Someone told me that VII did not state that communion in the hand was allowed. why did this start and why? If V II did start this could someone tell me where it is in the V II documents?

Thank you SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003

Answers

Vatican II did not state anything about Communion in the hand. That was an invention of Paul VI.

And BTW communion in the hand was originally used by the heretic Arius to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.†AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 10, 2003.

...VII did not state...

last time i checked, seven didnt state very much at all, at least not about communion in the hand. good number though.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2003.

Actually the manner or method for receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church has changed frequently down through the centuries. In early times, communicants would receive Holy Communion while standing (the practice of kneeling at Communion was only introduced in the fifteenth century). Men would receive the Eucharistic Bread in the hand and women would receive it on a white cloth. The Eucharistic Blood of Jesus was distributed through a special reed made of gold or silver. It was only in the twelfth century that Holy Communion commonly began to be distributed under one species (bread) at mass. It was at this point that priests began placing the small Hosts on the tongues of all communicants (I suspect this was done to speed up the time it took to distribute Communion at mass). Down through the ages the manner or method for receiving Our Lord at Communion has usually always been determined for practical reasons. It is true the practice of Communion in the hand was re-instituted under the reign of Pope Paul VI. It was permitted by the Church as it was seen by Her as another way to return to early Christian practices.

-- Ed Lauzon (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), November 10, 2003.

Thanks Ed, as you can see nothing much changes around here :-)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

Thank you Ed, I would like to know where you picked up the facts that you have stated in the above post.

Jeff you state that “Communion in the hand. That was an invention of Paul VI” can you show where he started this?

Thank You

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

Steven,

You can look at the 93 letter of St. Basil on the New Advent site for description of communion in the hand in the 400's. There are other letters of church fathers showing the same. I don't know what sources Ed used obviously, but that'll get you a start.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 10, 2003.

has our current Pope sad any thing that promotes this practice? I have been told that he has written against it but know one talks about him promoting it.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 10, 2003.

Yes, The Pope has spoken about it. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the abuse, nor is it a condemnation. Like everything that has come out of Rome since the Council, it's wide open to all diffesrnt kinds of interpretation.

There are certain elements in the modern Church that are taking a second look at the practice, and calling it into question.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 10, 2003.

Steve Let me make myself a bit clearer. Communion was sometimes given in the hand during the time of persecution. However the practice was quickly condemed when the heritic Arius used Communion in the hand to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Communion in the hand sprang up here and there as an illicit practice, but was usually stopped if discovered. Pope Paul VI allowed the practice as an indult, with power given to each Bishop to dicide if it was allowed in his diocese. The change was completly uncalled for since most people were accustomed with the former way of recieveing and had on problem with it. That being the case it, it would seem to be an invention since there was no outcry for a change in the venerable practice of Communion on the tongue. As far as I know, Communion in the hand is now the more common form of recieveing Holy Communion, with the exception of a few diocese in Europe, including that of Rome.†AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 10, 2003.

I have started doing a lot of reading on this topic and I do not under stand why people turned to this method of receiving the sacred sacrament. I am starting to find a link between the decline of the number of people that truly believe in the true presence as the church teaches and the increase of the number of the people that receive Communion in the hand. I still can not find the document where Pope Paul VI allowed this practice. Please point me in the direction for this info.

Thank you SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 10, 2003.

Why do you tell us:

''I am starting to find a link between the decline of the number of people that truly believe in the true presence'' --and,

''the increase of the number of the people that receive Communion in the hand.''

There is no link. There actually may not be any ''decline'' at all.

Speaking for only myself, Steven, my faith in the True Presence under the form of the sacred species of the Holy Eucharist is total and absolute. I also receive Holy Communion in the hand. I partake of the Precious Blood whenever possible, with love and devotion.

I'm not alone, by any measure or statistical estimate. If you overvalue the numerical evidence of statistics, you demote the power of the Holy Spirit to give & sustain believers' faith. (This is a great subject for your private meditation; see to it.)

A Communion taken strictly upon the tongue has never been tried by statistical methods. If it ever is, you'll have to cope with great disappointment, as far as your ''link'' is concerned. For 2,000 years almost, there have been unfaithful Catholics and others-- who doubted the True Presence. It's not a recent development. What you've been told since Vatican II is just another aspect of the resistance all around us --to the Church's prelature and authority. Faith is called for; not ''research'' of any statistic. The past is prologue; and sinners have co-existed with saints since the dawn of Christianity. Vatican II is not the dawn of any sin or failure for the Church. If someone tells you so, he lies.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

Under Pope Paul VI, The Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship published An Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion entitled Memorale Domini. It dealt with many of the questions that have been raised here. This document can be read at:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

In addtion, Colin B. Donovan of EWTN outlined by what authority the United States has been given permission to employ the practice of Communion in the hand and it can be read here at:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

My earlier comments were gleaned from the Catholic Encyclopaedia under the subject “Communion Bench” and can be read in their entirety here at:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04170a.htm

There is also an article which I feel discusses the pros and cons of Communion in the hand in a fair and balanced way. It was written by I.Shawn McElhinney. He also lists many other sources for information on this topic. His article can be read here at:

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Hope this helps.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), November 10, 2003.

Eugene,

"Speaking for only myself, Steven, my faith in the True Presence under the form of the sacred species of the Holy Eucharist is total and absolute. I also receive Holy Communion in the hand. I partake of the Precious Blood whenever possible, with love and devotion."

I do not doubt your devotion to Our lord and the Blessed Sacrament, and also putting aside VII and new verses old, have you ever stoped to think about communion i the hand? Do you ever wash your hands before communion? What do you do after the touch the Body of Our Lord? So you wash your hands after or after Mass do you just go about with life, go shake a few friends hands with your hands? You get my point, it is not our place to touch the the Body of Our Lord our hands are not Consecrated as the priests are, we go about with our life and work and all of us sins with our hands. Iam not saying the priest doesnt, but he washes his hands before the conseration, at a new Mass I dont know if they still do or not but the fact remains HIS HANDS are consecrated. After you pick up the body of Our Lord with your hands to you lookclose at your hands to make sure a few little peices of Our Lord are still left on your hands to fall to the ground? I am sure you understand what I am getting I dont mean to point a finger or anything like that iam sorry if i did. I am not real good at writing so plz understand

KeV

-- Kevin Wisniewski (Kez38spl@charter.net), November 10, 2003.

If anyone gets a email from me be careful i just had one come back to be from one of your email addresses that i dident send.. SO becarefull i may have a virus

-- Kevin w (kez38spl@charter.net), November 10, 2003.

Ed, Eugene,

Have you read Memorale Domini? I do not mean just reading the words and saying to your self “See I am not in the wrong” what I mean is to read it top down and from the bottom up and then think about this message in this document with your hole heart and open your mind to listen to the Holy Spirit. Then tell me the full message of the document.

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

I do not have tie at the moment because of schoolwork but yes if i get a chance i will read it.. Even though it wont change my views on respect to The Boby and Blood of our lord.

Kevin W

-- Kevin w (kez38spl@charter.net), November 10, 2003.

We see here some fine catholics who really believe that if only they keep their hands off the Blessed Sacrament, tat makes them holy and equal to the priest who consecrated it.

When in fact, there is not a thing we can effect by outward action to convert us into worthy recipients; on account of the infinite holiness of the One received. You may scrub your hands, your lips, your trachea and your stomach internally; and no part of you will be sufficiently pure to deserve His holy sacrament. You fool yourselves that a hand is much purer than your HEART; which is the part of you that truly must be pure.

P.S. I definitely wash my hands. I take care not to hold anything in them before going to communion which might dirty them. Nothing. Is that fine with you? Are you familiar with the Pharisees, who criticized the apostles for eating grain with their ''impure'' hands? Go back & read that episode. --Ciao!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.

“We see here some fine catholics who really believe that if only they keep their hands off the Blessed Sacrament, tat makes them holy and equal to the priest who consecrated it.”

So how many here “really believe that if only they keep their hands off the Blessed Sacrament, tat makes them holy and equal to the priest who consecrated it.”?

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

S: Has our current Pope sad any thing that promotes this practice of Communion in the hand? I have been told that he has written against it but no one talks about him promoting it.

He neither "promotes" the practice nor "has written against it." There are other parts of the Mass that he has neither promoted nor written against. Therefore, nothing should be read into his silence. The practice was in place before he bacame pope. During his 25-year reign, he could have changed the practice or suppressed it, but saw no reason to do so. Surely, he knows that -- while some folks are careless or abusive -- millions of devout, orthodox Catholics use the practice with as much love, care, and devotion as those who receive on the tongue.

J: Yes, the Pope has spoken about it. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement of the abuse, nor is it a condemnation. Like everything that has come out of Rome since the Council, it's wide open to all diffesrnt kinds of interpretation. There are certain elements in the modern Church that are taking a second look at the practice, and calling it into question.

Steven, the above comments should be ignored by you, for they are clearly written by a non-Catholic who is disrespectful and ignorant of the facts. The authoress wrongly refers to Communion in the hand as an "abuse," and she uses deception to innacurately characterize the pope's comments in the Apostolic Letter, "Dominicae Cenae." Having criticized certain abuses, the Holy Father says, for example, "This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized." (That says a whole lot, to a person with a kind heart and a fair and open mind -- but is ignored by a person with a heart full of hatred and guilt.)

Steven, the authoress of the above comments also tries to make you think that there is a movement to suppress Communion in the hand. How foolish! The article for which she provided a hyperlink is not written by a bishop nor by a priest nor by a deacon -- but by an unknown layman who works for an organization that used to be part of a schismatic organization. He is in a tiny and insignificant minority in the Catholic Church (which is not the "modern Church," as the lady calls it).

Adoremus in aeternum Sanctissimum Sacramentum!

-- Loboyolla (Panisangelicus@catholic.net), November 10, 2003.

Eugene,

What does mere soap and water do for your hands?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

Steven, In 1977, the American bishops, by the necessary 2/3 majority, approved communion in the hand as an option in the U.S. For the first nine centuries, Catholic Christians commonly received in their hands and then communicated themselves. Then around the ninth century, for various cultural and historical reasons the procedure in the U.S. of receiving on the tounge had become the tradition and remained that way for almost a thousand years. Right around the time of V II some Catholics wanted the pratice of communion in the hand restored. As more and more Catholics wanted this the Pope surveyed bishops on this matter, then said that the present method would remain, but that the bishops in certain countrys could vote on receiving in the hand. From what I remember reading about this it seems like the choice was left up to the bishops and I'am not sure if this info is from any of the documents. We just need to remember what which ever way we choose, we receive the real body and blood of Jesus Christ with respect and reverence. Both ways come from our tradition and both are approved by our Holy Father. Hope this helps.

Martina

-- martina (tinanorks@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.

Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci observed in their "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass":

"The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place--if it subsists at all-- could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever." ("The Ottaviani Intervention", Cardinal A. Ottaviani and Cardinal A. Bacci. Tan Books and Publishers, p. 27-28)

This is a perfect description of Modernism

-- Doodles (doodles@yahoo.com), November 10, 2003.

Martina,

Yes it is vary true that the Pope has approved this but it is vary obvious that Pope VI the majority@ that time has recommended against it as has our current Pope.

Can you explain the truths listed below.

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). "This method must be retained." (Apostolic Epistle "Memoriale Domini")

POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-)."It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice,still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 10, 2003.

"P.S. I definitely wash my hands. I take care not to hold anything in them before going to communion which might dirty them. Nothing. Is that fine with you? Are you familiar with the Pharisees, who criticized the apostles for eating grain with their ''impure'' hands? Go back & read that episode. --Ciao!"

You like the bring up the Pharisees, does it give you comtentment and make you think that every abuse that is going on in the church is alright, and that every person that brings it up is a Pharisees?? I dont see how you come up with this analge other then you dont like to be shown when you are wrong. You can talk abotu how the hands are cleaner then the hear.

"We see here some fine catholics who really believe that if only they keep their hands off the Blessed Sacrament, tat makes them holy and equal to the priest who consecrated it."

It is not about being exquel to the preist, in fact the priest is just a man like you and i, Our Lord is who consecrates the host and makes it the Body and Blood! Christ works though him. So your statment there can no bearing on weather or not a laymen should touch the Body of Our Lord. Iam going to stop here because you have showed me by your statment about the Pharisees that you yourself are like one, no matter what Our Lord told or showed them they did not beleave because they know better and justafied everything they said and did. I pray that the lord will open your eyes and show you the truth.

P.S. No one is any more Holy then anyone else here at lest that is not for us to decided thats for Jesus. No one in anyposts that I have read has claimed to be idk where you get the statment you keep makign about "you think you are more holy"

In Christ KeV

-- kevin Wsniewski (kez38spl@charter.net), November 10, 2003.

Traditionalists have a point about the way in which communion in the hand came about. I don’t think it can be argued that for a time, the practice was indeed illicit. However, it is clear that the mood desiring uniformity in worship (including the manner in which Holy Communion is received) which noticeably surfaced at the Council of Trent, was not, and is not the norm for the Church down through the centuries. Tertullian and St. Cyprian tell us that from early on in the formative years of the Church and with the passage of time, practices varied greatly from area to area. For example, early Christians stood at mass rather than kneel. This was not done out of disrespect for the Eucharist but rather out of a deep-rooted adoration for Our Blessed Lord. It reminded them of Jesus’ resurrection to the Father. The Christians who worshipped during the Patristic era would often take the Eucharist home or on long trips before consuming it. Disrespect stems not from varying from the norm with unusual or uncommon actions but rather, from what is in the heart.

For the past number of centuries and more notably even in the first half of the Twentieth Century many Catholics believed it was a sign of disrespect to eat the Eucharist rather than let it dissolve on the tongue (some even believed the penalty for doing so was eternal damnation) and yet; Jesus clearly told us to “eat” His body and drink His blood. Did these worshippers show disrespect to Our Lord by not realising they were not following His command? Of course not. It was a question of catechisis that needed to be addressed.

Sometimes circumstances will dictate a change in how we worship. When Catholics take communion in the hand it is no more a sign of disrespect for God, than it is for someone not to shake the hand of his neighbour at mass when the peace sign is being offered when he resides in the middle of an area that has been hit with a severe outbreak of the SARS virus. The onslaught of many new communicable diseases that can be transmitted by touch is only one other example where the Church needs to have the ability to fine-tune, adjust or even radically change the way we worship so as to protect the faithful as best She can, provided the integrity of the faith is maintained. Liturgies can change and the way in which we worship can change. The way change comes about is by leaving the Church to decide what is proper and what is not. In this instance, the Church has left the option to the communicant as to which way he prefers to receive the Eucharist.

Some of Pope John Paul II’s comments regarding how the laity are to conduct themselves at communion (ie. who is and who is not allowed to touch the Eucharist by hand) have been taken completely out of context. While it is true he has stated the non-ordained people are not permitted to touch the Eucharist, this obviously only applies in certain circumstances. In Steve’s example above, in Section 11 of Dominae Cenae where the Holy Father says, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained”, he clearly overlooked the very next sentence wherein the Pope stated, “It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.” So, it is very clear here when read in full context, that others are allowed to touch the Eucharist.

Again in another example given above in Section 9, of Inaestimabile Donum, Steve clearly has taken what is being said out of context. The full section reads, “Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” The Church is clearly making reference here to the distribution of communion and not in the reception of it, as reference has been made to “ministers appointed for this purpose”. It is obvious Pope John Paul II has no problem with communicants receiving the Eucharist in the hand. He himself distributes communion in this manner to those who desire it.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), November 11, 2003.

Steven,

What does mere soap and water do for your hands?

He is showing respect. Ask yourself how many people who receive on the tongue use mouthwash, brush their teeth, or some germicidal immediately before mass to clean their mouths before communion. The mouth is a VERY dirty place.

You see Steven, from a cleanliness perspective, there really isn't a difference between the two forms of communion, it's just another case of one group of "Catholics" trying to say they are better and more reverent than their neighbor.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 11, 2003.

ED, I understand the Pope has authorized Communion in the hand and I have practiced this as well. If the Popes had no reservations about the Communion in the hand why would the context that I used be there?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 11, 2003.

Whether dispensing of this sacrament belongs to a priest alone?

Objection 1. It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ's blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ's blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): "Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord's blood." Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ's body does not belong to priests only.

Objection 2. Further, priests are the appointed ministers of the sacraments. But this sacrament is completed in the consecration of the matter, and not in the use, to which the dispensing belongs. Therefore it seems that it does not belong to a priest to dispense the Lord's body.

Objection 3. Further, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii, iv) that this sacrament, like chrism, has the power of perfecting. But it belongs, not to priests, but to bishops, to sign with the chrism. Therefore likewise, to dispense this sacrament belongs to the bishop and not to the priest.

