25 May 08
Originally posted by NemesioI think they (the local priests) should do it anyway.
Just to be clear, the issue is in regards to the material that the species out of which the Eucharist
must be made. The Church, long before allergies, defined that the Host must be made of
a wheat-based material, just as the drink must be wine. The Church considers this to be dogmatic,
like any of its other tenets. A rice-host could not be consecrated, ...[text shortened]... those with mild allergies.) A local priest has no authority to overturn such laws.
Nemesio
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 May 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThey cannot. In the Catholic Church, it is illicit to consecrate a host that is not of the prescribed material; it is, furthermore, invalid. So, for any Catholic, consecrated grape juice and rice hosts have no significance.
I think they (the local priests) should do it anyway.
31 May 08
8 edits
This very month in which the autistic boy was banned from Mass and subversive women were threatend with excommunication, the pope, speaking with a forked tongue, issued this proclamation:
Unity is "the truth and the strength of the Christian revolution," he said. Around the Eucharist "people diverse on account of age, sex, social condition (and) political ideology" gather and become one, he said.
"The Eucharist can never be a private fact, reserved to people who have been chosen for their affinity or out of friendship," the pope said. "The Eucharist is (an act of) public worship, which has nothing esoteric or exclusive."
Pope Benedict said Catholics must always be vigilant to ensure that at every celebration of the Eucharist all Catholics are welcome, no matter their "differences of nationality, profession, social class or political ideas."
...
One who bows to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate himself before any earthly power, no matter how strong.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802797.htm
As an exercise, identify all instances of hypocrisy vis-a-vis the cited cases from this month. As a hint, I have set some remarks in bold.
31 May 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblescommunion is the "food of the baptized", and only someone who has completed their confirmation studies, and made a public proffession of faith, confirming their baptism are allowed to partake. That is why catholic priests will not serve the elemnts to protestants. If he is autistic, depending on the level, he would be unable to make such a pronouncement.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/19/fryer.autistic.boy.banned.kare
Shouldn't it be unconscionable for them to deny such a person Holy Communion? He's just as God made him.
31 May 08
Originally posted by duecerWell, Baptist do all that. Why can't they partake? Does the Catholic faith own the sacrament?
communion is the "food of the baptized", and only someone who has completed their confirmation studies, and made a public proffession of faith, confirming their baptism are allowed to partake. That is why catholic priests will not serve the elemnts to protestants. If he is autistic, depending on the level, he would be unable to make such a pronouncement.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Jun 08
Originally posted by duecerNo. There are only three requirements: 1. that the recipient of the Eucharist is a person; 2. that he is alive; 3. that he is baptised. These are dogmatic articles of faith. There are also canonical regulations: that the person is not in a state of mortal sin, that he believes the Eucharist is the body of Christ and that he is not part of any schismatic church.
communion is the "food of the baptized", and only someone who has completed their confirmation studies, and made a public proffession of faith, confirming their baptism are allowed to partake. That is why catholic priests will not serve the elemnts to protestants. If he is autistic, depending on the level, he would be unable to make such a pronouncement.
Most Catholics receive the Eucharist years before their Confirmation. Adult converts will receive their first Communion along with Confirmation at their baptism. The Eastern Churches have a dispensatiion and will give a child the Eucharist after baptism.
01 Jun 08
matiOriginally posted by Conrau KWhat is a schismatic church? Couldn't it be argued that any faith/denomination after the reformation is schismatic?
No. There are only three requirements: 1. that the recipient of the Eucharist is a person; 2. that he is alive; 3. that he is baptised. These are dogmatic articles of faith. There are also canonical regulations: that the person is not in a state of mortal sin, that he believes the Eucharist is the body of Christ and that he is not part of any schismatic ...[text shortened]... sm. The Eastern Churches have a dispensatiion and will give a child the Eucharist after baptism.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957A schism is an act of rejection of ecclesial unity with the See of Rome. The Protestant reformation was a schismatic act, although I have not heard it characterised in that way.
