Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

While I might agree with Lewis that Heavenly intensities are off of earthly scales . . . I do not per se believe that taking on our 'Heavenly Bodies' will leave us LESS sensitive, empathetic, understanding . . . instead of !!!!MORE!!!!

Yes, I would think so too. Are having the qualities of sensitivity, empathy and understanding part of our humanity in fullness or not? These all describe love. How could we answer "no"?

If you read the Koran and the HAdiths you find that Mohammed makes up verses on the spur of the moment.

Thank you for the added background. The fact that it is still a major religion even today just goes to show how people never change. From the things you mentioned it looks like the same kind of garbage that was followed by idolaters in the OT. It makes me wish that Elijah was around to challenge MO to another "God-off". Now THAT would have been hilarious. :)

I agree with FK — Moos do not worship God (so hence they don’t worship the same God as us). They do, however, worship thedevil (as evident in the similarities to the false prophet of Revelation who has the number 666 (Moos revere the number 786 — close enough?)).

This current exchange began over my bringing up the fact that there are practitioners of Voodoo in Haiti who are also Communion-taking members of the Catholic Church; there are practicing Buddhists in the Philippines who are Communion-taking members of the Catholic Church.

I had asked the question: Why do not the priests discipline the church more strictly and restrict admission to the Eucharist—my thought being to enhance the purity of the church and its witness for Jesus Christ.

From this I have received very many responses, and I am only responding to a few of them here “en masse”.

Someone says: “Note the changes in tense. At the moment of death, if you are an unbeliever, you will be condemned.” He is referring to Mark 16:16. Was he attempting to use this to teach pre-belief baptism (perhaps sprinkling infants)?

The truth is, condemnation does not come at the point of death. John 3:18 – “He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned ALREADY, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

All unbelievers are ALREADY condemned—that only requires being born in Adam (Romans ch. 5). The Gospel must be preached and then believed for deliverance FROM condemnation.

I had made the statement, “Just going out and people-ing the church without insisting upon obedience to the Scriptures is NOT Christianity at all.”

This was answered by . . .

“Ah, but what does that insistence include? Does it include the secret police of Calvin? Does it include the Spanish Inquisition? What does it include?”

If the Scriptures insisted on obedience to the secret police of Calvin and to the Spanish Inquisition, then those are included. But the Scriptures contain none of these things, or anything like them.

Someone doesn’t think believing and practicing the actual words of the New Testament literally is appropriate, and so says:

“Perhaps I’m correct that you’re seeing this in the literal sense of Scripture—which is good and is one of the 4 senses of Scripture. There is also the moral sense, the analogical sense and the anagogical sense. For this reason, this Scripture passage can be seen from more than just the literal sense/interpretation.”

This is “The Price is Right” theology.

“Contestant, step right up here and choose the interpretation behind . . .

door number 1 (moral), or
door number 2 (analogical), or
door number 3 (anagogical).”

Perhaps in the next round the doors will have behind them allegorical, parabolic, and literal. But literal is least favored choice because it asks too much of man.

None of this recognizes that the Holy Ghost was well able to say what He meant, the way He wanted it said. Moral, analogical, anagogical, allegorical interpretations, etcetera are usually used by man to skirt around both truth and responsibility.

When insisting on the standards of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 in its restrictions on the Lord’s Supper, one asks me:

“Whats your point? Christ too was criticized for eating with prostitutes and tax collectors.”

It’s not MY point. It’s direct instruction for the very same Christ through His Apostle (1 Corinthians 5) Christ was eating “with the fornicators OF THIS WORLD (not of the church), … with the covetous, . . . with the extortioners, . . . with the idalotors who were yet unbelievers, precisely for evangelistic purposes, which is the instruction of 1 Corinthians 5:10. On our part, if it is not for this purpose, “then must [we] needs go out of this world.”

