Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 02:34 AM' timestamp='1279866892' post='2146685'] It is interesting that hot stuff omitted the part where it specifies that a Host is to be consumed even after it has fallen on the ground or on someone's clothing. [/quote] Not really. I didn't feel it was necessary to use the entire document. Feel free to quote it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1279866788' post='2146683'] I used to make fun of Anglicans, then I realized that there were more then enough people in my own Church to ridicule. [/quote] pity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='zunshynn' date='23 July 2010 - 02:33 AM' timestamp='1279866817' post='2146684'] I am aware of De Defectibus. My point is, there is no reason to think this host, which was found securely in a pyx, has been poisoned or vomited on. [/quote] Yes quite secure. You have to push a button to open the lid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1279866924' post='2146686'] The mere fact that it was left unprotected for who knows how long allows for a priest to think it may be contaminated. [/quote] But because it was found securely in a pyx is cause to doubt that it has been contaminated. The passage of time should not be the only factor in deciding what to do with the Host. [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1279866924' post='2146686']And disposing of it properly is not disrespectful. Its in fact respectful. Why?[/quote] Eating the Host is also respectful. [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:35 AM' timestamp='1279866924' post='2146686']Its what the Church teaches. [/quote] No one is disagreement with the Church. Now you've made your point repeatedly why not drop it now? Edited July 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It wasn't me that kept on bringing up the subject Knight. I merely mentioned it as a response to Slappo's comment that its "possible" that its not a consecrated host. But thanks for acknowledging that I'm simply stating Church teachings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1279867498' post='2146691'] It wasn't me that kept on bringing up the subject Knight. I merely mentioned it as a response to Slappo's comment that its "possible" that its not a consecrated host.[/quote] Yes, Mr. Innocent. Slappo said what he said and that was that, you just can let it go that some want to think this Host is a Host and is not contaminated. [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:44 AM' timestamp='1279867498' post='2146691']But thanks for acknowledging that I'm simply stating Church teachings. [/quote] So are others, you have no superiority on quoting sources for the Church. Would be nice as Rexi pointed out that you weren't so selective of how you quote certain documents. It is ok to eat the Host after it hits the floor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 01:44 AM' timestamp='1279867498' post='2146691'] But thanks for acknowledging that I'm simply stating Church teachings. [/quote] I don't acknowledge that. I think you are actually practicing eisegesis (i.e. you are reading your on preconceived notions onto [i]De Defectibus[/i] and interpreting that document in a manner contrary to that in which St. Pius V intended it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 July 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1279867876' post='2146692'] Yes, Mr. Innocent. Slappo said what he said and that was that, you just can let it go that some want to think this Host is a Host and is not contaminated. [/quote] and what did I say? [quote]That's my point. If the priest decided that the fact that the host was left unprotected for an undetermined amount of time was justifiable to treat the host as contaminated,[b] I wouldn't disagree with his decision.[/b] [/quote] what else did I say? [quote][b]I'm not saying anything happened.[/b] Its most likely that it fell out of a priest/deacon/extraordinary minister's pocket and nobody knew what it was. [b]What I'm saying is that if a priest decided that because it was not guarded, he wanted to treat it as if it were contaminated, it is not a disrespectful thing to do[/b]. Its done all the time. [/quote] Was that it? Nope [quote]But I'm open to the possibility that a priest may not want to risk consuming a host that's been left unguarded until you found it. And proper disposal is perfectly acceptable. [/quote] So clearly I demonstrated that I was not against anyone thinking that the Eucharist was 1. Blessed B. perfectly fine But I was responding to folks who while saying they were familiar with De Defectibus had very likely (I'm assuming) forgot about it. So I quoted some of the text. [quote] So are others, you have no superiority on quoting sources for the Church. Would be nice as Rexi pointed out that you weren't so selective of how you quote certain documents. It is ok to eat the Host after it hits the floor! [/quote] It wasn't part of my argument. I never said it wasn't ok to consume the host after its hit the floor. And if others were so familiar with it, they had no reason to bicker with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 02:58 AM' timestamp='1279868337' post='2146693'] I don't acknowledge that. I think you are actually practicing eisegesis (i.e. you are reading your on preconceived notions onto [i]De Defectibus[/i] and interpreting that document in a manner contrary to that in which St. Pius V intended it). [/quote] Well then you'd be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resurrexi Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1279868712' post='2146694'] But I was responding to folks who while saying they were familiar with De Defectibus had very likely (I'm assuming) forgot about it. [/quote] Nope. I was actually planning to use it to back up my side of the argument when you posted it, which I found ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='hot stuff' date='23 July 2010 - 03:05 AM' timestamp='1279868712' post='2146694'] and what did I say? what else did I say? Was that it? Nope So clearly I demonstrated that I was not against anyone thinking that the Eucharist was 1. Blessed B. perfectly fine But I was responding to folks who while saying they were familiar with De Defectibus had very likely (I'm assuming) forgot about it. So I quoted some of the text. It wasn't part of my argument. I never said it wasn't ok to consume the host after its hit the floor. And if others were so familiar with it, they had no reason to bicker with me. [/quote] Yes thank you for making your point yet again. God Bless Good night. Edited July 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 I think we should not argue in this thread period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='Resurrexi' date='23 July 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1279868822' post='2146696'] Nope. I was actually planning to use it to back up my side of the argument when you posted it, which I found ironic. [/quote] That's Alanys Morriset irony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' date='23 July 2010 - 03:08 AM' timestamp='1279868903' post='2146698'] I think we should not argue in this thread period. [/quote] I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' date='23 July 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1279868966' post='2146700'] I'm sorry. [/quote] I accept your apology as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts