Friday, 8 September 2017

'Agnostic' Corbyn upsets Catholics by taking Communion


Image result for jeremy corbyn


 Gordon Rayner THE TELEGRAPH


Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of "disrespecting the Catholic faith" after he took Holy Communion despite his apparent agnosticism.

The Labour leader, who has never practiced Catholicism, took wine and wafers during the funeral of the former GMB Union president Mary Turner, who died in July.

The Diocese of Westminster, which is responsible for the church Mr Corbyn was attending at the time, responded by saying that it expected celebrants to be "in full communion with the Catholic Church" in order to receive Communion.

The left-wing New Statesman magazine reports that Mr Corbyn queued for Communion with his Mexican wife Laura Alvarez during the service at Sacred Heart Church in Kilburn, north London.

He is not the only Labour leader to be criticised for taking Communion: in 1996 the late Cardinal Basil Hume wrote to Tony Blair asking him to refrain from taking Communion when he was attending Mass with his family.

Image result for tony blair receiving communion

Mr Blair was at the time a practicing Anglican, and replied: "I wonder what Jesus would have made of it."

Mr Corbyn's office declined to comment on his taking Communion, but a Labour source said the Labour leader had spoken at the funeral and "paid his respects to her family and Mary's memory".

Clare Bowskill of the Latin Mass Society said: "Most Catholics would think that was disrespecting the faith quite considerably. Even Anglicans are normally told at Mass that they are welcome to come up for a blessing but they do not take Communion."

The Eucharist is considered the most important of the seven sacraments, and Catholic Church guidelines state that non-Christians cannot receive it. According to the book of Corinthians, "any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself".

Sacred Heart is part of the Diocese of Westminster, which said in a statement: "To receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, a person is expected to be in full communion with the Catholic Church.  Normally, a priest would presume this is the case, unless he has clear knowledge or indication that this is not the case."

Mr Corbyn has always refused to be drawn on whether he has any religious beliefs, though Labour confirmed today that he is not a Catholic and did not convert to Catholicism to marry his current wife.

In 2015 he said: “I respect all faiths, I probably spend more time going to religious services than most people, of all types. I go to synagogues, I go to mosques, I go to temples, I go to churches, and I have many humanistic friends and I have many atheist friends. I respect them all."

Asked if it would be accurate to describe him as an atheist, he said: “There are so many things about me written that are unfair, unjust and ill-searched that it would be wrong. I’m not going any further than that, belief is a private thing.”

Mr Corbyn's church visits have got him into trouble in the past. Shortly after becoming Labour leader he was roundly criticised when he refused to sing the National Anthem at a Battle of Britain memorial service in St Paul's Cathedral.



PAT SAYS:


I don't see any problem with Jeremy Corbyn receiving Holy Communion at the funeral of his friend.

Of course it against of the teaching and discipline of the RC Church for a non-Catholic to receive Communion.

It is also against its teaching for a Catholic who is not "in good standing" or in "mortal sin" to take Communion.

I do not like Tony Blair or much that he says. But he was quite correct to respond in the way he did to being told he should not have taken Communion when he was not Catholic - "I WONDER WHAT JESUS WOULD HAVE MADE OF IT".

Of course, Jesus when he first made Communion available was a JEW!

And the first people who received Holy Communion were also JEWS!

Can you imagine Jesus presiding over a Eucharist and REFUSING ANYONE PRESENT Communion?

I cannot.

At our Oratory in Larne - ANYONE who presents for Communion receives it.

And that has included members of other Christian churches, Muslims, and members of the Parsee faith of India.

Communion is not a REWARD for being a Catholic or being GOOD.

Communion is spiritual food.

It is also a sign of community/communion among those present.

I have never - and will never refuse Communion to anyone.

It is God's gift. Who am I to refuse God's gift to anyone?

I have been refused Communion myself TWICE - once by traditionalist Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and once by Phonsie Cullinan in Waterford.


130 comments:

  1. Archbishop Lefebvre should be a saint. He stood up to those toadies who wanted to destroy the classical rite of mass that countless catholics loved and prayed and indeed laid down their lives for. Pope Benedict more or less agreed the attempt to crush and wipe out the old mass was a mistake.

    Pat how did the archbishop know who you were?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The priest with him told him I was a "notorious modernist :-)

      Delete
    2. Being a modernist requires some intellectual capacity.

