Thank you for enlighten us on the changes of the Eucharist, but unfortunately, this Neue, change of receiving our holy Lord, in our hands to me is a sacrilege. It should be always be in a state of humble Neal adding the tongue amen⛪️🙏
Selective reading of Scriptures, disregard, or selective reading of the Church Fathers, belief in false dichotomy of "spiritual" vs "carnal", hypocrisy of accusation for "following traditions of men" while being in a movement started by men, very long after the Church was already established. Many of these men were scandalized by bread = Christ's flesh indeed in the same way that Pharisees were scandalized about this exactly in John 6. It's the same spirit manifesting in many Protestants that deny mystery of the Eucharist. Just to stay firmly on the ground and not pumped with pride like frog from Shrek with helium: Many people to call themselves Catholics don't really believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The way that the Eucharist was handled in my parish was the reason why I started looking for Traditional Liturgy, and subsequently sources of the Catholic Dogma. If you are serious about the Eucharist: You will reject abuses, and be more and more radical in rejection of Dogmas denial. You will find root of abuses, and reject it. When you realize that words of institution in the Novus Ordo Missae had been changed, and MYSTENIUM FIDEI had been moved out from the words of consecration of wine, and used in completely different context way after, with vernacular as a way to obscure this change: You should be concerned.
In all fairness to Luther, you should know what he did when some of the blood from the chalice was accidentally spilled. On one occasion some of the blood touched the fur coat of a woman. He tried to lap up as much as he could from the coat and then drink it. He ordered that the woman immediately hand over the coat and he cut the patch that had been touched and had it burnt. On another occasion some of the blood hit the floor. Luther got down on his hands and knees and lapped up the blood with his tongue. I wonder if this would happen today in a post Vatican II church? I suspect that they would bring out the wipes.
Prior to V II, no one touched the Eucharist except the Priest. The Host was shown to be special ( maybe not the best word). Only a consecrated Priest could touch the Body of the Lord. No lay ministers or even deacons. What message is sent by this cavalier handling.?
This also provided a clear incentive and privilege to the priesthood that is missing today. Young boys would see that there is a special privilege and sense of authority given to the priest, a barrier between the priest and the people. Now they get the impression that the priest is just like anyone else except he has to be celibate. It used to be a sacrifice with clear privileges
Exactly. Thats what I keep saying with regards to all the women deacon talk lately. Even if they will never be deacons(God willing), they are already superseding the deacons role throughout church history in their participation as Eucharistic ministers in the NO mass. Pope Francis can say no female deacons/clergy (which is great), but if the women are already acting as civilian dressed deacons, then there is a contradiction between the official teaching and the practice itself.
The account of Elijah and the widow is similar to an alleged Eucharistic miracle in my area that is currently being investigated. The Eucharist kept replicating itself in the ciborium when the amount of Hosts was very near the end. The Priest stopped Mass and addressed the people as to what had occurred and he was visibly moved.
The Eucharist has become a Ritual, the Ritual has become their Love, and the Spirit behind these things, has been Silenced by the intellects that Created them.
At 24:57 the translation that you use of the Didache seems to mix formal and informal pronouns Thou and You and Thy/Thine and Your. It comes across as a bit cumbersome. Who made such a strange translation from the Greek?
What is the weird picture that you placed at about 4:50 and again and again in other places. It looks like someone put a rosary in the chalice and left it there. That is not allowed. The only thing allowed into the chalice is wine and a bit of water. After the consecration the priest drops a small portion of the true Body of Christ into the chalice. You talk about reverence for the Eucharist. I find that picture irreverent if not silly. It seems to be your theme photo. How can I take anyone seriously who uses such a ridiculous image? I cannot imagine that it comes from any pre-Vatican II period. It looks too modern and too unorthodox. It takes away from your otherwise almost Orthodox presentation.
I find rad trads as perplexing as I do those who believe that women should be priests or that the chicken dance during mass is acceptable. The theology of both sides is lacking. For the former, they often elevate the small t’s of tradition to the same place as the big T’s. For the latter, they are just adrift in a world of feel good nonsense and heretical self centered ideas.
Thank you for enlighten us on the changes of the Eucharist, but unfortunately, this Neue, change of receiving our holy Lord, in our hands to me is a sacrilege. It should be always be in a state of humble Neal adding the tongue amen⛪️🙏
Thanks for your teaching on this vital sacrament ❤
Thank you for this! This has inspired me to participate in Adoration more frequently!
perpetual adoration is greatly needed but to have such a thing requires a great sacrifice by those of the parish.