On the contrary, It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): "It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord's body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick."

I answer that, The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people; hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.

Reply to Objection 1. The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter's duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest. First of all, because Christ's blood is contained in a vessel, hence there is no need for it to be touched by the dispenser, as Christ's body is touched. Secondly, because the blood denotes the redemption derived by the people from Christ; hence it is that water is mixed with the blood, which water denotes the people. And because deacons are between priest and people, the dispensing of the blood is in the competency of deacons, rather than the dispensing of the body.

Reply to Objection 2. For the reason given above, it belongs to the same person to dispense and to consecrate this sacrament.

Reply to Objection 3. As the deacon, in a measure, shares in the priest's "power of enlightening" (Eccl. Hier. v), inasmuch as he dispenses the blood. so the priest shares in the "perfective dispensing" (Eccl. Hier. v) of the bishop, inasmuch as he dispenses this sacrament whereby man is perfected in himself by union with Christ. But other perfections whereby a man is perfected in relation to others, are reserved to the bishop

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), November 11, 2003.

Dear Steven:
You keep posting directly to me. As in: What does mere soap and water do for your hands?

Soap & water do for me just what they do for you. I said this to reply to a stupid question you'd asked previously. You insinuated we receive the sacred host with filth on our hands.

I answered every objection you could bring up once; and shouldn't have to do it again. If you can't be bothered with reasonable answers, that's too bad for you. I'd suggest you suit yourself, have the sacred host placed in your pure mouth, and go back to the pew. When you get there, concentrate on Him; Our Holy Redeemer. Do that, instead of contemplating every other communicant and how he/she's ''destroying'' the Church. It's just out of your jurisdiction.

A bishop has the authority in this world to allow and to disallow communion in the hand. We have his word for it that it cannpot be an affront to Our Lord. Nothing you or any other scrupulous layman thinks is worth a second thought. That's the TRUTH!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

I do not think it is a question of purity it is a question of reverence and well being of the body of Christ. What about the fragments of the Body of Chris that hit the floor and then gets stepped on? What about the sacrament getting dropped? Is it not our responsibility to make sure that such things do not happen?

As I see it the Bishops asked and the Pope said OK but before he said yes he still sided with St. Thomas. You know the teachings of St Thomas do have some authority in the church.

I have been practicing what the norm is and has been for some time, then I started reading some of the documents that had mixed messages about the subject so I started reading more and more and now I see that many Popes have recommended against most of our church teachers have taught against it and we all still seem to think it is all OK.

It seems that when I started to point out the “TRUTH” in this mater some of you started to get vary defensive, why is that? Could we be afraid of the real truth?

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.

Let's not assume you're the first Catholic to have brought up respect and reverence. Again, I must remind those opposed to reception of Communion in the hand:

The only practical way one could be observing another communicant being ''irreverent'' is to be watching. Is this the proper manner of going to Holy Communion? Rubbernecking?

You have to practice what you preach: give your undivided attention to Our Saviour in the Blessed Sacrament. We aren't celebrating in order to spy on each other.

The idea that pieces of the Eucharist are dropped everywhere is simplistic. Nobody who communicates is so careless we're apt to have tragedies like ''stepping on the hosts.'' Get real! Masses well before Vatican II were ocassions for accidental spills; and you don't blame the bishops of their day.

Perfect love and absolute reverence for the Eucharist is seen at every Mass today. To question it here motivated by one's personal peeves is intellectually dishonest.

Let me point out another thing many don't realise:

Just as Our Saviour in Holy Communion takes flight immediately from the sacred species if it's about to be desecrated outwardly; He is certainly free to ''escape'' that errant particle of a host that might be accidentally lost. You would not be ''stepping'' on Him, but the matter He leaves behind. Once the sacred species loses the consecrated essence, it is no longer the Body and Blood. It's precisely this which happens when your digestive process meets the Body of Our Lord internally. He remains with us spiritually; and we no longer retain the sacrament in matter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

I rather think that if the Hillary Clintons of the world support something, I will get a better nights rest opposing it. Mother Teresa once said that the thing that she found the most offensive was when people would receive on the hand. I believe it was the Dutch that started it reallz and when Rome told them to stop, well, they disobeyed and kept on receiving on the hand. Of course Rome kept telling them to stop and of course they kept on with their disobedience. Finally the Vatican, being rather emasculated these last decades, said "OK receive on the hand." So, born of disobedience, abhorred by Mother Teresa, and promoted by the same people that have brought us the homosexual pederast scandal.

http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/2003/1103iw.htm

"Cardinal Mahony denying one young woman communion on the tongue. "No, this isn't done here," Hmm, recieve our Lord the way Mother Teresa would have, or Cardinal Mahony?

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

You have swallowed a fabrication, Sir/Madam.

We know of no documented words by Mother Theresa actually giving such opinions. It's very possible she held the opinion, as many good Catholics still do.

But our Church teaches we have the duty of obedience to her bishops, not to just anyone. Even a saint has no authority to teach us contrarily to our anointed shepherds. I would follow Cardinal Mahoney, (actually my own bishop here in the Sacramento diocese,) to my death. He was given me by God the Holy Spirit. Not Mother Theresa, bless her lovely soul!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Sorry but not all bishops speak truth all the time. Most bishops are mere men and some time their minds are clouded with worldly maters

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.

The bishop is your authority. You may follow his command with every confidence that nothing you can do within the Church is unlawful. If it were to be proved at fault, the blame would be his alone, and not his followers.

On the other hand, to disobey your bishop can be a grave sin; we are always under obedience to him. Your personal opinion of his actions is irrelevant.

He is authorised, not you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 11, 2003.

Yes I know this and I follow the instructions of my bishop.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.

But what about the Bishops that tell the people that it is ok to have sex before marriage and the ones that tell you that it is ok to take the birth control pill and the bishops that tell us that it is ok for two people to live like they are married out side of marriage whether the they are the same sex or not.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.

Steven,

Do you have sure examples of these claims?

If such a bishop did these things than that bishop would not be in union with the pope and magisterium. No one out of union with Rome has any authority regardless of the title they claim. I am pretty sure in such a case the teaching authority of such a person is automatically lost even though their ordained mark on the soul remains. You need to know your Catechism, for this reason. Such behavior would sooner be found in a priest than a bishop.

You have a certain kind of authority when in union with Rome.

-- Mike H. (beginasyouare@hotmail.com), November 11, 2003.

When I lived in AZ I went to a priest to talk to him about me and my girlfriend having sex not to get permission to continue but on getting help to stop. He asked me some questions like how long have I known her, did I plan on getting married and some other questions that I do no recall completely.

The priest then told me that I should try to stop but if I continued I would not be in sin. So I took this home with me and let things go on as they where but what the priest had told me was bugging me. So after three weeks of trying I finally got an appointment with the Bishop. I told him about me and my girlfriend and then I told him what the priest had told me. He talked about sex marriage birth control and how what the church was publicly teaching was not in the direction that the church was going in and that the church will change it teachings to be in favor of most of these things but it would have to be a slow and long process. The he told me that since the church is going in that direction that it would be ok for me to continue as I am. So I did for two years because it seemed right because I had been told it would be right by a Bishop.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 11, 2003.

"Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depths of the sea".(Matthew 18:6)

With "friends" like these clergymen, who needs enemies?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2003.

Steven,
You do well to tell us these things and express your worry about our priests' and bishops' very questionable conduct. No one can blame you. Maybe I'm wrong; but I think these events brought you to a greater awareness of sin. In at least that aspect, God must have permitted some deplorable things to take place, for your edification. That can't excuse the bishop or his priests. They will answer for this before God.

Having said this, I have to ask you why it became necessary for you to ask help from a priest? I mean, help to stop committing the most obvious and culpable of sins? Were you and your girl that hopelessly immature; you needed a priest to explain a mortal sin to you-- or else you couldn't stop it? It seems implausible to me. Very implausible. And especially the things the bishop said to you. Nothing at all in Catholic doctrine supports those ideas.

But I won't judge you. For just now, I would impose on your Christian charity; that you cease detracting from the character of Catholic bishops and priests over the Internet. Particularly since they aren't here, able to defend their actions. It's not Christian in the least to spread evil gossip about another. Were we to go to another site and say evil things about Steven Schneider where he didn't see us doing it, you would have reason to condemn us, wouldn't you?

As it happens, I have personal knowledge of a few abuses by priests in my home town. I save it for private conversations, not for broadcasting on the Internet. Even when the word is true God expects His children to refrain from spreading scandal.

We have to pray for wayward priests. They're also human. The Church is herself never at fault. We have the Holy Spirit to thank for keeping her above all human weakness. Just pray and keep faith with Jesus Christ until the dawn.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

I believe it was St. John Chrysostom who said the floor of Hell is lined with the skulls of priests and Bishops.

"When there is an imminent danger for the Faith, Prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects." –St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/CommunionInTheHand.html

In any event it would take impenetrable ignorance to think that it is just a coincidence that those priests and Bishops who are pro abortion, pro sodomite, pro contraceptive etc. are also the same ones who want communion in the hand. While this may not be 100% the case, it's pretty darn close. So, once again, do what the Saints do, or do what the pro sodomite child abusing Bishops do. Hmmm, let me think....

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

Do not feel so bad Stephen,

My wife and her lover have been told through example and verbally that their adultery and crime against our sacramental marriage are fine with the Church and God, even after the Roman Rota twice ruled in favor of the sacrament.

Evidently Cardinal Egan, Bishop Pataki and Bishop Gossman think that Divorce/Remarriage/Adultery are a one time sin and the forever consequences are not worth their acting responsibly to require and end to it or issue an excommunication for the public scandal it is.

This is the fine example of our current crop of Bishops. Do nothing to enforce a ruling by the Papal Court, which is a Magisterial Act, whose disobedience constitutes a direct attack on the teachings of the Church by BISHOPS!

Karl

-- KArl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

If it were to be proved at fault, the blame would be his alone, and not his followers.

This might be true if Catholics were supposed to be dolts or puppets. We have a responsibility to know our faith so that we can spot an error when it occurs so that we *don't* make the mistake of giving our obedience to it. Some degree of responsibility lies with the Catholic who doesn't study his faith.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 12, 2003.

Steven:
This is the depth to which some schismatics fall because of scandal: / / / ''those priests and Bishops who are pro abortion, pro sodomite,''---- Absolute hysteria.

Can ''TJ the Sinless'' name even a single, ONE proabortion cum procontraception cum prosodomy cum pro communion-in-hand priest or bishop?

Name one, TJ; let's find out who. In your dreams? The muckraking must stop.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Repeating: If it be proved at fault, the blame would be his alone, and not his followers.-- That's doctrinal.

Regina wants it otherwise.

''true if Catholics were supposed to be dolts or puppets. We have a responsibility to know our faith so that we can spot an error'' Here is a disingenuous and stupid thing to suggest.

No one is discussing ''faith'' in our thread. We are simply conflicted about communion in the hand. Nothing about that is contrary to the doctrines of the Church, or outside the bishop's range of authority. He hasn't permitted any SIN.

Dolts & puppets can still be faithful, Regina. Dissident know-everythings can fall into mortal sin, imposing laic private policy on our bishops and daring others to follow.

In my opinion, you've committed that sin. may God be merciful to you; we wait & see.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

The bishop is your authority. You may follow his command with every confidence that nothing you can do within the Church is unlawful. If it were to be proved at fault, the blame would be his alone, and not his followers.

Nazi soldiers in German death camps asserted the same defense. "We were just following orders!"

It didn't save their necks from the noose.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.

No one is discussing ''faith'' in our thread. We are simply conflicted about communion in the hand. Nothing about that is contrary to the doctrines of the Church, or outside the bishop's range of authority. He hasn't permitted any SIN.

An interested Catholic, one wishing to be obedient, would do well to familiarize himself with the origins of communion in the hand. By doing that he would discover that it originated first as a Protestant expression of their denial of the Real Presense, then later, it became popular among *disobedient* clerics.

Dolts & puppets can still be faithful, Regina.

How can anyone be faithful to *anything* when they don't know/understand what it is they place their faith in? To be sure, I'm not talking about those poor souls suffering from mental illness/retardation. I'm talking about those souls who base all their truths and faith on "what the bishops say" as opposed to ensuring that "what the bishops say" is in line with what the Church has always taught.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 12, 2003.

I save it for private conversations, not for broadcasting on the Internet

Name one, TJ; let's find out who. In your dreams? The muckraking must stop.

Which one is it, Eugene? Do we keep silent about abuses, or do we name names? The muckracking has saved countless souls. Why not here? There are very public examples of objective transgressions. We must pray for the prelates and priests, surely, but what's the harm in informing the faithful of what's going on out there?

Your faithfulness to the duty of obedience is admirable, but I urge you to consult the lives of the Saints (St. Paul, St. Hilary, St. Athanasius, etc.) regarding obedience to men vs. obedience to God. Not accusing you of anything, but suggest it so that you might better see where some Catholics are coming from, with regard to the present state of things.

Here is a disingenuous and stupid thing to suggest.

Knowing and following our Faith over the whims of men?

No one is discussing ''faith'' in our thread. We are simply conflicted about communion in the hand.

Are not the two related?

Dissident know-everythings can fall into mortal sin, imposing laic private policy on our bishops and daring others to follow. In my opinion, you've committed that sin.

Regina may be used to this sort of thing, but I find it disconcerting. Eugene, (a) I can't sniff out Regina's objective external transgressions; and (b) is the state of Regina's soul an appropriate topic of discussion and commentary for anyone other than Regina and her confessor?

-- Jaime Esquierva (nobis_peccatoribus@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.

A gem of wisdom from Jake ''--Nazi soldiers in German death camps asserted the same defense. 'We were just following orders!' ''

We don't ''defend'' any offense against the faith; whether by a layman or his bishop. You can't tell the difference because you think everything about the 2nd Vatican Council is contrary to the Catholic faith. --That's your woeful tunnel vision, not truth.

Jaime thinks: ''Knowing and following our faith over the whims of men?'' By your criteria? You are the ones driven by personal whims. I myself am very well trained in the Holy Faith. I follow it; and so do the bishops of our Church; despite your flimsy caricatures of faith.

He challenges:(?) No one is discussing ''faith'' in our thread. We are simply conflicted about communion in the hand.--
(Are not the two related?--) NO; Communion in the hand is lawfully part of the faith of the apostles. It is an act without any bearing on the Word of God or teachings of the Catholic Church.

Properly taken, Communion in the hand is holy and approved. It doesn't require approval from you. Or from me. God approves; He would not allow bishops to lead us into evil.

I have to say with no self-praise whatever, I have expressed here the True Faith with no frills and no apologies. I would say it before the Judgment Seat.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

''Is the state of Regina's soul an appropriate topic of discussion and commentary for anyone other than Regina and her confessor?''

You seem fastidious and delicate about everything, Jaime. Everything except lambasting those whom the Holy Spirit assigns leadership to.

You're reacting as if a sheep dog who barks at the lamb in the flock is offending the Shepherd by so doing. In fact, the sheep dog helps his Master, keeping crazy sheep from jumping the fence. I simply believe Regina is sinning.

But I can't judge her myself. You have no need to explain that to anyone. Nor can you absolve her if she is offensive to God. All we can really do is admonish, then pray for her and Jake. I should also pray for you; that God give you better discernment of His Divine Will.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Communion in the hand is holy and approved.

It's a tolerated abuse. "Tolerated" does not mean "approved," much less "holy."

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 12, 2003.

You are off your turf, Jacob. No one needs the approval of malcontents; we have the Church's approval. The Body and Blood of Our Saviour are ''FOOD INDEED and DRINK INDEED.'' How long ago was your Dear Mother feeding you with her own hand? Yesterday? Is your food today less nutritious because you use your own hands at the table?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Eugene ,

So are you saying the God allowed these people to say such things? I think not, we must remember that God the Holy Spirit is trying to get thru to all of us but most of us are to concerned with worldly maters and that makes it ez to ignore the truth that the Holy Spirit is trying to give us (all of us not just the Priests and the Bishops).

You ask “why it became necessary for you to ask help from a priest?” that is a vary good question and one who understood my family background and my background with the church would understand why I did go and see a priest. I will explain and I will keep it as short as I can.

I was raised in a catholic family, my father devoiced my mother when I was 3 I have next to no memories of my father but I do have some. Thru my life I have had many father figures my grandfather being one next was a the Priest at our church any time I had problems dealing with any thing I go to him (he died in 96) so in my mind any priest should be able to help. the main problem was that I was becoming more ok with the sin that I was committing and I knew and I still believe some times a person needs more the just what they get out of Confession to become totally separated for there sins so I went to the priest to get help separating my self from my sin.

