Tuesday, November 09, 2010

The Queen of Spain receives Holy Communion in an awkward position, and, and, and!!!


So what's your point?

I just find it amusing so many Catholic men on blogs seem to be disturbed by this.
.
So many questions.  Oh my goodness.  Why is she elevated above the Pope?  What was going on?  She's wearing white - who knew they'd object to that?  (The obsolete no white after Labor Day rule doesn't apply outside of the USA anyway - although some people think it is forbidden to wear white in the presence of the Pope.)  The Queen is not wearing her pretty mantilla either.  Her hair - one priest commented on her hair.  Communion in the hand seems to be the issue - and not kneeling at the prie dieu.  Who cares?  The Pope is the one in charge and he gave the Queen Holy Communion - the Queen is obviously bowing. 
.
Pope - Queen - Holy Communion.  An international incident?
.
Just for this, I'll bet the chastisement is coming much sooner than expected.

The King and Queen of Spain have no authority or power - the are constitutional monarchs - they are figureheads - they are only descendants of royalty.

51 comments:

  1. ROFL!!
    Ain't it the truth? Ain't it the truth?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't go read "Catholic Men on Blogs". I am trying to stay off blood pressure medication.
    Some people for sure will judge the queen all over the place, even though it doesn't appear she is doing anything wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since no one knows what's on her mind and in her heart, and since no one knows what's on the pope's mind, and since what she is doing is canonically permitted, and since what she's doing is probably the norm in Spain, which is probably what she's done for the last 40 years or so - this is a huuuuge scandal exactly why?

    I am all for the Bishops reinforcing communion at the rail on the knees in the mouth. I wish they would change it back, because I think it was at least prudentially a stupid idea. But are we really at the point of tearing at people's reputations and judging their motives because they are doing what their bishops have established as the norm (for better or for worse)?

    As to the pope's "clear preferences" ... well she would only know that if she reads the Catholic blogosphere, wouldn't she?

    So all we learned from this picture is that the queen of Spain does not read WDTPRS. Burn her!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Queen Sofia told me in an email that she has a bum knee and therefore cannot kneel. And the black suit was at the drycleaners and the dog ate her mantilla.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Angela M: You made my day. LOL!
    I'm in hysterics here...sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  6. And that is why I eschew 99% of Catholic blogs anymore.
    How utterly uncharitable.

    I cannot IMAGINE what a nonCatholic would think if (s)he came across those comments.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Terry (and others perhaps),

    Totally off-topic, but I found video of the Peter Kreeft debate on Islam from last week: http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/11/peter-kreeft-and-robert-spencer-debate.html

    Perhaps of some use.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is much more egregious for a woman to commit adultery than it is for a man. This is Roman Catholic thinking.

    Original Sin began due to woman’s disobedience.

    This Queen is not just some monkey that fell out of a tree.

    She knows what is required of her and refused; even after the Holy Father made his wishes about reception well in advance of his visit.

    We are not going to restore order in our homes, in our society, and in our Church until women stop killing babies, vocations and the Faith through their disobedience.

    These acts of defiance to the authority of the Holy Father should have her deposed and burned at the stake.

    She would be if the King still had his cajones; she probably has them in that purse she’s holding while desecrating the Blessed Sacrament by communion in the hand.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  9. Your post reminded me of a serious offense that took place earlier this year in Costa Rica. Have any idea to the incident I'm alluding to?

    Here's a refresher.

    The moronic girlfriend of the Costa Rica president consumed half the host and placed the other half in the pocket of her boyfriend. Are there any words that can adequately capture the imbecility and disrespect of this ghastly moment? Watch it here:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics_in_costa_rica_outraged_by_disrespect_toward_the_eucharist/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Or here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHgCPzum3Z8

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mercury says no one knows what's on her mind or the mind of the Pope. That's true. She probably was thinking about all the wash she had to get done when she got home and he was thinking about sending a staff priest to get him those new red shoes he saw on a website he was looking at last night.