      Delete
    3. One of my "patron saint" is the modernist Father George Tyrrel SJ

      Delete
    4. 'Classical rite of mass'? You mean the 'Tridentine Rite', don't you?

      As for 'countless' Catholics' 'loving' this rite, where's the evidence for such a claim? Catholics had no option but to worship in this manner, since it was imposed on them by Rome.

      Love involves choice in what is loved; there was no choice here. Worse, the Mass was commemorated in a language (Latin) few, if any, lay Catholics understood (and not a few celebrants either).

      Delete
    5. @16.03
      You've omitted to call Nuala old. Are you feeling ok?
      Latin really is a sore point with you, isn't it?

      Delete
    6. No, Latin isn't 'a sore point' with me; it's a lyrical and sonorous language that lends itself easily to liturgical celebration.

      But which is more important? Latin, or the practical needs of the poor sods who don't speak it?

      For a Christian, the answer to this is obvious. 'For a genuine Christian', that is.

      Delete
    7. And ut's not a question I will answer when set by you, you pharasaical sod. I recognise a trap when I see one and know that your whole intent is to lambast anyone posting on here.
      Maggie Carta will now either blast me with insults or make out he's injured. Ignorant b*****d.

      Delete
    8. Actually I remember a strange, solitary seminarian at Maynooth in the eighties who would fly into a rage at the very mention of the words Latin, Tradition or Catechism. He was rumoured to go through other students' y-fronts in the laundry. I wonder...

      Delete
  2. I would like to send Jeremy Corbyn on a trip to Waterford and see how Phonsie Cullinan would do in that situation? It says it all when you were refused Holy Communion Pat and Jeremy Corbyn was not. I wonder what his Eminence in Westminster's view is?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder what would happen if Jeremy Corbyn presented himself in Phonsie's Holy Communion queue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's time for the Irish bishops to elect their own chair, like the majority of the world's conferences of bishops, to remove the grace and favour from being within the gift of the Vatican and add a necessary element of democracy and to abolish the titles of primate of all-Ireland and primate of Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree with 00:35. The Bishop's Conference is a joke.....a waste of time. There is no new thinking in it. Eamon Martin should be elected to the presidency rather than simply going through a coronation. I'd love to see someone like Alan Mc Guckian in Raphoe, Fintan Monahan (Killaloe) or one of the other new boys actually grow a pair and put it to a vote. Why can't one, just one bishop out of 26 have a backbone and propose someone else for the chair of the Conference and force a vote. It's pathetic! Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, the US and many more actually elect the President of the Conference but Ireland? Still stuck in the dark ages......in fact the Irish Church is finished. We're never going to recover. The bishops are irrelevant in the lives of most catholics and, worse still, they don't even grasp it.

      Delete
  5. Well said Pat. It's always baffled me why people take this stance. Judas at the last supper was offered to be in communion. It's part of the good news that ALL are welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I can agree with your statement Pat, that "Communion is a spiritual food, .....and sign of community/communion among those present".
    I can agree, for I understand communion as a symbolic representation of harmony and fellowship. I regard the idea of transubstantion as utterly ridiculous, theoretically, and practically.
    So I've no problem with Jeremy, or any other person, Christian, believer or otherwise going forward for communion. For myself, for the past aprox 20 years I've not 'followed the crocodilian queue' of those going forward to receive at the various family 'rites of passage' celebrations attended. I can't see any point in it, and to follow the crowd would, for me, simply lend duplicitous credence.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a hero MMM. You follow a different queue. Original or what.

      Delete
  7. An accidental failure to fully appreciate the Catholic theology surrounding the Real Presence in Holy Communion does not constitute disrespect, provided that there was no intention to give offence.
    I am a very letter - of - the - law Catholic but that is my opinion and I think that Mr Corbyn was anxious to appear to comply and to identify with everyone else who was receiving Holy Communion. He may even have thought that to not go up and present himself at the correct time at the altar would actually be regarded as offensive. That is how I interpret it but he, himself knows the answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps he was hoping to find proof of God's existence in that host.

