1
1_Maria
Guest
I want to receive Jesus from a priest and only a priest.
Maria
Maria
- Status
M
Mysty101
Guest
M
misericordie
Guest
I take it here in the same token that you attacking ME and calling me “a sad and sick person” is charitable. The smileys ARE provided for in this forum. However, your highly subjective views, are not.:tiphat:
M
misericordie
Guest
Did YOU read the encyclical? And if so? DID the POPE say all Aquinas wrote does NOT apply today. Actually, anyone who carefuly reads Fides et Ratio will notice that thePOPE exhorts Aquinas as the THEOLOGIAN of all times.:dancing:
M
misericordie
Guest
1 Maria:
Mary, I see you are a well formed/well read catholic. EXCELLENT: you have the RIGHT!!! To recieve only from a priest and if anyone tells you otherwise, just CONTINUE to recieve from the priest, and tell them: this is between you and Christ, and they could stop being busy bodies. Also, you are NOT!!! Off topic, after all, what is the Title of this particular thread? Though because you state your right to recieve Communion from the priest, it may bother some who may still be stuck in the 1970’s, but again, you have the RIGHT.
1
1_Maria
Guest
Thanks for the backup.Mary, I see you are a well formed/well read catholic. EXCELLENT: you have the RIGHT!!! To recieve only from a priest and if anyone tells you otherwise, just CONTINUE to recieve from the priest, and tell them: this is between you and Christ, and they could stop being busy bodies. Also, you are NOT!!! Off topic, after all, what is the Title of this particular thread? Though because you state your right to recieve Communion from the priest, it may bother some who may still be stuck in the 1970’s, but again, you have the RIGHT.
One little note: I am Maria, not Mary. Maybe mysty101 was talking to someone else.
Is misty101 a moderator? Maybe someone can direct me to a list of the chain of command. I would be so pleased to find out that a priest or two had the final say here.
Maria
B
bear06
Guest
Yes, and did you answer the question? No, again as ususal. Once again, did the Pope say that all Aquinas said was everything Aquinas wrote still applies today? and that everything he wrote was theologically correct? You can be a wonderful theologian and even the the theologian of all times and not get everything right and not have all you believe be applicable for all times especially in the way of disciplines. Correct? To answer your question, it wasn’t necessary for the Pope to say that all Aquinas wrote does not apply today because anyone who knows Aquinas, who I agree was a great saint, knows that not all of his theories were correct and certainly nobody can say that he has jurisdiction over Church disciplines.
C
ChiefCounsellor
Guest
Our pastor recently gave a sermon about reception of communion. He specifically stated that the “NORM” across the Church worldwide is reception of the host by the tongue. Although on the tongue or on the hand are both accepted, the former precedes the latter.
Reception on the hand, has been the cause of abuse of the Eucharist. It has made it easier for those who desire to steal the host and abuse it.
Out of reverence, and because only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch the Sacred Host, I recieve on the tongue.
SK John P. Noonan, MI
Reception on the hand, has been the cause of abuse of the Eucharist. It has made it easier for those who desire to steal the host and abuse it.
Out of reverence, and because only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch the Sacred Host, I recieve on the tongue.
SK John P. Noonan, MI
M
misericordie
Guest
I never said Aquinas was INFALLIBLE, but he is the ONLY theologian recomended by Vatican II and who with regards to the New Code of Canon Law is to be the only one all theology is to be based on(of course: catholic Theology that is). You accuse me of not answering your question, but not ONCE have you answered one of mine regarding Fides et Ratio, the Pope ON Aquinas, nor why is it the Church is solely Thomistic in its approach. It seems you don’t beleive Aquinas carries weight in most things because he is not “the absolute authority”, but at the same token you actually HAVE never agreed with my statement that the POPE is NOT InFALLIBLE neither in ALL he says, and I earlier gave you the examples of football etc, I asked you that if the Pope likes football, must all Catholics then like football? Well, you danced :dancing: around my question, to proudly try to prove your own personal opinions.
Oh here it comes::yawn: :yawn: 
M
misericordie
Guest
1 Maria:
In any event, blessings. Remember, you can report a post by clicking on the white exclamation point on top of a post.
Maria, NO!! mysty101 is no moderator!:nope: You have the total right to give your points of view, and some who have posted here may try to talk you down as if you were a child, don’t let them. I got a PM from one doing that, and if it happens again, I will be the one reporting to a real moderator here.
In any event, blessings. Remember, you can report a post by clicking on the white exclamation point on top of a post.
