RC claims to Idolatry in the Mass

[Ray Berrian]

The church that I am speaking about and the pastor who refused to give the sacrament of Communion is what I think you call a national church; it is an Italian church. The church is Holy Rosary Church and the telephone at the rectory is 610-691-0719. The address is 826 E. 4th Street in Bethlehem. Ask the reverend yourself.

Your double-talk does not confuse the other Catholics on this board.

You seem to be trying to tell other people there is nothing like a special dispensation.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The church that I am speaking about and the pastor who refused to give the sacrament of Communion is what I think you call a national church; it is an Italian church. The church is Holy Rosary Church and the telephone at the rectory is 610-691-0719. The address is 826 E. 4th Street in Bethlehem. Ask the reverend yourself.

I'll do that.

Your double-talk does not confuse the other Catholics on this board.

Oh, darn! I was so hoping to confuse the other Catholics on this board!

You seem to be trying to tell other people there is nothing like a special dispensation.

What there is is a Decree of Nullity, a.k.a. an anullment, which states that there was never a valid sacramental marriage in the first place. There are very clear Church guidelines under which such a determination can be reached.

If it is found that there was a valid marriage, then it is impossible to get a "dispensation" to marry again while the first spouse is still alive, divorce or no divorce.

And I enjoyed that part about paying the bishop a fee, too. Sounds ever so much more corrupt and sinister than saying that the diocese charges a fee to help cover all the investigative time and paperwork involved, which can be waived if the financial circumstances of the petitioner make that appropriate.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I guess not too many Protestants and other non-Catholics are going to 'fess up' to the 'graven images' that we have in our homes. Apparently, this is a theological bronco that no one wants to ride. I guess the tiny sheep that Jesus holds in His arms will still remain on our walls. But the question remains, how does the Lord feel about our 'graven images?' [Exodus 20:4] Or aren't these graven images?

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate meExodus 20:4,5

We should not make idols to worship. But images that remind us that Jesus is the Good Shepherd are useful and not prohibited by the Ten Commandments. So is the crucifix. It reminds us of Christ suffering on the cross for our sins. We look to the wounds of Christ for forgiveness rather than any merit of worthiness in ourselves.

[ September 09, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
[QB] I know a priest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania who refused to give a member of his church the 'body and blood' of our Lord, even though he heard her confession in the hospital. She even had a life threatening disease, but he said that she had missed the masses and until she proved herself he would not give her Communion. As a Christian minister I question the wisdom of his decision.

Who told you this? The priest is bound not to reveal such information under the seal of confession.

You say he heard her confession, but did he grant absolution? If he felt that this woman was not repentant, he most likely would not have granted absolution.

Was this woman divorced and remarried outside of the Church?

My guess would be that this woman was divorced and remarried outside of the Church and had no intent of correcting that situation.

If that is the case, for her to receive Communion would be wrong. If that is the case, Father did the right thing.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by MikeS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The church that I am speaking about and the pastor who refused to give the sacrament of Communion is what I think you call a national church; it is an Italian church. The church is Holy Rosary Church and the telephone at the rectory is 610-691-0719. The address is 826 E. 4th Street in Bethlehem. Ask the reverend yourself.

I'll do that.</font>[/QUOTE]What a stupid thing for me to say!

Of course no priest is going to violate the seal of Confession and discuss such a matter with me, the noted Catholic confuser. So I will just have to repeat that I don't believe the story as you related it.

 

[tragic_pizza]

[/qb]Yes, clearly the PCUSA and ELCA consider the issue of "no consequence". This is basis of altar and pulpit fellowship between the two denominations and the basis of all previous Reform/Lutheran unions. Of course, this is completely contrary to the Lutheran Confessions![/qb]

Huh? Well, all I know is that in the PC(USA), we welcome all believing Christians to the Lord's table. I guess even Lutherans.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by MikeS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
The church that I am speaking about and the pastor who refused to give the sacrament of Communion is what I think you call a national church; it is an Italian church. The church is Holy Rosary Church and the telephone at the rectory is 610-691-0719. The address is 826 E. 4th Street in Bethlehem. Ask the reverend yourself.

I'll do that.</font>[/QUOTE]What a stupid thing for me to say!

Of course no priest is going to violate the seal of Confession and discuss such a matter with me, the noted Catholic confuser. So I will just have to repeat that I don't believe the story as you related it. </font>[/QUOTE]Which still begs the question of how Ray, a nonCatholic, who was not that priest himself, knew about it.

