The pursuit of knowledge and truth, through God, through science, through civil and engaging debate

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Reply to topic
Danmark
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:55 pm  This Pope is Special Reply with quote

I am not a theist, but there is something special about Pope Francis.
We can all learn something from him.
The most important things cannot be put into words.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 71: Mon Jul 31, 2017 9:08 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 69 by tam]

Sorry, I’m afraid like with a lot of Scripture, you are missing it. What the Catholic Church teaches is what the first Church believed and taught. You might want to check history and meditate on the words of Scripture.
**********************************************
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord." Now that language is actually like civil judicial language. Somebody who's practically guilty of murder or capital offense is guilty of the body and blood. Now if it's only a symbol, he might be guilty in some lesser sense, but when you profane the Lord's Supper, you actually become guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord. "Let a man examine himself, therefore, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning," -- the symbolism? No. "...the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."

Now is he just speaking metaphorically? He couldn't be because in the next verse he says, "That is why many of you are weak and ill and some have died." To receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin is playing with fire of the worst sort. He goes on in chapter 12, verse 12, "For just as the body is one," the Church, that is, "...and has many members and all the members of the body though many are one body, so it is with Christ for by one Spirit we were all baptized in the one body." When we received the water of Baptism, we received the Spirit of God. "And all were made to drink of the one Spirit." When we receive Eucharist, Communion, we receive the Spirit as well as the flesh and the blood and the body, soul, humanity and divinity of Christ.

This is significant, very significant. This, in fact, gives us the whole interpretive key to the Book of Revelation. Many non-Catholic as well as Catholic scholars have noticed that the whole structure of Revelation is a big Passover liturgy where Christ, the Priest King, the firstborn Son and the Lamb looking as though it's been slain conducts and celebrates the heavenly liturgy. And the earthly liturgy is meant to be a reflection in that, a participation in that, and the early Church took it for granted. There is the Lamb looking as though it's been slain and making all of the people in heaven priests so they can assist in the offering of the firstborn son of God to the Father and join themselves with it.
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/euchc3.htm


Christ had already worked the miracle of multiplying the loves and fishes. He had also spoken at length about the need for faith in Him and His words as a condition for salvation. Then He continued:

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the desert and they are dead; but this is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.

Then the Jews started arguing with one another. Did they understand Him correctly? Was He actually telling them He would give His own flesh for food? “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” they asked. Instead of reassuring them that he did not mean to be taken literally, Christ went on:

I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him. As I, who am sent by the living Father, myself draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will draw life from me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; not like the bread that your ancestors ate; they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live forever (John 6:48-58).

The evangelist explains that Christ taught this doctrine in the synagogue, but that hearing it “many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language, How could anyone accept it?’” Jesus was fully aware that His followers were complaining and, in fact, asked them, “does this upset you?” But He took nothing back. Rather He insisted, “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” At the same time He explained that such faith is not of man’s making, since “no one could come to me unless the Father allows him.”

Following this animated dialogue, we are prepared for the statement, “After this, many of His disciples left Him and stopped going with Him.” Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

The Church’s decisive revelation on the Real Presence is in the words of the consecration, “This is my body; this is my blood,” whose literal meaning has been defended through the ages. They were thus understood by St. Paul when he told the first Christians that those who approached the Eucharist unworthily would be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. There could be no question of a grievous offense against Christ Himself, unless Paul assumed that the true Body and the true Blood of Christ are really present in the Eucharist.

The first ripples of controversy came in the ninth century, when a monk from the French Abbey of Corbie wrote against his abbot, St. Paschasius (785-860). Ratramnus (d. 868) held that Christ’s Body in the Eucharist cannot be the same as Christ’s historical body once on earth and now in heaven because the Eucharistic is invisible, -impalpable, and spiritual. He wanted to hold on to the Real Presence but stressed the Eucharist as symbolic rather than corporeal. His book on the subject was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli, and his ideas, it is held, influenced all subsequent theories that contradicted the traditional teaching of the Church.


http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_022.htm

I think we have good reasons to interpret these words of Jesus literally (as we do as Catholics). Here are a few things to consider:

Is usually means "is". Jesus didn't hold up the bread and say, "This represents my body. He said, "This is my body", using the Greek word esti. Although esti could be used in the figurative sense, there is nothing further in Jesus' phraseology that suggests He was intending to be understood in a non-literal, symbolic sense; nor is there anything in the entirety of the Last Supper account that suggests mere symbolism behind Christ's words. As Karl Keating points out:

"Esti is nothing else than the word is. Its usual meaning is the literal, although it can be used figuratively, just as in English. If this crucial term is supposed to be read as "represents", why was not clearly put so in the Greek?" (Catholicism And Fundamentalism, p. 235)

Keating cites Rev. John A. O'Brien, who points out an interesting problem that would have arisen from a figurative understanding of Jesus' words:

"The phrase 'to eat the flesh and drink the blood', when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury... To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating Him... Christ would be saying, 'He that reviles me has eternal life." (Faith, p.215)

The only way for Jesus to escape this troublesome cultural interpretation would be to use the phrase literally.

