Did this priest act in accordance to Catholic teaching?

Funnily enough, if he didn't try to tie all those facts together, they would all be completely accurate.

The fact that this priest even gives Communion in the hand in the first place pretty much shows that he has no respect for God. He was probably power-tripping and got a dopamine rush from getting to denounce people to the congregation.

what

Why do these people go to mass? Do they expect it to just be fun and good feelings? If they’re spending an hour of their day to go to church why do these people chew gum in it? Why don’t these people just become protestant?

Attached: 5249E4DD-E943-48D5-B078-0593DBDA212C.png (750x1395, 219.44K)

Communion in the hand didn't even exist prior to Vatican II and it's an extremely disrespectful, disgusting act which damages faith in the Real Presence of Christ. Communion should always be taken in the mouth. Your hand should not touch it. Don't you notice how the priest spends so much time washing his hands and otherwise preparing himself to handle the Body of Christ during the Mass? Why would you then take it in your hand?

normies don't understand the difference. they think its all just different brands of the same thing, like going to mcdonalds vs burgerking.

I'm not a fan of the practice, at all, but the idea that the 99% of true christians who do so now as an institutional practice "have no respect for God," particularly the priest you are slandering, is insultingly absurd.

Can you show me in scripture where Christ gave of his flesh into the mouths of the apostles?

98% (actual statistic) of Catholic women use birth control, and the majority of Catholic priests are literal homosexuals, so actually I think it's a pretty reasonable position to take.

Are you a Protestant or something? Why would you try to make an appeal to Scripture to overturn Sacred Tradition?

sauce me that blackpill pls

So are you that "I'm the only true catholic" guy then? Or was he too proud for you? I don't want to be sardonic about this but when a layman is accusing a priest of "power tripping" because he is enforcing proper procedure for a sacrament then I honestly can't think of any other way to respond. The procedure of taking communion in the hand has been approved by the Holy See; so unless you are proud enough think you are above them then for your own good you had better consider what risk you are running for slandering a clergyman.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

livescience.com/13708-catholics-contraceptives.html
Another gem:
So not only are Catholic women highly sexually active outside of marriage, they're MORE sexually active than non-Catholics.

The power-tripping bit was when he shamed them from the pulpit, not when he denied them communion.
The post-VII Holy See has also claimed that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved and ordered Catholics to not try to convert Jews. God isn't going to accept the "I was just taking orders" excuse when he demands an account of your life after you die.

Attached: 1543223812778.png (1277x772, 1.44M)

Stereotypes exists for a reason. The biggest Church will attract the most lukewarms.

You haven't actually explained why handling the host with one's hands, something the priests also do, is innately disrespectful beyond a general appeal to sacred tradition. Now don't get me wrong, sacred tradition is the third pilliar of the faith for a reason, but when people get unduly heated over issues of ceremony, even when regarding vital issues such as the sacraments, I feel the need to point out that the absolute low point of the papacy, the cadaver synod, was called because one pope accused his predecessor of changing diocese, which was considered immoral by sacred tradition. Sacred tradition is vital, but we need to recognize that it is not a matter set in stone and that those who do no follow every minor element of it, especially if they grew up with a different policy as the approved norm for catholics, somehow not catholic or worse "have no respect for God." Now this is not to say that respect for the Lord's body is not equal to the necessity of converting sinners such as Jews; both are of grave importance, but I simply see no reason why simply holding God's body in one's hands is an innate sign of disrespect if Jesus is humble enough to become man and become food for us.
The facts that we are presented are that the priest told his congregation about these offences, and that, according to the woman, he was very rude about it. It is a subjective report, but the priest does not look good in this position. This is no cause to accuse the priest, behind his back, of taking some perverse joy in shaming his congregants. You do not know that because you cannot know that from this information, and as such it is slander and a mortal sin.

This privilege is reserved for the ordained alone. You shouldn't take Communion in the hand any more then you should walk up to altar and lay your hands on the tabernacle.
Man there certainly is a particular type of liberal Catholic who likes to accuse anyone and everything of "slander" or "bearing false witness." In any case, 1) I said "probably" 2) you need to stop gargling clerical cock, people like you are the reason so many priests and bishops got away with raping children and seminarians over the last 50 years, and predators are going to keep flocking to the priesthood as long as there are dumb saps like you will find any excuse to defend any action.