    ReplyDelete
  12. At least her slip wasn't showing.. :)

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  13. Catholic queens have the privilege granted by the Vatican's white dress in the presence of papa.No I liked the way the queen received the communion, I did not like that a Catholic king in a solemn Mass does not take communion. The princes were given a lesson in how it should be.
    For some time the royal family is a disappointment to me.
    sorry my english.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It is much more egregious for a woman to commit adultery than it is for a man."?????
    Didn't think we were talking about adultery. Knew someone would say, though, that it's all womens' fault the world is going to h*** in a handbasket.

    ReplyDelete
  15. michael r.7:21 AM

    This story is funny all around. The photo itself is fascinating, with all of those men gawking. What's up with that? Because she's a queen, or do they(we) gawk at everyone who receives? This is the one thing I can never understand. How is it that so many people know all the details of how others receive? It's a very sacred personal act of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "We are not going to restore order in our homes, in our society, and in our Church until MEN AND WOMEN stop killing babies, vocations and the Faith through their disobedience."

    There. Fixed that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh, and the link to "Catholic men on Blogs" leads to a blog whosefirst post is the blood-drenched body of a priest murdered in tghe recent Sunday Mass Massacre in Iraq.

    tuff like that ought to give us SOME FRICKIN' PERSPECTIVE.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Terry, button pushing Terry,

    My first thought was, Oh, how can I turn this into something for drawntocatholicism.com (so someone will click my donate button; ROFL).

    My second thought was, Whatevah, by the time I get to it it will be ancient history.

    My third thought is, Mr. Button, can you clarify something for me? Based on many earlier posts I think you are in favour of our Holy Father's reform and that you are supportive or encouraged or whatever that B16 only (apart from this incident it seems) serves Communion only on the tongue to those who are kneeling. Am I wrong? Assuming I'm right, I'm thinking what you are addressing here is the way some male bloggers have apparently lacked charity in speaking to a matter than is in fact important to you. Is that right?

    Though oddly matched I have to say I like AngelaM's comment and Pablo's most and equally - not that what I like or prefer matters.

    As far as all those men gawking, it could just be my lazy eye but it appears to me they are focused on the central act, the transference of our Lord not on the lady.

    And, "How is it that so many people know all the details of how others receive? It's a very sacred personal act of faith." The norms prescribed by the Church (the Church which has the divinely appointed authority to teach) and not dictated by abortions (personal, cultural or diocesan) of same would be a guide to aiding the sacred in the personal no doubt.

    Anyway, I always manage to arrive late to you comment parties. Stupid off line life getting in the way.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "...it's all womens' fault the world is going to h*** in a handbasket.."

    I whole heartedly agree with that part of your statement.

    First person to stand while receiving Communion? A woman.

    First person to get an abortion? A woman.

    First person to take contraception? A woman.

    First person to throw off her veil and jump out of the pews and onto the Sanctuary, thus killing vocations? A woman.

    First Liberal? I’ll let you guess that one.

    This Queen is a good example to the Holy Father that the Novus Ordo experiment and the new age catechism are producing the children of Caesar, rather than the sheep of Christ.

    Making an excuse for her claiming she is a buddha belly rubb-er or she is mormon, or some other perversion, doesn’t hold soap.

    If she was with the Dali Lama the dumb woman would be groveling at his feet.

    Her husband needs to take his cajones out of her purse and put her over his knee and give her a spanking.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  20. Terry this is picture perfect proof of simply how chaotic things get when the modernist church follows the world: there are NO * RULES.

    That translates into anarchy. What you really see here is an anarchic absurdity while the 'sea is calm'.

    She's broken every rule -which once did exist -in the book. So has the 'Master of Ceremonies' priest however; I think that one caused this whole 'messe'.

    It is clear that God (Corpus Christi) is not central in this picture.

    But it's a great 'Vatican 2' pic.

    Nobody knows what 'they are thinking'; this is so right.

    [Esse quam videre?]

    I had a hundred of these types of experiences in the priesthood. I was virtually forced to 'compromise' my faith on the spot while the liberals looked on and laughed.

    "...leave them up to their own decvices..."

