fatima
-
Posts
148 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by fatima
-
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
You called @Vort rude. He wasn't rude. And we told you so with an explanation of how it wasn't. That was all there was to it.
This is what made it get more attention:
If I was the one getting offended by Vort and the Spirit guided me towards a different response, I wouldn't start my post with - "While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort" because that in itself fosters negativity (something the Spirit told me not to do). Rather, I would simply respond with how the Spirit guided me to respond. But that's just me.
But since you started the post that way, from my end of the screen I debated whether that statement meant that you were wrong in thinking Vort was rude and Spirit made you realize it or that you really think Vort is rude and the Spirit guided you to not react in kind. But the word "lash out" made me choose the 2nd interpretation. So, I just wanted to let you know you are wrong in your reading of Vort's post. He wasn't rude. You read into it more than was there. And so I responded to your post. I was just trying to be helpful.
Anyway... that's still all there is to it.
And I apologized.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
Well, it sounded like it on this side of the screen. But that's internet forums for you. If you say you did not react that strongly, then I'll believe you.
Oh, I definitely felt strongly, but I didn't think I let that get out (well, at least until I was told to 'get in line') That's when I got on my soapbox.
-
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Well, I can speak to this directly. I have actually heard an anti-Mormon make a remark like Vort's when he knew I could hear it. I can't say that my reaction was "offense" in terms of intensity of my gut reaction. I furrowed my brow, made a brief sour face, and then let it go.
In the end I had to admit that he didn't actually call us sadistic and evil. He was making a point with an illustration (very much like Vort). On the other hand, I believe Vort never meant to imply that Catholics are sadistic or evil. But I'm pretty certain my anti-Mormon friend did imply that because he had outright said so on a number of occasions. So, I even had a history to believe he intended an insult. But I didn't react as strongly as you seemed to.
Just as reminder, I don't think my initial response to Vort was particularly strong: I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post. The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it."
To say that I was 'shocked' doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but as I've said, language is fluid. I have since not responded to Vort except to offer my apology.
What I did do is belabor the point in a handful of posts that we should show respect to one another, which is what I have previously found on this forum. However, it does seem that I have erred in this belief, according to some.
All of that said, I've lurked here for years, and only recently decided to post. Maybe I'll just return to lurking.
-
You make a great point. @Vort-I'm sorry for reacting so strongly to your words.
-
As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly. Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other. Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?
I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't. Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.
As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ". I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.
-
40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
No. The Priest was not wrong to deny me communion. I don't know why you think so, being Catholic and all.
The disrespect is your own perception. Which is understandable as it is a sacred thing to you. It is not sacred to @Vort but he did not say it with disrespect. He simply stated it as a point of fact from his perspective. It is not his duty to know nor understand the sanctity of the Eucharist. It is for Catholics to know and understand that non-Catholics don't hold the same reverence to it.
So you are not/would not be offended if someone came here and called the Temple or Joseph Smith "sadistic and evil"? If it happened on the CA forum I would be offended for those good and Godly LDS that I know, and I would take a moment to chastise a fellow Catholic for saying such. But you would chalk that up to "a point of fact from my perspective"? You'd be wrong for doing so.
Lastly, you are well versed in Catholic theology, but your priests were wrong. I suspect in the first situation the priest wasn't as much withholding the Eucharist as he was concerned about modesty. He didn't say, "no", he said cover up and come back. In the second situation, again, the priest was just plain wrong. Whatever he suspected was your sin, he had no way of knowing if you had just come from the Confessional, so he had no right to deny you communion. Denying the Eucharist is not a practice that is endorsed by the CC, although an individual priest may erroneously do so.
-
31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
It is made by the individual OR the Priest. Yes, I have fallen in line for the Eucharist and been denied it. At least a couple times that I can remember. One time that I remember, I was wearing a spaghetti strap sundress and instead of giving me the Eucharist, the Priest guided me to the side and whispered softly and kindly that I change to more modest clothing and attend a later service. Another time, the Priest asked me to first go to confession.
