Host ?

[Pophead]

Do you accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as a reasonable enough argument?

Certainly, but would it be in order for me to question these ideas; should I so desire.

Respectfully,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

The idea of the priest’s sin being contagious is odd, too. Have you a source for that?

Would a Scriptural reference convince you ?

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Would a Scriptural reference convince you ?

Sincerely,
Pophead.

Allow me to sidestep your trap.

Quoting from Scripture does not automatically imbue one’s argument with a basis in fact. Depending on the citation, one needs varying degrees of the context in which the quote appears.

Furthermore, if there are doctrinal statements with regard to a particular subject – i.e., passages from the Catechism and/or canon law – one is well advised to defer to them.

That said, quote away – I’m curious to know the basis for your claim.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Pophead]

Was Christ defiled by the sinners who touched Him?

You mean did Jesus take away sin, sickness, disease ?

Did He pass on their “defilement” to others?

…and then deposit it upon those who were condemned to burn in the lake of fire. Sort of the flip side to the doctrine of atonment…

A priest who validly confects the Sacrament no more defiles it by his personal sin, however grievous, than was Christ defiled by His encounters with sinners - or by His encounter with Satan in the desert.

There are some very big difference between a human priest and the one who is called both the Lamb of God and the High Priest.

I think you might find studying the book of Isaiah and Hebrews, would bring you great light. Only a suggestion.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

That said, quote away – I’m curious to know the basis for your claim.

It is very important for you to be convinced of the authority of the Scripture which the Son of God used to dispel his strongest opposition, and to send Satan to flight. Without this it would simply be indulging in fruitless sparring.

Furthermore, if there are doctrinal statements with regard to a particular subject – i.e., passages from the Catechism and/or canon law – one is well advised to defer to them.

What are the criteria demanded for alternations to the Catechism, should it be discoverd that they are found stray from sound logic and contradict the Scriptures ?

If the Scriptures are not the final authority on matters of faith and doctrine (in your mind), then it would be far better to lightly observe this matter and not begin to shoulder artillery. Hmmm

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

My understanding is that the consecration is done in persona Christi, so it is Christ acting through the priest.

Surely, His Spirit would not share a tabernacle with satan ?

Something like this happened in the early church. There was a dispute whether or not baptisms performed by hetertical priests could be valid, and whether those baptised by heretical priests needed rebaptism. The decision eventually was that they did not need rebaptism because of the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism.

I think there a considerably different problem with baptism. If regeneration occurs some years after baptismal regeneration (even if the priest was a really devout sort), one might consider being re-baptised. If I was a Baptist and a minister was discovered to be engaged in grievious sexual sins, I would most certainly be re-baptised. The thought alone gives me the creeps. In a way it is like discovering that the ring around your finger was not honoured from the time love bloomed well into the marriage. If there was genuine repentance, then I guess renewing the marriage vows, does make complete sense.

It’s been so long since I studied this stuff.
I don’t know whether this is helpful at all in terms of the point in question:shrug:

It was actually quite helpful. The early Church is not a place we really want to go to, it was such a terrible mess. We have to make sense of this things now, in the light of sound logic and the Holy Scriptures. The rest we will leave for others who the Lord would empower with wisdom by His Spirit.

Thanks,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

It is 23h36 and time for me to get some sleep. Only 12 hours in day…he would walk in the dark will stumble.

 

[LilyM]

I think you mean that all sinners who are still in the darkness are servants of satan in ways great and small. Also that a true child of God should not sin, but occassionally they do. This does not make them servants of satan in ways great or small, for they are children of their heavenly Father.


Pophead.

Every sin is itself an act in the service of satan. Sin is only sinful when done freely (not under coercion or compulsion). Thus we are still in service to satan to the extent that we sin, absolutely.

When we repent, that (temporarily) removes us from his service - until the next time we sin, of course. When we amend our lives THAT removes us from his service completely - if the amendment is complete! Would you dare to affirm that you’ve completely amended your life?

The botton line is you can’t NOT call someone who freely does you service (every day - remember the Bible passage ‘even the just man falls seven times a day’) your servant. Whatever their intentions, that is de facto what they are.

 

[LilyM]

Surely, His Spirit would not share a tabernacle with satan ?

Thanks,
Pophead.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to inhabit the priest - just the bread and wine. The priest never invokes the Holy Spirit to enter HIM, again, simply the bread and wine. Which are NOT tabernacles of Satan for the mere fact of the priest’s touch.

