abe smith

... celebrating his somethingth anny in office; article in this day's Boston Globe "good" Friday.
If it was not obvious before, it izz obvious now: that foolish old human being thinks he OWNS "god" and that he himself is authorized to restrict access to "Him"(sic) and that "the Eucharist" belongs to himself. Obviously there's nothing to expostulate about to a man who thinks as he thinks. The choice, for those who profess to share in his sect, or "all those who profess & call themselves Christians", is to pretend he(the Pope) is not there at all; and to GO AROUND him... what, indeed
, most catholics appear to do anyway. (As about contraception, abortion, divorce, communion after divorce, and remarriage after divorce.) Of course, the real fact is that anyone who believes in that stuff, and who needs to have "the Eucharist", can always MAKE IT THEMSELVES; and screw you-all dog-in-the-manger "god"-withholders.
Can you imagine how it must feel to faithful & true Catholics, to consecrate the Sacrament themselves? Hey, what the man said. The Priesthood may just end -up bullying themselves out of a job, altogether.

ExTheist

The pope has said that divorced catholics who remarry are living in sin and cannot have communion. I wonder how this applies to priests who live in sin? If a given priest was involved in molesting children and at the same time was changing wine and bread into the body and blood of Jebus is this not a sin? Did god allow this molester to conjure up his son's body knowing what the priest had done?

abe smith

...... why the inherent paradoxes of AllThatStuff = RomanCatholic beliefs, make them indefensible. And even Thomas Aquinas did admit that some beliefs are (indefensible) =
"mysteries", not available to human reasoning.

The specific matter, of whether a priest in the state of mortal sin
can *validly* consecrate the (material) elements to effect the "making" of the Sacrament , (This is not my *opinion*.)
has been dealt with; and there is clear dogma about it. I forget the specific Latin phrase(s) about that : something like "ex opere operato" or so; and the meaning is that, as long as the priest doing the action INTENDS to do what "the Church" intends, his action is valid and the Sacrament is "real" regardless of his own soul's state.
You can see why "the Church" has to say this; otherwise the person receiving the sacrament(s) would never be able to be certain whether (s)he had really received it , or not. You can look this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia; I'm not sure what subject heading. Or if you can find a local Jesuit, or possibly another Order priest, he could probably explain this. Altho you may not LIKE it.; or BELIEVE in it. Do we have an SJ lurker here at EyeEye who will answer?
'

sullster

You can't eat a flat piece of bread because you left a bad marriage. What a vindictive religion.

You must sit quietly, while others go forward for their flat peices of bread and suffer the knowing looks of shame given to you for your horrible "sin".

Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer people attend masses? Pedophile priests always get their wafers but the divorced must pay the price.

What a vindictive religion.

the_cave

Well, first of all, many marriages are annullable.

Secondly, there shouldn't be _any_ shame in not receiving; and those Catholics who administer shame to those who do not receive should themselves be ashamed; it is a wholly uncharitable, and indeed entirely unChristian and unCatholic attitude. I daresay it is itself sinful. Hah.

Indeed, any such attitude is quite recent it seems to me, as the common weekly reception of the eucharist by the laity really dates only to the beginning of the 20th century, promulgated by Pius X. Before that, it was no shame at all to go a whole year, even longer, without receiving. But popular movements do behave like popular movements, even when it comes to religion, and so we have the current state of affairs.

But I do support the criticism of those hypocritical members of the hierarchy who seem easily willing to forgive (indeed, to overlook entirely) the (often quite harmful) sins of their ministers, but not the "sins" of their followers. But even if widespread, such behavior is not doctrinal. The whole situation is still a problem all around for Catholics, but it's important to maintain a distinction between religious teachings, and the manner of putting such teachings into practice. Even if the teachings aren't changed, they can be expressed in a far less "vindictive" manner.

Ab_Normal

I very carefully did NOT discuss this with my mother when I saw her today. She was married in the Church in the 50's to a man who abused her; she got a divorce within a year, but the Church refused to annul her marriange. She later married my father (a non-Catholic) and had a long and happy marriage. All of her children were baptised, raised Catholic, and went to church schools. According to the Pope, she was wrong to take communion this entire time; if I understand church law correctly, I don't even think we (the products of a second marriage) were supposed to be baptised. Thus dooming us to hell, in their twisted scheme of things.

I honestly can't understand why she remains Catholic. :banghead: