Monday, September 05, 2011

Fraternal correction...



And yet the Bishop went to a 'bad' Mass and said nothing to the priest...  (Editor:  Correction - it appears he probably did say something.)

So once upon a time a bishop went on vacation and attended a Mass with lots of liturgical abuses.  It wasn't before long that the bishop came to the conclusion, "if things are this bad at Mass, I will not go to confession to this priest."  .
.
As soon as Mass was over, the bishop departed in silence.  (Editor:  That appears to be untrue.)
.
When the bishop returned home, he blogged about the sorry state of affairs at that parish.  Evidently the naughty priest was never granted the grace of fraternal correction.  And yet the bishop received kudos for recognizing what many of us have had to put up with for years.  (Editor:  I was later informed that it is more likely that the good bishop did speak to the priest privately - which is how good fraternal correction works best.)

No wonder the Holy Father is recommending fraternal correction.  One might hope that his exhortation would apply especially to those in authority...
.
The text of the Gospel “tells us that brotherly love also involves a sense of mutual responsibility,” said the Pope, “so if my brother sins against me, I must use love towards him and, first of all, speak to him personally, pointing out that what he has said or done is not good.” - CNA
.
Of course, it could be that the bishops actually prefer Michael Voris to do it instead? 
.
What?
.
(Editor: My apologies for such a snarky post in the first place.)
.
Art:  Dada's Magic Bishop, Hugo Ball
.
UPDATE - UPDATE - UPDATE:

Larry of Acts of the Apostacy was so kind as to offer a correction to my post, he wrote:

"Terry - in the spirit of gentle fraternal correction - I think you might have skimmed past this line in the Bishop's post:

"I was also on vacation so ... Nevertheless, I didn't let it go. What I did or did not do, I will leave between me and the priest. I hope it was helpful."

Sounds as if he did speak to the priest, but refrained to discuss it publicly."

Now if only I had refrained from posting this.  Thank you Larry. My apologies to the bishop and everyone concerned. The bishop is indeed deserving of 'kudos' .  One less thing for Mike to take care of too.  What?  (Added @ 3:17 PM.  I have been offline since last evening.)

187 comments:

  1. Heard a lovely homily today on how to correct our brother or sister in Christ. Nice to get some practical advice for once.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The only problem is that a lot of the "correction" is Catholics "correcting" Catholics about things that aren't sins in the first place: communion in the hand, wearing pants, dancing, geocentrism, etc. Of course, these types usually move on from simple correction and onto excommunication of their fellow Catholics.

    The Internet is full of such folk who feel it is their duty to "fraternally correct" everyone on what it is to be truly truly Catholic. The CA forums are the absolute WORST place for this - I can't tell you the paranoia that place breeds. I remember one guy was criticized for his over-zealousness and he said he saw it as his job to "root out heresy wherever he could find it". How much you wanna bet the guy didn't know how to properly apprehend what heresy is and is not?

    I guess the idea of fraternal correction needs a healthy balance of the whole mote in your brother's eye thing, doesn't it?

    And if I hear one more person say "we're/I'm like John the Baptist", I'm gonna puke. People who bitch and tattle and count the things others do wrong are not prophets, and usually the loudest voices may mean well, but are somewhat ignorant.

    Of course, this bishop noticed things that were VERY wrong - and certainly one could expect a bishop of all people to fraternal some correction.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What bothers me is priests and religious who have committed severe "errors" and have been allowed to remain in their position, setting the wrong example for Catholics and misrepresenting Catholic teaching on considerable issues such as abortion. Remember that nun who was helping customers into an abortion clinic? How about Hans Kung? If individuals like these have been "fraternally corrected" and they still continue with their misconduct and are allowed to keep their positions, what does that say about their superiors? Their superiors, much like the bishop in your story, fails not so much them as they do the laity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. He made a mistake, writing about it first. The Bishop that is. I hope someone corrects him, in love and doesn't just use his post as a sounding board for their liturgical wish list.

    I wonder if he said 'Hello' back to the priest? He seemed so keen to spot the poor man's flaws he says he can't remember if the priest said the 'I confess', but he thinks so????????????????????????????

    Did the Bishop himself say the 'I confess'? Can he remember? He mentioned needing confession, so surely his own soul's preparations would have made his saying of this a more concsious act and therefore be more easy to call to mind? Perhaps American Bishops prepare for confession differently, using scrutiny of their proposed confessor's specks as a pre-requisite for their own soul searching?

    He didn't mention any of his own input at Mass, apart from his noted critique and unsatisfied liturgical requirements, also not having enough time to assist at Mass (not suprised, he was far too busy as a look out when he should have been asking God for the light to look within), but plenty of time to judge and edit a small document for posting later.

    I have always felt like a square peg in a round hole in the Catholic Church(and everywhere else come to that), but to me, this post should have been about abuses surrounding a Bishop's preparation for reconcilliation, when it fact it has turmed into a 'let's knock a N.O Priest post'. These people are the ones I am to aspire to, but the truth is, I don't aspire to them atall.

    Good morning America, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have a great deal of respect for Mercury's post above, there is an awful lot of truth in what he says.
    We are Catholics. We are also sinners so why do we feel we are justified to correct everyone around us?
    Pity the the child who cries during Mass, or an old person who dares to cough or not make the response at the correct moment.
    Pity Poor priest who dares to put on a Service of Word and Communion during the week, or the Bishop who dares not reply to the same rude letter he has received 27 times before.
    Woe betide the Ordinary who dares to deprive a parish of the Traditional Masses they believe we are entitled to.

    Who are we to judge everyone else. Are we really so perfect? Did we become divine? Could we really run the diocese better than the Bishop or offer the Mass better than the priest? In truth, we might like to think that way but we are fooling ourselves big time. The fact that we think like this and feel justified to criticize those in authority is a sad reflection of what our church has become.
    Oh, we can blame the hierarchy all we like, the fact remains it is up to us to practice our faith the way Our Lord taught us with humility, treat those around us in this church with charity and kindness, that includes our Bishops and priests.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like this woman's perspective, from some time ago, and though not directly related to what Terry speaks of, perhaps could be adapted:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/why-i-love-my-ugly-little-liturgy/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Terry, That is not actually what happened. The Bishop describes his thought process that he was not there as a Bishop - etc., but says in the end, he could not keep silent about it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Terry - in the spirit of gentle fraternal correction - I think you might have skimmed past this line in the Bishop's post:

    "I was also on vacation so ... Nevertheless, I didn't let it go. What I did or did not do, I will leave between me and the priest. I hope it was helpful."

    Sounds as if he did speak to the priest, but refrained to discuss it publicly.

    Still - the Holy Father's words are very true.

    Happy Labor Day!

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

    ReplyDelete
  10. Larry - you rock.

    Terry brings up an interesting point though - especially in light of yesterday's readings. Ezekiel 33: 7-9

    In periods such as we are in, when priests and Bishops recoil from their vocation of dissuading us from our wicked nature, that duty falls to the faithful and God cultivates the courage and zeal in the people He raises to do the job. At the same time, of course, we warn the Bishop about his failures so that he has the opportunity to accept this fraternal warning or reject it. Most just take the easy way out and let laity do their job. I wouldn't want to be them on their day of judgment. Nor do I want Christ to hold me accountable for seeing it and saying nothing about it while calling it piety!

    For those like Michael Voris, who are called to the role he is in, there are only two choices. If we do not speak out to dissuade the wicked, we will be held accountable for his spiritual death.

    Of course, all along the way, the people who see with the eyes in their head instead of the eyes of the soul have a field day persecuting and ridiculing.

    Good times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ps - the order of fraternal correction in accordance with the Church when all else fails, is to warn the people.

    CNA did not follow the path of Christ's Church which is what makes what they did so despicable in their exposition of Simon Rafe and hunting down the minutia of not filing a stupid annual report in their attempts to stop laity from carrying out the role of warning.

    Mercury,

    In my days of rebellion, I was a 'Eucharistic Minister'. I will not bore with the details of particles on the hand I saw falling onto the floor, onto people's clothes - or the people who would take the back of their hand and wipe their mouth after drinking the Precious Blood and then wipe it on their pants. It may not offend you -- but it sure does to those of us who are Eucharistic and know the redemption value of every Precious Particle. Everyone has things they can look the other way to - this one is yours but it is not so for others. Jumping all over the people who can't take it is really not Holy Spirit any way you slice it.

    Blessings on this first Labor Day without Jerry Lewis!

    ReplyDelete
  12. btw - I don't know where you find these pictures -- got to be the artist in you -- but they and the definitions you give them are hysterical.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I may be alone in my opinion that the good bishop should have arranged to go to confession to this priest if for no other reason to ensure that he was not taking liberties that would make the absolution invalid. Not only that, but there is a great comfort in hearing the words of absolution, as they are meant to be said, of which the faithful are deprived when encountering such a priest. Think of the laity who were not so fortunate, either through their own ignorance or for fear of speaking up. On the rare occasions when I've offered "fraternal correction", I've either been told to mind my business or admonished for being judgmental.

    It is my understanding that a priest or religious sister should identify themselves as such as they begin to make their confession. I wonder what opportunity that might have presented had the bishop decided to go ahead and "impose" on this priest to hear his confession.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It may not offend you -- but it sure does to those of us who are Eucharistic and know the redemption value of every Precious Particle."

    Why the deliberate passive-aggressive insulting twist on the words? "It may not bother you, but those of us who love Jesus ..."

    The FACT is that regardless of whether or not it's imprudent for the bishops to have allowed communion in the hand, NO ONE sins simply by doing that, and to imply that they are de facto irreverent or sinful is itself a sin. It is not "fraternal correction" to tell people they are wrong or sinning by receiving communion in the hand, but arrogance. Period. And yes I will criticize those who tell others they are sinning or are "not Eucharistic" because they receive on the hand. Because you are not correcting them regarding Church teaching, but regarding your preference (which may be right, but you have a duty to keep your mouth shut where the Church allows freedom).

    For the record, I would like to see the US bishops bring back the altar rails and communion on the tongue. I DO think its more reverent and less conducive to abuse. But that's a different story.

    And finally - why knock Jerry Lewis? That's not Holy Spirit no matter which way you slice it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Joyce, Forgive me, because I forget where you live and whether you are under the crucible of a place where the priests are feigning the Sacraments with innovations - but after a while, the penitent reserves his animus and soul to a vessel that he or she knows is one of the Holy Spirit.

    In the spiritual world, a penitent not in a state of Grace is a place with an open door for the demonic. The last thing you do is subject yourself to a soul infested to deliver whatever it is he is delivering. You are much worse off than you went in.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Little Way - I understand what you mean. The problem is, it is rare that I run into actual Catholics in need of fraternal correction. Most of the people I'm around are irreligious (at work), and I don't know how to address some things. Usually I gently remind people that it's not right to gossip or tell them I don't want to hear about their sexual exploits.