Remember God has often used sinners (Moses, David, the Apostles and Pilate) and downright evil people (the King of Babylon, Pharoah, the two King Herods, Judas) to accomplish His will through the ages. He is certainly, then, powerful enough to use them to confect the sacraments.

 

[Pophead]

Every sin is itself an act in the service of satan. Sin is only sinful when done freely (not under coercion or compulsion). Thus we are still in service to satan to the extent that we sin, absolutely.

This idea of jumping in and out of two kingdoms is rather new to me. If you have been translated from one kingdom to another, the sins committed there are covered by the blood of Christ. Your confession is a child apologizing to their Father.

When we repent, that (temporarily) removes us from his service - until the next time we sin, of course. When we amend our lives THAT removes us from his service completely - if the amendment is complete! Would you dare to affirm that you’ve completely amended your life?

It is not about completely amending your life, it is about having an advocate with the Father. Jesus either died for all your sins, past, present or future and has thereby reconciled you to God, or you are still lost in them.

The botton line is you can’t NOT call someone who freely does you service (every day - remember the Bible passage ‘even the just man falls seven times a day’) your servant. Whatever their intentions, that is de facto what they are.

Someone who has not been freed from the grip of satan is still in their sins. This freedom is only possible once the servitude has been removed by Him who became the servant of all men. Remember the time Jesus washed Peter’s feet. He who the Son has set free is free indeed.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

 

[Pophead]

The Holy Spirit doesn’t need to inhabit the priest - just the bread and wine. The priest never invokes the Holy Spirit to enter HIM, again, simply the bread and wine. Which are NOT tabernacles of Satan for the mere fact of the priest’s touch.

A person who is does not have the Holy Spirit in them is none of Christ’s. The Spirit does not fill our tummies, but becomes one with our innermost being. (spirit)

Remember God has often used sinners (Moses, David, the Apostles and Pilate) and downright evil people (the King of Babylon, Pharoah, the two King Herods, Judas) to accomplish His will through the ages. He is certainly, then, powerful enough to use them to confect the sacraments.

Certainly, but when it comes to sacred matters like building the temple, God deffered to Solomon over David. Why? God simply does not tolerate sin, and whether a child of God sins, or a child of the devil sins, there are always consequences. However, for a child of God, they might be fatal, but not eternally damning. Right ?

Of course, there was the one incident with Zipporah, that is most interesting. Sometime.

Goodnight Lily,
Pophead.

 

[rwoehmke]

Pophead, The Donatist heresy that St. Augustine dealt with was a North African affair. If what you are espousing is being held once more by people in your area then the heresy of Donatism is alive once more in Africa… I might suggest that you check out, read about, Donatism and how St. Augustine dealt with it 4th or 5th century. It is part of the history of the Church in your continent.

 

[Pophead]

Pophead, The Donatist heresy that St. Augustine dealt with was a North African affair. If what you are espousing is being held once more by people in your area then the heresy of Donatism is alive once more in Africa… I might suggest that you check out, read about, Donatism and how St. Augustine dealt with it 4th or 5th century. It is part of the history of the Church in your continent.

Thanks, I have spent considerable time reading it and it is horrific. A nightmare of the most embarassing proportions. Perhaps some pages of Church History aught to be burned along with all the heretical writings that were destroyed. It is not our problem, but it is nevertheless something the world looks at and is quite simply revolted. What caused the Church to stray from the peaceful way that was taught by the one who said, ‘Peter put up the sword.’ We just love them Holy Wars…

So I turn the page and realize that nothing is to be learned for when you dig up the past, you bring good, bad and ugly right on back with whatever you think you are going to find.

I am grateful for the honest and earnest participation on this thread and I hope that I have not stirred up any Hippos…

Tada,
Pophead.

 

[LilyM]

A person who is does not have the Holy Spirit in them is none of Christ’s. The Spirit does not fill our tummies, but becomes one with our innermost being. (spirit)

But he doesn’t need to fill or become one with any part of the priest to change the bread and wine that priest is holding. The two things aren’t related. Remember, the body and blood of Christ remain so even if a sinner or satanist RECEIVES them, why should the sinfulness of the one who says the prayers over them to make them so matter?

Certainly, but when it comes to sacred matters like building the temple, God deffered to Solomon over David. Why? God simply does not tolerate sin, and whether a child of God sins, or a child of the devil sins, there are always consequences. However, for a child of God, they might be fatal, but not eternally damning. Right ?

