Beliefnet News

Beliefnet News


Priest Under Fire for Serving Communion to Dog

posted by Ju-Don Roberts

By Ron CsillagTORONTO (RNS) — The Anglican Church in Canada is dealing with fallout following a published report that a priest gave Communion to a dog.
One congregant has quit St. Peter’s Anglican Church in downtown Toronto in protest over the June 27 incident, in which interim priest Rev. Marguerite Rea gave Communion to a man and his dog.
The Toronto Star reports that according to those in attendance, it was a spontaneous gesture intended to make both the dog and its owner — a first-timer at the church — feel welcome.
Peggy Needham, a lay official who was sitting near the altar, said that when it was when it was time for Communion, the man went up to receive the bread and the wine, with the dog.
“I am sure for (Rea) that was a surprise, like it was for all of us,” Needham told the Star. “But nobody felt like it was a big deal, because it wasn’t a big deal.”
Needham added that she doesn’t recall the man asking for the sacrament for his dog. Instead, she said the priest leaned over and placed the wafer on the canine’s wagging tongue. No wine was offered to the dog.
The congregant who quit the church has also filed a complaint with the Anglican Diocese of Toronto, saying the sacred ritual had been desecrated.
Bishop Patrick Yu said he wrote to the parishioner that “it is not the policy of the Anglican Church to give Communion to animals. I can see why people would be offended. It is a strange and shocking thing, and I have never heard of it happening before.
“I think the reverend was overcome by what I consider a misguided gesture of welcoming.”
Yu told the Star that Rea felt “embarrassed” by her action, but that the matter “is closed … we are after all, in the forgiveness and repair business.”
Copyright 2010 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(134)
post a comment
nnmns

posted July 22, 2010 at 8:46 pm


Will that get the dog into Heaven? Would that make the difference? Does anyone know? If it would get any of my dogs into heaven I’d be all for it (if I thought there was a heaven). Oh, and what’s the big deal?



report abuse
 

joseph

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:02 am


Just see how sick the Anglican Church has become. Blasphemy to the core.The smoke of Satan has truly enter into this church. Just think, gay Bishops and priests, now this. Like the time of Sodom and Gomorrah .



report abuse
 

Frodo

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:29 am


What is a dog doing at church….? Of course isn’t communion just a symbol in the Anglican church?



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:29 am


First, the women and her “priesthood” is illicit…she has no more authority or power to make Christ presence on anyone’s altar then the dog she gave the wafer to. If it is a representation of Christ and symbolic, why would you have an animal approach the table much less give a symbol of Christ to a dog? Apparently, in gesture it is blasphemous and disrepectful. This woman’s(priestess) presence in the altar is blasphemous. Apparently, the complainer and it’s congregrants are attending a church of satan. Why would you communicate God to a beast not made in God’s image and without a soul…this is the one time I trully thank God that this is pretend church with a pretend priest, with a pretend Eucharist given at a pretend Mass. However, if this “priest-woman” is distributing valid communion from a valid Mass celebrated by valid priest ordained by a valid Bishop descended from the Chair of Peter than you would have problem…a trully desecrating, satanic problem.FoAms to the ms/mr. no name condoning communicating Christ symbolically probally serve cat and dog hairs to guests eating at the house…check the pate…it may have been dumped from the cat-can in the garbarge and support ban on turtle eggs but applaud abortions…sicko



report abuse
 

Deacon Don Bourgeois

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:37 am


Notice the article said it was “bread and wine” not the “Body Of Christ”
because outside the Catholic Church and Orthodox Churches it is just that, just bread and wine. So, she gave the dog bread! So what? I have given my dog bread to eat. My question is what is the dog doing in church in the first place unless it is a “service dog?”



report abuse
 

Marianne Johnpillai

posted July 23, 2010 at 9:53 am


Well for me as a Catholic, Communion in the Anglican church is not the Real Presence of Christ anyway, it is just a symbol.Offering it to a dog, is just like giving a biscuit to him. So, I do not consider it scandalous. If on the other hand, this was done in the Catholic church by an ordained MALE priest, then it is sacrilege. I am proud to be a Catholic and in spite of all the sinfulness of those who belong to it, the Eucharist, given to us by Christ Himself, remains to this day, the very BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST. I cannot survive without the Eucharist. The very author of grace comes to me each day, to me, an unworthy servant. May all God’s people open their hearts to this truth and join us!
God bless you all
Yours in Christ
Marianne, Sri Lanka



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:00 am


Decon-Don what is the significant of the bread and wine in your service??? Or is it so insignificant that a dog can be included in your ritual. And what preference you have for bread??? Would onion-bread or sun-dried tomato w/basil suffice with a swig of Strawberry Boonfield’s Wine??? I believe the article is indicating a significant difference is the problem as to what should have taken place vs what the priestess did.



report abuse
 

Mac

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:07 am


oh please just stop fighting—————————–



report abuse
 

Kathy

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:16 am


Is it any wonder that Anglicans are coming to the Roman Catholic Church in droves?



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:24 am


@mac the issue is TRUTH and REVERANCE for the HOLINESS OF GOD. When two or three is gather in His name HE IS PRESENT. If the bread is consecrated HE IS PRESENT. It is worth fighting to remind people the reverence and respect that is due to God especially in His house of worship. I sarcastic not to hurt feelings as much as to point out how ludicrous this is and should have never occurred in any Christain service…what about Christ and your christain faith are you willing to defend?



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:32 am


If Jesus were half a man he’d have gotten a kick out of all this froofraw over a religion that didn’t even begin to exist when he was alive. (If, that is, he did exist.)
Pity some folks are so totally lacking a sense of humor.



report abuse
 

dan hesko

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:53 am


Oh those crazy anglicans, what will they be up to next?



report abuse
 

Tom

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:08 am


Even though Anglicans may not believe in the real presence the communion meal is still sacramental to my knowledge, so it would make a mockery of the sacrament. Ironically, the newcomer probably feels much less welcome now than B4 his canine communicant received the bread wafer. Perhaps this is where political correctness tends towards (taken to the extreme), and maybe Peter Singer is smiling somewhere.



report abuse
 

charl

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:31 am


The Catholic Church is the protector of the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ. So this communion given to an animal is not valid. It is though in respect to the Anglican Church a degraded act. The man who owned the dog should have not allowed this . This is an example of how people are out of control in their behavior which is the result of secular humanism infecting the every aspect of humanity



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:55 am


Ms/Mr. no names-foofraw: religion existed since Genesis starting with man’s creation and knowledge of God and continues to this day. God existed prior to Creation. Christ and His Church was promised as a remedy for Fallen Man-Sin as noted in Genesis 3:15…a remedy found among the Jewish Nation Israel. This promise/covenant was reaffirmed with Abraham and His descendents. Scripture and Prophets foretold and awaited the Messiah born of a Virgin throughout old testament. Christainity existed since the Incarnation and Annuciation of Christ…first Christains St Joseph and Mary. God incarnate is True Man and True God…not “half-man.” The Catholic Christain Church is the fulfilment and summit of the Jewish Faith, Salvation and Promised Redemption. Christ and God’s Promise was a stumbling block for the Jews a stone that was rejected so He was Crucified. First Mass held at the Last Supper. First Church and Priests born from the Side of Christ when spear pierced the Heart of Christ and water and blood gush forth. Proclaimation of the Gospel to the Jews while Christ walked the Earth. Proclaimation of the Gospel to the Gentile and the World began after the Ascension of Christ to Heaven with All Authority and Comissioned and Consecrated by the Descent of the Holy Spirit. Their numbers grew and were identified as Christains. First book of the new testament recording the life, death, resurrection, public ministry of Christainity was written by a Jew named Levi aka St Matthew who converted to Christainity…just six years later after the Ascension of Christ to Heaven. Apostolic Papal Chair of Peter was initiated during Christ Pubilic Ministry as recorded in the first written account in St Matthew Chap 16. Christain derived from Christ to denote disciples of Jesus and first used in the Bilble Acts 11:26. Acts is the Book of the new testament that reference early life of the Catholic Church…you call all this froofaw??? Only a fool or one without belief would say such thing…



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:01 pm


Correction: evangelization was initiated post Comission and Consecrattion by the Descent of the Holy Spirit. They grew in numbers….