As far as spreading evil gossip I did not say any names and all I gave was the facts if you go to another site and say evil thing about Steven Schneider you would be indeed in the wrong but is you where to say “someone” did this evil thing and in your mind you where referring to me I would not de effected so you would not be wrong. Remember I did not say anything about a town and even if I did that town has over 90 priests saying mass.

I have, I do, and I will continue, to pray for ALL priests and bishops as we all should because they need them.

Karl,

I do not feel bad and I now know that not all men that carry the title of a “man of God” are holy.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 12, 2003.

Eugene,

Do you believe that the transubstantiation truly changes the bread and wine in to the actual body and blood of Christ?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 12, 2003.

STEVEN: ''are you saying the God allowed these people to say such things? I think not,''

I don't know why they said it, or, if they really said it. We have your word for it. I hope you're telling all the truth. Anyway, if it's so, God DID allow it. He permits many unhealthy things to carry away sinners. If you read the Scriptures you'll quickly see that. He allowed His Holy Son to hang on the cross.

If a bishop is a sinner in AZ, and you found it out, don't blame the Church! Just think what the apostles thought; were they aghast at what Judas, one of their own, did? An apostle sold Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. God would have stopped it, if in His infinite Wisdom it had served the faith. --He basically wrote off Judas as a loss, and preserved the Church. You have much to learn yet, Steven. Stay close to us here. Cast off your pre-conceptions. Think along Catholic lines, not the language of protest. Have faith in the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Question for Eugene: Do you believe that the transubstantiation truly changes the bread and wine in to the actual body and blood of Christ?-- Steven.

I'm amazed you'd ask such a dumb question, Steven. I'm a believer in all the faith of the apostles. I'm a cradle Catholic who probably has forgotten more theology than you will ever learn.

You have it wrong; transubstantiation TAKES PLACE upon the holy altar. It doesn't cause the change of bread & wine into Christ's Body and Blood. That change comes from the words of consecration; the PRIEST'S. It is a real change in the substance of the bread & wine. I believe just what you do: We consume Jesus Christ in the flesh (and blood) under the appearances of bread and wine. When I receive Communion I'm not consuming bread or wine; I'm partaking of Jesus Christ--living, aware and present.

He is aware of me, and I am aware of Him. He rests briefly upon the palm of my hand; and very quickly I offer Him my love: ''Beloved Saviour of mankind, I adore Thee!'' HE HEARS and accepts the worship of a humble sinner!

I hold His Body with all tenderness and care in my fingers, like FOOD; taking Him into my mouth with reverence and JOY ! ! !

If this action turns you and the assembly here OFF, I don't care. I love Jesus Christ. He is my Judge, not another Catholic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Oy, Eugene simply is unable to refute anything I wrote. Was the Vatican decision to cave-in and allow receiving in the hand born out of disobedience? Yes. Is this a method of recieving that was and is supported by the most militant liberal wing of the Chruch? Yes. Do many Bishops and Cardinal openly question the teachings of the Chruch on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, etc.? Yes. Are these the same ones that desperately want communion in the hand? Yes. Does the GIRM say that communion in the hand should be only an exception and that the norm should be to receive on the tounge? Yes.

"Can ''TJ the Sinless'' name even a single, ONE proabortion cum procontraception cum prosodomy cum pro communion-in-hand priest or bishop?"

If I did, if I named more than one, would "Eugene the Loon" then recieve our Lord the way the GIRM recommends? I wonder.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 12, 2003.

I know It (Transubstantiation) doesn't cause the change of bread & wine into Christ's Body and Blood and I know that it is the change of bread & wine into Christ's Body and Blood, My mistake.

Eugene states

“Just as Our Saviour in Holy Communion takes flight immediately from the sacred species if it's about to be desecrated outwardly; He is certainly free to ''escape'' that errant particle of a host that might be accidentally lost”

Where in catholic doctrine dose is say that Consecration is undone if the host is lost?

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 12, 2003.

"If I did, if I named more than one, would "Eugene the Loon" then recieve our Lord the way the GIRM recommends? I wonder"

I doubt it he thinks he can and will always try to justify the abuse the this practice.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 12, 2003.

Dear Steven,
It's sometimes hard to follow you, since many of your words are badly spelled. Anyway, you saw my posting. If you reject me, I can live with it. I try to be patient with some of you, hoping you have the capacity to understand.

If you don't; fine. I'll pray for you. The dashed-off message of Sinless TJ is good for toilet tissue. He/she flatters herself ''Eugene is unable to refute anything I wrote''-- Then she concocts a list of groundless and false accusations against the CATHOLIC CHURCH and calls them too big to refute? (But I can.)

Can ''TJ the Sinless'' name even a single, ONE proabortion cum procontraception cum prosodomy cum pro communion-in-hand priest or bishop?"----NO. She CAN'T. Her flippant reply is worth the same as all her other wisdom. --Good for the potty. Poop wisdom. I didn't expect her to have any adult answer, just POOP.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

Eugene, You wrote "...He would not allow bishops to lead us into evil." However that is not true. Just look at history. In the 4th Century AD one of the bishops of the Church named Arius started teaching that Chirst was not Divine but rather a created being. He also denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. This heresy was quick to spread and soon found protection under the wing of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope himself! A few of the Bishops like St. Athanasius saw that it was a heresy and took a firm stand against it. For their orthodoxy they were excommuincated by Pope Liberas. However St. Athanasius continued to fight and to bring people back to the Faith of the Apostles. At the end of the whole ordeal Athanasius was exonerated and was made a Saint of the Catholic Church. So as you can see from this story, the Bishops are far from not being able to make a mistake. †AMDG

-- Jeff (jmajoris@optonline.net), November 12, 2003.

sorry I did not proof read my posts

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 12, 2003.

Dear Jeff:
You need not go back into ancient history to dispute the statement I made. I know there are some bishops today who mislead many of the faithful. You must distinguish the fact from what I'm trying to say: the Holy Spirit is vigilant, and will never allow the CHURCH to fall into grievous error. Yes, there are periods of stress. But the power of the Holy Spirit will prevail; we know it as a revealed truth.

When I cited this truth, it was meant in context with what I was saying before:

''Properly taken, Communion in the hand is holy and approved. It doesn't require approval from you. Or from me. God approves; He would not allow bishops to lead us into evil.''

I said it so you might acknowledge the power of the Holy Spirit within that context: counting on the permission of our bishop to take Holy Communion in the hand; without danger of offending God.

Not affecting divine revelation, or dogma, or doctrinal truth. Just the exercise of pastoral authority. The bishop has the right to make decisions like that; and his authority comes down from the Holy Spirit; just as surely as his ordination and office are approved by the Holy Spirit. Your bishop is a FATHER; he has paternal responsibility for you, and authority over you.

You thought that by an appeal to the ancient heretical disputes you would show bishops are not infallible. It doesn't require so much; I don't think their word is sufficient to proclaim an inerrant teaching. That's up to the Pope and Holy Magisterium.

But, in matters like the proper reception of Holy Communion, no doctrinal exposition or correction is applicable. It's not a sin to take Holy Communion in the hand. There is no ''doctrine'' that said so in the first place; it's left to our bishop's discretion. Discretion; not infallible declaration. You have God's permission to trust the bishop! That's what I mean, saying to you: ''God approves; He would not allow bishops to lead us into evil.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.

What I wrote: Oy, Eugene simply is unable to refute anything I wrote. Was the Vatican decision to cave-in and allow receiving in the hand born out of disobedience? Yes. Is this a method of receiving that was and is supported by the most militant liberal wing of the Church? Yes. Do many Bishops and Cardinal openly question the teachings of the Church on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, etc.? Yes. Are these the same ones that desperately want communion in the hand? Yes. Does the GIRM say that communion in the hand should be only an exception and that the norm should be to receive on the tongue? Yes.

And the reply by eugene the loon, The dashed-off message of Sinless TJ is good for toilet tissue. He/she flatters herself ''Eugene is unable to refute anything I wrote''-- Then she concocts a list of groundless and false accusations against the CATHOLIC CHURCH and calls them too big to refute? (But I can.)

But does he? No. Does he deny ANY of my points? No. Is he even able to refute that it is the preference of the Roman Catholic Church to receive on the tongue? No. But he does, as it seems being the liberal he seems all to proud to present himself to be would do, resort to outright lying in an attempt to hide his ignorance. The pitfall of his little gambit however is to reveal an extreme case of emotional and intellectual immaturity. Lie 1: That I made "groundless and false accusations against the CATHOLIC CHURCH". Prove that you are not a liar by pointing out where. Lie 2: That I then said that these accusations were quote "too big to refute". And I did this where?

I would hazard a guess the little eugene is also one of those who holds hands during the "Our Father" and perhaps even likes to frequent Mass where there is guitar playing. And the repetitive juvenile "sinless" comments are in every manner reflective of an intellect swayed by an overtly effeminate emotionalism. But if any doubt remain about his emotional and intellectual capacity I give you this little gem of theological reckoning: "Poop wisdom. I didn't expect her to have any adult answer, just POOP."

Still I will be at least slightly interested to see if this loon will back up his untenable assertion that he can refute any of what I wrote.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

I deny your ''points,'' TJ! That's official!

What good are your points? Do you study more than I've studied? Do you love God with any greater love than mine?

You have no way to prove preference of our Church to receive on the tongue. If you did, you'd produce it! Do I need your permission to do it? Absolutely not! You're no bishop. If I'm just a ''loon'' to some people, so what? Do they pay my bills? Do they feel the loon's headaches? Will the loon come to their supper table and mooch a bite?

Not a chance.

TJ is all on fire with the Spirit. Her pants are on fire. Let's grab some buckets of water and put it out?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

Well, as I am sure we all knew and expected, little eugene had some strange sort of ridicules and inexplicable hissy fit, and refuted nothing.

"Do you study more than I've studied? ...You have no way to prove preference of our Church to receive on the tongue."

These two comments are both interesting and revealing. Of course I have no idea what his level of studies are but they cannot be much if he has not read the GIRM which "proves" that the Holy Roman Catholic Church "prefers" receiving on the tounge, which is why it is still the norm. Cleary he has also not studied Chruch history, even very recent Chruch history. If he had he would know that reception on the hand, or self-communicating, was nothing less than a reluctant indult on the part of the Chruch. So all that is left if for are little liberal friend to concede (which would require an intellectual honesty that it seems he does not posses) that how he receives communion is a way in which Rome did not want, actually tried to stop, finally (and unfortunatly) caved in, but still prefers in the GIRM that it not be done. Liberals are nothing if not pretensions.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

And please excuse the typos.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

I thought the practice of accepting Communion in the hand was started by Jesus the night on which he was betrayed.

Peace

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 13, 2003.

Leon;

What did Christ say the night on which he was betrayed?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 13, 2003.

...and just who were those men to whom Our Lord gave Himself in the Holy Eucharist?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

They were the Apostles, the men who would be ordained to celebrate the Eucharist themselves, immediately after Jesus celebrated the first Eucharist.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.

Bingo.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 13, 2003.

Why are the elite infuriated when a Catholic can reply to their sophistry without falling apart?

We know TJ expected me to run sacred when she brought up a non-existent prohibition stated in GIRM. Why didn't I?

Because, ''T J'' has no relevant answer to the objections.

Here's the MOST important one: The Catholic in faith obeys the instruction of his/her spiritual father, the Bishop! We are not a democracy or a Catholic caucus, to decide the ways we must receive Holy Communion for the presiding Bishop. PERIOD! We are a hierarchy by God's own design. At the summit is our Holy Father. We are all at the bottom. Saints included!

Until TJ puts that in her pipe and smokes it, she can suffer over this all she wants; it won't matter to the catholic Church!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

"Why are the elite infuriated when a Catholic can reply to their sophistry without falling apart?"

Here is some of eugene's way of 'keeping it together' I guess,

"Poop wisdom. I didn't expect her to have any adult answer, just POOP."

And not content with two lies, (which he has not denied) he somehow feels the need to add a third.

"We know TJ expected me to run sacred when she brought up a non- existent prohibition stated in GIRM. Why didn't I?"

I nowhere, I repeat NOWHERE, wrote that the GIRM had any such prohibition. And as he is not man enough to confront my challenge to deny his last two juvenile lies it is a safe bet that he will not even attempt to deny he has lied yet again. But to get back to his impenetrable ignorance..

"We are not a democracy or a Catholic caucus, to decide the ways we must receive Holy Communion for the presiding Bishop. PERIOD!"

Either english is not this loons native tongue or he is even less educated than I feared.

"We are a hierarchy by God's own design. At the summit is our Holy Father. We are all at the bottom. Saints included!" How a person can say one thing in one sentence and then disagree with what he said in the second is as astounding as it is hilarious. The hierarchy of the Church, my goofy liberal friend, is more than just two layers.

Still, as anyone can plainly read, little eugene has been been completely unable to deny, refute, or even address ANY of the points of my posts. And of course the little nutcase keeps refering to me as she which at the very least suggests a projectionism hinting of sexual identity issues which of course probably explains his "Lets go girls!" mentallity over Cardinal Mahoney.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 13, 2003.

We are not a democracy or a Catholic caucus, to decide the ways we must receive Holy Communion for the presiding bishop.

Did that calm your fears, T J ? ? ? You won't have to make these decisions anymore, the bishop has to! LOL!

Because I'm so ignorant, I mustn't try to say one thing in one sentence and then disagree with another thing I /// said--? Because you, the glitch detector, already have too much work to do; along with following me around. SO;

(Keep it simple stupid)- -''We have a hierarchy not a democracy for the Church.'' All that means really, is: TJ's vote doesn't count. My vote wouldn't count, if T J tried to buy it. It would just be wasting her money to buy all our Novus votes. Sorry, ''T J'' /

The bishop is in charge. Not the sheep.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.

"Because I'm so ignorant," Agreed.

"I mustn't try to say one thing in one sentence and then disagree with another thing I said" Even though you are quite good at it, I do think this a good policy.

"Because you, the glitch detector, already have too much work to do;" If you only new.

"along with following me around." Truly you are a very misguided soul. I am, in fact, trying to help you but all you have done is respond with lies and falsehoods, historical ignorance, pretensions and invective.

"We have a hierarchy not a democracy for the Church.'' All that means really, is: TJ's vote doesn't count. My vote wouldn't count," Actually my "vote" would perhps count a little more than yours, considering my position in the Church is, unless I am mistaken, a bit higher up in the "hhierarchy". And I for one am still glad we don't allow women, as people with your sensibility would only contribute to the disaster that is liberalism.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

Pope John Paul II:

"I did not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this . . . my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed . . . I say this to you as your bishop! (Sermon, March 1,1989,SS Nome Di Maria Church)

On Communion in the hand: "There is an apostolic letter that the existence of this special permission is valid. But I tell you, that I am not in favor of it...neither will I recommend it!" Nov. 1980,Germany (101 Times,Vol.4,No.2,1992,tel.908-689-8792,USA)

"When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence toward the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling itself is a sign of adoration." S.C.S.D.W., Inaestimibile Donum,1980, No.11

"To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)

"It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

Pope Saint Pius X:

"One who waits for symbols and promises standing, but the Reality, one receives with love and on one's knees."

Pope Paul VI:

The Church throughout centuries: To preserve and defend reverence, dignity and holiness due to the greatest treasure in the Church, only kneeling, not standing, to receive Holy Communion, always on the tongue, was allowed. "This method, 'on the tongue' must be retained." - Memoriale Domini, 1969

St. Thomas Aquinas (1224-74:

"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated." (Summa,Pt.III,Q.82,Art.3)

ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379):

"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution." St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

Just to add another point, since we have past the beatification of Mother Teresa:

Father George William Rutler, in a Homily on Good Friday, 1989, said:

"I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her (I don't know why):

"Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?"

She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said:

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

Thank you Andrew;

I was just going to put together the same thing as your last two posts.

So many people that accuse the traditionalist of picking and choosing what that want to fallow are doing the same thing. We must remember that when a Pope has died his teaching must and will still live.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net)), November 14, 2003.

Dear Pals,
We love and appreciate the effort you put into attacking the practice of Catholics in a state of GRACE having to hold in their hand a sacred host for five seconds during Holy Communion. Your concern indicates how tremendous your love for Jesus truly must be. I think it might even approach the great power of MY love for Our Saviour.

If I really LOVE Jesus; why would I call your notions sickly and puritanical? Shouldn't the lovers of Our Lord want His sacred body placed on the very highest pedestal, for His greater glory ???

If you put it that way, Yes. I wouldn't dare offend Jesus if my touch offends Him. Now, to carry this to its logical conclusion; we should not dream of having the sacred host placed in our MOUTHS. What a monstrous idea! My mouth on its BEST day is a foul enough orifice. It's a disgusting place to send Jesus, Our infinitely Holy God whom the angels and saints ADORE!

Never again can He be subjected to the atrocious fate of passing through this stinking thing called a mouth, which is destined to rot in the grave before long.

