Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Tarsonis]

Being pro-choice doesn't inherently put people in mortal sin. We can go round and round all you want, but we keep coming back to you wanting the state to enforce God's law.

Being pro-choice and enforcing pro-choice policy kills unborn children, it enables it and it endorses the idea that the unborn are not worthy lives worth protecting. Whether grudgingly done or not.

And last I checked I was talking about access to communion rather than what the state should be.

There are two lives in the equation of pregnancy.

[Diopolis]

My point is that the Constitution, whether it supports abortion access or not, does not carry eternal significance or divine inspiration and thus does not matter an inkling to God or to access to communion.

No your point is that Catholic representatives should be coerced into violating their oath of office by being denied the Eucharist.

Violating their oath of office how, exactly? Biden and Pelosi have no duty under oath to support abortion. They do it anyways, presumably because they want to support abortion.

[Salus Maior]

My point is that the Constitution, whether it supports abortion access or not, does not carry eternal significance or divine inspiration and thus does not matter an inkling to God or to access to communion.

No your point is that Catholic representatives should be coerced into violating their oath of office by being denied the Eucharist.

Their oath of office does not grant them a "get out of mortal sin" card. And again, if there is a choice between remaining in power and committing oneself to an evil cause then resignation is the right course for the sake of their own soul.

[Tarsonis]

No your point is that Catholic representatives should be coerced into violating their oath of office by being denied the Eucharist.

Their oath of office does not grant them a "get out of mortal sin" card. And again, if there is a choice between remaining in power and committing oneself to an evil cause then resignation is the right course for the sake of their own soul.

It's not a binary choice, no matter how you try to paint it as such.

[Salus Maior]

Being pro-choice and enforcing pro-choice policy kills unborn children, it enables it and it endorses the idea that the unborn are not worthy lives worth protecting. Whether grudgingly done or not.

And last I checked I was talking about access to communion rather than what the state should be.

There are two lives in the equation of pregnancy.

This is fucking lazy, Tars. We both know that protecting both lives is essential, and we both know that Biden and Pelosi want broader abortion access than simply protecting the woman's life in the case of a deadly pregnancy.

[Prima Scriptura]

Once again, theocracy is bad.

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

[Tarsonis]

There are two lives in the equation of pregnancy.

This is fucking lazy, Tars. We both know that protecting both lives is essential, and we both know that Biden and Pelosi want broader abortion access than simply protecting the woman's life in the case of a deadly pregnancy.

I didn't say anything about deadly pregnancy. I said there are two lives involved.

[Salus Maior]

Their oath of office does not grant them a "get out of mortal sin" card. And again, if there is a choice between remaining in power and committing oneself to an evil cause then resignation is the right course for the sake of their own soul.

It's not a binary choice, no matter how you try to paint it as such.

You're certainly not painting a convincing picture to the contrary. All you're doing is making lame excuse after lame excuse which doesn't even apply itself to the reality of what's happening, and holding a theory that every Catholic politician who supports pro-choice legislation is doing so grudgingly and in a limited way when they're not, and they openly say that they're not.

[Tarsonis]

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

[Tarsonis]

It's not a binary choice, no matter how you try to paint it as such.

You're certainly not painting a convincing picture to the contrary. All you're doing is making lame excuse after lame excuse which doesn't even apply itself to the reality of what's happening, and holding a theory that every Catholic politician who supports pro-choice legislation is doing so grudgingly and in a limited way when they're not, and they openly say that they're not.

You can't pour water into a rock.

Also, no I'm not. I'm speaking generally. You're the one with specific people in mind.

[Prima Scriptura]

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Right, but that still doesn’t really answer why a baptized Christian that believes in the real presence should be denied communion. I mean, taking communion while looking at your phone or showing disrespect I understand, but 99% of people are not like that. In fact, since the majority of Catholics don’t have a proper understanding of transubstantiation and you have a quite a few clergy that deny it, the vast majority of Catholics should not take communion. It would be fair to say that most Catholic believe the Roman church teaches a memorialist viewpoint, even if they don’t call it that themselves

[Salus Maior]

It's not theocracy to deny people in mortal sin communion. It's literally pastoral care.

