic celebration from the private, passive action of Eucharistic adoration.

I would agree, however, that placing the tabernacle in the back of the church is not an adequete interpretation of the current liturgical norms and does a disservice to the worshipping community.

when there is change in the Church (of any sort), you are questioning/changing God's/Jesus's original Word/teachings.

There are both human and divine aspects to the Church. Even the Code of Canon Law distinguishes between church law and divine law; the first may be dispensed/changed as needed for the life of the Church; the second may not (see the many revisions of the Revised Code of 1983). I do not think that you are adequately distinguishing between the human and the divine elements of the Church.

All of that being said, I agree that there is a serious lack of understanding of Church teaching and reverence in liturgy as a whole. I believe that much of what we are seeing are the vestiges of the confusion and inadequate catechesis following the liturgical reforms of the 1960's. I am very hopeful when working with young people today; their sense of reverence, particularly for the Eucharist, and their "re-discovery" of many of the old pieties is a hopeful sign that the Church will enter into a more balanced sense of liturgy and community in the next few decades.

pacem,

sullijo

nyj · Jan 15, 2002

Unfortunately for you in this regard you are a woman

I am? I must have undergone a sex change and was unaware about it. I wonder if this inadvertant sex-change would be considered a mortal or venial sin.

But I don't believe it matters who asked you or who appointed you. I don't care if it was the Pope himself that annointed you.

Well, lucky for you, you said "I don't believe it matters" because actually it does matter. I am a practical Catholic. This means I obey the requests/teachings of not only the universal governance, but the pastoral governance as well. Yes, it was only a request by the Archbishop, but I am well within orthodoxy here to deliver the sacrament of Holy Communion. I do not qualify as a "schmuck" as you stated in your reply. Since the Church cannot err (as much as you would like to claim it can), and the Church has decided that a Bishop can appoint extraordinary ministers to dispense Communion, I feel quite confident in trusting my Archbishop.

nyj · Jan 15, 2002

However, being the father of an 18 month old, I REFUSE to have those nobody layfolk schmucks bless my child. No one has given them the true right, definitely not God. Unless a person has gone through the sacrament of Holy Orders, they do NOT have the authority to officially bless ANYONE.

Slight problem here, the Church doesn't appear to agree with you.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1169:

1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. 174 Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons). 175

Reference 174 states:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.

Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Romans 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

1 Peter 3:9 Do not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling; but on the contrary bless, for to this you have been called, that you may obtain a blessing.

Reference 175 states:

Reserved blessings shall be very few; reservations shall be in favor of bishops or ordinaries.

Let provision be made that some sacramentals, at least in special circumstances and at the discretion of the ordinary, may be administered by qualified lay persons.

CIC Canon 1168

The minister of the sacramentals is a cleric who has been given the necessary power; in accord with the norm of the liturgical books and according to the judgment of the local ordinary, some sacramentals can also be administered by lay persons who are endowed with the appropriate qualities.

Paragraph 1671 then states:

Among sacramentals blessings (of persons, meals, objects, and places) come first. Every blessing praises God and prays for his gifts. In Christ, Christians are blessed by God the Father "with every spiritual blessing." 177 This is why the Church imparts blessings by invoking the name of Jesus, usually while making the holy sign of the cross of Christ.

So, you are quite wrong (and apparently misguided) when you say the laity has no authority to confer a blessing, because they most certainly do. First, thanks to the universal call of all Christians to the baptismal priesthood, and secondly based on the authority of the local ordinary. Hence, extraordinary ministers do have a valid authority to confer a blessing to a communicant.

Wolseley · Jan 15, 2002

If you don't like receiving Holy Communion from a lay minister, getting your child blessed by them, etc., all you have to do is get in the line that's being handled by the priest.

What's the big deal?

jukesk9 · Jan 15, 2002

Wow. What a refreshing change from "Rapture Ready." Everyone here seems so nice.......My biggest problem within the Church really isn't the Church itself...it's the Vox Populii group that is pushing The Holy Father to proclaim Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Yes, I understand the definition of "Co" in the text that it's used in. But c'mon, we don't need this. It sends the wrong message and IMHO, clouds the message of Salvation. Anyway, my .02 cents. Oh yeah, I wish we'd return to kneeling for Communion (even though I was born a few years after Vatican II and have never knelt). It just seems so reverent. My good Episcopalian friend kneels for Communion at his church.