M
misericordie
Guest
Wow, you have an excellent pastor who seems not to just be “politically correct” but who seeks to obey and follow the Church’s teeachings in and out of season.
Good post here.
B
bear06
Guest
If you actually read my post you will see all of your questions answered but let me try and get through to you once again.
I
You stated a quote from Aquinas:
I
.
You stated a quote from Aquinas:
You somehow think that we are bound to this statement today. Obviously the Pope disagrees with you.
I have told you I have read Fides et Ratio and the Pope seems to feel the exact way I do about Aquinas. Nowhere, however, does he say that we are bound to Aquinas’ above teaching in regards to the discipline of the reception of the Eucharist. You didn’t ask ME about Thomistic Philosophy so don’t accuse me of not answering you.
Actually, this is just your judgment. Aquinas was not correct in all of his theological theories. This is a fact. Aquinas has nothing to do with the fact that the Holy Father is the determiner of matters of discipline so shooting out “Aquinas said” like it’s a condemnation of the Pope’s ruling on the disciplines of the Church really don’t matter. The Pope, who’s obviously read Aquinas at length, decided to allow Communion to be received in the hand. Say you don’t like it all you want, I personally don’t like it, but I’m very careful never to suggest it is wrong by using Aquinas as my mouthpiece.
Excuse me, I gave very concrete examples in our other little exchange where the Pope is infallible. As I recall, it would seem that you agreed to the same areas in your posts.
We ain’t talking football here my friend. Why don’t you just give concrete examples of where you feel it’s OK to say that the Pope is in error? Are you saying he is in error for allowing Communion in the hand?
M
misericordie
Guest
I have no need to write a two page defense as you do here, so let me just say: So in YOUR opinion all catholics must agree with the pope because for the USA he has allowed communion in the hand, even when his pronunciation on this was NOT ex-cathedra, INFALLIBLE, or a DOGMATIC prononcement? Well, permit me to say: Many catholics including a cardinal who is good friends with my pastor DO NOT AGREE that they should be obligated to give communion in the hand, becuase as all other matters in which the Pope does NOT make dogmatic pronouncements, ex-cathedra, etc, A CATHOLIC does NOT have to by this. Again, the papacy is not a dictatorship, and if this pope intended there to be an ABSOLUTE on something regarding the Church he would (as have Pius XIIm Pius X, and Other popes) make that … a dogmatic pronouncement, or write a papal bull or say “this is EX CATHEDRA!!! No buts about it anymore.” We;;, sad to say, not even on the issue of women’s ordinations did this pope make it an Infallible teaching. Why not, who’s stopping him? Anywy, please all, do not interpret this as if i am anti pope, no I am giving examples of the pope’s everyday speeches, informal conversations, etc, VS. Infallibility, dogma, ex-cathedra.
B
bear06
Guest
This all comes down to YOU deciding what it allowable and what is not. Might I remind you that St. Thomas Aquinas’ statements are not infallible dogma either and yet you seem to think they trump the jurisdiction of the Pope. If you want to condemn Communion in the hand as an error of the Pope and think it’s your jurisdiction to do so, go right ahead.
One last thing…how is it that you could ever think that the Church doesn’t already have an infallible teaching on woman being ordained? Please read these: ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/VATBAN.TXT
catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/12-96/1/1.html
The Pope has done nothing but affirm the deposit of faith.
If you are casting stones at this Pope for not defining this as infallible then you’d have to be saying the likewise of all of his predecessors.
M
misericordie
Guest
UMMMMMMM, again, it is NOT an INFALLIBLE pronouncement, why???
M
Mysty101
Guest
I would be very careful here—We are warned about private interpretation, especially when there is a higher authority which refutes it. A Pope is definitely a higher authority than a Pastor or Cardinal.
Jesus said,
He did not say “only if you make an infallible pronouncement”.
M
maklavan
Guest
for Maria:
A Permanent Deacon is Ordained and is a member of rthe clergy. Would you accept Communion from him?
A Permanent Deacon is Ordained and is a member of rthe clergy. Would you accept Communion from him?
M
misericordie
Guest
I would=he IS AN ORDAINED MINISTER!!! ummmmm, NOT a LAY person, I don’t care who or what says: Lay persons are NOT ordained.:dancing:
M
misericordie
Guest
YOU concerned about “private interpretation”?? You interprete it every post till now::tiphat:
B
bear06
Guest
Which part of the post are you referring to? Sorry, can’t answer until I get that.
- Status