On the basis of your complete failure to prove that receiving communion is conditional. How can it it be conditional if one party has no idea these conditions exist? Are you going to cite your imaginary missal again? Is that all you’ve got?
That’s not correct. A gift can be conditional even if the recipient can show he was not aware of the conditions of the gift.
You have not proven that a communion wafre is a conditional gift.
First of all, you acn’t expect that everybody will understand the word that way, and secondly, the only arguable assent is to the statement that the wafer is the “body of Christ,” which is not the same as assenting to any understanding about what to do with it.
I have a funny feeling you think that “proof” has to include proof that the Cook kid was aware of the conditions.
You understand that whether he was aware of it or not is not the dispositive factor, yes?
Well, I take Hentor at his word; he’s a bright guy but didn’t realize that’s what “amen” meant. On the other hand, it’s the only dictionary definition, and on the last hand, how might someone unaware of the meaning learn to answer “Amen,” when confronted with the proffered host?
Correct.
I’m saying no conditions ever existed at all.
Am I the only one who thinks this long discussion about whether taking the wafer would be theft, and whether taking it from Cook would be robbery, is uninteresting? It’s what, two cents’ worth of cracker?
It doesn’t seem like a debate, but an argument for the sake of arguing.
What the point of this post? You already argued the missal aspect. You’re being deliberately obtuse at this point.
I seriously doubt that you’ve never been “given” a missal. They’re those things in the pews, with the Bible readings and such. (Unless, of course, you’ve never actually been to a Catholic Mass–which, from your responses in this thread I’m beginning to believe.) On the first page, every single one I have ever seen has instructions for non-Catholics receiving Communion. No, I don’t have a cite. This is just personal experience.
And you’ve been told that you’re wrong by someone who knows more about the law and Catholicism than you do.
That the guidelines are in every missal: Rules On Receiving Communion – Our Catholic Faith
Must be Catholic to receive: http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp
Must consume immediately upon receiving it: http://stalphonsus-sea.org/Eucharist.aspx
I’ve been shown no cite (and he does not know more about Catholicism,).
Cite that these guidelines have any legally binding significance?
I’d say my seven year old niece knows more about Catholicism than you, since you did not even know that a consecrated host is know as the Eucharist.
I would agree with this. However, I would point out that the dollar value of an object is an accurate measure of that object’s worth to someone.
For example if I come home and find my apartment robbed, the loss of the last photographs I have of my grandmother would be far more devastating than the loss of my far more expensive DVD player.
It’s not known as “A eucharist.”
I was raised Catholic, I went to Catholic schools, my wife is Catholic, my kids are Catholic, my kids go to a Catholic school and I have a BA in religion. What makes Bricker moreknowledgeable about Catholicism than me?
You’re going to stand by that?
It seems that you didn’t pay attention to anything related to Catholicsm, yet you are proclaiming yourself an expert. Kind of funny, if you ask me.
And you’ve never seen one of these in the pew? NEVER EVER? :dubious:
I already gave you the cite outlining restricted gifts.
When you see a citation about giving gifts with conditions, and a cite about the Church’s conditions for receiving the Eucharist, what additional piece of information do you feel you lack?
Diogenes: What would you regard the combination of the Epiclesis and the Words of Institution during the Eucharistic Prayer of the Canon, combined with the Words of Administration, in this context?