Posted on 11/04/2011 8:23:23 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
Once I was at Mass, and there was a friar in sandals picking his toes during Mass. I was not getting in his communion line.
Exactly!
Parishioners need to fold their hands and pray. There is great grace in being humble like this.
>>Parishioners need to fold their hands and pray. There is great grace in being humble like this.<<
Amen! I wish more people would remember this.
No so. Perhaps it is according to Latin rite custom. It’s common in the Eastern rites of Middle Eastern origin such as the Melkite usage of the Byzantine rite, the Syriac rite, and the Coptic rite from my experience.
When I visit a Melkite (etc.) Church, I attempt to participate in the Divine Liturgy with them, according to their customs. I would hope that they return the favor.
You missed my point. But I always omit reciting the filioque when I attend Latin-rite Masses.
What was the point?
The point was that the Latin-rite perspective on the Orans position didn’t apply to all Catholic traditions.
IMO, this practice of lay folks adopting the "orans" position is not getting in to the Latin Rite from the East, but rather from the pentecostal movement. And I am referring specifically to Catholics, not folks from some other than Catholic religious tradition. In the Latin Rite it is a novelty, a violation of rubrics, and (IMO) not a good thing.
“IMO, this practice of lay folks adopting the “orans” position is not getting in to the Latin Rite from the East, but rather from the pentecostal movement. And I am referring specifically to Catholics, not folks from some other than Catholic religious tradition. In the Latin Rite it is a novelty, a violation of rubrics, and (IMO) not a good thing.”
Perhaps the solution would be to suppress the Charismatic movement.
On the tongue, preferably while kneeling at an altar rail.
God gave me a brain. I use it. Christ is complete in the host. He isn’t splintered. No need to take a risk of infection.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. What do you mean "isn't splintered" and what would it have to do with the suggestion that the Sacrament can be a disease vector? I fear I am missing your point on this.
I’m not really sure “one” knew about germs in Christ’s time. Perhaps Christ washed his hands. The Priest does.
I think you have misunderstood what I mean. What they knew doesn't really matter. And washing his hands means little as I doubt they had Dial soap or chlorhexadine. We are talking about a man who touched the sick constantly in his ministry of healing. Could the same germs which were destroyed throughout a person's body by his mere touch, or even word, then continue to live on his actual person? If so, then his Body and Blood can in fact be a disease vector. However, if we accept this idea we naturally have to follow up with the obvious question. How many people died because they touched Jesus some time after he was with lepers and the sick? Given the desire people had to touch him it is possible that for every person he healed he infected ten by contact during the day. This would mean that our Lord might actually have killed thousands more people than he cured. Interesting concept, but I don't buy it. In my opinion the Sacrament is Christ, and Christ was not and cannot be a disease vector. He cured, and did not cause disease.
And, as to the priest washing his hands I fear you are overstating things. Pouring tepid water over your fingers is not really washing. This merely results in having wet germs. I would hate to ever be in a hospital which uses this form of hand washing before treating patients. Nosocomial infections would be through the roof.
>>What do you mean “isn’t splintered” <<
I mean that Christ is complete in the host. It’s that simple. You don’t have to go to that cup to receive Christ.
>>In my opinion the Sacrament is Christ, and Christ was not and cannot be a disease vector.<<
Christ is not in the lipstick of the woman in front of you. I’ll put more faith in the “wet germs” of the Priest than the swipe of a dry cloth on lipstick and backwash in a cup. Barney taught me never to share a cup and it’s a smart move.
You can believe what you like, but many diocese refrain from a cup during cold and flu season so they are not agreeing with your “Jesus doesn’t pass germs” theory.
>>Well, I’m a convert and no one EVER told me ‘orans’ or ‘orantes’ was ONLY for the Priest.<<
Just because no one told you, doesn’t mean that it is right. And all the research on “The Early Church”, favorite phrase of the libs who love the “Electric Church” (every time you walk in you get a shock - Mother Angelica), does not overcome that the GIRM does not direct the laity to use the “hands extended” position. Only the priest and deacon.
NO orans for the laity in the Holy Mass. You want to pray at home using it, cool. Not in the Mass. No laying prostrate, no bowing over and over and no orans. Don’t give in to the “Catholic Calisthenics” crowd and be waving, bowing and free throwing all through the mass. There are gestures that we are to use. Period.
Here, read this...
http://www.adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html
And no, a “modified orans” is not acceptable either. That also is the more liberal Bishops trying to be more than they should be.
Rather than removing the "caucus" label and making this thread "open" I will remove your post. If you need to see the post to repost it without the first paragraph let me know by Freepmail.
I mean that Christ is complete in the host. It’s that simple. You don’t have to go to that cup to receive Christ.
Yes, of course, but what does that have to do with anything? My comments relate to the suggestion that Christ's Body and Blood can be disease vectors.
Christ is not in the lipstick of the woman in front of you.
I fear you have misunderstood the actual question. Your initial comment was that "receiving by intinction gives one that bit of alcohol that kills germs". This is what I take exception to, not questions about lipstick. What you have said here applies to the actual contents of the chalice, i.e. the Blood of Christ, and so it means that without alcohol diseases would actually live within the substance of the Sacrament. Think about the implications of that suggestion and what they mean about Christ himself and his real presence in the Sacrament.
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.