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm


CAN ANYBODY GIVE ME AN AMEN??



report abuse
 

Dan Buckley

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:16 pm


I was immediately reminded of Mt, 15:26 – “It is not right to give the children’s bread to dogs.” Need anyone say more?



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:23 pm


Go—Danny Boy—Go!!!!



report abuse
 

Joe Johnson

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:36 pm


Anglicans don’t have the real presence anyways and woman cannot be priest. The whole thing is a masquerade ball.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:44 pm


The new member was given communion, not his dog companion. In a moment of love she put a wafer on the dogs tongue. It was the first time this man visited their church, and although not mentioned the dog was probably a “service” dog, or he wouldn’t have been there. Instead of feeling love the person that complained stuck to his ritual of understanding and missed the sweet moment, fortunately the rest of the congregants did not. God noticed.



report abuse
 

Rob the Rev

posted July 23, 2010 at 12:56 pm


Dan Buckley on July 23, 2010 12:16 PM posted: “I was immediately reminded of Mt, 15:26 – “It is not right to give the children’s bread to dogs.” Need anyone say more?”
Yes, Dan. More can be said. Your selective out of context verse quoting is followed with this which you conveninently left out: “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.” Matt. 15;27-28.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2010 at 1:00 pm


Joe Johnson on July 23, 2010 12:36 PM posted: “Anglicans don’t have the real presence anyways and woman cannot be priest. The whole thing is a masquerade ball.”
Joe, I presume you are Roman Catholic. You belong to a fraud of a church with an office of papacy that does not go back to the Apostle Peter. Roman Catholics do not have the real presence or true doctrine. Your church is a masquerade if there ever was one.



report abuse
 

sullivan

posted July 23, 2010 at 1:04 pm


true, They do not have the real Presence and the woman’s action proves that even she does not believe it is.



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted July 23, 2010 at 1:21 pm


Dan Buckley, A more appropriate reference would be Matthew 7:6
“Do not give what is holy to dogs”
though I don’t think Jesus expected this to be violated in such a literal way!



report abuse
 

H. Hill

posted July 23, 2010 at 1:52 pm


Clearly, even the Anglican Church has gone to the Dogs. Any church that has “women priests” have no clue Who Jesus Christ is or what His teachings mean.



report abuse
 

B. F.

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:00 pm


To Your Name posted July 23, 2010 1:00 PM: Someone has taught you a pack of lies about the Catholic Church. I get the feeling that your comments are based more on emotion and not of factual knowledge. I would encourage you (and anyone else who has misguided thoughts) to take a closer look at the Catholic Church with an open mind; not to convert you, but that you may know first hand for yourself. You will find some of the precepts that were taught to you are wrong. Now if you feel like coming back to say that you already know it all, then you are only selling yourself short and you walk around with the inability to open your mind to all of the possibilities.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:01 pm


Holy dog poop Batman!



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:07 pm


@Robber Rev…you mean taking the Word of God out of context is a worst crime…than feeding what you Angelicans call “a symbol” of the Word made Flesh [John 3:14] to a dog…cause it’s a symbol…not real…man-made??? Why don’t you run that red, man-made, octagonal symbol call a STOP sign…it’s symbol…but ironically you hold that in symbol in high regard…and that wafer, eating dog has equal disregard for it, too!
@Henrietta size 22…that’s not love with hoogie sandwich…its lunancy… Join a only-dog-bones-for-dogs support group.
@no name KnuckleHead…the founders of the Angelican Catholics would disagree with you Papal Sucession with was very much intact until King Henry the VIII decided to divorce his Queen Isabella in adultery and self-declared himself a Royal Papist.
WHERE IS THE ANGELIGAN BISHOP…this group and this wafer distributing priest and wafer-eating dog are poorly formed!



report abuse
 

FergalMJ

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:15 pm


Well now. A little bit of perspective will make you realise, hopefully, that Anglican ‘sacraments’ as you so call them are not valid sacraments and Anglican ‘priests’ are actually not that either!! Unlike those of the Orthodox or Catholic faiths their orders and sacraments are null and void. We have the great consolation of knowing that what was given to this dog was just a morsel of bread and nothing more. You can dress it up any way you want but get real folks you can’t desecrate a mere symbol.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:26 pm


Go—Wannabe Theo—Go Babey!!!



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:33 pm


@ferga…so-o-o-oooooo…Why do you speak to the morsel, elevate the morsel, kneel to the morsel and pray to the morsel, and reverentially approach the morsel at the altar??? Sounds theo-loco to me.



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:34 pm


Thanks Winkyb.
But I should point out that while I think giving a dog communion is sacrilege, I don’t agree with all the protestant/woman priest bashing going on here.



report abuse
 

why are you not surprised

posted July 23, 2010 at 2:52 pm


Why are folks surprised by this. Didn’t the Anglican church in England decide last week that their male bishops could now become nuns. What is next????



report abuse
 

John D.

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:11 pm


Fergal MJ has it right. This simply points out what happens when a “branch” chops itself off from the true vine. Thanks again Henry VIII ! And let’s not forget the heresarch, Luther and the rest of his womanising contemporary “reformers.”
What do today’s poor, misguided heretics expect? It’s unfortunately true that the miss “Reverand” is nothing but a lay woman and even truer that the dog received only bread…..There are no real priests outside the Catholic Church, and also, the schismatic “orthodox church.” That is because, the Anglicans and all other main-line prorestant “churches” VOLUNTARILY and wilfully severed their connections with St. Peter and the rest of Our Lord’s original apostles. Only through an unbroken laying on of hands from these, Christ’s 1st bishops to their successors down through the ages, can the true Sacrament of Holy Orders(or any other sacrament) be conferred. Remeber again, that this was done by CHOICE by the original protestant heretics and again by each generation of their followers. As one gets further from the true vine, one’s “theology”becomes ever more perverted and bizarre! Thus, we see real, devoted Anglicans flocking to the Catholic Church, even in its currently (and temporarily only) weakened state. I hope you Catholic bashers have your dictionaries handy before you “answer” with your typical moronic replies…



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:14 pm


Duly noted…mr wannabe holy…point isn’t bashing…you have a on-going downward, spiraling of depravation and deviation from long-standing christain principles and theology to the point that its christainity is no longer there. Futher they are scandalizing souls and want to retain the exterior rubics of a catholic mass and prayers…when there is nothing catholic or christain:
abdicated from divine authority, papal authority and magesterium
women ordination…priestess are found in pagan temple: not Judism or Catholic tradition
homosexual bishop actively practicing
condoning homosexuality and its lifestyle
same-sex marriage rites supporting obstinacy in mortal sin
sacramental symbolic Christ non-existent eg bread morsel
bread morsel given to a dog
so it is a worship, praise, adoration, and thanksgiving to a morsel.
How do you get from a Mass with Christ, The Bread of Life, trully present on an altar by a bonafide priest and bishops with a Pope to a Royal Papist of popular votes with illicit homosexuals and women priest who passes out what they believe is nothing sacramentally, symbolic but a bread morsel that can be given to dogs??? All of these acts are biblically condemn in the bible…in the King James Bible…see the quotes cited about…The faithful who been Anglicans all their life are fleeing from these abominations…this is not bashing to admonished the sinner it is charitable to insist he recollect himself and his holiness



report abuse
 

FergalMJ

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:16 pm


Who’s bashing? Telling the truth is not bashing. I am simply telling the truth but there again the more ‘progressive’ branches of the Anglican communion are most PC and therefore can’t handle the truth.
Simple fact. Orthodox and Catholic sacraments = Valid. Transubstantiation = bread before consecration, Body & Blood of Christ in host after consecration.
Anglican Orders = null and void thanks to the 1896 Papal Letter Apostolicae Curae by Leo XIII. No valid orders = No consecration = No transubstantiation. What is bread before is bread after. Forever just bread. Priests? No. Simply lay men and women playing Church.



report abuse
 

Priestess.

