--- > Okay...call me odd, call me strange, but is the Catholic Church > supposed to celebrate the Jewish Seder meal? The church that I go to > (Lord willing, not for too much longer) had a Seder meal last > night...I went in to see what was going on in the big reception hall, > and was completely horrified to see a huge menorah sitting at the head > table. I literally couldn't speak for a couple seconds there because I > was in total disbelief as to what I was looking at. > Another thing. Where are the moral absolutes in the Church now? I > made some mention to one of my friends about my belief that > homosexuality is totally wrong, and someone else who wasn't involved > in the conversation said "Well, it's wrong to judge people." What??? > I don't remember what book of the Bible this is in, but it says quite > specifically that fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals and other such > people will not inherit the Kingdom. Even Protestants believe this!!! > What happened to the moral absolutes in the True Church? > One last thing. Please tell me I'm not the only one who refuses to > say the "Luminous Mysteries" of the Rosary. The Rosary is perfect as > it is...JP2 made a huge mistake in adding one more set of mysteries. > At least, that's my opinion.

-- Mike J. (Mike@southernpacific.com), April 11, 2003

Answers

Most people today don't have a clue what the word "judgment" means. Any time you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, they are likely to come back with "who are you to judge me?". And yet, if you say that what Osama bin Laden did was wrong, they have no problem with that. They don't say "who are you to judge him?". A bit of a double standard there? What exactly is judgment? What exactly is the function of a judge? A judge weighs the available evidence, and then renders a PERSONAL DECISION regarding the rightness or wrongness of an action, and/or the objective guilt or innocence of the person accused of the act. Such a decision is called a JUDGMENT. It is expressed in the form of "I find you guilty", or "I find you not guilty". Either way, the judgment is a personal decision of the judge, based on the available evidence. If no personal decision is involved, then NO JUDGMENT has occurred.

If a friend is sleeping with his neighbor's wife, and you tell him "what you are doing is wrong - you shouldn't be doing that", he will probably respond "don't judge me". And then you are supposed to slink away feeling guilty about having judged him. But there was no judgment involved here! You didn't make a subjective DECISION that what he was doing is wrong, based on your review of the evidence. You simply KNEW that what he was doing was wrong, because the law of God and the teaching of the Church clearly state that adultery is ALWAYS wrong. "What you are doing is wrong" was not a judgmental statement, and it was not a statement of opinion. It was a straightforward statement of objective fact. It was the objective truth, nothing more. There was no subjective element in the statement, and judgment is always a subjective process, even though it might be based on objective evidence. Stating the revealed word of God as taught by His Church is never judgmental. It is simply truthful. Stating anything other than the truth, or simply looking the other way and saying nothing, is neither honest nor charitable. I would be doing my friend a serious disservice by withholding the truth when he is in grave danger of eternal damnation. So don't fall for the old "judge not" smokescreen. If what you are saying is the objective truth, and not your own opinion or decision, then it is NOT judging; and if it is the teaching of the Church, then it IS the objective truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 11, 2003.

Only if you like matzos!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 11, 2003.

The church that I go to > (Lord willing, not for too much longer) had a Seder meal last night

Would you like a list of chapels in your area offering the Traditional Latin Mass? Email me.

fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals and other such > people will not inherit the Kingdom. Even Protestants believe this!!!

That has not ceased to be true. Truth is funny that way. Don't let anyone tell you that it's still true...BUT, now we have a more enlightened *understanding* of that truth. Run, don't walk, to the nearest traditional chapel and get back to the Real Faith.

I'm not the only one who refuses to > say the "Luminous Mysteries" of the Rosary. The Rosary is perfect as > it is...JP2 made a huge mistake in adding one more set of mysteries. > At least, that's my opinion.

You're perfectly entitled to that opinion, and I happen to agree.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.

I am very saddened to read there is no Sadder support among Catholics. It is a very special meal bringing loved ones to-gether for the morning trip which is now symbolic.