Howdy KC....God bless everyone.

Augustine the Canadian · Jan 15, 2002

Anyone who can possibly defend the "great reform" as having been good for souls and genuine Catholic piety, or believe the schpiel still touted by it's biggest supporters (sadly the Pope being among them), should be aware that I have some bridges for sale they might take a fancy to. Also selling tickets to an upcoming Elvis concert...come and gettem... they're going fast.

Augustine the Canadian · Jan 15, 2002

In Lenexa, KS., there is a Parish that has a group of people actually protesting that they have to kneel during the Mass of the Eucahrist. They actually stand during the entire communion despite being asked by the priest, fellow paraishioners and the bishop to follow the rubics of Mass.

I wonder why people like this even show up at all. Is this really about an interest in God, or their childish little egalitarian revolution?

A couple of Sunday's ago I was in the vestibul with my fussy 1 yr old. I observed a vanload of kids show up at the front door as Communion was starting...they jumped out of the car, mom drove around the parking lot as they went into Mass, got in line, took communion and then promptly exited the church.

That's crazy... however I'd be tempted to say they're ignorant (besides lazy) people. I was always taught that it was grievously (mortally) sinful to show up for Mass after the veil had been removed from the chalice, save having a very good reason.

1. People who show up as the readings begin or are just finishing

It's a bad habit, and shows laziness, but as far as I know it is strictly speaking not mortally sinful. Venially, but not gravely. It's not a good habit though.

2. People who look like they'd rather be anywhere else but at Mass. Or appear to be merely participating.

While napping and day dreaming are bad habits, it is a step (and a significant one) above not showing up at all. Also (not that I think this is what you mean) I don't think one has to be sing-songy playing along with whatever the flavour of the week is at your local Novus Ordo parish, to be truly "participating". Sometimes that's as simple as just being there and being attentive.

3. People who leave immeditately after receiving the Eucharist.
(Which disciple left mass early? -Judas! )

It would SEEM to be a sign of ingratitude. Now mind you perhaps some people have good reason to leave immediatly in some cases. However good religious formation should have taught these people (if they ever received such; most "Catholics" in the parishes do not) to at least make an act of thanksgiving after receiving Holy Communion, and to attempt to make the various Acts of preparation before receiving Communion that you find in the back of good Roman missals.

While in itself it's not grievously sinful to leave right after communion, it can be very distracting to those who are trying to pray and offer their thanksgiving. It also rips a lot of the "eucharist" (which means "thanksgiving") out of the Mass.

Besides this there are many things which while strictly speaking may be salutary or not sinful, which will lead you to eventually sin. For example, sure you may not be committing a mortal sin by racing out of the Church like it's on fire after you receive Holy Communion - but you will not receive the Graces you should have, had you actually stayed and truly communed with Christ in the sacrament. Also God is not mocked, and there will be helps you may need which could only be obtained by pious prayer, which you will not get.

4. People that race the Priest out of the church before the last hymm even starts.

I go to a traditional Roman Mass in a small chapel ran by the SSPX, and fortunatly most of the things being mentioned here do not happen (I've yet to see anyone ever race out of the chapel after receiving Holy Communion.) Nor do you see people (save on the most rare of occassions; so rare you'd assume they have a really compelling reason) racing out of the Church as soon as the priest processes out. In fact it's considered tacky in the traditionalist chapels I've been to, in most cases, to leave before the closing hymn is done (which often only ends a minute or so after the Priest has "left the building" so to speak.)

But I have seen this in most of the Novus Ordo parishes I've been to. It's sickening.

5. Parents who refuse to control their children in Mass.

This isn't usually a problem in the chapel I go to, but it's happened a couple of times..usually with SOME of the people who either don't normally attend the chapel, or who are only family of someone who does, and show up on a lark. This happened this Christmass actually... beautiful traditional Roman Midnight liturgy, and during the sermon and even a little into the "Liturgy of the Mass" after the sermon, this woman let her little savage run noisly around the Church. I love children, but when they're undisciplined, you simply hold them down, give them a nasty look, and if they persist you take them outside and give them what for.

