Posted on 08/31/2006 8:24:33 AM PDT by NYer
Thus says from my Li’l Bro Thom, no Bush-lover, he, who very much appreciated seeing this:
Non-Catholics and Catholics who have not yet gone through the process of formally receiving the sacrament of reconciliation and their first communion, but who wish to “participate” in that part of the Mass are invited to process to the minister dispensing the Holy Eucharist with their hands crossed upon their chest (not a humiliation, but a practical measure, so that there may be no confusion on the priest’s part that they are NOT receiving the Eucharist), whereupon the priest will simply touch his hand to their head and ask God’s blessing upon them. Here we see President and Mrs. Bush doing it the way we ask it to be done, and believe me we surely appreciate and honor their respectfulness.
That “arrogant” president, Bush, did Catholics the world over honor when he respected our ways.
And here we see how a Non-catholic disrespectfully communes at Mass:
Bill Clinton, obviously. A Southern Baptist with a penchant for carrying around big bibles took communion during a Roman Catholic Mass in Africa in 1998. When New York’s Cardinal John O’ Connor, doing his job, called Clinton on it, he was told that his (Cardinal John O’ Connor’s) understanding was deficient. “They do things differently in Africa,” was the answer from the Clinton administration. When pressed on the fact that even the African Bishops Conference complained about it, things devolved into “well, we understood it this way…”
The transcript: Clinton Press Sec’y Mike McCurry and the press (all boldface emphasis added - admin)
Q: …as you know, Cardinal O’Connor had some very strong things to say yesterday about the President’s taking of communion. In that light, I wanted to ask you three things. One, the Cardinal suggested that no one should take communion who’s not in a state of grace. Did the President feel he was in a state of grace, one? Two, does he regret taking communion? And three, the White House suggested it had contact with officials at the church who thought it appropriate but the pastor has said he was not one of them. Can you give us some names of who said it was okay?
MCCURRY: …our team on the ground indicated that the conference of bishops in South Africa had a more ecumenical view of the holy eucharist and had advised members of the traveling party it was appropriate for baptized Christians to share in communion. And the President acted on that guidance…And that includes the priest, and I thought also the bishop who officiated as well, is my understanding, but we can double check that.
[…]
Q: It’s a question about what the Cardinal is saying.
MCCURRY: Cardinal O’Connor may not be familiar with the doctrinal attitude towards the holy eucharist that the conference of bishops in South Africa brings to that question.
Q: The South African bishops have apparently now criticized the minister for having offered communion to the President or permitted him to take it. Does the White House have any reaction?
MCCURRY: I’m not aware of that. That’s contrary to the guidance that the President and his traveling delegation were given at the time of the service.
Q: Well, apparently they say he was supposed to have asked the local bishop for permission before permitting the President to take communion.
MCCURRY: Our understanding was that the invitation was extended on behalf of the Conference of South African Bishops.
Q: Mike, can you be specific about who extended it?
MCCURRY: I can find out if our advance people have got any idea who they spoke with.
Q: As I understand it, only Catholics are supposed to receive Catholic communion. Did that come up in the President’s mind?
MCCURRY: That is the attitude and posture of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, but our understanding is that the Conference of Bishops in South Africa have a different view of holy communion.
All so very vague, all so very arrogant…”someone told us…this was indicated…I’ll have to see if we know any names…” and “I’m not aware of that,” which seems to mean “that can’t be true…” It was all so very typical of that president and his administration which never admitted a mistake, not even one time. And boy, the press sure hates the Bush administration for not “admitting to mistakes…”. But different presidents, different letters after the name…they get treated differently, after all.
But you know, I don’t think I ever heard the besotted press call Clinton arrogant. “Not even one time.”
I’m frankly surprised to see that the issue came up at all, but then John O’ Connor was mighty, mighty - an enormous and heroic presence - and no one to be simply dismissed. Sadly, his successor - who hides out in his seat and keeps his mouth shut - seems to be a self-protective, aching void of a man. And we in NY feel the void keenly. I miss Cardinal O’ Connor.
For doing his job, Cardinal O’ Connor was also, apparently, targeted by the Clinton White House for surveillance.