But in the church, the instruction is “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? PURGE OUT therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.” (1 Cor. 5:7) . . . Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (5:8). I wrote unto you in an epistle NOT to company with fornicators (5:9) [What fornicators?] “. . . if any man that is CALLED A BROTHER be a fornicator, or covetous, or AN IDOLATER, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one NO NOT to eat. (5:11) For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye JUDGE THEM THAT ARE WITHIN? (5:12) The implication is obviously that, YES, we do judge those that are WITHIN the church, “ . . . but them that are WITHOUT God judgeth. [Our responsibility for the purity of the testimony of the church?] . . . put away FROM among yourselves that wicked person.” (5:13)

Another, knowing that I identify with the historical distinctives of Baptist peoples, makes the statement:

“I have heard that Baptists admit anyone to communion.”

There are Baptist congregations (each is autonomous) which practice no church discipline, do not guard the Lord’s table in any way, make no difference between the holy and the profane in their practice (see Ezekiel 22:26 for the principle). The consequence is that that church’s testimony for Jesus Christ in the world is muddied up and made less effectual or not effectual at all.

Anyone looking over my history of posting on FR will see that I have been quite exposing of Baptist churches and preachers, too.

Actually, there are thousands of Baptist congregations who admit only their own members to the Lord’s Supper (Communion). This is often called “Closed Communion.” Further, those churches would not admit to the Table those who are described as per 1 Corinthians chapter 5, being “CALLED BRETHREN, but are known to the church to be practicing fornication, covetousness (which Paul says is idolatry (Colossians 3:5), idolatry, railing, drunkenness, or extortion.

I can describe to you the practice of our local church in this matter, and all it amounts to is our practice based on our conscience toward the words of Scripture. We do not practice “Closed Communion.” That is, we do not limit the Communion of bread and wine (1 Corinthians ch. 11; etc.) only to “roll” members of our congregation. We do practice what some have termed “Close Communion.” Our Lord’s Supper services are conducted at times when it is highly unlikely that non members will be in attendance. EXTREMELY rarely are visitors present in those services who are unfamiliar to the members of our church. And only occasionally is a visitor present at all. This procedure is carried out quite deliberately.

If a visitor appears in one of those services, and nobody knows that person, one of our elders will indeed question him or her.

Occasionally, a visitor (more often than not a Christian relative of a member; sometimes an invited Christian friend of a member) will be in attendance at the Lord’s Supper service. Instruction is given as a matter of first course, directly from 1 Corinthians chapters 10 and 11, and also from chapter 5, and often from several other passages:

(1.) If you do not know for certain that you have experience the New Birth, regeneration (John ch. 3; Titus 3:5), please refrain from partaking at the Lord’s table;

(2.) If you have unresolved testimony problems in your Christian life and walk, repentance (self-judgment) is prerequisite to receiving the bread and wine;

(3.) If you are under the discipline of this church or any church for on-going sinfulness known to the church (as per 1 Corinthians ch. 5), you must not eat with us.

Our Lord’s Supper (Communion) services are entire services, often lasting an hour or more for that very purpose. After the initial instructions, admonitions, and warnings, the Christians present read or quote Scripture verses on the subjects of the Blood of Christ, Redemption, etc. Songs are requested from those present on the same subject. Testimonies of personal salvation are often heard. Believers will spontaneously stand and pray, and render Thanksgiving to God.

Believe me, any (open and known) fornicators, covetous, railers, drunkards, idolaters, or extortioners really do not want to be in these services. They are often full of glory with unusual workings of the Holy Ghost. The order and atmosphere of these services permit believers present to do much self-examination and self-judgment before the Lord. Though certainly not required, some will make open confessions of sins; most often having to do with private attitudes of the heart, sometimes unkindnesses thought between brethren, sometimes slackness toward the work of the Lord and the church.

At some point, a brother, it might be any faithful and more mature brother, will thank the Lord for the Bread, and will distribute it to the others. Another brother will stand and thank the Lord for Christ’s Blood shed for our sins, and then will distribute from the Cup. When all who will partake have received Bread and Wine (unfermented, by the way), only then will one of the elders again read the words on “Remembrance” be read from 1 Corinthians ch. 11, and we will eat and drink. We linger afterwards, and often there are more testimonies, singing, and prayers.

