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.
Yes and apologies for not being more specific. I was pointing you to the Epistle to the Smyrneans, in response to the question you posed earlier.
That is correct and Peter is the rock on which the Church was built by Christ. There is only one church that traces its ancestry back to Christ and that is the Catholic Church.
The Catholic church hardly resembles the church of the 1st century that we read about in the New Testament.
Still, the odds are good the First Century Christians in Wales and those in India probably didn't know about that epistle. They most likely didn't know all that much about Peter and Paul after they left Jerusalem and vicinity.
There are other branches of Christianity that trace themselves directly to various apostles other than Peter.
There is only one source to which Christians should trace back to, and that is Christ. And the church we read about in the New Testament is the pattern we should seek to follow today.
"There are reasons that will allow a priest to give communion to a non-Catholic. I don't know the details, but I know they exist. John Paul II gave the Eucharist to Tony Blair, who is not Catholic. I think he even wrote an encyclical about the ecumenical administering of the Eucharist to non-Catholics."
I never heard of that. Would you happen to have a link? It really doesn't make sense to me, ESPECIALLY when it comes to Clinton, who could be excommunicated even if he WERE a Catholic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1193898/posts
I just looked quickly and found a discussion of this on FR. I am not justifying Clinton receiving the Eucharist. Just pointing out that there is an exception to the Catholic Only line of thinking.
Any believer may baptise ~ that's another one most Catholics never really think about until faced with a real case.
respectfully asked...
I decided to watch a Mass on EWTN last weekend and I have a question about what I saw...
The priest was the only person who consumed the wine during the distribution of communion. Why would that be done since Christ told us to take and eat and take and drink? I didn't understand what that practice was all about? Please help me understand this...
Blessings in Christ to you and yours!
The priest was the only person who consumed the wine during the distribution of communion. Why would that be done since Christ told us to take and eat and take and drink? I didn't understand what that practice was all about? Please help me understand this...
1) Catholics believe that at the Last Supper, Jesus, ordained the 12 Apostles priests and Bishops. Therefore His words "take and eat" and "take and drink" may apply only to the Apostles and their ordained successors. Thus it is a fitting symbol of the fullness of the priesthood that only the priest receive both elements.
However, the above should be seen only as symbolic. The Roman Rite does allow, under certain circumstances, the receiveing of the precious Blood by the lay communicants. Also, in both the Eastern Catholic Rites and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, communion is received under both kinds, either by intinction or by the Sacred Host being broken up and placed into the Precious Blood and fed to the faithful with a silver spoon.
2) We generally speak of the consecrated bread as the Body of Christ and the consecrated wine as the Blood of Christ due to the elements being consecrated separately and also as a form of shorthand. In reality, the consecrated bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ and the consecrated wine becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Thus, when we receive only one of the Species, whether the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood, we receive Christ completely.
The reason that each Species is the entire Christ is that at Mass, prior to the words of consecration, the bread symbolizes the earthly body and the wine symbolizes the earthly blood of Our Lord. When the priest consecrates the bread, it symbolizes Our Lord's death upon the Cross. When he consecrates the wine, it symbolizes the Precious Blood which poured forth from the centurion's wound to His side. Thus, the Blood being separated from the Body. However, at the consecration, both the bread and wine become His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, as they are His glorified, resurrected Body. Each Species is the entire Christ, just as the Resurrected Lord was entire; Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
3) A practical reason is that since every crumb of the Host and every drop of the Precious Blood is Jesus, we want to treat It with the utmost respect and honor. Thus we are on guard against spilling the Precious Blood. We are especially sensitive about spilling It on the floor where It could be trampled. So, generally, to prevent accidents, only the priest receives from the chalice.
I hope that this has answered your question
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.