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:38 pm


I believe the correct terminology is PRIESTESS. Things become MUCH CLEARER when we use accurate terminology. Please, all Christians; CALL THEM PRIESTESSES.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 3:45 pm


@JD, I am not confused…I am catholic and have understanding of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. What is confusing is the ever-changing chameleon antics which no matter how it contradicts itself it will continually justify bizarre. The queen should invoke her civic authority and abolish this sect and all its “clergy” for its formation is politically based and allow Rome to rebuild the Catholic Church of England to it’s former glory. Queen Mother of Heaven and Earth here this plea. The only morons are those support destroying the Church and Souls.



report abuse
 

Dan in Calgary

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:09 pm


If the woman really believed that she was distributing the Body and Blood of our Lord in her hands, she would not have dared to offer it to a dog. In her heart and soul, she knew that she was merely sharing a snack.
Thus, this incident is a big “nothing”: no harm, and no fuss, because what the dog received was not “Communion” in the truest sense. Not then, certainly not for quite some time before this, and not yet, for all Anglicans unwilling to rejoin the Catholic fold. In fact, this incident is an appropriately visceral reminder to Anglicans of the truth.
Dan in Calgary



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:16 pm


Those wacky Anglicans. They actually believe a loaf of bread is bread and not God!!! How bizarre!



report abuse
 

holly

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:18 pm


This is sad but the Anglican Church is false. One can still love and serve God while being a member but the bottom line is the Anglicans are a dying bunch of liberal sob sisters. Really, no one should care what they do as they don’t matter a bit.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:24 pm


I here you Dan in Calgary…she invested with vestments and ceremony to feed dogs and congregants bread snacks…you can hire a maid to do that!



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:31 pm


I disagree holly…they need to leave…that is like waiting for a dead tree bark to bloom live fruit. There is no grace there. There is no fountain of life to drink from. It is a hull.



report abuse
 

Greg in Ohio

posted July 23, 2010 at 4:50 pm


The “anglican” church is irrelevant. I pray its members ‘COME HOME’to Christ’s Church and leave Henry VII behind.



report abuse
 

Kimh

posted July 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm


I’m a Baptist, and I consider Holy Communion a serious business as it commemorates what Jesus Christ did for us by dying on the Cross for our sins no matter what a particular person believes about the Real Presence. That being said I believe the Anglican pastor was in error in giving a wafer to the dog. I’m no theologian, but it’s to my understanding that while animals are part of God’s creation and are therefore greatly loved by Him, they are not on the same spiritual level
as mankind is as we believe that their level of realization is not as great as ours. So perhaps the pastor could have blessed the dog, either right after giving the man Communion (if permissable by Church law) or even after the service. That to me would have perfectly in line with the intentions of the pastor.
I have seen a service dog in church before, but the article above doesn’t state whether the dog in question was such.



report abuse
 

Kimh

posted July 23, 2010 at 5:16 pm


Regarding my comment above, I meant Communion wafer when I said wafer, as I’m assuming that’s what the minister gave the dog.



report abuse
 

Jon

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:33 pm


Protestants are incapable of consecration so they gave the dog a piece of bread.



report abuse
 

Robert Hidalgo

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:36 pm


When I read this article by Ron Csillag, I laughed at the misguided spontenaity and was concerned for the mindset of the priest and the communicant. Then, as I drew close to the end of the article, I understood that no offense was actually committed. Here’s why. There are still churches whose communion or eucharistic celebration is not in union with the Roman Church from whose deposit of faith the sharing of the Eucharist is a bonafide communal expression of Christian unity. While physically and symbolically the celebration of the eucharist in non-Catholic Christian churches is understood, the actual authenticated species of the Eucharist is not. Hence, this “priest” had an “eucharistic” liturgy or celebration, not an “Eucharistic” liturgy as authenticated by being in union with the Roman Catholic church from whose deposit of faith, Jesus Christ instituted this deposit. It is clear that a female celebrant (Jesus only called men to be priests in the NT) would follow up with clerical behavior that is a perversion of the “Eucharist” authenticated by “transubstantiation”. With all due respect and love to the Anglican church who have to suffer the maligning of their faith by those who would subvert it in the name of mindlessness, take heart. Your behavior toward God will be rewarded with an even greater unity. As for Marguerite, she might as well be giving communion to the goldfish, the vultures, the cat, the rat, the elephants, and the unicorns. Any attempt made by Ms. Rea to steathily scandalize the eucharist (and the Eucharist) in the Anglican church is a scandal only to herself and is a witness only to parishioners that, hey, it’s time to protect our “eucharist” with an “authenticating handshake” from the church Jesus started in order to properly celebrate the “Eucharist” instituted by our Lord Himself. :D I would like to thank America Online for making the expression, “authenticating handshake” possible, so that I could better express myself; and for making emoticons available for the same reason, better expression. As for the dogs and other cherished animals in our lives, God bless them. At least they are going to church. Maybe this action is a calling for another form of ministry, animal communion? Not an altar server, but an assistant server of hospitality could be present to protect “eucharistic” celebrations from scandal by offering a Liv-A-Snaps (probably chicken or beef flavor, no pork just to be politically correct) or other vegetable treat to animals who are called to share in the fraternity of creation. Maybe call them the altar servers of Saint Francis of Assisi? Delicious. :D



report abuse
 

Dee

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:40 pm


I wholeheartedly agree with Kimh..and also with Greg in Ohio.
Shame on Bishop Yu! I believe in forgivness also..but I also believe in Justice as I know Our Dear Lord does.
We are not to be people pleasers in church..but God Pleasers. Certainly not dog pleaser!!!!
We are called to speak the truth and inform the ignorant..with love. God will be her judge. There should be consequences for her actions.



report abuse
 

Dee

posted July 23, 2010 at 6:42 pm


Well spoken Robert!



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 23, 2010 at 7:42 pm


After reading some of these comments, I’m starting to feel a little concerned about that dog’s safety.



report abuse
 

Fr. Parker

posted July 23, 2010 at 8:40 pm


We Catholics realize this “Holy Communion” was not the Body and Blood of Christ. However it is scandalous to read what this priestess is doing. Females should never pretend to be something they can never be. “For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”



report abuse
 

Henricus Rex

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:09 pm


Question:
When a Catholic priest buggers a boy up the rectum – and lots did and still do – and your bishops dressed in the clothing of royalty thumb their noses at the civil authority and cover-up/shuffle pedophiles – does that invalidate the sacraments? How about the church itself? And when the current pope was in the Hitler Youth, and took part in the cover-up. how ’bout that?
No, the “Church” of Rome is, and always has been, the whore of Babylon. The pope is still the anti-Christ, hoarding the monies of the masses in the palace that is the Vatican.
Sure, we have a few loony priests (such as this woman), but make no mistake, woman can be an are priests and bishops. At least they aren’t a bunch of rapists.



report abuse
 

Henricus Rex

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:12 pm


IOW, we, the Anglicans, are the true Catholic/Christian church.
Gloria in excelsius Deo!



report abuse
 

Ernest Powell

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:38 pm


The term is “WOMEN!”,thank you very much.
How dare you say such things?
A true christian believer would not just go giving the blessed sacrament to some person’s pet. It is just a lame excuse to want to get noticed by the rest of the world.
Well, now you got your popularity built up, huh?
May GOD have mercy on your soul and may you have a good EXCUSE to say to him when he asks you in the next life!