Jesus' previous teaching had set the stage for a literal interpretation. Admittedly, the mysterious words of Christ during the Last Supper would be more difficult to interpret if it wasn't for St. John's Gospel—particularly the sixth chapter.

This numinous chapter written by the Beloved Apostle is all about bread. It begins with Jesus' miraculous feeding of the five thousand (Jn 6:1-14). The next day, the masses pursue Jesus across the sea to Capernaum, moved by their fleshly desire for more "bread that perishes" (Jn 6:22-25). In response to their worldly concerns, Jesus controversially reveals Himself to be the heavenly "bread of life" and begins to teach (Jn 6:27-40). This triggers a cold rush of murmurs from scandalized Jews who, overcome by skepticism, mutter amongst themselves, "How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” (Jn 6: 41-42).
In the face of such criticism, Jesus does the unthinkable. The young wonderworker from Nazareth, in reaction to the rising blood pressure of the crowd, responds with the following phrases:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat [esthio] the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you..." (Jn 6:53) "He who eats [trogo] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life..." (Jn 6:54) "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." (Jn 6: 55) "He who eats [trogo] my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." (Jn 6:56)
People are already scandalized by his "bread of life" teachings prior to these phrases being spoken; but Jesus makes no attempt to back off. Instead, he turns his word usage up a notch, using the word trogo (gnaw, munch) instead of his former word choice, esthio (eat). Jesus speaks literally in this discourse—unapologetically literally—and for that reason many of "his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (Jn 6:66).
Note that Jesus does not scandalize His followers when He calls Himself a "door" or a "vine" (at other places in the Gospels) because they know he is speaking symbolically. The discontent of His disciples in this scene is unprecedented. Indeed, this is the only time in the Gospels that Jesus loses disciples because of doctrine.

Thus, until the Last Supper, Jesus had not told the apostles exactly how they were to consume His flesh and blood. They only knew they had received, while at Capernaum, an awestriking invitation to do so—the means, however, was still a mystery; that is, until the Passover meal when Jesus, bread broken in His hands, said to them "take, eat; this is my body".

The Gospel writers parallel the Eucharist with miraculous bread. It seems clear that the Gospel writers understood the breaking of the bread at the Last Supper to be more than a symbolic act; and, within their accounts of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, they have embedded a subtle but significant sign that points towards a mystical understanding of the Eucharist. Let's begin with St. Mark's Gospel. In his description of Jesus' multiplication of the loaves, notice the evangelist's choice of wording:

"And taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brokethe loaves, and gave them to the disciples to set before the people." (Mark 6:41)

Now compare this with his later account of the Last Supper:

"And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, 'Take; this is my body.'" (Mark 14:22)

This same pattern of taking, blessing, breaking and giving is embedded also in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. This strongly suggests that the Gospel writers had intentions of drawing a parallel between the miraculous bread of the "Great Multiplication" with the miraculous bread of the "Great Institution" of the Eucharist.

Jesus' words were indisputably understood to be literal in the early Church. TheEucharist is a divine mystery—the Divine Mystery—that exceeds our finite natural understanding (see John 6:63). We cannot know everything about this sacrament in this life; but we can know some things.

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/the-eucharist-and-what-jesus-meant-by-...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 72: Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:05 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:



I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the desert and they are dead; but this is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.


This works perfectly well figuratively. I am the way or I am the vine or I am the bread ---- all figurative. All make figurative sense. To eat, munch, digest the bread of life is to continue the metaphor. There is no problem with the figurative meaning.

RightReason wrote:


Keating cites Rev. John A. O'Brien, who points out an interesting problem that would have arisen from a figurative understanding of Jesus' words:

"The phrase 'to eat the flesh and drink the blood', when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury...


One can beat oneself with one's own smartness. If this meaning was readily understood, then Christ, in using the expression, eat my flesh, drink my blood, would have been aware of the offence it would cause, so one must suppose that this figurative insult was not as obvious to Christ as it seems to be to John O'Brien.


