/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>742986

>chewing gum while receiving the Host

On what planet do people think this is acceptable?

The priest acted a bit too forcefully (particularly by announcing to the congregation about it), but he was in the right.

I bet they were boomers, too.

>>742993

It's quite strange isn't it?

>>742993

>>spit in my hand to not dishonor my god, who I think is bread

i love how you can't tell between protestant arguments and atheist ones. this is the exact same thing an atheist would say

>>742993

I honestly have no idea what you're on about.

>>743017

Funnily enough, if he didn't try to tie all those facts together, they would all be completely accurate.

>>743043

what

>>743062

normies don't understand the difference. they think its all just different brands of the same thing, like going to mcdonalds vs burgerking.

>>743068

I'm not a fan of the practice, at all, but the idea that the 99% of true christians who do so now as an institutional practice "have no respect for God," particularly the priest you are slandering, is insultingly absurd.

>>743068

>Communion in the hand didn't even exist prior to Vatican II

Can you show me in scripture where Christ gave of his flesh into the mouths of the apostles?

>>743077

>98% (actual statistic) of Catholic women use birth control

sauce me that blackpill pls

>>743077

So are you that "I'm the only true catholic" guy then? Or was he too proud for you? I don't want to be sardonic about this but when a layman is accusing a priest of "power tripping" because he is enforcing proper procedure for a sacrament then I honestly can't think of any other way to respond. The procedure of taking communion in the hand has been approved by the Holy See; so unless you are proud enough think you are above them then for your own good you had better consider what risk you are running for slandering a clergyman.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

>>743090

Stereotypes exists for a reason. The biggest Church will attract the most lukewarms.

>>743086

>The post-VII Holy See has also claimed that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved and ordered Catholics to not try to convert Jews. God isn't going to accept the "I was just taking orders" excuse when he demands an account of your life after you die.

You haven't actually explained why handling the host with one's hands, something the priests also do, is innately disrespectful beyond a general appeal to sacred tradition. Now don't get me wrong, sacred tradition is the third pilliar of the faith for a reason, but when people get unduly heated over issues of ceremony, even when regarding vital issues such as the sacraments, I feel the need to point out that the absolute low point of the papacy, the cadaver synod, was called because one pope accused his predecessor of changing diocese, which was considered immoral by sacred tradition. Sacred tradition is vital, but we need to recognize that it is not a matter set in stone and that those who do no follow every minor element of it, especially if they grew up with a different policy as the approved norm for catholics, somehow not catholic or worse "have no respect for God." Now this is not to say that respect for the Lord's body is not equal to the necessity of converting sinners such as Jews; both are of grave importance, but I simply see no reason why simply holding God's body in one's hands is an innate sign of disrespect if Jesus is humble enough to become man and become food for us.

>The power-tripping bit was when he shamed them from the pulpit, not when he denied them communion.

The facts that we are presented are that the priest told his congregation about these offences, and that, according to the woman, he was very rude about it. It is a subjective report, but the priest does not look good in this position. This is no cause to accuse the priest, behind his back, of taking some perverse joy in shaming his congregants. You do not know that because you cannot know that from this information, and as such it is slander and a mortal sin.

>>743102

>This privilege is reserved for the ordained alone.

Not according to the Holy See. If you want to post a segment of a dogmatic council for empirical arguments or the writings of the fathers for some rock solid subjective ones, then I'd be glad, but otherwise your position actively contradicts that of the Church in these circumstances.

>people like you are the reason so many priests and bishops got away with raping children and seminarians over the last 50 years, and predators are going to keep flocking to the priesthood as long as there are dumb saps like you will find any excuse to defend any action.