Always I walk of mass on Good Friday as I do not want to hear the anti-jewish rhetoric and infurences in the reading of the Passion.

The Jewish faith is our beginning our inheritance in bringing us to Christ Himself. This is type of ignorance and stupidity that brought on the holocaust of which the Church has not to this day given a heart felt apology.

Remember Christ was Jewish born of a Jewish Mother whom we revere as the perfect servant. Politics was and still the bane of belief in God The Father.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 12, 2003.

I am very saddened to read there is no Sadder support among Catholics.

As opposed to the overwhelming Eucharistic support among Jews?

Always I walk of mass on Good Friday as I do not want to hear the anti-jewish rhetoric and infurences in the reading of the Passion.

You walk OUT of Mass on Good Friday, because the Gospel reading is anti-Jewish? Right. I thought that's what you said.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.

Recalling that a group of Jews did something 2,000 years ago is "anti- Jewish rhetoric"?? That's the way it happened. It's history. What do you want them to do? Say that it was Irishmen?

Hitler was an atheist. Almost everyone in Germany who had any faith at all at the time was Lutheran. Why would the Church apologize for atrocities committed by atheists and Protestants? In fact, the Pope, in a public display of incredible humility, did express his sincere regrets for any lack of zeal on the part of Catholics of the time, in spite of the fact that Pope Pius XII was the uncontested champion of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. I haven't heard the leaders of any other church come forward to express similar regrets for the shortcomings of their congregations. But then other church leaders are not His Holiness John Paul II.

We are quite well aware that our Lord and Savior was born Jewish, not to mention his mother, step-father and Apostles. Which is an obvious reason why the prayers and readings of the Mass would not be critical of our own heritage.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 12, 2003.

Not to be contrary to you Paul, but just because it is such an interesting topic in itself, Hitler wasn't really an atheist per se. He had this very bizarre but ancient religion that he ascribed to. The most recognizable name you could give it would be New Age, but that doesn't nearly to it justice as a description; it was occultic.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 12, 2003.

Jean said earlier that he walks out of Mass on Good Friday because of 'anti-Jewish Rhetoric'. I would like to clarify something here. We do not celebrate Mass on Good Friday. The Mass of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday is the last Celebration of Mass until the Easter Vigil Mass which is celebrated on the evening of Holy Saturday. The Eucharist, the Risen Jesus, is removed from the Tabernacle on Holy Thursday after Mass and He is only returned to the church for distribution of Holy Communion during the Good Friday service. After the Good Friday Service He is again removed from the Sanctuary and placed in another place of repose until Easter Vigil Mass.

We do not celebrate the Resurrection via the Liturgy of the Mass on Good Friday, or on the day of Holy Saturday, as we would any other day of the year. There is only one Jesus and, since He has died and has not yet risen

Our first glimpse of Our Lord's glorious Resurrection comes at the Vigil Mass on Holy Saturday where our sorrow turns to Joy and we proclaim Alleuluia, He is Risen!

Sara

-- sara (sara@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

I am very saddened to read there is no Sadder support among Catholics.

"Sadder" still is how neo-modern Catholics are the first to express open hostility toward the riches and grave importance of Tradition in their own Faith, yet readily embrace the traditions of other "faiths" which deny Christ.

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 12, 2003.

I am not speaking for the Church, but I can't see how there would be anything wrong with providing or attending a seder meal. I've been to a seder meal and it was a very nice evening. It seemed a very good thing. How can something that brings us together with our fellow man in a positive way be frowned on? It certainly shouldn't be grouped with questions of homosexuality, fornication, and adultery. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 12, 2003.

I attended one of these before I knew better, but now I cringe at the thought. I was taking part iin a religious gathering with heretics. I hope that invincible ignorance appkies . Nice warm feelings has nothing to do with it, We were warned by St. Paul.

-- Ed Richards (lozt@yahoo.com), April 12, 2003.

