Free Republic

At most Masses, it is the norm for people to be able to receive from the chalice if they choose to do so.

Of course, sometimes it's not possible. If you go to a Mass with 500 other people, it can be a challenge to give everyone Communion in both ways.

I remember a document out of the Vatican which encouraged the practice of receiving from the chalice because it was "a fuller sign."

It's encouraged, but not necessary to receive both. I personally very rarely do. The idea is that the separation of Jesus' Body from His Blood is a "sign," not an actual splitting apart of His Blood from His Body ...

So, from the Catholic point of view, if I receive just the consecrated Host, I get all of Jesus, including His Blood. When Jesus commands us to eat His Body and His Blood, I obey even when I receive Communion just under the form of bread, because while it's a "sign" only of His Body, it really contains all of Him.

That's the Catholic point of view. There is some precedence for receiving Communion in only one form ... the first Christians typically received both ways, bot when they took Communion to the sick people, it was only under the form of bread ...

So, at a Catholic mass, the cup is taken by all persons receiving communion ?

At my parish, anyone who wants to receive from the chalice gets in that line. Some do, some don't. It's up to the individual.

Okay ... let me try to decipher this ... my last sentence accused me of something I accused you of. What? Besides the syntax making no sense, and I have no idea what you're talking about. This is my last sentence:

But this is not some liberal conspiracy to affront the Bishops or toss it in the face of pro-lifers.


So ... what? What did I accuse me of?

I'm sorry since I obviously ... insulted you somehow. Sorry you're upset and you're feelings are hurt. But as far as I can see, you're the one whose calling names here. "Gay" and "hypocrite" so far.

I'm surprised you feel competent to judge Fr. Jenkin's motives, intention or culpability. I personally leave that kind of business up to God.

I'm not sure this qualifies as someone turning against "everything" that the Church stands for ... the "always" part of your statement is a gross stereotype, I think.

This was a stupid thing that they did. A huge mistake. But this is not some liberal conspiracy to affront the Bishops or toss it in the face of pro-lifers.

A lot of authentic Catholic things go on at Notre Dame. From the annual Eucharistic Procession a couple years ago:

Eh, I don't think my brother going there has much effect on my opinion of this. He has no religion himself.

The reason Fr. Jenkins went to ridiculous lengths to justify the decision is because he doesn't want to look bad. That's what a lot of people do when they are publicly embarrassed or ashamed. So I guess that means Fr. Jenkins (not the University) is not authentically Catholic (although that means that I'm not either, since I've done similar in times past.)

After the Motu Proprio, ND was among the first to respond: the Holy Cross priests now offer the Extraordianry form every week. The law school was recently finished; it has a beautiful, traditional chapel built into it. Yesterday at Notre Dame, they held the annual Eucharistic procession.

The University is Our Lady's University. It belongs to her.

Why are you putting "Fr" in quotes? Pretty sure he's validly ordained. Do you go around accusing people you don't like of being gay? Lame.

This is a stupid custom that Notre Dame has. They sort of automatically invite newly elected presidents to give the speech at that year's commencement.

It was profoundly dumb of them to just blindly follow this tradition and do it again this year. But that's all it was. Nothing was going on in Fr. Jenkins mind. That's the problem, actually. His brain was on auto pilot.

So now there's a stink, and I doubt ND will be so casual about this in the future. My brother is going there this Fall, and believe you me, they spent $$$$ pushing themselves as a school with an authentic Catholic identity.

I will always be proud of Notre Dame. It belongs to Our Lady, not the people who run it for any length of time.

How utterly lame.

Although I have this pinch of "sorry" for them; it's the feeling I get when someone makes a fool of themselves and they are oblivious to it.

The Vatican has a long standing tradition of engagement. Even if Nancy was a blood thirsty dictator, I doubt she’d be turned away if she came to the door.

Diplomatic isolation/embargo is just something they don’t do. Politicians who want to meet with the Pope for publicity usually get more than they bargain for, however.

no i agree with you. the way you said it made me laugh.

rotfl

Parthenogenesis is a form of reproduction in which an embryo is conceived and develops in a female without male fertilization.

It has been observed naturally occurring in reptiles, birds, other species.

It has never been reported naturally occurring in a mammal, let alone a human.

But it is theoretically possible. And it is not at all illogical or irrational to believe that the virgin birth did happen as the Gospels report.

In my personal experience, Dreadlocks Santa accurately represents the Weirdness Factor of these people.

And like I said, we have a third part of the Trinity 24/7 while you say you have a third part of the Trinity for about 20 minutes on Mass day...

Nope. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a Catholic teaching. I guess it's one Martin Luther decided to keep in the grocery cart. Although I have heard some kinds of Protestants criticize the concept as a "new age thing."


From the Catechism:

2781 [...] We give Him thanks for having revealed His name to us, for the gift of believing in it, and for the indwelling of His Presence in us.

So, you qoute 1Peter3:16 .... I guess your point is that Protestants qualify as learned, and therefor can understand.

But everybody else (the vast majority of Christians) is unlearned and unstable, and therefore can't read Scripture right ...

Wow.

How about some humble pie for Thanksgiving?

The Apostles communicated the Truth orally, without error, long before they wrote any of it down, and the vast majority of Christians do believe that God continues to preserve oral teaching without error as He did the Scriptures ...

But my understanding is that Modern Protestants do not believe God did this ... (does He does not have the power, or for some reason He chooses not to?)

I think it's interesting that you reference the "spoken word of God," but you also seem to think that men have the power corrupt it.

If I was a Lutheran, I would not know what to do. Which Lutheran church should I belong to? There are at least a dozen (in America alone) and they have different teachings about Scripture and the life God demands of us. Maybe they all agree on the justification thing .. but there's way more to Christianity than that.

The Missouri Synod says homosexuality is gravely sinful ... are they right? Or is it okay to be gay and join the ECLA?

Division and confusion. Thanks Luther. You're the best.

Apostolic Lutheran Church of America
Association of Free Lutheran Congregations
Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America
Church of the Lutheran Confession
Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference
Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran
Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America
Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod
Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ
Lutheran Evangelical Protestant Church
Lutheran Ministerium and Synod
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Today at Mass we celebrated Priesthood Sunday. Ironic, isn’t it.

I have a lot of respect for the Bible. I believe it is inerrant, the holy word of God.

No amount of scholarly research or analysis of ancient texts can "prove" this to me, or anybody else. It is highly unlikely that any document would be completely preserved. From a human point of view, I would almost say it would be impossible. But I believe the Bible was preserved, because God preserved it. He can do highly unlikely, even impossible things. It's a matter of faith.

As far as oral tradition goes, it is the same difference to me. From a human point of view, of course, the chances of teaching being correctly passed down through word of mouth through 2000 years are slim to none. But from a divine point of view ... its not hard at all to do. And I don't know why God wouldn't have done it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with 'hearing' the word of God...In non-Catholic churches you 'hear' the word of God all day long...

When I say spoken teaching, I don't mean people reading the Bible out loud. I mean stuff that wasn't written down in it, e.g. the things Jesus did that couldn't be written down because there wouldn't be enough room in the world to hold all the books.

P.S. In Catholic Churches, there's a reading from the Old Testament, a Psalm, a reading from the New Testament (Paul, Peter, James, etc.) and then a reading from one of the four Gospels. It's called the Liturgy of the Word. Happens at every Mass.

P.P.S. I honestly don't get it. I really, truly don't. Gutenberg happend half-way through the last 2000 years. Even today there are A LOT of people who can not read. Why God would choose the written word to be the ONLY means of accurately transmitting the faith through time is beyond me.