• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some corrections needed on the Roman Catholic bashing?

JohnF_73

Unregistered
J
Regarding the fiasco with the little girls’ communion being voided by some ignorant unsympathetic Rev.

As disgusted as I am with his attitude and actions, I feel a few salient facts need to be corrected, in the interests of accuracy.

Randi mentions the “church's pastor, the Rev. Stanley P. Lukaszewski.

Well, as far as I can recall, being a lapsed RC myself, Roman Catholicism doesn’t have Pastor’s. Or Reverends. So something’s wrong there. Either the girls denomination is not RC, or the appellation used is incorrect.

"Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist," he said.

Second, Roman Catholics take their beliefs from the Holy See. Since there is no official RC doctrine to say that the wafer must be gluten free, I think this Rev. is either (again) not RC, or making up his own rules. (They used to burn people for that, remember?) I’m sure Haley’s mother’s letter will provoke similar confusion in the recipient.

Lastly, it’s a crazy belief system I know, but the wafer is not supposed to represent the body of Christ. It is a dogma of RC belief, that the ceremony of “mass” contains a literal transfiguration of the bread and wine into the body and blood of their saviour. Sort of “looks like bread, tastes like bread, but trust us, it’s really the flesh of Christ”. Hence referring to the wafer as a symbol is technically incorrect if the ceremony is R.C., but as I said, I think that’s less and less likely.

The Roman Catholic Church has plenty of things wrong with it, plenty of irrational superstition, like any religion. But compared to some they are better than most, what with their official acceptance of the Big Bang, Evolution, etc… They may have been 400 years too late in forgiving Galileo, but I think the gluten-free thing just smacks of whole different sort of nuttiness.
 
According to CNN.com, an 8-year-old girl who suffers from a digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat has had her first Holy Communion declared invalid because the wafer contained no wheat, violating Roman Catholic doctrine.

After the church's pastor refused to allow a substitute, a priest at a nearby parish volunteered to offer one, and in May, Haley wore a white Communion dress, and received the sacrament alongside her mother, who had not taken Communion since she herself was diagnosed with the disease.

Last month, the diocese told the priest that the church would not validate Haley's sacrament because of the substitute wafer.


I don't think the RC church truly understands how foolish they are capable of making themselves look. Are they claiming that God is incapable of transubstantiating a wafer that does not contain wheat? What happened to Matthew 19:26?
 
"This is not an issue to be determined at the diocesan or parish level, but has already been decided for the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world by Vatican authority," Trenton Bishop John M. Smith said in a statement last week.

The Bishop seems to have a different opinion on the matter. Also, clearly implying that churches who give non gluten hosts are going against Church doctrine.

pastor - a spiritual overseer; especially : a clergyman serving a local church or parish - Websters

So "pastor" seems a trivial mistake, especially from an atheist who sees all religious superstition as pretty much the same stuff.

I am more interested though, in why Catholics can assert that this is NOT church doctrine, when it seems to definitely BE church doctrine. To say that 'other parishes do it' does not remove the fact that they are breaking rules set by the Holy See.
 
Well thats where you get to the fun bit. Things have to be siad in a certian way to become church doctrian. A qucik question and answer say over the phonheprobably doesn't count.
 
Gr8wight said:
Are they claiming that God is incapable of transubstantiating a wafer that does not contain wheat? What happened to Matthew 19:26?
There are some things that God cannot do:

Judges 1:19
"And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Mark 6:5
"And he could there do no mighty work."

Hebrews 6:18
"It was impossible for God to lie."

From here. :D
 
"Are they claiming that God is incapable of transubstantiating a wafer that does not contain wheat?"

Of course not. They are simply trying to follow his alleged instructions "Do this in memory of me" and so trying to follow the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of the law.

(Yes, the lesson is Eat The Right Kind Of Bread, not Put The Welfare Of Others Before Your Own) :rolleyes:

"I am more interested though, in why Catholics can assert that this is NOT church doctrine, when it seems to definitely BE church doctrine"

Well, the only place (and I do mean the ONLY place) that he can draw such a conclusion from is the Missale Romanum. In section 3 of the chapter De defectibus, it does say that the priest must use "panis triticeus", without which the "confection of the Sacrament does not take place". Panis Triticeus is wheaten bread (so gluten forms a part of it.)

However, the Missale Romanum was written in 1474, authorised is 1570, and revised in 1604. It's not exactly written in stone. However Papal decrees are. (More or less).

Papal Infalibility was not decreed until much later (1870). So unless any Pope since then has forbidden gluten free bread, I'm going to disagree with his Grace, and say this is bogus.
 