The gathering I attended was made up of friends. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 12, 2003.

first and foremost... it is not wrong for a catholic to attend a seder meal, but it would not be appropriate for a catholic church to host a seder meal. Second of all... the church recognizes that homosexuality is not wrong in and of itself, but that the practice thereof is wrong. Namely, that sodomy is wrong. BTW... the quote from the bible is wrong. it says that fornicators, adulterers, sodomizers and such will not inherent the kingdom (although dont quote me, thats not verbatim) On the question of judgement. You are not wrong to make a moral claim that something is wrong, that is not judgment. People who think that other people should not be allowed to judge at all are ignorant and stupid. The point of the scripture on judgement is that we remember to be forgiving when we judge, not that we dont recognize when a wrong is made. Finally, the luminous mysteries... never heard of them, please enlighten me.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 12, 2003.

People who think that other people should not be allowed to judge at all are ignorant and stupid.

This week's succinctness award goes to Paul for opining thus.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 12, 2003.

the luminous mysteries... never heard of them, please enlighten me.

Voila.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 13, 2003.

The so-called "luminous mysteries", or "mysteries of light" are the five new mysteries of the rosary proposed by the Pope in his recent Apostolic Letter, "Rosarium Virginis Mariae". They include:

- The Baptism of Christ

- Christ's self-manifestation at the wedding feast of Cana

- Christ's proclamation of the Kingdom of God

- The Transfiguration

- The institution of the Eucharist

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 13, 2003.

I just came home from a very nice celebration of the Seder Meal, hosted by our RCIA at our Catholic Church and I must say that I am a bit surprised at some of the comments being made here. If you profess to be Christian, you are born out of the Hebrew faith. The Jewish faith is your tradition. Even Christ said that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

We read from the Hebrew Scriptures at Mass, we sing from the Psalms. Sedar, Passover and the Old Testament are as much a part of our tradition and revelation as Christ is.

-- Leon (volk@weblink2000.net), April 14, 2003.

Seder Meal, hosted by our RCIA

Whoooosh....whoooosshhhh....whhhooooosssssshhhhh.....

(the sound of BIG red flags waving)

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), April 14, 2003.

It has always been a mortal sin to participate in a seder meal. I think I put all the novus ordo nonsense into perspective, and nothing shocks me anymore. Its as if I am expecting for JPII's head to split open and Lucifier himself will pop out. Anything else is pure entertainment.

-- James W. (Jim38@southbell.com), April 14, 2003.

I just came home from a very nice celebration of the Seder Meal, hosted by our RCIA at our Catholic Church

And when was the last time your "Catholic Church" celebrated a "nice celebration" of the Traditional Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - which is *our* heritage as Roman Catholics - the religion founded by Our Lord?

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 14, 2003.

hosted by our RCIA at our Catholic Church

actually, here your church is in violation of liturgical law in that they are going against the teaching of the church in rome to celebrate the traditions of another church that is not even christian... yes, our tradition is an extension of the hebrew tradition BUT keep in mind that the hebrew tradition does not even recognize the divinity of our beloved Jesus

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 14, 2003.

I say once again . . . Jesus said, I came not to abolish the law, but fulfill it.

You're all in left field, barking up the wrong tree. He didn't abolish the Hebrew tradition, he embrased it. If Jesus celebrated the tradition of Passover, I think I too can appreciate the beauty of the tradition.

You can wave red flags all you want. The fact that the Jewish faith, can't recognize that which we adore, doesn't change the fact that God's revelation comes to us through the Hebrew tradition. The Hebrew tradition is our tradition and Passover is for us to be appreciated too.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 14, 2003.

You're all in left field, barking up the wrong tree.

The Cliche Association called. They need their book back.

If Jesus celebrated the tradition of Passover, I think I too can appreciate the beauty of the tradition.

He also instituted the Holy Mass , the Eucharist, and the Sacrament of Holy Orders. How's that for beauty?

God's revelation comes to us through the Hebrew tradition...