I'm quite frankly not sure how agreeing with the woman that the action was rude constitutes a defense. I'll defend him when others accuse him of "having no respect for God," but quite frankly I shouldn't have to. Perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't take objection to you accusing him of "power tripping" for his sake, I do so for yours. I chastize you because I love you; quite frankly I'm a little ashamed of how forced it feels to type that, but that dosen't matter. I don't like it when I see tradcat's disdain for modern clerical abuses leads them to just resent the clergy in general. I simply advise you to pray for this priest, and seriously consider how little you know of this incedent and why you are making these conclusions about him that nobody else in the thread has made.

But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

>>743113

I can accept that this is a very strong basis in sacred tradition, particularly from such an early Pope and from St. Aquinas, but I'm quite frankly not sure why you quote Trent here when it seems to mention everything about the sacrament BUT the matter of the laity handling the host. As stated before, I do not approve of the practice at all. Nonetheless, I still don't see this as an excuse to accuse a man who has consecrated himself to God as having no respect for God whatsoever when the tradition is only that, a tradition, and not a matter of immutable dogma.

>Holy See which heretically claims Jews are saved without Christ over the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas?

The same Holy See that not 3 years ago put forth the document "THE GIFTS AND THE CALLING

OF GOD ARE IRREVOCABLE", commenting on Nostra Aetate and explicitly stating that, quote:

>35. Since God has never revoked his covenant with his people Israel, there cannot be different paths or approaches to God’s salvation. The theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith. Confessing the universal and therefore also exclusive mediation of salvation through Jesus Christ belongs to the core of Christian faith. So too does the confession of the one God, the God of Israel, who through his revelation in Jesus Christ has become totally manifest as the God of all peoples, insofar as in him the promise has been fulfilled that all peoples will pray to the God of Israel as the one God (cf. Is 56:1-8). The document "Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church" published by the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews in 1985 therefore maintained that the Church and Judaism cannot be represented as "two parallel ways to salvation", but that the Church must "witness to Christ as the Redeemer for all" (No.I, 7). The Christian faith confesses that God wants to lead all people to salvation, that Jesus Christ is the universal mediator of salvation, and that there is no "other name under heaven given to the human race by which we are to be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Seriously, that meme needs to die a hard and cold death.

I'm not quite sure if that goes against Catholic teachings or not, but good on him. Those women deserved to be put in their place after showing such blatant disrespect towards the Church. No better than the money lenders.

>>743086

>The post-VII Holy See has also claimed that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved and ordered Catholics to not try to convert Jews

Really? I believe you and all, but that sounds like some sort of feel-good tripe Baby Boomers came up with. I was wondering why so few Christians evangelize Jews... I guess trying to save them is anti-Semitic.

>>743124

It literally just isn't true, and read my above post to show why. The Church has been bending over backwards in recent years to set the record straight that modernists have made crooked with whacked out interpretations of VII, but absolutely nobody, even tradcats, seems to give a pooh. It's a false assumption about our leadership that some, not most, but some of us just refuse corrected on.

>>743043

This.

Communion in the hand is an abomination and sacrilege.

>>743121

Sacred tradition is immutable and dogma even if it hasn't been solemnly defined as such yet. Anyway sacrilege falls in the realms of morality. The Papacy has no authority to change sacred tradition as divine revelation is immutable and ended with the apostles

>>743146

To copy paste from an above post, I feel the need to point out that the absolute low point of the papacy, the cadaver synod, was called because one pope accused his predecessor of changing diocese, which was considered immoral by sacred tradition at the time. So no, sacred tradition is not immutable; or, to be much more precise, there is no proper canon of what actually constitutes sacred tradition. I am under no illusions that this new practice is a good change, but I also do not belive that 99% of the faithful are damning themselves purely because one part of their body touches our Lord's and not the other.

>>743162

The Jews DID have a part in Salvation. They no longer do.

The Catholic Church, the True Church, is the new Israel.

>he theory that there may be two different paths to salvation, the Jewish path without Christ and the path with the Christ, whom Christians believe is Jesus of Nazareth, would in fact endanger the foundations of Christian faith

This sentence sets refutes both dual covenant-ism and you.