      Delete
  8. In relation to the EUCHARIST in Catholic Thinking: it's very clear what we believe and there is no changing the meaning of and significance of Transubstantiation. Eucharist is essentially about gathering in the name of Jesus. We do this so that we never forget what Jesus has done for us. All christians have their own understanding of what "gathering in his name" means. The importance for Catholics is clear. One of the great blessings of gathering for the Eucharist is that it provides a focal point for the local community to "be present" with and for one another. In my own parish community I often wonder what we'd do in the absence of Eucharistic gathering! Head for the modern cathedrals of shopping malls? Who is to know what the faith/religious persuasion is of any person who comes to the Altar? I find great comfort in the words of Jesus : "I am the bread of life. All who come to me will never hunger, all who believe will never thirst..." These and other words are life giving and continually draw me back to the source of inner nourishment - Jesus, whose Real Presence we feel and touch tangibly in the Eucharist. I respect all fellow travellers in their individual pathways in search of truth and love. Of course the real challenge begins when we are invited "to go in peace to love and serve the Lord" That's when true Eucharist begins...To become what we receive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well we'll Nobody fd and jeffed at Corbyn from the altar and the ground has not opened to swallow him up. The issue is between God and Corbyn. Christian faith is not like the Crystal Maze TV show. One does not have to win crystals front God. Communion although precious is not this type of Crystal

    ReplyDelete
  10. @1.35.

    A lovely reasonable and sensible response...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can you imagine Jesus refusing anyone Communion? Yes.

    If a person persists stubbornly in their error they are to be put out of the community. You will hear that in the Gospel tomorrow and it is the basis for excommunication: "If he refuses to listen to the community, then treat him as you would a tax collector or a pagan".

    Also, the Word of God clearly teaches that anyone who approaches Holy Communion unworthily is "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord" and is "eating and drinking their own damnation".

    There are standards. It is not a free for all or "sure whatever ya think yerself".

    On the simple fact alone that he is a strident abortionist, Jeremy Corbyn should not have gone to Holy Communion. It is sacrilege that he did so.

    We must pray for him that he will become enlightened about the True God and, perhaps, one day, receive Holy Communion with faith and in the state of grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh! You WOULD imagine Jesus' refusing someone Communion. No surprise here, because you're not Jesus.

      If Jesus offered Communion to Judas, who the bloody Hell are you, you arrogant b**t**d, to refuse anyone his body, heart and soul? To refuse them his redeeming love?

      Delete
    2. Magna Carta, you truly are one ignorant and arrogant little man. The person is simply quoting Jesus Himself who Himself makes it clear that some, by their own actions, exclude themselves from salvation. Judas made an unworthy Communion at the Last Supper. Do you really have to resort to abuse every time you disagree with someone? It really says everything about the disposition of your own soul. The redeeming love of Jesus is far from evident in any of your contributions here.

      Delete
    3. Magna at 11.46. Don't fall back to your ignorant ways of intolerance and foul mouthed language. RESPECT in any dialogue contributes to proper understanding of the CHURCH's TEACHINGS AND TRUTHS. No amount of venom or denigration by you will alter these truths. Yes, I believe in the graciousness of God towards everyone, but I'm also conscious of the teachings of Jesus - if a person does not share our faith, beliefs or teachings, ir is not ooen to ir believes in God,receiving the Eucharist is hypocrisy. Remember the command of Jesus to the woman - go and sin no more. We are invited always to be open to the grace of God's redeeming love in Jesus.It us not a gift we take for granted. We preserve the integrity of our faith. And you, Magna, in your "free for all" attitude teach error.

      Delete
    4. Where does Jesus exclude ANYone from community? You're thinking of that scene in Matthew's Gospel, aren't you, you Pharasaiacal little fool?

      (Please pick up the gauntlet, allowing me to expose your stupidity.)

      Delete
    5. Once again, Pat Buckley allows the irremediably nasty and irredeemably obnoxious MC to spew abuse at a contributor making a perfectly valid point.

      Delete
    6. Pat and Magna Carta, what's the story here? To call people an arrogant bastard is just not acceptable - you'll forgive me if I don't hide behind the childish fig-leaf of ***, won't you? MG I am not a knee-jerk basher of you by any means, the discussions we have here need everyone, but the simple truth is that we can't speak out of the two sides of our mouths at once. On the one hand abusive language and yet within the very same sentence you speak of the redeeming love of Jesus. No matter what you might think about someone's opinions, it is no more acceptable that you abuse them with names than when they do it to you.