...which was superceded by the establishment on earth of the Holy Roman Catholic Church by Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew tradition is our tradition and Passover is for us to be appreciated too.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Wrong answer.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 15, 2003.

The Cliche Association called. They need their book back.

lol!!!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 15, 2003.

perhaps let me deal with something:

Hebrew tradition is our tradition

NO IT IS NOT. are you a catholic who celebrates hanakuh? did you have a bar mitzvah? come on Leon, where is your hebrew tradition? the truth of the matter is that the hebrew tradition is one that has changed since the time of christ, and changed drastically. Seder meals are never proscribed by God, and Jesus didnt say anything about them. What i ask is how dare you defile the sanctity of the feast that is the eucharist by equating it to nothing more than a seder meal to show unity? Seder meals are nice thoughts, but they are not CATHOLIC, have never been CATHOLIC and should not be put into practice by true Catholics

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.

As I sift through the answers to this question. I get the idea that while its "ok" for a Catholic to attend a seder meal some here find the idea somewhat repugnant. I'm pretty sure thats not the intent, but tone of the thread suggests the whole idea of Catholics attending a seder is viewed pretty negatively. If you follow Church law and are a "good" Catholic, how can this seemingly innocuous event be problematic. Also, it seems that more than a few Catholic churches sponsor these events. They don't do it in the actual Church, but usually in a meeting room or hall. In my experience, (outside of the Church) its just a congenial gathering of friends. If its Church sponsored those who attend are reminded that Christ did this too. People leave feeling pretty happy about it. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 15, 2003.

actually christ didnt participate in sedar meals, those came after the assumption... the liturgical doctrine states that catholics may attend the services of other churches, but must abstain from any communion taken. furthermore, a catholic church may not hold a traditional event which is not inherent in the tradition of the catholic church. the use of sedar meals by a catholic church detracts from the unifying feast that is the communion. catholics who feel that they need to host a sedar meal to feel united with the congregation dont understand the true unifying nature of the heavenly body of Christ. a seder meal subtracts from the unity we are to feel in our sacred tradition. let me repeat, WE ARE NOT JEWS AND WE DONT CELEBRATE HEBREW TRADITIONS OUR DOGMA IS AN EVOLUTION OF JEWISH TRADITION, NOT AN EXPANSION

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.

Sorry...I didn't mean to make anyone angry, I had no idea this was such a touchy subject. Again, my apologies. Jim

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 15, 2003.

Good gosh!!!!!!! This is my first time reading this thread. Have half the people here lost their minds???

I mean, come on, accepting Hebrew tradition as our tradition? First off, Judaism, as celebrated today is actually quite different from the way it was celebrated in the time of Christ. Secondly, what is this about embracing traditions that are not of the Catholic Church, while tossing all of our traditions out the window to be blown away in the wind?

Christ came in fulfillment of the prophecies, and in doing so, while God's moral laws will always remain the same, Christ 'overrode' the Jewish religion with the institution of the Catholic Church. In which all must be part in order to be saved. Out with the old, in with the new, so to speak. (How's that for cliche?)

Regina is right (as usual), the Tradition we should be holding onto are the traditions of the Catholic Church, not a false religion, especially one which denies the Divinity of Christ.

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 15, 2003.

You Opus Dei types never cease to amaze me. This is a rather anonymous place, and perhaps people are more extreme here than they would be in real life, but anyone looking for old-time paranoia and anti-semitism can stop right here! The general ignorance of Catholic doctorine combined with your intensity is amazing to behold. I find it interesting that so many people here espouse positions explicitly opposed to those of the Vatican and the US Cardinals. For Traditionalists, you have a hard time being traditional Catholics and following the leadership of your church, the leadership you believe selected with Divine guidance in an unbroken line from JPII back to Peter. If you don't really believe in the Church, why not leave it and stop bellyaching? Otherwise, wouldn't the acme of Catholic Orthodoxy be to shut up and get up to speed on Church Doctrine?

-- Ort Olan (ort_olan@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Lay out your case, Ort. Come on. Make an argument.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 16, 2003.

shut up and get up to speed on Church Doctrine?

