Child Denied First Communion Because of His Cerebral Palsy
- Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:02am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
“It hurts and I think it’s a form of discrimination.”
That’s how Irma Castro, grandmother of 8-year-old Kevin, describes the actions of one Catholic priest in Floresville, TX. That priest denied Kevin his first communion because, he says, Kevin has cerebral palsy and thus the mental capacity of a 6-month-old.
“He said because he was not able to understand the meaning of receiving the body of Christ,” Castro told KSAT-TV:
KSAT reports:
Canon law requires that a child receiving holy communion have “sufficient knowledge” of Christ, but it doesn’t define what level of knowledge is considered sufficient.
Deacon Pat Rodgers, with the Archdiocese of San Antonio, said oftentimes the decision lies with the pastor.
“It’s never our desire, hope or wish to withhold a sacrament from someone who wants or needs it,” Rodgers said.
Father Henning said he offered Castro an alternative to the first communion. He offered them the sacrament of the anointing of the sick.
“That is the anointing they give you before death. That was very offensive,” Castro said.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 670 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 526 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 388 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 365 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 260 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 267 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 122 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 260 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (418)
cagnew
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:46amBeware. When people start to complain about the beliefs of religions, the government will step in and “correct” the “faulty” belief. Has anyone here read the story about the Chinese government arresting the Christians this week? Whether you agree or not with Catholic teaching, if this woman cries discrimination and tries to do anything about it, it will be a slippery slope. This particular teaching (which most of you clearly do not understand) is not physically harming anyone. Technically, because this child has the mental capacity of a 6 month old (that’s what it said, right?), the Catholic Church teaches that, as long as he was baptized, he will go to heaven since he lacks the ability to sin.
For those of you who are not familiar with Catholic belief, communion for Catholics is nothing like communion for non-Catholics. Catholic’s believe that the wafer literally becomes the physical body of Christ. That is where the teaching stems from regarding not allowing someone to receive who cannot understand what he or she is receiving.
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:17amExcellent explanation! Thank you for explaining better than I did.
Report Post »Slobaphobe
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:43am“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:21pm@SLOBAPHOBE ~~~ Amen!
Report Post »ride4jesus
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:43amOne of the greatest problems I have with denominational religion is that the denominational rules/laws outweigh Biblical law and principle. The Catholic church has more man-made laws and rules than any other denomination and I would venture to say most of them have nothing to do with the Bible and have more to do with the church controlling the members.
Something to remember people… the church is not the building, not the 4 walls, not the denominations… the church is the collective body of believers…. it has nothing to do with a building or a denominations…. it is your personal relationship with Jesus Christ that matters.
I believe the priest was wrong in this…. just like the one writer mentioned… they will sprinkle a child with water and call them baptized…. but if the child has no knowledge of what is being done then the baptism means nothing…..
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:12am“they will sprinkle a child with water and call them baptized…. but if the child has no knowledge of what is being done then the baptism means nothing”
They are two different sacraments and operate differently. St. Paul indicates that taking the eucharist unworthily can be spiritually damaging. Baptism has no such dangers.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:59amCatholics are is a sense, baptised twice, the first as infants, are parents present us to the Church. We receive a second communion in our teen years, a “Confirmation” where we confirm our prior baptism and make the decision our selves to be baptised. The infant baptism in the Catholic church, relates to the Catholic dogma that the unbaptised can not enter heavan.
Again, I see Beck’s motives with this article, as a Mormon, Beck is stirring up hatred for the Catholics.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:42pmEncinom, Catholics are not baptized twice as Confirmation does not involve a second baptism but merely an adult affirmation of the first one. You might say that there is a SPIRITUAL baptism happening at confirmation but I am not comfortable with nthat terminology. In the Creed we confess ONE baptism. This also makes me oppose talking about the “baptism of the holy Spirit” when we are refering not to the water baptism but to some outpouring and empowering from the Spirit.
What the Blaze’s motivations in this story are I do not know. I hesitate to ascribe anti-catholicism to the motivation because Glenn has been very respectful of the Catholic Church even theough he disagrees with it.
Report Post »proliance
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:41pmRide4Jesus, do me a favor and post the top three things you thing the Catholic church does that don’t a foundation in the Bible. I would bet they are very easily shown to have Biblical backgrounds.
How about some popular but easy ones like veneration of the saints, confession or The Hail Mary prayer?
Report Post »Douglas Turnbull
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:04pmI believe that the Priest acted as he should have, as he has been trained to and without any malice in his heart. The Sacraments are SACRED and should be treated as such. The Parent has no business trying to make an example or trying to socialize the issue. She would be teaching her child something very wrong. God LOVES this child and will WELCOME him to Heaven, he is not less of a Christian or Catholic by not receiving this Sacred Sacrament. He is a child of God, Baptized into the Body of Christ and will receive the full and complete Benefits of Heaven as a Child of God! Is that not the true desire of Christians! What are the motives of the parent here. You must have conscience of the significance of Holy Communion. We renew our Batism throughout the year so the initial Baptism becomes fulfilled by the individual as a conscience acceptance of HIM! God Bless and let’s not exploit our FAITH or lack of it by ignorance or lack of education to the doctines of The Catholic Church. If one does not believe or have another viewpoint then God will judge them accordingly! This is just a general comment added to your post! God Bless!
Report Post »angelcat
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:41amIf the child has no understanding of what he is consuming, there is truly no reason for him to consume the body and blood of Christ. In our parish there are several children with cerebral parish who have better mental capacities than this child who received Holy Communion on schedule. There is no discrimination here. This is a legitimate way of making sure that the body and blood of Christ are consumed only by those who know what it is and who know to treat it with the respect which it requires. This child could attempt to play with host. If he doesn’t understand, it is the parent who feels deprived – not the child.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:26am“There is no discrimination here.”
Of course there is discrimination here. But discrimination is a good thing.
I am reminded of a priest who refused baptism to some children being thrust up to the visiting bishop by mothers in the parish. He did so because they were too OLD to receive baptism without being properly catechized. But he wisely explained to the grumbling mothers that, as Easter was appraoching, the children could be properly educated about the faith in time to be baptised AND confirmed during the high celebration of Easter. They were quite happy after hearing that.
Perhaps this priest lacked the necessary diplomacy to mollify the situation. Or perhaps the mother just likes to grumble.
Report Post »JJCon
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:59amThe grandmother ran to the media about it…. I’m gonna go with “…likes to grumble.”
Report Post »Creativethinker
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 6:39pmPeople have had physical healings from taking communion! In the Born Again circles children have been physically healed as well. Of course this is the remnant of believers (that is growing by leaps and bounds) that also believe that signs and wonders are still relevant today and that the book of Acts is still relevant. Is there any where in the bible that says after year so and so this book of the bible is no longer relevant and does not apply?
Report Post »nostromo
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:41amThis child is incapable of sinning since he lacks the faculties of reason. Assuming he was baptized his place is already assured. There is no need to administer the sacrament to him. The parent should understand that.
Report Post »ride4jesus
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:50amI would have to disagree on your statement…. if the child is incapable of sinning then his place is already assured… the baptism means nothing. Sprinkling a child without the child having the capacity to understand the baptism means nothing….. one can not pray someone else into salvation.
God does not absolve any baptism of infants… they have his grace because they are not of sin. It is when they become of age that they can form opinion and decide on their actions. That is when they decide to serve God or not; not when they are babies.