If Mother Theresa felt sad; she was simply too scrupulous, and we understand. Saints are perfectionists! Every saint is a scrupulous soul; and rightly so.

But not too scrupulous to receive communion in the mouth. Because; Jesus told us to ''Take and eat,''-- You can't eat with your brow, or with your ear. Even saints have to touch Jesus, if only with the roof of their mouths!

If we would satisfy these scruples altogether, let's receive Him with TONGS. Surely that's holier than the hand of somebody in a state of grace?

The priest is set apart, I understand. His hands hold bread and wine in the interval before consecration and after. He is no more in the state of grace, however, than the devout Catholic who lovingly offers his hand and receives the greatest joy in this life.

Meaning OK; --Me? BUT; if my hand has to be set apart, and condemned as too unworthy for Jesus; what am I doing in Church? I have an unworthy hand-- I ought to go straight to hell! I can't be in a state of grace if my hand offends the infinite majesty of the Holy Eucharist!

See how ludicrous this is, if we just open our eyes? But it can't be an offense against Our Holy Redeemer. He has imparted complete authority on the bishop to set the standards for us, --regarding this holy sacrament --as well as ordinary matters. We have the bishop's permission and that's all God demands in our Church!

We have no business second guessing our father in the faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

“We have no business second guessing our father in the faith”

That is vary true, and is true that we have no business second guessing our past fathers of the faith. The Pope, the Bishop of Rome and his teachings and ALL of his predecessor’s teachings and opinions are to be used as an example for the rest of the church.

SS

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 14, 2003.

Steven,
It's true, we respect all their words and their teaching. They would be the first to say to us, ''Your father in faith is the Bishop God has placed in authority over you.''

If you believe in your elementary grasp of theology that evil or indifferent teachers are elevated to the holy episcopate of the Catholic Church, you can't have much faith in the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

Once again we see that eugene has not denied that he has, in fact, lied in this debate at least 3 times now. So unless he has been to Reconciliation in the last 24 for hours or so one can only hope he is not so self deluded as to consider himself in a state of grace.

But unlike his long-winded and nonsensical utterly juvenile ramblings which are so characteristic of liberals, the truth of the matter can be summed up in rather comparatively fewer words.

The Bishops have permission to allow something. The Church prefers it not happen and her great Saints have spoken out against it. It is a way of receiving that was born out of disobedience to Rome and the ONLY reason they finally allowed it was because they could not get people to stop BEING disobedient. It's biggest proponents are liberals.

NONE of this can be denied, which is why eugene has not even tried. It's just that simple.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

T & J,
Don't get the idea I'm sensitive to the needling; you can keep it up ad nauseam and it won't matter to me. But just for the record, point out to your class, Master: which lies you caught me in; just cut&paste 'em, Ive been wondering.

As to your defective reasoning, here's a snip:

'' Bishops have permission to allow something.'' CORRECT ! ''The Church prefers it not happen,'' BISHOPS SPEAK FOR THE CHURCH. ''and her great Saints have spoken out against it.'' No they haven't.

YOU aren't any ''great saint''. One saint has not spoken out; that's our Holy Father.

Even if holy saints speak out against something; it can't mean they are the appointed leaders of the Catholic Church.

The Cure of Ars, who is a great favorite of many Catholics and particularly mine, spoke out against dancing in his sermons. He meant dancing was a sinful pursuit for young folks, and seriously. You & I would find that a bit bizzare; and besides the Holy Magisterium and Popes have never condemned dancing. What's the lesson?

If your hand actually was impure; and you received the sacred host in some brutal or shameful manner, YES; you are committing a sin against the Blessed Sacrament. I only stated the clear truth: ''PROPERLY done, Communion in the hand is approved of the Church and holy.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

If your hand actually was impure;

What, makes a hand impure that they would be committing a sin against the Blessed Sacrament? Meaning if the hand can be impure, how does the communicant *know* when his hand is "impure?" Has it been defined by the bishops as to what constitutes an "impure" hand?

and you received the sacred host in some brutal or shameful manner, YES; you are committing a sin against the Blessed Sacrament.

But who decides what's "brutal or shameful?" Sure, someone taking the Host in his hand and grabbing It in a jerking fashion might appear "brutal," but suppose he was just passionately eager to receive his Lord? Who defines (or who *has* defined) what's brutal or shameful?

I'm not trying to make fun of what you said, Gene. Honest. My point is that when you start trying to justify Communion in the hand, you're forced to make desperate arguements.

I only stated the clear truth: ''PROPERLY done, Communion in the hand is approved of the Church and holy.''

But what if my idea of what's "proper" differs from yours? On EWTN during Mass, I saw a woman receive in the hand. Rather than picking it up with the fingers of her other hand and placing It in her mouth, she shoved the palm into which the Host was placed in her mouth. To me, it looked like 'gobbling,' to her, I'm sure it was "proper."

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 14, 2003.

I just saw Jake's quote:

"Nazi soldiers in German death camps asserted the same defense. 'We were just following orders!'"

Comparing Catholic Bishops with Nazi leaders. That gives us all a window into how you look at our Bishops. At least you're honest.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

You're really reaching, Mateo.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

You made the unfortunate comparison, Jake.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

I just returned from swimming waaaaaay upthread to even have a look at what I was resonding to. Eugene made the assertion that if people are doing something that's wrong, that they could not be held to blame if someone over was telling them to do whatever it was they were doing wrong. To illustrate the futility of such a defense, I brought up the Nazis, who used the same one...

...and you distill from this that I called the Bishops Nazis.

Bravo.

-- j@ke (j@k.e), November 14, 2003.

He tells you what you did; and how it's a reflection of the disdain with which you view Catholic bishops. If you respect Catholic bishps, say so. My statement was theologically sound. We obey the rules set by our bishop. He takes that responsibility.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

"...and you distill from this that I called the Bishops Nazis."

You often complain of the poor education in the faith that you received. Yet, I think your education in reading comprehension must have been nonexistent. I suppose that's why we need programs like, "No child left behind." L@L

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 14, 2003.

"which lies you caught me in; just cut&paste 'em, Ive been wondering." -It is, of course, easy to understand why you cannot find them, they are labeled "Lie 1" and "Lie 2".

"YOU aren't any ''great saint''." -No, I am a great sinner, much like yourself. But at least I have the virtue of not being an ignorant noxious liberal.

"One saint has not spoken out; that's our Holy Father." -At least you are consistent in demonstrating your incomprehensible ignorance. The Pope may be a good man, but since he is LIVING he is of course not a Saint. And since he actually kissed a document (The Koran) that actually calls for all Catholics to be slain for believing in the Trinity I would hazard a guess that his "Sainthood" status might be on hold for a bit after he is called home.

"The Cure of Ars, who is a great favorite of many Catholics and particularly mine, spoke out against dancing in his sermons. He meant dancing was a sinful pursuit for young folks, and seriously." You & I would find that a bit bizzare; and besides the Holy Magisterium and Popes have never condemned dancing. What's the lesson? -The lesson is that from Paul to Catherine of Siena, even Popes can and should be corrected.

"I only stated the clear truth: ''PROPERLY done, Communion in the hand is approved of the Church and holy." -And I only stated and which you have not refuted because you I think know now you cannot, that

1.while self-communicating is allowed, now, it was allowed reluctantly as a result of the inability of the Church to stop direct DISOBEDIENCE on the part of certain priests and Bishops who were engaging in the practice.

2. in the GIRM it is STILL the norm to receive on the tongue.

3. It is in fact liberal Bishops and priests, the ones that openly question the teachings of the Chruch on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, that primarily supports this practice.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

'' I have the virtue of not being an ignorant noxious liberal.'' The virtue?

You aren't only ignorant, t j; you're soft in the head. Virtue is like faith, hope and love. Not being crude & hard-nosed.

You didn't show me the lies, ''conservative.''

Yes, for me, a saint can be living and breathing as long as he gives God first loyalty and the Holy Gospel to the nations. That makes Pope John Paul II a saint. I'm not alone in this judgment. You and your camp may appeal to St Savonarola, your guiding spirit. Go out and burn books, T-- I'll save you a warm place in purgatory.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

Wrong eugene. I pointed out your lies 2 or 3 times already. Shall we count this as your 4th?

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.

OK-- You caught me (In your mind.) Wrong? Right, Eugene!

You failed as usual; am I lying, or did you fail? You fail as a debator. As a Catholic. As my rival. I'm not a liberal at all. Just a Chavez. You aren't a t-j at all. Just a bluff. If Holy Communion is to be decided by your brand of conservatism; hatred is avirtue. Love is a sin. You are born again;

As an idiot for the 2nd time! / Ciao, Tonto Jerk.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.

In the mouth or in the hand is at most . . . "immaterial" to the actions that we recieve in the Eucharist. When we participate in the Eucharist, we participate in the Paschal Sacrifice. We die to our selves and rise with Christ, a new creation. that's the only real issue we should be concerned with.

The account of the last supper says that Jesus broke the bread and handed it to them saying take and eat. It also accounts that the disciple whom Jesus loved reclined with his head on Jesus' shoulder during the meal. He was completly comfortable and completly approachable with his followers who gathered with him. Jesus sought out sinners, he dined with them and stayed with them in their houses. He was so utterly common, he was approachable in the most common of ways. He was anything but unapproachable. He laughed, he wept, he loved, he mourned, he showed pity, he showed anger, he embrassed, he got dirty, he sweat and he associated with people who did the same. In short, he was truely human in every way.

The earliest Christians met in informal settings, in their homes, around table. They celebrated the Eucharist, because in doing so they felt close to him again. He gave them something they could hold onto, something that nourished them. Through the Eucharist Christ lived in them in a most special way and that's why we continue.

Worrying about how to be most reverent in placing the "bread turned Christ" into your mouth didn't come until much later. If you had tried to have this discussion with those early followers, I'm sure they would have this really puzzled look on their faces, like . . . where did you come from? There is something really important going on here and you guys are more worried about this? What have we sunk to?

This hand / mouth nonscence is so far down the list of things that should be stressed among good Catholics that it should cease to be an issue with us.

Jesus as God came into the world so that he could be touched and embrased. We follow his lead in the Sacraments when we receive the "Grace" of Christ in things that can be touched, seen, heard, tasted and smelled. Physical interaction is a part of the Bible, if the Church at some point in time chose to take it away, don't you wonder why?

You can participate in the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in any manner of ways . . . the important thing is that you participate fully. If for you that means that you have to have the "body of Christ placed on your tongue, then so be it. I choose to receive in my hand, because that is how I feel most close the the "true presence" of Christ.

Peace to all who follow

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), November 15, 2003.

"You failed as usual; am I lying?" As usual, yes. We both know that I have already listed your lies several times. We both know that I have even numbered them in my previous posts. But since I have not yet numbered your third lie... Lie 3. "We know TJ expected me to run sacred when she brought up a non-existent prohibition stated in GIRM." We both now I never wrote any such thing. And as with your previous two falsehoods I again challenge you to point out anywhere on this thread where I said what you attribute here to me. We both know that since you have not been able to refute or deny even one of my points, that the only recourse you had was to concede my points or to tell falsehoods.

"You fail as a debator." This from a demonstrated liar who has YET to be able to deny any of the 3 points in my previous post.

"As a Catholic. As my rival. I'm not a liberal at all. Just a Chavez. You aren't a t-j at all. Just a bluff." The sooner you realize that your are functionally illiterate the sooner you can start doing something about it. Just some friendly advice.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

"The sooner you realize that your [sic] are functionally illiterate "

If you're going to criticize other contributors' literacy, it would be more convincing if you didn't misspell "you're."

Just some friendly advice.

AMDG,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 15, 2003.

It is not actually a misspelling per-se. As an American presently in Europe using a European keyboard, the apostrophe and more than a dozen other keys are in different locations and sometimes it just gets tedious as hell switching back and forth. One of the reasons for my other misspellings as well. So in fact I typed it that way on purpose. In fact some of these keys have THREE symbols on them. I have yet to figure out how that is supposed to work. But thanks for the "friendly advice" just the same.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 15, 2003.

Thanks, Mateo,
Tonto Jerk needs typing and communicating lessons. I can give him the Holy Communion communicating one. I fact, I have given it. He's just too functionally tonto to assimilate lessons. He has a teaching fetish; here to teach us literacy. As for his religion, it isn't very apostolic, nor very reliable. --Stick around here, t j, and keep quiet so you can learn.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.

Eugene, I think you are just what this church needs. Someone who calls other people names and criticizing them or trying to be faithful accuses them of saying things they didn’t `.

You must remember, I have NOT once criticized you or anyone here so what is your deal?

Am I wrong, or do we not all have the option to receive this sacrament either way?

You stated, “Just as Our Saviour in Holy Communion takes flight immediately from the sacred species if it's about to be desecrated outwardly; He is certainly free to ''escape'' that errant particle of a host that might be accidentally lost. You would not be ''stepping'' on Him, but the matter He leaves behind. Once the sacred species loses the consecrated essence, it is no longer the Body and Blood. It's precisely this which happens when your digestive process meets the Body of Our Lord internally. He remains with us spiritually; and we no longer retain the sacrament in matter.”

This is false. Is what you said something that you read somewhere or is it an opinion?

-- Steven S (Seven@schneider.net), November 15, 2003.

What?? "Takes flight from"??? That would deny the fact of Transubstantiation. Jesus is not IN the Host. If He were IN the Host, or intimataly ASSOCIATED with the Host, as Lutherans claim, then He might very well "take flight from" it. But after the Consecration, there is NOTHING there but HIM! There is nothing He could possibly "take flight" FROM, unless He took flight from Himself. He IS the Host and the Host IS Him. The ONLY way the consecrated substance can become "unconsecrated" is to be broken down to the point where it no longer has the physical and chemical characteristics of the original substance - as in digestion.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

If you're going to criticize other contributors' literacy, it would be more convincing if you didn't misspell "you're."

He could always take the "attempt at humor" typo defense, but that would be as fultile as...

...@w, forget it.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 16, 2003.

"But after the Consecration, there is NOTHING there but HIM! There is nothing He could possibly "take flight" FROM, unless He took flight from Himself. He IS the Host and the Host IS Him."

That makes complete sense; that's the doctrine. There could be no desecration if this weren't the case, but unfortunately it does happen. It would have to be the same as His actual crucifixion 2,000 years ago, and He certainly didn't fly from that.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

Emerald,

I just wanted you to know that I am praying for the repose of your buddies soul early in the morning.

May God have mercy on Larrys' soul.

-- - (.@......), November 16, 2003.

Once again eugene challened me to point out his lie. Once again I did. And, once again, he has nothing to say, no attempt at a defense or a denial. On top of this he is also not able to refute any of my three contentions. He does say that my "teachings are not relgious" or "reliable" but he when asked directly he will not point out where except in some juvenile and easily refutable lie. Example (again),Lie 3.

"We know TJ expected me to run sacred when she brought up a non- existent prohibition stated in GIRM."

I guess this is what he considers my unreliable teaching and religion. Of course he knows he is lying about me saying this which of course is why when he has not been able to deny that he was in fact, lying.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

He appreciates it no doubt, @. Thanks for remembering. Man, I hope we all get the same when we're all dead and gone.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

t j did expect me to run scared when she brought up a non- existent prohibition (supposedly) stated in GIRM; so it's no lie.

I disappointed her by arguing back. After that she thinks all of my remarks are lies.

We don't care. We don't care if her typing is terrible or if here breath is bad. We don't care what she thought, because she just fails as a debator; she hasn't refuted anything previous I said here.

The subject is Communion received in the hand, not t j's form of argument. She can get herself back on track and debate this if she wants my respect.

I do say her "teachings are not religious" nor "reliable". It's only a fact. Not a lie.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

No it hasn't. The meaning has always been: ''This is my blood.''

The words; adaptable or not, that follow have nothing to do with transubstantiation. They relate to Our Lord's purpose, which was then and is now, salvation.

If only self-absorbed critics would recognise that the 2nd Vatican Council was convened in the Holy Spirit and attended by every Catholic theological authority. Theological problems with the wording of the new Missal definitely had their undivided attention, and would not have allowed risk of invalidated transubstantiation for the sake of a vernacular Mass.

This idea is plainly doubt about the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

The "Bible version" is necessarily the version the Church used from the very beginning, long before the Bible existed. Therefore it is the "Church version" - the only version that existed - which the early leaders of the Church mentioned in their correspondence; and which later became the "Bible version", when the Church decided to gather some of that correspondence into a book. Therefore, since the "Bible version" is necessarily the "Church version", and since the Church has not changed its "version" throughout history, there is no possible conflict.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 16, 2003.

