Posted on 02/25/2008 5:48:28 AM PST by NYer
Rome - The Vatican is poised to introduce stricter norms on Roman Catholic mass, including halting the taking of communion in the hand and setting a time limit for homilies, an Italian newspaper reported Monday. Turin-based daily La Stampa quoted senior Vatican official, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don saying the move was necessary to eliminate "extravagancies" that have crept into Mass celebrations.
Provisions include restricting to 10 minutes homilies and sermons and ensuring that they be exclusively based on the Gospel readings, said Ranjith who is Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship.
The practice of allowing the faithful to receive Communion - the bread host which Catholics believe represents the body of Christ - in their hands would also be "urgently reviewed", Ranjith was quoted as saying.
The Vatican wants the host "placed directly into the mouths of the faithful so they don't touch it (with their hands)... because many don't even realize they are receiving Christ and do this with scant concentration and respect," Ranjith said.
The distribution of communion on the hands of those attending mass has been widespread since the so-called Vatican II Council - a series of reforms introduced in the 1960s aimed at making church celebrations more accessible to the world's 1.1 billion Catholics.
But according to Ranjith the practice was "illegally and hastily introduced by certain elements of the Church immediately after the Council".
"Some people keep hosts with them as a sort of souvenir, others sell them while in some cases the hosts have been taken away to be used in blasphemous Satanic rituals," he said.
Ranjith said the measures to bring back "dignity and decorum" to mass celebrations were in line with Pope Benedict XVI's wishes, but he did not specify when they would be introduced, nor if they would be issues as an order or a set of guidelines.
Benedict, who earned a reputation as a conservative before being elected pontiff in 2005, last year eased restrictions introduced by Vatican II on the celebration of the traditional Latin mass.
The move which has included softening a prayer for the conversion of Jews contained in the Latin liturgical text, has drawn criticism from Jewish groups who resent what they say remains a singling out of members of their faith.
Meanwhile hard-line traditionalist Catholics have expressed anger over what they say is Benedict's tampering of the original Latin mass which they regard as sacred.
Communion was also always received kneeling, at an altar rail.
. . . which just goes to show that adhering to the proper forms won't necessarily save you from heresy . . . .
The problem is, as Catholics we believe that Christ established a Church to transmit and interpret his commands.
Please read from Mediator Dei, the encyclical of Pius XII:
61. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. ...Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.
And how odd that you have to parse Our Saviour's words in order to proclaim the opposite of what He said. He told you over and over again. "This is a hard saying -- who can hear it?" John 6:60.
Not you apparently.
"Oh, no," he replied in his rich Irish brogue, "Just come at the usual time."
I pointed out that I was 40-odd years in arrears and it was going to be the mother of all confessions.
"Oh, just come at the usual time" - Irish stage wink - "there aren't very many sinners in this parish!"
He preaches frequently on the Sacrament of Confession . . . there's always a line on Saturday, but I wish they offered Confession before early Mass on Sunday.
I see it as a greater division between believers and God. The tearing of the veil in the Temple (the one that separated the congregants from the priest) represented the need to have no priest--that believers could go directly to the Lord without a priest. Sames goes for taking of the bread. One more thing to keep believers further from direct contact with the Lord--My greatest reason for breaking with the Catholic Church and embracing Bible-based Christianity.
Go ahead and attack--I am wearing the armor of Christ and it's flame retardant.
My parents are nearing 80 but are very spry. They are both extraordinary ministers (Eucharist ministers). I would hate for them to have to start touching people's tongues to give them communion and get sick from other's germs. They are fairly healthy, but are more susceptible to illness.
For every high priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on them that are ignorant and that err: because he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. Neither doth any man take the honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. So Christ also did not glorify himself, that he might be made a high priest: but he that said unto him: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place: Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. Who in the days of his flesh, with a strong cry and tears, offering up prayers and supplications to him that was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. And whereas indeed he was the Son of God, he learned obedience by the things which he suffered: And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. Called by God a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech.
-Hebrews 5: 1-10
Laughed so hard that I cried!
What happened to worishiping and glorifying God?
He was, of course, speaking figuratively.
Man, I've been a techie WAY too long - I initially read that verb as co-axed and tried to figure out what a cable had to do with the Body of Christ.
Converting from Southern Baptist, transubstantiation was a high hurdle for me, in that, when Jesus said "This IS My Body" at the Last Supper, it was THEN (cause He said so), but why is it now? After reading the Gospels (my RCIA class was utterly inadequate) I realized that either the Apostles are the only ones in heaven (because only those who eat Christ's Body have life within them - again, HE SAID SO) or it is possible somehow today to eat Christ's Body.
The whole trick of it is to not touch the tongue but to drop it on the communicant's extended tongue from a height of about a quarter-inch.
"My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink."
There is nothing, but nothing, figurative about that kind of talk.
The meaning of "is" as a poster above commented is "is."
In my thesaurus, "Clintonian" is an antonym for "New Testament."
From the Religion Moderator's profile:
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal. You’ll see this warning frequently on threads because the first offense in a flame war is often when one of the participants makes a personal remark about another Freeper, e.g. you’re an idiot, liar, heretic and so on. Attributing motives to another poster or otherwise reading his mind is “making it personal.” Stick with the issues and you’ll be fine. When in doubt, double check your use of pronouns before hitting “post.”
Now tell me where your #73 stands with regard to the above.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
10 minute homilies? Our non-obedient minded priests and bishops would just ignore it. But I do agree with you nonetheless.
I truly believe that the CC is the Mother of all harlots.
I truly believe that members of the catholic church are trapped in a religion that not only does not save them, but will ensure their destiny to hell.
I will keep it from being personal, but I can't guarantee that the discussion won't be unpleasant.
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.