Now all of this is based on a great deal of teaching (the “nurturing”) that the congregation receives, not only during a Communion Service, but as a regular course of church instruction weekly. Further, our church does not admit membership to any persons who are members of secret societies, or organizations which use secret rites, covenants, or oaths. A Buddhist, Taoist, Voodoo-ist, spiritist, Scientologist, etc., may visit our regular services, and we hope they will listen to the Gospel of Christ. But until they admit the error of these, repent from and repudiate them, and own Christ alone as their only Remedy for sin and only Hope of everlasting Life, they may not be admitted to membership.

Another question was asked of me? “Is it not the custom in many Baptist congregations to have an “altar call” as part of nearly every service? Does that not assume that some there have not been born again? Do the deacons return the monetary offerings made by those who have not been locally baptized? Are they denied a seat?”

An “altar call” is for any purpose for which any individual present feels he must make a response to the Lord. In our church, the “altar” is always open, call or no call. Some will kneel in the front of the church during singing, or testimonies, or even during the preaching—it is always open.

The “alter call” is intended to give anyone in need of help to come and receive that help, from the Lord, and from other brethren who are ready to kneel with anyone and pray and/or give admonition from the word of God. If it is a situation where much time will be required, separate “inquiry rooms” are available. Yet unsaved, hearing the Gospel and want to use the “altar” as a place to pray, repent, and receive Christ by faith, are welcome there. But Born-Again believers are also welcome to pray there, about any matter concerning themselves or the needs of others. Sometimes fathers will lead their entire families to the “altar” to devote their families to the service of God. Sometimes young men or ladies will use the “altar” to dedicate themselves to God under some call to service.

The “altar” and the “altar call” are NOT only for those seeking personal repentance unto the soul’s salvation. The “altar” is for any prayers want to be made, any revival or repentance sought, any dedication of heart and will to God. More mature believers often resort at the “altar” for the sole purpose of encouraging others to respond to the Lord—if one responds—those struglling over a decision are often encouraged to respond as well.

Another response came that insisted that the Communion should not be restricted for the sake of retaining the membership:

“For example, suppose I were Bishop of San Fransodom [I like that description] and I excommunicated Stretch Pelousy. And suppose I had good reason to think that in the current sick state of things, if I did, two or more parishes might just throw up their hands and become the Californicate [and I like that description] Catholic Church. Now whatever you want to say about money-grubbing and the rest, the fact is IF I am bishop, I am in a way responsible for ALL these souls. I am playing a whale on a 15 pound leader, and I have to do what will work, not what looks good and pure and all.”

This seems to me to politicize the Lord’s Supper. Why would the Catholic Church want to keep within its membership people who reproach Christ and the Church in such open (as per the example given) support of wickedness and a purveyor of that wickedness? Again no difference is made thereby between the Holy and the profane. The profane are mingled in only to destroy the witness, credibility, and purity of the church. What respect does it engender from those who are yet without? None.

We could not allow membership in our church to any person who openly advocates abortion or encourages any woman to use this form of “birth control.” Such a one could attend our regular services and again we would hope for their attention to the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. But they could not be admitted either to membership or to the Lord’s Table.

Yes one can ask for one's own dear departed mother's prayers. Either Mom is in heaven, which means she's a saint. OR she's in Purgatory, which means she's a saint getting her final coat of paint an polishing and stuff. OR she's in the toaster oven, which means God will graciously forward the prayer to another department. But there is no problem (in our thought) in asking the prayers of those in purgatory, and it is assumed that they would like our prayers. So when you hear "poor souls" or "suffering souls" that's about praying for our bubbas and sissies in Purgatory.