    But I do feel sorry for him, if the pope believes in the Real Presence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If the King did not receive, is it it possible he is under some sort of interdict or excommunication for signing the abortion law? Self-imposed or secretly official? Perhaps he ought to be admired for not going forward for Communion?

    ReplyDelete
  22. While I wait for Mr. Button (Terry) to answer my question I will correct a horrid and weird spelling error in a part of my comment above that has nothing to do with what I am waiting for Mr. Button (Terry) to answer, namely, In the following sentence I meant aberrations not abortion:

    "And, "How is it that so many people know all the details of how others receive? It's a very sacred personal act of faith." The norms prescribed by the Church (the Church which has the divinely appointed authority to teach) and not dictated by abortions >MEANT TO WRITE 'ABERRATIONS'<< (personal, cultural or diocesan) of same would be a guide to aiding the sacred in the personal no doubt."

    Too much or not enough coffee on my part. Certainly too much study or avoiding study of Kant.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi Owen - I'm not really online today - so that is why I didn't answer right away. You asked:

    "Mr. Button, can you clarify something for me? Based on many earlier posts I think you are in favour of our Holy Father's reform and that you are supportive or encouraged or whatever that B16 only (apart from this incident it seems) serves Communion only on the tongue to those who are kneeling. Am I wrong? Assuming I'm right, I'm thinking what you are addressing here is the way some male bloggers have apparently lacked charity in speaking to a matter than is in fact important to you. Is that right?"

    I love the name Mr. Button BTW! So cool! Anyway - yes, I'm all for the Benedictine preference for communion on the tongue while kneeling, the so-called reform of the reform return to tradition.

    Nevertheless the other posture is permitted and not forbidden - so I see nothing wrong with the Queen's posture. In my parish it is customary to receive in the hand while standing, after a profound bow of reverence, as per instructions from the USCCB. Whenever I am at a church where communion is distributed on the tongue while kneeling, I do so.

    I'm unworthy in both circumstances.

    As for your last question, I honestly do not know how so many people are able to read the consciences of others, or know factually what instruction they have received for the reception of holy communion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. While I was being terribly cheeky saying Queen Sofia's black dress was at the cleaners and the dog ate the mantilla I was dead serious about her knees. Maybe she really DOES have a problem?! I know many good and faithful Catholics who cannot kneel anymore because of knee problems.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear Mr. Button, I'm not really on today either, in fact I'm quite "off" - it's all this avoiding Kant.

    Good, I am not yet certifiably insane. I thought I was right about your thumbs up for reform. I am aware "the other posture is permitted and not forbidden." Yup, got that too. Neither can I asses the state of anyones intentions though sometimes I know I do exactly that and poorly. However, I think I agree with anyone who also agrees at the absurdity of what the Queen is doing. I agree with part of what Walter has said, if I understand correctly, in that this, this sort of pretty much anything goes (protestant Prime Minsters - mine- receiving Communion at the Mass / girl friends and wives of important people who publicly denounce the Church and rebel still able to get their Catholic cookie because it is somehow their right / oh dear, and the list goes on but I stop) this anything goes is in no small measure because we have a N.O. that was hijacked very early on and, not to sound like a radTrad (if that's bad) but perhaps because we have it at all. *sigh*

    For the record, I haven't got to kneeling yet at the N.O. yet but I do always receive on the tongue only following a deep, from the waste, bow. My heart it wants to kneel.

    Odd that we have come to the place where to do what is actually the norm is potentially some kind of scandal.

    Somehow you are still the Man, Mr. Button.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh and...

    I suppose, in part, what is at issue here is another case of the old argument about how as Christian we are not judge one another. It's been hashed out 1000s times so why not 1001? For me little has been better said on the topic that a small note on Matthew 7 in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament. Which, thanks for asking, goes like this: "7:1-6 / Jesus' teaching on judgement is two-sided. (1) He condemns judging other's faults (7:1-2; Lk 6:37). We are incapable of judging with fairness and accuracy since God alone knows the heart (Prov. 21:2; Lk 16:15). (2) However, Jesus commands us to exercise critical discernment (7:6; 15-19; 1 Thess 5:21). Examination is necessary to avoid profaning what is holy (7:6) and embracing what is false (7:15)."

