And which four are they? Because you should know that St. Jude isn't a faith-based or even faith-affiliated organization.
In what way is that charity list related to the non-action of you praying for someone else to have strength? What relation does your single act of inaction have to do with charities that were founded through religion? You're not rebutting anything I stated, only pivoting openly and badly.
So beyond taking a personal shot, what was your point?Translation: "I'm going to do nothing except act humbly smug towards you while thinking I've contributed something of value to society."I'll pray to give you strength.Hard to make a contribution to a locked box.
Not according to its founder.
This idea resulted from a promise that Danny Thomas, a Maronite Catholic, had made to a saint years before the hospital was founded.
Thomas was a comedian who was struggling to get a break in his career and living paycheck to paycheck. When his first child was about to be born, he attended Mass in Detroit and put his last $7.00 in the offering bin. He prayed to St. Jude Thaddeus for a means to provide for his family, and about a week later, he obtained a gig that paid 10 times what he had put in the offering bin. After that time, Thomas believed in the power of prayer. He promised St. Jude Thaddeus that if he made him successful, he would one day build him a shrine. Years later, Thomas became an extremely successful comedian and built St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital as a shrine to St. Jude Thaddeus to honor his promise.
https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jude.html
https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jud...lic-hospital-can-you-say-a-novena-for-me.htmlWe are not a Catholic hospital, nor are we affiliated with any religious organization. Our founder, Danny Thomas, was Catholic, and St. Jude Thaddeus was his patron Saint. Learn more about our history and how the hospital was founded.
Calling you out on the obtuseness of your reply.
Highly religious people say they’re happier
So are highly stoned people.
Out of your argle bargle there was one truism, though. Frequent churchgoers have a social group in which they have interactions. That is very healthy and it leads to happiness.
Atheists need an equivalent to church -- a place we want to go and a place where we meet other people we like. We have it in college and grad school but those things end before we're 30. Work doesn't count because we don't want to be there and we certainly don't want to be with the people we meet there.
We need a Church For the Non-Superstitious, or something like that. The problem is atheists tend to be skeptical, independent, and not joiners. So it is a dilemma which so far has not been solved.
You've given me something to think about, though. I've always wanted to found a religion and get rich. Now, a church congregation of atheists would have fewer suckers, which is bad, but it would have a significantly higher median of talented and successful "elitists" to fleece, which would be good.
I'll report back on my progress until I'm on the cover of Time.
You must have missed this line:
https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jud...lic-hospital-can-you-say-a-novena-for-me.html
So are highly stoned people.
Despite severe depression, I'm happier because I came out and decided to transition. I'm especially happy because I finally found social support and others like me, especially in an area like Holland, MI (Dutch conservative country). And I'm also happy because my life seems to be turning around for a change.
If a joint would help folks around here be a bit more positive...I'm down with it.
Despite severe depression, I'm happier because I came out and decided to transition. I'm especially happy because I finally found social support and others like me, especially in an area like Holland, MI (Dutch conservative country). And I'm also happy because my life seems to be turning around for a change.
Great! Community and boundaries.
Religion is like gin. If you're using it that's potentially productive. If it's using you you're in trouble.
OK, I'll bite- what is the difference between before Vatican II and after for Chalices?
OK, I'll bite- what is the difference between before Vatican II and after for Chalices?
According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside. In circumstances of great poverty or in time of persecution a calix stanneus (pewter) may be permitted, but the bowl of this also, like the upper surface of the paten, must be gilt. Before the chalice and paten are used in the Sacrifice of the Mass they require consecration. This rite is carried out according to a form specially provided in the "Pontificale" and involving the use of holy chrism. The consecration must be performed by a bishop (or in the case of chalices intended for monastic use, by an abbot possessing the privilege), and a bishop cannot in an ordinary way delegate any priest to perform this function in his place. Further, if the chalice lose its consecration — which happens for example if it be broken or the cup perforated, or even if it has had to be sent to have the bowl regilded—it is necessary that it should be reconsecrated by the bishop before it can again be used. Strictly speaking, only priests and deacons are permitted to touch the chalice or paten, but leave is usually granted to sacristans and those officially appointed to take charge of the vestments and sacred vessels.
Thanks.From the Catholic encyclopedia:
Post V2 you may see chalices made of glass or stone. Both are no nos.
Post V2 saw a rush to "wreckovate" churches, similar to what Henry VIII and his successors did to Churches in England. The sense of entering a sacred space was dropped in favor of plain buildings that would be hard pressed to figure out it was a church from the outside.