@Vort was not being disrespectful. Vort simply do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and his post reflects such. This is Mormonhub. Not Catholic Answers.
I think you know enough about Catholic theology to know that the priest was in the wrong to deny you communion, if you were still Catholic at that time. Also, I do recognize that this is Mormon Hub, but the thread was on the topic of other faith communions, and there was no need to denigrate another faith in his effort to say that it wouldn't be right. This forum has shown far more respect to other Christian denominations than the Catholic Answers forum shows towards Mormons, which is why I try to educate myself here. However, based on your logic, the poor treatment LDS receive at CA is simply a reflection of a valid disbelief in LDS authority, and not a terrible lack of Christian charity.
-
9 hours ago, person0 said:
If Christ were to actually participate in the communion of a church that did not have the proper authority, he would be acting in political correctness rather than love and respect. Likewise, those of us who are members of the Church gain nothing from participating, except polite appeasement. Do we have a problem when people don't take the sacrament in our church?
Pretend you were a member of a local protestant congregation and Christ visited your church and participated in the communion. Immediately you as the member of that congregation would interpret that the ordinances in which you were participating were correct and valid. The same would happen as a Latter-Day Saint, I would be immediately convinced that my religious beliefs had been substantiated by His act of participation. If this were to occur in an unauthorized and non-authoritative church then the result of Christ's action would be to lead people away from him to a sense of security in their incorrect beliefs and practices. Christ will never do anything that will lead people away, except allowing by their own agency.
I would say, more likely, Christ may attend the service and intentionally not participate in the communion. This would allow for those who have 'ears to hear' (or eyes to see) to ask Him why. He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.
I completely agree with you that Christ would abstain from an illegitimate/illicit sacrament/ordinance, for exactly the reason you are putting forth here. Receiving communion in any church, IMO, implies that you are in communion with that church. It always makes me wonder why anyone would even want to take communion in a church that is not their own.
The difference (once again, IMO) is that Christ knew the heart of each person He spoke to, and He knew exactly what they needed to hear. We lack that perfect charity and wisdom, and we certainly don't know enough about anyone on an internet forum. Therefore of we hope to bring others to the Fullness of Truth, we must offer the beauty of our faiths, respect for where others are in their journeys, and measure our words with care.
Person0 and Vort said effectively the same thing, but Vort was rude, insulting and violated what Catholics on this forum hold Sacred. Person0 simply made the case, and I am in full agreement with the conclusion.
-
9 hours ago, person0 said:
If Christ were to actually participate in the communion of a church that did not have the proper authority, he would be acting in political correctness rather than love and respect. Likewise, those of us who are members of the Church gain nothing from participating, except polite appeasement. Do we have a problem when people don't take the sacrament in our church?
Pretend you were a member of a local protestant congregation and Christ visited your church and participated in the communion. Immediately you as the member of that congregation would interpret that the ordinances in which you were participating were correct and valid. The same would happen as a Latter-Day Saint, I would be immediately convinced that my religious beliefs had been substantiated by His act of participation. If this were to occur in an unauthorized and non-authoritative church then the result of Christ's action would be to lead people away from him to a sense of security in their incorrect beliefs and practices. Christ will never do anything that will lead people away, except allowing by their own agency.
I would say, more likely, Christ may attend the service and intentionally not participate in the communion. This would allow for those who have 'ears to hear' (or eyes to see) to ask Him why. He would then lovingly rebuke them and instruct them that the ordinance was false and that if they will follow Him, He will lead them and instruct them in the truth.
-
While I considered whether or not to lash out at Vort, the Holy Spirit has guided me towards a different response. I'll try to be brief and try not to prove why, but stick to the point at hand.
As I said, the Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith. We believe wholeheartedly (well, those of us who take our faith seriously) that Jesus Christ is Truly Present. Vort's words cut to the Most Sacred, Most Holy thing for a Catholic, Jesus Christ Himself. Please think about the reverence and care you take when you visit the Temple. it is a sacred place for Mormons. I'm sure it hurts when someone mocks, misrepresents or otherwise insults the Temple.