By all means, bring us "up to speed." What are we missing, doctrinally speaking?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 16, 2003.

I feel very sad that many of the comments made here sound like they are filled with bitterness. Catholics are not called to be so cynical and bitter but to openly embrace all people and religions that God has created without losing our own faith. There is nothing sinful about the Seder meal. Jesus was a Jew. A Seder meal is meant to help us to appreciate our roots not to abolish them. We are not replacing the Eucharist with this as this would be very wrong.

I would plead with you to study all the documents of the church before making comments that can be injurious to the Body of Christ. If you are a Catholic, the Pope is our Holy Father and is to be reverenced not worshipped. He is not JP2. I don't understand your objection to his adding to the Mysteries. Please reflect on your refusal to say the Luminous Mysteries. Praying them is not necessary for salvation but having an attitude of refusal could be a stumbling block to it.

The Church has not changed its stance on moral absolutes. I do not what you are referring to specifically. Just because a believer in the church makes a comment on a teaching does not mean that is what the Church teaches. If you study what the Church teaches you will find that the truth has NOT changed. Homosexuality is not a sin any more that heterosexuality, however, just as illicit heterosexual acts are sinful so are homosexual acts. The acts not the tendencies. I am certainly not defending any illicit sexual acts, homosexual or heterosexual. These all fall outside the revealed will of God. But you can still rely on the Church because not even the Holy Father can change the Truth and practicing homosexuality is still condemned in the church, not the homosexual person.

-- Sr. Jae, O. C. (rcdok@caribsurf.com), April 16, 2003.

We are not replacing the Eucharist with this as this would be very wrong.

Well, that's a relief.

I would plead with you to study all the documents of the church before making comments that can be injurious to the Body of Christ.

I would make the same exhortation of you, Sister, with emphasis added to the word "all."

I don't understand your objection to his adding to the Mysteries. Please reflect on your refusal to say the Luminous Mysteries. Praying them is not necessary for salvation but having an attitude of refusal could be a stumbling block to it.

Hogwash. The Rosary was given to us from Heaven, and needs no improvement. I will never pray the "Luminous Mysteries," and my children, please God, will never know they exist.

If you study what the Church teaches you will find that the truth has NOT changed.

Truth cannot change, but teaching can, and does, and has. Truth does not cease to be true, no matter what anyone has to say to the contrary.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 16, 2003.

I feel very sad that many of the comments made here sound like they are filled with bitterness.

I don't know if I would call it bitterness, Sister. There are people in this thread who openly advocate participating in traditions of the Jewish faith - a faith which denies YOUR beloved Spouse. Catholics should behave as Catholics, should worship as Catholics, and should desire for the restoration of their own traditions - the very traditions established by Our Lord Himself.

Catholics are not called to be so cynical and bitter but to openly embrace all people and religions that God has created without losing our own faith.

Catholics are called to be soliders for God. We are called to bring all others Home to the One, True Church. We are not called to "embrace" anything which is contrary to Divine Revelation. And we are not called to confirm people in their errors, but to help bring about their conversion. It surprises me that you, called by God to be a Bride for His Son, would not want to see her Spouse adored by all, in a manner keeping with His Church and His Law - I saw no mention of the urgent need for conversion anywhere in your post.

A Seder meal is meant to help us to appreciate our roots not to abolish them.

A Seder meal is not a part of our Catholic "roots."

We are not replacing the Eucharist with this as this would be very wrong.

No, Sister, but since Vatican II we have been doing all we can to abolish all outward appearances of that which is sacred. The Holy Eucharist is still celebrated, yes, but in all the same splendor, and beauty, and reverence as before? Absolutely not. Yet we have people advocating the celebration of a centuries-old tradition; these same types who would regard the restoration of the Holy Mass and the Sacraments as a 'step backwards.'

-- Regina (Regina712@lycos.com), April 16, 2003.

embrace all people and religions that God has created without losing our own faith.