To be frank, the Church SHOULD deny anti-semitism, because it is not a theological denial, but an ethnic one. I mean, Jesus Christ, and all his Apostles were 100% semitic. Right, friend?

>says Catholics should not convert Jews.

the article didn't even say that, it said:

>The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelization (spreading Christianity) to Jews, who believe in the one God, in a different manner from that to people of other religions and world views

I'm not a fan of the Church sucking up to the Jews either, but you shouldn't make claims you cannot back up.

>>743162

I have explicitly quoted a segment that says that there is no name under which any can be saved but Christ's, and one segment under says, quote;

>While there is a principled rejection of an institutional Jewish mission, Christians are nonetheless called to bear witness to their faith in Jesus Christ also to Jews, although they should do so in a humble and sensitive manner, acknowledging that Jews are bearers of God’s Word, and particularly in view of the great tragedy of the Shoah.

Why are you trusting Reuters to tell you what the Holy See thinks over the Holy See, in response to the literal words of the Holy See refuting a point that you proceed to reassert. These are the kinds of distorted picture's of Church teachings that lead to apostasy so for the love of God do not do the enemy's work in spreading them.

>>743176

>THEY REJECT ANY KIND OF MISSION TOWARDS THE JEWS. THE VATICAN DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY EFFORTS TO CONVERT JEWS.

"specific institutional mission work". This means, that any individual Priest or Layman can work to convert any Jew on an interpersonal level, but that the Church Herself is not making any effort (institutionally, this means dioceses and parishes are not supported any mass conversion program) to convert the Jews.

OK? The Church doesn't have dioceses or parishes target muslims, or hindus, or shintoists either.

>then they contradict themselves, then they say the reason these two contradictory things are simultaneously true is a "divine mystery" and then say that in any case the Jews will not be evangelized.

To reject the dual-covenant theory and to proclaim that they will not evangelize Jews is not contradictory. I'm not sure why you believe this is so.

>Guess what, the Vatican explicitly rejects this claim now too.

Prove it. The specific term is supersessionism, and despite the efforts of the German Bishops (Walter Kaspar), it is still an inalienable part of the Tradition. You seem quick to abandon the Church over the errors of Bishops, but you should brush up on your Church History and find out that the Church has always had to deal with wolves among the flock.

>No you idiot, present-day "Judaism" (more properly called Talmudism) is a religion that was invented in the second century. The actual Jews became Christians.

I already know that friend. Yet, they are a people remaining who call themselves Jews, and though many do the work of the devil himself, the Church Herself has not usurped the right of Christ's judgement, nor has She decided it prudent that She should take up the sword and preach to the infidel.

>>743186

>She should take up the sword and preach to the infidel.

or to be more specific, the Church has never brought up Her sword to force anyone to the Light of Christ, as St. Thomas Aquinas noted.

>>743193

Even to this day, Jews still convert. If the Church is being drowned in politics, we should pick up the slack, I think.

>>742989

What about receiving communion in the hand while holding a kid?

>>743269

^Based Father Brown

Of course he did. In case some people forget the Hoist is literally Jesus blood.

It isn't some king of cool thing people do in mass. It's very winnie the pooh serious and people should teach that to their children.

I wish every priest could be like that one.

>>743068

To be honest man the practice existed way back ago. Even before masses in Latin were even a thing.

Yeah but one should have the hoist on the mouth everytime.

>>743086

>The post-VII Holy See has also claimed that Jews don't need Jesus to be saved and ordered Catholics to not try to convert Jews

Except they didn't.

What they do say is that we have a lot of things in common with them, but every document still says outise the Catholic Church to hell you go.

>>743121

Thanks for this source.

Now I can make sede larpers shut up.

>>743542

>is literally Jesus body

Sorry I'm retarded.

Polit sage

>>743567

Yeah but makes more sense to call the Hoist the body I guess than the blood alone, because by body everyone understands as flesh and blood, even though you are right.