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30

31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 11

To receive communion in an unworthy, unexamined manner brings judgement on themselves as a sin against God.

[Prima Scriptura]

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Each one must examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30

31Now if we judged ourselves properly, we would not come under judgment. 32But when we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

1 Corinthians 11

To receive communion in an unworthy, unexamined manner brings judgement on themselves as a sin against God.

No, but I don’t see any biblical basis to deny any baptized Christian communion

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink[h] without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Right, but that still doesn’t really answer why a baptized Christian that believes in the real presence should be denied communion. I mean, taking communion while looking at your phone or showing disrespect I understand, but 99% of people are not like that. In fact, since the majority of Catholics don’t have a proper understanding of transubstantiation and you have a quite a few clergy that deny it, the vast majority of Catholics should not take communion. It would be fair to say that most Catholic believe the Roman church teaches a memorialist viewpoint, even if they don’t call it that themselves

[Tarsonis]

1 Corinthians 11: 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Right, but that still doesn’t really answer why a baptized Christian that believes in the real presence should be denied communion. I mean, taking communion while looking at your phone or showing disrespect I understand, but 99% of people are not like that.

"Examine yourself" and "discern the body" isn't about believing in the real presence, it's about introspection and repentance. The denial of communion is not about punishment, (it's not supposed to be any way.) it's pastoral, to prevent a person from taking part in mortal sin and reaping judgment on their heads. However, Conservative bishops have the tendency to wield it like a cudgel and try to coerce prominent Catholics.

[Salus Maior]

You're certainly not painting a convincing picture to the contrary. All you're doing is making lame excuse after lame excuse which doesn't even apply itself to the reality of what's happening, and holding a theory that every Catholic politician who supports pro-choice legislation is doing so grudgingly and in a limited way when they're not, and they openly say that they're not.

You can't pour water into a rock.

Also, no I'm not. I'm speaking generally. You're the one with specific people in mind.

I think you flatter yourself.

These specific people are being allowed communion anyway. Your logic and theory doesn't apply to them, but the Church is allowing them to take communion when they shouldn't, and do so very publicly.

[Diopolis]

Being pro-choice and enforcing pro-choice policy kills unborn children, it enables it and it endorses the idea that the unborn are not worthy lives worth protecting. Whether grudgingly done or not.

And last I checked I was talking about access to communion rather than what the state should be.

There are two lives in the equation of pregnancy.

And this is a reasonable point to make about abortions that are done in order to protect the mother's life.
First result on Google indicates this is between .2 and 4 percent of all abortions(https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_a ... tatistics/). These abortions remain legal post-Dobbs in every state except Oklahoma, which appears to be carving out loopholes for ectopic pregnancies and the like. Additionally Texas has de facto banned abortion for almost a year, and doesn't seem to have stopped medical treatments necessary to save the life of the mother.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of abortions are elective and elective abortions are what Biden and Pelosi are busily supporting.

[Prima Scriptura]

Right, but that still doesn’t really answer why a baptized Christian that believes in the real presence should be denied communion. I mean, taking communion while looking at your phone or showing disrespect I understand, but 99% of people are not like that.

"Examine yourself" and "discern the body" isn't about believing in the real presence, it's about introspection and repentance. The denial of communion is not about punishment, (it's not supposed to be any way.) it's pastoral, to prevent a person from taking part in mortal sin and reaping judgment on their heads. However, Conservative bishops have the tendency to wield it like a cudgel and try to coerce prominent Catholics.

So, what makes a Protestant that the believes in consubstantiation like me unworthy to receive communion in the RC and a Catholic that has a memorialist understanding of communion worthy of it? In my Church, there is a moment a private prayer in every service, including our monthly communion service. People should always repent before taking communion.

just to shape it, I also disagree with protestant churches that limit communion only to confirmed church members

[Tarsonis]

You can't pour water into a rock.

Also, no I'm not. I'm speaking generally. You're the one with specific people in mind.

