Free Republic

Careful - he was predestined to talk like that.

Eating another human being, even symbolically, is beyond mere weird to me.

Nobody if forcing Christianity on you.

Dude

Are you a teenager?

there are people who believe that since a priest mumbles some words over a cracker and a sip of wine they actually become the flesh and blood of a dead man. If they believe that’s what they’re consuming, it’s cannibalism.

Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, nor Anglican churches believe they are consuming the flesh and blood of a dead man. So, no it is not cannibalism.

Pretty much. I'm uncomfortable participating in ritualized cannibalism in any form. Therefore I don't.

That's good, since cannibalism is not. Now that it seems like I'm dealing with a non-Christian since you don't appear to take the Lord's instructions to heart, I can proceed with an answer.

It is not cannibalism. To help you understand, you'll need to do a historical word study on "accident", and "substance" as used in philosophy. The substance we believe to be His living glorified body, soul, and divinity. Communion is not partaking of a dead piece of meat.

I don’t particpate in this ritual in any form.

So, where he says "do this in memory of me" you refuse?

No, I do not.

So, when He said "this is my body" you don't take it as symbolic?

Therefore my question is still valid.

What is your answer to my question?

So you willingly engage in cannibalism?

Do you willingly engage in symbolic cannibalism?

As I tried to explain previously, neither you, nor I, nor any number of priests, gets to override what the Missal says.

And that's what this thread is about. You improvised, spunkets, and it appears you are trying to blame the Church for the problems it caused you.

What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?

and folks never did bring their own as a rule.

There is no such rule. Some people do bring them, but it is not necessary as the printed Scripture readings are provided.

No. Bibles were not used, as I pointed out

They wouldn't need to, as the printed Scripture readings are provided.

I see.

I hope so.

The Bible contains what is referred to as the Old Testamnet. The Catholic version of the O.T. doesn't agree with the O.T. held by the Jews

True, at least for the Jews after the Council of Jamnia. The fact is, Scripture itself does not specify which books belong in the Bible, and the canon is a Tradition of the Church. Who's tradition do you use?

I chose the reading.

That's unfortunate. If you had chosen one of those prescribed by the Church it would have been at hand and available for all to read along.

What was the purpose of the prepared notes you forgot?

why a Bible was not and is not normally present at a Mass so that this reading was available and at hand to be read aloud.

A Bible is normally present, but the Church provides the written Scripture readings for all. And again, the purpose of the Mass is not for Bible study as your study of the day's Scripture readings should be done before attending Mass. One of the reasons the Church provides the Scripture readings of the day through the Missal for everyone attending is because people often forgot their Bibles, just as you did.

And then you, (as has Titanites all along during this exchange) add additional insult? Where do you two get off?

There is no need to make it personal.

Through the discussions I have never denied there was a religious component to what happened. However, religion was not the primary factor. You can’t deny the role the French military played. In fact, Menéndez took advantage of Ribault being away from the French garrison at Fort Caroline to place an attack on Menéndez. Menéndez was victorious, which I’m sure irks some, and he showed mercy on the non-combatants and those who were Catholic. From the Florida Department of State:

Menéndez arrived in 1565 at a place he called San Augustín (St. Augustine) and established the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United States. He accomplished his goal of expelling the French, attacking and killing all settlers except for non-combatants and Frenchmen who professed belief in the Roman Catholic faith.

The French were threatening the shipping lanes and other interests of the Spanish and the King of Spain wanted it stopped. In your first post to me on this thread you started throwing around the word slander because I mentioned pirates from Fort Caroline. I’ve already shown you from one of your own preferred sources that soldiers from Fort Caroline were pirates who attacked Spanish vessels in the Caribbean.

Once again, as I’ve stated numerous times previously, I don’t deny there was a religious component involved. The Catholics thought the Huguenots were heretics. Do you not think the Huguenots thought the Catholics were heretics? I do deny that religion was the primary factor for why the King wanted the French removed from Florida. And the evidence I’ve posted supports that. To spin this as a Catholic massacre against humble Huguenots simply building a church in Florida is misleading, at best. All I’ve been doing is refuting this deception. I can’t help it if that messes with your preconceived ideas.