I guess that I was under the impression that a prayer to someone who is "not eligible" to receive prayer would be lost, but you're saying that God would transfer that prayer to another, just to have it come back to Him? (I couldn't tell if you were kidding. :)

I know that New Advent doesn't count as infallible authority or anything, but I thought you might be interested in this take about purgatory and whether prayers FROM purgatory are valid: Purgatory - Invocation of Souls :

Do the souls in purgatory pray for us? May we call upon them in our needs? There is no decision of the Church on this subject, nor have the theologians pronounced with definiteness concerning the invocation of the souls in purgatory and their intercession for the living. In the ancient liturgies there are no prayers of the Church directed to those who are still in purgatory. On the tombs of the early Christians nothing is more common than a prayer or a supplication asking the departed to intercede with God for surviving friends, but these inscriptions seem always to suppose that the departed one is already with God. St. Thomas (II-II.83.11) denies that the souls in purgatory pray for the living, and states they are not in a position to pray for us, rather we must make intercession for them. Despite the authority of St. Thomas, many renowned theologians hold that the souls in purgatory really pray for us, and that we may invoke their aid. Bellarmine (De Purgatorio, lib. II, xv,) says the reason alleged by St. Thomas is not at all convincing, and holds that in virtue of their greater love of God and their union with Him their prayers may have great intercessory power, for they are really superior to us in love of God, and in intimacy of union with Him. Francisco Suárez (De poenit., disp. xlvii, s. 2, n. 9) goes farther and asserts "that the souls in purgatory are holy, are dear to God, love us with a true love and are mindful of our wants; that they know in a general way our necessities and our dangers, and how great is our need of divine help and divine grace".

When there is question of invoking the prayers of those in purgatory, Bellarmine (loc. cit.) says it is superfluous, ordinarily speaking, for they are ignorant of our circumstances and condition. This is at variance with the opinion of Francisco Suárez, who admits knowledge at least in a general way, also with the opinions of many modern theologians who point to the practice now common with almost all the faithful of addressing their prayers and petitions for help to those who are still in a place of purgation. Scavini (Theol. Moral., XI, n. 174) sees no reason why the souls detained in purgatory may not pray for us, even as we pray for one another. He asserts that this practice has become common at Rome, and that it has the great name of St. Alphonsus in its favour. St. Alphonsus in his work the "Great Means of Salvation", chap. I, III, 2, after quoting Sylvius, Gotti, Lessius, and Medina as favourable to his opinion, concludes: "so the souls in purgatory, being beloved by God and confirmed in grace, have absolutely no impediment to prevent them from praying for us. Still the Church does not invoke them or implore their intercession, because ordinarily they have no cognizance of our prayers. But we may piously believe that God makes our prayers known to them". He alleges also the authority of St. Catharine of Bologna who "whenever she desired any favour had recourse to the souls in purgatory, and was immediately heard".

How is this relevant? It is that our grief and pain are tainted by the vices of fear, despair and pride. At any loss or discomfort, I am bowled over. I lose sight of God's providential and loving control of the universe; I lose hope that he can redeem the most grievous thing into the best thing; and I am offended, outraged that things are not to my liking. We can scarcely imagine grief not crippled and spoiled by these taints. But I think the duty of hope may summon us to make some effort to imagine a compassion without sin.

Yes, I like the sound of this. In Heaven, clearly the vices will be stripped away, leaving us to react possibly differently in the area of showing/having compassion. And from what you say here, I can still see a human being in there. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said about Lewis, this just sounds different.

No offense, I think the idea of "investment" of prayers is wrong. Prayer sometimes feels laborious NOW. But to go to Him whose society is Bliss and to ask Him who delights in being asked, that's not an investment, it's a dividend!

Knowing that I probably propounded the idea, what is "investment of prayers"? :)

Did you notice the link to where this piece came from?

I guess not the first time around, but I just went back and checked it out. You're right that there is a lot of good stuff there. I'll have to spend some time going through it. Thanks for pointing it out again.

Lethargic today, caffeine being rejected by cerebral cortex.

I believe you used the phrase "investment of prayers" maybe referring to the time/effort we might spend praying to somebody who was in the toaster oven?

I'm going to have to reread Dante's Purgatorio to see again what he says about the prayers of "the poor souls." He really is very much Aquinas set to verse, so it will be interesting.

Dante really 'set' my thought (my imagination?) about Purgatory. In Hell, the punishment fits the crime, in the sense that it reveals the true nature of the sin involved. In his Purgatory there is the same sense of aptness, but it's more medicinal. The proud walk around the mountain wearing cloaks which appear to be gorgeous but which are made of lead and extremely heavy -- as if they must learn that a false self-concept is a crippling burden which they must be willing to cast off.