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 10:41 pm


@modred08 the dog is safe
@robert you speak too much rubbish
@Dee you affirm too much rubbish…further there’s nothing charitable or tolerable about scandalizing souls regardless of rather it is wafer, “eucharist”, or Eucharist. @hildago has up the ante to suggest dog masses with kibbles n bits at the altar….what’s next? Invite a dog whisperer to concelebrate anglican services.
@henricus Rex you are delusional…



report abuse
 

Ernest Powell

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:02 pm


Thank you kindly Winkyb!
sometimes I really wonder where people gain the audacity to claim themselves to be the true christian faith and still find the time to give the blessed sacrament to their pets like it is a form of food that was made for them
THAT is why man made DOG FOOD!
FOOLS!
I truly feel that the Anglicans have lost the plot which should surely lead to their demise.
Save yourself, along with those who think like you, say a few prayers for that matter and ask the lord for divine intervention.



report abuse
 

jestrfyl

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:21 pm


We had a service-dog-in-training at a church I served. The dog even helped as an usher – and was one of the best, least confused ushers in the whole congregation. Even though the dog was well received and respected by the entire congregation, he never received communion. I don’t think anything horrible happened when the dog in the above story was served, but it does cause some wondering abut the purpose and place of the sacrament. I suppose if the pastor in question was able to perceive the problem then enough has been said and life can go on. Any thoughts of punishment are simply vengeful and betray a complete lack of grace on the part of the authorities.
In some ways it does beg the question about blessing animals. How great is the distinction between blessing and serving an animal? It is a question for a liturgical theology paper I suppose.



report abuse
 

H. Hill

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:28 pm


King Henry the VIII left the Roman Catholic Church to start his own church, The Anglican Church, because of a woman and now a woman is feeding and leading the king’s church to the dogs. The irony.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 23, 2010 at 11:57 pm


@jestrfyi…aka for your information, jester??? Theological papers, liturgical articles and popular opinions nor civic authority are not the standard measure for Truth of the inspired Word of God as deposited in the True Church founded by Christ. Rather: it is the Bible as set and cannonized by the Council, the Magisterium the teaching authority of the Church, and Oral Tradition as handed down by the Apostle and Early Fathers of the Church…none of these sources would support these deviant actions listed above.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 24, 2010 at 12:09 am


All the woman haters commenting here are nauseating. The priest who fed the dog the wafer looks a hundred times better to me now than the Catholic community does by comparison. Good job.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 24, 2010 at 12:28 am


@Mordred08…which comment has expressed a hatred for women???



report abuse
 

Ernest Powell

posted July 24, 2010 at 12:41 am


Well…
There you go..irony is met with repeated actions..
All over a woman. This world is going through some rough times and d we cannot even see that the simpler things in life should be handled first like having women to lead in churches. I am but an 18yr old person but it doesn’t take a genius to know that the world is suffering from the selfishness of some few people who choose their own pleasures to come before others without second thoughts.
It would be best to pray over such occurrences in life and to ask GOD for his understanding, forgiveness and love so that the wrong doings of man are met with corresponding times to repent for such doings.



report abuse
 

Elizabeth

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:00 am


Sure, it’s no big deal to you, Mordred, if you consider it to be only “a wafer.” It’s not just a wafer to believers.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:34 am


Elizabeth: “Sure, it’s no big deal to you, Mordred, if you consider it to be only ‘a wafer.’ It’s not just a wafer to believers.”
Biggest understatement I’ve heard all day. I still say that guy and his dog should go into hiding until things blow over. I remember history class. People were executed for this sort of thing a few centuries ago.



report abuse
 

CE6

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:41 am


To quote a wise guy on this issue (not me, but he has already said elsewhere what I thought was appropriate):
“Face it, your god is simply a projection of your own personality and beliefs. He isn’t there. If you like dogs, you’ll imagine that your god likes dogs; if you think noisy smelly animals are a nuisance, your god bars the gates of heaven to them.”



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted July 24, 2010 at 4:32 am


I think the dog may have made an ideal congregation member. I had an idea once to give my brother’s Rottweiler a tonsure and enter him as a novice in the Benedictine order. He would have made a perfect brother. He was obedient, didn’t care at all about money or worldly goods, always helped where he could, only spoke on request and would have happily attended the umpteen prayers each day, just to see what was going on.



report abuse
 

Saint Eric

posted July 24, 2010 at 7:45 am


That action is sacrilageous to offer to an animal the body and blood of Christ. Again, i believe that such magnitude of crime could be found only in anglican and will not be obtainable in Catholic. Recuring the night that Christ handed his body and blood, there was no animal like dog seen there, he was alone with his disciple b/4 he gave them his body and blood. Why should an Anglican priest offer such to a dog?



report abuse
 

Ericology

posted July 24, 2010 at 7:52 am


Do not give to a dog what belongs to a man, here the priest had turned the scripture upside down. Christ himself instituted this as a warning. That priest must be a fanatics and should be withdrawn from administering sacrament else more harm will befall the congregation.



report abuse
 

Ted

posted July 24, 2010 at 10:11 am


To all of those who don’t think this is a big deal I would say that you have little or no faith. Man is made in the image and likeness of God not animals. Animals are God’s creation to be sure and he loves them but God is not a dog. Holy Communion in the Catholic Faith is truely the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of God therefore it would be wrong to feed Jesus flesh and blood to animals. I would even doubt that animals would dare consume the true presence of God. The Anglican church broke away from the true church many years ago so they really don’t possess the true essence of God in there version of communion. But the problem is that many Christians in the Anglican faith still believe that Jesus (God) is with the Body & Blood in a spiritual way – “consubstantiation” which is the technical term. We Catholics believe in “transubstantiation” which means the ordinary bread and wine actually turn into and become the actual Body & Blood of Jesus Christ. God loves his creation but let’s not allow animals access to the sacred. They have their place in creation and Humans have theirs. Woe to those who blur the differnece – they will have to answer to God himself one day soon. Let us pray for our brothers and sisters who have no true faith in Christ.



report abuse
 

Ted

posted July 24, 2010 at 10:19 am


Futhermore we Catholics do believe that our Anglican brethern although in error are still Christian and I know that they teach that communion is sacred therefore what this so called priest did was “anathama” – I say she has not right to be teaching about God as she has no faith. Females should not be allowed to be priests – The Blessed Virgin Mary (God’s Mother) was more worthy than any female ever created to become a priest and yet Jesus her son did not wish it when she was alive nor does he wish is now. Men have their place and women have theirs. It is no surprise that such a desecration of the sacred would be offered by a so called female priest. On a further note women are more faithful than men are on average but that does not give them the right to take the place of the priesthood which has a divine origin and is reserved for men. Those who think there is nothing wrong with this obviously haven’t consulted God and what’s next kids becoming priests? or maybe Dog’s since they now receive communion in the Anglican faith! How about babies?



report abuse
 

Ted

posted July 24, 2010 at 10:29 am


Please bare with me as I explain further less you think I don’t think women are equal to men from my past statements. Women and men both are created by God and are equal in his eyes. Men are not better than women and vice versa – however each have their place in society, the family, and the church. Many today are attempting to change and blur those roles clearly that have been defined since the beginning which is evil. Peolpe are changing their gender through operations, men attempting to become women and women attempting to become men. This is evil and sinful. I don’t judge the sinner but the sin and I will let God be God and judge those but I in all good conscience cannot keep silent and teach my children this is normal. Women are now attempting to become priests which is a role of men. Why – ask God – it is a mystery but Holy Scripture is quite clear that God wills this. The devil is always proding men and women to defy God – remember the garden of Eden? Ever since the beginning satan has always tried to influence human history and cause Chaos. Holy Communion being distributed to a dog is Chaos on a grand scale – not becuase God hates dogs – he doesn’t – but simply because we are created in the image and likeness of God – Jesus came down and became man not a dog. Holy Communion is his flesh (MAN NOT DOG) given to us to help us and make us stronger to fight evil and become Holy – Holy Communion is not for animals.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 24, 2010 at 11:18 am


Ted, men and women shouldn’t be confined to certain roles just because of what some book says. And of course you attack transgender people and condemn them as evil. Christians love easy targets, and they are the easiest targets around, because the majority thinks it’s ok to hate them.



report abuse
 

Max

posted July 24, 2010 at 11:40 am


Animals are innocent, what is wrong with our pets, creatures that God made to recive God? After all God Made them, I think You all are seeing this inside out, take away the popular culture of Gold and Robes and Fancy Cups vs a simple Animal. You people are very Shallow indeed and dont understand God at all. I for one belive that Animals have the right to the same blessings as we people do. If Hitler confessed his sins, are you saying he would be more worthy then an Innocent Animal to unite with His Creator?



report abuse
 

WillyMcCabe

posted July 24, 2010 at 11:43 am


Mordred, maybe you should have taken the time to actually read what Ted wrote. No one mentioned hatred except you. I find it ironic that those who preach tolerance the most are usually the most bigoted and intolerant of all. It is ok to attack Christianity of any sort these days. It’s the fashionable “cool” thing to do, but any even remotley critical comment regarding homosexuality or other human sexuality issues and you are immidiatly branded a hater and a bigot. What a joke. I’ve seen far far more homosexual web sites with comments that have advocated the killing and persecution of Christians than vice versa.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted July 24, 2010 at 12:03 pm