JESUS did not get baptized until after he became of age, after 30 years old. He set the example of becoming of age to then decide for oneself whether they wish to be serving God or not; if they “choose” to be baptized or not. A baby cannot choose and therefore does not know why he/she is being baptized. It’s pointless and does not mean anything to God. To God a babe is a babe, but an adult, of “ripened age” is to be judged upon their actions whether to serve him or not.
Report Post »Capitalist Mama
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:24amWhere in the Bible does it say that children are incapable of sin? It does say we are all sinners from the womb. (see Psalm 51:5 for reference)
While I do believe the Catholic church has the right to practice Christianity as they will, and I do believe that God secures in His Heaven all the little children, let’s not be cavalier about the teaching of Jesus or the Holy Scriptures. Ultimately, this woman needs to find a church home that more aligns with her beliefs, rather than trying to force the church to align with her understanding.
Report Post »hempstead1944
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:35amWhat would Jesus have done?
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:20pm@HEMPSTEAD1944 ~~~
I think JESUS would have picked up that child, hugged him close to HIM, lifted him up and twirled around with the child laughing and laughing. Then HE would have set him down onto his own two healed feet and legs and maybe HE might have said, “Run!”
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 3:31pmJesus would have healed him.
Report Post »Bronco II
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:32amSorry for the mis-spelling typing to fast.Meant to say intuned and that we can never comprehend.
Report Post »Bronco II
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:30amI think GOD knows his child and knows his spritual heart and whether he gets communion or not won’t change GODS LOVE FOR HIM.I believe most people who are physically,mentally handicap are so much more intured with GOD they we can ever comprehend because I know GOD IS A HEART KNOWER AND THAT’S WHAT COUNTS.They are a Blessing to so many people if we choose to see it.GOD BLESS THIS CHILD ALWAYS.
Report Post »porkay78
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:30amThe Pharisee or I mean Priest was too focused on the law to see God in the person.
Report Post »mrlogan3
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:47amThis is exactly why I’m not a fan of organized religion. This priest is basically playing God and deciding who is or isn’t worthy of receiving a sacrament. It’s interesting though, marriage is also a sacrament that people are trying to deny to certain people…
Report Post »StevenL1955
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:30amIt’s OK young man, Christ knows your heart, and he won’t refuse you anything. Shame on the priest.
Report Post »jordy2010
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:29amThat woman is really pinching herself so she can accuse a Catholic priest of hurting her………talk about looking for attention…………probably money too………those Catholic priests are such suckers……….right????
Report Post »donh2
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:28amIt is the priest who lacks “sufficient knowledge” of Christ.
Report Post »ricks
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:28amIt sounds like the boy has a much better understanding of the Gospel than the priest does.
“Come unto me and I will give you rest.”
Report Post »“Unless you come to me as a child, you cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
teddrunk
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:23amI understand the priests point, but then I must ask the same priest why the Catholic Church allows people who support and ram rod legislation to protect the act of infanticide, like the Kennedys, Pelosi, Biden, etc., etc., from receiving the sacraments, much less why they aren’t excommunicated?
Report Post »All Democrats are breaking Catholic Church law. This young man is already blessed with a spot in heaven.
MidWestMom
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:48amwell said!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:07am@TEDDRUNK ~~~ YES! (mandatory small letters)
Report Post »jbl
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:50amTed,
The Church DOES NOT allow Catholic politicians who violate the natural law to receive communion unless they repent and change their views. This also applies to all those who are baptized Catholics to do the same. If any Catholics violated the natural law, he or she chooses to separate from God. The Eucharist is reserved only for those who are in communion with God’s law. Of course, humanity is a prideful creature that wants nothing more than to have God stop telling them what to do. It is like a teenager rebelling against his/her parents and want nothing more than to have the parents stop telling them what to do.
Report Post »mrlogan3
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:48amAll Democrats?
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:23amBring him to us. We will serve him Communion, at our table in our own home, in the name of JESUS.
Report Post »MaggieRose
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:33amExactly! It will be glorious to see this little boy in heaven, running around with other children and Jesus, when he doesn’t have any physical limitations anymore.
Report Post »mrlogan3
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:07pmYour compassion is amazing :) But what this story also says to me is that there may be too much of a focus in the Catholic church on rules and rituals. When I say rules I don’t mean a code of ethics, I’m referring to unnecessary “requirements.” Confession to a priest is another ritual I take issue with. I don’t see a reason that there needs to be a middle man. The Christian God is forgiving and one should be able to deal directly with Him.
Report Post »proliance
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:21pmKickagrandma, your church’s idea of communion is severely flawed. Jesus was very clear that the bread is the host of his actual body and the wine is his actual blood. He said it several times and chastised the Jews who felt the way you do. Its not a symbol. Its real.
And its not to be handed out like candy just because its a nice gesture.
Report Post »proliance
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:22pmMrlogan3, Jesus himself told his disciples to go out into the community where they could listen to men’s sins. And they had the power to forgive them or to hold them bound.
Report Post »truthncharity
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:21amJesus accepts this little one even if men in their own vanity do not.
Report Post »MaggieRose
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:30amSo true. Only God can see what is in this child’s heart.
Report Post »cagnew
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:20amI was going to comment, but TIFN8R said exactly what I was going to say :) It’s hard for non-Catholics or “lax” Catholics to understand teachings like this because it’s take a firm knowledge- and belief- of the Catholic faith. There is no discrimination here. Honestly, it sounds like a woman trying to milk the Church for some money….
Report Post »Tifn8r
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:50pm@Cagnew – Thanks. : )
Report Post »JamesR
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:19amI think this is a case where the boy and his family may have been better served if the priest was more informed of the condition that Kevin deals with on a daily basis. Better understanding would go a long way in this situation. May God bless Kevin and his family and everyon involved, Peace be with you all.
Report Post »ConservativeBeauty
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:18amEvery child deserves to go to Heaven.
Report Post »SlimnRanger
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:30amAnd every child under the age of acountability that passes away will indeed go to Heaven regardless of race or gender or thats the way i understand it and believe it to be so
Report Post »hersey10
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:17amSometimes in life we make acceptions on special occasions , this is clearly 1 of them .
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:29amSUGABEE
Report Post »You asked?
Tell me, which of God’s Laws does this Canon Law trump exactly??
_______________________________________________
(Leviticus 7:26,27 Moreover ye shall not eat no manner of blood,whether it be of fowl or beast, in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.) This verse forbids the drinking of blood.If the wine is turned to blood, Jesus would have broken his own law.Jesus came to fulfill the law and commands that no one should teach against the law.
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:01amBomustgo, that is the stupidest argument I have ever heard against the catholic dictrine of the eucharist. Could it be that God forbade the drinking of blood, animal blood, because it would detract from the spiritual drinking of his own blood that he would institute before physically shedding it on the cross?
Dumb. Just plain dumb.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:24amWhat part of “Any manner of blood” did you not understand? You wrestle the scriptures to your own destruction.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:44amIf it is really turned to the real flesh and blood, that makes you a cannibal.It is plain and simply the unlevened bread (represents a sinless Messiah) and the blood of grapes (represents the pure sinless blood of the Lamb of God).It never has, never will, be the actual body and blood. It is symbolism of the Passover meal folks.They were celebrating Passover.It is not that hard to understand.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:23pmJohn 6:54-56
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. ”
So I guess you think Jesus is advocating canabalism. You must not read the Gospel of John that much.