      Delete
    7. Specifically mind, what 'error' do I teach, 12:24?

      Delete
    8. Drunk today again Magna Carta? Or off your tablets? Away and f**k yerself.

      Delete
    9. 13:07, so I'm, in your opinion, 'irremediably (sic) nasty and irredeemably obnoxious'. You don't believe in redemption, then?

      (God! The fools that post here.😧)

      Delete
    10. The reason Buckley allows the troll Carta such a free hand to offend, insult and attack, apart from the fact that Carta is always very careful to kiss Buckley's arse, is because Buckley thinks it's "funny".

      They are both cruel you see and birds of a feather flock together.

      Although Buckley would have us believe that he doesn't know the identity of this Carta bucko, which is very strange indeed (obviously Carta doesn't trust him either). I think Buckley knows rightly who he is. Why else would he pamper him so much?

      They are well met and it serves you all right for feeding both of them and setting yourselves up as fair game to be harangued and insulted.

      Delete
    11. Pick up the gauntlet! The weight of the mc intellectual gauntlet is powered by alcohol and embittered rejection! Go back to Wikipedia.

      Delete
    12. I certainly do believe in redemption MC - but it must be accepted. "By their fruits shall you know them". Your "fruits" are bitterness, scathing contempt and toxicity.

      Delete
    13. Maybe you are otherwise engaged but if not then come on Pat, step up to the plate - where has happened to the promise to ensure that there would be no abuse here? I don't think we're snowflakes, but I was under the impression that despite our differences we were Christians!

      Delete
    14. Dear Magna,
      You made a very valid response in your initial comment.

      Yet so often there are objections to your comments because of how you say things, rather than what you say. This is a real devaluation because the content of your comments are so often very valuable, insightful and open-minded. Today's response is a great example of a fantastic content which was devalued because of how you intoned it. Might I suggest your responses also mirror the gentleness of Jesus' tone.

      May peace be with you.

      Delete
    15. @18.50
      Ha ha! Good luck with that suggestion! You'll need it!

      Delete
    16. 18:50, you are right, of course, about how I express my points; but (and I am not here excusing myself) when I come across the Pharasaical mindset of certain Catholics, it angers me, as it did Jesus (though naturally, he, being God, had greater self-control).

      Thank you for your petition of peace; I return the prayer.

      Delete
    17. It is obvious that MG must be very unsure of his ground if he needs to make his points so aggressively and insultingly. He is clearly afraid that he is wrong and that what he was taught in his youth is, in fact, the truth. If you subscribe to the Catechism, you are a Catholic, if you don't - you aren't. There is according to the Creed only ONE Catholic Church and you are either in or out whatever people pretend. Why on earth Irish dissenters insist on claiming to be Catholics, I cannot understand. The evangelical 'churches' in the US are full of ex-Catholics which is honest at least.

      Delete
    18. @ 12:14, 12:24, 13:07, 14:18, 1457, 16:52, 17:08, 18:39 and 18:50 - round of applause, guys.
      And 14:28, I was wondering exactly that.

      Delete
    19. 23:32, another Pharisee who presumes the right to decide who's in and who's out of the Roman Catholic Church.

      No, you don't have that right: I am Catholic by virtue of my baptism, which neither you nor anyone else can undo.

      And the Catechism is most certainly not a statement of what the Church believes (or must believe), but a statement of beliefs held by certain theologians and clerics who do not constitute the Church, but are merely an infinitesimal part of it. Nor do they have any right to speak for the Church when their teaching is in error.

      Their arrogance, like yours, lies in the conceit (and self-delusion) that THEY may be called 'The Church', regardless of what they teach.

      If you joined a club whose rules disallowed blacks, Jews, gay people, Irish people would you shrug your shoulders and accept that, in order to remain in this club, you must subscribe to its rules? Or would you 'grow a pair' and decide it's time for justice?

      Roman Catholicism, at an institutional level, historically has taught and done, in Christ's name, morally appalling things.

      And it is still doing such things. That book you swear by, the Catechism, continues, for example, to 'okay' morally capital punishment, even though Jesus' actual teaching is that we are to love enemies and love neighbours as if they were our very selves.

      Jesus made it clear that love of neighbour is second only to love of God; in fact, he distilled the Commandments into just these two. Yet, the Roman whore, the unfaithful 'Bride of Christ', has for many centuries spurned the One who loves her and has shamelessly trysted with the world: with Satan. In doing so, she ruthlessly and unconscionably slaughtered even her own children.