It looks as if people have gone on a great odyssey to conjure up an absurd miracle. I commend the researched justifications but they are amusing rather than convincing.
Had Christ intended people to understand bread was flesh, wine was blood, he'd have had no trouble transubstantiating things properly. He didn't, leaving grammar to explain what he did. Hardly convincing.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 73: Mon Jul 31, 2017 4:55 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to marco]

Quote:
This works perfectly well figuratively. I am the way or I am the vine or I am the bread ---- all figurative. All make figurative sense. To eat, munch, digest the bread of life is to continue the metaphor. There is no problem with the figurative meaning.


You keep reducing my argument to one point, even though I have said time and time again now that there are many reasons we can conclude Christ’s remarks were spoken literally. Aaaaaand this particular passage in Scripture is not similar to the other times Jesus did speak metaphorically . . . Like I said, one must look at Scripture as a whole . . . .


Note that Jesus does not scandalize His followers when He calls Himself a "door" or a "vine" (at other places in the Gospels) because they know he is speaking symbolically. The discontent of His disciples in this scene is unprecedented

https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/the-eucharist-and-what-jesus-meant-by-...


Quote:
One can beat oneself with one's own smartness. If this meaning was readily understood, then Christ, in using the expression, eat my flesh, drink my blood, would have been aware of the offence it would cause, so one must suppose that this figurative insult was not as obvious to Christ as it seems to be to John O'Brien.


Really? You’re suggesting Christ did not know His own native language and its meaning?


Quote:
It looks as if people have gone on a great odyssey to conjure up an absurd miracle. I commend the researched justifications but they are amusing rather than convincing.


Again, I find it funny and telling how you assume such a thing would be absurd. Why do you call it absurd? Christians believe we aren’t just bodies. Human beings have souls. So why not recognize that just as the body needs nourished, so does the soul. If the body lives from food/bread, why not understand how the soul requires divine food/bread? Why not understand how God wants to share His divinity with us? What better way for God to do that with man then to literally give us Himself in the form of food/nourishment? I don’t find the idea absurd in the least. In fact, quite frankly I would find it a little absurd to think God wanted us to symbolically receive His Body? What’s up with that? If God just wanted us all to get together and break bread, why wouldn’t we just have been encouraged to share a meal? Why would He have gone on and on with “this is my Body, My flesh is real food and My Blood real drink? Why would He have said unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we have no life in us?

The majority of Christians line up for what is referred to as communion on a regular basis. I find it if not absurd weird to believe God wanted His followers to have a small cracker and a sip of grape juice and that He felt this so important and commanded we do this. What doesn’t make it weird or absurd is if there was actually significance to His command and we were actually receiving Him. Otherwise, the whole thing is a bit silly.


Jesus gives himself to us in the Eucharist as spiritual nourishment because he loves us. God's whole plan for our salvation is directed to our participation in the life of the Trinity, the communion of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Our sharing in this . . .is nourished and deepened through our participation in the Eucharist. By eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist we become united to the person of Christ through his humanity. "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (Jn 6:56). In being united to the humanity of Christ we are at the same time united to his divinity. Our mortal and corruptible natures are transformed by being joined to the source of life. "Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me" (Jn 6:57 . . . The ultimate promise of the Gospel is that we will share in the life of the Holy Trinity. The Fathers of the Church called this participation in the divine life "divinization" ( theosis). In this we see that God does not merely send us good things from on high; instead, we are brought up into the inner life of God, the communion among the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the celebration of the Eucharist (which means "thanksgiving") we give praise and glory to God for this sublime gift.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eu...


Again, it is the skeptic who can’t fathom that anything could occur that doesn’t fit into his existing limited knowledge of scientific law. This of course renders all miracles absurd. Of course you find the miracle of transubstantiation absurd. It is suggesting something impossible – as miracles are apt to do.


”Mr. McCabe thinks me a slave because I am not allowed to believe in determinism. I think Mr. McCabe a slave because he is not allowed to believe in fairies. But if we examine the two vetoes we shall see that his is really much more of a pure veto than mine. The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. Poor Mr. McCabe is not allowed to retain even the tiniest imp, though it might be hiding in a pimpernel.” -Chesterton

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 74: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:08 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you RR,

[Replying to post 71 by RightReason]

I am not responding to copy-paste-links, at least not copy-paste-links that simply reiterate what you said previously (which I already responded to), and which have nothing to do with the content of my response, which I offered as food for thought.



Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 75: Tue Aug 01, 2017 5:37 am
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:



You keep reducing my argument to one point

An accumulation of weak reasons does not amount to solid proof. You cannot claim the impossible by presenting some weak strands of observation.

RightReason wrote:


Note that Jesus does not scandalize His followers when He calls Himself a "door" or a "vine" (at other places in the Gospels) because they know he is speaking symbolically.


Just as he claimed to be greater than Abraham, he's now saying his words offer the bread of life. His indignant listeners probably thought Yahweh did this.

RightReason wrote:


Christians believe we aren’t just bodies. Human beings have souls. So why not recognize that just as the body needs nourished, so does the soul.


Exactly. And spiritual bread of life, grace, wise instruction, excellent direction, feed the soul, not flesh and blood. You discredit your own argument.


"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him" (Jn 6:56).

"Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me" (Jn 6:57) [/quote}

These quotes support a figurative interpretation, so why jump to preposterous miracles?

RightReason wrote:

Again, it is the skeptic who can’t fathom that anything could occur that doesn’t fit into his existing limited knowledge of scientific law. This of course renders all miracles absurd. Of course you find the miracle of transubstantiation absurd. It is suggesting something impossible – as miracles are apt to do.


Yes, but I am not arguing against the absurdity of miracles in general. I am arguing against the literal interpretation of "I am bread - eat me". It is a gloriously silly interpretation, rendered acceptable by the weight of biased Church authority. Your reason for accepting is NOT from some convincing Scriptural evidence but simply because the Church is speaking (for you) infallibly.

I suspect that in quieter moments, left to his own thoughts, Francis doesn't really believe that sacerdotal magic calls down flesh and blood to the Catholic altars of the world. I'm sure many Jesuits think likewise. But it is a long-standing convenient myth just as missing Sunday mass once merited hellfire. A saner Church will one day alter her view.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 76: Tue Aug 01, 2017 6:56 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to marco]

Quote:
Yes, but I am not arguing against the absurdity of miracles in general. I am arguing against the literal interpretation of "I am bread - eat me". It is a gloriously silly interpretation,


Are you sure about that? Again, you’re declaring it absurd is based on the fact you find it “gloriously silly” that Jesus would say “eat me”, even though that is exactly what He said. Again, you find it ridiculous to believe He could have possibly been speaking literally. You think just calling it “crazy talk” somehow means we ought to dismiss it. And you completely ignore the fact that the crowd that day did not dismiss His words. They did not find His comments silly – they found His comments offensive! Precisely because the found them LITERAL!!!!!! And just like Jesus knew He could never convince those who didn’t want to believe and take Him at His word, He let them leave. So, there is nothing more to say.

Quote:
I suspect that in quieter moments, left to his own thoughts, Francis doesn't really believe that sacerdotal magic calls down flesh and blood to the Catholic altars of the world. I'm sure many Jesuits think likewise. But it is a long-standing convenient myth just as missing Sunday mass once merited hellfire. A saner Church will one day alter her view.


Wow! You can’t even believe that some people truly believe. That’s beyond being skeptical. It’s also humorous that some think the Church will “evolve” in her teachings. LOL!



Your attitude and outlook has prompted me to want to I ask you some personal questions. Would you mind?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 77: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:59 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:


Are you sure about that? Again, you’re declaring it absurd is based on the fact you find it “gloriously silly” that Jesus would say “eat me”, even though that is exactly what He said.


This is incorrect. I am perfectly at ease with Christ saying "Eat me," for I construe it figuratively as I think most people would.


[quote="RightReason"]

And you completely ignore the fact that the crowd that day did not dismiss His words. They did not find His comments silly – they found His comments offensive!

Yes, the "crowd" get a bad press. They are especially nasty when Pilate offers them a choice of Christ or Barabbas. The crowd's reaction is surely not a litmus test for a miracle. Their opinion, their reaction, is an irrelevance.
RightReason wrote:


Wow! You can’t even believe that some people truly believe. That’s beyond being skeptical. It’s also humorous that some think the Church will “evolve” in her teachings.


Of course I believe that SOME people truly believe: you apparently do. The statement you allocate to me is not something I would want to say or believe. I DID say that I think the Pope and perhaps some Jesuits do not go along with transubstantiation, but they are prepared to accept what has been accepted. Many others DO believe.

The Church HAS evolved in her teachings, since I was a boy. Relaxation on Friday fish, on fasting before communion, on "that part of hell" called limbo, on St. Christopher ...

RightReason wrote:


Your attitude and outlook has prompted me to want to ask you some personal questions. Would you mind?


