New rules for taking communion issued

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | July 17, 2003 | CATHLEEN FALSANI

[tridentine]

While the changes might seem minor, the first revisions the Vatican has made to the mass since 1975 will affect every Roman Catholic who walks forward for communion.

Before they take the bread and wine, they'll have to bow, as a sign of reverence for the Eucharist, the bread and wine Roman Catholics believe becomes the actual body and blood of Christ during the mass.

Catholics also must be quieter during the mass, sitting meditatively in silence before it begins, after the homily, and after they receive communion instead of chatting with neighbors, or whispering to the kids.

[Thorondir]

Ping, and re-ping.

[sinkspur]

What sort of man approves of the defiance of the canon laws of the Church?

I never did that, of course, but, as master of straw men, you'll set one up so you can blast me for something I never said.

If you want to get all the celibate homosexuals out of the priesthood, you just go right ahead and do it. It won't bother me in the least.

Oh, but let us know how you're going to do this. If they "lied" to get in, they'll "lie" to stay, and it takes a canonical trial to force a man out of the priesthood against his will.

[Thorondir]

With you as master of the straw-dodge and obfuscation when you are caught supporting evil, I guess we are at an impasse.

(sigh, again)

[As you well know...]

Oh well, Catholics don't think it curious. But, even were I raised in another tradition, I don't think I'd expect to read every reference to "breaking the bread" fleshed out (so to speak) as a means of cathechetical instruction.

It was written to an audience of Catholic by Catholics with the knowledge of the Real Presence assumed.

[sinkspur]

With you as master of the straw-dodge and obfuscation when you are caught supporting evil, I guess we are at an impasse.

You never told us how you're going to get chaste homosexuals out of the priesthood.

Please tell us. Otherwise, I have to assume you support chaste homosexuals in the priesthood.

[Thorondir]

Argument to irrelevant extremes is a fallacy, sinkspur. You are just not good at this.

And you must know that silence in the face of sin, or consent to sin, or counsel to sin is sin just the same. (It's in the catechism.) Your continual praise and defense of the special, gentle ones and their obstinate defiance of canon law is disturbing. It just goes along with your saying that, "Rome is the problem." and fighting against Holy Catholic tradtion and disparaging St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelic Doctor of the Church), and Popes St. Pius X and Leo XIII.

What fills you with so much hate for those great men and traditions which built the Church and so much love for those that have devastated it?

[As you well know...]

Question: If someone unfamiliar with the issues, etc. were to read the instructions concerning the Eucharist/Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11) and then attend your church's mass and the Lord's Supper at my church (we are an evangelical Protestant church holding a memorial view of the Lord's Supper), which one would he see as most like the New Testament instructions"

. Answer: Depends. I know that sounds corny, but, if the man went to mass when the 6th Chapt of John was read, he likely, one prays, would hear an exegesis on the eal Presence.

To me, the more crucial question is which exgesis/explanation is true? There is an unbroken line of teaching right from the get-go, even in the NT, attesting that Jesus' Body and Blood in the Eucharist is real food, real blood.

So, the man could be persuaded either way. But, I would not like to be the man whose exegesis/explanation was contrary to an unbroken tradition.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

the bread and wine Roman Catholics believe becomes the actual body and blood of Christ during the mass.

As a Christian, this belief is certainly not based on the facts or the Bible.

It very much is. In John 6 Jesus gives a lengthy discourse on the fact that his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink, and consuming both is essential to obtaining eternal life. We know he is not speaking figuratively because of the reaction of his disciples.

Verse 52: At this the Jews quarreled among themselves, saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?"

Instead of comforting them and telling them He was only speaking figuratively, Jesus reiterates and further emphasizes His point. His disciples responded, "How can anyone take this seriously?" To which Jesus responded, "Does it shake your faith?" After this many of his disciples left him; the only time any followers left due to His teachings. Again, Jesus did not dissuade them.

[As you well know...]

"Oh, and the Church teaches that homosexuality, in itself, is not sinful, so they have no obligation to tell the Church anything about their orientation if they're celibate."

I think you are wrong. Presumably the homosexual would know a homosexual is prevented from being accepted as a Semanarian. So, he is obligated to seek another vocation, or, he will enter the Seminary against the rules of the Chuch he profess to serve with fealty and truthfullness.

Trying to build upon a lie is not the first step towards Ordination a man should make.

[sinkspur]

And you must know that silence in the face of sin, or consent to sin, or counsel to sin is sin just the same.

So, you're the one chomping at the bit to get the chaste homosexuals out of the priesthood. You must do it, or you're complicit in the face of sin.

BTW, you never told us how you're going to get chaste homosexuals out of the priesthood.

Please tell us. Otherwise, I have to assume you support chaste homosexuals in the priesthood.

[Thorondir]

I speak out against Sodomite priests in support of canon law, while you speak out in support of them in opposition to canon law. I am not in a position to oust them any more than you are in a position (thank the divine providence of Almighty God!) to give us more of them.

I am in firm support of canon law while you are in firm support of the deceitful breakers of canon law.

So your straw man argument is nowhere, just like your straw dodges and obfuscations.

[sinkspur]

I am in firm support of canon law while you are in firm support of the deceitful breakers of canon law.

Where did I say that?

[Thorondir]

But they are chaste and honest and good and special and gentle! And those bombs have not gone off yet, so it's safe and good to place them before children to pay with.

How can a serious biological/spiritual/mental malfunction be called anything but a DISorientation? One would have to be somewhat disoriented to call it an orientation.

[sinkspur]

BTW, get off your high horse. We were having a decent conversation, until you suddenly morphed into Torquemada.

We're just talking here. You're not impressing anybody by hurling anathemas. Nobody cares, least of all me.

[Thorondir]

Throughout, but with carefully plausable deniability. Your carefully indigninat denials fly in the face of everything you have written over these last few months and insult the intelligence of everyone who reads them.

[sinkspur]

Your carefully indigninat denials fly in the face of everything you have written over these last few months and insult the intelligence of everyone who reads them.

Let me translate this for those unfamiliar with your line of B.S.:

I, Thorondir, make accusations I can't back up, so I say that everything you've written proves you favor homosexuals in the priesthood.

[Land of the Irish]

If they're celibate and chaste, I don't care.

Posted by sinkspur to Thorondir
On Religion 07/18/2003 4:24 PM CDT #259 of 276

[Thorondir]

His statement is one of explicit consent to the ongoing evil.

But even silence in the face of evil gives consent. That is a point of law older than the Church and still recognized today.

[Loyalist]

As much as I would rather not see the Church go back to the psychology/psychiatry racketeers for advice on anything, they do have relatively accurate ways of finding 'non-practising' homosexuals.

Otherwise, just kick out anyone who seems effeminate.

[sinkspur]

Otherwise, just kick out anyone who seems effeminate.

You would have missed one of the worst abusers in the history of the diocese of Dallas. He was an ex-Marine, one of the toughest men I've ever met.