Report Post »proliance
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:30pmIslesfordian, I would add in your reply to Bumustgo: “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you…”
Report Post »Tifn8r
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:14amI am Catholic, and I have to agree with the priest. He is following Canon Law in his decision. The mother is using her son’s disability to demand something for him that the priest cannot give. Unless there is a special exception written or ordained for permanent disabilities, he has to follow Canon Law.
The fact that she took offense at being offered the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is evidence that her understanding of the sacraments and Canon Law is incomplete. Although it used to be called “Last Rites” the name was changed because the sacrament was being misunderstood. It is for anyone who is ill, whether it is a passing illness, or in the case of her child, a permanent condition.
I understand her wanting her child to be able to receive communion, but she should work with the priest for further understanding of the sacraments, rather than standing against her church leaders and Catholic Canon Law.
Report Post »APatriotFirst
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:22amSo good to know that Canon Law trumps God’s Law.
Report Post »MaggieRose
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:38am@APatriot… agreed!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:11amCanon Law is an application of God’s law. You people who spout off your personal Interpretations as if they equate God’s Laws are acting like little popes yourselves, except that you do not put yourself under the authority of the popes that have come before you, as REAL Popes do.
I myself, as a non-Catholic, have questions about the principle behind this part of Canon Law but at least I respect the church and the sacraments enough not to think they are a matter of individual interpretation and something to be demanded as a personal right, as if individualism trumped the order within the Body of Christ.
Report Post »Tifn8r
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:11amJust because she wants Communion for her child, the church should change it’s rules?
She is a member of the Catholic Church by choice, and should meet with the priest to try to understand why the priest made that decision rather then getting angry and speaking out against her faith.
Her child has the mental capacity of a 6 month old (as the article said.) As such, the mother should be aware that he lacks the ability to sin as much as he lacks the ability to understand what he is receiving when he takes Communion.
Communion is denied to ALL who lack the understanding of what they are receiving. Not out of malice, but out of reverence for the Body and the Blood of Christ. It is not given lightly, nor should it be received lightly.
I understand her feelings, and if I didn’t have a complete understanding of the Sacraments, I’d probably be as upset as she is.
For those quoting the bible, you’re right. He’s innocent in the eyes of God, and lacks the capacity for sin because of his Cerebral Palsy. Why then, if he cannot sin, should his mother demand communion to reconcile him with Christ?
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:14amTell me, which of God’s Laws does this Canon Law trump exactly??
Where do you all think the Holy Scriptures came from? It was the CATHOLIC Church that compiled the books we as Christians all now read, mark and inwardly digest as the Bible. To be precise, there are even a few books that some Protestant churches have taken upon themselves to remove because they disagree with the teachings in them.
Report Post »politicaljules
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:49amme too. im not offended. i have a dtr with down syndrome and she gets a blessing during communion, which i find just as powerful, if not more than my taking of the host.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:59amSugabee
To be precise, there are even a few books that some Protestant churches have taken upon themselves to remove because they disagree with the teachings in them.
Yes, they have. And the catholic church also have done this. Want an example? The removal of God’s personal name. God’s name YHWH, Yahweh, Jehovah is nowhere to be found in modern translations including the KJV. Find an old KJV and compare Psalms 83:18 with a new KJV. Guess what? God’s name is gone! Even the Pope has declared God’s name is not to be used anymore.
Report Post »bethsioux
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:23amThank you so very much TIFN8R!
Report Post »It’s is reasssuring that SOMEONE knows what the truth is according to the situation
Now if someone will loook at the actual statistics regarding actual population/other religious ministry vs. Catholic priests in the situation of pediphilia because I am TIRED of having my faith denigrated by everyone simply because it is an accepted fact by too many that ALL or MOST priests molest
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:34pm“God’s name is gone! Even the Pope has declared God’s name is not to be used anymore.”
The NAME is the Tetragrammaton. YHWH, ot IHWH. It was never Yahweh or Jehovah. The Jews never pronounced it and didn’t say the NAME when reading the Scriptures, instead using Adonai or some other term for the Lord. When the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek the NAME was translated as KYRIOS, “the Lord”, and that is how Jesus and the Apostles used it. You have a problem with that, argue with THEM.
Report Post »mickie4
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:44pmNicely put…….I agree with what you have stated.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:15pmDoes God have a name? yes or no?
Was it removed from the scriptures by many translations? yes or no?
Did Jesus make known God’s name to his disciples, glorifying his Father? yes nor no? John 17:3-6
If the disciples knew God’s name and Jesus used it, then why does modern religions refuse to acknowledge it?
Quit hiding behind your prejudice.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:20pmJohn 17:6 “I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.
John 17:24 Father, as to what you have given me, I wish that, where I am, they also may be with me, in order to behold my glory that you have given me, because you loved me before the founding of the world. 25 Righteous Father, the world has, indeed, not come to know you; but I have come to know you, and these have come to know that you sent me forth. 26 And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:20pm“If the disciples knew God’s name and Jesus used it, then why does modern religions refuse to acknowledge it?
”
More importantly, why didn’t any of the Apostles write it down?
Oh, I forgot. Those Scriptural passages were taken out of the Bible by Constantine. Or was it the Bildeburgers. Maybe they did it on the grassy knoll. I’m sure those secret verses are stored safely in Area 51.
The fun thing about conspiracy theories is that any proof against you is only proof that the evidence has been rigged. Genius.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:25pmIslesfordian,
The name of God is represented by the Hebrew letters “YHWH”
Report Post »The Jews would not pronounce the name due to a misguided fear of using God’s name in vain. So they wrote it out with the four letters, and the actual pronunciation was eventually lost to them.
We have done similar with shortening names like “boulevard” and we now use “Blvd” to write it out. In time, we could lose the correct pronunciation of boulevard. The Jews did the same with God’s name.
Bearfoot
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:31pmIslesfordian,
You obviously did not get the point of Jesus’ prayer to his Father in John chapter 17, some of which I offered as a post.
Report Post »All you want to do is give out cute comments, ridiculing the logic of what Jesus was saying.
So, good day to you.
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 5:50pmBearfoot, you don‘t get that the apostles not writing down the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton shows that it didn’t matter to them, and so it obviously didn’t matter to Jesus. That’s why it is never used in the Greek bible, which was what the fisrt Christians used. The church could not have taken it OUT because the church never used any Bibles that had it IN. The Tetragrammaton only existed in Hebrew, never in the Greek, and the church never used Hebrew copies of the Old Testament.
Historical fact. Deal with it.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:17pmIslesfordian,
Historical fact?
Can history obscure fact. Recorded history is not always accurate.
But we do know what the Bible says and it leads us to certain conclusions that we can use in reasoning thing out.
In Romans 10:13 (the Greek scriptures) there is a reference to Joel 2:32 (the Hebrew scriptures) which uses God’s name.
Romans 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him in whom they have not put faith? How, in turn, will they put faith in him of whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach? 15 How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent forth? Just as it is written: “How comely are the feet of those who declare good news of good things!”
Joel 2:32 And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.”
Are you telling all of us God’s name is not to be considered language to language? Jesus considered it but you do not. Wow!
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:37pmOld trucker, I am telling you that it is historical fact that the early church used Greek translations of the Old Testament which translated the Tetragrammaton as Kyrios, the Lord. They did not preserve the pronunciation of YHWH as no Jew ever spoke it. So why would the Joel passage be interpreted as refering to the specific pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton if the Jews didn’t say it, if the Bible used by the early Christians didn’t use it and if the Apostles never wrote it down?