This huge Clinton surveillance scheme was VAAPCON, the Violence Against Abortion Providers Task Force. According to the U.S. Justice Department, VAAPCON “was charged with determining whether there was a nationwide conspiracy to commit acts of violence against reproductive health care providers.” The more than 900 targets of all this surveillance included the Christian Coalition…the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, and even then-Roman Catholic Cardinal of New York John O’Connor.
[…]
So if you were close to the late Cardinal O’Connor, or called him to discuss personal or family problems – even personal sins – to him, you may have been wiretapped and recorded by the Clinton’s VAAPCON surveillance. In that sense, the Clinton administration may have literally bugged the confessional.
That’s stretching it a bit, but the fact remains that America’s formost prelate seemed to pay a price for asking the president to just, you know…act respectable.
John Cardinal Connor, Priest, Patriot, Veteran and Holy Man - pray for us.
no kidding. just when I thought I couldn't think less of him.
No problem. Hope lunch was good. :)
There has never been a time when "ALL the Christian was Roman Catholic", as you stated.
"It is amusing, though, one of those East/West ritual differences, that in the East, those who are to receive communion approach the chalice with their arms crossed on their chest, while those who are not Orthodox or are not prepared*, but wish to receive a blessing, approach with arms at their side."
I think, TRD, you'll find this is a Slavic tradition. In our Greek Orthodox parish, the only people who approach with their arms crossed come out of the Slavic churches. Our tip off of a non-Orthodox is when a stranger doesn't announce his/her name to the priest just before receiving. Never fails!
Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation, we Transubstantiation. Anglicans, from what I understand, totally reject Transubstantiation, and Low church Anglicans don't believe in the Real Presence at all.
Further, Jesus meant us all to be One, so when they seperated from us during the Reformation that was a choice of their own making, not ours.
They can not now expect to come into our churches, disagree with just about every single thing we stand for and then have the nerve to be insulted because they are denied Holy Communion.
It was, thank you. Now I'm stuffed, feel lazy and don't want to go back to work, but I must. Have a nice day and see everyone later.
The blessing thing is a nice, feel good option for people who can't receive, but it's not technically supposed to be allowed. If you can't receive, you're really supposed to stay in your seat. So says my priest, anyway, who does not offer blessings during Communion.
"Well, I'd hope you don't feel out of sorts going forward. Lots of Catholics who haven't been to Reconcilliation don't partake either. And I can tell you as a Catholic, we don't give any thought as to why folks aren't coming up. Perhaps they're guests, perhaps they're currious about what a Mass is like, who knows? It's their business"
There are plenty of times when I sit through communion...and I am a practicing catholic.
Sometimes it is because I haven't to confession for missing mass. Sometimes it is because I haven't managed to fast for one hour prior to communion.
You never know why someone is sitting, and I don't waste time wondering why someone is sitting. I always figure they are doing out of respect for the eucharist.
I think you are mistaken. President Bush only received a blessing.
"The blessing thing is a nice, feel good option for people who can't receive, but it's not technically supposed to be allowed. If you can't receive, you're really supposed to stay in your seat. So says my priest, anyway, who does not offer blessings during Communion."
It's probably an issue that individual bishops or even priests may have some discretion over?
I doubt that one priest saying it isn't supposed to be done necessarily means that is the position of the entire church on the matter.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the children accompany their parents up for communion. The priest blesses each child by touching the communion cup to their head. It is a beautiful and reverent practice that recognizes them as members of the congregation. I have never seen an adult go up though, for a blessing.
I miss Cardinal O'Connor.
Did you watch his funeral? I will never forget this moment .........
Amen!
I wish the dreaded arm cross didn't look so "gay", if you will. Much as I love and respect W and Laura for doing it, it makes me cringe just to see it in the photo. I had to do it for 9 months -- and I couldn't even get out of it by staying in the pew, I was expected to get the blessing. I would cross, but more like wrists across my heart which looked and felt more graceful.
Many CATHOLICS may not receive for one reason or another.
No relations on Saturday night? I didn't know about that one. Bet that's honored more in the breach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.