But the main theme of Purgatory is hope and joy. They are the blessed being prepped for the full enjoyment of bliss.

When I said God would forward the prayer to another department I WAS being flippant. (Of course, I meant the Holy SPIRIT would forward the prayer .... Dawg, cut that out!) I have no clear concept, but I'm trusting God to deal with "misdirected" appeals for intercession.

I'm weak on this stuff, but I THINK I would distinguish between "appetites" and passions, even though often our appetites affect us as though they were not only strangers but enemies. Passions, strictly speaking, are things which are by definition alien. We "suffer" them, even the pleasant ones.

One of MY personal errors is to tend to slip in the gnostic direction and I think my earlier remarks might have manifested that error. I AM aware that in response to "objections" from Quix and you (and others?) I had to rethink what it means that we are "Rational ANIMALS" and are not and never will be angels. (it is not through loss of sexual appetite that the blessed do not marry and are not married, but through its being overwhelmed.) And at least "appetites" (and maybe passions) seem to be part and parcel of our animality.

But however wrong or right that is, we would say the blessed are perfectly "ordered." That is their appetites (and passions?) do not conflict with, mislead, or weaken their intellect and will. The "dis-integration" of the Fall is healed at last.

So, IF it is proper for humans to have passion, then we will have passion in heaven, but it will not conflict with our ever increasing intimacy with God. Presumably God's bliss is uncompromised by the damnation of the wicked, so ours will not be either.

How 'bout that?

(The NAB is a punishment and scourge inflicted on the Church by a merciful God who wants us to repent for even THINKING of something called "the Spirit of Vatican II" when the documents themselves are pretty good.

(For with respect to Vatican II the old saying is reversed: The spirit killeth but the letter giveth life.

(And you wanna know why a healthy contempt for the persons themselves on whom God bestows high ecclesiastical office is CRITICAL for Catholic Spiritual health? I thought you'd never ask!

(The US Bishops (a) require us to use the wretched thing in our worship and (b) hold the copyright and get the revenues.

(Personally I'd prefer buying indulgences if I could use the RSV. Just sayin' - Which way to that chapel door? Got a nail?)

bookmark

They ought to do it like the Horn and Hardart automat. Put a dime in and a little door opens and, there you are! Offertory and Communion in one handy package.

Hmm, what's IN this coffee?

I am a mortal just as you are --- only with a bigger mouth.

My wife tells me this is not necessarily an asset.

So, free will and character are mutually exclusive?

Free will and sin are mutually exclusive (in the stand I'm taking, and feeling increasingly lonely about) because to sin is not to exercise freedom but to forsake it.

Strictly speaking "The ability to sin" is a meaningless phrase.

Do we know if the IFBs are Calvinist or Arminian or what?

I think we are confusing here passion in the sense of a strong feeling oriented to good which we control, and a strong feeling not oriented to anything rational that controls us. The former is virtue. The latter is passion as the biblical authors write about it.

The word “passion” started taking on positive connotation of something good in itself, even if not entirely virtuous, in Romanticism. Schiller, I believe, described Werther with great warmth and sympathy as a man in sensual love that ends up killing him. Eventually, we forgot what the original meaning is altogether. Today we have reels of Disney teenager movies and zaccharine chick flicks for the older audience that selebrate sexual attraction as the sum total of what man is. We now do not want to deprive Christ and Adam of that supposed goodness.

sensitive, empathetic, understanding

But again, these are virtues and not passions (broken record, grr, grr).

Same here.

I do not think I would not be exaggerating in the least if I said that your garden variety baptist would have a stroke if the preacher announced that they would be celebrating “Eucharist.”

“FWIW, I’ve never known a Baptist refer to the Lord’s Supper or Communion in his church as “the Eucharist.””

It means “Thanksgiving”. I like it. Phillip Schaff wrote a fair bit about the early church’s use of the Eucharist, as a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

That seems more descriptive of what we are doing than just “The Lord’s Supper”.