I am saying that there is absolutely no evidence for your interpretation whatsoever.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:49pmOld Truckers, if you look up the greek text of Romans 10:13, the part that quotes Joel (it’s easy to do on the internet), you will find that the Greek text has Kyrios, the same word the Jews used when they translated the Hebrew into Greek. There is no Jehova, no Yahweh, no other variation of the Tetragrammaton revealed to Moses. Apparently “the Lord” was good enough for Saint Paul. Either the Holy Spirit didn’t pass on to him the memo about the real pronunciation and how important it was or there WAS NO MEMO. Jesus did not reveal the lost pronunciation because it was never important. If I call God Adonai and call to him by that name it is the same thing.
How else do you explain the complete absence of the any variation of Jehovah or Yahweh in the original Greek of the New Testament?
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 7:43pmThe name “Jehovah” is translated from the Hebrew tetragrammaton, four Hebrew letters that are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.
If you do not want to accept or research it, then fine, remain as you are.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:12pm“The name “Jehovah” is translated from the Hebrew tetragrammaton, four Hebrew letters that are represented in many languages by the letters JHVH or YHWH.”
Jehovah is a late creation of biblical translators using the Tetragrammaton with the vowels form Adonai inserted. Those vowels were almost certainly not the ones that would have been used originally. Yahweh is a much better approximation of how יְהוָ֔ה might have sounded.
But it is all irrelevant, because neither Jehovah nor Yahweh was ever written down by the Apostles. They did not see fit to use it when they quoted the Old Testament where יְהוָ֔ה was used in the Hebrew. They used κυρίου, meaning “Lord”. The only name that is mentioned as being important is the name of Jesus. Given that Jesus comes from Yeshua, which means “the Lord saves” that makes perfect sense.We don’t need to know how to pronounce יְהוָ֔ה because we can call on Jesus.
What about this is hard to understand or accept?
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:18pmIslesfordian, The only name that is mentioned as being important is the name of Jesus.
Then why did Jesus make his Father’s name known to his apostles? It seemed important to him, don’t you think?
Report Post »Please, I respectfully ask, read carefully Jesus’ prayer to his Father in John chapter 17 and then, ask yourself, what was Jesus’ concerns? Was it about Jesus or was it about his Father?
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:41pm“Then why did Jesus make his Father’s name known to his apostles? It seemed important to him, don’t you think?”
The “name” refers not to what the Father’s name was but to how he was to be known and how he could be called upon. It is through Jesus, who has made the Father known. Whoever has seen Jesus has seen the Father. Thus, whoever calls on Jesus calls also on the Father, for they are one. By explaining how he and the Father are one Jesus has made the Father’s name known. Moreover, when we call to the Father we are calling to him as OUR Father, as Jesus taught us. We do not call him Jehovah, or Yahwen or יְהוָ֔ה. We call him something much more intimate, Father or Abba.
THAT is what Jesus revealed to the apostles: That God was our Father and we would be his adopted sons.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:56pmMy name is Bart, and now I want you to meet my father, I want you to get to know him as I do, to appreciate his love for us.
So, here he is……….meet my father. Oh, by the way I am not going to tell you his name.
Isn’t that ridiculous?
The problem we have here is the Trinity doctrine is getting in the way of our understanding each other.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:16pmIf you were to introduce me to your father and then tell me that he would be my father too, what do you think I would call him? What do you call your father? I call my father Dad. To people who aren’t his children I would tell them to address him as Mister Hathaway. Hey, wait! That’s my name too! Go figure.
Report Post »MidWestMom
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:14amBut Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19:14
Guess the Priest forgot to to read this particular verse. I applaud the grandmother for including this young man in the church. A lot of people wouldn’t because of his birth defects.
Report Post »Marylou7
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:31amTotally agree. If this is a rule of the Catholic Church then woe to them. They are the ones that will have to answer to Christ, not this innocent child.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:46amMaybe, they didn’t give the priest enough money.
Report Post »Old Truckers
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:48amI am all for following the rules, but sometimes the rule of love wins out over regulations. That is what Jesus did, healing a blind man on the sabbath.
Report Post »Robert-CA
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:41amI go by JESUS words when he said let all the children come to me .
Report Post »This priest should be ashamed of himself .
freeus
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:45amThe Church is not rejecting Kevin, but is offering him love. This child has no problem with what is happening! Granny does and is rejecting the Church and its teachings. I understand that she feels this incident is a test of her faith. This happens in life. Turn to God.
Report Post »Thank you Father Henning for your courage to do the right thing.
Robert-CA
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:13pm@ FREEUS
JESUS is for everyone , you’re going by the physical appearance of a child .
Report Post »JESUS came to save our souls & not our physical appearance .
Open your heart FREEUS
DLG123
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:12pmMidwestmom…
Maybe you forgot to read 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is why we with hold the Sacrament NOT out of malice but out of Compassion for the individual.
At the Last Supper, in Matthew 26, Jesus held up the bread and said – “This IS my Body”. Notice He didn’t say –“This represents my Body”, or “This is a symbol of my Body”. This is the New COVENANT between God and man… A Covenant is NOT to be taken litely it is MORE than a mere promise ask any Rabbi!
This our faith and you do not have to accept it but you also should not deride it either.
May the Lord give you His Peace
Report Post »DLG
Bearfoot
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 4:00pmDLG123,
You said: “At the Last Supper, in Matthew 26, Jesus held up the bread and said – “This IS my Body”. Notice He didn’t say –“This represents my Body”, or “This is a symbol of my Body”. ”
To get a understand of Jesus’ words it is good to consult many Bible translations as they can help in understanding what he meant in Matthew 26:26-30 which reads in my Bible;
As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: “TAKE, eat. This means my body.” 27 Also, he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of YOU; 28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.” 30 Finally, after singing praises, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
So, does the bread mean it IS his body, or does it mean it is a SYMBOL OF his body that he was about to sacrifice for all of us?
Report Post »The same with the wine, it represented his blood that he was going to pour out for us, as if he was a sacrificial lamb.
DLG123
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 6:48pmBearfoot- Matthew 26:26 multiple versions… Your translation is not one
Report Post »New International Version
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
New Living Translation
As they were eating, Jesus took some bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it, for this is my body.”
English Standard Version
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
New American Standard Bible
While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
International Standard Version
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread and blessed it. Then he broke it in pieces and handed it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it. This is my body.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation
While they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take this, and eat it. This is my body.”
King James Bible
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
American King James Version
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
American Standard Version
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Bible in Basic English
And when they were taking food, Jesus took bread and, after blessing it, he gave the broken bread to the disciples and said, Take it; this is my body.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
Darby Bible Translation
And as they were eating, Jesus, having taken the bread and blessed, broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
English Revised Version
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Webster’s Bible Translation
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Weymouth New Testament
During the meal Jesus took a Passover biscuit, blessed it and broke it. He then gave it to the disciples, saying, “Take this and eat it: it is my body.”
World English Bible
As they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks for it, and broke it. He gave to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
Young’s Literal Translation
And while they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread, and having blesse
freeus
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:49am@ROBERT-CA
Report Post »Jesus is there for everyone. Reread my post, Robert. I did not comment on physical appearance of the young man whatsoever.
Open your heart and mind as well. Stop put words in my mouth.