      No, I am not in the least unsure of my ground. For my ground is the actual teaching of Christ himself, the surest ground of all.

      Delete
    20. @14:39 Another confused demonstration of your lack of intelligence, you pharasaical ignorant b**t**d.

      Pat if you don't pass this comment I will know for a fact you are favouring Magna Carta over other commenters, because these are all things he has said to other people in comments you have allowed.

      Delete
    21. And precisely what is my 'confused demonstration'?

      (If you don't answer this post 15:59, I'll know that you're, er, confused for failing to demonstrate. 😆)

      Delete
    22. Here's your demonstration: another Pharisee who presumes the right to decide who's in and who's out of the Roman Catholic Church. Ignorant moron.

      Delete
    23. Oh, dear, 18:40! You really are confused, aren't you?

      Delete
    24. Not at all. And precisely what is my 'confused demonstration'?

      Delete
    25. Okay. I'll give you an opportunity to 'correct' me. What was 'confused' about my calling you a Pharisee who presumes the right to decide who's in and who's out of the Church?

      Delete
    26. @21:53 Emotional response to a post is neither rational nor intelligent engagement. And your response appears merely emotional.

      Delete
    27. I don't claim the right to decide who is a Catholic and who is not. The Church has that right and you are NOT. The Baptism of all Christians in the prescribed form is recognised as valid but it doesn't make them Catholics. YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC BY ANY DEFINITION. Live with it.

      Delete
    28. 00:09 so you 'don't claim the right to decide who is a Catholic and who is not' and yet, of me you state emphatically: '...and you are NOT'.

      You need to lie down for a while. The weight of such confusion on such intellectually narrow shoulders as your must be very wearying.

      Delete
  12. The Gospel passage about casting pearls before swine springs to mind. In our super egalitarian times when inclusiveness is the great buzzword it's not surprising that the concept of a community of believers is anathema. The sacraments are sacraments of faith for a people of faith. If Mr Corbyn saw a line of people going up for something and decided to do the same somebody there should have - in charity- explained to the congregation the nature and meaning of Holy Communion. We can't blame people who know no better for their well intentioned error, but we can blame the celebrant at that Mass for not taking a moment to explain the church's teaching on the Eucharist and honoring those not of the faith with the offer of a blessing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You Pharasaiacal fool! How do you expand community (which is implicit in Jesus' missionary mandate to make disciples of all nations) by drawing up rules of exclusion. Admittance to this community is by love, not dogma, you moron.

      The number of neo-Pharisees posting here today is almost alarming.

      Delete
    2. An obnoxious, abusive and moronic fool like MC, talking in any capacity about love, Divine or otherwise, is simply risible.

      People, please stop feeding this troll. Stop engaging and debating with it. There is no point. You will get nowhere fast.

      Trolls should be ignored and, if Pat Buckley had any consideration for his readers, he would ban this vitriolic and nasty little waster from his page.

      Delete
    3. Your language betrays a warped vile spirit!

      Delete
    4. Yeah just as the Beatles sang "all you need is love" trouble is lust and selfishness often pass themselves off as love.

      Delete
    5. Not half as alarming as the rudeness of the Know-it-all who thinks the world is peopled by "Pharasaiacal" fools. He's on telling the rest of you how you to "love"! Are we to follow his example - - his gentleness of spirit? Ha ha,good luck with that one...!

      Delete
    6. 15:13, your mention of 'lust and selfishness' in the context I referred to (love) shows, perhaps, your own preoccupation with these vices. Yes?

      Delete
    7. Magna suffers from rejection, hence the constant need for attention.

      Delete
    8. @16.54
      Yes, I think you're correct. It all gets a bit tedious and predictable, doesn't it?

      Delete
    9. And, of course 16:54, you give me the attention I apparently crave.

      Thank ee.

      Delete
    10. @22.36
      No apparently about it. I think calling you out on your behaviour is a better strategy than just ignoring you, which has been suggested here before. I posted to this effect earlier today and hope my post hasn't appeared as a result of a blogger glitch.

      Delete
  13. The Christian Churches are convinced that Jesus instituted the Eucharist at the last supper but it is easy to prove that this is untrue.