Wanted to add... As Penn & Teller said "Read the Bible. We need more atheists." :D

Nothing will get you there faster.
 
While I hesitate not to label the Roman Catholic church as insane, I should note that in this case it's really the mother who deserves the lunatic label.

Not only did the mother reject the use of the standard host (which, even in the case of a small child, probably doesn't contain enough gluten to cause anything more than a case of diarrhea -- this isn't a peanut allergy or anything), but also an approved low-gluten host (which stood even less of a chance of causing problems -- unless of course homeopathy turns out substantially correct, in which case it would have caused more), and also, and most importantly, refused a sip of mustum (a low alcohol wine). Now, alcohol causes no problem for people with celiac-sprue -- and in this case we're talking about a small sip of something with an extremely low proof as it is (it's comparable to taking a small sip of cough syrup). Why wasn't this option taken? " "I didn't think any amount of alcohol is appropriate at this point for a child," she said. " ( http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1092734333228950.xml)

So, realistically, we've got a church with an odd doctrine, but a willingness to provide alternatives -- and a mother who rejects those alternatives in favor of her own alternative (which the church doesn't approve). As silly as I find Roman Catholicism to be, I think in this case they're the ones acting sane, despite the "won't somebody think of the children!!?!!?" hysteria involved.
 
In the bigger picture, why does either party bother to try and enforce their will on the other? A cavalcade of silliness...
 
Hmmm.

Thanks for that extra bit of info Eleatic Stranger. That will teach me not to read the article more carefully. I didn't realise the mother had rejected two safe and acceptable alternatives.

Irrationality on both sides, methinks. But in different ways.
 
Kopji said:

pastor - a spiritual overseer; especially : a clergyman serving a local church or parish - Websters

So "pastor" seems a trivial mistake, especially from an atheist who sees all religious superstition as pretty much the same stuff.

Well I think the difference is obvious to anyone who knows the RC faith. The ranks are there and in place for a reason. (Even if the reasons make no sense to an atheist.)

From priest up through Arch Bishop, to Cardinal and beyond, these terms have a definite meaning.

Don't we give out when we see science terms being used incorrectly by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about?

If we are to comment on (or criticise) a religion, I think we should strive for the same level of accuracy we demand from others. The terms are not interchangeable, anymore than Major and Captain.
 
JohnF_73 said:
...As disgusted as I am with his attitude and actions, I feel a few salient facts need to be corrected, in the interests of accuracy.

Randi mentions the “church's pastor, the Rev. Stanley P. Lukaszewski.

Well, as far as I can recall, being a lapsed RC myself, Roman Catholicism doesn’t have Pastor’s. Or Reverends. So something’s wrong there. Either the girls denomination is not RC, or the appellation used is incorrect.

............... and

Well I think the difference is obvious to anyone who knows the RC faith. The ranks are there and in place for a reason. (Even if the reasons make no sense to an atheist.)

From priest up through Arch Bishop, to Cardinal and beyond, these terms have a definite meaning.

Don't we give out when we see science terms being used incorrectly by people who don't know what the hell they're talking about?

If we are to comment on (or criticise) a religion, I think we should strive for the same level of accuracy we demand from others. The terms are not interchangeable, anymore than Major and Captain.


Obvious? Accuracy ? Salient ?


From the Dioces of Trenton Web Site:
St. Denis Church
St. Denis Church
P. O. Box 340
Manasquan, NJ 08736


Pastor: Rev. Stanley Lukaszewski
Deacon: George R. Kelder, Jr.
Deacon: Donald L. Perusi
Religious Education Coordinator: DRE, Sr. Mary Veasy, SSJ
Phone: 732-223-0287
Fax: 732-528-1901
Parish Website: http://www.churchofstdenis.org
Email: stdenis@verizon.net

Perhaps you were thinking of another Roman Catholic Church?

You really should have done your homework John... :teacher:
 
Um, if it truly transubstantiates, that is, turns from bread into actual human body, it should then be safe for her to eat, right?

Sounds like a good bet for the Million Dollar Challenge!
 
alfaniner said:
Um, if it truly transubstantiates, that is, turns from bread into actual human body, it should then be safe for her to eat, right?

Depends what part of the body it allegedly turns into...

Kuru.
 
alfaniner said:
Um, if it truly transubstantiates, that is, turns from bread into actual human body, it should then be safe for her to eat, right?