Bearfoot
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:56pmDLG123,
Is it logical that the bread Jesus broke and the wine he drank was literally Jesus’ body and blood?
It was illustrating his body that they would symbolically eat and the blood that they were to drink.
Matthew 13 gives a list of things Jesus would teach to those following him and they were in illustrations;
“Jesus spoke to them in illustrations and without an illustration he would not speak to them. All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them; 35 that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet who said: “I will open my mouth with illustrations, I will publish things hidden since the founding.”” Matthew 13;34
If you want to believe that the bread and the wine were literally his body and blood, then go ahead but it is not logical or scriptural.
Leviticus 7:26 “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of fowl or that of beast. 27 Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’”
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 4:07pmSo, it can’t be his real body and blood can it? It has to be and had to be a substitute for the real thing. We do it many times don’t we? We illustrate. For instance, we could say “take my car around the block, but be careful, it’s me your driving. Don’ hurt me.”
Report Post »mycomet123
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 7:40pmDLG123 & Bearfoot– I have always felt that the strongest truth of transubstantiation can be found in John 6:53-58. John 6:53 “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood,you have no life in you. For my flesh is real food & my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” If you go on & read John 6:60 it states –On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “this is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” & if you can continue on it states in John 6:66–From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
Report Post »Bearfoot
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 10:27pmmycomet123,
The disciples and others who heard him say they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood could not accept the powerful speech. It was shocking to them and many left Jesus at that point. Lets read the account so we can understand it. Read it carefully and slowly lest you miss the important message. Jesus speaks at JOHN 6:48
“I am the bread of life. 49 YOUR forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and, for a fact, the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.”
52 Therefore the Jews began contending with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Accordingly Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Unless YOU eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, YOU have no life in yourselves. 54 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in union with me, and I in union with him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when YOUR forefathers ate and yet died. He that feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 These things he said as he was teaching in public assembly at Ca·per´na·um.
60 Therefore many of his disciples, when they heard this, said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble YOU? 62 What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to YOU are spirit and are life. 64 But there are some of YOU that do not believe.” For from [the] beginning Jesus knew who were the ones not believing and who was the one that would betray him. 65 So he went on to say: “This is why I have said to YOU, No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
66 Owing to this many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. 67 Therefore Jesus said to the twelve: “YOU do not want to go also, do YOU?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life; 69 and we have believed and come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them: “I chose YOU twelve, did I not? Yet one of YOU is a slanderer.” 71 He was, in fact, speaking of Judas [the son] of Simon Is·car´i·ot; for this one was going to betray him, although one of the twel
Report Post »mycomet123
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 5:47pmBEARFOOT, First of all, I’m not sure which translation of the Bible your using-I usually start with the Douay-Rheims version. I REVIEWED IT VERY SLOWLY AGAIN & I STILL STAND ON MY OPINION. The truth of the matter is, you can have 100 christians read the passage & have 100 different interpretations of it. Anyhow, I thank you for your opinion & I wish you well on your spiritual journey!
Report Post »canuck44
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:13amWhat would Mohammad do?
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:12amBut they will sprinkle water on an infant with the same mental capacity???? So,… you have to have a certain mental capacity to believe a piece of bread turns to flesh, and wine turns to real blood,(which it does not) but you don’t have to have the mental capacity to understand what baptism is about??? So glad I left that bunch in 1982.
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:27amDear Bo,
While I do not wish to get into a theological discussion about transubstantiation with you, and it is certainly not based upon the beliefs of the individual – having been documented as truth – I must pray that you come into a true understanding of the miracle of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. John 6:53-58 is not merely figurative; it is literal – or do you not believe in the truth of the Scriptures either?
TIFN8R – good post. Thank you for clarifying the Sacrament of the Anointing.
Report Post »Grasshopper42
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:31amPlease, “the mental capacity of a 6-month-old” ? If you believe a piece of bread turns to flesh, and wine turns to real blood, so do you. The Holy Spirit it the ‘vicar’ of Christ on this earth, not some Pope. The truth will set you free . . .
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:46amI am a X-Catholic. Jesus was just explaining the symbology of the Passover meal that the Jews have observed since Moses.All scriptures points to the Messiah in symbolism. He was just explaining to them that HE is the Passover Lamb and that he would lay down his life and shed HIS BLOOD for our sins.So that whenever Passover was observed (Once a year on Nisan 14th) that they were to remember HIM. All the Jewish feast days point to GOD’s plan for man in symbology.He was not starting some new ritual.He was just explaining the Passover meal in more detail.Wake up people! You are being lied to. Centuries of man-made teachings don’t make things right! Paul continued observing Passover after his conversion.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:54amSomeone call “Mythbusters!” This would be a good episode (We already know the outcome! “BUSTED!”) Have a priest bless the bread and wine and see what blood type the wine has.
Sugabee
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:24amDear Bo,
Report Post »Please search for yourself. The miracle at Lanciano, Italy does exactly that. As a priest (who was struggling in his own personal belief in the reality of the Eucharist) celebrated Mass, the Host became actual Flesh and the wine became actual Blood. This occurred in the 8th Century, and was preserved in a receptacle. In 1971 and again in 1981, the objects were analyzed scientifically by an objective party. They were proven to be true Flesh and true Blood. Go to http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html and read. This is one of many Eucharistic miracles that attest to the truth of John 6:53! To those who believe, no proof is necessary, but perhaps it may allow you to soften your heart to what God, in His omnipotence, can do without question. If He chooses to come to His people in this manner, who are we to question Him? Did He not come to us as a helpless baby and not the powerful King the Jews expected? Expect the unexpected; believe the unbelievable.
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:22am“the objects were analyzed scientifically by an objective party. They were proven to be true Flesh and true Blood.”
Sugabee, that is preposterous. It denies what official doctrine says about the appearance of the body and blood. They possess the inner “substance” of true flesh and true blood while still possessing the “accidents”, that is, the outer appearance or bread and wine. I have problems with using Aristotelian categories to explain Christian dosctrine, but that is what the second Lateran Council did back in the 13th century. Clearly, possessing the outer apearance of bread and wine means that no scientific ananlysis will be able to detect the spiritual substance of body and blood within the blessed sacrament. It still is a matter of faith.
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:15pmIsles,
Report Post »Again, refer to the website suggested. Just because our human minds consider it impossible doesn’t mean it cannot happen. Is it possible God, in His mercy for the priest and the faithful in attendance (not to mention the multitudes of those in the future at that time), caused the transubstantiated Host and Wine to be physically transformed to “prove” the spiritual transformation? Who are we to say that is impossible, if God wills it? Why is that so preposterous? The miracle at Lanciano is only one of many Eucharistic miracles. I believe God can do anything He wishes, including a physical transformation of a spiritual mystery.
Islesfordian
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:36pmSorry, Sugabee, I don’t buy it. I generally steer away from any dubious miracles claims like that. They aren’t necessary for faith and actually work against the faith required to believe in the eucharist. And they raise too many questions. Why hasn’t an actual DNA test been done by the church? If the blood types was tested then it can’t be claimed to be too sacred to test it. How has the flesh been preserved? If it resists decay all by itselt that would be a miraculous event even non-believing scientists could see. If it decays then it can’t be the flesh of Jesus. If they have preserved it from decay then that shows THEIR lack of faith.
Pious frauds exist. This seems to be one of them.