    The resurrection was the superlative event in the early Church. It was more important than the crucifixion. If Jesus had instituted the Eucharist he would have said: “This is my body that has been raised from the dead for you.” If the Catholic doctrine is true that it is the risen body of Jesus that is in the Eucharist not the crucified one then this wording would definitely have been used.

    The apostles did not expect Jesus to die cruelly and bloodily so there was no Last Supper as described in the New Testament. Following supper, John 16:17 says that when Jesus told the apostles that he would soon be leaving them and that soon after that they would see him again they were puzzled. They wouldn’t have been if they had just been told at the Last Supper that Jesus’ hours were numbered.

    The Gospel of John has ancient strands of tradition in it so its omitting the Eucharist account is telling. He wrote his gospel to make people believe in Jesus and would not have left out something so important and essential to a real understanding of the gospel.

    John 6 is not about the Eucharist though it uses the same symbolical devices. John would not have put in material that gives the false impression of being about the Eucharist but isn’t unless he wanted to attack the Eucharist.

    The Eucharist would have been an excuse for the Jews to accuse the Christians of idolatry so Jesus would not have started it. But then they might not have used the words that Jesus used like, “This is my body/blood”.

    Assuming the narrative of the supper Jesus had with his disciples as reported by Paul is authentic and not the work of a forger, the first Christian writer, the apostle Paul declared that he received the story of the Last Supper from the Lord Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:23). He said from the Lord Jesus and not from the Lord Jesus through the apostles so he meant it was revealed to him in an experience that would be an “inspired” flash of intuition at the very least. Some Christians say that he had to be told about it in a vision because he had never heard of it. For a religious Pharisee who persecuted and condemned the Christian Church to be unconscious of his victim’s main ritual would not merely be wrong but impossible. Paul does not say who was present at the supper so it was no problem to him if the twelve apostles had never heard of it for he was not saying they were there. Paul was writing against heretics who denied the resurrection for they hated the body in this letter so Paul needed to prove them wrong by proving that Jesus said that his body was good for us when he created the Eucharist. But he gives no verification at all. Paul invented the Eucharist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You, whoever you are, at 12:48, are talking through your hat! What mad sect are you from? Go on, give us a laugh.

      Delete
    2. @14:30
      Well said. Heterodox ramblings.

      Delete
    3. Whoever 12:48 is, he or she has made a more literate comment than yours, the adult equivalent of a child's tetchy 'S'not true, so s'not!'

      Delete
    4. I agree with you @14.30
      I have never heard the like of all this homespun theology! Unbelievable!

      Delete
    5. Some rubbish is so fantastical that it is unworthy of rebuttal. In any case, where would you even start with that load at 12:48?

      Delete
    6. Then why, 15:25, don't you address the commentor's points, one by one, instead of ducking them as 'unbelievable'.

      Why, in your opinion, are they unbelievable?

      Emotional response to a post is neither rational nor intelligent engagement. And your response appears merely emotional. Can you do better?

      Delete
    7. Strange that, 22.42, since that's an exact description of most of your own postings here.

      Delete
  14. Seemingly in the Diocese of Waterford & Lismore lay faithful are not to open or close the tabernacle door. Their hands are not worthy to do that, the same hands that receive the body and blood of our Lord.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should stop clericalising the laity by giving them wee jobs in the sanctuary.

      Delete
    2. 14.03 Maybe they use a remote control. Wonder if the red light goes green during distribution of communion

      Delete
    3. Clericalising the laity my hat. The sanctuary is as much the home of the laity as it is of the clergy.

      Delete
  15. Yes, only the clergy are worthy of this. (I'm sure the irony here evades no one. Pharisaical posters certainly, but no one else.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. People who get worried about things like this need to realise that Mass is not a magic event it's an Act of the Holy Spirit. We ought to not second guess who presents for communion or why they did. The Holy Spirit comes to all people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 18:38, irrefutable point, and impeccably expressed.

      Delete
    2. So does the counter spirit(the Devil)

      Delete
    3. Thank you Nuala for your response but to be fair a person presenting for communion is a person actively open to the influence of the Holy Spirit.

      Your point would be more fitting had I said all "people can choose to visit a brothel".