Circling back to the original topic of this thread, just as one has to be worthy to enter the Temple, one also has to be worthy to receive Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (as much as any one of us can be worthy, anyway) To be worthy means to believe and live by the Precepts of the Church. In our case, that determination is made by the individual, and he/she will be held accountable accordingly, rather than worthiness being determined by the bishop.
All Glory to God.
-
11 minutes ago, Vort said:
Get in line, sister.
Well, I now know whose posts to ignore on this forum.
-
19 hours ago, Vort said:
Can you picture Jesus Christ taking a Catholic communion? Can you picture Thomas Monson doing so? Your stake president? (Ignore for the moment the fact that wine is used. That is irrelevant.)
I cannot honestly picture such a thing. Oh, I can imagine it, the way I can imagine that God is actually sadistic and evil. But I cannot view it as a reasonable possibility.
I don't believe that Catholics are evil or even "wrong" to partake of their sacrament. But that sacrament is intended to mean something, and what it means is contrary to the assertions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I've always found LDS to be very respectful, so I'm shocked at the rudeness of this post. The Eucharist is the sum and summit of the Catholic faith, and the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is on solid Scriptural, Traditional and historical ground, even if you don't see it.
-
On 2/15/2017 at 9:10 AM, JohnsonJones said:
In regards to polygamy, to expound, we are to follow the commandments and the Lord's leaders. When polygamy was a commandment to be practiced at the time, the acceptance of the commandment and the leaders who proclaimed it were necessary. When it was not commanded to be followed, it was no longer necessary.
In this way, many things which may be proclaimed as necessary in one instance, may not be necessary in another. The Bible is full of these "contraditions" in regards to the Law of Moses, and the Law that Christ taught. Different ways of doing things are proclaimed at different times. The things that are for your time are the things that are necessary, while those that are not for your time are not necessary. For some it is a hard concept to grasp.
A prime example is that it was necessary for people to follow the "word of Wisdom" set by Moses under the Mosaic Law. They couldn't eat shellfish, pork, and other things. After the atonement, Peter had many Jews who felt the Gentiles needed to continue following these rules. He received a revelation that showed that they could eat what they normally had been eating. That particular rule was no longer necessary...though Peter had experienced both when it was necessary and when it was not necessary.
As for a testimony of the prophets after Joseph Smith, that can be a bit tougher. The best way is to pray and ask about it and "hopefully" receive a confirmation of the spirit. That is something that no one can explain or really give to you (at least I cannot) except the Spirit.
I know that the reasoning behind Brigham Young being able to be the prophet was as follows. Before Joseph Smith died, he gave ALL the keys that he possessed to each member of the quorum of the twelve. Thus, they had all the powers, keys, and rights that Joseph Smith did, including being able to be called a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. However, the church is one of order, and only one man at a time is authorized to control the keys. Hence, while they had all the keys and power, Joseph Smith was still THE prophet, seer and revelator on the earth at the time. When he died, that power had not left the earth, and was then possessed by the quorum of the twelve. As the senior member, or president of the twelve is the presiding member, it falls to that individual to be THE PERSON who on the earth is the one controlling those keys, even if the rest of the quorum ALSO has those keys.
However, just that knowledge alone won't give anyone a testimony of the LDS church or it's leadership, once again, it will need to be the Holy Ghost that gives on a testimony of the leadership.
Something else to consider, is that when Christ was on the Earth, his church was not established yet. The true church for his time was still that of the Jewish faith. Even if the leaders were corrupt and evil, that was still the true faith. The line of authority may have fallen a little to the wayside, but he still went to John the Baptist to be Baptized because that was where the authority and true church lay.
A little more off the beaten path, but in my opinion...
The same goes for our day. Even, if for some reason, the leaders of our church go astray (I do not believe it has, but this is pertinent in regards to what some may think in regards to the LDS church), the authority is still there and the gospel is still the true faith. Just as in Christ's time, until he replaces it, it is still his church and his gospel. No matter how bad a leader may be (probably more for local leaders in some instances, especially those who get excommunicated for sin while holding local positions), that does not negate that the church is the Lord's church anymore than it negated the Jewish religion and the Jews being the Lord's people during Christ's youth and growing up.
This, of course, is JUST my opinion, and should be seen as just that, but an opinion relevant to the question posed, I think.
Why would you believe that the gospel, the authority and the true faith would remain, even if the leaders go astray, if you accept that Joseph Smith had to restore a church that had gone astray?
If the authority of Christ's Church remains, in spite of human failures, then that church remained in authority nearly 2000 years ago, and did not require the restoration of Joseph Smith, right?
-
51 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
This is not divorce. This is legal separation. There's a distinction. The fact that you can't remarry means your marriage remains in effect. Legal separation (also codified into secular law in the Philippines), is a protection for a spouse or the children from further harm inflicted by a sinful spouse - for example, protecting the financial state of the family from a gambling spouse; protecting a child from molestation by a parent; protecting a spouse from abuse, etc. Both spouses remain under covenant and it is still the lifelong commandment for both spouses to bring their husband/wife closer to Christ even if all one can do is pray for their salvation.
In the US, the only way to legally separate is to divorce as there is no legal provisions for a separation that is not divorce. Therefore, Catholics get divorced in the secular government in the US without constituting a moral offense. A Filipino Catholic who got married in the Philippines and gets divorced (e.g. going to the US to get divorced) when they can avail of legal separation not only commits a moral offense in the Church, their divorce is also not recognized as valid by the Philippine government.
Ummm...I think we are saying the same thing. A civil divorce is permitted by the Catholic Church, but the sacramental marriage is still intact.
-
42 minutes ago, Vort said:
I risk having my snark misunderstood, so let me clarify:
I love our three-hour block. Three hours per week is entirely too short a time to spend with such fine people. And hearing the testimonies of my fellow Saints inspires me like little else.
Back to your normally scheduled snark.
My apologies if it sounded as though I was dissing the parts of your service. Lackluster speakers abound, and I was just picking on any situation in which we are a captive audience.
-
59 minutes ago, Vort said:
For sure. Can you imagine some church that might try to spring, I don't know, a three-hour block of meetings on its congregants?
Yes! And imagine if listening to the testimony of lackluster speakers was an integral part of the meeting!
-
11 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:
Trust me..we have them! But it is tougher in small wards! Anyway, one thing I love about Catholic services is that you can always find them and they are conveniently scheduled. I have catholic friends and when we are travelling we always attend the catholic not lds services for these reasons plus catholic services are shorter!
I've often considered that Catholic Masses are so short because it is a requirement of our faith to go every, single Sunday. Only illness releases a practicing Catholic from Mass, not travel, not family obligations, not work, nothing should come before our weekly Mass. Let me edit that...for someone like a doctor, who might work 12-24 hr. shifts and such, might have a dispensation as well. However, he/she should be doing everything in their power to have one free hour for Mass. This is probably why you find the schedules so convenient. Lots of Masses are offered to accommodate the varied schedules people have.
- Blackmarch, Sunday21 and my two cents
-
3
-
2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:
We also have bad apples who are not practising thr faith!
LOL! Well, I've never met one. Every LDS I know is totally devoted, although I suppose the ones who are not are not wearing a signs.
-
On 5/17/2017 at 10:29 AM, ser?anto said:
Hello,
I am a lifelong atheist. I grew up in a household that was Christian in name only, and my family attended a local liberal Christian church very irregularly. My mother tells me that I told first her I did not believe God was real at six years old. My parents divorced when I was eight and after the divorce all church attendance stopped.
In high school I was very active in debates and I have in my life probably sat through days, cumulatively, of recorded debates between Christians and Atheists, Christians and Muslims, et cetera. I know a lot of the common arguments both for and against theism, Christianity, and, to a lesser extent, Mormonism. I always envied the certainty of apologeticists who would talk about the "self-evident nature of the Universe" in regards to its having a creator. For me this was never self-evident.
