Tuesday, May 23, 2017

... on Sacramental Requirements and David Bawden / Pope Michael, with Al Lundy

According to Catholic doctrine, would communion work with anything other than the normal host? For example, Oreos, Twinkies, etc?

Al Lundy
Practicing Catholic for 60 years, Deacon, servant of God
Answered May 5
No. With all Sacraments in the Church there are specific conditions that must be met in form and matter for the sacrament to be valid.

The required form for the host is unleavened wheat bread unless it is not available then there are option forms of unleavened bread that can be used.

Also you must use red wine and not ice tea or grape juice etc.

The reason is quite simple Jesus used unleavened bread and wine so the Church uses unleavened bread and wine.

Had Jesus used Oreo cookies and grape juice then the Church would use them instead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
16h ago
Red wine is a necessity for licitness, but not for validity.

I have been around when white wine was considered as OK.

Al Lundy
16h ago
upvoted by me
My apologies. I should have said simply “wine made from grapes. And not specified red.

Here is what the Canon of the Church says in paragraph 924.3

The wine must be natural from the fruitof the vine and not spoiled.

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
2h ago
However, red wine is a good custom, and I think it was canon law previous to new rite / still is where Pope Michael is concerned.

Reason : should any be spilled, it must be easy to identify.

However, this pertains to licitness, not to validity, I think.

Al Lundy
1h ago
You lost me at Pope Michael. That troubled fellow has no authority in the Church and never has.

You cannot speak of validity and David Bawden at the same time and retain credibility.

Validity and licidity in the liturgy is determined by the Magisterium of the Church, not some delusional fellow in Oklahoma.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
1h ago
“troubled” - No more troubled than anyone else who doesn’t seem to take offense at the mere mention of AA / Twelve Step.

“has no authority in the Church and never has.” - Depends entirely on who is the Pope.

Which in turn depends on whether the Holy See was vacant in 1990, for instance.

“You cannot speak of validity and David Bawden at the same time” - even if you deny validity of his jurisdiction, you cannot deny validity of his orders, since he was ordained and consecrated in 2011 on Gaudete weekend.

“and retain credibility.” - Before whom?

“Validity and licidity in the liturgy is determined by the Magisterium of the Church,” - True enough.

“not some delusional fellow in Oklahoma.” - Now, “delusional” sounds a bit like a modernist diagnostic criterium in psychiatry …. I am reminded of Matthew 5:22.

Oklahoma? Don’t know who that would be though.

Neither I, as adherent (provisionally at least) of Pope Michael, nor he are based in Oklahoma.

Al Lundy
1h ago
Perhaps he is in Kansas now. It isn't relevant nor is Bawdens opinions as to what is valid liturgy. He is no more Pope than you or me. And at least I am ordained in the Catholic Church which is more than can be said of Mr. Bawden.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
[It seems he deleted my comments defending the fact that David Bawden was validly ordained priest and consecreted bishop on Gaudete weekend 2011]

Comment deleted*

Al Lundy
32m ago
David Bawden is irrelevant to this conversation. Please return to the actual topic. If you want to discuss Mr. Bawden I see two choices. Post a separate question about him on Quora or a similar site, or contact Mr. Bawden. I have no doubt that he has a lot of free time on his hands dispite his self proclaimed position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Just now
I already am in contact with him.

I also find your dealing with his adherents (including one with some residual reservations about his orthodoxy on other matters, like AA) clearly discourteous.

I think that in 1400 adherents of one or other Pope were a bit more courteous to each other than some of you are to “Bawdenites” (as you might term us) now.

Also, his position - unlike ordination not from 2011, but from 1990 - was not self proclaimed. He tried to get sufficient people to an emergency conclave not to be elected in it and failed.

* The deleted comment involved references to the episcopal lineage which Pope Michael eventually got ordained and consecrated in, as being undoubted in validity by Al Lundy's Vatican, while his own ordination as deacon would have been in new rites promulgated by Paul VI, and that might cause some at least doubt of his validity in the eyes of my own Vatican in Exile (will be checking with Pope Michael in a moment).

No comments: