Holy Communion Gloves Create Suspicion – Monsignor Bux
Distributing Holy Communion with gloves is “sacrilegious,” Monsignor Nicola Bux, a theologian and Ratzinger friend, writes on MarcoTosatti.com. Glove Communion has become commonplace in coronavirus …More
Distributing Holy Communion with gloves is “sacrilegious,” Monsignor Nicola Bux, a theologian and Ratzinger friend, writes on MarcoTosatti.com.
Glove Communion has become commonplace in coronavirus Italy. Bux asks, “Who would bring a plate of soup with latex gloves to the table? It would create suspicion in the diners.”
He is “outraged” about this treatment of the Eucharist. Naively, he traces it back to a “lack of formation.”
#newsYmcqfyqdur
Glove Communion has become commonplace in coronavirus Italy. Bux asks, “Who would bring a plate of soup with latex gloves to the table? It would create suspicion in the diners.”
He is “outraged” about this treatment of the Eucharist. Naively, he traces it back to a “lack of formation.”
#newsYmcqfyqdur
Ultraviolet
- Report
Change comment
Remove comment
Bad news, enemacasanova
St. Thomas' Adoro te devote does not contradict me. Quite the opposite. What? How is that possible?
Let's review what you originally wrote: "It's (The Eucharist) not the object of any sense",
And I objected, rightly as you will soon see, to your claim.
Now look at what St. Thomas wrote: "Not to sight, or taste, or touch be credit, hearing only do we trust secure..."
St. …More
Bad news, enemacasanova
St. Thomas' Adoro te devote does not contradict me. Quite the opposite. What? How is that possible?
Let's review what you originally wrote: "It's (The Eucharist) not the object of any sense",
And I objected, rightly as you will soon see, to your claim.
Now look at what St. Thomas wrote: "Not to sight, or taste, or touch be credit, hearing only do we trust secure..."
St. Thomas is speaking, very rhetorically, about which senses we do (or do not) use to trust in the supernatural qualities of the Eucharist.
He does NOT say the physical qualities of the Eucharist are (in your words) "not the object of any sense". The Eucharist does have physical qualities and those qualities ARE discernible to the senses.
That is self-evident. Or it should be if you weren't such a moron.
You're attempting to read St. Thomas literally, instead of as a prayer. Your interpretation introduces a contradiction which otherwise does not exist. Like so:
St. Thomas lists three senses "we" supposedly do not trust (sight, taste, or touch) and only one sense "we" -do- trust (hearing). People have five senses.
What of smell? Did the saint forget a sense? No, because he wasn't trying to argue what you are, namely the Eucharist is, in your words, "not the object of any sense."
The Eucharist is a physical thing, it has physical properties, and we have five God-given sense with which to experience those properties.
St. Thomas is arguing we should not trust those (and only three of those senses) to discern the Divinity of Jesus which is also present in that physical object.
That should be obvious, even to someone like you. After all, as Catholics, we accept as an article of faith that God is present during the Mass. Yet our physical senses never detect any physical sign of His presence.
I can't excuse your error simply because you don't read or write English very well.
You were -so- careful to include the prayer in original Latin, weren't you? ;-)
You didn't understand what St. Thomas said in Latin, or English, or Spanish. You didn't understand what he wrote at all, for a very simple reason.
You're badly educated and that pride you have in your "academic" career has made you stupid.
St. Thomas' Adoro te devote does not contradict me. Quite the opposite. What? How is that possible?
Let's review what you originally wrote: "It's (The Eucharist) not the object of any sense",
And I objected, rightly as you will soon see, to your claim.
Now look at what St. Thomas wrote: "Not to sight, or taste, or touch be credit, hearing only do we trust secure..."
St. Thomas is speaking, very rhetorically, about which senses we do (or do not) use to trust in the supernatural qualities of the Eucharist.
He does NOT say the physical qualities of the Eucharist are (in your words) "not the object of any sense". The Eucharist does have physical qualities and those qualities ARE discernible to the senses.
That is self-evident. Or it should be if you weren't such a moron.
You're attempting to read St. Thomas literally, instead of as a prayer. Your interpretation introduces a contradiction which otherwise does not exist. Like so:
St. Thomas lists three senses "we" supposedly do not trust (sight, taste, or touch) and only one sense "we" -do- trust (hearing). People have five senses.
What of smell? Did the saint forget a sense? No, because he wasn't trying to argue what you are, namely the Eucharist is, in your words, "not the object of any sense."
The Eucharist is a physical thing, it has physical properties, and we have five God-given sense with which to experience those properties.
St. Thomas is arguing we should not trust those (and only three of those senses) to discern the Divinity of Jesus which is also present in that physical object.
That should be obvious, even to someone like you. After all, as Catholics, we accept as an article of faith that God is present during the Mass. Yet our physical senses never detect any physical sign of His presence.
I can't excuse your error simply because you don't read or write English very well.
You were -so- careful to include the prayer in original Latin, weren't you? ;-)
You didn't understand what St. Thomas said in Latin, or English, or Spanish. You didn't understand what he wrote at all, for a very simple reason.
You're badly educated and that pride you have in your "academic" career has made you stupid.