Winkyb of all 76 comments you take the lead! Never saw such a turn out for an article. A sense of humor is what is called for here, not a call for getting rid of the Priest. Mordred yours had everything in perspective. Jest, why not bless the pets? Wink you have my size wrong in a big way! ;)



report abuse
 

Thomas

posted July 24, 2010 at 12:22 pm


It’s a good thing that a priestess can’t effect the Blessed Sacrament. Otherwise, these quasi-Pagans would be committing the greatest sacrilege, outside of trying to ordain women as priests and bishops.
This also isn’t the first time an Anglican has tried to give an animal communion.



report abuse
 

ArB

posted July 24, 2010 at 1:01 pm


What is the uproar all about? Animals are part of God’s creation.
Ecclesiastes 3:19
Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath ; man has no advantage over the animal.
Why is it that every dialog about any religious issue someone has to bring in the homosexual issue? This has nothing to do with that!
Willy, don’t know where you are looking or NOT looking, but there are more “Christian” sites that advocate getting rid of homosexuals than vice-versa.



report abuse
 

Michaela

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:36 pm


Thomas is right! Jesus was not descrated because He was not present at all. What a relief! The Truth is, that only a Catholic priest can make that happen. That’s why the people and especially the “the bishop” are ok with it.
He knows that Truth.



report abuse
 

Danielle

posted July 24, 2010 at 2:39 pm


Yes animals are creatures of God but only man has an eternal soul. As Holy Communion in a Catholic church is the actual body and blood of Christ given to us as food for both our souls (primarily) and our bodies and is one of the main sacraments to receive grace from God into our souls, a dog wouldn’t need that grace as it has no reason, only instinct, and is not living an interior supernatural life. It is sacraligious to give part of God’s actual body and blood to a finite creature. A blessing by the “priest” or a pat on the head would have been sufficient to welcome the man and his dog. However, that said, I don’t believe communion in an Anglican church is actually the body and blood of Christ anyway as the apostolic succession of ordaining bishops and priests in that sect was broken after the reformation.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:11 pm


Thomas: “It’s a good thing that a priestess can’t effect the Blessed Sacrament. Otherwise, these quasi-Pagans would be committing the greatest sacrilege, outside of trying to ordain women as priests and bishops.”
What’s the greatest sacrilege?



report abuse
 

pete

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:22 pm


It hardly matters, as the communion is only bread anyway especially done by a woman in the Anglicanism. In fact she is no more a valid priest than the dog is a valid christian able to receive a TRUE Eucharist!
Note well, all this happened because of acting on one’s feelings rather than Truth, which is why Anglicans ordain women anyway!



report abuse
 

anthony

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:41 pm


What’s the big deal, it’s only a piece of bread!
Anglicans don’t have the real deal: the Body and Blood of Christ.



report abuse
 

anthony

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:43 pm


What’s the big deal, it’s only a piece of bread.
Anglicans don’t have the real deal: the Body and Blood of Christ



report abuse
 

Your Name Lenore

posted July 24, 2010 at 3:58 pm


Although all of creation was affected by the fall, only man is truly in need of “Redemption” anyway. St. Paul says that all of creation groans in waiting….” The whole of creation and creatures will be made whole at the coming of Christ, but animals did not willfully sin as man did and though affected by sin, are incapable of making that choice. Therefore in the simplest analysis, a dog has no need for Holy Communion. However, this act does show the lack of respect for the Holy Sacrament so prevalent in the Episcopal and Anglican church.cou



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 24, 2010 at 5:23 pm


So the dog ate a piece of bread(representing a person, not the actual person’s body)…and it was given to him by a priest….big deal! Guess it is a good thing this didn’t happen in an RCC church because he would have been eating flesh (and not only that, the flesh of a holy man) according to the RCC and it’s ritual of communion. That would tick off a few RCC, I suspect….and it seems that it ticked off a few Anglicans. Personally, I don’t see this as a problem, but it obvious some did (do).



report abuse
 

Jess

posted July 24, 2010 at 6:37 pm


I am a Catholic, so even though I know that communion in the Anglican church is only symbolic and not the true Body of Christ, this is really bizarre. It’s disturbing that a “priest” would even think this would be all right–what, would the dog feel unwelcome if not offered communion?? And since the man didn’t ask, why on earth would she do it? It boggles the mind. And as for Needham’s comment, obviously if someone filed a complaint, it WAS a big deal…..Lord have mercy!



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 24, 2010 at 6:49 pm


Who knows? Maybe the dog was hungary and needed a snack! A priest (and what difference does it make that this priest is a woman???) is supposed to take care of her flock and feed the hungary, right? Many flocks of sheep and cattle have dogs to shepard them…with their humans….



report abuse
 

Deacon John M. Bresnahan

posted July 24, 2010 at 7:05 pm


Of course the dog was only given bread because, like most Protestant Churches Anglicans say they believe in the Word of God in the Bible, but then essentially throw out all the passages therein that talk of Christ’s Body and Blood and eating his flesh and “Do this in remembrance of me.”
They water it down to the point nowadays that one of their clergy, one of their parish officials, and apparently the whole congregation saw nothing wrong with what had happened. Just another “feel good” moment to savor. But even most Protestants used to at least consider their communion services as a moment demanding serious reverential treatment. Thus even by most Protestant standards this whole scenario was a travesty and a mockery. Sad that a whole church full of Anglicans had such a poor sense of reverential propriety. But then again the Anglican Church has been doing everything possible recently to tear down anything resembling traditional Christianity that this whole episode is no surprise.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 24, 2010 at 9:14 pm


So Deacon, a dog is not one of God’s creations worthy of being treated equally? After all, didn’t HE make everything and all was supposed to be important?



report abuse
 

TM

posted July 25, 2010 at 12:03 am


You need to read the BIBLE. Forget the people written wicken stuff. Read the Words of God before you comment next time.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 25, 2010 at 12:16 am


+JMJ+ the evil condone here has been condemn and all who profess unwillingness to understand or reconize this wickness are blind: because they prefer darkness to the Light of Christ, are deaf and mute: because of their rejection of the Word of God, and are dumb: because they welcome not the Wisdom of God but folly of fools and men, are ignorant: unable to discern creation and creature from Creator: because lack of Fear of God and His Image, they also abandon the Cross and all its benefits, and make themselves the best of friends with enemies of Christ and His Church…they are cheerleaders for satan leading souls down the wide path of obstinate and rejection…blaspheming God and mocking each soul with each step of descent and each depravation toward eternal misery. They are the true zombies, walking dead: for the have separated themselves from Life and the Way of Holiness…and while they move above the living…you can tell they are the living dead for their mouth is a opened-selpucher: for it spews death of this life and death in the next…nothing life sustaining is uttered from them. They profane what is holy and consecrated to God and His Temple: that is why perversion of every kind is tolerated, vows are broken: baptismal and marriage, chaste and modesty attacked, purity destroyed and coruption at younger and younger ages, virginity of men and women preyed upon…culture of death: euthansia, abortion, same-sex union, contraception…and so on… You are called to be a Nation of People of God…and per St. Paul you became adopted children of God: his adopted sons and daughters of God. Before you mock these words I exhort you to read
Jeremiah 7:1-11.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted July 25, 2010 at 1:08 am


All I can say is that this woman is nuttier than a fruitcake, and so are the people who would go to such a church as this where anything goes. Why even go there?