    It may sound like a cop-out, but I'm afraid that saying something about hell, sin, or the like to someone so completely outside the pale would be counterproductive. I've found that forming friendships and then taking the time to explain what I believe after they KNOW me at least might make them think. Sometimes I know all I can do is a say a Hail Mary for them.

    This is multiplied a hundredfold for people who knew me before I got serious about religion, and who I may myself have encouraged in the past. To tell my friend out of the blue about the sinfulness of cohabitation relationship seems so hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mercury, I wasn't knocking Jerry Lewis. I was serious. I can't remember a year in my life when I didn't plan to be in front of the television at 5:45 to watch him sing that song. It is a sad day for me. I don't think expressing that deserves your condemnation that it is of the devil but you are of course entitled to your opinion.

    The last thing I am is passive-aggressive! You listed communion in the hand as something trivial to you and beyond reproach. I explained to you the reasons why it is actually, to the Eucharistic, a very serious and heartbreaking offenses.

    I disagree that these Sacrileges are not sins. The people, of course, do not know any better. However the priests and Bishops do and they are accountable for what is going on.

    This is the Body of Christ, where each of us is inspired with something for a reason. The fact that you are deficient in seeing something Merc, may make one feel inferior and ultimately inspire one to lash out to protect one's ego, but jumping all over people who bring things into the light is not an invitation for us to pounce all over them.

    Got to get away from that IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Carol - I did not say that offenses and irreverence to the Eucharist are not sins. I said that receiving in the hand is not de facto a sin. Period. There really is no argument, if what you are trying to say is that all Catholics who receive in the hand are somehow sinning just because of that fact, or that they are not "Eucharistic" and do not care. The very fact that you seem to be using the word "Eucharistic" to separate those who care from those who do not care (which I guess includes all people who receive in the hand) is divisive and uncalled for.

    The fact of the matter is that you or anyone else has NO RIGHT to "fraternally correct" anyone on that issue. You may say that receiving on the tongue is more reverent, you may petition the bishops to bring that back as the norm, but you really may not "correct" people who do what is allowed within Church law, and which cannot OF ITSELF be considered immoral or irreverent. To do so is to make a mockery of fraternal correction.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I did not say it was a trivial issue. But you have no right to tell someone they are offensive to God just because they receive in the hand. Zero.

    On a personal note, I want to start receiving on the tongue, but I always feel very awkward when doing it - I grew up with it in the hand, you see. I don't like standing out, and I figure that if I receive reverently in the hand, which is certainly allowed by Church law, Jesus is not thereby offended.

    If the bishops mandated that everyone must receive on the tongue behind the rail, I'd be happy though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. From my reading of your words you twisted them to imply I was saying you did not love Jesus.

    That is not what I said at all.

    I said Christ's Eucharistic people, those who are acutely driven to know and understand and feel the redemptive value of every Precious Drop of Blood - are being called by Christ to remind the priests and the people what is happening and to encourage them to take the Sacrament by mouth.

    You may think people have 'no right' to act upon this calling but the One Who calls us to do so is the Higher Arbiter.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I will repeat for the record - what is happening when one takes Communion in the hand is indeed offensive to God.

    It is not the act of taking by hand. It is the particles of Christ's Precious Redemptive Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity that is being tramped, thrown into washing machines, vacuumed up. These Sacrileges are absolutely the sins of the priests and Bishops who know or should have known.

    Good luck to them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mercury, sorry, I should have been more clear. When I have offered correction to priests, that is when I'm told to mind my own business, or admonished for being judgmental. Priests who change the entire words of the Mass, or can't be bothered to sufficiently purify the vessels after Holy Communion. With friends, relatives and acquaintances, I do find it counter-productive to be so confrontational. It is at those times that I will rely on time, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the right opportunity to broach a subject. My objective is, after all, to win conversion for the person, not to sound off because I can or because I know I'm right.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "I said Christ's Eucharistic people, those who are acutely driven to know and understand and feel the redemptive value of every Precious Drop of Blood"

    You imply that those who do not receive on the tongue do NOT belong to this group of people, which is certainly offensive, and it's an implication you have no right to make.

    You have every right to encourage people to receive on the tongue, you have every right to imply that it encourages greater devotion (I think it does), and yo have every right to petition the bishops to change the custom.

    You have NO right to tell people that they are sinning or offending Jesus in the Holy Eucharist if they do not feel comfortable receiving on the tongue. NONE, not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I will repeat for the record - what is happening when one takes Communion in the hand is indeed offensive to God."

    And how do you know this, Carol? Really? So you really think that those who have been told receiving on the tongue is better are now sinning if they do not do that? Really? Do you know how great a sin a deliberate offense against the Eucharist is?

    And for the record, Fr. Z., among others, has answered the question that the particles only retain their character for a certain time. Otherwise one could never sweep or vacuum the area around the altar.

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

    ReplyDelete
  26. Carol, I understand your point, but on the other hand, I can't count the number of times I unknowingly confessed to a less-than-orthodox priest. I left that confessional and sought out another, which is my point with the good bishop. Nothing drives home the suffering of the faithful like having to experience it for one's self. Bishops need to be out and among the faithful more because if they had to contend with what we do, they might be more apt to do something about it. BTW, I am in Philadelphia and thanks be to God, in a very orthodox parish. However, because of my work schedule, the only time I'm at my own parish is on weekends and holy days. During the week, it's a matter of chance what kind of liturgy I encounter.

    None of us are perfect and perhaps nothing strengthens us more than the lament over a squandered opportunity. I am not criticizing the bishop, though it may seem that way. To Larry's point, he did address the matter directly with the offending priest

    ReplyDelete
  27. So I had better just get over whatever anxieties I have receiving on the tongue, because some laypeople say it's a sin to receive in the hand (and I know modern Saints have encouraged reception on the tongue, but they never said people who receive in the hand are sinning). Who cares what my spiritual director has said - who cares that your assertion implies that priests who allow people to receive the hand are sinful disrespecters of the Eucharist. Who cares what the Church and the Bishops say. Who cares that people who have never known any different may have a hard time adjusting. They're all just greatly offensive to Christ, right?

    I'd like to receive on the tongue because I think it shows greater reverence, but I am very self-conscious, and I feel it's a reproach to others in my family, which I don't think would be right. I do not want to do it because some people on the Internet say I am offending God, and because I am scrupulously afraid. The Church allows me the freedom to receive in the hand until I can receive the other way. And for some people it may even turn out that they feel they can show greater reverence by receiving in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I absolutely am implying that people who take Communion by hand are ignorant of what is happening for one reason or another. It is impossible for Catholi who is intimately and vocationally Eucharistic, not to know.

    Whatever conclusion makes one feel inferior about that, so be it.

    I would prayerfully reconsider your crusade to tell people what to do and say in light of this situation.

    You pointed out that Communion by hand is lumped in with the minutia of wearing pants and dancing. I responded to that allegation as an act of charity. And for my Beloved Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Perhaps it would help if Carol told us what religion she is? Do you have a catechism you can refer us to Carol, re receiving Holy Comunion and other beliefs you seem to quote as established doctrine, known to only the enlightened and reformed Catholic(according to your definition of same)?

    You say you were an EHMC in your days of rebellion? Please tell me when being an EHMC became an act/sin of rebellion in the Roman Catholic Church?

    Please don't tell me anything else, until you answer those two questions, as they are posed.

    Thank you, for your consideration..

    ReplyDelete
  30. Little Way - remember the Confession is still valid even if the priest mocks and trivializes - as long as he says the words right, you receive the Sacrament. It helps always to remember that one is really confessing to Christ, not to the priest himself.

    In my last confession, I was given a "penance" that I can't do, because it would be heretical, I think. But I did receive absolution - I'm just going to have to confess next time that I didn't do my penance (but I prayed a Divine Mercy chaplet instead).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Carol, if only you could see the hypocrisy in the words:

    "I would prayerfully reconsider your crusade to tell people what to do and say in light of this situation."

    So, just to be clear, you do not think it is possible for one to love the Eucharist and receive in the hand, and that someone who knows that receiving on the tongue may be more reverent is putting his soul in jeopardy if he does not do so immediately?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mercury, that's often the problem I've encountered - priests who make up their own words of absolution, or leave the words out altogether. The same priests, btw, are likely to make up their own words at Mass, so I think the bishops's instincts about what kind of confessor the offending priest would be were spot on. God Bless

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh, and the priests who "allow" this are themselves hurting Christ, right? All the orthodox priests, including the Pope, who "allows" this are just hurting Christ, right?

    And if I, out of reverence, decide to start receiving on the tongue, I have a duty to "correct" all the people who do not do so, including my father, who has had great devotion to the Blessed Sacrament for all his life? I'm supposed to tell him that he's sinning and offending God? Let me guess, if he "really" loved Christ, he'd change immediately, right?

    And my spiritual director is a liar. I'm so glad I have people on the Internet to give pastoral direction.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mercury,

    You seem to be wound up tight in your emotions and are making erroneous assumptions because of it but I am happy to repeat myself.


    One can love the Eucharist and love Jesus but not have the intimacy and knowledge to have a Eucharistic vocation.

    They may have been formed to love the poor.

    It is not in any way, shape or form more 'reverent' to receive the Eucharist by hand. That is a delusion. I have explained, numerous times now, that the individual receiving in the hand may be and most likely is ignorant of the desecration of Precious particles. Their souls are not in jeopardy if they are ignorant. If they are not ignorant and continue to do so, I can't speak to whether or not their souls are in jeopardy. That may be happening for a variety of reasons, they may be low IQ or compromised from death, depression, sadness or some other spiritual malady.

    What I do know is that the priests and Bishops who do know, these sins are on their shoulders. The people in the public square called to bring light to the situation are doing as the readings instructed us to do yesterday. It is an act of charity for the priest, the Bishop and the souls who are ignorant of what is happening.

    I hope that helps with the clarity.

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

    ReplyDelete
  36. 2 Things:

    1. My priest asked people this morning to begin considering kneeling for Holy Communion and receiving on the tongue. (At an OF Mass) Wow.

    2. After Mass we were talking and he referred to the new breviary as "The Little Office of Paul VI." LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Clark, I totally agree with the priest doing that. Some people here seem to think that even if a priest allows people to receive by hand, he is sinning and putting his soul in jeopardy. I guess every priest I have ever known is either "ignorant" or if he's not, he's sinning.

    Carol, you are once again implying that people who receive by hand do not have a "Eucharistic vocation". You are out of line in imputing sin onto anyone. WAY out of line. Anyone who receives by hand, even if they KNOW and think that receiving on the tongue is more reverent is not sinning AT ALL if they continue to receive in the hand. Sometimes it is simply awkward because one as been formed one way or another.

    You presume much to implicate 99% of the priests in the West and just about all of the bishops of grave sin against the Eucharist.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Douay-Rheims Bible

    "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you."

    Hebrews 13:17

    The parish priest of your home parish is your spiritual leader. Officially you would speak to him first, over matters. St Paul urged that all things be done decently and in order.