Not according to the Holy See. If you want to post a segment of a dogmatic council for empirical arguments or the writings of the fathers for some rock solid subjective ones, then I'd be glad, but otherwise your position actively contradicts that of the Church in these circumstances.
I'm quite frankly not sure how agreeing with the woman that the action was rude constitutes a defense. I'll defend him when others accuse him of "having no respect for God," but quite frankly I shouldn't have to. Perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't take objection to you accusing him of "power tripping" for his sake, I do so for yours. I chastize you because I love you; quite frankly I'm a little ashamed of how forced it feels to type that, but that dosen't matter. I don't like it when I see tradcat's disdain for modern clerical abuses leads them to just resent the clergy in general. I simply advise you to pray for this priest, and seriously consider how little you know of this incedent and why you are making these conclusions about him that nobody else in the thread has made.
But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

THE HOLY SEE CAN BE WRONG. I already reminded you that the Holy See currently says Catholics are not to attempt to convert Jews, which is blatantly wrong and heretical. The Holy See could declare, non-dogmatically, tomorrow, that Mary was not a virgin, and that still wouldn't give you an excuse to then declare that Mary was not a virgin.
Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): "it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand"
Origen (185-232 A.D.): "You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence." (13th Homily on Exodus)
[NOTE THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO RECEIVE COMMUNION IN THE HAND WITHOUT PARTICLES FALLING ON THE GROUND, EVERY SINGLE CHURCH WHERE THIS IS PRACTICED HAS A FLOOR COVERED IN CRUMBS AT THE END OF MASS]
St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93)
The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand
The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”
Council of Trent: "To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies." (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)
St. James of the March: "He is no less guilty who hears the word of God carelessly than he who allows the body of Christ to fall on the ground through his own negligence."
St. Thomas Aquinas: "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 the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed 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 to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency." (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13)

What next, are you going to support the same Holy See which heretically claims Jews are saved without Christ over the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas?

I can accept that this is a very strong basis in sacred tradition, particularly from such an early Pope and from St. Aquinas, but I'm quite frankly not sure why you quote Trent here when it seems to mention everything about the sacrament BUT the matter of the laity handling the host. As stated before, I do not approve of the practice at all. Nonetheless, I still don't see this as an excuse to accuse a man who has consecrated himself to God as having no respect for God whatsoever when the tradition is only that, a tradition, and not a matter of immutable dogma.
The same Holy See that not 3 years ago put forth the document "THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING
OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE", commenting on Nostra Aetate and explicitly stating that, quote:
Seriously, that meme needs to die a hard and cold death.

I'm not quite sure if that goes against Catholic teachings or not, but good on him. Those women deserved to be put in their place after showing such blatant disrespect towards the Church. No better than the money lenders.

Really? I believe you and all, but that sounds like some sort of feel-good tripe Baby Boomers came up with. I was wondering why so few Christians evangelize Jews… I guess trying to save them is anti-Semitic.

It literally just isn't true, and read my above post to show why. The Church has been bending over backwards in recent years to set the record straight that modernists have made crooked with whacked out interpretations of VII, but absolutely nobody, even tradcats, seems to give a pooh. It's a false assumption about our leadership that some, not most, but some of us just refuse corrected on.

This.

Communion in the hand is an abomination and sacrilege.

Sacred tradition is immutable and dogma even if it hasn't been solemnly defined as such yet. Anyway sacrilege falls in the realms of morality. The Papacy has no authority to change sacred tradition as divine revelation is immutable and ended with the apostles

To copy paste from an above post, I feel the need to point out that the absolute low point of the papacy, the cadaver synod, was called because one pope accused his predecessor of changing diocese, which was considered immoral by sacred tradition at the time. So no, sacred tradition is not immutable; or, to be much more precise, there is no proper canon of what actually constitutes sacred tradition. I am under no illusions that this new practice is a good change, but I also do not belive that 99% of the faithful are damning themselves purely because one part of their body touches our Lord's and not the other.

reuters.com/article/us-pope-jews-idUSKBN0TT1BK20151210
You literally quoted from the exact document which claims Jews have a part in salvation without believing in Christ and says Catholics should not convert Jews.

The Jews DID have a part in Salvation. They no longer do.

The Catholic Church, the True Church, is the new Israel.

This sentence sets refutes both dual covenant-ism and you.

To be frank, the Church SHOULD deny anti-semitism, because it is not a theological denial, but an ethnic one. I mean, Jesus Christ, and all his Apostles were 100% semitic. Right, friend?

the article didn't even say that, it said:

I'm not a fan of the Church sucking up to the Jews either, but you shouldn't make claims you cannot back up.

I have explicitly quoted a segment that says that there is no name under which any can be saved but Christ's, and one segment under says, quote;
>While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.
Why are you trusting Reuters to tell you what the Holy See thinks over the Holy See, in response to the literal words of the Holy See refuting a point that you proceed to reassert. These are the kinds of distorted picture's of Church teachings that lead to apostasy so for the love of God do not do the enemy's work in spreading them.