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 25, 2010 at 3:44 am


If only pedophile priests faced this much condemnation…



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 25, 2010 at 9:41 am


@mordred08…you condemn yourself…you morbid, 8-ball looser…when you hissed with that bifucated tongue of yours, is it your intent to slander ALL priests and to blaspheme every soul imprinted with the indelible mark of Priesthood, a mark of holiness placed by God himself, that they have been set apart for God alone??? You also stand in need of correction that the profile of the perpetrators repeatedly identifies homosexuals NOT pedophiles as the predators and abusers. The priesthood has been infiltrated…the difference being the infiltration in the Anglican Church finds this acceptable. The Church will continue to suffer til this evil abomination and all its orientations has been exorcised from its sanctuary…and in the name of Jesus make it so immediately.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 25, 2010 at 2:25 pm


Winkyb: “you condemn yourself…you morbid, 8-ball looser…when you hissed with that bifucated tongue of yours”
Uh oh, I think I hit a nerve.
“is it your intent to slander ALL priests and to blaspheme every soul imprinted with the indelible mark of Priesthood, a mark of holiness placed by God himself, that they have been set apart for God alone???”
No, just the ones who RAPE KIDS, you sheep.
“You also stand in need of correction that the profile of the perpetrators repeatedly identifies homosexuals NOT pedophiles as the predators and abusers.”
So the Vatican, which is full of men sworn to celibacy, is now the definitive expert on human sexuality? I think you guys are taking “those who can’t, teach” a little too literally.
“The priesthood has been infiltrated…the difference being the infiltration in the Anglican Church finds this acceptable.”
Ignoring your ridiculous claims of an evil queer infiltration of your church…have you been reading the articles on this site? At all? The Anglicans have been kicking out gays left and right. The Anglicans in Africa support the death penalty for same-sex relations. They are not a gay-friendly church by any stretch of the imagination. You might realize that if you weren’t raging so hard about dogs and crackers that you can’t see straight.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted July 25, 2010 at 2:34 pm


Winkyb, go to your nearest Medical Authorities and be educated about Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, and read about what Prostentant Churches believe. Might read all of Ecclesiastes while you are at it. ArB thanks for the verse. It says also that man has no advantage over animals, shouldn’t that mean then that dogs have souls also? Good posts Kenneth and Max.



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted July 25, 2010 at 2:47 pm


WinkyB,
The scandal currently plaguing the RCC is not about priests having sex with men, or women, or other priests etc. It is about priests molesting children, and bishops transferring them and covering up the crimes. Your claim that it is not about pedophelia is otherworldly, and demonstrates the depths to which some will sink to deflect blame away from the supposedly spirit led and infallible RCC and toward other groups.
As for your claim of ‘infiltration’: there are gay Catholics, gay Baptists, gay Lutherans, gay Jews, gay Muslims, gay everything. No need for infiltration.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 25, 2010 at 4:27 pm


@modred08, henrietta22, wannabetheo…did I just step into the breakfast club??? The clergical offences covered in the media and litigated in the courts were “men on boys”, male on male…homosexual. The article refers to irreverent behavior in reverent places…you and yours have consistently upheld irreverent acts and behaviors…to the point where you all expressed an inability to see the problem of a dog communicating at the altar. Are you all christians? Do you love Jesus and neighbor? Do you reject Satan all his pomps, actions and works? Do you uphold God’s statutes and decrees? Do you respect what is holy and His Authority? Do you respect His Temples and Churches? Do you revere the sacred image of God in yourself or…do you desecrate that also? You hide behind the Anglican Church but you comments are anti-Christ…you support that man is no greater than a beast and a God is not greater than the dog and active homosexuality among the Anglican clergy is okay except if it is Catholic clergy…who and what are you?



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted July 25, 2010 at 5:37 pm


WinkyB,
You should check your sex math:
man with woman = heterosexual
man with man or woman with woman = homosexual
adult (any gender) with child (any gender) = pedophile;
Or if male priests were having sex with little girls would you say you had a heterosexual problem? Would you complain that heterosexuals have ‘infiltrated’ the church?
And neither Mordred, Henrietta or myself are Anglican, nor have we ever claimed to be.
“…to the point where you all expressed an inability to see the problem of a dog communicating at the altar.”
You have a short memory Winkyb. Not long ago you were cheering me on because I was critical of the act of serving communion to a dog. I’m just calling BS on your claim that the scandal plaguing the RCC comes from an outside ‘infiltration’, rather than being an expression of the same fallen state all humans share, including the pope.



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 25, 2010 at 6:34 pm


@mordred08 so you are members of that dysfunctional breakfast club…you have yet to answer the question(s). Not Anglicans, what are you??? Why denigrate humanity to that of an animal? Why you all condone the antithesis dog [god spelled backwards] approaching the altar to communicate???…is it to induce others to echo your demonic sentiments in Hatred for God??? My math is fine…you wrongfully convicted EVERY priests, and still 102-comments later, you have yet to condemn the homosexual contributions to this scandal…let us see if you can count: there is Three Persons in the One, True God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…The Holy Trinity…for Who is Like Unto God?
Proclaim in praise, mordred08, Jesus Christ is Lord!
If not, let it be known you and your friends are an anathema.



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 25, 2010 at 7:21 pm


“Why you all condone the antithesis dog [god spelled backwards] approaching the altar to communicate???…is it to induce others to echo your demonic sentiments in Hatred for God???”
You know what? Yes. That is the reason I condone the blasphemy of giving a dog a cracker. Because unlike your god, a dog doesn’t condemn people to eternal torment for not believing in it. Or for not believing in it enough, or believing in it the wrong way…etc.
“you wrongfully convicted EVERY priests”
I didn’t convict anybody, as I’m not involved in the legal system at all, thank you. I CONDEMNED only those priests who molested children and covered it up, which I’d like to think all of us can agree is wrong. If you say I condemned all priests, you’re saying that all priests raped kids, which means you are the one making the generalization, not me.
“Proclaim in praise, mordred08, Jesus Christ is Lord!”
You are in dire need of professional help, and I sincerely hope you get it someday.



report abuse
 

Wannabe Theo

posted July 25, 2010 at 8:12 pm


Best line so far: “Why you all condone the antithesis dog [god spelled backwards] approaching the altar to communicate???…”
Apparently the ‘antithesis dog’ is a talking dog. LOL
You must be getting tired Winkyb. That last post was particularly incoherent. Get some rest.



report abuse
 

nnmns

posted July 25, 2010 at 8:19 pm


Are you people still at this? This is just a nutty little (tiny little) story and you people keep lobbing back and forth at each other.
Three words: It’s not important.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 26, 2010 at 7:39 pm


TM: Response to your comment at 12:03 Am July 25, 2010:
I’ve already read the BIBLE, thus the reason for statement you responded to.
Geeze! All this fuss over one dog in one church being given a wafer (which probably tasted terrible, if the ones I’ve eaten are any example…yes, folks I’ve had the holy wafers..early in my life when I was too young to know better) by one priest. One would think that it really matters. IT’S a cotten picken dog, for G*d sake….who really cares?



report abuse
 

payday loans toronto

posted July 26, 2010 at 8:32 pm


blog.beliefnet.com is great! Payday loans are short term loans that are taken by employees to get cash and use them to handle emergencies When you opt for a payday loans no credit check the online company is not worried about your financial background or the past credit history



report abuse
 

vic

posted July 27, 2010 at 3:39 am


this story reminds me of the story where King David gave his men bread that was reserved for preists and also the story of where Jesus healed on the Sabbath day and Jesus disciple’s picked ears of corn on the sabbath…. Jesus died to set us free from condemnation. I am sure that God smiled when the preist in this story did something “off the wall” by giving the dog a wafer. Wow, even God would have probably done that since God is love. Maybe the “least of these” is not always human?



