Priest Stopping

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='VaticanIILiturgist' post='1402862' date='Oct 15 2007, 02:05 AM']What about a woman?[/quote]


I think that the rules apply for women, too, although come to think of it the church may have put extra rules on women just for kicks

[kateri05]

ha


ha

[XIX]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1402859' date='Oct 15 2007, 01:55 AM']Gessh, most Catholics don't believe in Real Presence and they intend to receive and then go watch football and swear. Don't worry I'll go get my gun.[/quote]
Don't tase me, bro!

(sis?)

[photosynthesis]

Before Jesus died for us, He told Peter not to kill the guards who were about to take Him away. At the same time, Peter was too much of a coward to follow Jesus to Golgotha. He was willing to kill, but he wasn't willing to die. This is only my simple understanding of the subject, but the Eucharist is a re-presentation of the Passion, and what Jesus asked of Peter is probably what he would ask of us.

[quote name='Didymus' post='1202927' date='Feb 23 2007, 01:33 AM']I dont mean to let this go into a tangent, but where do we draw the line on that? I've heard priests tell me they never forget to use the pall (or paten, I cant remember) at Mass because they once had to consume a fly that fell into the chalice at some point during the Liturgy. Where does the church draw the line as to contents that invalidate the sacrament? Am I safe to assume it has to do with intention?[/quote]
You can't really prevent stuff like that from happening. But if it does happen, I'd think that you should consume the fly. One of my good friends was a Eucharistic Minister at her church, and they were using a paper napkin to wipe the chalice. They used to throw the napkin in the garbage afterwards, so she always made it a point to eat the napkin.

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1203394' date='Feb 23 2007, 04:51 PM']What would make the matter invalid is if enough of a particular substance (such as yeast) were added to the beard or wine to no longer make it bread of wine. I think that this is implied with your quote later on which I did not cite.[/quote]


I went to a Melkite church once, and they used leavened bread that tasted like it came from a Portuguese bakery. It was a little sweet. Does that apply to the Eastern churches?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402700' date='Oct 15 2007, 12:13 AM']In defense of the Host I would kill.[/quote]

You and six others, apparently. Thankfully, this is a very rare situation, not because there aren't people seeking to desecrate the Eucharist, but because they don't go confronting a priest face-to-face to get it. Far easier to find a parish that is lax on watching people consume the host, where you can receive it in the hand and slip away without eating it (you learn this stuff from reading about satanic worship).

Still, murder is unjustifiable. If we kill, we have taken justice into our own hands. Someone in that situation could find other means to protect the Eucharist (like calling police, since it is a crime). More importantly, we never know when the grace of God is working in someone's heart, especially in the midst of committing the worst sins. Besides, is desecration of the Eucharist a worse sin than the Crucifixion?

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1402859' date='Oct 15 2007, 01:55 AM']Gessh, most Catholics don't believe in Real Presence and they intend to receive and then go watch football and swear. Don't worry I'll go get my gun.[/quote]

What "most Catholics" do or believe should have no bearing on how we're going to live our lives.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1402971' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:39 AM']You can't really prevent stuff like that from happening. But if it does happen, I'd think that you should consume the fly. One of my good friends was a Eucharistic Minister at her church, and they were using a paper napkin to wipe the chalice. They used to throw the napkin in the garbage afterwards, so she always made it a point to eat the napkin.
[/quote]

The question concerning the fly or other foreign substance was already answered (wash it in wine, burn it, and wash ashes and wine down the saboreum). But I guess eating the fly isn't wrong either... just unneccessary. The doctrine of Real Presence doesn't require us to do Fear Factor stuff. I'm pretty sure napkins and anything else with wine residue is washed in water to dilute the accidents, which is what your friend could've done instead of eating it. I'm not a Eucharistic Minister though, so someone else probably knows for sure.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Theoketos' post='1203445' date='Feb 23 2007, 05:47 PM']Though at some point, so much can be removed that the Real Presence does cease--as would happen if there were only an undrinkably thin film of wine molecules (or apparent wine molecules) that refuses to form a drop were left in the chalice.[/quote]

Is that true? If the wine is apparent, then the Real Presence would seem to remain. Isn't this why porcelain and other substances that absorb liquid are not supposed to be used as chalices? Of course, porcelain is also very fragile, so I guess that's the primary reason not to use it, but I'd have to think that if the inside of the chalice became stained from repeated use that the Real Presence would be there since the substance of consecrated wine is apparent.

Edited October 18, 2007 by LouisvilleFan

[Spamity Calamity]

I clicked "I refuse to speculate" and I wish more people would have.

[Winchester]

Preferably, someone would shut the offender down with a silenced rifle from the choir loft. That's actually why we have choir lofts.

[jeffpugh]

Amen, Winchester.

Signed,

The Tenor Sniper

[jeffpugh]

Double kill-I mean post...

Vexing, isn't it?

Edited November 15, 2007 by Sacred Music Man

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1200019' date='Feb 18 2007, 08:48 PM']ty[/quote]

your polls get more and more rediculous everyday.

[Pleural]

ridiculous...

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

hot stuff,

I also have a theo degree, but I somewhat disagree. Adding something that does not belong is a grave sin subject to excommunication, but does not invalidate the consecration. If added intentionally, it is illicit, not necessarily invalid. It is invalid if the addition causes the elements to no longer be wheat bread and grape wine, for example, using rice-wheat combo bread and grape juice - that is invalid.

By the way, yeast does not invalidate consecration - the Eastern Churches, except for the Armenians all use leavened bread.

As to poison added to the post-consecrated Blood, how would this ever occur? If it did occur, how would anyone know until they were ill?


[quote name='hot stuff' post='1203498' date='Feb 23 2007, 04:32 PM']Again, I don't disagree with what is being said. However that does not address the intentional act of adding something that does not belong. (i.e. the poison question)

If poison, (or koolaid) or any other matter is intentionally added (even without the priest's knowledge) prior to the consecration, it will invalidate it.[/quote]

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

As to killing someone to prevent them from desecrating Our Lord in the Eucharist.. I'll just quote St. John Chrysostom:
[i]"Christians above all are forbidden to correct the stumblings of sinners by force...it is necessary to make a man better not by force but by persuasion.We neither have authority granted us by law to restrain sinners,nor,if it were,should we know how to use it,since God gives the crown to those who are kept from evil,not by force,but by choice."[/i]

[Groo the Wanderer]

[st-annes]

I think it's a pretty ridiculous poll.