With What Do You Disagree?

[FaeryChild]

Children & those with mental disability should be the first in line to receive... sinners like me should be the last & should be the most cautious.

 

[katerinah1947]

Not sure what post you are responding to here.


Interesting theology. There has always been a question as to how long the Eucharist remains the Body and Blood once it is in the digestive system. The fact that the baby does not "share" directly in what the mother ingests may be a stumbling block for your idea.

I am sympathetic to your points about communion and reconciliation. There has been a lot of discussion, of both a theological and practical nature, on how and when these sacraments should be first given. The process the Church currently follows is a little odd. It seems they are applying the process used for adults entering the Church to little children. Not at all the same.

Hi,

I forget the reference, but some blood cells of the mother always are shared with the baby, the numbers are low they say, but never are they zero, they say.

If true, the barrier to her statement, is no barrier.

LOVE,

 

[FaeryChild]

Thus, babies receive First Communion while still in the womb. Therefore, it is cruel to have a fetus receiving and then deny them for 7yrs until they can articulate transubstantiation. Not that I disagree with transubstantiation, I do agree with it and find it to be the best way to explain the change that happens. Its precisely because I agree that I do not wish to see babies cut off from communion.

 

[katerinah1947]

It would be nice if the Eucharist was "medicine for sin". Instead it is more of a reward for the "healthy". Those most in need of it are denied it. That theology does not compute with the inclusiveness of Jesus in the Gospel, who literally embraced the most unworthy. The "wisdom" of the Church turns that completely around.

I agree about the importance of being more than pro-birth. The teaching of the Church has moved in that direction, but most Catholics, including many voices of traditional views, have not kept pace.

Hi,

Mystic chiming I here.

My Eucharistic experiences with and without are always this: When working for God like helping out in any Biblical ways, if I have had The Eucharist in the last three weeks or so, I am fine, and if not everything goes wrong.

Instantly in my lessons from God on this, upon taking The Eucharist, or even spending an hour with The Eucharist, exposed or not, Communing is the word, I am effective again.

This has happened to me three times Eucharistically. And, if The Blood of Jesus is available to me, and it is, but I refuse for any number of reasons, I am less effective also.

From this, The Last Supper, which is the Institution of The Eucharist and The Blood of Jesus on earth, thus God in The Form of Jesus on earth, has and keeps making the world a better place than it was, merely by Hanging out with Jesus, and His ways, rubbing on to us, and Him Through us rubbing off on others, thus giving God, in the Form of Jesus to others, also, but. Since Jesus is like His Father also, and He is also like The Holy Spirit also, God, ALL of God, is given too us also, to share with the world, for it's betterment.

It works always. It is Real. Not everyone is a mystic. This mystic has been taught those things by God, and she can always pick a Catholic out of all other religions.

They feel different to her.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

Thus, babies receive First Communion while still in the womb. Therefore, it is cruel to have a fetus receiving and then deny them for 7yrs until they can articulate transubstantiation. Not that I disagree with transubstantiation, I do agree with it and find it to be the best way to explain the change that happens. Its precisely because I agree that I do not wish to see babies cut off from communion.

Hi,

Yes it seems correct. And since God says to honor your mother and your father, then every baby with a Catholic mother, also receives Christ by her wishes, thus every baby like that is Catholic forever, remembering of course, that later we all need confession.

So female with insight, was Mary, The Virgin Mary, by giving up her son, whom she owned by buying him back from God with those two doves at the temple, not also a priest by offering up her own son for our sins?

Or was she not a priest, by her femininity?

LOVE,

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

This is so healthy, questioning all the teachings of the Church. I'd like to think I'm a member of a democratic faith.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

OK some of my doubts.
Abortion? Terrible but occasionally appropriate, if the context is horrendous.
Married Priests? yes good idea
Original Sin ? Currently I believe the Adam and Eve story but that might evolve too.
Gay priests: mm, the parish should know they are gay.
Heaven? may exist but will be totally different to what we expect( if we get there)
Purgatory: sounds like a stretch, not sure
Hell: can't be worse than what some have suffered here on Earth

 

[Martinius]

OK some of my doubts.
Abortion? Terrible but occasionally appropriate, if the context is horrendous.
Married Priests? yes good idea
Original Sin ? Currently I believe the Adam and Eve story but that might evolve too.
Gay priests: mm, the parish should know they are gay.
Heaven? may exist but will be totally different to what we expect( if we get there)
Purgatory: sounds like a stretch, not sure
Hell: can't be worse than what some have suffered here on Earth