Ahh, but you're misunderstanding the catholic belief. The term "Transubstantiation" comes from one of the early theologins (Aquinas?) pondering the mystery of how the bread can be both bread and the body of christ. Based on the aristotelian concept that all things have matter (the actual physical nature) and substance (it's spiritual nature), he reasoned that during mass, the substance of the bread and wine changes into the substance of the body and blood, but the matter remains bread and wine. So, all observable physical qualities of transubstantiated bread should be completely indistinguishable from non-transubstantiated bread. (unless you can figure out a way to see substance) So, even under Catholic theology it would still be unsafe for her to eat.
 
In Catholicism, the pastor is the priest who is in charge of a particular church. There may be any number of other priests in that parish, with other assignments, but only one is the pastor.
He usually has an assistant priest or two, depending on the size of the congregation. But it's not a rank, like bishop, archbishop, or cardinal. It's a job title.
 
TragicMonkey said:
In Catholicism, the pastor is the priest who is in charge of a particular church. There may be any number of other priests in that parish, with other assignments, but only one is the pastor.
He usually has an assistant priest or two, depending on the size of the congregation. But it's not a rank, like bishop, archbishop, or cardinal. It's a job title.
Note that JohnF_73, having ranted about Randi's alleged misuse of the terms ' Pastor ' and ' Reverand ', is now silent; after I showed with a simple ' Google ' that Randi is not the misinformed party here...


Chirp....... Chirp........
 
Although I have to say I've only ever heard Protestants use the term "pastor" to refer to a pastor. Unless they're church employees and need to differentiate, most Catholics just say "the priest" or "Father Whatever".

I've seen Catholic priests write the title Reverend, but usually you hear them addressed as "Father". The only place I've ever heard "Reverend" being used aloud for a Catholic clergyman is when someone introduces "the Most Reverend Archbishop" or something....like it's a descriptive, not part of the title. Bishops are addressed as Bishop Blah Blahson, and "Your Grace" to his face. Archbishops are Archbishop Blah Blahson, and "Your Grace" as well. Cardinals, however, are "Blah Cardinal Blahson" and "Your Eminence". I think the official title of a cardinal is "Archbishop Cardinal", being a bishop of a higher rank and just abbreviated to "Cardinal", just like a Lieutenant General is called "General". This makes sense when you consider that all the clerical ranks are just differing degrees of bishop--even the Pope is officially just the "Bishop of Rome".
 
TragicMonkey said:
Although I have to say I've only ever heard Protestants use the term "pastor" to refer to a pastor. Unless they're church employees and need to differentiate, most Catholics just say "the priest" or "Father Whatever".

I've seen Catholic priests write the title Reverend, but usually you hear them addressed as "Father". The only place I've ever heard "Reverend" being used aloud for a Catholic clergyman is when someone introduces "the Most Reverend Archbishop" or something....like it's a descriptive, not part of the title. Bishops are addressed as Bishop Blah Blahson, and "Your Grace" to his face. Archbishops are Archbishop Blah Blahson, and "Your Grace" as well. Cardinals, however, are "Blah Cardinal Blahson" and "Your Eminence". I think the official title of a cardinal is "Archbishop Cardinal", being a bishop of a higher rank and just abbreviated to "Cardinal", just like a Lieutenant General is called "General". This makes sense when you consider that all the clerical ranks are just differing degrees of bishop--even the Pope is officially just the "Bishop of Rome".

Yes, but you did read the original post and my response didn't you?

JohnF_73 Started this thread by procaiming Randi's lack of expertise in matters Catholic by proclaiming:
Well, as far as I can recall, being a lapsed RC myself, Roman Catholicism doesn’t have Pastor’s. Or Reverends.
I quickly discovered that all the Catholic church web sites I could find, listed their ' PASTOR ' and referred to him as ' REV. '.. Including the Pastor mentioned in Randi's commentary..


Our illustrious poster was bashing Randi's commentary and only mananged to expose his own ignorance..
 
Diogenes said:
Yes, but you did read the original post and my response didn't you?

JohnF_73 Started this thread by procaiming Randi's lack of expertise in matters Catholic by proclaiming:I quickly discovered that all the Catholic church web sites I could find, listed their ' PASTOR ' and referred to him as ' REV. '.. Including the Pastor mentioned in Randi's commentary..

Our illustrious poster was bashing Randi's commentary and only mananged to expose his own ignorance..

Or you could just ask a lapsed Catholic. I was mostly trying to see if I could remember it all.

I'm pretty sure it's "Cardinal Archbishop" and not vice versa. And the bird is named after the churchman, not the other way around. Weird, huh?
 

Back
Top Bottom