I cant really argue with here, except on one point... we are called to embrace others, but that does NOT mean we are called to take on their practices. God does not want catholics to take on the practices of mormons, jews, muslims, or anyone else. we should remember, too, that most of these people are not saved, and that conversion should be a high priority.

There is nothing sinful about the Seder meal. Jesus was a Jew. A Seder meal is meant to help us to appreciate our roots not to abolish them.

Actually, i couldnt agree more with you here too, except on one point. you are right that there is nothing sinful about a seder meal, in fact, im sure they are quite pleasurable to attend. however, seder meals in the catholic church are not a ROOT as you would call it. in fact, seder meals are a relatively new thing in the jewish faith too. by celebrating a seder meal in a catholic church we are detracting from the ideal that catholic faith is a long standing tradition with its own values. we should by no means be celebrating modern jewish traditions.

We are not replacing the Eucharist with this as this would be very wrong

A seder meal is a feast to unite the community. last time i checked the eucharist was just such a thing. i never said that people were replacing the eucharist with a seder meal, but i did say that by celebrating seder meals in the catholic church we detract from the unity that we should have in the eucharist. heres why: in a seder meal we feel united to other members of our community, through a secular means, namely the feast... when we go to church, the eucharist does not serve as strong a uniting purpose because we have allowed something secular in nature to take part of its role. that is why the seder meals detract from the unity of the feast of the eucharist. Prove me wrong... please

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 16, 2003.

A seder meal is a feast to unite the community. last time i checked the eucharist was just such a thing.

The Eucharist is not a feast to unite the community. It is a sacrifice to unite us with God. I hear many people refer to the Eucharist as the Risen Jesus. I rather tend to disagree with that. It is the unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary. Every time one attends Mass, they are present at the ultimate Sacrifice. Not a feast. Not a meal. Meant to bring us closer to God, because "he who does not eat of My Body will not have everlasting life."

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), April 16, 2003.

Actually Isabel,

The Eucharist is not a feast to unite the community. It is a sacrifice to unite us with God.

youre not quite right here. in determining whether or not catholics should hold hands during the Our Father, the Holy See declared that to do so is a protestant sign to show unity which detracts from (in their words) the 'eucharistic feast' which should be the sole sign of unity in the church. now, it may not be a feast as you call it, but i was using the terminology of the Holy See, which I think has some jurisdiction in that area.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

i was using the terminology of the Holy See

That's a hallmark of the new theology. Is the Eucharist a "feast?" Well, yes; but it's primarily a sacrifice. The real purposes for the sacraments have been inverted, dumbed down, and changed to be easier for Protestants to swallow. I'll give you an example: Until the Council, the Church always taught that the primary end of marriage was the procreation and education of children - and the secondary end was for the mutual love & help that the spouses offer each other. After the Council, those two were flipped in order of importance. Take Baptism as another example: It was always very clear teaching that the purpose of Baptism was the removal of Original Sin and the installation of sanctifying grace. Go to a Novus Ordo Baptism & count the number of times you hear the term "Original Sin." You won't, in all likelihood, hear it at all. That's because the new theology has turned Baptism into an "initiation into the body of belivers," an ambiguous Protestant term that doesn't really mean anything. It's very clever. Theological newspeak does not outrightly deny the underlying truth, but it hides the truth. It wraps it in new packaging to make it unrecognizable to Catholics and appealing to non- Catholics. That is why traditionalists will have nothing to do with it. Nullam partem.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 17, 2003.

That's exactly right.

The Eucharist is the essence of Catholic unity... but this unity is not a cause so much as an effect.

It isn't as if we partake in the Eucharist for the sake of achieving a unity with each other. If we partake in good grace then we unify ourselves with God, and in doing so incorporate ourselves into the mystical body of Christ, an effect being unity with it's other members.