Report Post »CETMEONFIRE
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:39pmThe Catholic Church believes and teaches that the un-earned un-merrited gift of salvation is open to all and how do they prove it? The Church baptizes infants who do not have the ability or knowledge to “accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior”. They do not have the ability to come forward and say the sinner’s prayer before the congregation and or to recieve baptism merely as an outward sign of their inner conversion. Baptism brings about the grace it signifies, this child is a child of God through his Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He will most likely never be able to “decern the body” quoting from Saint Paul and thus cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Communion. To him all it would be was a snack somebody put in his mouth.
No discrimination here, sorry folks nothing to see, move along.
Report Post »Sugabee
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:54pmIsles,
Report Post »Maybe my use of the word “preserve” was misleading. As noted on the referenced website, “The preservation of the Flesh and of the Blood, which were left in their natural state for twelve centuries and exposed to the action of atmospheric and biological agents, remains an extraordinary phenomenon.”
So, this answers most of your questions – no outside preservation was used. I imagine if it were tested by the Church, the results would have been derided as fabricating the answers to fit the miracle; it has always been policy in ecclesiastical and scientific experiments to use objective third parties. Again, I agree that the faithful need no such miracle in order to believe, but if perchance it helps some poor souls in their search for His love, then why would God not perform miracles even today?
HillsGal
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:26pmFirst off, the sprinkling of water on the child at Baptism in the Catholic Church is not all there is…He has his parents standing up for him and two witnesses who stand up for him during this ceremony. The Godfather and the Godmother and they are there to ensure he learns what is being asked of him as a member.
As for the controversy on Holy Communion for this child, most of you who are not Catholic, this is just the receiving of a little piece of bread and is symbolic. For Catholics it is the body of Christ and by eating of His body we become part and united to the entire Body of Christ both living and dead – Christ Jesus as the Head; the members of the Church who have passed into eternity and those members who are currently living anywhere on this earth and participating in the Mass and Holy Communion. Now, this little boy is a child of God and is in all probability closer to God than any of us here on earth, but the fact remains he doe not really understand what communion is nor is he aware of the sacredness of this union with Christ. It is also fairly easy to see his mother really doesn’t understand her own church. The annointing of the sick is a sacrament, but it is not just for the dying. It is an annointing of the body of all of the senses and is an opening of the body to the healing of Christ.
People who do not value the “sacraments’ think this is unfair like we were talking about an IPOD or a box of crayons. Others know that many in the history of the Church have given their lives to protect the consecrated sacred host…Tarcisius was a twelve-year-old acolyte during one of the fierce Roman persecutions of the third century. Each day, from a secret meeting place in the catacombs where Christians gathered for Mass, a deacon would be sent to the prisons to carry the Eucharist to those Christians condemned to die. At one point, there was no deacon to send and so St. Tarcisius, an acolyte, was sent. On the way, he was stopped by boys his own age who were not Christians but knew him as a playmate. He was asked to join their games, but this time he refused and the crowd of boys noticed that he was carrying something and then one said he was a Christian, and the small gang of boys wanted to see what he carried. They became a mob and turned upon him. He went down under the blows from stones. He died of his injuries, but he kept the sacred host close to his heart with his hand. Alter boys today in the Church have their hands over their hearts as a tribut to this child.
Report Post »mibble
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:31amOh and it’s ok to baptize an infant by sprinkling??! What knowledge or responsibility does an infant have? Immersion is symbolic of the death of a person’s sinful life and the rebirth into a spiritual life, dedicated to the service of God and His children. It is also symbolic of death and resurrection. (See Romans 6:3–6.)
Report Post »An infant does not have a sinful life. They are innocent!
Let the parents decide what the child may want. Just another priest overstepping his “authority.”
Thun
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:17pmAnd here I thought we all came into this world with original sin, what was I thinking?
Report Post »IvanK
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:12amThis is a serious catch 22 right here!
Report Post »I have to side with the parent though – While I believe the priest administered the rule according to the letter, I‘m thinking that it’s not in the spirit of the Lord. This child is a child of God despite his disability and thus should receive the communion.
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:18amAgreement here too; as a chaplain, one thing to understand is there is the Spirit of the word, and the letter of the word. The Spirit guides you, if you let it, into understanding we all are of the same children of God and His son. While the young boy may not have a full understanding of what the communion is about, to deny him the chance for partaking of it, due to the judgment of a human, is to deny him that which is meant for all to partake of as ordained by God.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:20amThat was just mean. He could have explained that, while it is unusual, because Christ is a forgiving Lord, that he would give the young man first communion. I am not Catholic but there should be exceptions, especially in these days and times with the lack of God in society, and people being killed for trying to worship.
Report Post »Marcobob69
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:24amI agree, the boy is still a HUMAN BEING, and whatever his mental capacity, should BE TREATED AS A HUMAN BEING! We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord, and He has a reason for putting this little boy here. To deny him first communion based on that is discriminatory.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:28amMorning, SNOW, responded to your note yesterday on same article. Loved the new drawing! Hope all is well.
Report Post »BarCalliyon
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:34amAs a Catholic, I was not allowed to recieve communion till the second grade. At that point we had learned what it was about and why it was so important to our faith. So before you start hammering the Priest, communion is sacred to us and something we take lightly.
Report Post »Ballgame
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:54amAs a former Catholic, and now reborn Christian I agree with the father. I also have children who I do not allow to partake in communion. Communion is not to be taken lightly. You shouldn’t even be taking communion if you know in your heart that you are not right with God at that time. This child’s salvation is not in question. God holds a special place in heaven for children.
Only those who accept God as their Lord and Savior, who sent his only son to die on the cross for my (our) sins, and who have confessed their sins should partake in communion.
Report Post »jv
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:09amAs a currewnt Catholic and reborn Christian (nothing inconsistaent about that) I have to say that Ballpark sums it up rather well otherwise. The child is not being slighted, Until he has understanding he has no need of the Sacrament. Baptism is sufficient.
I should also add that the administration of the Sacraments has been given the Church and thank God for it. It is because of this that Congress can make any law it desires but the Sacrament of Marriage will never be bestowed on same sex couples. The Church is not a democracy nor was it ever intended to be one. If it were the gates of hell would have destroyed it long ago (as is evidenced by the majority of the responses to this story)
Report Post »Charlie Justice
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 9:42amInfallible popes, transubstantiation, confessional booths, purgatory, sainthood, lent, the eucharist, hail mary,…need I continue? The catholic system is in desperate need of understanding the nature of God and the deity of Jesus Christ. Their manmade methods and ideas are pathetically misguiding millions and depriving them of realizing the truth.
BetterDays
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:05amAs a former Catholic and now Sola Scriptura, on scripture alone Born again believer I too know that communion, or the Loeds Supper is not to be taken without much self searching Yet IMHO, IF this child received the Cathiloc Rite of first holy communion is not stated. And that is my biggest beef with the Blaze, we often get enough information in these stories by which we can render a wild guess in response, would it hurt the Blaze to present the entire story? Anyway, IMHO, if you sit in a pew you play by their rules, plain and simple. Someone stated that Catholicism is not a democracy, they didn’t say what she is so I will, it’s a socialist form of governance, and the oldest example of that form if governance on planet earth. in stark contrast, is the church I attend, where members together control every aspect of the faith, and vote on every issue locally, regionally, nationally, and world wide.
Report Post »I’m not here to deride the average believer in that church, or any other. But if you want to know GOD, then one must seek GOD through scripture in a one to one relationship. Do that and the beauty, wonder and fullness of GODs truth shall be ever expanding before you as you draw closer and closer to GOD.
SlimnRanger
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:17amJesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me” ,to me taking communion is a privalage,we took communion last night at our Church,it was raining and storming badly before i left for Church and i could have just stayed at home but i felt i needed to take communion,greanted this precious disabled child is Heaven bound regardless if he took communion or not it’s the principal of it that matters,Christ would not have told him he couldn’t
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:19amAll the non-catholics are out in force to pass judgment. To receive communion is more than the priest placing a host in your mouth, it is the act of knowingly asking for it, asking for the blessings and asking for the duties that come with it. If the child has no understanding of what is going on, then this is nothing more than an empty gesture divorced of its meaning. Only after confession should catholics recieve communion, again something this boy seems uncapable of.
Report Post »408 CheyTac
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:21amThat must also mean a 80 year old dying with alzheimer’s is no qualified for a final comumion either. After all, they would not have sufficient knowledge remaining to understand it. On no final rights for a dying comatose accident victim-they have a brain flat-line, and obviously won’t understand anything.
The asininity of the catholic church amazes me sometimes. What moron decided that Y*shua, who welcomed all children, and healed the diseased, would reject one child because he might not understand a sacrament? That is just plain stupid. This church has no trouble hiding priests buggering the children, but won’t see fit for a last communion. Good grief, grow a brain people!
Let the little children come unto me — In the pope’s world must mean only the well, capable children, the pope doesn’t want the handicapped, damaged children.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:39amIts amazing that a Mormon “news” site wouldl post this articel and invite attacks against Catholic dogma. @ Betterdays, do you have a socialist fetish? There is nothing socialistic about the catholic church, is it a monarchy, yes. It predates nearly all of the countries of modern day europe. You hate for the church, is just a reflcetion of the bitterness of your soul and the reason you abandoned her. @Charlie Justice, 200 years ago in lower Manhattan, near where the Twin Towers once stood, there were massive protests over the building of a house of worship. Bigots like yourself protested the construction of the First St. Patricks. IF old enough did you vote against Kennedy cause he was Catholic?
Report Post »sclasson
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 10:48amTHIS IS WHY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH MAY BE IN DECLINE,because they have gotten away from the real people and have gone the way of this goverment and all of the left loonies.
Report Post »the new pope will get this church back on track and will throw out all of those interlopers,he has been told to do away from these fake catholics and the uneducated lefties.
GOD has started to interveine in this the only free country in the world.
freeus
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:16amIt is disheartening when people want to force change in a Church to meet their needs. If she is unhappy and feels it is a form of discrimination there are other Christian denominations that will accommodate her, they are Protestant in nature. These churches believe, unlike the Catholic church, communion is not a Holy Sacrament but symbolic gesture of the Last Supper.
Report Post »With respect to the sacrament of Anointing of the sick that is not just given before death, I have received it several times for healing and I wasn’t dying.
Eliasim
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 11:48amIt‘s Irma Castro’s fault for believing that she has to go to “The church” to receive the body of Christ, when in fact Jesus church is invisible branches which extend through many walls.
Report Post »watchmany2k
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:21pmFrom Wiki: Cerebral palsy is caused by damage to the motor control centers of the developing brain and can occur during pregnancy, during childbirth or after birth up to about age three. Resulting limits in movement and posture cause activity limitation and are often accompanied by disturbances of sensation, depth perception and other sight-based perceptual problems, communication ability, and sometimes even COGNITION; sometimes a form of CP may be accompanied by epilepsy. CP, no matter what the type, is often accompanied by secondary musculoskeletal problems that arise as a result of the underlying etiology.
The full intellectual potential of a child born with CP will often not be known until the child starts school. People with CP are more likely to have some type of learning disability, but this is not related to a person’s intellect or IQ level. Intellectual level among people with CP varies from genius to intellectually impaired, as it does in the general population, and experts have stated that it is important to not underestimate a person with CP’s capabilities and to give them every opportunity to learn.
MisconceptionsSpastic Cerebral Palsy, the most common form of CP, causes the muscles to be tense, rigid and movements are slow and difficult. This can be misinterpreted as cognitive delay due to difficulty of communication. Individuals with cerebral palsy can have learning difficulties, but sometimes it is the sheer magnitude of problems caused by the underlying brain injury that prevents the individual from expressing what cognitive abilities they do possess
So, it IS a Judgement call.
The Catholic Canon is clear: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM
Can. 913 §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.
The mother may appeal to the Bishop, and even persue this in a canon court.
I see two issues, the childs ACTUAL Cognitive abilities, and his actual understanding of the mystery.
That would fulfill or not, the canonical requirement.
Rather than trying this in the press, she should have worked with the pastor who has a DUTY to exercise vigilance (Can. 914 )
I am starting to wonder about “The Blaze” and this “new” approach to interest YOUTH in “news”
Most of what I see are offensive cliche’s, shock, and nonsense since this new manager.
Maybe your “uniques” are going up, but at the same time you are offending your base.
Will The Blaze cover the Church when it enforces Canon 915, denying politicians who support abortion ? I wonder if it will only be “news” to discredit the politician in question rather than covering the underlying reason.
THIS article is the Easter news you cover ?
How about the Holy Father’s Easter message ?
The Blaze is now on probation
Report Post »GODSAMERICA
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 12:47pmThe child probably knows better than the priest what the body of Christ is since the child’s beliefs are not tainted with false teachings. I’m sure that God has “given” communion to the child without the aid of the catholic church. The church cannot decide who is recognized by God in whatever way even though they believe that no one has access to God except through them. Here comes a lot of flack my way – - – the catholic church is more of a detriment to someone truly seeking God than a help.- – - okay – feel free to respond.
Report Post »MikeinIdaho
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:11pmI agree. As a Catholic, I understand the ruling, but as a compassionate individual, I would encourage the church to allow everyone possible to receive the blessings of communion. After all, it can’t hurt and it sure could help!
Report Post »DLG123
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 1:29pmWatchman
Report Post »I agree The Blaze is on probation…
This site was supposed to “Truth has No agenda” but it seems to be “Half Truths with an Agenda” when it come to the Catholic Church… I listen to and watch Glenn daily and I was so glad when Glenn launched this site and that I had another News site to go to besides the Drudge Report, but the rabid anti-Catholic sentiment spewed by the posters here is un-beliveable… Glenn always talks about doing your own homework and learning for yourself… When is that intelectual honesty from the people who are posting here?
I also had a special needs child who I would not have allowed to recieve the Body and Blood unless he was able to understand clearly the teachings about the Eucharist. I have a twenty seven year old cousin who has CP and he is able to understand the meaning and is capable of recieving and he does every Sunday so it is not that the Preist is discrimination just that the teachings of the Church is clear for anyone to read. But I will say that the Priest should have done a better job explaining to the Grandmother.
Peace of the Lord be with y’all
DLG
Vickie Dhaene
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:11pmI agree. Also, If he had never met the boy, how can calculated the boys mental capacity. I am ashamed.
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:34pmJesus said “Let the little children come unto me.” That being said, until and if the boy can understand what Jesus did, he probably should not be taking communion. I am not a Catholic (I’m a Baptist), but my little boy hasn’t had his first communion yet either. He will during the next communion because he just got baptized though. He was not allowed to get baptized until he had enough of an understanding of what Jesus did for him and until he accepted Jesus as his own personal savior. For my little boy, he was able to demonstrate that at 4 1/2. That is my church’s rules.