I think you flatter yourself.

I think you're full of shit. Good we both think negatively of each other's position.

These specific people are being allowed communion anyway. Your logic and theory doesn't apply to them, but the Church is allowing them to take communion when they shouldn't, and do so very publicly.

I really don't give a shit. Fuck Biden and Pelosi. That's what you want right? When you're actually interested in having a discussion an honest discussion about the intersection of faith, law, and human rights, come back to me. I'm not interested in scratching your book club desire to condemn certain people you don't like.

[Tarsonis]

"Examine yourself" and "discern the body" isn't about believing in the real presence, it's about introspection and repentance. The denial of communion is not about punishment, (it's not supposed to be any way.) it's pastoral, to prevent a person from taking part in mortal sin and reaping judgment on their heads. However, Conservative bishops have the tendency to wield it like a cudgel and try to coerce prominent Catholics.

So, what makes a Protestant that the believes in consubstantiation like me unworthy to receive communion in the RC and a Catholic that has a memorialist understanding of communion worthy of it? In my Church, there is a moment a private prayer in every service, including our monthly communion service. People should always repent before taking communion.

You're not Catholic. The memorialist isn't worthy either, but for different reasons.

[Prima Scriptura]

So, what makes a Protestant that the believes in consubstantiation like me unworthy to receive communion in the RC and a Catholic that has a memorialist understanding of communion worthy of it? In my Church, there is a moment a private prayer in every service, including our monthly communion service. People should always repent before taking communion.

You're not Catholic. The memorialist isn't worthy either, but for different reasons.

Isn’t a Catholic that doesn’t believe in the real pressure taking communion a sin?

[Salus Maior]

Right, but that still doesn’t really answer why a baptized Christian that believes in the real presence should be denied communion. I mean, taking communion while looking at your phone or showing disrespect I understand, but 99% of people are not like that.

"Examine yourself" and "discern the body" isn't about believing in the real presence, it's about introspection and repentance. The denial of communion is not about punishment, (it's not supposed to be any way.) it's pastoral, to prevent a person from taking part in mortal sin and reaping judgment on their heads. However, Conservative bishops have the tendency to wield it like a cudgel and try to coerce prominent Catholics.

It's more that the public and prominent don't have a different standard of what's sinful than the rest of us. That's just as true for Biden and Pelosi as it was for the Emperor Theodosius the Great.

[Tarsonis]

:idea:

You're not Catholic. The memorialist isn't worthy either, but for different reasons.

Is it a Catholic that doesn’t believe in the real pressure taking communion a sin?

Yes.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

St. Ignatius

[Tarsonis]

"Examine yourself" and "discern the body" isn't about believing in the real presence, it's about introspection and repentance. The denial of communion is not about punishment, (it's not supposed to be any way.) it's pastoral, to prevent a person from taking part in mortal sin and reaping judgment on their heads. However, Conservative bishops have the tendency to wield it like a cudgel and try to coerce prominent Catholics.

It's more that the public and prominent don't have a different standard of what's sinful than the rest of us. That's just as true for Biden and Pelosi as it was for the Emperor Theodosius the Great.

Again, I don't give a fuck about Biden or Pelosi

[Salus Maior]

I think you flatter yourself.

I think you're full of shit. Good we both think negatively of each other's position.

These specific people are being allowed communion anyway. Your logic and theory doesn't apply to them, but the Church is allowing them to take communion when they shouldn't, and do so very publicly.

I really don't give a shit. Fuck Biden and Pelosi. That's what you want right? When you're actually interested in having a discussion an honest discussion about the intersection of faith, law, and human rights, come back to me. I'm not interested in scratching your book club desire to condemn certain people you don't like.

I'm not interested in your pollution of the faith and what's sacred with profanity. Or at least that's as equally uncharitable as you're being to me.

[Prima Scriptura]

:idea:

Is it a Catholic that doesn’t believe in the real pressure taking communion a sin?

Yes.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes."

St. Ignatius

Well, most Catholics taking communion are sinning then.