The new, wrong way to see the Eucharist is as a symbolic union of a community of members by having the members themselves be the orginating force and principle of union. This, in a way, assumes the legitimacy of each individual member before partaking in the meal. It's a way that assumes the member's worthiness before recieving the sacrament and makes the member the source of unity. That's messed up crackhead thinking.

This new, false concept of unity and Eucharist is a major overlooking of the unworthiness and helplessness of individual believer who, without this Sacrament most holy, sacrament divine, is incapable of salvation. Once united with the Almighty through the means that He provides as the way of salvation, then the individual is united with the other members of the mystical body who do the same, as a matter of course.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

The new, wrong way to see the Eucharist is as a symbolic union of a community of members by having the members themselves be the orginating force and principle of union. This, in a way, assumes the legitimacy of each individual member before partaking in the meal. It's a way that assumes the member's worthiness before recieving the sacrament and makes the member the source of unity. That's messed up crackhead thinking.

i think i have been misunderstood here... i never said anything about the role of the eucharist being merely a feast and not a sacrifice. keep in mind, however, that the origin of the eucharist is the last supper. now, it is indeed a sacrifice as well.

Furthermore, it is obvious that the eucharist serves a higher purpose than uniting the community, but the fact of the matter is that as catholics we are united through the body of Christ, which we partake of in the form of the eucharist. the Holy See has declared that the eucharist is the only form of unity that the catholic church needs to express. youre playing a semantic game over something i didnt even say, and i would hope that in truth your smarter than that.

Third, on the point of baptism, er, sacraments in general... they HAVE NOT been dimenished. i ascribe fully to VII council rulings and have full knowledge that the primary function of baptism is rebirth into new life, alieving us of our original sin. ALL TRUE catholics know this. and marraige? no offense, but if procreation is the primary purpose of marraige then why not allow extramarital sex? the primary order should be that love comes first so that children are born into an environment where they can grow up in a healthy way.

But i digress, the question in point is whether or not a seder meal is an exceptable practice to be hosted by a catholic church... so since you are so appalled by my arguement against seder meals are you for them then, or are you just playing semantics to feel good about yourselves?

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

no offense, but if procreation is the primary purpose of marraige then why not allow extramarital sex?

Funny you should ask. The Baltimore Catechism teaches us that one of the ends of marriage is:

"To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state!!!"

Also, in fairness I should state that the primary end of maariage, as with any Sacrament, is chiefly the salvation of souls. All other purposes, indeed - all other laws - are subject to this princilpe.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 17, 2003.

thank you Jake, as you can see, there are multiple purposes to marraige. to me the order doesnt matter, they are all equally important

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

to me the order doesnt matter, they are all equally important

And so it is with the theological newspeak I mentioned a while ago. If you say "The Mass is a community meal" over & over again for 40 years, the idea that "The Mass is a sacrifice" slips into obscurity. It seems more foreign, more incorrect. It's not denied per se, but it's reduced in importance.

To say that all ends of a Sacrament are "equally important" is absurd. That logic says,for instance, that being "initiated into the life of the community" (which means nothing) is on equal footing with the salvation of souls as a purpose of Baptism. It doesn't make any sense.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 17, 2003.

That logic says,for instance, that being "initiated into the life of the community" (which means nothing)

actually, baptism has nothing to do with initiating into the life of the community, that is a protestant view of baptism, baptism is all about the washing of original sin as a rebirth into the body of Christ.

Second... nobody says that the eucharist is just a feast, i merely said that it is a feast. i dont believe there are any catholics out there who dont know that the eucharist is a sacrifice of the Lamb of God for our sins, so this is another semantic game of hopscotch in my eyes.

again, i call for an answer to my position that it is wrong for a catholic church to host a seder meal, not a semantic game over the importance of the eucharist... which is not what this thread is aobut in the first place

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

youre playing a semantic game over something i didnt even say...

I was basically setting in after a way of thinking that's already in play out there, not so much against you. Something you said reminded me of it, that's all.

It's not a semantics game though; there is a real and identifiable abberation from doctrine concerning the Eucharist in this fashion out there right now.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

nobody says that the eucharist is just a feast, i merely said that it is a feast.