If he can’t understand what Jesus did, then I can’t really blame the church for not wanting to give people communion. People have died because they have taken communion unworthily. They probably don’t do so much now, but if God could do it in the first century, that doesn‘t mean that he couldn’t do it today. It also doesn‘t mean that God doesn’t love him. That boy probably has a childlike faith that most people, even kids his age, don’t have.
Report Post »jvlag3
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:48pm@freeus… to you it’s only a symbol. But Catholics know that when Jesus said eat my body and drink my blood it was not a symbolic act. That’s why we do it in every Mass, not once a month or 4 times a year. It‘s easy to criticize what you don’t know …
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 2:52pmThis is a lot about nothing. Anointing the sick is very compassionate and also a very worthwhile practice for Catholics in the Church. I can see no reason why this parent would not wish for their child to receive the anointing of the sick and pray with the priest for the Lords special help for her child’s illness. This sounds like a very conscientous priest.
Report Post »Bible thumper
Posted on April 25, 2011 at 8:46pmCan we say LEGALISM folks….OHHH thats right it was a Catholic priest sorry my bad i should not have been shocked.. Lets start reading the Bible people like ohh say Mathew when JESUS informs the pharisees of there isues…and then since we are are Glenn supporters lets start thinking critically…Roman Catholic Organization = Pharisees???? HHHMMMMMMM….. keep in mind i said organization NOT church theres a difference
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:19am“I agree The Blaze is on probation”
Dittos from me. I have been growiing sick of the blantant editorial nature in their reporting and the shoddy nature of their many of the stories.
The Blaze now seems to have adopted a strange censorship policy where you can say “gay” but not “lesbian”, the female variety that rhymes with thesbian.
Sometimes I wonder who’s in charge over there.
Report Post »freeus
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:41am@JVLAG3
Report Post »Read my post again, we are in complete agreement with respect to the Eucharist. I am Catholic and I take Holy Communion very seriously. Unfortunately, this boy’s grandmother does not.
Rice Water
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:58amI don’t even understand the controversy here. CP is a physical developmental disability; unless this child has an accompanying diagnosis of MR, autism, etc., he is as perfectly mentally capable as any other child in comprehending Catholic mass. The parent is perfectly correct in feeling insulted and discriminated against.
The priest that denied him needs some sensitivity training. NOW.
Report Post »mibble
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 12:59amEncinom: It’s amazing that a Mormon “news” site wouldl post this articel and invite attacks against Catholic dogma.
Now that’s funny.
Love that freedom of speech!!!!!!!
Report Post »Catherine A.
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 1:06amMost of the non-Catholics posting here, a few of the former Catholics, and God help us, a number of actual Catholics, DON‘T KNOW WHAT THE CRAP THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT, and some of the comments express outright bigotry.
Two points: (1) Any woman who claims that the sacrament of anointing is only for dying people is a woman who does not know her faith, because that is absolutely untrue. So what else could she be confused about? (2) News flash, Catholics: It is NOT a dogma of the Catholic Church that un-baptized people do not go to heaven. Good grief.
This matter needs to be left to those in authority in the Catholic Church. It doesn’t need to be refereed by non-Catholics, non-Christians, ignorant Catholics, the news media, and not, for crying out loud, THE GOVERNMENT.
Report Post »Islesfordian
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 7:40amCatherine, you should know by now that ignorance is no bar to commenting here. It seems to be the prefered style for some.
Also, did you say that some don’t know what the heck they are talking about? Or words to that effect. I couldn‘t tell because it was deleted and now I’m wondering whether I can even say that “the Gates of hell will not prevail against her” when speaking of Christ’s holy church.
Report Post »ParishionerUSA
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 9:00amMy heart breaks for this mother. Every mother wants all the best for her babies so of course that includes Holy Communion, but…As a Catholic she is rebelling and that is not right. This priest hasn’t invented a way of hurting the feelings of a special needs child. Holy Communion is received after a child has reached an age of reason. If this beautiful boy will not reach the age of reason he need not worry about receiving Jesus in Holy Communion. Jesus will be waiting to escort this little boy to a very special place in Heaven, just like all innocent children. This mother really needs to pray for the virtue of obedience and I will have her in my prayers.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 9:56amI know this is tough for this PARENT, but she should accept the SACRAMENT of the annointing of the sick and here’s why:
WE believe that this IS the BODY of CHRIST and not just a ritual. That is so precious and must be carefully administered as the GIFT that it is. GOD has this young boy in HIS hands and heart and one day his illness will make sense to his parents…as they see GOD’S greater will. In the meantime, the value that is CATHOLIC is the “Same yesterday, today and tomorrow” unlike say the Episcopalians who blow with the wind.
Report Post »NO unkindness was meant or intended by the Priest but the CANON law is clear: only to the confirmed (and who understand what it is). THE mother would be better served to accept graciously the SACRAMENT for the sick and the value would be great for her and the son. THIS is not good for anyone…her challenge. She needs to take up her anger with GOD, not try to break the laws of His Church.
THIS administering of the Sacraments has 0 to do with CHARITY or KINDNESS or ‘fair play’ or any of the PC (of this age) expectations. This is the BODY of CHRIST and meant to be received by people who can comprehend that. Anointing would be wonderful for this child of GOD. I hope the mother will come to see it that way.
jvlag3
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 11:53am@freeus: re-read your post and my mistake in reading it wrong
Report Post »flyingpeters
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 2:11pmIt’s very simple…. God created faith, man created religion! Man is flawed, thus religion can be flawed as well. The interpertation of Cannon (being left up to one priest) can be dangerous, and must be interpreted by the congregation who should take into account the members of said congregation so that the love of the church family does not turn into the tyrany of the church family!
Report Post »taksavillage
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 3:55pmThis isn’t a piece of bread or a trophy for participation, it is the Body of Christ. It is not given to make the mother feel good. The recipient must have the ability to understand the impact of the event. Sorry if the mother feels slighted. Obviously she loves her son, but is he even aware of the incident?
Report Post »The priest’s responsibility is to God.
Charging discrimination is a legal ploy. The mother obviously has no concept of the situation or she would not have even mentioned it.
dilmot
Posted on April 26, 2011 at 6:52pmThe Catholic Church requires that any person who receives be able to understand that what they are receiving is the Body and Blood of Christ. As much as I feel for the the family, the priest in good conscience administer the sacrament to a child who is unable to comprehend the meaning of the same. As for the Anointing of the Sick, it is not strictly for those who are about to die. I received the sacrament prior to having surgery. It is a blessing for those who are ill.
Report Post »ParishionerUSA
Posted on April 27, 2011 at 2:22pmI can not believe this garbage story is still up but nothing about the horrific desecration of St. Peter Chanel Catholic Church in Roswell, GA. Brothers and sisters you’d better wake up. There is a war being waged against the Catholic Church and if you do not think that all of Christendom is in the cross hairs you have your heads in the sand. These attacks on the Catholic Church are attacks against all of Christendom and you people better stand up soon instead of being so giddily happy that it isn’t your Church. All I see is good being attacked by evil and then kicked when they’re down by good. Good need to start standing with each other or we will not win. Christ won our individual salvation but we still have an obligation to defend the truth and good while we are here. Wake up people!
http://projects.ajc.com/gallery/view/metro/atlanta/easter-desecration-042511/
http://www.ajc.com/news/north-fulton/felony-investigation-under-way-924501.html
Report Post »