      I am of course open to you elaborating as to how Jeremy Cornyn presenting for communion is placing Jeremy at risk of influence by the Devil? In point of fact his openness to the Holy Spirit appears to have left many others influenced by the Devil insofar as people are being unjustly critical and rejecting of their fellow human.

      Delete
    4. I couldn't care less about that old communist fart Mr Corbyn. I was just making a rather basic point that "openess"doesn't mean we are automatically going to do the right thing.

      If we claim a Holy Spirit prompts then it's simply illogical to deny the influence of the diabolical one, as Pope Francis has reminded us on many occasions. Roma locuta est.

      Delete
  17. Pat, a straight question for you. It requires a yes or no answer. Do you believe in Transubstantiation?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do I. Body, blood, soul and divinity.

      When Jesus died, and rose from death, he did so only corporeally, that is, 'bodily'. He remains, therefore, eternally human as well as eternally divine. When we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, we do so as he is now: spirit AND flesh.

      Of course, God is not unreasonable : he knows that we could not receive him openly in this way, since all who did so would, inevitably, 'throw up' in and around the sanctuary. And homicide detectives would never be away from church doors. So God gives himself to us in a manner that is acceptable to each of us personally (and, of course, to law-enforcement agencies): under the APPEARANCE of bread and wine.

      The manner of divine self-giving also provides an organic link to our Jewish ancestry and heritage, and to a recognition ( and acceptance?) of the Jews as 'our elder brothers' (Pope Saint John Paul II).

      Those who deny the 'Real Presence' implicitly, and simultaneously, deny the Resurrection.

      Delete
    2. Deo Gratias!

      Delete
  18. Magna Carta's terminology and verbal style sounds remarkably like that of the most merciful and most compassionate Bishop of Rome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Nuala,
      The Bishop of Rome is respectful and full of love. The cowardly Magna Carta is full of hate!

      Delete
    2. What? Like His Oiliness, Pope Francis? You have delivered me an intellectually mortal blow.

      Oh, Nuala! Pope Francis is a blatant hypocrite, and a very confused man. First, he declares himself no judge in relation to gay priests ('Who am I to judge?), and then he endorses a revision of the Nazi pope's (Benedict's) ban on gay candidates entering seminary, even if chaste.

      Grow up, Nuala.

      Delete
    3. 22.52 Except for his disgusting misuse of language and calling his fellow men moronic and "Pharasaiacal" to quote one of his recent misspellings.

      Delete
    4. Google some of his holinesses utterances please. He needs to wash his mouth out with soap. He is supposed to be the universal pastor but behaves like a playground bully if any one dares question him.

      Delete
    5. Nuala, Magna Carta isn't the bishop of Rome, he is God himself.

      Delete
    6. 00:01, I'll remember you for that profanity on Judgement Day.👎

      Delete
    7. @13.50
      Except God listens to people.

      Delete
    8. Google the "Little Book of Pope Francis Insults". The slick PR machine him make out that he's merciful and humble. He's neither.

      Delete
    9. Nuala @23:45, give us a few examples of remarks by Pope Francis that suggest he sometimes behaves 'like a playground bully'.

      I couldn't find any.

      Delete
    10. 16.05 thank you so much for that, I hadn't heard of it.

      Delete
    11. 18:51, it's satire. Made-up stuff to make us laugh.

      Delete
    12. 19:35, Pope Francis is a blatant hypocrite, and a very confused man. First, he declares himself no judge in relation to gay priests ('Who am I to judge?), and then he endorses a revision of the Nazi pope's (Benedict's) ban on gay candidates entering seminary, even if chaste.

      Grow up.

      Delete
    13. Go, Francis! In the unlikely rvent that u are reading this blog, ignore your detractors. The Holy Spirit hasn't ever abandoned you yet.

      Delete
    14. (Sigh) And your must-be wearisome point is, 20:09?

      Delete
    15. 20:57, but Francis may have abandoned the Holy Spirit. Yes?

      Delete
    16. Whoever 20:57 is, he or she has made a more literate comment than yours, the adult equivalent of a child's tetchy 'S'not true, so s'not!'

      Delete
  19. 16 comments by MC.
    My policy is to scroll down and ignore when one of these appears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I bypass all MC comments too - Same old nonsense...

      Delete
    2. Me too, it's great to scroll past him as quickly as possible. I wouldn't mind if there was a bit of variety to his themes, hobbyhorses and insults.

