Why the Traditional Latin Mass and not the Novus Ordo Mass

Discussion in 'The Sacraments' started by SgCatholic, Nov 29, 2019.

  1. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    The point is that communion in the hand is permitted, and that makes a difference in using the word sacrilege to describe it. It’s not a misuse because it is permitted. I don’t do it and I wish no one else did.
    Edit: The reversal of this decision needs to come from the Bishops.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
  2. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    Just because it was permitted does not mean it is not a misuse. It should not be permitted - period.

    Same principle really for any other misuse that is permitted - whether divorce/remarriage/communion by bishops conferences using AL for justification, to annulments that were too easily granted domestically and then later overturned by Rome, to any number of other examples.

    Objectively speaking, communion in the hand opens the door to sacrilege. This is true no matter who gives permission for it. Once one learns of this I believe it should automatically change one's behavior.

    So yes, the bishops are the ones that need to reverse this decision, but that doesn't mean that the laity shouldn't be vocal about the necessity of that need. Especially on a Catholic forum where people may come to learn about our faith.
     
    BrianK, Suzanne, Don_D and 1 other person like this.
  3. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    I meant Sg’s misuse of the word sacrilege when she wrongly attributed its use to Bishop Schneider, to describe what is permitted. I think that is why Bishop Schneider stopped short of using the word sacrilege. I am still waiting to see if he uses it. I will recant my position if we find an example.
    I agree, I don't think communion in the hand should have ever been permitted. But it has.
    Edit
    I don’t think communion in the hand is permitted in Rome. Does anyone know?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  4. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Communion in the hand is an indult. The other practices you mention are not indults. I am not objecting to the fact that we are being vocal against communion in the hand, but I am objecting to the way it is being presented on the forum. If it is true that Bishop Schneider called communion in the hand a sacrilege, using those words, then he is a Bishop who may be able to begin the changes. However, if he is merely decrying it, like the rest of us, then he is wrongly misrepresented as calling it a sacrilege. It's an important point to me, and it should be to everyone, since he is a Bishop.
    If you reread this thread, at one point it was suggested in a sketchy way not to go to an NO Mass. Enough said.
    My other point is that we cannot afford to shoot from the hip so to speak before we think about the ramifications of what we are saying. Yes, people look to this forum and learn from it, but to suggest, however slightly, the they should not go to an NO Mass, is wrong. What about the people who cannot go to a TLM or who have families who go to an NO? We should not be getting into opening that can of worms. We are Catholic and the NO is the Ordinary Form of the Holy Mass.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    Shae and Sam like this.
  5. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    Well sure, I'm not stating there wasn't an indult - but that doesn't make it not a "misuse" does it? Unless we are okay with the fragments of the Eucharist - Our Lord - being brushed off or falling on the ground to be trampled. That's misuse stemming from the manner of recption isn't it? Objectively speaking - and not even getting into the area of intent - this is a misuse by it's very definition.

    I did not see where anyone was advocating not going to mass or only going if it is a TLM mass. My understanding is that SG in fact goes to an NO mass more often than she gets to go to TLM. And I never said that we should not go to mass if it is a NO (for I go to an NO mass more often than TLM as well).

    I see nothing wrong, however, in stating that finding a parish where one can kneel and receive Our Lord on the tongue with a patent is a far superior thing than a "typical" NO mass. With the problems in the NO which are well documented - from respected theologians to cardinals of the Church - I'm not sure how an argument can be made that the NO is on par with the TLM. And hear me well and carefully here - I'm not saying the NO is invalid. If given the choice the TLM is superior in many respects. No cans of worms as far as I'm concerned.

    *Edited to correct my position on the NO, spelling and grammar on this forum is not my strong suit.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
    BrianK and SgCatholic like this.
  6. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Sidestepping my question about the issue with the words or not words from
    Bishop Schneider.....
    We need to get the total picture here in truth
    Also, you answered for Sg about which Masses she attends and why she doesn’t want to go to NO
    Waiting to hear clarification from her
     
  7. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    Not sidestepping at all. I never brought up Bishop Schneider in the first place - so I can leave SG to defend the way she presents his words.

    I chimed in when you said that communion in the hand was not a misuse since it was approved. I strongly disagree with that assessment and posted as such.

    With that being said, you know that I hold you in high esteem. I also know that I have a bad habit of coming off unintentionally rude - please don't read them as attacking you or your character.
     