    No doubt in applying this to the news item sported by this post the above note can be nuanced all to heck but I broadly speaking, nay even specifically speaking, I think it has application. If only I could rise to it 50% of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @AngelaM, that's OK. I still like your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  29. michael r.11:21 AM

    "the new age catechism" -- Pablo

    Now we see where you are coming from. I didn't realize Terry had such a following with people who don't accept anything post V2. The comments about women are really quite despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Are posts like this a joke, an attempt to spike traffic, or just revealing? (Yes).

    I do not think I understand your sense of humor.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I should have read this before I posted my comment: "Making an insinuation, then stepping back from it with a hedge is that particular form of Midwestern nasty-nice that damages reputations and sows a spirit of distrust as much as forthright accusations."

    Quite.

    ReplyDelete
  32. LeoRufus2:31 PM

    A careful study of the photo shows that the head of the Pope is below that of everyone else on the picture. If you study the picture carefully, the angle of her Highness' leg outlined in the skirt shows that she may indeed be kneeling and the kneeler may not be high enough so she has to stoop rather than rest her elbows placidly as if at communion rail.

    Really some priests need to hear more confessions and do less blogging.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hmmm...Before we lay all the sins of the world on the backs of women:

    First person to commit a murder?
    First thief?
    First person to defraud a worker of his wages?
    First person to oppress the poor?
    First person to build idols?
    First heretic?
    First person to lead others into schism?
    First rapist (though some may say this is the "woman's fault")?
    First pederast?
    First sodomite?
    First wife-beater (though some "holy men" like Bp Williamson, agree with this detestable practice)?
    First genocidal maniac?

    Who sought Christ's crucifixion?
    Who crucified Him?
    Who betrayed Him?
    Who denied Him?
    Who persecuted the Saints?

    Who founded Communism, Nazism, Modernism, Postmodernism?


    Remove the plank in your own eye first. This "women are the source of all evil" crap has NO place in the Church. So ... are we Christians or are we Muslims? How to we confront the woman caught in adultery (and where was the man)?

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dear Mercury,

    ...(though some "holy men" like Bp Williamson, agree with this detestable practice)?...

    ... How to we confront the woman caught in adultery (and where was the man)?...

    First, His Eminence Bishop Richard Williamson does not condone the beating of anyone.

    Holy Mother Church allows men to spank their wives. Find a Catholic Priest somewhere and get catechized; properly.

    I know Bishop Williamson personally. I did not know Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. I do know they are of the best there is in Holy Mother Church.

    I have attended classes at an SSPX Seminary. I have prayed the Holy Rosary with the Priests, Nuns, Religious and Seminarians of the SSPX.

    To do so has taken me back to my childhood when there was no need for the SSPX. The Smoke of Satan from the hi-jacking of a lawfully called Council had not hit yet.

    While I am not an SSPX member, I command my family to do all that is asked of them by SSPX Priests and Nuns. I have a web site that has SSPX Priests and Nuns on it.

    To take shots at Bishop Fellay without first telling him is not fair.

    I have spoken in harsh terms about Bishop Fellay. I am only repeating what I have told him to his face.

    If the man that caused the adultery had been there, Christ, under Jewish Law, would have had to allow the stoning.

    It was an act of Divine Providence he was not.

    We should become knowledgeable of our Faith and its History. We don’t need to be know it alls.

    When Paul called Peter out, he did so to his face. And Paul had done his homework.

    In conclusion, I am glad you at least know how to read what I say and comment on it Charitably while telling me I am full of baloney.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...Now we see where you are coming from. I didn't realize Terry had such a following with people who don't accept anything post V2. The comments about women are really quite despicable..."

    Dear Mr. Michael R,

    Vatican II was a lawfully called Council.

    Many things are attributed to it that are not true. Those are the things which are rejected by Roman Catholics. We cannot say everything from Vatican Council II is wrong. That would be saying Holy Mother Church is in error. Members of the Church Hierarchy attached many things that are wrong.

    That would be sacrilege.

    I have learned arguing with a Liberal about the role of women after his wrists have gone limp and comments with a lisp is useless.