Now on the other hand, I would consider myself very conservative. I believe strongly in no sex before marriage, just due to my research into the statistics of number of partners a person has and their outcomes. I also believe that homosexuals make terrible parents and should not be allowed to adopt, or marry because I view marriage as a contract for raising children. I support very open free markets, and politically I would say that I am libertarian.
To cut to the chase: I'm getting older. My fellow atheists, morally, leave much to be desired. I really want to settle down and have children, but it seems that there are no good women to be found in the secular world.
I've been studying a lot about Mormonism, and to be honest I don't really think it's true. The apologetic arguments for the Book of Abraham are not convincing, and if that's a fraud then it is easy to conclude that Joseph Smith is not trustworthy. I really do find it worrying that in Mormonism, the text is not the standard; the prophets are...this means, in my view, that the good morals that Mormons espouse could easily be swept away by a divine revelation coming to a Generation Z "living prophet" telling him that (just for example) homosexuality is AOK. After all, as that snake Justin Trudeau would say, "it's the current year!" My research of history has shown the living prophets to be quite spineless: they quickly threw away their beliefs in polygamy and the unacceptability of black Africans for the priesthood to win some good public relations.
But still, I really do like all of the morals espoused by Mormons and in my own life I follow them to a tee: cessation of coffee drinking would be my only change. I think that the Church could be a good place to raise my children in, as it would give them a good moral foundation.
Do you think it's wrong to convert for belonging and virtue and hope that I can find faith in the history and Joseph Smith later? Or would you be disgusted to know that someone like me had joined your church?
Thanks for your time.
Can I plug the Catholic Church on this site? The teachings have never changed. And as long as you can separate the sinners who are part of the church (that includes priests, popes in history and individuals locally) from the actual doctrines, you will find much that is similar in values and virtues that the LDS church teaches.
Just make sure to judge the Catholic Church by those actually practicing their faith, as opposed to those who are Catholic in Name Only!
-
On 5/18/2017 at 1:16 PM, anatess2 said:
Divorce is not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, you can divorce your spouse outside of the Church (secular/legal) but in the records of the Church you are still married. You can get your marriage annulled which is different from a divorce. The Philippines (my country), divorce is illegal as a lot of the laws of the land is influenced by the 85+% Roman Catholic population.
Premortal Existence adds new light to the matter of When Does Life Begin? Catholics teach in Creation out of Nothing - that is, God created the human spirit from nothing at the moment of conception such that if an embryo dies, a human spirit dies. The gift of free will, therefore, does not include the free choice of which body the human spirit is born into. LDS do not believe in Creation out of Nothing. Rather, LDS believe that the human spirit is eternal. The human spirit exists before conception, chooses by virtue of free will to enter mortality anytime between conception and birth, then sheds that body at death to enter post-mortal life. Because of this, there is a period of time between conception and birth where the embryo may yet not have become a vessel of a human spirit and therefore the death of the embryo does not necessarily mean a death of a human spirit. Also, as the spirit has a choice as to the body he enters, there is also the possibility that the spirit chose to join the body that is destined for death before birth.
About challenging one's beliefs - I don't mind it at all. But, we can discuss the matter ad nauseum and it still wouldn't change the fact that no amount of discussion/debate/challenge can build faith. Faith is something we have to take to God and the Holy Spirit for confirmation. Until that confirmation comes, discussing matters of faith is just another interesting past time as there's no way possible that anyone can prove that Bishops have authority in the same manner that there's no way possible that anyone can prove that Joseph Smith has authority in the same manner that there's no way possible that anyone can prove Jesus Christ is God without the confirmation of the Holy Ghost.
Well, yes, divorce is permitted in the RCC, just not remarriage after. And as you well know, annulments are a nullification of the marriage based on conditions for marriage not being met/understood at the time of the marriage.