Ave Corpus Christi! Hope you had a great feast. Great video, keep up the good work, Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Wow! To have faith like St. Ignatius!
I just don’t understand why Protestants don’t see it as
Selective reading of Scriptures, disregard, or selective reading of the Church Fathers, belief in false dichotomy of "spiritual" vs "carnal", hypocrisy of accusation for "following traditions of men" while being in a movement started by men, very long after the Church was already established. Many of these men were scandalized by bread = Christ's flesh indeed in the same way that Pharisees were scandalized about this exactly in John 6.
It's the same spirit manifesting in many Protestants that deny mystery of the Eucharist.
Just to stay firmly on the ground and not pumped with pride like frog from Shrek with helium: Many people to call themselves Catholics don't really believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The way that the Eucharist was handled in my parish was the reason why I started looking for Traditional Liturgy, and subsequently sources of the Catholic Dogma. If you are serious about the Eucharist: You will reject abuses, and be more and more radical in rejection of Dogmas denial. You will find root of abuses, and reject it.
When you realize that words of institution in the Novus Ordo Missae had been changed, and MYSTENIUM FIDEI had been moved out from the words of consecration of wine, and used in completely different context way after, with vernacular as a way to obscure this change: You should be concerned.
In all fairness to Luther, you should know what he did when some of the blood from the chalice was accidentally spilled. On one occasion some of the blood touched the fur coat of a woman. He tried to lap up as much as he could from the coat and then drink it. He ordered that the woman immediately hand over the coat and he cut the patch that had been touched and had it burnt. On another occasion some of the blood hit the floor. Luther got down on his hands and knees and lapped up the blood with his tongue. I wonder if this would happen today in a post Vatican II church? I suspect that they would bring out the wipes.
Prior to V II, no one touched the Eucharist except the Priest. The Host was shown to be special ( maybe not the best word). Only a consecrated Priest could touch the Body of the Lord. No lay ministers or even deacons. What message is sent by this cavalier handling.?
This also provided a clear incentive and privilege to the priesthood that is missing today. Young boys would see that there is a special privilege and sense of authority given to the priest, a barrier between the priest and the people. Now they get the impression that the priest is just like anyone else except he has to be celibate. It used to be a sacrifice with clear privileges
Exactly. Thats what I keep saying with regards to all the women deacon talk lately. Even if they will never be deacons(God willing), they are already superseding the deacons role throughout church history in their participation as Eucharistic ministers in the NO mass. Pope Francis can say no female deacons/clergy (which is great), but if the women are already acting as civilian dressed deacons, then there is a contradiction between the official teaching and the practice itself.
The account of Elijah and the widow is similar to an alleged Eucharistic miracle in my area that is currently being investigated. The Eucharist kept replicating itself in the ciborium when the amount of Hosts was very near the end. The Priest stopped Mass and addressed the people as to what had occurred and he was visibly moved.
Great presentation.
The Eucharist has become a Ritual, the Ritual has become their Love, and the Spirit behind these things, has been Silenced by the intellects that Created them.
???
At 24:57 the translation that you use of the Didache seems to mix formal and informal pronouns Thou and You and Thy/Thine and Your. It comes across as a bit cumbersome. Who made such a strange translation from the Greek?
Where's the sound?
I had to laugh when you called John Calvin St. John or almost said it. Actually as you point out some of his ideas are catholic, but some are not.
What is the weird picture that you placed at about 4:50 and again and again in other places. It looks like someone put a rosary in the chalice and left it there. That is not allowed. The only thing allowed into the chalice is wine and a bit of water. After the consecration the priest drops a small portion of the true Body of Christ into the chalice. You talk about reverence for the Eucharist. I find that picture irreverent if not silly. It seems to be your theme photo. How can I take anyone seriously who uses such a ridiculous image? I cannot imagine that it comes from any pre-Vatican II period. It looks too modern and too unorthodox. It takes away from your otherwise almost Orthodox presentation.
I find rad trads as perplexing as I do those who believe that women should be priests or that the chicken dance during mass is acceptable.
The theology of both sides is lacking. For the former, they often elevate the small t’s of tradition to the same place as the big T’s. For the latter, they are just adrift in a world of feel good nonsense and heretical self centered ideas.