    He never mentioned taking advice from reformed rebels, or having to answer to their demands made of you, in commboxes, whilst on earth. That's why you have your own mind(to think with), your own conscience(to fully inform), your own parish priest(to fulfil your sacramental needs), your own Catholic Catechism, your own Bishops and Popes.
    (to keep an eye on the rest and give an answer for us all, on Judgment Day)!

    Reformed rebels (Corapi for eg) can give their affirmation to Catholic doctrine, earn quite a lot of dough whilst at it, they can't change it....yet, Thank God.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Pope does not allow Communion by hand in His See. Perhaps he has seen and contemplated the wrath of folks like you and shadowlands when the subject is brought up and has decided to delay the changes. I don't know.

    There is an intimacy with the Precious and Redemptive Body and Blood of Christ and a purpose for that intimacy which you do not want to accept.

    If you want to delude yourself into thinking that you can take Communion with a pious look on your face as the particles drop to the floor and your clothes and this can be more reverent, I certainly can't stop you.

    But posting the truth may convince others.

    God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And once again, fraternal correction has to do with addressing people who are sinning. Because you THINK someone is sinning does not mean you have a right to fraternally "correct" them, even though you may certainly encourage in one way or another. You telling people they sin gravely by receiving the Eucharist in the hand is not fraternal correction.

    Morally speaking, there is nothing INHERENTLY wrong with receiving communion in any way whatsoever - hypothetically one COULD receive with one's feet, though I don not imagine that would ever be reverent for anyone. But reverence has FAR more to do with internal disposition than external posture. It may very well be that someone receiving in the hand might find that they are better disposed that way because they are not self-conscious, etc., or they are moved to reverence by the idea of holding the Lord in their hands, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "If you want to delude yourself into thinking that you can take Communion with a pious look on your face as the particles drop to the floor and your clothes and this can be more reverent, I certainly can't stop you."

    Again, passive-aggressive insulting of another Catholic's reverence for the Eucharist. Removing myself from the picture, I know and have known many people who are VERY devoted to the Eucharist and who receive on the hand because that's how they learned it. For them, receiving on the tongue would be awkward, and they would feel like they're calling attention to themselves. They are not irreverent, not matter what your opinion is.

    That may be true about the Pope's See in Rome. But he has never said than anyone sins or is irreverent by receiving in the hand. If that is so, I'd like you to prove it. And I guess John Paul II just wasn't devoted to the Blessed Sacrament if he allowed communion in the hand, right?

    And you didn't answer shadowlands' questions. I think they were every good questions, and not wrath. You seem to be unaware of the fact that the burden of proof is on you to prove that people who receive in the hand are sinning gravely, and that the Church actually teaches this (regardless of the opinions of some Saints in the past, which, though venerable, are not the Magisterium).

    ReplyDelete
  42. Once again, I am not implying sin. I am implying that there is an intimacy with the Eucharist that rises above most in the pew and this intimacy imparts knowledge. This knowledge imparts spiritual insight that others do not have for a variety of reasons.

    In light of the ignorance and wrath that ignorance brings on when an ego gets wounded, I am still willing to say it. If you take Communion by hand, and can convince yourself that putting out your tongue is too akward because of the way 'you were made' - any pious look you put on your face doesn't make up for the particles being put into washing machines and vacuumed up into bags with dirt.

    Let those with ears hear.

    Peace of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Carol said:

    "I don't know."

    I'll take that as your answer then, to my questions asking you to point out to us, where in the Catechism, you are quoting from?

    It's not in the catechism though, is it, Carol?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Shadowlands,

    I didn't realize you were serious as it seemed like such a stupid question.

    There are all kinds of Liturgical rubrics to protect the physical attributes of the matter that was used before Convecting It into the Body and Blood of Christ.

    These rubrics are put in place because everyone knows particles fall from the Eucharist.

    There is no reference to these falling particles in the Catechism. But if you want to deny these rubrics exist and the purpose they exist for - carry on. I don't have time to address silliness.

    Particles fall from the Eucharist. Anyone who has handled the Eucharist with their hands can tell you.

    If you take Communion by hand, there is desecration of these particles that are falling. Whi8le this is trivia to you and to Mercury, for those of us who are drawn to intimacy with Christ's Redemptive Body and Blood, we are compelled to speak the truth about it in the public square, to priests, to Bishops, to the people in the pews.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Carol said, of herself and a select few:

    "I am implying that there is an intimacy with the Eucharist that rises above most in the pew and this intimacy imparts knowledge. This knowledge imparts spiritual insight that others do not have for a variety of reasons."

    Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Whi8le this is trivia to you and to Mercury, for those of us who are drawn to intimacy with Christ's Redemptive Body and Blood, we are compelled to speak the truth about it in the public square, to priests, to Bishops, to the people in the pews."

    Again, why do you assume that we consider it trivial? Why do you imply that at the core of our being, we are not reverent to the Blessed Sacrament?

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is how the Mystical Body of Christ operates. To one, one gift. To another, another gift. You are, no doubt, endowed with gifts that I do not have.

    It is actually supposed to be a thing of beauty. Where we all learn from each other.

    Christ sees what you are doing to it.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Christ sees what you are doing to it."

    Do you see what I mean by passive-aggression? I am not the one accusing others of sin. I am just pointing out what the Church teaches, and that she does allow freedom in certain areas, even if it admittedly not the most prudent.

    I have not implied that anyone loves the Eucharist more, or that certain people who are devoted to the Eucharist routinely and knowingly desecrate it because they prefer to receive in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "for those of us who are drawn to intimacy with Christ's Redemptive Body and Blood, we are compelled to speak the truth about it in the public square, to priests, to Bishops, to the people in the pews."

    Compelled by whom, Carol? Can you give even a scriptural authority for this compulsion (as most decent protestants normally do)that causes you to alter doctrine and give the redefinition of EHMC as a rebellious action? I am sorry if my need for you to clarify your statements seems stupid to you.
    You must see yourself as stooping quite low to speak to me, I am grateful as it may be that one or two others can get a clearer picture of just exactly what it is, you truly beieve and are a little afraid to ask. Fools rush in, as they say......

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mercury, Because your words lumped the desecration in with wearing pants and dancing. Because of your behavior and discourse when I tried to bring the desecration out of the minutia you put It in with.

    I'm sorry, I have a family, friends, a house to take care of and a post to put up on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Shadowlands,

    I don't get your conclusion. You asked if there is teaching about the proper handling of the Eucharist and the particles which I am explaining to you and I gave it to you. Your response is short on substance.

    I assumed you knew Liturgical rubrics and teachings on how to handle the Eucharist because of the particles so it seemed like your question to point it out in the Catechism was just bullying.

    Compelled by Whom? Compelled by love. Compelled by God.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Carol! you haven't finished your drink? Oh well, waste not, want not, I'll have it.
    Cor blimey, what's this quote I've found behind this bar stool?

    Oooh, it's a statement and part of a letter by Fr Benedict Van der Putten...., from a contemporary scholar regarding the great schism:

    "Many schisms develop gradually - with serious accusations of heresy, immorality, abuses, etc. against local priests and bishops and even the Pope. The Greek schism is an interesting case study. They are now in 1,000 years of schism - One of their arguments is utilized by the SSPX - "You can't trust Rome!"

    "The Pope will have to give account to God for the vows he made to bring unity to the Church; no mere human being has any right to judge him in respect of them, nor has an assembly of bishops...They are trying to force the hand of the Holy Ghost! pg.471vol.3W.Carroll"

    Stick with the catechism you have been given everyone. The Lord will not acknowledge ANY other so called illumination or authority, denouncing what Rome says is valid.

    ReplyDelete
  53. A few words from yesterday's homily by Father Raniero Cantalamessa:

    "You must make sure above all that in your heart there is a fundamental disposition of welcome toward other persons. If you have this, then whatever you do, whether you correct or remain silent, you will be doing the right thing, because love “does evil to no one.”


    I think we must be very careful when we find ourselves "zealous" or on a mission.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Behind Communion in the hand — I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can — is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence . . . Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

    John Hardon SJ

    ReplyDelete
  55. I'm sure it is necessary to twist what I am saying to soothe your ego but for the record, I do not 'denounce what Rome says is valid'.

    I am saying that in doing so, particles of Christ's Precious Body and Blood are falling onto the floor, onto your clothes and landing in vacuum cleaners and washing machines.

    This is irrefutable. Mercury and Shadowlands don't give a rat's patoot. I do, others do. You should too.

    There is no burden to letting the priest put the Eucharist on your tongue to avoid it as a witness to the kind of reverence you have for the Substance that may and will fall to the floor. If you do it, others will follow.

    Do not let the bullying dissuade you from the lucidity of this small sacrifice until the Holy See feels that the bullies are outnumbered.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "You must make sure above all that in your heart there is a fundamental disposition of welcome toward other persons. If you have this, then whatever you do, whether you correct or remain silent, you will be doing the right thing, because love “does evil to no one.”

    Yes indeed. I think the thread speaks for itself as to whom this applies.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Your response is short on substance."

    Is it really. I am so sorry. I need two quotes from the catechism, to back up what you have stated as facts.

    Carol, you are in danger. You have no catechetical references to back up your arguments, yet accuse me of being short on substance?

    And I just love this answer...

    "Compelled by Whom? Compelled by love. Compelled by God."

    I am honestly not trying to wind you up here Carol, but if a homosexual gave an answer like that, in response to your demand for him to justify himself, you would eat him up, for breakfast. I however, shall digest this thread mentally, over tea!

    Take a break now as you are beginning to insult Mercury and myself a little bit too much.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Carol,

    I think it should apply to all of us. As should this:

    “Why do you regard the speck in your brother’s eye and ignore the bean in your own? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’ when you do not see the beam that is in yours?” (Luke 6:41).

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Catechism doesn't talk about a priest wearing his mother's dress and high heels, either.

    If there is a priest out there who will deny that particles fall from the Eucharist, or even a lay person willing to deny it, let them speak up. Cite them.

    Maria - you better watch your step in these comments boxes. The wolves are waiting to pounce.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Patrick, I all I can assume is that either you did not go to Mass yesterday or you are incapable of putting the whole picture together.

    Either way, you have my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Carol,you say we don't give a rat's patoot. How do you get this?

    I understand, and I agree that communion on the tongue is better. I want to do it myself, but am having trouble with it. Until that time, I know the Church gives the the option to receive in the hand.

    It's not a matter of "looking weird" in front of others, but of coming across as holier than thou. I've had to spend a lot of words convincing family members of the binding importance of the Eucharistic fast, etc. I do not want others to feel that I am "one upping" them.

    The fact is that communion on the tongue is a venerable sign of reverence, but it CAN also be a sign of the holier-than-thou, those who use certain signs of reverence as the litmus test of Catholicity and piety, or those who just KNOW how righteous they are. I do not want to appear that way, especially since certain people I know have been hurt by such attitudes, which has led to ignoring things that really ARE ecclesial and moral law.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Carol, I agree with Maria, and with Fr. Hardon. However, I bet Fr. Hardon distributed communion by hand when people came up to him with their hands out. As did Pope John Paul II, and as does Pope Benedict, though communicants are strongly encouraged to receive on the tongue and on their knees.