But maybe I'm just a draconian papist who hasn't been enlightened yet. All I know is if I pulled a stunt like I see occassionaly with some kids like this when I was a child, my father would have torn a strip off my rear end. Oh, but I forgot...that's "abuse"...forging your child into a disciplined and responsible young adult is a crime in some places.

Augustine the Canadian · Jan 15, 2002

I don't know any different about some of the things you're talking about, but I do agree about altar girls, "recieve and leave" Catholics, not praying after recieving our Lord, and lack of reverence. I don't see a problem with standing. In the old days, only the rich sat, and standing was a form of reverence. That being said, though, I don't think people should stay standing just because they don't want to kneel. One time, DH and I got so enraptured by the mass, we forgot to kneel. It was totally out of reverence, though, not disrespect.

This is true, in part. What it forgets is that there is a cultural difference between our civilization, and the "old days" you speak of.

Namely, since that time the Roman Rite was influenced by western european and in particular Germanic influences, and culturally evolved in the midst of a culture where men would kneel before their kings and lords, and kneeling was seen not simply as a posture of penance (as it is still seen in the eastern rites) but of supplication and respect.

To artifically jump into this context, and say people can stand, or innovate like this, is to subconciously attack the respect people have for the sacrament; you're going after the postures native to their spiritual culture, which are pregnant with all sorts of ideas.

An appeal to antiquity in this matter bears a lot of similarity to the justification used for the now "sanctioned" disobedience of communion in the hand; "oh well, the early Christians received Holy Communion into their hands."

Well this is kind of true. They did receive it into their hands very often, yes; they also were often a group who were highly worthy (in so far as any creature can be) of receiving the sacrament, given that so many were probably going to end up lion chow or fuel for a burning pyre. Also these people were in such small congregations they were almost all "in the cause" (very few "cultural Catholics" at that point), and reverence for the sacrament was always maintained. Besides this it was not viewed as being some kind of "right" to handle sacred things; even the Priest, who's hands are consecrated precisely for this cause (handling sacred things) is not free to just willy nilly touch holy objects without good reason.

The times were also quite different to the extent that very often these same people would be absolutely necessary in secretly bringing Holy Communion to prisoners or the infirm.

It's interesting in light of the above to note that when the Church was no longer openly persecuted by the pagans, and perhaps began to get it's first merely "nominal" members, there was a move away from this towards various practices either involving instinction (like in the Eastern Rites where a Priest uses a small spoon to place Holy Communion directly in a person's mouth), or placing communion in the mouth via the Priest's hands (like in the Roman Rite.)

Thus old practices from ancient antiquity, as Pope Pius XII taught, are not necessarily "superior" for that sake alone, let alone in all circumstances.

Ditto with the standing stuff, particularly when it's not part of the naturally growing and continuous Roman tradition.

If you want to stand, and genuinely see it as a sign of piety, attend a traditional Byzantine Mass, where there are no pews at all, and you'll probably be standing in one spot for about 2 hours. I think that'll serve as a good dose of correction to the liturgical anarchists and their sophistic arguments.

KC Catholic · Jan 16, 2002

Welcome Sullijo!

Thanks for 'the rest of the story' as Paul Harvey would say. Sounds like a reasonable story got a bit blown out of purportion - hope I wasn't spreading gossip.

Also, welcome to Augustine! As you can see we have quite a group here. Let me know if you have any questions.

KC

sullijo · Jan 16, 2002

KC,

Thanks for the welcome. I've been poking my nose in here for about a month; finally felt like I had something to contribute.

pacem,

sullijo

GateXII · Jan 18, 2002

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately for you in this regard you are a woman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am? I must have undergone a sex change and was unaware about it. I wonder if this inadvertant sex-change would be considered a mortal or venial sin.

Wow! I'm so sorry for that misunderstanding. I just guessed you were because you seemed a little defensive regarding women's roles in the Church. Gotta stop doing that.