report abuse
 

Winkyb

posted July 27, 2010 at 9:16 am

Timothy

posted July 27, 2010 at 12:40 pm


If the Remembrance of the Last Supper given by Jesus, the Savior of the Human Race, were given by the hands of Man and NOT by God for us HUMANS to observe, then right, it would not be a big deal and everyone could go ona about their business.
HOWEVER, the SPIRIT of GOD IS ALIVE and watches ALL that we HUMANS do. And it troubles me to see such ABOMINATIONS as to allow the ABSOLUTE DESECRATION of OUR LORD AND SAVIOR by handing his Body over to an animal. So that if ONE INCIDENT like this becomes ACCEPTABLE TO PAGANS as they are heartless to understand what GOD HAS OFFERED THEM, then any manner of Ritual Desecration would, in their eyes, be quite fitting. Why not crucify snakes on crosses then to bring in those who love the works of Satan? Why not allow the Bible in these Churches as merely a guidebook for how we feel for that day but not as really THE WORDS in which to follow then? Satan would be most proud that you do his work for him wouldn’t he?
Desecration and the ruination of santified Holiness is much like an annointed altar of God behind which we allow demons as priestesses and priests and give the power of Satan to speak and act directly through them.
It is not that we should not be good and offer a nice environment to those who we want to save, but it becomes tainted teachings when we bend all manner of models handed down for 2,000 years in order to appease the one odd person who brought his dog along in the first place. It is deceitful and disgraceful to GOD.
And anyone who opposes what I have said is also a disgrace to God for not believing in HIS WORD. And we wonder WHY it feels SO NEAR THE END…



report abuse
 

Timothy

posted July 27, 2010 at 2:05 pm


More often than not, it is fierce complacency in the act of un-righteousness that invokes God’s ANGER…for God Loves us absolutely True, and He is Most Forgiving and Merciful, but He is also going to DESTROY THIS WORLD WHEN THE EPOCH ENDS, for that which HE created as GOOD has suddenly turned sour and made HIM sick.
God is NOT ONLY LOVE, but also GREAT and RIGHTEOUS ANGER. One would be a fool (and so was I and it turned me away in misunderstanding before) to believe that of all the Scripures teaching about God and Jesus and the Prophets is merely to show that God ONLY LOVES. He LOVES AND ALSO DESTROYS that which HE CAN NO LONGER LOVE–think Sin and Satan which are quite real. For many of the Prophets and followers, especially when the followers of Jesus were under GREAT persecutions after Jesus’s death, were slaughtered for teaching the WORD OF GOD and for NOT BELIEVING in the PAGAN rituals of the Early Roman times.
God is RIGHTEOUS, which is to say that HE is ALWAYS Perfect and ALWAYS RIGHT. And the manner of HIS Righteousness could be seen as LOVE ONLY if ALL HEAVEN and ALL CREATION are taken into account, for God does not Love for ONE but most literally for ALL Heaven and Earth and the Universe.
It is MAN who is ACCEPTING of WRONGFUL things and wavering and bending under the Eyes of God. God is NOT like Man, does not think as Man and we should never forget rules over Man. God is our Father, our savior and our sacrifice–literally our EVERYTHING, but He WAS the same also for Satan and all those before who have fallen to Earth WITH Satan. God is not a God of Vengeance but is Righteously Just, and will show ALL Creation what this means for eternity as the War we are a part of still rages on.
Once you become accepting to the Sins of Satan to make them your model of God suiting YOUR philosophy, understand that God loses His grip of your heart as you turn from His TRUE teachings and ways.
If we read the letters of John in the New Testament, you would see HOW important it is to be CORRECT in front of God. There were no animals spoken about on or under the table or even offered anything at Jesus’s Last Supper–the Covenant in Flesh and Blood is ENTIRELY between God and Man, and for a much Greater Purpose than simply to follow the motions of or discount as some mediocre or outdated ritual involving a cracker and some alcohol or forbid, grape juice.
Understanding of these things comes from God. Ask for understanding and the Light of Truth will surely shine upon you. When we are past this world, THEN, there will be no more cause for the worries of Sin and we know God and HIS reasons for ALL THESE things of the Earth that will soon PASS AWAY out of existence.



report abuse
 

Ted

posted July 27, 2010 at 7:40 pm


I commened some time ago and boy it is a real eye opener to read all of these comments. It is so clear that most people simply just don’t understand God and his ways. We all need to humble ourselves and ask God for forgiveness for our own sinfulness and ask then for enlightenment as to his truth and what he thinks about this woman and what she actually did. May our merciful Lord Jesus Christ bless all who read this. Amen



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 27, 2010 at 8:55 pm


Gee! Timothy and Ted….Just what are you trying to tell us “non-believers”? Sounds suspiciously like a sermon. Blessings of the Goddess upon you….



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 27, 2010 at 10:41 pm



Trapper (that’s the dog name) has officially been banned from communion. I don’t hold out much hope that this will satisfy the Catholics, though.
People…is it not at all possible that what the priest did was an honest misunderstanding of the rules, and not part of some Satanic conspiracy? You know, the kind of thing Christians used to hang innocent people for?



report abuse
 

Mordred08

posted July 27, 2010 at 10:44 pm


I remember putting a link in that post. Maybe God smote my wicked HTML.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/because_even_the_moderate_libe.php



report abuse
 

Rick

posted July 27, 2010 at 11:58 pm


One correction and one comment:
1. Since the Anglican church has no priesthood, it is incorrect to refer to this minister as a priest. The English Reformers would be rolling in their graves. He is a minister of the gospel. Roman Catholics have a supposed and unscriptural priesthood. The Reformation made clear that ministers of the gospel are not priests.
2. Since the 39 Articles make clear that the communion is a memorial of the flesh and blood of Christ, and rejects the absurd and un-sacramental doctrine of the supposed “real presence,” this should be far less troubling than this sensationalistic story make it to be. The minister is simply welcoming the companion animal to the same fellowship his guardian enjoys, since the same Creator made both man and beast.



report abuse
 

Angrypuppy

posted July 29, 2010 at 12:09 am


I think that this whole discussion has gone overboard. Who cares who gave the communion wafer to the dog. It would have been just as offensive if it was me who did it. The simple fact is The bread and wine represent Christ’s sacrifice for us HUMAN SINNERS. Giving it to a dog degrades it to nothing more than a snack. This Anglican Minister who did this has absolutely no respect for the Lord’s Table.



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted July 29, 2010 at 10:06 am


The Anglican minister gave the dog a tasteless wafer….Angrypuppy, not such a big deal. How does that disrespect anyone’s table? It was a WAFER…now if it had indeed been the piece of a human being, then cannabilism would have been involved for the human beings who ate the wafer as well as feeding fresh meat to the dog…a big deal, but if I believed in what that wafer represented, it still wouldn’t bother me that the dog (man’s best friend, after all…and supposedly made by that divine being)had a bite. If indeed your lord was compassionate and loving, why would that lord be upset over this whole ridiculious thing?



report abuse
 

Idiocracy

posted August 12, 2010 at 12:43 am


All of you Bible-thumpers might want to review the old King James…
“A man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.”
Ecclesiastes 3:19



report abuse
 

Amazing Mutts

posted August 16, 2010 at 8:43 pm


I think it was a nice gesture to offer communion to the dog and his best friend (the dog).



report abuse
 

Amazing Mutts

posted August 16, 2010 at 8:45 pm


I think it was a nice gesture, and one that God would be happy with. God created both man and dog, didn’t he? Surely he loves them both and wore a smile as the priest initiated this kind act.



report abuse
 

Gloria Poe

posted August 20, 2010 at 8:05 pm


Surely, I think crocksJesus smiled…



report abuse
 

Gloria Poe

posted August 20, 2010 at 8:09 pm


Sorry, error in post. I am having trouble following these instructions. I just wnated to say I think Jesus smiled.



report abuse
 

Mary Liz

posted August 25, 2010 at 5:24 pm


Dogs and all of nature do not need saving as they never rebelled against God. They are under a curse and all of nature groans in agony waiting for the return of the KING of KINGS when all will be—VEGETARIAN! The Anglican has not read the whole Bible, eh?



report abuse
 

Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.

posted September 8, 2010 at 3:56 am


Excellent concepts on this site. It’s rare these days to find websites with data you are seeking. I am happy I chanced on this webpage. I will certainly bookmark it or even register for your rss feeds simply to be updated on your new posts. Maintain up the nice job and I’m sure some other folks researching valued information will actually stop by and benefit from your internet site for resources. tnioxybvqjpoccqlvwveyqlxrctqwdqnenx
Mr. Payday Easy Loans Inc.



report abuse
 

Emmie

posted May 17, 2011 at 11:20 pm


I agree with commentor AmazingMutts!

God created animals; would he really be as upset as some of the people here because a dog received communion?

Why all the fighting? It’s kinda ridiculous!



report abuse
 

Khalid

posted May 18, 2011 at 11:02 pm


I heard someone down there saying the Orthodox Catholic church was the schismatic one… Incorrect. The Roman Catholic church is schismatic, and it’s pretty obvious: how many ecumenical councils does Rome accept? Twenty something. How many ecumenical councils does the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church accept? Seven in most cases, three in the case of the Miaphysites, four in case of the Assyrians or Copts.