"t j did expect me to run scared when she brought up a non- existent prohibition (supposedly) stated in GIRM; so it's no lie."Clearly your lying is just plain pathological. Once again, as ANYONE can plainly read, I never mentioned any "non-existent prohibition". I called you a liar for saying I did, and challenged you to defend your (supposed) honor and prove that your are not a liar by pointing out where it is that I said this. You have not, clearly because you cannot.

"I do say her "teachings are not religious" nor "reliable". It's only a fact. Not a lie."

The only FACT here is that everyone must realize at this point that because you been unwilling to point out anywhere I wrote the comments you accuse me of making that your are just lying.

Your whole moronic strategy is 1. Not refute or even be able to deny any of my points. 2. Lie by attributing to me false statements, and 3. then attack the very lies you just told as evidence that I am wrong and you somehow have the slightest clue as to what the hell your are talking about, which clearly you don't.

You make pretensions to be educated but yet do not even know recent Church history.

You accuse others of sinning yet you have sinned countless times on this very thread by deliberately and repeatedly lying.

After being challenged time and again to refute ANY of my points all you can do is parrot "TJ has not refuted my posts" and then, astonishingly, think this infantile nonsense is some sort of high "form of argument".

But just because everyone can now plainly see that you are not able to deny any of my points here they are YET again.

1.while self-communicating is allowed, now, it was allowed reluctantly as a result of the inability of the Church to stop direct DISOBEDIENCE on the part of certain priests and Bishops who were engaging in the practice.

2. in the GIRM it is STILL the norm to receive on the tongue.

3. It is in fact liberal Bishops and priests, the ones that openly question the teachings of the Church on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, that primarily supports this practice.

And since I have already made quite clear that I am a cleric (and thus a man) that this whole "her" obsession of yours is clearly some form of projectionism rooted in a sexual identity crisis. This would also explain your support of one of the worst pro-homosexual Bishops in the Church. The only alternative is that you knew this and thus were again just lying and trying to insult deliberately, both, by the way, sins.

I regret that I will to be in North Italy for the week at a meeting of Canons Regular so I will not be able to read and respond to whatever nonsensical and juvenile ramblings eugene will regurgitate next. Until then.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 16, 2003.

The words "This is my blood" is valid, but "For you and for all" is not the same as, "For you and for many". Therefore changing the meaning of Jesus intentions, and thus a sacrilege.

-- Donnie (Ferranto@yahoo.com), November 16, 2003.

You may be a cleric, t-j; but you're in error. I was not supposed to assume anything about your gender. I supposed you were female just because you argue like a proud woman. (That's right.)

I am not lying. I stated there was a non-existent ban on communion in the hand; one you thought was in GIRM. NO BAN. You harped on the GIRM as if this supported your presumptuous opinion. I simply rejected it, and you turned to angry and offensive abuse.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

"This is my blood" is valid, but "For you and for all" is not the same as, "For you and for many".--Donnie?

That's ridiculous. Sacrilege in your mind.

The Consecration is pendent on the form, ''This is my body, this is my blood''; and the matter of unleaved bread and wine. It would be an invalid sacrament if these changed; and even then, the word sacrilege is unwarranted. Invalid would be correct. But the Novus Ordo Missal is perfect no matter what dissent, Period.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

1.while self-communicating is allowed, ----T J conceded; and I'm in accord.

The letters T and J are not a sign of gender and I never expected T J to say he was a man. He's a cleric ??? That's news to me; and I respect that. But, he's still wrong about any lies. His bluffing and bluster are unworhty of a religious man.

So is his disgusting innuendo about my mistaken reference to him as a ''she''. . If he implies my own sex is compromised on account of ''some form of projectionism rooted in a sexual identity crisis,'' I laugh at him. My security isn't in any ''crisis'' - - I'm man enough for him and five more like him. He would LIKE to have my masculinity; but how can he? He talks like a mean-spirited fish-wife. Lol!

I have no sympathy with any homosexual lobby either; for the psycho- babbler to accuse me of. All he has to do is cue my opinions in the threads here that have discussed it in depth. I supported Cardinal Mahoney ONLY as a prelate. And anyway; my own bishop, Bishop Weygand of Sacramento is no liberal; I belong to his archdiocese, not Los Angeles. So what is this wacko trying to do, associating me with pro-homosexual agendas??? It reeks of plain insanity. I wonder if ''Father'' T-J isn't a keyboard drunk? How else explain these wicked outbursts from any Catholic?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 16, 2003.

"I am not lying. I stated there was a non-existent ban on communion in the hand; one you thought was in GIRM."

Yes, you are lying. And you are lying again to cover your previous lie. If you were not in fact lying you would point out ANWHERE I stated that I thought there was ever a ban in GIRM.

But we both know that you cannot. And it seems that even after a week you are not able to even begin to refute my 3 points.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 21, 2003.

You didn't make any points. I haven't lied. You pretended the GIRM was some kind of argument against the reception of Communion in the hand. But it had no credibility. -- That's why I called this non-existent. You can't get your mess of an argument organised, can you? HA! (Points! What points? In your mind?)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 24, 2003.

Up >>

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 24, 2003.

Gene:

Did I miss your birthday? If so, Feliz cumpleanos. I seem to remember you saying your birthday was on the feast of St. Cecelia.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 24, 2003.

Gracias, Yes. Sta Cecilia, virgin martyr; my patroness, Nov 22nd. I was in Yosemite from Thurs to Sunday. Glad to be back and stand up for ALL our Catholic Tradition.

Tell T J, Jake: Do you believe I lied?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 24, 2003.

After my own research in this matter, it appears that there is no clear affirmation that communion-in-the-hand was actually a longstanding norm in any part of the world. What I have found is that it appears that this practice appeared here and there throughout the history of the church, and was usually "dealt" with by strong admonitions from Church Fathers and Popes. Nevertheless, nothing seems to be very concrete. We also need to keep in mind the socialogical aspect of the culture during the time of Jesus, where most people ate everything with thier hands - utensils were not popular, except in the higher courts of the Romans, which considered eating with their hands as primitive. Looking at the practice today, one does not need to go very far to determine the results of this practice. While no statistical evidence exist at this time that the decline of the Real Presence is a result of the communion-in-the-hand practice which could accomplish a direct link, this of course, does not impy that a link does not exist. I would like to ask thoe who favor or promote this method, what is the expected benefit of this practice? Are we expecting to see an increase in faith? Are we expecting to experience a better catechesis on the Real Presence as a result? Are we to observe an increase in devotion to the Eucharist? Are we making a clearer statement of our faith in the Real Presence? I would love to hear some logical answers to these questions! As I observe it as it stands, while this practive is a valid and approved method, it is clearly an unwise method. I observe that this has trivialized receiving communion. In our culture, where all of us eat with a plate and utensils, the only foods we eat with our hands are popcorn, potatoe chips, and hot dogs. And if you are Catholic, Jesus!

-- Richard (aptak@yahoo.com), November 27, 2003.

Richard:
Most Catholics fail to see that our FAITH makes licit all that the bishop imposes, as pertains to Church disciplines.

If the bishop ordered his priests to allow communion in the mouth only, that would exist as the proper way. The same holds when we are given the option to receive in our hands. --It is strictly a question of authority, whether we ''observe'' the negative or the positive. We are not all in authority. As for your thinking: ''--While no statistical evidence exist at this time that the decline of the Real Presence is a result of the communion-in-the-hand practice which could accomplish a direct link, this of course, does not impy that a link does not exist.'' You ought to reconsider the idea-- so should everyone, that a ''decline'' was ever reported. It clearly is so, in your mind. But objectively, no one can presume to know of any such decline; nor the so- called LINK. Statistical proof is no proof at all.

If a poll is taken throughout the Catholic world to see how many of us truly believe in God, the number of pros and cons would surprise you, I'm sure. All faith is subjective, and even saints in the past have been tempted to doubt. It's the world, Richard. No one leaves here without having his/her faith severely tested. We could number countless differences from one day to another, in the state of so many souls who ostensibly ''believe''.

Every time we commit a mortal sin we momentarily put aside our faith. I myself can testify to this condition, in this life.

But faith is hard to kill once it is instilled in you and me. We will weather every storm and keep our faith. God certainly knows every doubt that crosses our minds. He renews our faith. One way He does this is by giving us suffering to endure. That way we'll turn back to Him whenever we're tested. That's when we PRAY with greatest faith, Richard. Those who never suffer in this world have the hardest time coming through with complete faith. As Jesus Christ well put it, ''They have had their reward in this life.''

I myself go to Holy Communion with profound faith in Him, and the True Presence who comes to me-- unworthy me. He does NOT require my observations on what my neighbor brings with him to the same Sacrament. If my neighbor doesn't believe, that does not affect the Church or any believer. For every unbeliever there are five thousand believers. We know that almost no non-Catholics have faith in the True Presence. Yet for almost 2,000 years we have been faithful within Christ's Holy Church. This is never going to change, no matter what any science or statistic might tell us. The faith never dries up in the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 27, 2003.

"You pretended the GIRM was some kind of argument against the reception of Communion in the hand."

Do you really think that lying to cover your previous lies is a good idea?

This is what you said:

"We know TJ expected me to run sacred when she brought up a non- existent prohibition stated in GIRM".

So where was it that I mentioned this "non-existent prohibition stated in the GIRM"? You can't say because you know that you were lying. And why have you chosen to lie over and over again? Becaue you have no case to make except one based on emasculated emotional Oprah- esque sentimental nonsense.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

{{{Chuckle!}}}
The courage of his/her convictions. Mighty faithful!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 29, 2003.

It is clear enough that since you have been unable or unwilling to demonstrate where on this thread I made the statements you claim, that you in fact lied, and lied repeatedly.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

Well, good for you, T J / Now you have bought some respectability! Haha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 30, 2003.

While you have brought only banality.

-- TJ (tjhx1@hotmail.com), December 01, 2003.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 11, 2003.

Dear Moderator,
Please delete the photo just above this post. It is contrary to the new spirit that you have instituted at the forum. It is designed to ridicule, and it is inflammatory, easily leading to the reigniting of a forbidden debate. Please make clear, via the deletion, that such postings are prohibited.
Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

Delete it if you so desire; it's harmless, Moderator. There's no caption or indication of anything Catholic; and the way it's inserted into our midst demonstrates the ill-will of its party. They can only hurt their own cause.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 11, 2003.

Mr. Gecik didn't make the above request, I suspect. His last message read:

(1) that any such recent messages were posted by the diabolical and criminal impersonator, and (2) all such messages in days to come will be from the same impotent neanderthal ... until (if ever) the Moderator publicly states that I have returned.

Why would he lie to us?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 11, 2003.

How is having someone talking to handicapped people supposed to be un- Catholic? If anything the poster was showing support for the church. From here it looks like the guy is speaking in Latin, so I'm sure even the resident schismo-heretics would agree.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 11, 2003.

I'm sure Jake posted in the spirit of the season. Nothing inflammatory or forbidden, I would say,

Jake is so misunderstood.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 11, 2003.

For the sake of the building up of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ and for the greater glory of God, it might do well to actually admit that we have a problem in the Church right now instead of fostering a perpetual state of denial, the only outlet for which is infighting.

If we were all to admit that we have a crisis, and we indeed do, we could unify to correct said problem. I would be happy to participate even despite differences I had with anyone over anything. In other words, let's get it on; get over the denial and begin seeking the truth and looking to live it. It isn't hypocracy to try.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 11, 2003.

Dear Emmie:
Please don't think I'm just nit-picking; but we have NO problem in the Catholic Church. We are the faithful.

YOU have problems; your imagined orthodoxy clashes with the truth; which is, we are ruled from the TOP / DOWN. The Church is a hierarchy. Did you suppose the Christians of Corinth dictated to Saint Paul? Or the people of Thessalonica? Ephesus ? ? ?

You feel enttiled to correct the very College of Cardinals, on aesthetic grounds! When were you even ordained, much less called to contradict a Church Council? A Council and four Popes?

I can't say it any plainer: You are off your tether. Get yourself to a Trappist monastery and shut up for the rest of your natural life. Your children & wife will survive. God loves them! Or do you doubt that, as you doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to shelter His faithful?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

"Please don't think I'm just nit-picking; but we have NO problem in the Catholic Church."

Where can I buy a pair of those rose-colored glasses, Gene?

-- Nick (nixplace39@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Suppose you are both wrong. And then suppose you're Pharisees. But I repeat myself.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.

"...but we have NO problem in the Catholic Church."

Ambiguous. Are you absolutely sure about this particular choice of words? =)

"YOU have problems; your imagined orthodoxy clashes with the truth; which is, we are ruled from the TOP / DOWN."

This is also somewhat of a give-away on your part... are you sure you want to say this? That it's top down?

"You feel entitled to correct the very College of Cardinals, on aesthetic grounds!"

Gene, I keep trying to tell you this, that it isn't aesthetics with me; it's doctrine. I don't go to the tradtional Mass for aesthetics; I go because it accurately states doctrine. It itentifies my condition before God, the remedy for this condition, and a whole host of other aspects that are resting squarely on Catholic doctrine in that liturgy.

While I can appreciate aesthetics as well as the next person, I think you might be a little misled by my own references to the aesthetic which I have made on the forum. The references are intended to be pointing to the ascetic. In fact, generally I tend to want to personally withdraw from showmanship; I think it clashes with reality.

It's not aethetics; it's goodness and truth. If those two things happen to also be beautiful, it would only make that much more sense.

"When were ... called to contradict a Church Council? A Council and four Popes?"

Since Baptism, if anything contradicts the Faith that I was charged to uphold.

"I can't say it any plainer: You are off your tether. Get yourself to a Trappist monastery and shut up for the rest of your natural life."

No.

"Your children & wife will survive. God loves them! Or do you doubt that, as you doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to shelter His faithful?"

No.

Sometimes I wonder if you think there is virtue in minimalism.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 12, 2003.

Where are you, Moderator?????????????????????????????

The above, albeit brief, is just another chapter in the debates that you have forbidden.

Why have you not deleted it?

Why do you encourage more of what you have forbidden by leaving it up on the forum?

Is the problem that you are no longer able to keep up on reading here, so you didn't even see the debate above -- or is that problem that you have changed your mind and decided to encourage people on each side to resume fighting with each other?

Please answer me IN WORDS, not just actions (which cannot be clearly interpreted). If you have not changed your mind, please demand compliance, threatening banning for violations. I mean that you need to threaten people on both sides, by name, to keep silent -- or else be suspended or banned. I see two people from each side improperly engaging, above, and I want them ALL to be warned.

Thanks. God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

You mean we can't enter into ecumenical dialogue?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

Emerald, and John et al:
I think these are worth another reading--

(Emerald) ''For the sake of the building up of the members of the Mystical Body of Christ and for the greater glory of God, it might do well to actually admit that we have a problem in the Church right now instead of fostering a perpetual state of denial, the only outlet for which is infighting. If we were all to admit that we have a crisis, and we indeed do, we could unify to correct said problem. I would be happy to participate even despite differences I had with anyone over anything. In other words, let's get it on; get over the denial and begin seeking the truth and looking to live it. It isn't hypocracy to try.'' -- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 11, 2003. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ''Dear Emmie: Please don't think I'm just nit-picking; but we have NO problem in the Catholic Church. We are the faithful. YOU have problems; your imagined orthodoxy clashes with the truth; which is, we are ruled from the TOP / DOWN. The Church is a hierarchy. Did you suppose the Christians of Corinth dictated to Saint Paul? Or the people of Thessalonica? Ephesus ? ? ? You feel enttiled to correct the very College of Cardinals, on aesthetic grounds! When were you even ordained, much less called to contradict a Church Council? A Council and four Popes? I can't say it any plainer: You are off your tether. Get yourself to a Trappist monastery and shut up for the rest of your natural life. Your children & wife will survive. God loves them! Or do you doubt that, as you doubt the power of the Holy Spirit to shelter His faithful? -- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 12, 2003.''

No denial. No existing problem; and the only disunity is caused by so-called ''trads''. All Catholics are aboard the Bark of Peter, Thank God.

This is NOT a debate, John Gecik. We exchanged opinions. It's still a free country; we aren't prohibited from airing strongly-felt convictions. If you wish to delete something, find another thread, please. And please do not bully the Moderator. He is not your employee!

Thanks, and God bless you all!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

Emerald insists: --''If we were all to admit that we have a crisis, and we indeed do, we could unify to correct said problem.'' Just because you say we have a crisis, Emmie; is no proof of a crisis. You say ''we indeed do.''

But we indeed don't. What's very apparent from here is, a fringe group is insisting on dialogues within this forum. Outside this forum very little in the way of unrest is threatening our Church. Only private opinions, for which there are other private opinions confirming the Church's unity and glory.

The Holy Spirit is with us and your crisis doesn't move Him, Emerald. CIAO /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

Don't be deceived into thinking it's my crisis. That would have been a pretty effective light to cast on to the situation, except that I won't allow for it.