It says RIGHT THERE IN THE DOCUMENT, that:
THEY REJECT ANY KIND OF MISSION TOWARDS THE JEWS. THE VATICAN DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS TO CONVERT JEWS.
They state "the theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith" then they contradict themselves, then they say the reason these two contradictory things are simultaneously true is a "divine mystery" and then say that in any case the Jews will not be evangelized.

Guess what, the Vatican explicitly rejects this claim now too.

No you idiot, present-day "Judaism" (more properly called Talmudism) is a religion that was invented in the second century. The actual Jews became Christians.

Jews were given God's word, but in Chrysostom's words, it's no different than when they laid siege of the Son of God (who is the Word of God himself) and delivered him up to earthly powers. Just because they handle the Word of God doesn't mean their hands are clean too. That they are somehow vicariously holy through this. This would be like saying the Jews who murdered and manhandled Jesus had holy hands, just for touching him.

Nor are they "Israel". Any true, self respecting Jew knows that Jews will never be Israel without a Temple. And God has made sure it won't happen.

While this other thing called "Judaism" is a post Temple creation.. and more to the point, the "Synagogue of Satan" to use St. John's words. Indeed. It just parades around the scriptures for show. They are ignorant and demon possessed. They know nothing of God anymore and read the Talmud more often.

But they SHOULD hear the Word of God. It's a great thing if they convert and we should never cease trying. But I'll never say they KNOW the Word of God now. Else they wouldn't have killed their own king.

"specific institutional mission work". This means, that any individual Priest or Layman can work to convert any Jew on an interpersonal level, but that the Church Herself is not making any effort (institutionally, this means dioceses and parishes are not supported any mass conversion program) to convert the Jews.

OK? The Church doesn't have dioceses or parishes target muslims, or hindus, or shintoists either.

To reject the dual-covenant theory and to proclaim that they will not evangelize Jews is not contradictory. I'm not sure why you believe this is so.

Prove it. The specific term is supersessionism, and despite the efforts of the German Bishops (Walter Kaspar), it is still an inalienable part of the Tradition. You seem quick to abandon the Church over the errors of Bishops, but you should brush up on your Church History and find out that the Church has always had to deal with wolves among the flock.

I already know that friend. Yet, they are a people remaining who call themselves Jews, and though many do the work of the devil himself, the Church Herself has not usurped the right of Christ's judgement, nor has She decided it prudent that She should take up the sword and preach to the infidel.

or to be more specific, the Church has never brought up Her sword to force anyone to the Light of Christ, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted.

I just want to point out that St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross came from families of converted Jews. Look what great things can happen when the Church truly knows it's mission. The Jews had some of the greatest giants among teachers, even in a later medieval age. We should always hope for this. It's a sickness of our times that we've ceased hoping for it.

Even to this day, Jews still convert. If the Church is being drowned in politics, we should pick up the slack, I think.

What about receiving communion in the hand while holding a kid?

This story is bullshit. You don’t open your mouth wide enough so that the priest can see your dental work. You mostly stick your tongue out a little and the priest kind of sticks the waiver to it. The instant the host hits your tongue it sticks to it and begins to melt. It would be almost impossible to spit it out in one piece and you would likely expel the gum also. What did the priest do with the host after it was returned? He would be standing in front of 200 people with a woman spitting into his right hand while he holds the plate with his left. At that point he would have to immediately locate a glass of water to dissolve the returned host in to.

Attached: 6873D2C3-327F-4417-92A8-533D31C7578E.jpeg (900x1203, 385.18K)

^Based Father Brown

Of course he did. In case some people forget the Hoist is literally Jesus blood.
It isn't some king of cool thing people do in mass. It's very winnie the pooh serious and people should teach that to their children.
I wish every priest could be like that one.

To be honest man the practice existed way back ago. Even before masses in Latin were even a thing.
Yeah but one should have the hoist on the mouth everytime.

Except they didn't.
What they do say is that we have a lot of things in common with them, but every document still says outise the Catholic Church to hell you go.

Thanks for this source.
Now I can make sede larpers shut up.

Its not the first time I hear Jews after WW2 converting to Catholicism. There was even one that became a cardinal and the great (((Rabbi))) of Jerusalem called him a traitor lol.
Also pic related is one of them

Attached: quoteihavenotgivenitsynagogueupchristianityisthecompletionofthesynagogueforisraelzolli545705.jpg (850x400, 66.42K)

Sorry I'm retarded.
Polit sage

Both species are present in both the bread and in the wine, so the Host literally is Jesus' blood as well.

Yeah but makes more sense to call the Hoist the body I guess than the blood alone, because by body everyone understands as flesh and blood, even though you are right.