    Where do you stand on your role of women? What is your role?

    *

    ReplyDelete
  37. "To take shots at Bishop Fellay without first telling him is not fair."

    Wheras it's perfectly fair to take shots at half the people in the world, apparently?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous6:49 PM

    Michael R, I've been a reader here for some time. Just now commenting to thank you. I have been wondering whether Terry or nazarethpriest, or -anyone- would dare to question "Pablo."
    No one has.
    Nazarethpriest says he's a great guy, and Angela M's milky rebuke doesn't even merit a direct reply from him.
    Friend Michael, you're falling into Pablo's trap when you think he rails from a pre-Vatican II perspective. He doesn't really have anything to conribute on pre- or post-Vatican II Catholicism. He just wraps his crap in a way that Terry's readers can 'forgive' his
    'hyperbole.'

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mr. Nelson's blog is a very good one.

    Other blogs, I have noticed, are beginning to 'catch up' with his blog. The administration of this blog by one man is excellent.

    The blog better than this one, in terms of Catholicism, is Rorate Caeli blog. And it has a group of men that manage it. From around the World.

    The murders of Priests in Iraq demonstrates to us the need for Church Militant web sites and blogs.

    We do not need Church Liberal.

    If I am admonished from time to time, I take it in a manly way. I know women don’t need me to tell them to go full blast or take it easy. They have good judgment.

    If I do not reply, it is because I stand corrected.

    My Blog I.D. is crystal clear.

    I can be known and I can be found. I do not hide.

    At no time has there been found poison in my heart or venom in my words.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  40. Pablo has come to my blog and given me shit from time to time. Don't claim to understand him and I think he's a bit whack, but overall entertaining if he doesn't become a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I have no reason to say anything against Bishop Fellay personally. From what I have read of him, he doesn't seem like a bad person.

    I have no reason to ever say anything good abut Williamson, based on the crap that comes from that man's mouth, and I only hope that if the SSPX decides to come back into full union with the Church, they either leave Williamson behind or Williamson repents and changes his ways.

    As far as Holy Mother Church "allowing men to spank their wives", I have never heard of such nonsense in my life, and I do wish someone more knowledgeable than me can address that. A wife is a helpmate, a companion. Yes, the husband has headship, but he cannot treat his wife like a child, a slave, or a dog.

    And do you really think Christ would have allowed the stoning if the man were there? The woman was "caught" in adultery - they knew who the man was. so, Christ would have said "go ahead and throw stones"? This is the most novel idea I've heard yet.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And I would rather not be married than to have a wife and "spank her" when she doesn't obey my every wish and command. I do hope than anyone who thinks that way also remains unmarried.

    ReplyDelete
  43. A milky rebuke? WTF?!
    Anon - don't feed the troll.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "We do not need Church Liberal."

    No-one here ever said we did.

    It is possible to be orthodox without being a jerk about it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. veneremur - I'm totally lost myself - I'm suddenly not sure I get my humor, much less know where I am coming from lately - if I listen to everyone who comments on my posts that is. (Now that's funny. That's my humor.)

    ReplyDelete
  46. One thing the Devil hates: People getting together and speaking truthfully about what he is doing.

    Blessed is he who helps those that walk through the valley of the shadow of death.

    That means blog owners like Mr. Nelson.

    Their hard work drives the Devil and his children crazier.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  47. I thought this blog post was ridiculing the fact that so many people saw "the devil's work" in this total non-issue. I mean, isn't it the devil who drives us to nit-pick to death every detail of what others do without looking at ourselves?

    The lack of charity among commenters at WDTPRS or Rorate Caeli - that's more the devil's work than communion in the hand could ever be, especially since Catholics are allowed to receive communion in the hand, but are not allowed to judge other's hearts or gossip about them.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Terry - 48 comments!! Milk it, baby, milk it!! LOL

    I so get you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Larry, if this was Plurk, Terry would have 100% Karma by now - which is after all what every Catholic wants

    ReplyDelete
  50. I'm overwhelmed if a drawing of mine gets six comments and 3 FB likes ;-)

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.