The Orthodox have refrained from altering thousand-year-old dogma ever since the Great Schism of 1067. The Romans have altered dogma at every opportunity they’ve had since then. Since the Orthodox have the same doctrine and dogma that existed before the schism, and the Romans have changed theirs since, it’s obvious the Romans are the schismatics, as schism doesn’t come about from following established doctrine, but in improvising new heresies.

In any case, both of the churches are idolatrous (“theotokos”/Mary, “mother of God”, ikons and dulia to the saints), blasphemous (“theotokos”/Mary, “mother of God”, ikons and dulia to the saints, the “trinity), heretical (“God is man”, the “trinity”, “theotokos”) confabulations that have no bearing on what Jesus Christ actually preached. Protestants have it just as wrong, because for everything they expurgate from the church (idolatry), they add an equal heresy (glossolalia).

Look up Leo Isaurian the Iconoclast of Byzantium for a man who fought Muslims his entire life, and got one important lesson from them: icons are idolatrous graven images. He embarked on a successful campaign of iconoclasm until the idolatrous, heretical Pope (aren’t they all?) of the time (I think Leo XII or XIII) managed to get him in line with threats of excommunication and hellfire. Too bad.

Jesus didn’t attempt to found a new religion: he attempted to purge the corruption of the only true religion of the time. Jesus was a Jew: why aren’t Christians Orthodox Jews, or, at worst, “Jews of the New Covenant”? That’s why modern Christianity is Pauline Christianity, founded not on the teachings of Jesus, but on the writings of the excommunicated half-gnostic, half-mad heretical persecutor of the schismatic reform Jews (later called “Christians” under Paul’s influence) of 30 AC, called Paul of Tarsus:

It’s Paulinism, not Christianity, and it’s too Christian for Christ himself.

What Jesus Christ preached was a reform of Judaism from the strictly legalistic, pompous, self-righteous Pharisaic influence that infested it at the time – he never claimed to be God, he never preached a trinity (outside of the Comma Johanneum, which is a fabrication). He preached simple, pure monotheism, love of the neighbor, and adherence to the law for the sake of God, instead of for increasing one’s “piety” in the eyes of men: “Hear, O Israel, I tell you the Lord is your God and the Lord is One! Love your neighbor as you love yourself! There are no more important commandments than these.” “Not one jot or tittle will pass from your law… I have come not to change your law, but to fulfill it”.

The closest things to the religion Jesus preached in the modern world is Orthodox Judaism (maybe Hasidism too) and Sunni Islam.

Trinitarian Christianity is a farce. For the first… well, millennium, of Christianity’s existence, it was by no means universal, with loads of later-dubbed “heresies” that were actually closer to the truth prevailing (Marcionism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.): Arianism even held by two Emperors and a Pope, and two ecumenical councils, each composed of over 300 bishops, supported Arianism and Semi-Arianism. A later ecumenical council was held, consisting of only 120 bishops, which outlawed Arianism – the latter, smaller synod recognised by the two Catholic Churches and the two earlier, larger, more ecumenical synods conveniently forgotten outside of comparative religious history classes.



report abuse
 

Khalid

posted May 18, 2011 at 11:31 pm


Sorry for the above error. It was the heretical, blasphemous idolaters Gregory II and III, not Leo XII who was eight centuries later.



report abuse
 

Minister S.C.

posted May 30, 2011 at 7:07 pm


I need only to add one or two comments. the individual that stated something to the point that outside of the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church it is “bread and wine”. I pray I did not misunderstand your quotation. In the nondemonational as well the Church of God In Christ, it is known and stated to be as well as represented to be the “blood and body of Jesus Christ”. GOD BLESS EVERYONE AND MAY HEAVEN SHINE UPON ABOVE US ALL.



report abuse
 

Allan

posted June 4, 2011 at 9:27 pm


I take it that those who claim that the Anglican Church denies the Real Presence have never seen a traditional copy of the Book of Common Prayer: “Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood,…”

I left the Anglican Church forty years ago, when they first attempted to ordain women (something I feel they have never been able to do!), but orthodox Anglican do believe in the Real Presence. Unlike the RC’s, they do not attempt to explain the incomprehensible.



report abuse
 

Susan

posted July 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm


I tried to report a post below as “inappropriate”, but the software does not seem to be working.

Does a post that is full of hatred and bile count as violating the Terms of Service? I’m all for differences of opinion, but do prefer to conduct a discussion that isn’t vicious and deeply insulting from beginning to end. Poster accuses the people involved in the story of being satanic, blasphemous, sick, etc., far over-reacting to the actual events described. It was truly painful to get a glimpse into such a hate-filled mind. Don’t know if that’s a good enough reason to consider this post “inappropriate”, but felt I had to do what I could to protest this kind of venomous, anonymous, commenting.

By all means disagree, people, if that’s what you feel compelled to do. But keep it civil! And give some thought to that useful idea – who was it who first said it? – about removing the log from your own eye before attempting to removed the splinter from someone else’s.



report abuse
 

Bea

posted July 16, 2011 at 7:47 pm


Look where the Anglicans originated from, and tell me you are surprised at this blasphemy! They are all heretics! From the beginning to the end! The Church of England tore away from the Catholic Church and “protested” against the doctrines of the Church first starting with the divorce of King Henry VIII. How many wives could he keep beheading and then confessing their murders, and going back to Communion?? The Protestant Churches are all schismatics from the Catholic faith. They are so diverse, they cannot even agree on their degrees of Protest, hence the name Protestants covers them all, and they have a plethora of denominations that don’t agree with each other either. And they have the nerve to condemn Catholicism which has stood the same doctrines since the Apostolic Mission convened by Christ Himself over 2 millenia ago. To this day, we have people coming back to the true Christian faith (Catholicism–which means Universal) due to the fact that these heretics get worse by the second, and they all are realizing they made big big mistakes!



report abuse
 

JShofar

posted October 2, 2011 at 9:24 pm


I really don’t know why this situation is so surprising. ALL of the pseudo-Protestant (because they no longer protest against the Pope and the Church of Rome anyway), are going back to their “mother”…even as they came from her in the first place. And the “confusion” that was witnessed in that particular service is just another “mark” of the RCC that no TRUE Christian who names Jesus Christ would ever be/stay a part of. “Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing”…Jesus and the Holy Spirit are no longer IN these abominable “cages of every unclean and hateful bird”.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Hispanics turning evangelical, Jews secular
Worship service attendance is up in New York City, but down among young adult Jews, according to recent studies. On the other hand, fewer Spanish-speaking teens are attending Catholic mass, but more are showing up at Evangelical churches. [caption id="attachment_12343" align="alignleft" width="48

posted 3:10:30pm Nov. 05, 2013 | read full post »

Billy Graham: I know where I'm going
“Daddy thinks the Lord will allow him to live to 95,” said Franklin Graham recently. It was not a prophecy but a hope, Franklin explained, that he would live to see the beginning of a Christian re

posted 10:02:01am Oct. 24, 2013 | read full post »

Are All These Christians' Complaints of Persecution Just So Much Empty Whining?
The headlines are alarming: “Catholic-Owned Company Wins Religious Freedom Court Decision,” “Death Toll Rises to 65 in Boko Haram Attack on Students,” “Little Sisters Catholic Charity Victimized By Obamacare,” “Christians Sought Out, Murdered in the Kenyan Mall Massacre,” “Judicial

posted 2:41:26am Oct. 07, 2013 | read full post »

How can Christians defend themselves against today's random violence?
So, a crazed gunman opens fire and you’re caught in the middle. How can you survive? Heroes come in all sorts of packages. And they wield all sorts of defensive weapons. Such as guns and Jesus. Sometimes both at the same time. [caption id="attachment_12246" align="alignleft" width="480"] Ant

posted 2:53:48pm Sep. 27, 2013 | read full post »

Does Sunday Morning Church Really Need All This Glitter, Showmanship and Gimmickry?
What’s wrong with church today? Are we in danger of turning worship into a flashy concert? Of watering down the message so nobody is offended? Of forgetting the simplicity of the Gospel? I grew up with a preacher’s kid. He was a fake following in the footsteps of his flimflamming father who d

posted 11:26:20am Sep. 20, 2013 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.