I insist that there is a problem, and that it is pressing upon us, not just me or not just the trads, but upon the Church. I'm not buying your take on things, Gene.

I will buy, however, the recycled version of ecumenical dialogue between the trads and the neo's, whether John likes it or not... even whether or not the moderator likes it or not. He's free to delete what he wishes, and I'll just attempt to maintain a poker face.

Gene: the old enemy is after us in a big way at this time; he wants to bring the Church to ruin. It won't ultimately happen in the final analysis, but you will never convince me that we aren't under severe duress right now from that enemy because I can't deny what I see and know to be true.

To me, compromise or settling back, relaxing or easing up, is to lose. It's not against you or the trads, it's against the enemy of the Church.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

Can you name a time in history when the Church didn't experience "problems"? However, my parish is not experiencing any "crisis", no "severe duress". The people are happy and fulfilled in their Catholic faith. It seems most parishes are having similar experiences. It seems that no-one is experiencing this supposed "crisis" except those who refuse to follow the current teaching of the Church. So, apparently it isn't the teaching of the Church which is the source of the perceived "crisis", but the reluctance to follow the teaching. This would make the "crisis" a very subjective and self-inflicted thing. Which would explain why no-one else notices it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

"So, apparently it isn't the teaching of the Church which is the source of the perceived "crisis", but the reluctance to follow the teaching."

Let's talk about that, Paul. Let's see who is, and who isn't following the teachings of the Church.

I'm all over it; let's go.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

From this point, we could push any number of topics into the brick wall of Catholic doctrine, and find nothing but the anti-traditional standpoint coming up short.

For starters, simply scroll up and read Steven's comments all the way down. He does a fantastic job of making clear exactly who is following the teachings of the Church and who isn't. It would be downright embarrassing, save the fact that no one notices. That, imho, isn't the fault of the pointer-outers; imho it's just common lack of understanding the Faith among the Catholic population at this time.

No one could point out to Steven, in the course of this entire thread, that Communion in the hand was anything more than tolerated.

How do people receive in your parish?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 14, 2003.

You've never told me why Communion in the mouth is to be considered reverent and holy, but by the same communicant irreverent, received upon the hand and transferred into his own mouth; or why THAT isn't just as holy. WHY? Because YOU say so? What about the Church???

Pehaps you are persnickety on account of your direct line to Jesus Christ, who gave you the definitive scoop ? ? ? Unholy hands; holy mouth. Oh, yeah. Makes a lot of sense.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 14, 2003.

I think it's more like the fact that you can't really support your case.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

PAUL M!!!! WHERE IS MY ANSWER????

I have now asked you SIX times -- five here and once by e-mail.

Where is my clear, unambigous answer?????

You failed to answer my questions (above), even though I am an orthodox Catholic who would never intentionally break the forum's rules.

But you replied to a demon-inspired ne'er-do-well, who just got through writing the following putrid dung, above:
"I will buy ... the recycled version of ecumenical dialogue between the trads and the neo's, whether John likes it or not... even whether or not the moderator likes it or not. He's free to delete what he wishes, and I'll just attempt to maintain a poker face."

THIS KIND OF GUANO CANNOT STAND! He and a crony have stated garbage like this before, in the last couple of weeks. The overt hatred and deviousness of people like this MUST BE BANNED!!! How could you have left that defiant manure up on the thread? How could you have even responded to this lowlife? How could you have then TRIPLED the insult by continuing to ignore MY questions about totally forbidding any more posts -- by the four repeat-offenders and any who foolishly try to engage them -- in which are raised certain topics that were debated for two years?

Paul, even if you were just an ordinary "regular" at the forum, you would be expected by anyone to answer questions that I would direct to you. Your ignoring me would not be tolerated.
As Moderator, you are under an even more pressing obligation to answer my questions, at least via e-mail.
And finally, as an ordained deacon, a Catholic clergyman, you are under an absolute, solemn obligation not to ignore me. Please respond to my e-mail on Monday, so that I don't have to turn in a different direction for results. (If you made the serious error of deleting my e-mail, let me know immediately, and I will send it to you again.)

[Gene, my entire post was directed to the Moderator. Your worthless opinions have been written by you and read by me at least ten previous times. You already know what I think, and yet you deliberately tried to draw anger out of me again. In doing this, you too have been a servant of satan tonight. Keep your worthless opinions to yourself from now on, because I couldn't care less what you think. Your brainless comments on this topic are worth less than Saddam Hussein's nose hairs.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Dear John:
You seem the only angry party to this whole thread. Why? Seems to me you're quite able and sensible enough to just pass over a thread which hasn't been rewarding, as you perceive them.

But you keep returning to assert some kind of right. Is our forum your private property?

It's hard not to note the multiple references in this, your last post, to YOUR demands, YOUR pride, your displeasure and what YOU command! The Moderator's obligations TO YOU! Is he accepting a salary from John Gecik?

No. You may complain in a reasonable way. No one blocks an objection, if the procedure is unsatisfactory to you. But unless you can bring a lawsuit against the forum, I suggest you keep quiet. You became tiresome a long time ago.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

I think it's more like the fact that you can't really support your case. -- My case? I'm not in dissent against the Catholic Church, Emerald; you are!

Emerald: Answer the questions:

--> Why Communion in the mouth is to be considered reverent and holy, (BY YOURSELF) but with the same communicant, irreverent if received upon the hand and transferred into his/her own mouth; and tell us why that isn't just as holy. WHY? Because YOU say so? What about the Church???--

Perhaps you are persnickety on account of your direct line to Jesus Christ, who gave you the definitive scoop ? ? ? Unholy hands; holy mouth ? ? ? --

You have answers to this. DON'T YOU ?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

---

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

"My case? I'm not in dissent against the Catholic Church, Emerald; you are!"

Says Gene.

I'm not so sure about that. I've been here for I believe two years now and I cannot, for the life of me, see how it is that I am dissent against the Catholic Church.

In all honesty, I have spent time in front of the Blessed Sacrament, countless hours reading anything from Church Documents to the lives of the Saints to Sacred Scripture. My intention has been to find out what the Catholic thing to think and the Catholic thing to do really is.

I have found many answers about how to think Catholic, though how could anyone be really finished in this regard? Although I must confess that the doing part of Catholicism leaves much to be desired on my part; I am not much of a virtuous person. That's the absolute truth.

But as for the truth? I keep seeing you guys come up short.

If this angers people, I can't help that. What am I supposed to do?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Sorry for being bold.

I forgot to answer your question:

"--> Why Communion in the mouth is to be considered reverent and holy, (BY YOURSELF) but with the same communicant, irreverent if received upon the hand and transferred into his/her own mouth; and tell us why that isn't just as holy. WHY? Because YOU say so? What about the Church???--"

I don't know. I have permission to go to the traditional Mass here, so I don't have to worry about it.

Ignorance is bliss.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Jmj

Gene, you wrote:
"You seem the only angry party to this whole thread. Why?"

Are you a complete, flaming idiot -- to cause you to ask me "Why?" If any person with even half a brain had read my five recent messages to the moderator (including the one above), he would know "why" I am angry. Since you appear to be dumber than Saddam Hussein't head lice, let me spell it out for you:

1. The forum continues to be damaged by at least a couple of the Four Schismatic Stooges, who defiantly generate forbidden debates. [Mind-numbed, debate-addicted turkeys like you then participate in these new debates instead of reacting angrily and calling for the banning of the evildoers.]
2. The moderator has failed to respond to certain crucial quesions about this (five times here and once via private e-mail), even though a response is required by the virtues of justice and charity.
GOT IT AT LAST??????????????? It was one of the greatest mistake of my life that I brought you back to the forum after you had deserted it. Somehow I forgot what a complete idiot you can be. You ought to be supporting the heck out of my efforts, instead of battling me on behalf of ex-Catholic troublemakers.

You wrote: "Seems to me you're quite able and sensible enough to just pass over a thread which hasn't been rewarding, as you perceive them."

This is totally idiotic. Why didn't you practice what you preach by "pass[ing] over a [post -- i.e., that of JFG] which hasn't been rewarding, as you perceive" it? I'll tell you why. Because orthodox Catholics should not ever have to "pass over" things at their own forum. No one should EVER have to read trash from the four schismo-heretical pseudo-traditionalists! They need to be banned or at least totally silenced on certain topics. This is what the moderator needs to make CRYSTAL CLEAR -- instead of ambiguous.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Thank you, John --

Thanks also, Emerald. You are indeed blissfully ignorant. You couldn't tell me why your mouth is better. I know Jesus said the mouth is where all bad things come out of. Nevertheless, I feel our mouths can be forgiven, and even our unworthy hands. Jesus loves you. He died for us; you & me & John F. Gecik. Why not come to Jesus Christ as He wills us, like little children? When was the last time a tiny tot pointed a finger at you and accused you?

It's amazing you won't see you've become an ocassion of sin for others in this forum; with your goading and pressuring and posturing. People here could have been your dear friends.

Even now I know you'll reply with the smart and supercilious post. You can't permit anyone the last word. May God in His mercy deliver you from such pecadillos. And may God be merciful to John as well, and give him better days ahead.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

What makes me or any one else in this thread ex-Catholic?

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), December 15, 2003.

Who are the “Schismatic Stooges”

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), December 15, 2003.

as an ordained deacon, a Catholic clergyman, you are under an absolute, solemn obligation not to ignore me.

That's just nutty.

If you, as someone not at all involved in the discussion at hand, are the only one who has a problem with said discussion, why not just not read it? A few people are engaged in a civil exchange of ideas under mutually agreed upon (although implicit as understood by gentlemen) standards of decorum. The Moderator clearly has no problem with it, and neither does anyone else (present company excluded, of course). You're being unreasonable.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

You're as usual presumptuous, Jake. You say to John, ''You're the only one who has a problem with said discussion, why not just not read, etc.,''

But everybody here's fed up. You just can't be assimilated here anymore. The difference between the complainer, who bleats daily for somebody's removal, and myself; is I'm not retreating from these confrontations. Sick as I may be of your ego.

No, I can't say you're a schismasochist; a dropout from the Catholic faith. You're a fanatical Catholic. I've known others like yourself and Regina. I feel sorry for you; you'll never be really happy in this life.

You're a Pharisee. All you ever do in this place is blow your own horn, and devil take the hindmost Catholic. You're happy conning this board & parading your superior brand of devotion.

That's why I have persisted long after others gave up. Someone has to poke fun; or else you'll swamp the forum with your pharisaism. Your digs at the 2nd Vatican Council; your ugly conceit. I'm happy to accomodate you, Mr. Elitist.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

I feel sorry for you; you'll never be really happy in this life.

If I play my cards right, no. I won't. That's not something to pity me for, though. Being (in all likelihood) much closer to death than I, you should really understand that better. It cuts like a scalpel to the barest, most essential spirit of what it means to be Catholic.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Very lofty. I'll have to contemplate this; it's not intelligible at first glance.

My eventual death won't perturb anybody, because I was ready. God has been exceedingly merciful to me.

I maintain you being such a Pharisee, you'll never be really happy in this life.--

Because the faith won't be destroyed in the world for falling off your shoulder, Jake. That would give you some satisfaction!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Very lofty. I'll have to contemplate this; it's not intelligible at first glance.

By all means, take your time. My eventual death won't perturb anybody, because I was ready. God has been exceedingly merciful to me.

You know now that you'll be ready then?

I maintain you being such a Pharisee, you'll never be really happy in this life.--

I maintain that I hope to God you're right.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Very lofty. I'll have to contemplate this; it's not intelligible at first glance.

By all means, please take your time. My eventual death won't perturb anybody, because I was ready. God has been exceedingly merciful to me.

You know now that you'll be ready then?

I maintain you being such a Pharisee, you'll never be really happy in this life.--

I maintain that I hope to God you're right.

-- jake (j@k.e.), December 15, 2003.

"Jesus loves you. He died for us; you & me & John F. Gecik."

True.

"Why not come to Jesus Christ as He wills us, like little children?"

I try.

"When was the last time a tiny tot pointed a finger at you and accused you?"

When I scold my kids and realize I'm guilty of the same things they are guilty of. They don't actually point their finger at me, but the effect is the same when it hits you from inside your conscience.

"It's amazing you won't see you've become an ocassion of sin for others in this forum; with your goading and pressuring and posturing. People here could have been your dear friends."

I wish they were dear friends. About the issue of being the occasion of sin, I've asked myself this question a lot in two years, believe it or not; I'm not always sure I'm doing or saying the right thing. But something keeps urging me, telling me to hold the Faith, defend the Faith, adhere to the Faith no matter what losses I might incur, or even no matter how much of a hypocrite it makes me out to be. Of course I'm a hypocrite, but I cannot let that stop me from holding and defending the Faith.

I'm a jerk... but unfortunately, the dregs of humanity, it seems, are all that's left to hold the defenses against the complete loss of the Catholic Faith in our age. I'm ready and available with my doctrinal BB-gun, but I'll fight to the death with it.

To jake you say "But everybody here's fed up. You just can't be assimilated here anymore."

You think I don't feel that? I do feel it, and I know it's true.

Keep the Faith, because everyone else is losing it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

Just for the record, Emerald: I defend the Catholic faith here from your camp. Jesus Christ was confronted by various scribes & Pharisees, and they claimed, like you- - to be saving others from Him. They were ''faithful Jews'' and didn't think the rabble should be listening to Christ. I'm definitely not Jesus; but you are the same as those Pharisees. Too ''pure'' for the rest of us..

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

"Just for the record, Emerald: I defend the Catholic faith here from your camp."

I don't get it though. Why defend against us? We're a bunch of losers. What threat could we possibly pose, unless it's the Catholic truth we're packing?

It's true, I really don't get it; I think somehow that that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2003.

unless it's the Catholic truth we're packing? It's true, Emmie.

Your camp; ''scribes & Pharisees, and they claimed, like you- - to be saving others from Him,''

That's what you pack /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Your camp; scribes & Pharisees

Two.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

I don't get it though. Why defend against us

On the one hand, you are absolutely correct. There's no reason to throw pearls before swine. OTOH, there's Christian charity that would impel Eugene to try and reform the lost for the sake of their souls.

Probably some of both come into play. I WILL say though that if Eugene said "No one cares about you, you can go to Hell with the rest of the schismatics" you'd be all over him for that. You can't win arguing with fools.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 15, 2003.

Eugene,

Where do get off by saying that people like Emerald are not rite with the church? What makes you better then them? “He who is with out sin may cast the first stone”

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Thanks, Frank--
What Emerald & Regina & Jake fail to see is, far from asking their deletion and banning from here, I wish we could make them feel happy and included. We've never advocated cutting any Catholic off, (as John does) if he/she is truly faithful.

Emerald thinks he's faithful, but he opposes other Catholics because of external differences he can't accept. We would love for him to accept US. Not patronize us, or try to confound us. Jake & his wife are the same; like the scribes and Pharisees, always trying to ensnare Jesus. He never rejected them; they hated HIM!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

I wish we could make them feel happy and included.

That'd be nice. Why not give it a try?

Jake & his wife are the same; like the scribes and Pharisees

Four.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

You can be happy and included. Just become a faithful Catholic. Have real faith In the promises of Jesus Christ. Faith in the Holy Spirit who is in His Church. Faith in our Popes and bishops with the Holy Spirit; even with the faith I have.

You have never conceded I might be a faithful Catholic and completely orthodox. Just a post ago your link-up insinuates I was guilty of presumption. Merely because I stated I was ready to meet death. But you haven't caught anybody in presumption here. All of us are sinners, and I know the meaning of presumption.

You feel justified in playing the Pharisee here, seeing you won't examine your conscience. Are you more orthodox than I ? ? ? Ask yourself --

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Eugene,

Why don’t you practice what you preach and stop opposing Emerald and the others and start accepting them and here them out with an open mind. You keep saying that they are like the scribes and Pharisees but how can this be? They are defending facts that the holy Church has taught for years and they are not opposing God him self they are only opposing you and your camp.

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Eugene,

What is” real faith”?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Eugene,

Do you believe that the Church is in crises? Yes/NO

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Steven:
If you stick to facts we can be agreeable to one another. Just now you wander away from facts.

The argument here has to do with Communion. In another thread it's with Church design. I could name one or two other challenges Jake and his wife and friends have levelled against the Church.

When these folks come here to dispute what the Catholic Church teaches after the 2nd Vatican Council as if they had authority from God, we respond. We do what we hope is a spiritual work of mercy, offered for the good of souls who sin against God and neighbors. Just as Pharisees sinned against God (Jesus Christ) and neighbors (their fellow Jews.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

You feel justified in playing the Pharisee here

Five.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Eugene,

VII did not change the teachings of the church. VII mostly restated the same teachings and what they mean. You can’t just change what the Catholic Church teaches because that would be changing Devine Revelation .

