Posted on 08/31/2006 8:24:33 AM PDT by NYer
Just trying to figure out when ALL Christians were simply Catholic ~
Once again for everyone:
The priest is the ONLY Eucharistic minister at the Mass!!!!!
Did you folks notice how Clinton compromised by not demanding the wine.
You are absolutely right!
He condemned proposed legislation backed by Catholic mayor Rudolph Giuliani that would grant homosexuals, lesbians, and unmarried couples the same legal rights as married couples. In a homily at St. Patrick’s he proclaimed that "It is imperative that no law be passed contrary to natural moral law and Western tradition by virtually legislating that marriage does not matter." Likewise, he opposed Mayor Ed Koch’s executive order requiring all social service agencies, including those run by the Church, to provide equal services to homosexuals. The cardinal refused on the grounds that it would make the Church appear to be sanctioning homosexual practices and lifestyle. He also prohibited a pro-homosexual group from meeting in New York parishes, while at the same time celebrating Mass with Father John Harvey’s Courage, a ministry to homosexual men and women who seek to live by the Church’s teachings on human sexuality.
For this and other statements and actions he was not endeared to the New York gay and lesbian population. In fact, they turned out to be the cardinal’s most bitter enemies. In 1989, for instance, homosexual activists chained themselves to pews during a Mass at St. Patrick’s, throwing condoms at the cardinal during the consecration. Thereafter, the gays and lesbians hi-jacked the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade and hurled blasphemous insults while passing by the cathedral, where Cardinal O’Connor watched the parade year after year. Meanwhile the cardinal was opening houses for AIDS patients and making unannounced visits to Catholic hospitals where he ministered to AIDS patients, most of them homosexuals. In fact, USA Today once reported that he "washed the hair and emptied bedpans of dying AIDS patients, some too sick to know who he was."
Precisely! (I wasn't quite sure how to phrase that but you succeeded :-). Thank you!
I remember during the funeral saying to my mom, Cardinal O'Connor had to be dead for Clinton to get into St Patricks
Or, the other way around to get both of them there eh! (wink, wink).
There are reasons that will allow a priest to give communion to a non-Catholic. I don't know the details, but I know they exist. John Paul II gave the Eucharist to Tony Blair, who is not Catholic. I think he even wrote an encyclical about the ecumenical administering of the Eucharist to non-Catholics.
You wrote: " I much better like the remarks of a truly pastoral priest who before communion said words to the effect." 'Catholics believe that Holy Communion is what Jesus said it was - His body and blood , really and not symbolically. If you share that belief you are most welcome to receive, if you find this difficult to accept, honesty might suggest you not approach the table at this time but join in a prayful mood in your pew '
What you call a truly pastoral priest, Catholics who know their faith call a heretic. Communion is not a feel good, get together with the neighbors kafee klatch. To Catholics it is the receiving of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To reduce it to anything less is an insult to the very Person of Christ.
The priest might have meant well but he was in grave error.
Even though others present might believe in the real presence there is no general allowance for them to recieve the Eucharist in a Catholic Church. There may under canon law be specific occasions but I would have to research such exceptions from the norm.
LOL. The better for thunking the Clintons of the world over the head with. I am quite sure that most Southern Baptists who truly practice and live their faith would not receive communion in a Catholic Church. I have the greatest respect for those who acknowledge differences and still can agree on certain matters.
But if someone says they are Baptist and they receive communion a light goes off. Either they do not truly know and/or practice their faith. Or they think communion in the Catholic church holds no special meaning and rules regarding its reception can be flouted.
Sounds like someone who goes through the motions but does not have any actual faith.
Having just become an Anglican, I beg to differ with points of your post. The Church I attend does not disagree with every single thing you believe, not in the least.
I would not be insulted to not have Holy Communion in your Church. I would not even think to go up there to do it, as I do not believe in Transubstantiation. ( at least as far as my tiny brain can understand it! ) But I don't get upset that you do okay?
I respect your beliefs, and hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
I would not be insulted to not have Holy Communion in your Church. I would not even think to go up there to do it, as I do not believe in Transubstantiation. ( at least as far as my tiny brain can understand it! ) But I don't get upset that you do okay? I respect your beliefs, and hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
Don't know what the problem is. It seems we are in violent agreement with one another. We have theological differences which keep us from Communion. My response was to someone who was telling us that people are insulted when they can't take Communion.
Actually, that isn't right either. There was no such thing as the Catholic church in the 1st Century. The Catholic church, just like all denominations, is a man-made institution.
Not entirely true...both low and high church Episcopalians are taught the the Holy Sprit is present during the Eucharist (but you are correct that many believe that "present" does not mean literally in substance with the Host or the Chalice)
...beg your pardon, but you may want to re-study the history of the church during the first 500 years of its being.
In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most Christians, the Christian Church is described as being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." These are known as the four marks of the Church.
"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).
The church of Christ was founded by Christ. The doctrine of the church is based on the teachings of Christ and His Apostles. In the sense that "catholic" means universal, I don't disagree. There is one church, founded by Christ, and it's only head is Christ. That is the church that God added me to on the day I obeyed the Gospel.
The Nicene Creed was written in the Fourth Century, not the First.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.