Since the Church cannot err (as much as you would like to claim it can), and the Church has decided that a Bishop can appoint extraordinary ministers to dispense Communion, I feel quite confident in trusting my Archbishop.

This is obviously a HUGE brick wall in our exchange. "Church cannot err"? What!!!!???? God is the only One that cannot err! Therefore, I couldn't disagree more to that statement. We have no other alternative here, but to agree to disagree. Let's move on.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1169:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. 174 Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons). 175
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
etc, etc, etc.

So, you are quite wrong (and apparently misguided) when you say the laity has no authority to confer a blessing, because they most certainly do. First, thanks to the universal call of all Christians to the baptismal priesthood, and secondly based on the authority of the local ordinary. Hence, extraordinary ministers do have a valid authority to confer a blessing to a communicant.

Sorry, but I am NOT wrong!!! Personally, I believe this "baptismal priesthood" or "common priesthood" that's been mentioned is a load of ****. BUT, because I'll choose to be mature, - now anyway

- I won't tell you that you're wrong. Instead, I will give you my reasoning for why I totally disagree with you (this is actually linked to my point above, in that the "Church" CAN & does err). The following is an exerpt taken from the "Apostolic Constitution" at the beginning of the "Catechism" you so comfortably refer to:

In 1986, I [Pope John Paul II] entrusted a commission of twelve Cardinals and Bishops, chaired by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, with the task of preparing a draft of the catechism requested by the Synod Fathers. An editorial committee of seven diocesan Bishops, experts in theology and catechesis, assisted the commission in its work.

The commission, charged with giving directives and with overseeing the course of the work, attentively followed all the stages in editing the nine subsequent drafts. The editorial committee, for its part, assumed responsibility for writing the text, making the emendations [Oh yeah!?]requested by the commission and examining the observations of numerous theologians, exegetes and catechists, and above all, of the Bishops of the whole world, in order to produce a better text. In the committee various opinions were compared with great profit, and thus a richer text has resulted whose unity and coherence are assured."

Also,

"Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church and that of the Oriental Catholic Churches, this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church, as desired and begun by the Second Vatican Council."

Second Vatican Council? Hmmm... I don't think I need to go there. Anyway, to me, this is a NEW document, just like the NEW Bible (BTW, the only official true Bible - that's available to us - is either the Latin Vulgate or the Douay Rheims Version (translated from the LV)), where there have been considerable revisions made to the original "Catholic" beliefs & laws.

Again, I think we've come to a HUGE brick wall. Therefore, once again, we'll have to plainly agree to disagree. We're both adults. Right? Or did I get that wrong too.

Thanks again for the feedback/debate & God bless.

nyj · Jan 19, 2002

Wow! I'm so sorry for that misunderstanding. I just guessed you were because you seemed a little defensive regarding women's roles in the Church.

Actually, I wasn't being defensive in regards to a woman's role in the Church. Rather, what i did was point out your double standard. You said you didn't like altar girls or women extraordinary ministers and you fault the Church for these, yet you said you were ok with the idea of woman lectors. Why? The Bible says a woman should not speak once she is in Church. So, if you want to "get back to basics" why are you so arbitrary in what you want to see enforced?

"Church cannot err"? What!!!!????

Matthew 16:16-19
Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you , Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you , but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

If I cannot trust the Church, who has been given the authority to guide Jesus' flock, exactly who can I trust? We have seen what the Deformation did, each man set up as his own authority. It has been nothing but heartache since.

Personally, I believe this "baptismal priesthood" or "common priesthood" that's been mentioned is a load of ****.

Well, I guess you're not Catholic then.

We're both adults. Right? Or did I get that wrong too.

Ah ad hominem. Now the true GateXII reveals him/her/it-self.

My biggest problem with what I see in Church. Opinions?

Active Member

Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

Boohoo moomoo, cebu

Goodbye, my puppy

Legend

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

sullijo

Guest

Goodbye, my puppy

Goodbye, my puppy

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

jukesk9

Guest

Augustine the Canadian

Guest

Augustine the Canadian

Guest

Augustine the Canadian

Guest

Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

sullijo

Guest

Active Member

Goodbye, my puppy

Similar threads