    Only one person here is presuming to judge the level of devotion and moral character of those who prefer to receive in the hand, and also judging the orthodoxy of 99% of priests, even the very orthodox ones.

    If my spiritual director says that he believes it is more reverent to receive on the tongue, but that one is free to receive in the hand if one chooses and it's not per se irreverent or a sin, and most of the people he distributes communion to receive in the hand, should I assume he is a worthless liberal?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Carol,

    I'm convinced that anything I could say in reply would not advance the conversation meaningfully because it seems to me that walls of self-righteousness surround you, though I can't be sure.

    But even saying that is saying too much and I contradict myself.

    Regardless, I do appreciate your prayers and I will try to remember you in mine as well.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "The Catechism doesn't talk about a priest wearing his mother's dress and high heels, either."

    That's no excuse to make things up yourself though Carol, regarding EHMC being an act of rebellion, for example. It's an untruth, no matter how angry and insulting you become, regarding the state or otherwise of my ego.
    You are not quoting Catholic teaching here.

    ReplyDelete
  65. A Case for Communion of the Tongue by David Vise--see link below.

    This article provides probably little known information on we arrived at our present state of affairs regarding reception of the Blessed Sacrament viz standing, not kneeling, in the hand, and not on the tongue. Fr. Hardon recommended this article.

    www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/COMUNION.TXT

    ReplyDelete
  66. Mercury,

    Are you trying to make the point that people who refuse to put Christ into a position where he is vacuumed up with dirt are spiritually inferior to you because they perceive themselves to be spiritually superior?

    I get where you're coming from now. It isn't a Mystical Body where one person is granted a gift and we all share what each of it lacks. It is all some kind of spirituality context among your peers. You're vocation is to look out for people you think are trying to impress you at Mass and your reaction to it all is to let Christ fall to the floor to prove to yourself it is you who is spiritually superior.

    If that doesn't work, might you consider taking Christ out of your mouth and stomping on Him? That will really fix the "pious" people.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Shadow--Some info re EM

    ROME, 14 OCT. 2003 (ZENIT).

    Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum.

    Q: Are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist for extraordinary circumstances or may they serve at every Mass? — W.B., Dallas, Texas

    A: Bishops, priests and deacons are the only ordinary ministers of the Eucharist and, unless impaired by a grave reason such as a serious health problem, they should always give out communion at Mass before any supplementary ministers are used. **Extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist are just that, extraordinary, and their function remains a supplementary one. If the celebrant can easily distribute Communion to all without causing excessive delay, then extraordinary ministers should not be used**.

    At times however, factors other than numbers can play a part in justifying seeking help such as a very elderly priest, or, in the cases where it is approved, to administer the Precious Blood, or those daily Masses where people sacrifice their time in order to attend Mass before work and even a couple of minutes delay can make a difference.

    Those who serve as eucharistic ministers should always be aware that it is a privilege and can never be considered a right. Even when a parish roster exists, nobody can rightly say "It's my turn" as if claiming something due to them, but should always be grateful for the blessing of being called to service as a minister of Christ's body and blood. ZE03101420

    ReplyDelete
  68. Shadowlands, Please. Stop with your silliness. This is actually quite entertaining.

    I am sitting here laughing my fanny off!

    I see nobody has stepped up to the plate to back your thesis that the Catholic Church does not hold that particles fall from the handling of the Eucharist.

    I am on the edge of my seat.

    I have poured through the Catechism and can't find it. Can you cite where that teaching is?

    ReplyDelete
  69. And what, Maria, does the good Father and professor of liturgy say about those EM's who do what so few parish priests are willing or have time to do, bring Holy Communion to the sick and shut-ins on a regular basis? I find a bit of schizophrenia on this subject among priests, who rightfully argue that only ordinary minsters (priests and deacons) should distribute Holy Communion, but have no problem abdicating this duty to the laity so they don't have to inconvenience themselves with this act of mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Maria, that is an interesting article. I agree that communion on the tongue is more reverent and would like to see the custom changed. I disagree with the assertion that communion in the hand is DE FACTO irreverent, sinful, or inimical to faith, especially for those who have known no other custom.

    Also, I have to ask: Would Uzzah have not been struck down if he had touched the Ark with his tongue?

    And: When we say "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed", the good father's argument is a bit fallacious when he says that we negate this by receiving in the hand. We are certainly not worthy to receive in the mouth, either, yet we have the audacity to receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord into our bodies. So how does receiving in the hands assert our own "worthiness" any more than receiving on the tongue does?

    And do we really want to assert that EMHCs are all really irreverent, ignorant, or dissident? I am not one, nor do I want to be, but I am loathe to look upon others in that way when the Church allows it.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Maria,

    Although I am being sorely accused and now rudely insulted, by Carol, I am not debating a case for or against Communion on the tongue. I am defending faithful Catholics from being accused of being in rebellion to Rome, if they are EHMC's or are not part of some exclusive elite Catholic club that has an inner discernment, given to the few illuminated ones, regarding the real deal, reception wise. Also, I seek to defend the faithful priests who follow church teaching, who are being accused along with bishops, of keeping quiet about this rebellion, of which, Carol can produce not one jot of scriptural or catechetical eveidence about.

    Coming up with 'case for' documents is not going to sway my beliefs nor validate hers. Only proof of Carol's accusations found in church doctrinal papers will, except there aren't any, because they don't exist.

    That's why she's resorting, to being vile ofcourse.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Are you trying to make the point that people who refuse to put Christ into a position where he is vacuumed up with dirt are spiritually inferior to you because they perceive themselves to be spiritually superior?'"

    No that is not at all what I said. I said that SOME people who do this do seem to have a superior attitude towards other Catholics, and that this attitude CAN turn off people to the idea of receiving on the tongue.

    I said that I did not want to give tis impression, not because of what other people think, but because even though I know the tongue can be more reverent, I know it is not a sin to receive in the hand. I do not want to give off a "holier than thou" impression, especially when I have tried so hard to get certain people to observe things that really ARE a matter of Church and moral law (fast before communion, Friday abstinence, regular confession, not getting drunk, etc.).

    Please do not assume that it's because certain things do not matter.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I second what shadowlands said. I am not arguing that the hand is better, just that it is not sinful, and that no one deserves to be accused of sin or irreverence because of it.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Mercury, We get it...it is not irreverent to you to drop the Body and Blood of Christ onto the floor to prove to yourself you are not pious.

    You want to see the custom changed but you don't want people educating others about the irreverence to the Eucharist when we handle Him with our hands.

    The Church allows it, like they allow for divorce. People like you and shadowlands put up such a rebellion to the education that our parishes become places of thuggery people who want to hold onto the irreverence and desecration of the past 40 years.

    You have driven families who want to teach reverence and piety to our children out of our parishes. You demoralize and bully them into silence.

    As if holiness was something to be fought against. It just breathtaking what you have turned our parishes into. We are in exile.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Carol, I'm a 29-year old who has just come back to the Church and lost my marriage because I took a stand on Church teaching. I struggle with tremendous scruples and have a hard time believing I can ever do right by God, I struggle with trusting Him, and with the vain notion that my salvation depends all on MY actions. I am afraid of each and every action or non-action of mine being held against me. I am afraid of 100,000 years of Purgatory, if not Hell. But I do know He won't reject me if I keep asking Him to make me want to do His Will.

    You don't know me.
    I have nothing more to say to you.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Why don't you let go of making judgments about the motives of why everyone is trying to be holy in the Presence of Christ or handle him with care until you can get your mindreading skills up to snuff.

    You are allies with an individuals who laugh at people who say they are compelled by love and God. People making an ass of themselves dancing around the factual information that particles of Christ fall to the floor and it gives more reverence to handle reception by mouth.

    Holiness has been ridiculed in this thread. Something to guard yourself against and demoralize in others.

    The handling of the Eucharist where Christ's redemption is falling onto the floor should be promoted.

    People who know will be held accountable for the sacrilege. Sane people do not let Christ fall onto the floor to prove they are not holy.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Little Way: It is all part and parcel of the same problem, isn't it? The desacrilization of the priesthood and the sarilization of the laity, so that roles are no longer clear beteen priest and laity. I quite agree that the problem you identified is real. I haven't looked up the magisterial and catechetical skinny on EM and Holy Communion. Don't you think the same principles as ennunciated by the "good father" would/should apply?

    Shadow:Am providing links so that perhaps direction from others,the Vatican and priests who know the rubrics, will better lead all of us, w/ myself at the top of the list.

    I appreciate having a forum to discuss these things. It helps me better navigate the many land mines that have been thrown our way in the last forty years. I don't know about anyone else, but I remain extremely ignorant of my faith. I have to look up something on a nearly daily basis. I hear Carol saying that reception of the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue leaves no opportunity for profanation is better than risking profantion which can occur when received in the hand. Am I right, Carol? I will provide an excerpt from Redemptionis Sacramentum

    On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
    regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

    in next comment.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Little Way: It is all part and parcel of the same problem, isn't it? The de-sacrilization of the priesthood and the sacrilization of the laity, so that roles are no longer clear beteen priest and laity. I quite agree that the problem you identified is real viz EM taking the Blessed Sacrament of the sick and shut-in. I haven't looked up the magisterial and catechetical skinny on EM and Holy Communion w/ reagard to this issue. Don't you think the same principles as ennunciated by the "good father" would/should apply?

    Sorry for the typos, Joyce.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Merc, I posted the above before I read your last post or I might have phrased it differently.

    Thank you for this revelation. I am sorry for your loss. I do not know you. Absolutely the salvation of Christ's Church is the path of seeking pardon and the promise to amend our lives.

    Neither do you know the people who are in Church who appear to you to have motives to flaunt their piety in front of you.

    Some have reached the point in their spiritual lives, not to impress the people around them but are trying to be pleasing to Christ in His Presence. If the witness of that is harming you in some way, please take it to your spiritual advisor. Do not discourage them or spend hours with thugs in com boxes who revile what is holy and pleasing to Our Lord. When you lie with the dogs, you will get up with the fleas.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I reviled nothing.

    Apparently I cannot trust my spiritual director either, because he allows communion in the hand, his orthodoxy and his good heart be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Mercury, illuminating people about what is happening to people when they handle the Eucharist with their hands, and how this is different from dancing or wearing pants was never a contest.

    ReplyDelete
  82. And the dogs you refer to are my parents and grandparents.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Maria, I'm not sure. I know priests who don't like the idea of having EM's yet continue to use them, particularly when it's convenient. Sadly, I don't know too many priests today who are willing and, in some instances, able to visit their infirm parishioners on a regular basis. Another sad casualty of having so few priests? Again, I'm not so sure.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Carol, what is more important - getting people to stop grave sins like fornication, contraception, deliberate drunkenness, slander, or sinful habits like gossip and spitefulness, or to stop people from committing the "sin" of receiving communion in the hand while in a state of grace and believing they are receiving their Lord and Savior?