Rot and rubbish. Firstly the priest isn’t building a church - for that matter neither was Solomon, directly. Did all the labourers have to be sinless too? After all, they were just as much building as Solomon was.

Secondly Solomon was a sinner just as David was - in fact was fond of foreign women and had far too many wives and concubines. And at one stage was drawn by them into worshipping their gods. :tsktsk:

He was wiser than David but no less sinful.

Simply put, God had appointed a particular task for David, which David achieved, and another different one for Solomon.

 

[Pophead]

But he doesn’t need to fill any part of the priest to change the bread and wine he is holding.

I am sure that is true. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit goes into the host ?

Rot and rubbish.

Well, I never, what a rather unusual form of expression. You brought up the OT saints…

Why did God let sinful King Solomon build the temple, and not King David ?

Was Zipporah acting in a priestly role when she circumcized her son ?

Pophead.

 

[LilyM]

I am sure that is true. Are you saying that the Holy Spirit goes into the host ?

Well, God is One but Trinity - where Jesus is, there the Father and Holy Spirit are. And Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Do the math.

Why did God let sinful King Solomon build the temple, and not King David ?

Why did God let the murderer Moses lead Israel out of Egypt and not Aaron, who as far as we know had never murdered anyone or sinned in any other way?

Why, conversely, did God appoint Aaron and his tribe to be His priests and not Moses, who was closer to His own heart, and Moses’ descendants?

It is His alone to appoint tasks for His people. And I think He sets limits so as no-one becomes too proud.

Was Zipporah acting in a priestly role when she circumcized her son ?

A priest wasn’t necessary for circumcision. These days it isn’t always performed by rabbis either. So she wasn’t usurping a priestly role.

 

[Spirithound]

The fact is that as in the physical world certain diseases are contagious, so in the spiritual certain sins, like grievious sexual sins are contagious and there is every possibility that a priest who was a child of darkness would have a terrible influence on any sacred office, and who knows what foul incantations might have been procured upon the host, thereby rendering it defiled and unusable.

It is possible to defile the Host, but it basically means doing various physical things to it that are unbecoming of handling the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. A previous poster asked whether Jesus was defiled when He came into contact with sinners. I think following this path would be very productive, as when a priest confects the sacrament, Jesus becomes present under the forms of bread and wine. It is impossible to lessen the glory of the infinitely glorious, therefore, it is impossible to lessen the glory of the Host.

So, is sin contagious? Sure it is, but spiritual diseases are spread spiritually, not physically.

 

[Pophead]

It is possible to defile the Host, …the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

To believe this requires more than logic or faith.

The inner reservior of the human soul can well accomodate a legioin of demons, but a tiny host does neither have the retention nor the required reservior or accomodation and what’s more the idea defies the new covenant, which makes all true believers priests and kings unto GOD. (read all the stanzas, please)

In the beginning, that is before the High Priest came down from heaven, (The Lord Jesus Christ) the Spirit of God would come upon, and at times be within priests, prophets and certain chosen vessels for certain reasons (however it was not permanent), BUT when Jesus spoke to the disciples, he explained that the Godhead would come to take up residence in the sons and daughters of the living God.

So why it is neccessary to perform such a ritual, in the first place, is a great puzzle to me: for this takes no cognisance of the new covenant, the blood offered once for all by the eternal Spirit and equally takes no congnisance of the promise of the Father, given to every true child of God.

Yet upon this matter, it might be that faith has not yet been fully formed in the heart and therefore one would approach such with one’s own understanding and not by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

I have studied these matters most closely and cannot find any reason to pursue either arguement from reason, or further wrtings which promote a decidedly ancient ritual, that has no more value than the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats did under the old priesthood…

Pophead.

 

[thistle]

I think this should be pretty obvious.

Tell me the obvious because I don’t see what difference it makes.

 

[FCEGM]

You mean did Jesus take away sin, sickness, disease ?

…and then deposit it upon those who were condemned to burn in the lake of fire. Sort of the flip side to the doctrine of atonment… .

No, I mean did Jesus personally become defiled by being touched by sinners?

There are some very big difference between a human priest and the one who is called both the Lamb of God and the High Priest.

Of course there are very big differences between a human priest and Christ, but since it it is Christ Himself confecting the Eucharist through His chosen priest - however much a sinner he is - He thus assures the faithful that the Eucharist is just that despite the sinfulness of His priests.

I think you might find studying the book of Isaiah and Hebrews, would bring you great light. Only a suggestion.

I have; and they do.