Can you please cite and source where that quote comes from?
Didn’t you read kangnamdragon’s sig???
Are you saying that Pope Pius X is the source of that quote?
Here is a link I found americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/romalocuta_article.htm
Roma Locuta Est, Causa Finita Est
A made-up phrase that people like to place in the mouth of Augustine.
What about what Augustine actually said is deficient that forces some people to put words in his mouth?
I thoughg it was just me that thought it odd, thanks for the reply
Your self-centered edict?
Apparently so… he is a self center eddict.
Who do you say should “set the standard”? I say Christ through His Church, the Church that has been speaking for Christ for over 2000 years.
If you yourself believe this then you have blinded yourself from the reality out there… you are getting theological which is not what most ppl do, most ppl JUST DON’T KNOW. The majority of catholics i bump into on campus and on this board constantly wave the Eucharist in my face as if it was a foreign concept to me and then look surprised when i know what real presence is lol. That is all i am trying to point out in this thread, that we do know what it is and certain traditions have a doctrine of real presence, not try to start a debate!!!
I am vegetarian and receive communion.
Rome doesn’t make it true by saying it’s true. Rome says it’s true because it is true. She can’t say otherwise.
By your reasoning, if Rome says Christ isn’t God, we think He wouldn’t be God. Rather, we know that since He’s God, Rome can never say otherwise.
So Rome won’t dictate that the Orthodox don’t have a valid apostolic succession, because that’s simply not true.
I’m glad that some protestants are praying the rosary (as was mentioned here), however I can’t say that they have the real presence, because they don’t. Yes, you can’t tell just by looking at the host, but from a Catholic perspective it’s true. You simply need apostolic sucession. You need a valid priesthood. And it’s not the magisterium who decides which is valid and which isn’t, it is the magisterium who tells the laity which is valid and which isn’t. They don’t just make it up.
Actually you have to ignore the bible to ignore valid and apostolic succession.
Self proclaimed preachers don’t do much for us. Laying on of hands, those being “sent” on the other hand (that pesky bible stuff you know) is pretty hard to ignore. One doesn’t get to “send” ones self according to scripture.
Peace and God Bless
Putting King Henry aside for a moment, half of Anglicans call themselves protestant the other half says catholic. It’s kind of schizophrenic. Protocatholic is a term that could be applied I suppose.
Peace and God Bless
That would be an interesting discussion topic. How can vegetarians receive communion when they are against eating meat?
I disagree. I think that topic’ll try to draw false parallels. Vegetarians are against eating meat, however Jesus told us to receive communion. Jesus willingly made that sacrafice on the cross, and continues to make the daily sacrafice at the altar. There is no reason to abstain. It’s not exploitation, it is our Lord Jesus Christ, and if you are in a state of grace you don’t just refuse to receive him. As one of the priests at EWTN said love that isn’t returned is worse that loneliness. There is absolutely no excuse to deny our Lord when you comes to you.
You may be looking at it the wrong way. It is a good argument against vegetarianism.
It is not the flesh of an animal that was slaughtered for food. There is nothing unethical about the Eucharist. It isn’t meat.
Not really. It makes absolutely no sense. Vegetarianism has nothing to do with the Eucharist. It is about ethics, concerning sentient beings that God created and which we do not need to slaughter and eat. We are not going into it here.
Perhaps though, the person was pure vegetarian or vegan and went somewhere where regular bread was used, which is likely to have egg or dairy in it. In which case, one could probably still receive the Precious Blood. They just probably wouldn’t want to drink from the Chalice that has the bread in it. Either way, I can’t explain why a vegetarian would make an issue about the Eucharist. There’s no issue.
Any serious vegetarian has a principal or philosophy which they’re following. It’s hard to see any underlying vegetarian principal which would be violated by eating the Eucharist. It’s neither causing the death or suffering of any creature, nor is it affecting the body as the consumption of meat would.
Now if someone’s a vegetarian just for the sake of being a vegetarian, with no foundational principal for it–well, what can you say?