Did the woman in question tell? Surely the priest himself didn't relate the story? Or is it one of those snopes.com things where it happened to the cousin of a friend of a guy Ray ate lunch with last Thursday?

I am not at all a fan of the Catholic closed communion. It's one of the reasons I'm not Catholic.

If I were Catholic, though, I'd have a good idea of the expectations going in. What this woman did, apparently, was remove herself from communion by her actions and attitudes. What actions and attitudes? We don't know, the story conveniently skips that part.

 

[dumbox1]

Tragic,

I think you've got to take Ray at his word. He didn't say he "knows about" this priest -- he said he "knows [the] priest." And that he's relaying what "he said" -- not what "somebody said he said."

Perhaps as they were chewing the fat one day, one Christian minister to another, this story came up. (Of course, the priest wouldn't have mentioned the lady's name, or details that would permit her to be identified). Still, I think it's obvious that there has to be more to the story than we've read here, as you've noted, Tragic. (Perhaps the priest is a poor storyteller? Or, if it was a while ago, maybe Ray's memory is fading?)

Anyhow, maybe next time they chat, Ray can ask about the whys and wherefores of annulments. That appears to be a topic they haven't covered yet.

Mark H.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I don't have to take anyone at their word.

Look, I could say, "I know this Southern Baptist preacher, and he wouldn't baptize this woman."

Well. Bad preacher. Or?

Spin, my friend, spin. And the details are what counts.

 

[dumbox1]

Well, let me put it this way.

I'm sure that if I've misunderstood Ray, his sense of honor will compel him to correct me.

Mark H.

 

[thessalonian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply to, for instance, bow to an image/statue, is not to NECESSARILY worship that image or statue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To this Trajic says:
My view is that there is virtually no difference in worshipping the statue or the representation.

Now my interprutation of this is that he equates bowing before as always equal to worship. Correct me if I am wrong trajic. You are the creator of the words I am interpruting after all. Now the problem is that the Bible itself does not make this conclusion. Bowing down before can be worship. But in certain cases it is obviouosly not. For example in Gensis 27 Jacob tells Issac (by the Holy Spirit speaking the words of scripture) that his people will bow down before him. Now I doudt that these "God breathed" words mean that people will worship him. Another case in point is in Joshua 7 where the Jews bow down before the Arc of the Covenant and even pray before it. Now if bowing down in front of the AOC is worshipping it God has a funny way of showing it in allowing the walls of jerico to come tumblin down 7 days later. No, worship is intent and worship is in the heart, of which external actions may or may not manifest. Thus bowing down can be but is not neccessarily worship. We can even pray before an image (as the Jews did before the AOC) and it may not be worship.


Blessings

 

[tragic_pizza]

What images did the Jews bow to prior to the Ark? The only thing that comes to mind is the golden calf... and that was a bad thing, not a good one.

Wasn't the Ark the physical manifestation of the presence of God on the earth? If that's an accurate statement, I think it's a bit different than bowing before a statue of, say, the BVM, for example, in that respect (once again showing my utter ignorance of the subject).

In any case, you bring up good points that I cannot adequately rebut.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
What images did the Jews bow to prior to the Ark? The only thing that comes to mind is the golden calf... and that was a bad thing, not a good one.

God told Moses to make a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole. Every one who was bitten by a serpent was to look at it then they would live.

They had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Some on this board are speaking as though the Jewish congregation had access to the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. As I recall it was only the High Priest once a year on the Day of Atonement that he entered into the most holy place. Even the other priests did not have access to the most holy place. The Jews never saw the Ark from their place in the structure of the Temple or sanctuary in the desert. And for sure the non-Jews in the Court of the Gentiles never saw the Ark of the Covenant either.

In another way of saying it, the Gentiles and the Jewish communicants never bowed before the Ark of the Covenant in worship. Only the High Priest could enter where the Presence of God was located. A new High Priest was elected each year for this very special task and ministry on behalf of the Jewish and Gentile believers.

 

[Ray Berrian]

I want to say this because I don't think some of the people on the board understood what I was saying about the woman who was refused Communion.

I said in my first post, 'I know a priest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania who refused to give a member of his church the 'body and blood' of our Lord, even though he heard her confession in the hospital. She even had a life threatening disease, but he said that she had missed the masses and until she proved herself he would not give her Communion. As a Christian minister I question the wisdom of his decision.'

This woman had been missing the regularly scheduled masses and the Easter duty. Apparently, he heard her confession and forgave her of this misdemeanor, probably a venial sin, but indeed withheld the Holy Sacrament of Communion from this woman even in the face a life-threatening illness. This woman told my mother-in-law who is a member of Holy Rosary Church. I know the priest but we are not on a first name basis.