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Got many more. They have applied to you all along, and it doesn't hurt me for you to keep counting. I shall keep saying it since it's TRUE.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

We all have the duty to defend the Church even from inside and from the outside. The Church is in crises and if any one doubts this fact they are vary blind. The Liturgy is the heart of the Church and when you add novelty to it and you make it so the Liturgy is not seen as sacred then you make the hole Church a novelty the is not sacred. If you would like I can show you many novelties that where not added by any church authority but only by the laity whom enjoy the novelties while the Bishops just sit and watch.

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Haven't been back in here for a while, so what did we decide? Have you figured out yet where I need to put my communion?

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), December 15, 2003.

Are we receiving religious classes from Steven here? He has to correct me, since I have no religion? WELL; I have a reprise here from November:

''[Previous posting] wrongly refers to Communion in the hand as an "abuse," and [she] uses deception to innacurately characterize the Pope's comments in his Apostolic Letter, "Dominicae Cenae." Having criticized certain abuses, the Holy Father says, "This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized."-- John Paul II /

I find that very supportive of Communion authorised by your bishop in the HAND. The contibutor is a ''Loboyolla'', (Panisangelicus@catholic.net), November 10, 2003. ----

It seems you never read this valuable quote. I don't know any Loboyolla, it might be Gecik- San; and if it is, Thanks, John! Chew on that for a while, Steven. /

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

Have you figured out yet where I need to put my communion?

Why not just leave It in "that little box in the front of the church?"

-- jake (j@k.e), December 15, 2003.

Steven,

The Church is in crises and if any one doubts this fact they are vary blind.

Yeah, yeah. You're another of the guys who would have left the church with Luther in the Middle Ages -- it was in REAL crisis then too. Catholics stay the course. Protestants insist they are correct and leave (or claim to still BE the true church, but don't follow the Pope and Magesterium). Easy enough to see what side someone's on.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 15, 2003.

Frank,

I have not left the church and I do not plan on it. in the time of Luther there was a crisis and some abuses, some recognized them some did not, some left some stayed and, many who stayed could see that there was a crisis but they hung in there. I have no desire to leave.

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

show me where I do not follow the Pope and Magesterium.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Frank,

Are you saying the there is no crises?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

I'm saying that people leave the church because of what they perceive as "crisis" in the church. Look at the "traditionalist" schismatics that have done just that. We have God's word though that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church.

Be Not Afraid!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 15, 2003.

Steven has apparently never read the 8th chapter of Saint Matthew verse :23 to :27 -- a crisis at the time.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

I'm saying that people leave the church because of what they perceive as "crisis" in the church. Look at the "traditionalist" schismatics that have done just that. We have God's word though that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church..

Wouldn’t you call that a crisis?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Yes but I think your definition of faith is vary different the that of Christ.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Eugene

Yes but I think your definition of faith is vary different that of Christ.

And when he entered into the boat, his disciples followed him: And behold a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the boat was covered with waves, but he was asleep And they came to him, and awaked him, saying: Lord, save us, we perish. And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up, he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm. But the men wondered, saying: What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 15, 2003.

Our Holy Church is the boat. We know that since it is Peter's bark. That means the Church. Storm and sea is the world; and what you call crisis. It shakes the boat, and the waves of the world threaten to cover and sink the boat (Church).

The followers of Jesus become desperate. ''A crisis!'' Now even with Christ on board, these weak Christians are alarmed. ''We are perishing!'' (It's surely the end of the Church!)

They are giving up. They aren't equal to the opposing sea, the world. The ''CRISIS''. Then Jesus who was always with them, arises and tells them: they should have had faith in HIM. He brings the seas and the wind under His control again.

You are afraid the Church will fail. You're the poor Christian who has little faith. How can you hold up your head when the Master of heaven and earth says to you: ''O you of little faith--'' ? ? ? You were ready to despair of my Church; even knowing that I promised to be with her to the end of the world.''

You dread the world and have no faith in Jesus Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 15, 2003.

You are only speculating that that is how I am thinking, well it is not. Are you saying that I should not be speaking out against the abuses in the Church and I should continue to let the waves push the people out of the boat?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 16, 2003.

The Good Shepherd doesn't lose His flock, if they remain faithful. If you don't know this, you're already outside the church.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 16, 2003.

What makes me outside the church? By what authority did you kick me out?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 16, 2003.

You say if they remain faithful but how is someone to remain faithful with out the proper discipline and with out the proper education?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 16, 2003.

Keep going, Steven. Say more. You're on to something. Something huge.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2003.

Jake, Is this sarcasm? or are you sincere?

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 16, 2003.

Steven, I couldn't be more sincere. You've been given an outpouring of grace, and don't let anyone (especially anyone here) tell you otherwise. The things you are saying need to be said, and heard.

The reaction you're sure to get here should only serve to further convince you of the Truth.

I'll send you an email.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2003.

An outpouring of GRACE ! ! ! Hahahah!

In one sentence, jake, you've revealed forever your enormous blind-spot. Steven isn't inspired by grace, but by a loose screw!

If Steven could just see-- IMAGINE the inanity of his last 6 or 7 postings, he'd cry with embarrassment. He can't even say whether your words are sarcastic or whether you have a bone to throw him for real! And that's merely a slight clue to Steven's innocence!

Because, he is just an innocent. It's plain as day. The fanatical Bozoes have bent his brain out of whack!

A few replies:
''You say if they remain faithful but how is someone to remain faithful without the proper discipline and without proper education? SS--'' Steven; Nobody in the Church expects us to go without proper education. --WE HAVE IT ! ! ! And discipline is what WE have to apply on ourselves in daily life. The Catholic faith doesn't discipline you. The Church is your Holy Mother and protector. She has the Holy Spirit, Who keeps her out of any possibility of error or failure.

You ask: '' I should not be speaking out against the abuses in the Church?'' Do not ''speak out'' about things you've been taught to misunderstand by FANATICS. Instead, PRAY, --Pray for holy mother church, and give the best example you are able; everywhere, because LOVE is what Catholics offer their neighbors. Not LECTURES and verbal abuse. There is NO ''crisis'' you've been told. Our Holy Redeemer is with the church permanently; as He was aboard Peter's bark. The storms we see all around can't upset our Church. Give THANKS! You can be holy and true to Him best by learning more about the things you can't accept as of this day. Many things you were told are ''abuses'' aren't that at all. Get more information. Have faith in the holy Spirit. Tell the doubters to keep their opinions out of your face; you can see things better if you let God be your helper. Be faithful to your bishop and our Pope. This is God's first discipline imposed on you & me. Many catholics like Jake have forgotten that. They disobey without scruples and call themselves ''traditional''. Simply false!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

To Jake:
You can flatter an innocent person like Steven, and probably expect him to eat out of your hand. But we don't flatter anybody, we only hold out for the truth.

You say this to him:

''The reaction you're sure to get here should only serve to further convince you of the truth.''

Well; is this so? Forget that you say something so self- serving; ''truth'' equated to your contempt for the Catholic Church.

Is there such a pernicious thing to show Steven in my ''reaction''-- or do I just level with him; speaking out for God's REAL grace? Defending the holiness of the Church against fanatics who want to run things from rank & file; instead of the way Jesus Christ organised her? The Church is NOT founded on one man--one vote. She has her appointed shepherds, to whom we owe absolute loyalty and obedience! Is this a bad ''reaction'' to what Steven wants to think of God, His holy people, and the Catholic faith?

Did this reaction show he was onto the ''truth''-- ? ? ? --Or shouldn't he begin thinking things over? Not just about Communion in the hand; but about his own faith. True faith in the Holy Spirit and the holiness of his Church? You haven't thought that over, and maybe you should too.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

An outpouring of GRACE ! ! ! Hahahah! In one sentence, jake, you've revealed forever your enormous blind- spot. Steven isn't inspired by grace, but by a loose screw!

What can I say, Steven? They make my points more eloquently than I could ever hope to do.

Learn firstly not only to expect this type of treatment, but to rejoice in it, and to thank God for it. Do that, an you're cooperating with the grace you've been given, and if you cooperate with the grace you've been given, what more could you want?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 16, 2003.

So this means YOU are the judge of other folk's grace? Or the lack of it? I'm not. In fact, Steven can see plainly I'm appealing to his spiritual discernment. Not stroking him, the way you did. ''Outpouring!'' You need a new set of verbal brakes, Jake.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

Eugene,

Why do you say that I am inspired by a loose screw? It seems that you are implying that someone is telling me this stuff and pushing me on well that is not the fact. I have spent the 3 years reading nothing but Scripture, Cannon, church documents, and the writings of great saints; this is where I get my line of thinking from. You say that we the children of the church do not need discipline, but discipline in some form is exactly what we need. Read scripture and you will see where Christ has given his share of discipline and if the Church is the mother then Christ is the father and we are the children and all children some discipline.

Just a short thought; Saddam Hussein had no discipline as a child and nor did his children

SS

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 16, 2003.

Steven:
You ask me, ''Why do you say that I am inspired by a loose screw?''

Just read my words in context. Jake wanted you to THINK you had received some great grace; by which he means, ''Now you agree with me, and that shows you have that grace.''

Yet, by my final words to him, you could have deduced I was joking about HIS judgment; HIS vindication, so necessarily, a GRACE you receieved. That grace vindicates HIS opinions, not the truth.

I made an ironic staement. If grace had something to do with it, I call that a ''loose screw''.

But, even so-- I addressed you with respect after that joke. I said afterward to Jake, Steven is innocent; he repeats the things fanatics have told him about the Church today.

You say your ideas come from deep study. You conclude from the study that something's WRONG with the Catholic Church. From what great books and scripture and the saints have taught you.

You seem to forget the Church herself. You don't mention any learning acquired from her. Only ''abuses'' and ''crisis''. The Church then, from your point of view is failing. It's not Christ's Church anymore?

Then I tried to teach you by the parallel or analogy; Christ being below deck and asleep. The storm affecting Peter's bnoat; the great FEAR entering the hearts of His followers (As YOU feel fear now);

But Jesus came out and stayed the fury of the sea and winds. With just a word!

Our Catholic Church is the same BOAT! The world shakes her and frightens her faithful. They think ''We will perish! Because the CRISIS in the Church is sinking it!''

Our Lord addressed the apostles: ''O ye of little faith!'' He says that to us, when we despair of ''discipline'' and ''crises in the Church.''

The devil wants us to fall into despair and horror at our own brethren. He wants to divide us: ''SIFT'' the Catholic Church, and break her up into factions.

Hw can we help? I say; just by remaining faithful, within the Bark of Peter, tossing on the waves of fear and confusion and mistrust of our own bishops! Take it a day at a time. Have unswerving faith in the Holy Spirit who is with us. <>Did I say ''reject Jake?'' Or reject the fanatics? NO. We have to help them too; to stay faithful. We have to pray for each other, and remain faithful to our discipline which is not --denouncing the bishop. Denouncing all those supposed ''novelties that aren't sacred''. Your words.

We must be undivided or we help the devil bust up Christ's Holy Church, by rendering our Catholic brother to 2nd class citizen of a Holy Church. Which is what PHARISEES try to do.

I also read many books in my early devlopment as a catholic. Every holy thing I laid my hands on, and the bible. My spiritual depth is not an overnight ocurrence. If you find cause to blame the Church today, why don't I? I'm the one trying to patch up differences here. I fight the dividers. They want you and me to become enemies. For what? Because they prefer the Latin Liturgy of the Mass. Because they want more statues in church, and hard- line preaching, from the Ayatollahs. Fire and brimstone; alarm-bells going off if somebody in church doesn't do as we demand!

This isn't a Christian Church. Jesus commanded us to LOVE one another!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

I am not in despair over this I just see some things that seems to decreasing the faith of the people in the Church, I do not blame it on the Church nor do I blame it on VII, but I where I do place blame is on the people that allow the abuse to continue. You now need to know that when I say “abuse” I do not mean just the topic of this thread I mean many more severe abuses and I will go there later. Now on the topic of this thread; I do not go up and receive the sacrament and then sit in my pew and watch to see what the 180 or so people are doing as you implied I do not care about that. So after reading that you are probably wandering why I started this thread (this it can get long).

Here it is, One Sunday I went to mass and the Priest was speaking of the true presence of Christ in the bread and wine and what he said was vary good and to the point and I think it got some people thinking. After mass I went to the hall far some coffee and was visiting with my fiend and the homily came up he was telling me how some people needed to here that more often. I asked him what he meant that why de we need to hear about one of the core believes of the faith then he asked the lady at the table next to us what she thought of the homily. This lady turned her chair around and said that it made no since “why would a modern priest say such things when Vatican II changed the teaching on that, it is just a sign and if any one believes any thing this priest says is a nut”

Now this is not where I go to mass now but I do know a lot of people of all ages that do not believe in the true presence.

I do not believe that any one is going to go to hell for receiving Blessed Sacrament in the hand but it is the discipline and what it symbolizes when you receive the Blessed Sacrament on your knees with your hands folded in prayer.

“For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and every tongue shall confess to God.”

if you truly believed the Blessed Sacrament the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ wouldn’t you feel the need to humble you self before him in the poster of humility?

GIRM states that kneeling represents humility and the need for forgiveness (I will get you the actual quote later).

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 16, 2003.

Tell me if you ever said to God yourself, Steven: ''Lord; I truly believe what You revealed to your Church; not a make-believe presence but Your True Presence here in the Blessed Sacrament, undeniable and unquestionable. Here, under the appearance of bread and wine, are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.''

Have you? I know I have. But, according to your story, I'm not supposed to believe it much less tell God so, without anybody forcing me to. I'm not '''traditional'' enough! I even take this Holy Communion in my hand! That PROVES to you, I can't be a true believer!

You say the Catholic Church according to ONE person, CHANGED that truth? And that nobody really believes it, since they go on obeying the bishops and receiving Communion on the hand? But isn't that an assumption you arrive at without reason? You and me are not the judges of who else may or may not believe. Nor is the Latin Mass ''someplace where the REAL believers congregate.'' That's just ridiculous! Plenty of bad Catholics have been attending a Tridentine Mass while you were denouncing the Mass of Novus Ordo Steven. May God soon forgive each of them. There's a fine Mexican saying; always remember it, it's a wise one:

''EYES we can SEE; HEARTS are not seen.'' You cannot be the judge of any man/woman's heart. Only God knows our hearts.

Answering your question, ''If you truly believed in the Blessed Sacrament the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ wouldn't you feel the need to humble yourself before him in the posture of humility?''

I do believe, Steven. My humility is an INTERIOR surrender, before His infinite holiness; a situation between Himself and me. I go to Him as a little CHILD would go, with great TRUST in My Lord! He's everything I could ever desire! But my POSTURE is the outer side; it shows in public. Only God sees my heart. He knows my inner humility; I don't act with Him as if I deserve His love! I'm a sinner.

If what you supposed were so ''humble''-- what about prayer? Do you pray out loud, where ever you feel the inspiration? At work, or among friends?

Well, why NOT? If you love God, what keeps you from praying aloud and with no embarrassment? You pray inwardly; silently; with TRUST in Him. Knowing that God hears, and loves you. He doesn't require you to show it off in front of the others!

Neither can He require anything external about your ''posture'' in Mass. He's not interested in GESTURES out in front of the assembly. That was the Pharisee's way of prayer. (Luke 18 :10-14) Just go to Him with a pure heart. Offer Him all your love, and tell Him you'll be happy to carry your cross; and never lose faith in Him. That's true humility. Doing just exactly the same as Jesus did before men. And before His Almighty Father.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 16, 2003.

"''EYES we can SEE; HEARTS are not seen.'' You cannot be the judge of any man/woman's heart. Only God knows our hearts."

So this means that you can't call Jake and Regina Pharisees anymore, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2003.

To a very good extent, Emmie, you're right. I cannot judge either person, except by what the say to me,/u>.

You see, they challenge me and the faith. You challenge me.

I wouldn't dream of damning you, or Jake or Regina. I'm convinced all three of you are truly wonderful individuals. God-fearing, fine people.

I stand up for my beliefs when you try to denigrate them. I've called Jake the Pharisee-- to make him examine his conscience and prove me wrong. Let him do it; I'm a man. I'll take it back when he comes forward without a bias against our Church in the 21st century. With a healthy respect for us, the Catholics he considers ''morons''. If he stops condemning the Mass I hold sacred, and the priests and bishops of our flock.

I'm not showing contempt. Pharisees showed contempt for Jesus Christ; except for Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Saint Paul (that we know of). I love those good Pharisees, who let pride go and followed the Church and Christ. Jake could be one of them. Right now, though, Jake is contemptuous of the Church of the holy apostles. I don't know if Jake even concedes she is the true Church. What am I to do? Say- - I see Jake's eyes. Not his heart?