And you complain of "semantics?" Of course you're not incorrect calling the Eucharist a feast, you're just not completely right, either; but that's life in the new theology. If it contains 1% error, it can't be 100% truth, can it?

i dont believe there are any catholics out there who dont know that the eucharist is a sacrifice of the Lamb of God for our sins

I think that's extraordinarily naive.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 17, 2003.

jake--- sorry to dissappoint you, but i already i know that to call the eucharist a feast isnt entirely correct, but nor is calling it a sacrifice. those are merely two aspects of the brilliant mystery that is the eucharist... and im not going to type out paschal feast, sacrifice of God, The lamb of God, the heavenly host, the body and blood of our Lord, the eternal gift, eucharist, etc etc etc every time i refer to the eucharist. in this way by merely calling our divine host a sacrifice you have failed to properly describe it as much as i have in selecting only one of the titles... but it doesnt make sense to type all the titles out when one will let any true catholic know what youre talking about. often times you will see me use these different titles for the same thing in various places. the use of the title paschal feast, or just for short feast, in this case was to highlight the way in which a seder meal would detract from the celebration of the eucharist, and heavenly host doesnt really highlight that fact so i was using this as an illustration. so now, do you disagree with the use of Seder masses or not, because i think we've pretty much summed up that i believe EXACTLY the same thing as you, so theres really no arguement to be had.

Second, you argue that there are catholics who do not understand the nature of the sacrament of the eucharist... perhaps this is another simple misunderstanding. Whenever i say catholics i refer only to those catholics who take their faith very seriously and research/meditate on/discover the varying facets of the richness of catholic tradition. consider whenever i say the word catholics to mean true catholics, because to my mind, catholics who dont begin to understand something so simple as the nature of the sacrament of the eucharist arent really catholics anyway.

now, since i have answered your continuous complaints over my choice of titles for the eucharist would you PLEASE answer my question: since you are arguing so vehemently against my line of ration, do you or do you not believe that it is acceptable for a catholic church to host a seder meal?

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnEmail.com), April 18, 2003.

would you PLEASE answer my question:

Shoot.

since you are arguing so vehemently against my line of ration,

?!

do you or do you not believe that it is acceptable for a catholic church to host a seder meal?

Absolutely not. No. Not acceptable under any circumstancecs. Why? Because it gives the appearance/impression of assent to / sympathy for the Jewish religion, which rejects Jesus Christ.

Regarding your liturgical terminology shell game, you call the Eucharist a meal, and I'll call It a sacrifice. Fair enough?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 18, 2003.

fair enough then, it looks like we're both basically saying the same thing anyway... just using different terms.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 18, 2003.

it looks like we're both basically saying the same thing anyway

Well, not really. I'm just agreeing to disagree with you.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 19, 2003.

Children, Children, Put aside your Catechisms for just a moment, shut down your computers and get some fresh air. Go out to your neighbors and share my love, and peace and forgiveness and compassion and then and only then will you understand what it is to follow me. My gift to you is simple and pure. What you are doing to it is the very thing I came to rail against. The Pharasees were very good at following all the rules they made in their church, but they didn't know me. The Catechism in the wrong hands is a worrysome thing. Give it a rest.

-- Jesus (I Am@the_almighty.com), April 19, 2003.

Do what he tells you

-- Mary MOG (madonna@the_almighty.com), April 19, 2003.

PM: I hope you can see how has become unbearable, intolerable. I beg you to put an end to it. You have been entrusted with a great responsibility. Just as you marvelously handled of one crisis (racism/obscenity), so we need you to prevent a hostile takeover.
Thanks. JG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

PM: I hope you can see how has become unbearable, intolerable. I beg you to put an end to it. You have been entrusted with a great responsibility. Just as you marvelously handled of one crisis (racism/obscenity), so we need you to prevent a hostile takeover.

What does this mean, John?

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), April 22, 2003.