Roni, I believe if you take a look at the post, I was not stating anything otherwise. None of us here, with the exception of HeathenBoy of course, are anything other than Catholics aligned with the Holy Father and the Magisterium of the Church. I was pointing out the humor in the link.

Fric

While God can save anyone HE chooses to, the normative means of salvation is through Christianity, the fullness of which can only be found in the Catholic Church. I pray that all non-Catholics will somehow be saved, but I think that their best shot comes from living as a faithful Catholic, repenting of their sins and sinning no more as the Lord said many times in the Gospels.

A late response, but I want to do it anyway.

If we beleive that the Church was instituted by Christ to lead mankind into the fullness of salvation, then I think it follows that the Church can declare the intent of the Christ on certain things. I could go into all kinds of reasons that the bread for the hosts must be wheat based. Not the least of which is that this is what would have been used at the Last Supper.

Next if we believe in the Real Presence, we know that Jesus Christ is fully present, “Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity”, in both consecrated species of bread and wine. In other words you receive Jesus fully and totally whether you receive the Body OR the Blood. Many receive only the Body for whatever reasons, including those who may be alcoholics and don’t want to risk the consecrated Blood which still retains the accidents of wine. No one is complaining much that these people are being screwed, but it is substantially the same situation. They are prevented from receiving Jesus in one of the species.

The archbishop is not a jerk nor a jerk, and I find your comment that he is male is ether unintentionally redundant or you are trying to make a point for women’s ordination, which will not happen either. John Paul II pretty much set that aside officially almost 20 years ago, no matter what dissenters say.

The sacraments are not things that can be changed, no matter what people desire or “feel”. The Last Supper was part of the Passover meal and it requires unleavened wheat bread. That is one of the things that we kept from the Jewish faith. What Christ did in other cases like the feeding of the 5000 has no bearing here. None of those were in the context of the sacrificial meal that was part of Passover.

Transubstantiation as a term and formal definition was not defined until the 1200s because for 1200 years no one seriously disputed it. Most of the councils were called in response to heresies. That is why the term was formally defined then. It’s not like no one believed it or had heard that the bread and wine used in the Mass was turned into the true Body and Blood of Christ. Your notion that the Eucharist was considered totally symbolic until then is unfounded in history. If your assertion were true, the Eastern Orthodox who had split with Rome over 150 years prior to this would bot believe in a literal presence of Christ in their Divine Liturgy. Numerous writings of the Early Church Fathers attest to the Real Presence. Christians were accused of being cannibals by Romans. Why if they believed in a symbolic Eucharist?

It seems to me that the problem here is not that the mean old male bishop (who probably ought to retire and be replaced by a woman) has no feelings and can’t let celiacs do things that make them feel better. It is rather that too many want to make the Church into what makes them feel better about themselves. The Church is what it is and the Deposit of Faith is what it is. If we don’t assent to what the Church teaches, we run the danger of heresy and damnation.