The Catholic Message Board

The Orans Posture and Communion Standing
Page 3 of 3

Author:  faithfulservant [ Thu Aug 25, 2005 9:58 am ]
Post subject: 

Sherry wrote:
It's okay, faithfulservant. I'll just keep plodding along. I think I know what you would say, though. I think you would say the Eucharist has to be blessed by a priest in order to become the Real Presence, and if it's offered by any other than a real priest, then it wouldn't be "authentic." Right?
CatholicDefender did good to give me the patron saint of opposition to church authority! I am indeed having a huge amount of trouble with that.

well, i would certainly hope this patron saint would be one to remove opposition to Church authority :P that is ultimately what it boils down to sherry... either the Church is indeed the Church Jesus gave all authority to, and is therefore the One, True Church and all that it teaches is true or it is not and we are all bread worshiping pagans

well, the Eucharist is not "blessed" by a priest... the bread and wine are consecrated by the priest , and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine become substantially the Body and Blood of our Lord... and yes, you must have been ordained with valid Holy Orders in order for this to be even remotely possible

but as soon as i get back from my errand running, i'm gonna at least try to take a stab at your previous comments...or at least my best perception of what you are asking

Author:  St Anthony of the Desert [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:25 pm ]
Post subject: 


It's a matter of having had the fullness of the truth (the Catholic Church, which Christ Himself established) and leaving that. A Protestant who has never held the fullness of truth and worships God as best they know how is not morally culpable for turning their back on something they never had. But a Catholic, who, having held the fullness of the truth, having received Christ every time they went to Mass, to turn their back on that knowingly and deliberately IS morally culpable. To know that they are disboeying Christ.
Look at it this way. A pygmy who has never who heard of Christ, somewhere in deepest darkest Africa in the middle of the 8th century is not morally culpable for not having become a Christian. He's never heard of Christ. He has never known the fullness of the truth. And here, the Church teaches, is where the loving mercy of God kicks in. BUT. If there is someone who has been taught about Christ, the Truth and has been a Christian, suddenly decides to reject the truth and become a Buddhist or something, then they ARE morally culpable. With the truth comes responsiblity. Big time. As Catholics, we have the fullness or truth. But also have the responsibilities that come with it. Nobody ever said it was meant to be easy. "Blessed are you when men abuse you, and persecute you for my sake."
If you stand up for what is right in your parish, Marie, maybe not a single person will accept it. Maybe you'll be criticised. But God will know. He will reward you, and that's even better. "Great is your reward in Heaven."
And for what it's worth, you'd have my respect and prayers.

Author:  MoreistCarmelite [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

Any person who would leave the Catholic Church is misguided and wrong, utterly. But what if they still love Jesus with all their heart? What if they have not, truly, received the Full Truth? I personally will say I do not believe I, as a Catholic, have received the Full Truth; I do not mean our Church is not endowed with it, but that I, as an imperfect human, have in some cases misunderstood it, and in some cases, have never learnt it - for if the Full Truth consists of every Papal Encyclical (ie, the only writing that can be certainly classed as Spirit-inspired outside of Scripture), then I do not know the Full Truth.

What if I love Jesus with all my heart, I believe in all the Sacraments, I believe in the Immaculacy and the Assumption, but cannot see the evidence for Pontifical infallibility? Even if the Popes are the Chief Vicars (note, though, this particular issue is no problem for me, I use it as an example), they are human. It is only tradition that dictates they are infallible. Let us not deny that Popes of the past have committed things they must have known were wrong. Let it not be said the church around the period of the Reformation was entirely pure of corruption. Read the 'Pardoner's Tale' for a literary example of early 2nd millenium corruption, as approved by Rome.

So, this believer, devout and pious, albeit misguided, cannot accept the authority of the Pope, so joins the Anglican congregation. Or perhaps he follows early Lutheran doctrine, with a heavy regard for Mary.

Is this man damned for this action, when logic dictates he has not known the Full Truth? Of course he may, if Thomas and Dante be right, reside in Purgatory for some while, but I do not believe he would be damned.

Author:  MoreistCarmelite [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

In addition, let us recall that we know not the mind of God, and let us not take out of context writings of a time when the "heresies" faced were real heresies, Docetist and Gnostic heresies, heresies which denied the central tenets of Christianity, as dictated by Scripture, even before we take into account the Father's teachings.

What of Brother Roger? Will he descend into hell for his ecumenical standing? What of the Good Samaritan? Other Jews converted; he did not, but he did good in the sight of the Lord. Will he descend into hell for his doubt?

Author:  mrsmary72 [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

The pope (as a man) is not infallible. The Church teaches that a pope on specific occasions can teach infallibly. I don't have any info in front of me, and I am not well versed on the topic, so maybe someone can help me out, but I believe this has happened very rarely in our Church's history. John Paul II went to confession at least once a week. I'm thinking that wouldn't be very necessary if he was infallible.

I don't think anyone goes to Hell for doubt in itself. I've doubted (or questioned) my faith often throughout my life. It has challenged me to study my faith, and my faith has grown deeper because of this. There has been a lot that I haven't understood in our Catholic faith. But, I accepted all of It's teachings, because I know It to have the fullness of Truth. Understanding it is my challenge and responsibility.

Author:  MoreistCarmelite [ Fri Aug 26, 2005 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

Mary, your levity is appreciated. But the amount of "informed" people I meet who would damn people for not recognizing the "perpetually infallible" (actual quote) Pope, whilst ignoring such encyclicals and catechismic elements as offend their conservative viewpoint...

Author:  St Anthony of the Desert [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:18 am ]
Post subject: 

The Pope can only invoke his charism of infallibily on 3 conditions:

1) It must be a matter of faith and morals
2) Speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra)
3) what he says is binding upon the whole church.

The Pope the man is not infallible- he can stuff up as much as yours truly. But the OFFICE is infallbile.

You may care to read to story of Pope Vigilius, the monophysite deacon who killed another pope to be pope, wanted to lift the excommunication on monophysite patriarchs, accepted a bribe to do so from empress theodora if she got him elected Pope, and see what happened to his perspective. Once he became Pope, boy did he change his mind. Was imprisoned for it too.
You're better off reading it though- very cool stuff.
My point is, the Pope cannot, as the sucessor of Peter, and leader of the church down here, err in his teaching. Because it is NOT the man teaching. It is God though him. God instuted the church and the papacy. He entrusted the church with the sacraments. Any probs with that, you want to take it up with God. He decided it, He chose.

And for the record, the Pope SHOULD go to confession. He is a man after all. He can sin like anyone else. It is only in his teaching as Pope and leader of the Church that he is infallible. Because his OFFICE is. HE isn't.

Hence, the dogmas of the Church are infallible. The pope saying that blue is the best colour in the world is not infallible. You accept Church Dogma, you accept papal infallibility. Easy.

Author:  GAB [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:18 am ]
Post subject: 

mrsmary72 wrote:
The pope (as a man) is not infallible. The Church teaches that a pope on specific occasions can teach infallibly. I don't have any info in front of me, and I am not well versed on the topic, so maybe someone can help me out, but I believe this has happened very rarely in our Church's history. John Paul II went to confession at least once a week. I'm thinking that wouldn't be very necessary if he was infallible.

Infallibility is NOT impeccability. This is the same mistake so many of my Protestant family make. Impeccability is an inability to sin. That is NOT what the Pope has. What he has is infallibility- that is, a divinely given inability to teach heresy as truth. Big difference.

Author:  xalterboy [ Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

Why does it seem so difficult for the Church, the Vatican, to issue a single instruction that clearly denotes postures and actions during the Mass??

I absolutely hate hand-holding during the Our Father never mind hugging!

It's clear from this thread that even the most serious, reverent catholics have no clue what is proper. I was taught to kneel until the Eucharist is reposed after communion but our choir leader tells us to sit and sing well before that and the priests have not contradicted her so I'm confused. I'll continue to show respect to God as I was taught.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group