Was Patrick Ever Catholic?

Conversation Side Conversation
22

I think you are reading into my sentence a sentiment that is not there.

23

I am. And sorry about that. You guys are of a different generation. The priest scandal was going on for centuries but intensified in the 1960’s and 1970’s in NY and NJ. Fortunately by the time you boys came through proper oversight was being provided (or so I hoped).

2 Likes
24

While we’re on the topic of who’s Catholic, I’m gonna call in @Mark to ask: are we now officially called Eastern Orthodox Church or are we still officially Orthodox Catholic Church?

25

Never mind, figured it out.

26

What’s the answer?

1 Like
27

Orthodox Catholic.

And i’m gonna milk that for all it’s worth.

But, tomorrow.

28

Why? What does it do for you?

29

Ah, just a couple of immature jokes.

30

So that was real. Living in Chicago, I did hear about the book and the play.

1 Like
31

Sorry, I’m from New Jersey, I don’t get Serbian Orthodox jokes. But if you put in into a Tony Saprano context, I will probably get it. :sunglasses:

1 Like
32

Didn’t start yet.

33

Oooh, @swamidass! Can I get a title change here?

34

To what? By the way, what title should we give @Timothy_Horton?

35

Time to honor my church’s real name.

Orthodox Catholic

1 Like
36

Yes, it was real in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s. It didn’t really work or at least I never saw any reflections. But the nuns used to get all worked up about the girl’s “virginity” I remember an 8th grade girl kissing me on the bus on a class trip. I was a pre-pubic kid and just ignored the advances Forrest Gump-like. But the girl was repudiated, her parents called in. I was sent to talk to the priest who asked me questions, but being the smart alter boy, denied the incident ever took place (sound familar?) The girl was labeled and shamed. I lost track of her for many years as we attended different high schools but then met up again as she was marrying a high school friend. We relived the kissing episode and she said she kissed me because she thought I was cute. :grinning:

2 Likes
37

I wouldn’t be surprised that anyone is unequipped to explain it, much less that anyone would get the idea that it’s a literal transformation.

Opening of wiki article on transubstantiation:

Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio ; Greek: ÎŒÎ”Ï„ÎżÏ…ÏƒÎŻÏ‰ÏƒÎčς metousiosis ) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This poll shows many Catholics believe it’s real (pg. 18):

https://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/LatinoCatholicslides.pdf

Now anyone can see they’re not eating literal flesh when they take communion. But if we have to start differentiating between literal and real, we’re definitely getting into perplexing territory that a modified approach in the US Catholic school system is not going to be the answer to.

FWIW this news came out of my old parish this week:

A bit after my time. It’s good they seem to be getting ahead of the ball on these people, but I’m not particularly impressed that he will be “defrocked or absolved by penance”.

1 Like
38

The idea that the host physically turns into a corpse is not the Catholic position (again, at least since the Council of Trent in the 1500s). Even if one is ill equipped to explain transubstantiation through substance theory, it is easy to still disagree with and disabuse students of the notion of physical transformation.

Would you mind pointing it to me? I cannot find on the poll anything about physical transformation of host into flesh. Note that the statement “Jesus Christ is really present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist” refers to the doctrine of the Real Presence, which is the idea that Jesus substantively (again, substance from substance theory) is present in the host. It does not refer to any physical change in the host.

All Catholics will affirm that the host really turns into flesh, but Catholics are famously not materialists, so what is real to us is not necessarily physical. Just because the change is metaphysical does not mean it is not real.

1 Like
39

You found page 18.

I rest my case :slight_smile: If you have such a confusing doctrine, it’s not surprising that it confuses people.

40

The nuns told us that the host were transformed into the real body and blood of Jesus. At 7 years old, I was horrified at this. What does body and blood taste like? I was scared that it would taste horrible. And then we had to practice receiving the host. In those days, you had to approach the altar with your hands folded and your tongue sticking out. If the priest missed your tongue and the host fell to the ground they would have to call the nuclear hazmat team in to clean up the fallen host. Also, in those days you had to fast three hours before receiving the host. So no sugary breakfast cereal for any of us. We were literally starving and by that time in the mass we would eat anything! So I was ready to receive the body and blood of the man that hung up there on the wall with blood coming out of his head, hands, and legs. But my glucose level was low because I hadn’t eaten nor drank since dinner the night before, so I stuck my tongue ready for the priest to place a rhinoceros steak on my tongue. But it was a dry bland wafer. No salt, sugar, blood or flesh, just a bland dry wafer. As I walked back to my pew, it said to myself “that’s a stale cracker” and there went any belief in transubstantiation with it forever.

2 Likes
41

I don’t think the statement that there are real things that are not part of the physical world is hard to grasp. This is the position of not only Catholics but most (all?) Christians, most religions, and many secular philosophers.

1 Like