“I realize you ignore most of my posts”

Actually, I think you ignore most of everyone’s posts when they disagree with you. That is why, after hundreds of times, you still inaccurately assign beliefs to others that they do not hold. It is convenient, however, since strawmen are ever so much easier to defeat in battle!

“As Paul told us, all men have retained enough of the Imago Dei that they generally are able to know right from wrong. This is one facet of what some call “common grace.” It is God’s general benevolence upon the human race since He alone sustains all life. It is common, but it is not really grace since it does not save.”

Where does Paul say that a man, receiving God’s grace - which is never described as common or special - is unable to repent?

The natural man, apart from God? Absolutely. But God hasn’t left man alone. God seeks us out, and gives many good gifts to us while we are hateful rebels.

The only reason a person would claim that there are two types of grace, on which never saves and one which always saves, is to support the idea that God wants most men to go to hell, while saving a special few.

Calvin divided grace because the plain teaching of scripture didn’t support his doctrine. It is a division not found in scripture, and not consistent with what Paul actually said: “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent”

In fact, what Paul preached is worth reviewing:

“24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

26And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for “’In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “’For we are indeed his offspring.’

29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” - Acts 17

That doesn’t fit Calvin’s theology, but it IS what the Apostle Paul preached.

Free will and sin are mutually exclusive (in the stand I'm taking, and feeling increasingly lonely about) because to sin is not to exercise freedom but to forsake it.

Makes sense to me. The action of sin (murder, adultery, thievery) cannot be reversed.

Consider murder. Before the murder, any of millions of actions are possible: the two people may part ways, may resolve conflict through negotiation, may with the Holy Spirit forgive instead of being aggressive, may dilute their conflict with other loving actions, may fight and stop short of murder, etc. etc. AFTER murder, nothing can be done. A soul has left the earth, no further interaction is possible. The line of life/death has been crossed by the victim, through the agency of the murderer. So murder represents a loss of freedom of action. No further harm can be done, none can be undone, the barrier is irrevocably up.

I picked murder because it is so clear, but other sins are really the same. Adultery cannot be undone, nor stealing, nor disrespect of a parent, nor blasphemy. Sin DOES represent a loss of freedom.

That is the way I understand sin. A very great sinner who has continually flouted the commandments finds him/herself bound on all sides by the unhappy sequelae of the sins, and no freedom of action seems possible to the unrepentant. Christ enables the possibility of freedom: atonement, sorrow, restitution, acceptance of earthly punishment acknowledgment that in the future, those actions will not be taken, but other, life-giving actions will be done instead.

Christ tells us not to go there. He says, don't hate, don't hold lust in your heart, don't envy...our sin is in our nature; surrendering our nature to Him leads us into the myriad possibilities of life-giving actions, and away from life behind the barriers of our fallen nature. All sin, even private, behind-the-curtain-of-the-eyes sin, binds us.

There's a song I love, a country gospel song:

Lock me up in prison, and throw away the key, Take away the vision from these eyes that now can see Deprive me of the food I eat, even bind my hands and feet, As long as I know Jesus, then I can still go free.

Yes, I can still go free. What kind of Man, could reach down His Hand, and do this for me? So unworthy to live, and not fit to kill, But the Man on the Cross, put me in His Will, and said that I should still go free...

I know my posts must seem simplistic, uneducated. But life is lived on a very basic plane: earthly reality. We may know the catechism by heart, but without Christ (LOVE) in our small daily actions, the catechism is useless. The same with scripture. We could memorize the entire bible, and go out and steal. Theology which is not written on the heart in small words is very empty, and has no relation to God. A kind touch, an embrace, a soft smile, very basic physical things are of Him. He made us eternal souls in physical bodies, and it is in physical bodies that we play out our lives.

I had asked the question: Why do not the priests discipline the church more strictly and restrict admission to the Eucharist—my thought being to enhance the purity of the church and its witness for Jesus Christ.

Enhancing the purity of the Church is an action of the Holy Spirit, not the priest, in my opinion.