No. I can decide on his own words. They speak what's in his heart, and it's not good. I want to help him realise what's good and bad. That's how come he meets resistance here. John Gecik wanted to ban him. I want to change him at heart, if possible. I pray he'll stop being pharisaical some day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

To a very good extent, Emmie, you're right. I cannot judge either person, except by what the say to me.

You see, they challenge me and the faith. You challenge me.

I wouldn't dream of damning you, or Jake or Regina. I'm convinced all three of you are truly wonderful individuals. God-fearing, fine people.

I stand up for my beliefs when you try to denigrate them. I've called Jake the Pharisee-- to make him examine his conscience and prove me wrong. Let him do it; I'm a man. I'll take it back when he comes forward without a bias against our Church in the 21st century. With a healthy respect for us, the Catholics he considers ''morons''. If he stops condemning the Mass I hold sacred, and the priests and bishops of our flock.

I'm not showing contempt. Pharisees showed contempt for Jesus Christ; except for Nicodemus, Gamaliel and Saint Paul (that we know of). I love those good Pharisees, who let pride go and followed the Church and Christ. Jake could be one of them. Right now, though, Jake is contemptuous of the Church of the holy apostles. I don't know if Jake even concedes she is the true Church. What am I to do? Say- - I see Jake's eyes. Not his heart?

No. I can decide on his own words. They speak what's in his heart, and it's not good. I want to help him realise what's good and bad. That's how come he meets resistance here. John Gecik wanted to ban him. I want to change him at heart, if possible. I pray he'll stop being pharisaical some day.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

I do not question your belief in the true presence and I do not doubt your belief. Yes I have said something similar to you short prayer and I do each Sunday.

I am not saying that by receiving in the hand is a clear admission that your belief is not genuine. I am sorry that I am not been as clear with my words as I should be but as you can see I have a hard time putting my thoughts in to words as most people do.

If posture means nothing why don’t we just sit thru the mass just like the Lutherans sit thru there service? Why do we stand, sit, stand, sit, kneel, stand, kneel, sit, stand, sit, and so on.

If posture means nothing why do the bishops ask that we stand rather then kneel when we receive Christ why did this change.

If it is not important how we receive Christ and all that maters is that we receive Him with a humble heart why have the Bishops asked us to show some form of reverence before we receive Him, such as a bow?

If it is not important how we receive Christ and all that maters is that we receive Him with a humble heart why don’t we just pass Him around the church in a basket like we pass the collection plate?

If it is not important how we receive Christ and all that maters is that we receive Him with a humble heart why do we need someone to distribute the Holy Sacrament why don’t we just go up and “take Holy Communion” off the alter?

I know the answers to these questions, I am not suffering from a lose screw. But with how I gather your thoughts based on what you have said some of these things may be ok.

I am not saying that this one person changed the truth of the church (that would make me truly dumb) nor am I saying that she represents every one else that receives Communion in the hand. But the numbers show that this non believing in the true presence is on a rise, even people that once truly believed have stopped because they feel that since we now receive like the Lutherans that we must think like the Lutherans. I am not making this up I have seen the numbers that have been handed out by our Bishop they are not good, and these number are based on percentage. I ask people young and old if they believe in the true presence many say yes but more say no. I am not making this up!! I have nothing to gain by making this up

I understand that there are and have been bad people in and out of the Holy Church just like parents will have good and bad kids. And I know that the good can become bad and the bad can become good and this can continue to go back and forth. But shouldn’t we promote good as much as we can? If you brother starts to become bad and if you have option to maybe change him thru example would you?

You sate that I am “denouncing the Mass of Novus Ordo” Where have I done that?

I do pray out lowed sometimes when I am among friends Christian and none Christian I do pray out lowed sometimes when I am at work. When I am in a restaurant I do make a sing of the cross when I ask God to bless my food and when I pray afterwards to thank God for the food. Why wouldn’t I it is a profession of my faith and it is the beet way to evangelize thru example I have made a few conversions this way.

You stated that you are faithful to the Bishop by receiving Holy Communion in you hand, so am I not faithful to my bishop by not receiving Holy Communion in my hand?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 17, 2003.

You can argue your convictions all you want, Steven. I haven't any right to disrespect them. You are the one showing US the lack of respect. You base that on private judgment, irrespective of the teaching of our holy mother Church. For some reason you are determined to defend, you have decided not to honor bishops who give permission in our Church to offer communion in the hand. You place your own opinion higher than the shepherd of your flock. Christ names His shepherds, Steven. Not me. Not the people's will.

This tells me you will serve if you want to, --not serve if you don't want to.

Furthermore, I haven't criticised you, if you wish to be served the sacred host in your mouth. I feel you have that right, if it's allowed by the bishop.

NO-- It's YOU who damn the actions of another Catholic, out of a sense of YOUR greater devotion. You judge YOUR devotion better than mine.

Go on, then. Be like the Pharisee, who looked down on a Publican. I hope Jesus won't notice; after all, you are better than the average Catholic. He'll settle for what you give Him, I think.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

So in other words, "Steven, take the path of least resistance".

Do I have this pegged, Gene? Is that what you are telling Steven?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 17, 2003.

You still have me wrong… I have not criticized you nor have I criticized any one who practices there rite to receive in there hand. What I do criticize is the one who continues to receive by had or mouth and makes a mockery to this most Holy Sacrament by doubting the true presence.

Explain how I show you no respect?

Judge me all you wish but I do share this option with the shepherd of my flock and with the shepherds of many other flocks.

I serve 24/7, do you do you serve by just letting the none believers go on to be none believers? Do you serve by putting people down just because their faith is pointed in a different direction then yours? You know Cain did this to his brother and, well you know the rest of the story.

When was the last time you let a man of the street live in you house? Charity is the best way to serve. And I know that there are a lot of people living in the streets in Sacramento I have seen them and I have bought them bus tickets so they can leave here to go and see you guys in the great state of CA so they would not freeze (after I gave them a great steak diner). When was the last time you went to a abortion clinic and advertised that you would pay the bills for the baby to be allowed to live and then offer to help her find a family to take care of the baby and give the baby a home and rase this person to love and serve God. I have, I had to close my IRA to do it this baby is now 5years of age attends mass weekly with his adopted family and is as healthy as ever. Did I leave out that the then 19yer old girl still thanks me for changing her mind and tries to attend the same mass as her son when she is not working and believes in all the teachings of the church?

Do not tell me what is or is not serving God until you can do it in ways other then standing by your Bishop. You have now idea what kind of life I live or any on else in this form. If they want to attend the Latin Mass let them VII says they have that rite. FYI I attend the Novus Ordo Mass and if any one would like to give me grief for that have at it.

And remember I did not state these things to brag, there many more things I have done good and bad and I plan on doing a lot more good as long as it dose not sacrifice my one salvation or my families salvation.

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 17, 2003.

if you have done acts of charty, Then God bless you

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 17, 2003.

Wow, this thread is long. I confess I haven't read half it it--I got down to where SS was talking about his SS bishop.

SS, I am studying for the priesthood in Arizona, but you can rest assured I will never teach anything like you were told, not even if the bishop is doing the same thing. That was a grave injustice to you and your then girlfriend.

Regarding Communion in the hand--well, my Catholic grade school showed us how to receive on the hand, and that was it. We weren't taught how to receive on the tongue, and it takes a lot of chutzpah to do something different from everyone else, especially when (1) you're not sure how to do it right and (2) you don't want to give the priest any surprises.

Anyway, whether I receive in the hand or on the tongue depends on the occasion. Here in the seminary, I receive in the hand, since that's the normal thing to do and that's what I grew up with. However I am very careful to consume any crumbs on my palm, since our hosts are not very good about staying together.

My seminary celebrates Mass absolutely according to the US bishops and the Vatican. However, in Belgium, abuse is very common--lots of self-intinction, skipping parts of the Mass, etc. Post-Christian world over here!

I think it is appropriate for an American parish priest to put a small insert into the bulletin teaching how to receive Communion.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

our hosts are not very good about staying together.

What happens, then, to all those particles which, as long as they have the properties of bread, are still the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ?

Care to venture a guess?

-- jake (j@k.e), December 17, 2003.

Eugene,

You still have not answered my questions. Would you like me to ask my bishop and tell you what he has said? Why is it that you seem to think that some one who prefers the Latin mass not with the church? I have explained my side, are you going to be just like Emerald and dance around giving solid answers?

Try this one; if communion in the hand is and has been so good why, was it stopped and why isn’t it practiced world wide, why is it that some bishops have sent letters expressing that receiving in the hand is nor the preferred method, why is it that some of the greatest doctors of the church have spoke out against it show me a saint that has stated that the practice of receiving on the tongue is rite and fitting.

If a question is asked then it must mater, if my opinion should not mater then why should your opinion mater? Show me where the Pope has stated that the form of receiving on the tongue can, should, or needs to be ditched. Remember the Popes still have the highest authority over all bishops.

You say that I damn the actions of another Catholic. Is it not true that if you do not believe in the teachings of the church that you are not truly Catholic. I only have criticized those who do not believe in the great sacraments and continue to go and receive just because?

SS

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 17, 2003.

Skoobouy, You are in PHX right? If so you have a good bishop. All we need to do is not get wrapped up in worldly maters.

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 17, 2003.

Skoobouy,

Where are you from?

-- Steven Schneider (steven@schnieder.net), December 17, 2003.

I'm sorry, Steven; you haven't explained your side. All you've done is expose every emotion you feel.

You ask, ''Why is it that you seem to think that some one who prefers the Latin mass is not with the church? I have explained my side,''--

When did I ever say (ONE), there's anything wrong with the authorized Latin Mass? (TWO), --That you aren't ''in the Church'' --? ? ?

How could your awareness go completely out, to say I'm against the Mass of Trent, or against you?

------------All I've tried is to show you MY reason for obedience to our bishops. To explain how badly some people mistake (ONE) ostentation for true devotion, and (TWO) attachment to tradition --for outstanding grace.

You can be completely enchanted with the traditional Church and reach true sainthood. You can and should be, faithful to the good changes of Vatican II (as Pope John Paul II is), and also reach sainthood. There are no set conditions for true devotion to God. Least of all a requirement to abase yourself, drop to your knees at the front of a Communion line, or speak the words all in Latin! There are only simple conditions.

LOVE Our Holy Redeemer with all our hearts and keep faith with Him. Love your neighbor as yourself. --PRAY, that Our Lord may save us from the powers of the world, the flesh and the devil. (That is, from all sin.) That's the requirement of a state of grace before receiving.

If we meet these conditions and receive Him in Holy Communion with pure hearts, there will be NO difference between YOU, receiving into the mouth-- and ME, receiving in my hand with great love and joy. No difference in the two souls! That's what I believe.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 17, 2003.

You are right I do let my emotions get too involved. Maybe this is because I hold a certain passion for my faith.

I go to mass I sit next to people that say the same things as you regarding this issue. Some of these same people have a lot of money, but when it comes to parting with 8 to 9k to save a life they look at me like I am nuts. I know helping others is hard I will say that but we all need to do more then throwing money in a basket so someone can help. Don’t get me wrong the places that get the money do need it and I am not saying to stop give more if you can. But if you can spend les time on the inter net and drive out to the needy on the streets and get them a big Mac and fries or something.

You stated in this thread “If Mother Theresa felt sad; she was simply too scrupulous”. I must tell you that if your faith is in line with showing true love for Christ is not just simply too scrupulous is love. Do you know what true love is? Look at Christ on the cross look at what He went thru that day, now my friend that is love. But some could say that God was simply too scrupulous, why did the redeemer need to come and die? Why didn’t he just come and say all of you are forgiven go and sin no more? No he had to show us sign of his love.

So Mother Theresa gave the greatest form of love by her great love for the Eurcrest and by her great love for the sick, the poor, the suffering, the dumb, and the homeless.

Do you see how these things start to go together? Is this truly a sign of someone who was over scrupulous? No I would say not.

Remember this I share this opinion with some of the Churches greatest saints read, read, and then read some more. When you are reading open your heart and soul to the Holy Ghost that he may bring to the knowledge you need. I know for a fact that we have Shepherds that act more like sheep herders, it is hard to pick them out, but they are out there looking to the left and to the right at the things of this world.

For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables, But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 18, 2003.

Skoobouy,

Read St Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica it is made of 5 books go to the book titled Tertia Pars the 4th book and read it. Then e-mail me and tell me what you think. I will not try to sway you I just want to know what you think.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 18, 2003.

A GESTURE OF REVERENCE

This is peculiar to the Roman Rite, and consists in the momentary bending of one or both knees so as to touch the earth. Genuflecting, understood in this sense, has now almost everywhere in the Western Church been substituted for the profound bowing down of head and body that formerly obtained, and that is still maintained in the East as the supreme act of liturgical reverence. It is laid down by modern authorities that a genuflexion includes every sort of inclination, so that any bowing while kneeling is, as a rule, superfluous (Martinucci, Man. Sacr. Cærem., I, i, nn. 5 and 6). There are certain exceptions, however, to this rule, in the liturgical cultus of the Blessed Sacrament. The practice of genuflecting has no claim to antiquity of origin. It appears to have been introduced and gradually to have spread in the West during the later Middle Ages, and scarcely to have been generally looked upon as obligatory before the end of the fifteenth century. The older Roman Missals make no mention of it. Father Thurston gives A. D. 1502 as the date of the formal and semi-official recognition of these genuflexions. Even after it became usual to raise the consecrated Host and Chalice for the adoration of the Faithful after the Consecration, it was long before the priest's preceding and following genuflexions were insisted upon (see Thurston in "The Month", Oct., 1897). The genuflexions now indicated at such words as "Et incarnatus est", "Et Verbum caro factum est", and the like, are likewise of comparatively recent introduction, though in some cases they replace a prostration that was usual, in ancient times, when the same sacred words were solemnly uttered (see, for instance, in regard to the "Et incarnatus", the curious passage in the work of Radulphus Tongrensis (De can. observ.). The Carthusian custom of bending the knee, yet so as not to touch the ground, is curious; and has interest from the historical point of view as testifying to the reluctance formerly felt by many to the modern practice of genuflecting. See also the Decree of the S. Cong. of Rites (n. 3402) of 7 July, 1876, insisting that women as well as men must genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament. The simple bending of the knee, unlike prostration, cannot be traced to sources outside Christian worship. Thus, the pagan and classical gesture of adoration consisted in the standing before the being or thing to be worshipped, in putting the right hand to the mouth (ad ora), and in turning the body to the right. The act of falling down, or prostration, was introduced in Rome when the Cæsars brought from the East the Oriental custom of worshipping the emperors in this manner as gods. "Caium Cæsarem adorari ut deum constituit cum reversus ex Syria non aliter adire ausus esset quam capite velato circumvertensque se, deinde procumbens" (Suet., Vit., ii). The liturgical rules for genuflecting are now very definite.

All genuflect (bending both knees) when adoring the Blessed Sacrament unveiled, as at Expositions. All genuflect (bending the right knee only) when doing reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, enclosed in the Tabernacle, or lying upon the corporal during the Mass. Mass-servers are not to genuflect, save when the Blessed Sacrament is at the altar where Mass is being said (cf. Wapelhorst, infra). The same honour is paid to a relic of the True Cross when exposed for public veneration. The clergy in liturgical functions genuflect on one knee to the cross over the high altar, and likewise in passing before the bishop of the diocese when he presides at a ceremony. From these genuflexions, however, an officiating priest, as also all prelates, canons, etc., are dispensed, bowing of the head and shoulders being substituted for the genuflexion. On Good Friday, after the ceremony of the Adoration of the Cross, and until Holy Saturday, all, clergy and laity alike, genuflect in passing before the unveiled cross upon the high altar.

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 18, 2003.

I am going to stop reading and posting here after this post, yes you can say you are the winner but if you do you are just lying to your self.

And remember charity is the greatest act of them all.

It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep

St, Francis de Sales

-- Steven S (steven@schneider.net), December 18, 2003.

Bye, bye italicize.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), December 18, 2003.

Steven,
May God bless you for all the charitable works you do. How wonderful!.
Stay close to Our Lord and Lady.
Have a Blessed Christmass.
FGC

-- FGC (fgcc4@yahoo.com), December 18, 2003.

Steven, although you did not credit your source on "genuflection," it appears to be the old Catholic Encyclopedia. That is fine, except for the fact that it does not reflect some changes made by the Vatican. Examples ...

It is not necessary to genuflect before a bishop.
When the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, it is now permitted to genuflect on one knee or both knees, according to the adorer's preference.
The faithful (including clergy) do not genuflect to the cross, but toward Our Lord in the tabernacle. When a tabernacle is not visible, all should bow to the altar, which is a symbol of Jesus whose sacrifice is made present upon it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 20, 2003.