I do know of other cases where a person who is divorced and is remarried cannot receive the Eucharist because the church tells the people that they are still married to the first partner in the first marriage. So the second marriage is not valid because they are living in the sin of adultery.

No consideration of Jesus words in Matthew 5:31-32 are considered. Jesus allows remarriage but only where adultery was a reality. Why should an innocent person be deprived of remarriage if they so desire, especially when the erring partner has committed adultery? Jesus allowed this as designed and drafted in this Matthew passage.

Again, my personal opinion is that the priests are a few cuts above the rest of the Catholic congregation, because in Boston the superiors covered up the grave sins of priests who ministered the 'body and blood of our Lord.' It seems hypocritical for priests to refuse a Catholic Christian from receiving the Communion in church, while some other priests blatantly violate other persons of the same sex.

I know I'm preaching a little close, but it is the truth.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Some on this board are speaking as though the Jewish congregation had access to the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple. As I recall it was only the High Priest once a year on the Day of Atonement that he entered into the most holy place. Even the other priests did not have access to the most holy place. The Jews never saw the Ark from their place in the structure of the Temple or sanctuary in the desert. And for sure the non-Jews in the Court of the Gentiles never saw the Ark of the Covenant either.

In another way of saying it, the Gentiles and the Jewish communicants never bowed before the Ark of the Covenant in worship. Only the High Priest could enter where the Presence of God was located. A new High Priest was elected each year for this very special task and ministry on behalf of the Jewish and Gentile believers.

Ray,

I just can't believe your saying this. I even told you where to go look. I thought you knew your Bible but I guess when you get outside of your personal theology your kind of like a fish out of water. At least you can say you learned something today. Don't feel too beat up because it was from a Catholic.

Joshua 7:6
Then Joshua tore his clothes and FELL TO THE EARTH ON HIS FACE BEFORE THE ARK OF THE LORD until the evening, BOTH HE AND THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL; and they put dust on their heads.

And in fact they actually did worship before it but trajic is right, it was "the God Bearer" and so they could worship God before it.

Joshua 7:8-10
"O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies?
"For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will You do for Your great name?"
So the LORD said to Joshua, "Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face?


Now modern day Protestants seeing this incident would have scoffed in disgust but of course God granted them Jerico after it. The concept of the Ark and the God-bearer has interesting implicatoins in that Christ is supposed to be in us. Paul says "yet not I but Christ lives in me". In a sense we are supposed to be Arks of the New Covenant. Once again I am sure you will deny this but it is true. Trying2's post on the serpant is interesting also with regard to images and worship. It is quite clear that the serpant was okay to be looked upon as long as they did not worship it. And they were cured upon doing so. Of course it was their faith in God that brought about the cure. But later on they began to worship the serpant and it was destoryed.

Trajic,

One thing you might find interesting is that the council of trent in no uncertain terms repudiates attributing anything to an icon of a miraculous or otherwise nature. They are reminders of our faith. Not majical charms by which things happen. God is the source of the grace by which we may be healed or events may happen to the favor of the prayer intentions. If you would like I will look up the quote from Trent.

Blessings

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I want to say this because I don't think some of the people on the board understood what I was saying about the woman who was refused Communion.

I said in my first post, 'I know a priest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania who refused to give a member of his church the 'body and blood' of our Lord, even though he heard her confession in the hospital. She even had a life threatening disease, but he said that she had missed the masses and until she proved herself he would not give her Communion. As a Christian minister I question the wisdom of his decision.'

This woman had been missing the regularly scheduled masses and the Easter duty. Apparently, he heard her confession and forgave her of this misdemeanor, probably a venial sin, but indeed withheld the Holy Sacrament of Communion from this woman even in the face a life-threatening illness. This woman told my mother-in-law who is a member of Holy Rosary Church. I know the priest but we are not on a first name basis.

I do know of other cases where a person who is divorced and is remarried cannot receive the Eucharist because the church tells the people that they are still married to the first partner in the first marriage. So the second marriage is not valid because they are living in the sin of adultery.

No consideration of Jesus words in Matthew 5:31-32 are considered. Jesus allows remarriage but only where adultery was a reality. Why should an innocent person be deprived of remarriage if they so desire, especially when the erring partner has committed adultery? Jesus allowed this as designed and drafted in this Matthew passage.

Again, my personal opinion is that the priests are a few cuts above the rest of the Catholic congregation, because in Boston the superiors covered up the grave sins of priests who ministered the 'body and blood of our Lord.' It seems hypocritical for priests to refuse a Catholic Christian from receiving the Communion in church, while some other priests blatantly violate other persons of the same sex.

I know I'm preaching a little close, but it is the truth.

Ray,

First of all in Catholicism missing Mass is no small issue as the individual in doing so is not giving God his proper due. i.e. worshipping his body, blood, soul and divinity. Now there are just reasons for missing Mass, ie. illness. But if one intentionally misses that as a Catholic is a problem. Now you apply your loose protestant theology to the issue and come up with a different answer. But if the woman chooses to be Catholic and wants to participate in the Eucharist, believing it to be the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ then she, as Paul states in 1 Cor 11 must examine herself and the priest in fact has some obligation to speak to her of her errors.

Ezekiel 33:8-9
When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.
But if thou tell the wicked man, that he may be converted from his ways, and he be not converted from his way: he shall die in his iniquity: but thou hast delivered thy soul

Catholicism is not a smorgasboard religion like your Protestant denominations.

perhaps if I get time, I will handle the divorce issue for you tommorrow. Things aren't always as they seem with regard to scripture.

Blessings.

[ September 09, 2003, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
I want to say this because I don't think some of the people on the board understood what I was saying about the woman who was refused Communion.

I said in my first post, 'I know a priest in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania who refused to give a member of his church the 'body and blood' of our Lord, even though he heard her confession in the hospital. She even had a life threatening disease, but he said that she had missed the masses and until she proved herself he would not give her Communion. As a Christian minister I question the wisdom of his decision.'

This woman had been missing the regularly scheduled masses and the Easter duty. Apparently, he heard her confession and forgave her of this misdemeanor, probably a venial sin, but indeed withheld the Holy Sacrament of Communion from this woman even in the face a life-threatening illness. This woman told my mother-in-law who is a member of Holy Rosary Church. I know the priest but we are not on a first name basis.

Then he did absolve her (he forgave, and did not retain, her sins) and yet he acts as though she was in a state of mortal sin. Do you see how nonsensical this is? The very same priest forgives her and then acts like she isn't forgiven!

I do know of other cases where a person who is divorced and is remarried cannot receive the Eucharist because the church tells the people that they are still married to the first partner in the first marriage. So the second marriage is not valid because they are living in the sin of adultery.

No consideration of Jesus words in Matthew 5:31-32 are considered. Jesus allows remarriage but only where adultery was a reality. Why should an innocent person be deprived of remarriage if they so desire, especially when the erring partner has committed adultery? Jesus allowed this as designed and drafted in this Matthew passage.

So you personally know of a marriage where one person committed adultery and was not clearly remorseful and repentant, and yet the other person was denied an annulment?

Here's a site that seems to give a good overview of accepted grounds for annulment:
GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT

 

[Ray Berrian]

thessalonian,

Reread my post. I only said that the Jews and Gentiles did not have access to the Ark of the Covenant in the wilderness or in the Temple. I did not deny or say anything about Joshua or his elders of the land. There is a difference between their travels with the Ark and when the Ark was housed in the sanctuary or Temple.

The 'middle wall of partition' between the O.T. and the N.T. saints [Ephesians 2:12-16]was broken down only when Christ abolished it. Now under grace we have no need of a priesthood because Christ is our great High Priest and we as Christian believers are all priests unto the Lord God. [Revelation 1:6]

My point is that the Israelites were not to use the Ark as a religious relic; as you know while the Ark was being moved one man tried to support it when it slid and because he touched it God took his life. He was trying to teach the people that they did not have access to God and they must go through a high priest. Under this covenant since Pentecost we do not need a priest to represent us before the throne of God. Christ represents us before Almighty God. [I Timothy 2:5; I John 2:2; Hebrews 7:25]

In fact we as Christians are priests unto the Lord God. We have perfect access to the one God in everyway. [Revelation 1:6a] This is what the Protestant Reformation taught many people. It was the Priesthood of all believers.

 

[Ray Berrian]

thessalonian,

This is what you said, 'Catholicism is not a smorgasboard religion like your Protestant denominations.'

Hopefully most Protestant denominations do not make going to church a legalistic requirement to prove your salvation. Protestants know that they are saved by Christ, through His grace, and because of our faith in Him. We are not rule oriented; we go to church because of our love for the Lord our God. This is the liberty that we enjoy and the beauty of being a non-Catholic. Protestant ministers, generally speaking, trust the Lord to keep His own sheep; it is our ministry to feed them.