      Delete
    3. 'A bit of variety', 16:08?

      It's a Tesco store you're looking for, not a topic-specific blog.

      Delete
    4. 18:41, I'm sure the irony here evades no one. Pharisaical posters certainly, but no one else.

      Delete
    5. (Longer sigh) And YOUR (if you aren't the others who made me sigh) must-be wearisome point is, 20:14? (You DO have one, don't you?)

      Delete
    6. @22:01 Yes. Please pick up the gauntlet, allowing me to expose your stupidity.

      Delete
  20. You 2 need your heads banged together.
    Leave Magna alone.
    I like reading his take on stuff.
    If you want to by pass him then do
    No need to post about same

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To 13.15.
      It's very unacceptable to suggest or threaten violence when you read a popular contrary opinion to yours.

      Delete
    2. To poster 13.15
      "Leave Magna alone.." But that's exactly what we were explaining in our posts! We bypass him, leaving him strictly alone. We already do that..

      Delete
    3. Funny that, cos you can't stop talkin' 'bout me, 14:24.😅

      Delete
    4. @14:44 Magna Carta did you post those comments about yourself?

      Delete
    5. Be careful what you wish for Magna Carta.

      Delete
    6. Not aware I wished for anything, 16:50.

      Delete
    7. @18:39 oh but you did.

      Delete
    8. MC. I had a family member who reminds me of you, he could never, ever accept the sincerity of people contradicting him. They were either idiots, he was always right in every situation and he became even more right as any argument (and there were many) continued. He had no friends, he was bitter and angry about ex-bosses, ex-colleagues, ex-girlfriends, ex-neighbours, ex-everybody who crossed him in the smallest way. He was clearly deeply unhappy and his only joy was to argue about everything. He is no longer with us but I don't believe that he is any place we would want to be (even if temporarily). Please take a step back, please consider that calling people names and being so obviously bitter and angry is not a good place to be spiritually.

      Delete
    9. Wise and kind advice, 00:30.

      Delete
    10. 00:30, if the description here of your 'family member' is reliable (I'm being cautious, not awkard, because this member is not around to defend himself against your accusations), then he seems to have been unwillingly to forgive those who 'crossed him'. (I note you admitted that he was crossed, so his state of mind and heart was in large part down to others.) Did they apologise to this man for the hurt they caused. Did they make restitution for their sins? It seems 'no' to either question. Forgiveness is usually easier when an offender says, and means, 'sorry'.

      Perhaps you are one of these offenders. Did you apologise for the hurt that you caused? Or do you, like so many other sinners, plead 'injured innocence' too much of the time?

      Your attempt to gauge the eschatological fate of this family member has more than a little schadenfreude about it; I'd be careful of that if I were you. Remember vengeance is God's, not yours.

      Speaking of vengeance, God's is love. Did you know this? And he showed it supremely in Christ 'while we were yet sinners'.

      Perhaps this family member was more sinned against than sinning. Yes?

      God judges in the round, seeing what no human eye can see, and often does not want to see (there's usually 'a log' obstructing its vision.)

      God will measure the hurt caused by all of you to this man, and then do something utterly amazing and completely counter-cultural to this life: he will have pity on him. Why? Because he acts and re-acts in ways that seem to have escaped you, and those self-righteous others: he loves, and this love seeks the salvation of even the most wretched souls, those you would appear satisfied to see damned.

      Delete
    11. @13:28 Roma locutus est - causa finita!

      Delete
    12. I've come to the conclusion that the club bore MC is Michael Dywer, a Ferns seminarian who studied in Maynooth in the 1980s for three years and was then posted to the Irish College in Rome, from which he was kicked out, partly because of alcohol abuse. I'll leave it to Pat to decide whether to redact his name.

      Delete
    13. Magna Carter, I will bookmark this page and read it whenever I need a good laugh. Oh the irony of you talking about apologies, hurt and love. You really aren't a well person, are you?

      Delete
    14. 21:18, how is your remark relevant to my comment (s)?

      Delete
    15. 21:50, I'm surprised you're capable of coming to any conclusion, right or wrong.

      Delete
    16. 22:13, that log in your eye must be extremely painful...and limiting.

      Delete
    17. your mention of 'lust and selfishness' in the context I referred to (love) shows, perhaps, your own preoccupation with these vices. Yes?

      Delete