| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Duty to the Church, Duty to people; The responsibilities of a priest | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Friday, 29. October 2010, 08:31 (566 Views) | |
| Clare | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 15:36 Post #31 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Pretty much what Eileenanne has been saying. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 18:34 Post #32 |
|
I asked my question on the basius that she has not yet been received into the Church. I would really like that we deal with it on that basis as there is obviously no issue if she has been received. |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 18:36 Post #33 |
|
Apart from breaking a Church law - and I'm not seeking to minimise that - do you see any inherent wrong in in her receiving? |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:53 Post #34 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Yes, of course, if she is not yet a Catholic. Bring back the midnight fast! That would go some way to solving this kind of problem. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:55 Post #35 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
And it's not just a Church law that is being broken here. Do you think that this rule is a mere discipline of the Church? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:55 Post #36 |
|
It would also stop many catholics communicating (but I think you want this) Gerry Edited by Gerard, Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:56.
|
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:56 Post #37 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Quite, but mainly for the reason that it gives people a respectable excuse not to communicate, and stops the gossips speculating. Also, there's less of a pressure to conform and make a potentially sacrilegious Communion, when most of the other congregants are remaining in their pews as well. People need to be reminded of the idea of making a Spiritual Communion. Edited by Clare, Saturday, 30. October 2010, 20:58.
|
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 21:38 Post #38 |
|
The Apostles received Holy Communion during and after the Last Supper! - Not after a fast from midnight. (Incidently when the fast from midnight applied there was often a debate as to whether we should clean our teeth) Edited by Derekap, Saturday, 30. October 2010, 21:41.
|
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 21:45 Post #39 |
![]()
Administrator
|
The midnight fast and Catholics receiving Communion when they should not, are better discussed elsewhere. We may have an existing threads on those topics.
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| KatyA | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 23:36 Post #40 |
|
I must be looking at this far too simplistically. I mean, was it inherently wrong for Adam to eat the apple - and look what that caused. I'm off now for a few days during which time I'll probably agree with whatever Eileenanne and Clare say
|
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Saturday, 30. October 2010, 23:51 Post #41 |
|
Proxy-posting - a novelty and perhaps a first! |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 31. October 2010, 06:41 Post #42 |
|
Would you mind explaining what other law is being broken?
I hate a question being answered with a question but anyway ... I don't see this as anything more than a Church discipline, that is why I am asking people to enlighten me. |
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Sunday, 31. October 2010, 10:15 Post #43 |
|
In a sense Mairtin you have answered yourself. if it is a question of church discipline against the fundamental commandment of Christ that we should show compassion and 'Love' then the priest must in conscience act in accordance with the law of Christ rather than the discipline of the Church. |
![]() |
|
| Eileenanne | Sunday, 31. October 2010, 10:39 Post #44 |
|
My point Alpac, is that the priest must show GENUINE compassion and love, which would seek to bring the woman into the Church. Only false or superficial compassion and love would allow her to continue in error. I would stress again, however, that this needs to be approached with great sensitivity. Maybe her husband is in a better position to broach the subject than the priest is. Eileenanne Edited by Eileenanne, Sunday, 31. October 2010, 10:40.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Sunday, 31. October 2010, 14:50 Post #45 |
|
I'm struggling to see the logic of your argument. What do yo regard as false or superficial about the priest's compassion? What makes you think he is not seeking to bring the woman into the Church? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |







7:53 PM Jul 11