Staying, Leaving?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I don’t feel uncomfortable at all about staying. I love the Holy Catholic Church and it’s liturgy of worship and my communion is with the Savior Jesus Christ and His Holy Church and not with the Pope, a Bishop, or a priest in some parish somewhere. There are still many holy leaders within it’s walls and for that I will be ever grateful.
 
Last edited:
That’s part of what I mean about learned about Church history. There is much more though. And I do wonder immensely about the validity of the Eucharist and other sacraments. How can a child’s mortal sin make receiving the Eucharist a condemnation, yet abusive clergy can truly consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile that. It just isn’t logical.

Everything I wrote is accurate. And I really don’t see any reason arguing further. Any doubts or reasons given for doubts are seen as either inaccurate or personal weaknesses. That doesn’t do much to help build faith.
 
gracepoole said:
Why? The source’s final sentences say it all: “[T]he sacraments don’t hinge on our personal holiness. They work through God’s grace, and that’s quite enough to do it right.”
Click to expand...
I’m just not sure that the writer is right.
 
Then why are the laity supposed to be “properly disposed?” And why is it that the sacraments aren’t available to everyone? If a priest doesn’t need to be free of MORTAL sin, even an unrepentant abuser, there is no reason someone who missed Mass without a dispensation can be wrong for receiving the Host that the pedaphile consecrated.
 
Hope1960 said:
40.png
gracepoole:
Why? The source’s final sentences say it all: “[T]he sacraments don’t hinge on our personal holiness. They work through God’s grace, and that’s quite enough to do it right.”
Click to expand...
I’m just not sure that the writer is right.
Click to expand...
Then it falls to you to identify specific portions of the historical record and explanation included in the piece that are incorrect.
 
13pollitos said:
It just isn’t logical.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
13pollitos said:
Everything I wrote is accurate. And I really don’t see any reason arguing further. Any doubts or reasons given for doubts are seen as either inaccurate or personal weaknesses. That doesn’t do much to help build faith.
Click to expand...
I certainly won’t push you into further discussion. But if when presented with an accounting of how at least one of these problems was dealt with and settled over centuries someone still rejects the solution as illogical, it’s probably wise to offer support for such a claim. Frankly, I’d think that disproving doubt would be extremely important to building faith.
 
Last edited:
13pollitos said:
Then why are the laity supposed to be “properly disposed?” And why is it that the sacraments aren’t available to everyone? If a priest doesn’t need to be free of MORTAL sin, even an unrepentant abuser, there is no reason someone who missed Mass without a dispensation can be wrong for receiving the Host that the pedaphile consecrated.
Click to expand...
Neither should be in a state of mortal sin. One being in such a state does not justify the other.
 
13pollitos said:
And I do wonder immensely about the validity of the Eucharist and other sacraments. How can a child’s mortal sin make receiving the Eucharist a condemnation, yet abusive clergy can truly consecrate the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to reconcile that. It just isn’t logical.
Click to expand...
First of all, they are two different actions and secondly celebrating Mass in a state of mortal sin is also a sacrilege of sorts. Anyways the validity of the sacraments doesn’t dimish because it is dependent on Christ and not the priest.
 
gracepoole said:
an accounting of how at least one of these problems was dealt with and settled over centuries
Click to expand...
This does not explain anything. It just means that this is how it’s always been done. Explain to me, or show me a link to somewhere that can, how a priest can act in Jesus’s place and provide valid sacraments when the rest of humanity is cut off from God when we are in a state of mortal sin. Not just can’t receive the sacraments, but cut off from God’s presence. How can it be reconciled that mortal sin cuts people off from the presence of God yet God allows some to act in persona Christi?
 
They are two different things, yes. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. We cannot be in His presence while in a state of mortal sin. I do not see God as being a liar. How can we believe that He would allow an abusive or otherwise unrepentant priest to act in His place and touch His precious Body and Blood with their hands, and otherwise be in their presence? Give me something other than “because the Church has said this for a really long time.” Show me where God says that He will allow valid communion when priests perform a ritual regardless of whether or not they are worthy.
 
Judas Iscariot and unfaithful persons have been in the Church since the beginning. God bless the faithful ones who stay faithful.
 
Last edited:
13pollitos said:
How can a child’s mortal sin make receiving the Eucharist a condemnation
Click to expand...
How is this so?
A mortal sin,a child?
For Heaven’s sake, how can a child receive condemnation. …and commit a " mortal "sin.
It gives me goosebumps to think a child’s mind can be mortified so ,so as to understand he/she will be receiving condemnation…
What can a child do so badly??
In fact,in a child’s mind,every good deed is a little feather in the manger to make baby Jesus happy and comfortable
 
Last edited:
Maybe I had in mind small children…
And building a relationship with Jesus in positive way sounds much more in line than freaking them out ,out of fear of condemnation.
 
Last edited:
Until they reach the age of reason (usually seven) they aren’t able to sin since they lack the knowledge necessary to make such choices.
 
Last edited:
Yes they can, especially older children and teens. And every priest I’ve coordinated altar servers for over the years has had me remind our servers not to serve if they have committed a mortal sin without first confessing. Anyone over the age of reason has the ability to commit a mortal sin.

But I agree that it is very hard to see a child truly committing one. I can’t see God being so harsh to the child while still giving the abusive priest the ability to validly say Mass or the bishop to ordain either.
 
Sin OK,but " mortal sin",I mean…it is very strong to deal with condemnation when they may not even know the neighbourhood concretely if you know what I mean.
I do not even think 7 is the limit …
 
I think we agree ,teens is one thing but children…
As I said,I had in mind small kids…
 
At our parish children can begin serving in 2nd grade right after First Communion. So yes, they are often 7-9 years old.
 
It is OK. He may say it in a way kids can understand.
It was " condemnation" that gave me goosebumps. We were probably all taught mortal sin in a " graspable" way according to our age.
That is fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top