    BrianK, SgCatholic and Don_D like this.
  8. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Well, no, I don't take anything you said as rude, Frodo. Thank you for your response.
    I also know that we are in a dilemma which is not of our choosing when it comes to going to Mass. I didn't cause this, I can't control it. I am going to Mass. Period. The end.
    Groundhog Day.:LOL::)
    And I am still waiting to hear from Sg for clarification.:)
     
    Don_D likes this.
  9. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    HH, once again you make an ad hominem attack on me.
    This has already happened earlier on this same thread. See the quotes below.

    +
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2020
  10. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Thank you, Frodo.
    This is indeed my intention.
    To make more Catholics aware of the grave problem with receiving the Holy Eucharist in the hand.
    As Bp Fulton Sheen said, it is the laity who have to make the bishops act like bishops.

    +
     
    BrianK likes this.
  11. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    I don’t understand the quibble about whether or not Bp Schneider mentioned the word sacrilege.
    His Excellency is repeatedly saying that fragments of the Holy Eucharist, Our Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, are falling to the ground and being trampled by people’s feet, because of receiving in the hand.

    No one can deny the fact that this type of sacrilege/ desecration happens routinely in every Mass where receiving in the hand is permitted.

    So what is the quibble about?

    +
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2020
    BrianK likes this.
  12. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Jesus told me that "Now more people love My Heart."
    On the subject of priests, he told me that I ought to pray a great deal for them, so that they may be saints and fulfill their duty well and make others better. "May they make Me known to those who do not know Me and make Me loved by those who know Me and do not love Me."


    [From 'Garabandal' Book, by J. Serre pages 175-176 ]

    This was posted by Glenn today on his thread. It is the words of Jesus to Conchita.
    These words are from the early 1960's.
     
  13. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    I found this in the Comments section of a Lifesite email I received. As you read it, keep in mind that I receive Holy Communion on the tongue. But just to confirm what is accepted by the Church, here it is:

    "In 2002, St. Pope John Paul II approved the Roman Missal, Third edition. In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI, approved a reprint of the missal. Along with the Missal were approved the General Instructions of the Roman Missal. The instructions updated previous instruction letters and made several corrections. This gives the GIRM precedence over previous instruction letters.

    No. 161 states in part ..."When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament
    as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received EITHER ON THE TONGUE OR IN THE HAND, at the discretion of each communicant."
    "[My emphasis added]"
    EITHER METHOD OF RECEPTION IS VALID. Lifesite and its associated speakers may venture their own OPINIONS, but they do not speak for the church itself."

    This is the end of the quotation of information by a reader.


    It is not a sacrilege to receive Holy Communion in the hand according to the approved Roman Missal. This should be the end of the controversy.
    Edit: of course, one might wish to encourage others to receive on the tongue. I try to do that.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  14. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    I'm sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree.

    If anyone would dare treat my wife that way - where she would be brushed to the ground and trampled upon - there'd be heck to pay. How much more so should there be an outcry when we are speaking of that being done to our Lord and Savior?

    I personally find the argument " the GIRM permits it" found wanting at best.

    Either we treat our Lord with due reverence and protect Him in the manner we receive Him in the Eucharist or we don't really believe it. Otherwise why would we permit it?

    As an aside, I also find it rather interesting that you base your argument on an indult in this matter - but you seem to pay it no heed when the SSPX is granted permission for some sacraments on the other thread...
     
    BrianK and SgCatholic like this.
  15. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    We are in agreement about communion on the tongue. I must have said 5 or 6 times lately that I believe in it and wish everyone took communion on the tongue. Feelings aside, reality is that the Church says it is permitted to receive in the hand.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  16. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    Yes, and hence the title of this thread. :)
     
    BrianK likes this.
  17. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    And why we have been asked repeatedly by Our Lady to pray and do penance. :)
     
  18. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    You mentioned the word indult . Pope Benedict XVI granted the indult to widen the use of the TLM.
     
  19. Frodo

    Frodo Archangels

    How can the TLM require an indult if it was never abrogated to begin with?

    http://www.vatican.va/content/bened...otu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum.html

    "It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy."
     
    BrianK and SgCatholic like this.
  20. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    It was therefore permitted.
    Honestly, Frodo. :rolleyes:;)
     

Share This Page