What is a schismatic church? Couldn't it be argued that any faith/denomination after the reformation is schismatic?
EDIT: I am not sure whether Protestant churches are schismatic churches - given their ambiguous status as churches. Protestant churches lack (reputedly) apostolic succession. The Catholic Church, therefore, describes them as ecclesiastical communities.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAs an exercise, identify all instances of hypocrisy vis-a-vis the cited cases from this month. As a hint, I have set some remarks in bold.
This very month in which the autistic boy was banned from Mass and subversive women were threatend with excommunication, the pope, speaking with a forked tongue, issued this proclamation:
[quote][b]Unity is "the truth and the strength of the Christian revolution," he said. Around the Eucharist "people diverse on account of age, sex, social is-a-vis the cited cases from this month. As a hint, I have set some remarks in bold.[/b]
None. In regards to female priests, they have committed an act of schism and thus excluded themselves from the Catholic Church. The Eucharist is supposed to be a demonstration of unity; therefore, those who rebel against the Church, forfeit their unity with the Church and the right to receive Communion.
There is also no evidence that the autistic boy has been denied Communion. He has only been disallowed from attending his parish church.
Furthermore, for an act of hypocricy, it must be the same person who teaches one thing and then acts differently. If a Pope teaches the all-inclusiveness of the sacrament of Communion, and another priest violates this teaching, no hypocricy has occured. They must be the same person.
01 Jun 08
Originally posted by Conrau Kone might argue that Martin Luther was an Apostle, as he was a spiritual reformer; which is one of the definitions of Apostle
A schism is an act of rejection of ecclesial unity with the See of Rome. The Protestant reformation was a schismatic act, although I have not heard it characterised in that way.
EDIT: I am not sure whether Protestant churches are schismatic churches - given their ambiguous status as churches. Protestant churches lack (reputedly) apostolic succession. The Catholic Church, therefore, describes them as ecclesiastical communities.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
01 Jun 08
Originally posted by duecerThe standard use of the term is for the twelve commissioned by Jesus in the Gospels. More loosely, it refers to all bishops who have succession from the twelve, or St. Paul. And even if Luther were an apostle, as he rejected the formula for episcopal consecration, he did not appoint further apostles.
one might argue that Martin Luther was an Apostle, as he was a spiritual reformer; which is one of the definitions of Apostle
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitThe powers of Jesus and the powers of the priest are not the same. As such, your "comparison" doesn't seem to apply here.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a direct comparison.
And the point is just what you said - to show that the church, the alleged followers of Christ, are acting nothing like he would act. Not only do they lack the power to heal him, they can't even be bothered to put up with him for an hour.
The question of why the priest doesn't have Christ's powers is the subject for another thread.
And no, IMO the congregation shouldn't have to "put up with" (your words) the boy striking another child and being generally disruptive.
04 Jun 08
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThe comparison is about attitude as well as power.
The powers of Jesus and the powers of the priest are [b]not the same. As such, your "comparison" doesn't seem to apply here.
The question of why the priest doesn't have Christ's powers is the subject for another thread.
And no, IMO the congregation shouldn't have to "put up with" (your words) the boy striking another child and being generally disruptive.[/b]
C'mon, people have sidebars on these forums all the time. Let's talk about the power issue. [You won't; you stick too rigidly to conventions, like 'stay on topic'.]
Your last sentence is probably typical of most churchgoers and only illustrates that the church has become more of a social club than an institution that follows Christ's teachings.
05 Jun 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt never did follow CHRIST'S teachings, it followed PAULS. Just goes to show you just how godly religion is.
The comparison is about attitude as well as power.
C'mon, people have sidebars on these forums all the time. Let's talk about the power issue. [You won't; you stick too rigidly to conventions, like 'stay on topic'.]
Your last sentence is probably typical of most churchgoers and only illustrates that the church has become more of a social club than an institution that follows Christ's teachings.