Author Topic: Communion in Hand (Read 3528 times)

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #5 on:** March 18, 2010, 10:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Cardinal Ratzinger from his book God Is Not With Me --

Quote

"It would be incorrect to assume that subjecting Our Lord to the digestive acids of the stomach is an act of irreverence, one that renders Holy Communion an occasion of sacrilege. Though gross mastication is involved, and often tongues have a greasy film on them, the Eucharist can bear great spiritual fruit and is not always to be seen as unapproachable or forbidden."

I made that up, of course, but I think it's a pretty good imitation of one of Ratzinger's twisted strategies. This is where he takes an absurd and inane straw man argument that no one except him has ever thought of or said before, which he attacks in order to sound conservative ( "It is not something the Catholic Church can accept to say that dogs should be made priests..." ) Then he spins out his rebuttal into a false, frustratingly nonsensical or just plain heretical conclusion that is almost as bad as the original straw man ( "... which is why the act of ordaining women cannot be seen as negative in the light of this dangerous proposition..." )

Having just watched the MHFM's video of Benedict XVI's heresies, that really made me laugh!

EcceAgnusDei · « **Reply #6 on:** March 18, 2010, 10:18:18 AM »

Quote from: Elizabeth

Quote from: Vladimir

Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.

That's just about all that needs to be said.

I wish that's all they needed to hear. UGH I really, really dislike liberal, modernist, NO Catholics.

Alexandria · « **Reply #7 on:** March 18, 2010, 11:42:34 AM »

Ecce

So do I, now more than ever. Now I know what Our Lord meant about throwing your pearls before swine.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #8 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:22:13 PM »

Quote from: Vladimir

A very common misconception is that the Catholic public worship gradually got more and more formalized and ritualistic over time. This notion is completely false. The Israelites had a very formal religion, and their public worship was full of symbolic rituals, etc much like the Holy Mass.

The Apostles received Holy Communion on the tongue I think. Before Vatican II and the Protestant Reformation all Christians, Catholic or schismatic (I guess that these aren't true Christians), received Holy Communion on the tongue only.

Only the priest's consecrated hands can touch the Sacred Host.

I'm glad that someone else realized this as well. Modernists / antiquarians would have us believe that the original liturgies were just a bunch of proto-hippies sitting around a circle holding hands and singing kumbaya, that the first Eucharistic prayers were just adlibed by the minister, etc. But the Jєωιѕн mentality was VERY contrary to that; Jews were incredibly formal and ritualistic. Cf. the book How Christ Said the First Mass

Caminus · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2010, 12:33:54 PM »

My mother is taking part in the so-called "Christ renews His parish" program at the local novus ordo. She showed me the text that accompanies the program and it was the grossest example of modernism in action that I've ever seen. In the beginning of the book, the author launched into insult and ridicule of the Church's traditional liturgy while concluding that we have moved beyond all that nonsense and thanks to the new modern discovery of the notion of "celebration." It was the creepiest most sickening thing I've ever read. I told my mom that it shouldn't be called "Christ renews His parish" but rather "Satan renews his parish." I told her that no catholic could ever say that because it amounts to digusting heresy and the book was infested with modernism elsewhere as well. I don't know what's going to shake her from going there, she just keeps attending because it is legally considered a catholic parish I suppose.