    Would it be better for people to stop fornicating, to go to confession, and go to communion - what if they give up their sinful lifestyle and receive daily, but in the hand?

    There are people I love who are committing grave sins. I would love nothing more then for them to repent and receive the Lord in a state of grace, whether on the tongue or in the hand.

    What does Jesus think?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Wow! The things that happen when Terry steps away from the mouse!

    Mercury,

    If you wish to receive on the tongue, then do so. Don't worry about what others think; in my world, the mere fact that I go to Mass is considered to be a condemnation of those who don't but that can't stop me from going to Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Nan, if I receive on the tongue, I want it to be out of love and devotion for Christ, not because I fear I will incur His wrath and go to hell otherwise. Because then I get to worry myself sick over my loved ones who receive in the hand until they "repent" of this.

    ReplyDelete
  87. That permission comes from his Bishop. He has no control over it. The ones doing it here are holding a paten underneath the communicant trying to do what they can.

    The Church allows for divorce too because, as Christ explained, and you have experienced in painful ways, people are pigheaded and too many would be lost.

    For two hours you fought about illuminating people to the scandal of Christ's particles falling to the floor. Something you should have embraced. Something innocuous to preserve the dignity that Christ deserves, you raised up a crusade against. It was my duty to keep on defending Christ from this sacrilege. It was not a contest with you or for you.

    I will keep you in my prayers.

    ReplyDelete
  88. You don't have to worry about 'repenting' because the Church allows it, as they allow for divorce.

    There is a love for Christ that is so deep that those of us in love would simply never put a microscopic piece of Him onto the floor. Anymore than we would rip the skin off of our children to throw in the trash.

    This is the kind of love I am speaking about with Christ and His Body and Blood. It exists and it is spectacular.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Carol, I was fighting a layperson's presumption of sin on the part of other laypeople and in the part of priests and bishops. I was fighting the assertion that people who are aware of the issue with particles yet continue to receive in the hand are guilty of grave sin. You have NO right to make such an accusation, nor even the right to assume it.

    To say it's more reverent to receive on the tongue is one thing. To say that people who receive in the hand do not give a crap is another. Sacrilege is a very grave accusation, on par with accusing someone of other grave sins. To say that everyone who receives in the hand is either committing willful or inadvertent sacrilege is a heavy accusation. I know people who have great reverence for the blessed sacrament and receive in the hand. I am nt a pimple on their asses in terms of holiness and abandonment to te Lord. It would be very presumptuous
    indeed to assume the mantle of "fraternal correction" in such cases.

    Quit thinking everyone is your enemy out to destroy the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  90. There are many who will encourage you to remain in the place of distance from this love. People like shadowlands who will laugh and ridicule your love. Drum up asinine arguments thinking they are 'getting to ya'.

    All I can tell you is, approach with your heart open and give Him the dignity He deserves and that love you are looking for will blossom.

    ReplyDelete
  91. For one thing, the Church does not allow for divorce. Civil divorce is nothing but the dissolution of a civil contract. And before you start to presume things on the part of myself or my wife, know that I never sought divorce, nor wanted to.

    For another thing, why do you keep pitting yourself in the camp of "people with great devotion to the Eucharist", and anyone who doesn't receive on the tongue as not in such a group? You're saying that such people are de facto irreverent, or they are at least de facto not as in love with Christ and his Body and Blood as Carol is.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Shadowlands is one of the most loving and trusting people I have ever come across. She is one of the few people aroun here that I wish I knew in real life. You have no idea what her life has been like, nor do you know the depth of her love for Christ and his Mother. Don't you ever say something like that about her. Consider that a fraternal correction.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I have every right and in fact duty to say what I have said above. Whether you like it or lump it or laugh at it or rebel against it or revile it, I will continue to say it.

    I however have repeatedly said they are not guilty of grave sin. You keep saying I said that.

    What I said was there are people who love Christ and the Eucharist so deeply that they would never, ever put Him in a position of lying with the dirt. I also said that it is absolutely mind boggling that you are making judgments about the motivation of other people who are doing it and you appear to want to innoculate yourself and others from holiness and reverence in front of the Presence of Christ.

    Do what you will. I am just here to testify as what is being done to Christ. It is real.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I think the record shows, that wasn't my experience with shadowland but I am pleased she has been kind to you.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "For another thing, why do you keep pitting yourself in the camp of "people with great devotion to the Eucharist"

    So what!

    I am testifying to the magnificence of the kind of love I have for the Eucharist. Promoting it, encouraging it.


    Didn't you above say to Nan that you would like to strive to love Christ in this way so that you too can receive on the tongue without fear?

    Turning my love for Christ and His Eucharist into something vulgar isn't going to discourage this chick! I burst through that ceiling decades ago.

    Nice chatting with you.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I turned your attacks on others and presumption about their love for Christ into something vulgar.

    ReplyDelete
  97. The Church does allow divorce. They had to change it years ago. They certainly discourage it vehemently but one is not outside of a state of grace unless and until they break their Sacramental covenant by dating or marrying others. If the Church forbade it, divorced people would be outside of a state of grace for just being divorced. An annulment of course releases one from that covenant, if the Church sees it was entered into invalidly.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  98. When somebody testifies about their love, it is not done as an incrimination to your own lack of it. That you are doing inside of your own mind.

    Your attacks were uncalled for.

    The end.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Carol, when did the church "change" their teaching on divorce? Do tell.

    And I never accused anyone of sin, irreverence, or not caring about the Blessed Sacrament, nor did I make presumptions about anyone's disposition towards God, holiness, nor did I make nasty comments about other commenters, and lump people together with those who seek to destroy the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Don't have time --really this time!!--to "tell" about the teachings on divorce. Suffice it to say that there is such a thing as an innocent party to divorce. This does not, of course, affect those who are doing the abandoning and those who date, marry while committed and bound to the Covenant they made in the Sacrament.


    This spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.

    The Church teaches that the separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases. The Catechism states: “If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.”

    read up on it.

    ReplyDelete
  101. You've got yourself a real vocation on ordering people around. I'm sure there are plenty who will gladly follow the Mercury. You'll beg my pardon if I'm a little tone deaf to it as it contradicts what I hear in prayer and my soul.

    No offense taken and none given.

    Carry on!

    ReplyDelete
  102. I have a vocation ordering people around? HA!

    More than a few people have stopped commenting here because of you, ma'am.

    ReplyDelete
  103. And if the prayer in your soul says you may judge others and make assumptions about their spiritual state and degree of love for Christ based on the method they use to receive communion, well ...

    And you have given offense. Not that I care about the offense to me, but you've assumed and presumed things about people I love.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Satan is never at a loss for advocates.

    People will always ignore the world going to Hell, but they will counter each and every attempt by Faithful that try to correct error.

    These same people will announce Science as their God: the Earth spins and rotates around the Sun, Evolution is a fact.

    Their credo is "Do as you Wish" shall be the letter of the law.

    They counter all from Good and Holy as they stand mired in Satan's spot in Hell for them.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  105. Thank you Pablo. Now I am going to hell for heliocentrism.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "People will always ignore the world going to Hell, but they will counter each and every attempt by Faithful that try to correct error."

    So doctrines are re-defined and invalidated by the faithful in your religion too St Michael? Remind me again, which religion are you and where in your church's catechism does it state the faithful write the doctrines? I understood that role belonged to the Cardinals and Bishop's under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, given through the conferring of orders from Apostolic succession?
    Then again, I am a ROMAN Catholic, so it may be different in other churches. I know protestants get a free hand in these areas, so many different religions on blogger, one for every mood the wind chooses to blow in, on any given day.

    "They counter all from Good and Holy as they stand mired in Satan's spot in Hell for them."

    Have we got a scriptural or catechetical reference for that gem, or is it straight from your own heart?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous3:29 PM

    Didn't people learn the mistake of imposing one form of liturgical celebration as "holy" and "reverent" at the Council of Florence?

    Carol better not read up on the eucharistic devotion of St Macrina.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mercury, express your love of Christ as you choose. Your expression of love isn't a condemnation of others, whether it's those you know and love or those who are strangers at church or online.

    I genuflect before receiving, which is not something I was taught to do but is something that I need to do; more than one person has expressed a wish to do the same. I don't know what prevents them, just as I don't know what prevents you from receiving on the tongue. Yes, it's weird at first, especially in a parish where many people receive in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Please don't make anonymous comments. I'd be a hypocrite not to "fraternally correct" you about that, since I usually say something about those who attack the people I haven't been arguing with :).

    ReplyDelete
  110. Nan, I just don't feel "real" doing it, if that makes sense. I've only done it a few times and it always feels forced, like I'm only doing it because people say I have to.

    Carol is right about the particles, though. Then again, how can anyone ever sweep or vacuum the area around the altar?

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous3:41 PM

    You are a bitter and mean individual Mercury, as is 'shadowlands'. I know several people who have stopped coming here because of the YOU, along with "Thom". You have made it a hostile place for Catholics.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Hi. I just wanted to update everyone on my recent tour. North America is alive and well with faith sharing. I have visited 21 faith communities in the U.S. and Canada and have met so many beautiful people and have learned much in the process. I returned to Buffalo Saturday and will be back at my regular job at Catholic Charities tomorrow. This time has been truly inspiring and I hoped those of you who participated have felt it too. Continue in your higher purpose as the earth begins to renew herself for the Autumn season. I am Sharon Gee be with love today.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous3:52 PM

    "Then again, how can anyone ever sweep or vacuum the area around the altar?"

    Because in the Sanctuary, priests handle Christ with extreme care, on an Altar over linens which are handled in ways that preserve the sanctity of the particles.

    They can't control the particles on your hands.

    I am appalled by the assassinations of truth and those who speak it.

    And then, at the end of it all, he has the unmitigated gall to say Carole was right about the particles.

    You just can't be a man, can you.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I'm man enough to put up even a FAKE name on a comment board.

    And I never did deny what Carol said about the particles, did I? Can you find where I denied it or even contested it? I denied Carol's ability to read souls and put herself in a group of "people dedicated to the Eucharist" while implying that those who do not agree with her are either ignorant or malicious.

    And yeah, I'm going to believe that people have stopped coming here because shadowlands and Thom are too mean. Riiight.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Ha, and what about all the people bullied by that "assassin of truth", Little Way? :)

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anonymous, you big brave anonymous, tit, you. I will stay away if Terry is truly missing several of his regulars, due to my presence. I won't make a fuss about leaving, I don't want to cause any negative stuff for the Catholic faith, so Terry is always free to ask me to stay away or not comment, if he thinks I am doing this.One doesn't always see one's own negative influence. I did check last week with him and he said I was still welcome. Obviously he didn't realise that several regulars had been put off by the 'likes' of myself, Mercury and Thom. He may now wish to reconsider. I shall wait and see.
    Imagine that, getting banned from Abbey Roads? Will we be known as the hostile three? Forced to wander the isolated commboxes where only lapsed presbyterians are ever welcomed?