I was to do a reading during a Mass once and forgot my prepared notes.

Which of the 3 Scripture readings were you doing? You don't need prepared notes unless you're doing the homily.

I wasn't worried about it, because I figured they had a Bible there I could read from. I was wrong; there was no Bible.

Why would there need to be a full Bible there for you to use, when the Scripture for that day is provided? You do know that the Mass is not a Bible study session, and that you should do your study of the day's readings in the context of the full Bible before you go to Mass, don't you? The Mass is a celebration of the Eucharist and Bible study is held separately.

Hey! Hold on there a second buddy.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm your buddy.

Those statements which you are trying to characterize as what I offered as "history", were in answer to a question YOU asked

Some people just can't help themselves when asked rhetorical questions.

I never said that they were, yet even with only grabbing from that convenient source, it's far better than than what you yourself bring in establishing points key to your "version of truth" which is by and large sophistry and opinion, backed by wind.

It's not my "version of the turth". I avoid using Wikipedia as a source of history. However, this "wind" is from your "convenient source" which you have proclaimed as far better than what I've used:

In the meantime, the Spanish, who had long maintained a claim over Florida, had made preparations to find and oust the French from Fort Caroline. In early September Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, newly appointed adelantado of Florida, landed to the south of Fort Caroline and established the settlement of St. Augustine.

Jean Ribault took his fleet south to pursue Menéndez on September 10. Learning that the majority of the French men at arms were gone from Fort Caroline, Menéndez ordered his infantrymen to march 40 miles north to Fort Caroline, during a hurricane. On 20 September, the Spanish captured the now lightly defended French settlement; 140 men were immediately put to death. In the eyes of the king of Spain, the acts of piracy committed by former residents of Fort Caroline made the entire settlement a dangerous nest of pirates and heretics.

The Facts:

1. France and Spain were at war.

2. Spanish ships and settlements in the area were being plundered by pirates, at least some of which were Huguenots.

3. Florida was a territory claimed by Spain.

4. French Huguenots built a garrison in Florida.

5. At least some of these Frenchmen were known to be pirates.

6. The Spanish King charged Menéndez with removing the French garrison.

7. The Spanish were victorious over the French. Menéndez was successful in his mission and the French never returned to build another fort.

8. The story that this was simply a Catholic massacre of humble Huguenots only trying to practice their faith is a fairy tale.

Truth: Spanish King eliminates French garrison is Spanish claimed territory of Florida to protect shipping lanes and interests.

Liberal Headline: Catholics massacre Huguenots building a church in Florida.

Not exactly, according to all historical accounts.

Wikipedia is hardly "all historical accounts".

Hard to say, but it would not have been as damaging if he had stuck to the "here be pirates" thesis you openly prefer, rather than the "here be heretics" declaration which he brazenly did. His doing so lends more credence to the thing being one of religion & empire, rather than a just policing of criminal matters.

I don't openly prefer anything but the truth. That they were Huguenots is secondary. Spain was at war with France, and their shipping lanes were being pirated by the French. To help resolve this matter, the King sent Menendez to clear them from Florida not simply because they were Huguenots, but to protect his interests.

Who knows? Without this additional act of hatred, more fuel for the fire of religious/political power struggles, perhaps even the later St. Batholomew's Day Massacre itself could have been avoided?

That is pure speculation that is very improbable. The Huguenots turning against the French Monarchy, the invasion of a Huguenot army into Hainault, and the attempted assassination of Coligny all led up to the massacre.

I guess she wanted to cover a few people's tracks, eh?

On a more practical note perhaps, if the slaughter had not had such fiercely religious overtones, then the later mistrust of Catholics in the developing New World colonies would have had one less bloody massacre, historical "incident" to serve as cause for such mistrust, which only later and slowly were overcome.

Rumors and silly theories don't make for accurate history.

there are strong hints in the information we have both viewed, that that too very likely occurred.

They aren't that strong. But even if it were true, it would just be a side story that Protestants would squeeze for all its worth. We know the reason Menendez was sent by the King to clear them from Florida was because they were French interlopers threatening the shipping lanes. Not because they were Huguenots.