On to pre-mortal existence- you say that there is a time between conception and birth where the embryo 'may yet not have become a vessel of the human spirit'. That 'may not' is a sticking point for me, because what if that body HAS become the vessel and it DOES result in the death of the human spirit? Because you don't know, shouldn't we all err on the side of caution?
Lastly, I THINK someone in one of these threads said that we have no memory of our pre-mortal existence when we are born into this life. Was Jesus Christ an exception?
-
22 hours ago, Sunday21 said:
If I could just put in a plug...
Why would anyone want to be a Mormon in this life when you can join up in the next life with few penalties?
1) in this life, it is very comforting to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Many have had insights through the Holy Ghost from time to time. The Holy Ghost can warn of danger to yourself and to your children. How wonderful would it be to have the companionship of the Holy Ghost with you always? The Holy Ghost makes us much better people. A slight frown from Him, can be felt. HAving this influence in your life, changes you. It changes your values and your perspective. The companionship of the Holy Ghost provides you with insights into your work, correct choices, how to deal with difficult personal issues, and your path in life.
2) Don't you want to know what's going on? You can talk to God and God can talk to you! This is the ultimate in humbling and the most mind expanding life experience, that you can have. I am sure that you have felt the spirit during church services. The master of the universe wants to talk to you. What is that worth? We have incredible scriptural resources with insights that will change how you see the world. The scriptures are fascinating. We have a book full of insights for the present day. We have many books of scripture with new insights for your life.
Well, speaking for myself, I am 100% Catholic and can say with surety that the Holy Ghost guides me all the days of my life. I am in constant prayer and constant repentance for my sins. I love, love, love God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost for creating, forgiving, redeeming and sustaining me.
Having been born and raised Catholic, I dove deeply into the teachings, history and theology of the Catholic Church when I had my first child, because all-of-a-sudden, it really, really mattered what Truth was. I also looked into other Christian faiths, including LDS, and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church had the fullness of Truth.
So...returning to the topic at hand, I am pretty sure I know more than the average person about LDS theology, and I do not believe it to be true, based on the nature of God and the purpose of our lives. With that 'rejection', will I still have another chance? Because I totally desire to know, love and serve God?
-
So...is the LDS Gospel only offered in the next life to those who hadn't had a chance to hear it in this life? Or also to those who heard it but didn't accept it in this life? I can see why it would be considered merciful for those who never heard of Jesus Christ. But, for someone like me...I've heard what the LDS church teaches about God, Jesus Christ, salvation, etc., but I don't believe it is the Fullness of Truth (while still having much good). IOW-I have rejected it. So I do not get another chance in the next life? (which I think is just).
-
What I learned in my earlier thread about Eternal Marriage has brought me to another question.
Now, I want to say that I am impressed with the LDS church/faith, based on the people that I know that are actually striving to be "good Mormons". They love God, their church and they all seem to live God oriented, family oriented, hard working lives. Just the kinds of people that make the world a better place. Doing all of the ordinances, and living WoW, etc. for love of God vs. fear of God is clearly the best way for any of us to go. However...on to where things get muddled for me...
In my previous thread it came up that marriage continues through eternity if both spouses, at their own deaths, still will that to be. It also came up that abortion as a great evil is reconciled because God will give that baby/intelligence another chance at life in a human body.
My concern/question is-there seems to be no reason for urgency to accept the Gospel in this life. There is a safety net for all of our decisions where we get to 'sign up later', even non-Mormons getting a chance to accept the LDS faith after death. While that may sound lovely, and very merciful of God, it seems to lack any sense of justice. Please forgive the political parallel, but it sounds like one of the oft mentioned issues with Obamacare-that people will ignore healthcare until they need it, or the other cultural topic-that everyone gets a prize.
Somewhere along the line in my life, someone wiser than me (C.S. Lewis, maybe?) pointed out that without justice, there is no mercy.
Am I misunderstanding something?
-
Okay, this thread has brought to mind questions that I didn't have before. Starting a new thread, though!
Receiving the Sacrament in another church
in Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
Posted
I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'. If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted. This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.