    What about a three month ban, then see how the numbers go? This bar doesn't run on fresh air you know?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Comment number one hundred and something!

    So.....did y'all know about this "Catholicism" project by Fr. Robert Barron? Apparently it's "impossible to overpraise it". Ab. So. Lut. Ley. Im. Pos. Sible! It's the greatest gift given to America since the Statue of Liberty!

    And I love PBS!

    Fr. Barron and Rick Steves - separated at birth?

    Or the same person?

    Did you know that in Heaven you won't be able to access your own blog?

    Catholic bloggers would be standing around looking at each other, going, "Awwwwwwww shit. Wait, is Father Z here? He'll have wifi with him."

    "He's not here yet."

    "Aww shit!"

    I'm a geocentrist. Heliocentrism is vulgar and boorish trash.

    Form is everything.

    Receiving in the hand renders a person more liable to irreverence. Receiving on the tongue safeguards against it.

    Form is everything.

    This drive-by comment brought to you by no one in particular who uses his real name.

    I used to receive in the hand. When I started receiving on the tongue it felt forced. But I stuck to it with the thought that this is more pleasing to the Lord, whether it feels "real" or not or whether I was being pietistic/holier-than-thou or not. It's no longer forced.

    Get rid of subjectivity before Him - annihilate it - and He will reward.

    God doesn't read how genuine are one's feelings. He reads acts of the will.

    Hello Sharon!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous4:06 PM

    You are grossly mischaracterizing what Carole said to preserve the dignity of the wretched bitterness you displayed here for other people's holiness.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Sharon Gee! Of all the bars!!! You had to walk into this one. I'll say this for you gal, you pick your moments. I'm glad you had a nice holiday.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Not That Anonymous4:08 PM

    I'm guessing those confessors who had their tongues cut out are not allowed communion; it would be impious of them!

    ReplyDelete
  121. Ros, there isn't a mean bone in your body. I have never seen an unkind word from you or Mercury, either. Don't let yourselves be baited by some internet demon who makes biting and harsh comments under the banner of anonymous. The devil also likes to cut people to the quick with his words and get them to doubt themselves. Don't fall for it.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I display wretched bitterness for other people's holiness now? Really? Because I thought I displayed a wretched self-loathing, paranoia, and mistrust of God.

    I am not mischaracterizing anything, nor did I ever deny that receiving on the tongue is more reverent.

    Paul, thank you for your comments. I will keep that in mind. Can you explain what you mean by "get rid of subjectivity?" Do you just mean don't be ruled by feelings?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Little Way - the characterization of shadowlands as mean is actually too funny to even comment on.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Anonymous4:25 PM

    You displayed that too, but sadly, you project the fruit of it onto the innocent all around you. That's how self-loathing works if you don't get a handle on it.

    Get rid of your subjectivity. Get over your "fear" of putting Christ on a throne that preserves His substance from being trampled.

    The alternative is offensive to people who have the ability to care about what is happening to Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  125. susan4:28 PM

    Carol--983...Mercury--0

    ...not even close.

    Sadly, I think the entire 'conversation' showed the effects of modern educational theory in the inability of a 29 year old to actually READ a paragraph and COMPREHEND its meaning. Valiant effort though on your part.

    ReplyDelete
  126. susan, I have no idea what you are talking about. I understood everything being said.

    I agreed with Carol that it was more reverent to receive on the tongue.

    I disagreed that Catholics can judge the disposition of others based on whether the receive by the tongue or the hand, and I disagreed that Catholics have the right to accuse others of sin and irreverence if they choose a licit, albeit imperfect, means of receiving Communion.

    I never once mocked holiness or reverence, like I was accused of.

    And yes, all that "modern educational theory" ain't dun me much good, has it?

    And Anonymous - you're not even worth responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  127. But I guess I should take the bait:

    "The alternative is offensive to people who have the ability to care about what is happening to Christ."

    i.e. everyone who receives in the hand is either ignorant or does not care what happens to Christ. Only REAL Catholics like you have that ability.

    Am I wrong in assuming that that is what you are implying?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Look, I am bowing out of this now.

    I forgive anyone who's offended me, and I ask the pardon of anyone I've offended, especially Carol.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Mercury

    I have to go to bed now, as have work tomorrow.

    Remember, the building blocks for the Kingdom of heaven, will be made of human beings. The Father looks at the state of the sinful world and feels such love that He sends His only Son for us sinners.

    The Angel at Fatima gives the children a prayer to recite over and over, the words themselves written by God. Who is it, that God Himself asks us to pray for the most carefully, that they may be in heaven?

    "Lead ALL souls to heaven, ESPECIALLY those who have most need of your Mercy.

    THe unfailing love of God is expressed over and over. Embrace it, in the hostile world that preaches an unfeeling god.

    It's a lie from hell, to keep you under fear. The people commenting here, who know of your problem with scruples are doing something very wrong to you.

    This is how I am convinced that God has a special purpose for you. Jesus was taunted, tempted and isolated. Called allsorts of blasphemous names but don't forget the consolations. These insults strengthen your spiritual muscles.

    Sleep, under the mantle of our Lady's protection. Read a holy book, if you have one, that is comforting. St Paul tells us to to dwell on good things.

    Douay-Rheims Bible Phil 4:8
    "For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever modest, whatsoever just, whatsoever holy, whatsoever lovely, whatsoever of good fame, if there be any virtue, if any praise of discipline, think on these things."

    I wonder if Sharon Gee is infact, Terry?

    God bless all.

    ReplyDelete
  130. How Catholic of you "susan". Must be another full moon.

    ReplyDelete
  131. susan5:11 PM

    Little way...
    since when is citing inanity as inanity unCatholic? Carol made excellent, cogent, simple points that were raged against and combated with an insatiable ferocity...which quite frankly twisted everything she said, while ignoring the central tenets.
    How is it so terribly difficult to stick one's tongue out to receive our Lord if one's conscience says it's the more respectful reception (as Mercury stated)? Seriouisly, how horrifically difficult is that? She's 'afraid of being an affront to her family' (?!?!?!) REALLY? I don't even have words to respond to that.
    I entered this string as a simple observer and saw ridiculous attacks against cogent points. I think it is entirely Catholic to tell someone who has acted like a petulant adolescent to grow up (!)

    ReplyDelete
  132. Anonymous5:22 PM

    All great examples of FRATERNAL correction here. Thanks guys.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "...Jesus was taunted, tempted and isolated..."

    Judas was taunted and isolated by the children of Hell when he realized he had a problem.

    He chose to reject repentance.

    That was the reason he was taunted and isolated, then lead to despair. In his pride, he believed he could remedy his ills by his own actions.

    People that have problems such as scruples or sins of the flesh, and so on, should remain quiet, asking all the while that our Lord cure them.

    Tridentine Masses make people Roman Catholic.

    When we participate in Christ crucified in the Tridentine Mass, we can say "I was at Calvary"

    Attend the Tridentine Mass, and our Lord will cure your soul.

    Jesus is the Good Sheppard.

    He will look upon you with mercy, see your needs and address them as He is once again crucified at the Tridentine Mass you attend.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  134. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Insulting people, mischaracterizing their words, and making insinuations about their level of education does nothing to bring one closer to Christ.

    Not everyone is in the same place on their journey of faith. I thank God I never encountered anyone like "susan" on mine.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous5:43 PM

    Thanks for another round of "Satan Says"

    ReplyDelete
  136. Pablo, I will not defend myself, but only say that ANY Mass is Calvary, not just the Tridentine Mass. That includes the "Novus Ordo" and the Byzantine Rite, Ambrosian Rite and all others.

    Or did we get news from Christ that he restricts his graces to only to certain Masses?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Joyce, I don't know what you think was honey about that comment but I will say one thing - this experience just goes to show how much the devil hates reverence to the Eucharist and how low people will sink to be available as his tools.

    Peace out.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Ummm...may I lighten things up for just a moment? Here is a story I posted on another blog, that I thought I'd share with the Abbey-Roads family.

    Hey Charlotte,

    I was trying to find out how many postulants the Dominicans in Ann Arbor got this year, after their appearances on Oprah, but ran across
    your article from 2 years ago instead.

    It reminded me of something that happened to me a number of years ago that I think you'll appreciate. Back in 1993 I was living in St Louis and a friend of mine was attending what was formerly a Catholic women's college that had gone co-ed, but maintained its "Catholic identity," whatever that means. Supposedly there were a few sisters still living on campus.

    My friend showed me their beautiful convent chapel that the students could use. It had never been renovated. All the altars were still intact; the statues were still there, the beautiful stations, the confessionals and the choir loft--all there. The only thing they did do was take out the pews and move them into a circle around a (non-permanent) table. Easily put back. God willing, they won't destroy it.

    She told me it was open all day and anyone could use it. Well, the students didn't use it and the sisters certainly never used it, so I began using it as my private chapel for afternoon holy hours. I did this from 1993-1997. Until...

    One day I was in the chapel and had just started the Rosary when a woman who looked mentally disturbed carrying a lot of bags came in. There was a bus stop across the street from the college where you would see maids going home and bag ladies waiting for the bus. This was a wealthy suburb, so they stood out. I assumed this sad soul was one of the bag ladies who wandered in for a moment of rest.

    ReplyDelete
  139. She was wearing an over-sized washed-out, black t-shirt with a faded sci-fi graphic, washed out, purple leggings, way too tight for her big thighs and earthy sandals and very thick, nerdy glasses circa 1979 with a sort of downs syndrome expression on her face.

    She began digging and digging through these bags, making that grating plastic bag rustle noise. Now, I have ADD, it is hard enough for me to get through the Rosary with complete silence, so you can imagine. After 5 minutes with the bags, she fishes out an apple, wipes it off with her t-shirt and begins to chomp away, mouth open, saliva and apple juice streaming down her chin and neck. I did my best old lady tisk, but that didn’t phase her. I thought about going to tell someone because I didn’t think she should use the chapel as a cafeteria, but thought, “No…where else is she going to go? Poor thing.”

    I was just finishing the 4th decade when she jumped up and started walking over toward me and then she screamed. I said, “Are you alright?” And she said, “How long have you been in here?” I told her I had been there the whole time. She said, “Well, I’m legally blind and I didn’t see you. You startled me.” I apologized. Then she said, “Well, I’m Sister X and you have no business being in here. I’m the new spiritual advisor on campus and I want the chapel locked up. No one needs to be in here during the week!” I said, “Well, I’m almost done with my Rosary sister, then I’ll go.” And she goes, “Noooope! You need to leave. Now!” I said, “Sister? Why?” And she exclaimed, “BECAUSE I SAID SO!” In a quiet voice I said, “No, I’m sorry, I’m staying to finish the Rosary.” And we had a little back and forth, yes, no, why… I picked up my backpack, ready to head out and snapped, “No wonder there’s a vocation crisis.” With that she ran to the door and started shouting (and I mean like psycho ward shouting), “SECURITY!!! SECURITY!!!” Her arms flailing… The guard came and she lied and said I had been threatening her. After 15 minutes of questioning they released me and banned me from the chapel. Granted, I was not a student, but had NEVER had a problem in 4 years. Some friends of mine checked the chapel over the next few years and told me it was never unlocked again and that they had moved the one Sunday evening student Mass from the chapel to the student center. Totally insane.