Abortion: I think you have the idea. The big problem is having a consistent life ethic, which is a difficulty for many, including Catholics.
Married priests: I think it would be fine for married men to become priests, similar to how it is done in the Eastern rite churches that are in communion with Rome, and with how it is allowed for converted ministers.
Original Sin: Can't buy the Adam and Eve as the first people story, and find the idea of "original sin" iffy.
Gay priests: We have had gay priests as long as I have been around, and we have had priests with "wives" and priests with children, etc. We just refuse to acknowledge it, buy priests are human. If you think about it, a gay priest is no worse than a straight priest, since neither is supposed to act out on their sexuality.
Heaven: nothing like we think; we'll find out if and when we get there.
Purgatory: Certainly not a place, perhaps a transitional period or state of being. If there is a purgatory, we were in it now.
Hell: nothing like we think; we'll find out if and when we get there.

And thanks for your contributions. We might just revive this stagnant forum after all. If you have a topic or query, start a thread here.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

How would parishes react, knowing their priest is gay? Is that a strange question?

 

[katerinah1947]

How would parishes react, knowing their priest is gay? Is that a strange question?

Hi,

My brothers parish loved the guy. He was competent, efficient, funny, nice, and so well liked, that he was missed, when the Sacramento Arch Diocese asked him to transfer to the main church there, to ply his skills and trade there. Being a priest.

LOVE,

 

[Martinius]

How would parishes react, knowing their priest is gay? Is that a strange question?

At a former parish we had a priest who was assumed to be gay. He was there awhile and well-liked. He did a lot for that parish and was excellent at counseling people. I never heard anyone speak negatively about him or his apparent sexual orientation. But since that parish had suffered from some abusive priests in the past, if he had stepped out of line it would not have been ignored.

But you could also ask how a parish would react to a heterosexual priest who was sexually active? Isn't that what it is really about, not their orientation? I recall one instance of a very well liked priest who suddenly left and got married. It may have been in the works for awhile but it was sudden to the parishioners.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I think America is way ahead of Australia in regard to tolerance of these things. Me too I guess. I am not sure I agree with gay marriage but I am willing to admit my view is behind the times. Despite my liberal stance in general, I do have a few dinosaurial opinions.

 

[mark46]

I don't know if such a category exists, but I would label myself as a "Christian humanist of the Catholic faith".

As I recall, Thomas More was a Christian humanist of the Catholic faith.

 

[mark46]

I think America is way ahead of Australia in regard to tolerance of these things. Me too I guess. I am not sure I agree with gay marriage but I am willing to admit my view is behind the times. Despite my liberal stance in general, I do have a few dinosaurial opinions.

We should distinguish between the Church accepting gay marriage as a Christian marriage, and the Church accepting the right of homosexuals to marry in state ceremonies, and have all the civil rights of anyone else.

 

[Martinius]

As I recall, Thomas More was a Christian humanist of the Catholic faith.

. That's esteemed company. There seem to have been several noted humanists named Thomas, some of them Catholic.

 

[string_theory]

hi. I'm new to this forum. Great thread. I have to say, I struggle to "be ok with" some of the stances and constant narrative of the catholic Church related to same sex marriage. I understand where the Church draws the arguments from to get to their position on this matter, but I don't feel like it's productive to seemingly constantly bring it up to the point of appearing obsessed with the matter. Sometimes, I feel like the message of compassion and love gets lost in the narrative around same sex. I feel like the Pope has tried to bring this to light in by saying "who am I to judge" in reference to same sex couples, but I don't see this same level of brotherhood by many bishops, priests and parishioners on the topic. Sometimes I feel as though I'm just too liberal to be catholic! By the way, I'm a happily married heterosexual man..I just don't agree with the amount of energy being spent fighting a war that was lost decades ago. And don't get me started on the male celibate priests

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

I feel like the Pope has tried to bring this to light in by saying "who am I to judge" in reference to same sex couples, but I don't see this same level of brotherhood by many bishops, priests and parishioners on the topic.

A lot of people would agree with you here, including me.

 

[Martinius]

The Catholic Church does seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with sexuality, doesn't it?
At times it seems that sexual sins are the only ones they worry about.

 

[Godlovesmetwo]

How often have I heard it said from a non-Catholic, "you guys are so hung up on sex!". A puritanical approach casts a bigger shadow. That is why I am not convinced celibate priests are the way to go.

 

[One Voice Among Many1]

The Catholic Church does seem to have a very unhealthy obsession with sexuality, doesn't it?
At times it seems that sexual sins are the only ones they worry about.

QFT.