    Thoughts?

    -Clark

    ReplyDelete
  140. Carol, no honey was intended. I am aware that some of the people who engaged in this discussion are struggling, by their own admission, and suffice it to say that you and I have differing opinions of how to best help them see the truth. As for the devil, I'll reply with the words a priest once told me in the confessional. "Thieves do not attempt to break in where there is nothing to steal."

    Peace to you also
    Joyce

    ReplyDelete
  141. I have a simple question:

    If communion in the hand is a de facto sacrilege, and if someone who knows that the particles can fall is thereby committing irreverence or sacrilege when they receive in the hands, wouldn't this mean that any priest who allows communicants to receive in the hand, or any priest who allows EMHCs, is thereby allowing and facilitating grave sacrilege? This would implicate more than 99% or all Latin rite priests faithful to Rome in serious sin.

    And if almost every bishop allows this in his diocese, are they not all tolerating desecration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? And then why does the Holy See tolerate it? Is the Pope not responsible for allowing it (and he will dispense communion in the hand, though he prefers to do it the traditional way)?

    My spiritual director and confessor is an orthodox Benedictine. He says on may receive licitly on the tongue or in the hand, and there is no sin in choosing one over the other. I will have to ask him about the particles. But does this make him an untrustworthy priest?

    For the record, beginning tomorrow I will begin receiving on the tongue. Out of fear. But thank you Paul Stilwell for your words of encouragement, and you are right.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Hey Merc, When you get a chance read my last post, I'd like your feedback.

    Thanks,
    Clark

    ReplyDelete
  143. Ha, Clark - I did read your post. Crazy. But I'm not surprised. The hatred some religious have for the sacraments and devotion is really weird.

    Though I'd commend you for your initial instincts - "No - Where else is she going to go?" :)

    In Germany, lots of priests didn't even believe in Confession, and some of the crap you'd hear spouted would have made you glad you didn't understand the language. The first Mass I went to there was Midnight Mass complete with liturgical dancing and a priest who praised the guy who threw his shoes at George Bush. Thank God that was also the worst - I did go to some wonderfully reverent Masses there too - priests always sing the prayers there, and on special days they even sing the Gospel.

    I don't know how I would have reacted in your case - sometimes I just nod my head and then think later "wait a minute" - I did that last Monday when I was given a penance that seems heretical to me. I probably should have said something, but I was afraid. :(

    ReplyDelete
  144. From your comments, any reader can assume we disagree about whether Catholics who accuse people of drunkeness, puts together asinine straw men about whether Communion by hand results in trampling of the Eucharist on the floor is true because there is no reference to it in the Catechism and then questions the Catholicity of their fellow Catholics are meanspirited and spiteful.

    I think readers can assume that when a Catholic freely and repeatedly admits that others have talents they don't have but tries to impart their own knowledge and illuminate somebody's ignorance about what is happening to Christ, stand firm in their conviction that trampling the Eucharist is a sacrilege that does not endow one with holiness, that such a sacrilege does not belong in the category of wearing pants and dancing for reasons aforementioned in this thread, that the wrath of the people with the succulent honey of sweet charity displayed here is warranted.

    I certainly did not realize that this was a place where everyone was basking in the humility of pretending they knew everything there is to know. Many a thing on my journey, I did not know so naturally, I assumed this was a place where people shared their joy and love of what they do know. My bad.

    I will say that if I ever get to a place where I am watching everyone around me in Church receiving the Eucharist to make judgments about the reasons why they are receiving on the tongue or genuflecting or praying with intimacy and convinced myself that the reaction to this was to convince myself I should prove how inferior these people are to me by continuing to trample the Eucharist, please feel free to illuminate my ignorance. I am thankful for the people who have done so throughout the course of my life. Not everyone responds to delivery in the same way. This is why many of the Saints have different temperaments. When you get to Heaven, of course, you can enlighten our Lord. Until then, I suppose we'll all answer the calls we feel we need to answer.

    God Bless you and yours.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Mercury, may I share my own personal experience with you?

    As a child, I never received anywhere but on the tongue. It wasn't until I fell out of grace and spent years wandering in protestant denominations that I developed the habit of receiving in the hand. When I returned to the Catholic Church, I continued to do so. Then our new pastor arrived, and with him, it seemed, a rash of profanations against the Sacred Host. He asked us to please consider receiving on the tongue as this allowed for less of a chance of mischief with the Eucharist. I felt awkward about it, since as a child we received the Lord kneeling and it's not so easy to receive on the tongue standing as it is kneeling, but I did it. Father was very clear that he would respect our preference, which he felt compelled to do so long as Rome allowed the indult. For a short while, I continued to receive in the hand at other parishes until I thought more and more about it and decided I should just take the plunge. I am a very self-conscious person. I,too, have struggled and continue to struggle with scruples and the fear that every thing I do will be judged by others as an attempt to appear more pious than they are. With God's help, I came to see that the only eyes that matter are God's.

    It is true that particles of the Eucharist can fall to the floor, but if the priest is not using an altar server with a paten, this can happen regardless of whether you receive on the tongue or the hand.

    Give it a try. It may seem awkward at first, but you will figure it out and so will the priest. Some priests are better than others at placing the Host on your tongue. Don't think about it because you don't want it to become such a distraction that you can't communicate with the Lord after receiving Him. Just do it!

    I will keep you in my prayers and ask you to do the same for me.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Thank you very much. I mean it, I am going to start tomorrow. I will remember you in my prayers, too.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Little Way:

    "In the evening of our lives we will be judged on love".

    --St John of the Cross

    ReplyDelete
  148. I read through the thread and I actually appreciate these comments. I feel so ashamed over the years I received in the hand. In the late 90s I let people convince me that being traditional was wrong, that I just needed to be "orthodox." I tried to be a good "Novus Ordo" Catholic (as some call it around here). Part of that was taking Holy Communion in the hand. I probably shook the little particles off my hands too. It went against my conscience completely. I need to do penance for that. My Jesus, mercy.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Yes Maria, except, thankfully, we will be judged by the Almighty, not one another.

    Hope your new job is going well.
    Joyce

    ReplyDelete
  150. Clark - if it went against your conscience, that's one thing. But the Church does allow it, and it's not right to impute sin onto those who choose to receive in that manner. and no, I do not believe you are saying that.

    Part of the reason I reacted the way I did, and which I apologize for, is because there are many people I know who are strongly devoted to the Eucharist who do not receive on the tongue. These are people who I know are full of undying faith, and who love the Lord with all their hearts, and who I have seen receive many blessings through the course of their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Joyce, I will remind you that numerous times I said that the people doing it are either doing it out of ignorance or some kind of emotional, intellectual or spiritual malady and that because the Church allows it, they are free from any kind of penance for this act of sacrilege.

    Of course people taking Xommunion by hand are blessed and love our Lord but they do not have the intimacy with the Eucharist that people who realize what is going on do. Their intimacy with the Eucharist is a closer intimacy. They are further along in their journey. As you admit. Though this may stir up envy for this closeness, and that is what is really going on here, the wrath displayed in this discourse to stomp on that joy and love under the guise of piety is outrageous and shameful.

    It is the conduct that has driven many practicing Catholics trying to impart the faith to their children out of their parishes.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Anonymous8:32 PM

    I opened the combox to remark on Terry's post and I find this silly argument over CITH. The Lord gave communion in the hand and it was the custom of the Church for many centuries. COTT business comes from a faulty understanding of the theology of the Eucharist.

    The wisdom of the Church deems it is a good and holy practice to receive the Eucharist in the hand. You people have declared yourselves your own magisterium. Stop it.

    Jane, Boston

    ReplyDelete
  153. Carol, there was no wrath.

    I am objecting to the fact that you say "people who know what is going on", implying that anyone who does not receive on the tongue is retarded, at least in the true sense of the word, which you clearly mean to imply because you said they must be suffering from some sort of malady.

    You really have no idea that the intimacy you have wit the Eucharist is deeper and richer than anyone else's. And if you do, I would really love to now how. Carol, there are people out there who receive in the hand who are much more intimately wrapped up in the Eucharist than you are. And that is a fact.

    I do not understand why I am being accused of outrage against this pious practice - I never once criticized communion on the tongue, nor did I try to say that the hand is better, nor even defend the hand other than the fact that the Church allows it. And if the Church allows it, then it cannot be that an actual sacrilege occurs every time someone receives by the hand, because then the Church would be explicitly condoning sin. Does it make sacrilege more likely? Probably so, but then again, so do lots of things.

    So I am very sorry if I offended you - I never meant to attack your piety nor doubt your devotion. I am not jealous of you, either. I hope you're not insulted by that.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Merc, I wish you would post about your time in Germany on your blog. I keep waiting for updates. I'd really like to hear about the development of peoples throughout Europe. Try to update soon.

    Jane, That is YOUR opinion and things are changing quickly. The Holy Father seems to be regularly giving out Holy Communion on the tongue now. It isn't just a matter of trying to be our "own magisterium." Communion on the tongue has always been the preferable way of reception, Communion in the hand was a concession that became normative.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Clark - I haven't updated my blog in over a year, haha.

    I'm waiting for things to settle down with my job. I'm spending lots of time right now "rewriting the book" on English pronunciation, stress rules, etc. Though not enough time, because I keep procrastinating.

    I think once I get all my materials set and it's going like clockwork, I'll have lots of time on my hands. And LSU has a huge library, so I'll get to research more too instead of relying on Internet stuff (mostly Wikipedia filtered and repackaged, or at least the sources they use).

    ReplyDelete
  156. Anonymous8:52 PM

    Mercury will need to quit smoking before he enters the religious life.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I don't smoke, and who says I am entering religious life, and do you really think it's the Christian thing to do to treat vocations like that (as the object of a taunt in order to make the other person fearful)?

    ReplyDelete
  158. Anonymous8:57 PM

    My bad, wrong blog bro.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Joyce, one would be hard pressed not to realize that those who admit to knowing that Christ is falling to the floor and they trample Him anyway is not suffering from ignorance or some sort of malady and that those who do realize have a more intimate relationship with the Eucharist. It is common sense.

    Your exaggeration that this means I imply they are retarded is hysteria.

    Nobody of sound mind and spirit would deliberately continue this practice if their relationship with the Eucharist was intimate. It is impossible with the kind of love I am speaking of.

    You also seem to misunderstand that I couldn't care less if you attack MY holiness. LOL. The conversation is about the holiness of the particles of Christ being trampled, and the characterization of your cavalier attitude of 'so what' lots of other things are sacrilege and the Church allows it and so therefore anyone trying to enlighten our brother is should then turn into a donnybrook of who is the holiest of them all - with you of course being Christ's model.

    One can rationally draw a conclusion about the cavalier attitude of the trampling of the Eucharist - the trivialization of it. If you want to convince yourself this rises to the level of greater love for Christ's Eucharist, I cannot and will not join you in that delusion. Nor can I be silent as people attempt to persuade our brother to.

    Good night and God Bless one and all.

    ReplyDelete
  160. By the way, you can drop the quotations around the name Susan as you welcome her zeal and love for the Eucharist and Our Lord. That is her actual name.

    ReplyDelete
  161. My name is not Joyce, and your reading of the hearts of Catholics who receive the Eucharist defies words.

    I was not implying "so what" with what I said. I just meant that there is a distinction between what might potentially lead to sacrilege and what IS sacrilege. Allowing sinners into the Church may lead to sacrilege, but I don't think you or I would want to sit on the porch.

    ReplyDelete
  162. It has been very, very painful to witness the way in which Carol has been treated. I had hoped that comments would be closed so that no further injury would ensue.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Though it addresses some of what you said, I was actually speaking to Joyce.

    As I told her, it is a rational conclusion that one who would take the chance of stomping on Christ with the full knowledge that it could be happening every time they do it is a devotion to the Euchrist that is inferior to the kind of love and intimacy with the Eucharist who would never take that chance.

    Whatever the reason for your unwillingness to accept the lucidity of this statement, it doesn't change reality.

    Christ and His Church will mercifully grant release from sins because of pigheadedness of the people. It does not mitigate the serious nature of the sin. His Mercy only pardons us for it.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Maria - who is treating Carol unfairly and how? I would really like to know. What have I told her that is damaging? What have I assumed about Carol's personal devotion, and what insulting comments have I made about her?

    Carol, I understand the lucidity of your statement. But you are wrong to "draw logical conclusions" about the devotion of other people to the Eucharist. You cannot possibly know peoples hearts, and that's what it comes down to.

    And sacrilege is always a serious and grave sin. The Church would not allow, nor allow her priests to allow, a practice that is de facto sacrilege, any more than they could allow contraception or female priests. If that were the case, the Pope could come down on it immediately

    ReplyDelete
  165. Mercury, I have several books of icons and in the oldest form of The First Eucharist, a two-panel icon featuring Christ at an altar, with six apostles lined up to receive the Body of Christ on the first icon and the same setup with Christ at the altar and six apostles lined up to receive the Blood of Christ. St. Peter is depicted holding out his hands for Christ to place the Eucharist in them.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Nan, how do Byzantine Rite Catholics receive? Is it by intinction in a spoon? What about the Orthodox?

    ReplyDelete
  167. Maria, don't trouble yourself. It is futile. Time to dust the sandals on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Seriously, I want to know how I, at least, mistreated anyone. Did I call you names or make assumptions about the state of your soul or your relationship with Chirst (other than saying that there are, in fact, people holier than you)? Did I say anything bad about the Blessed Sacrament or about the venerable practice of communion on the tongue?

    ReplyDelete
  169. "Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive."

    ReplyDelete
  170. What I am explaining is not personal to anyone or anything - it is the explanation of different kinds of love. There are different levels of loving.

    People who kick their dogs may love them too but people who don't kick their dog have a purer form of that love.

    It isn't 'reading hearts' or rendering judgment. It is the plain and simple truth about how love works.

    Anyone deeply in love with the Eucharist would never and could never do such a thing. It has nothing to do with me.

    You can't get beyond licking your wounds and lashing out to see what you do. And you have plenty of people here who will enable you. I can't and I won't. It isn't about me it is about Christ. There is no way to get this through your head. Your conduct was reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Carol, I still really do not understand what I did wrong.

    But it doesn't matter. I ask your pardon, and apologize for offending you in any way. I sincerely ask you to forgive me, and I will try to avoid such conversations in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Anonymous11:36 PM

    Will Mercury kneel when he receives on the tongue? Will Little Way learn to better emulate the saint her name references? Will Carol forgive Mercury? Will annoying anonymous disappear? Will Sharon Gee flirt back with Shadowlands?

    Find out tomorrow on Abbey-Roads...

    ReplyDelete
  173. The fact that you do not understand what you did wrong or see your accusations is the devil, whose imprimatur is all over this thread.

    You went on a tear because can't accept that there are different vocations of love for different things. You cannot rejoice in it because whatever somebody else is endowed with, their love and zeal for it is perceived as some kind of insult to your own devotion or some kind of insult to your relatives. That is not what is at all. You are in a pack of wolves who want to devour anyone willing to step forward to tell you the truth. The lot of them have made it impossible to cultivate Catholicism in our schools and parishes. They see everything as though it is who is the holiest of the holies contest and we are all just too stupid to see that Christ sent them to be the model for all of us.

    You don't know what is offensive about telling somebody who loves the Eucharist that you can take Christ's Body and Blood with your FEET so long as you do it 'reverently'? Let me enlighten you - it as absurd and as offensive as saying you can bend over and take Him between your butt crack so long as you have a pious look on your face.

    I am not the right party to seek pardon from. It was never about offending me as I have dutifully explained numerous times. There is peace between us. Take it to Our Eucharistic Lord.

    It is all too nutty to be of human origin.

    ReplyDelete
  174. You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say about the feet, and that's my fault for not explaining it better.

    I was pointing out that the sin of sacrilege is not contained in the act of touching the host with a part of the body that is not the tongue, but an irreverent attitude on the part of the communicant. One could conceivably receive with the hands, yet be more inwardly disposed than another person who is receiving on the tongue.

    Whether reception in the hands leads to irreverence in individual cases or in general is a separate, though not unimportant issue.

    I just wanted to clarify that for anyone else who may read it. I was NOT saying "you can do what you want as long as you do it, like, lovingly, dude" I was pointin out that te nature of the sin lies in the disposition if the heart, not te physical posture of the body per se.

    I'm not going to defend myself from your other accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  175. 177 comments later, and no mention of the "lavender mafia?"

    I'm so disappointed!!!

    ReplyDelete
  176. Carol,after reading through the thread, it seems the reaction in the comments you received are due to the way you expressed yourself in comments way back at 9:10am,10:06am, and 10:41am. In these you stated
    (1)"In my days of rebellion, I was a 'Eucharistic Minister'."
    (2)"It may not offend you -- but it sure does to those of us who are Eucharistic..."
    (3)"...Christ's Eucharistic people, those who are acutely driven to know and understand and feel the redemptive value of every Precious Drop of Blood..."
    (4)"One can love the Eucharist and love Jesus but not have the intimacy and knowledge to have a Eucharistic vocation."

    You were asked, by Shadowlands, I believe, why you considered being an EM, or more accurately, an EMHC, was rebellious. A reasonable question which you never answered. From reading your blog, I have an idea of your reason, but will not speak for you.
    As to (2)-(4), it sounds as though you are saying that only some people (yourself among them) have a specific vocation of devotion to the Eucharist whereas others have a vocation to feed the poor or to teaching, etc. If this is what you are saying, I think you are mistaken. All the baptized are called to have devotion to Our Lord in the Eucharist. This isn't for only a select few just as the call to holiness and sanctity is not for a select few. Granted, only a relative few may become saints, but the call is for everyone.

    Then, ah, there is the comment at 11:01am - "... I am implying that there is an intimacy with the Eucharist that rises above most in the pew and this intimacy imparts knowledge. This knowledge imparts spiritual insight that others do not have for a variety of reasons."
    Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I also understand it sounds like you're saying you have attained that level of intimacy with Our Lord that the rest of us mere mortals haven't yet reached and/or don't yet know is possible.

    Lisa

    ReplyDelete
  177. sscatholic:

    Very good summing up. However, the comment that I feel truly exposes( as opposed to expressing) the state of elevation (or otherwise) in this women's eucharistic soul, is thie one at 11.51pm(not a.m.). Disgusting. I wish Terry would remove it

    Please remove it.

    I am off to work.

    Have a good day all. Terry's latest post quotes the magisterium's true teaching, available for the 'many'! Obedience is an open invitation!

    ReplyDelete
  178. Lisa, you have indeed misunderstood. What I said was that some are more deeply in love with the Eucharist than others. While others while being in live with our Lord and loves the Eucharist, their love is not as intimate, but they are channeling love in some other way.

    Unless you are implying everyone's relationship with the Eucharist is precisely the same, this is the truth. I then said that there is above that is so deep that one would never expose Christ to desecration, barring ignorance or other maladies.

    The reaction manifested is because people want to believe their disregard for Christ being vacuum up with the dirt and tossed into the washing machine is every bit as loving and respectful ass one who would never do such a thing to their Beloved. Which of course is patently ridiculous.

    Rather than acknowledging this reality, theyannot dissociated the concept of this greater love for Christ with me which then makes them feel inferior. So they lash out.

    ReplyDelete
  179. Any person who knows Christ is falling to the floor, and does it anyway does not care as deeply about the Eucharist as one who would not do such a thing.

    perhaps you will let your guard down and be objective to this truth if you read it pretending I receive Communion by hand and am stating a fact.

    All of the hostility stems from indignation from blows to self esteem.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Anonymous7:28 AM

    Are you people serious?

    You can't get over yourself to admit this concession made by the Holy See results in sacrilege that's offensive to God?

    Is the reader to presume "respectful" reception of the Eucharist by way of Mercury's filthy feet is a revelation of his dignity and respect for the Eucharist?

    What madness.

    ReplyDelete
  181. Anon, I made it clear what I meant by the feet comment, and I also said that I can't imagine any conditions in the real world where that would be respectful.

    If the concession results in sacrilege, that is one thing. But the sacrilege itself is not communion in the hand per se, or else the holy see would have never allowed it, nor would they tolerate it any more than they do female priestly ordinations.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Anonymous8:34 AM

    You are mincing words.

    Whether it is 75 50 30 percent of the times particles fall when YOU are doing it, it results in sacrilege but you do not care enough about that sacrilege to stop it.


    You don't like what that says about you but truth hurts.

    Your explanations about your feet were not edifying.

    Accept the truth about where you are spiritually like a man.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I find it impossible to take some people - and their 'gifts' - seriously who do not exemplify some of the basic fruits that evidence the presence of the Holy Spirit.

    And the more I learn about people on the natural, human level (in terms of psychology, temperaments, etc.), the more I become convinced that a lot of so-called 'zeal' is simply one exercising his or her own insecurities and inadequacies in awkward and entirely unproductive ways. It's scary sometimes, frankly, on a number of levels. And I know it personally because I've done it in the past and fall into it still at times.

    Terry has pointed out in a more recent post who we should turn to for something truly prophetic and worth our attention: Blessed Mother Teresa, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Receiving on the hand is not per se sacrilege. End of story.

    And my feet comment was not meant to be edifying at all, but clarifying.

    And why do you post anonymously telling people to "be a man"?

    ReplyDelete