My soul is not available for public dissection but should you be curious as to my beliefs, then a PM might be okay.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 78: Wed Aug 02, 2017 7:49 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to marco]

Quote:
I am perfectly at ease with Christ saying "Eat me," for I construe it figuratively as I think most people would.


But most people do only because like I said it is difficult to fathom and or because they wouldn’t want the Catholic Church to be right.

If one simply reads John 6, it is obviously revealed that the crowd did NOT think He was speaking figuratively. So, why would you? There are several reasons I have demonstrated how we know the crowd did not take Jesus figuratively. One, at this time to tell someone to eat your body and blood did already have a symbolic meaning and it meant to revile them. It meant they were your enemy. So, it would make no sense for Jesus to say He wanted them to eat His Body and Blood and He intended it symbolically if that was the symbolic meaning. Two, they told Him, “This is a hard saying. Who can accept it?” Why would it be hard to accept someone symbolically saying, “This is my body”? Three, they knew He was speaking literally because they said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” Why would they ask Him that if He had been speaking symbolically? Four, Jesus had ample opportunity to correct their misunderstanding, because in other places in Scripture when people were confused about what He was saying He does correct them. Five, not only doesn’t He change or try a different approach with them, He repeats exactly what He told them the first time but with now stronger words like chew and gnaw. Again, hardly words to be taken symbolically. Six, Many refused to listen to Him and left Him that day. Why would they have left Him if He was symbolically saying, “This is my body”. MAKES NO SENSE!!!!!!!!


Quote:
Yes, the "crowd" get a bad press. They are especially nasty when Pilate offers them a choice of Christ or Barabbas. The crowd's reaction is surely not a litmus test for a miracle. Their opinion, their reaction, is an irrelevance.


How can you say this? These weren’t just a mass crowd. Read Scripture. It says many disciples left Him that day. They were His followers. Many who had watched Him perform miracles, feed the crowd, and believed in Him and liked Him couldn’t handle now what He was saying. If His words were to be taken just like words He had said before to them about believing in Him and following them, why would they now leave? Think about that.


Quote:
Of course I believe that SOME people truly believe: you apparently do


Yes, I do as do many many Christians down through the ages.

Quote:
I DID say that I think the Pope and perhaps some Jesuits do not go along with transubstantiation, but they are prepared to accept what has been accepted. Many others DO believe.


Can you please provide any evidence whatsoever that you might have that you think our current Pope or Jesuits show do not actually believe in transubstantiation and what would make you think this? Read the lives of any Saint. They almost all had a deep devotion to the Blessed Sacrament which was almost always declared the center of their lives.
"If we but paused for a moment to consider attentively what takes place in this Sacrament, I am sure that the thought of Christ's love for us would transform the coldness of our hearts into a fire of love and gratitude."- St. Angela of Foligno

"Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: 'This is My Body.' No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it." - St. Augustine

"What wonderful majesty! What stupendous condescension! O sublime humility! That the Lord of the whole universe, God and the Son of God, should humble Himself like this under the form of a little bread, for our salvation" - St. Francis of Assisi

God in his omnipotence could not give more, in His wisdom He knew not how to give more, in His riches He had not more to give, than the Eucharist. -St. Augustine



The Blessed Eucharist is the perfect Sacrament of the Lord's Passion, since It contains Christ Himself and his Passion. -St. Thomas Aquinas


Love tends to union with the object loved. Now Jesus Christ loves a soul that is in a state of grace with an immense love; He ardently desires to unite Himself with it. This is what Holy Communion does. -St. Alphonsus Liguori


Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament. –St. Padre Pio


On this earth, when we receive an important person, we bring out the best--lights, music, formal dress. How should we prepare to receive Christ into our soul? --St Josemaria Escriva


Quote:
The Church HAS evolved in her teachings, since I was a boy. Relaxation on Friday fish, on fasting before communion, on "that part of hell" called limbo, on St. Christopher ...


I’m afraid you don’t know as much as you think you do. First, the Friday fish observation is still alive and well. My family practices it every Friday – not just during Lent. And the Church did not do away with this beautiful practice. The practice has always been to make some form of sacrifice on Fridays. It just so happened that the customary practice came to be to abstain from meat, but this was never a mandatory practice (other than during Lent). I know some families that pray the Rosary on Fridays or visit the sick to fulfill their sacrifice.

And the fasting before communion – still there. Trust me. My kids make sure they wake up to have enough time to have breakfast before mass. Otherwise they know they have to skip breakfast. Yes, it use to be one couldn’t eat until after Sunday mass, but that became impractical when masses might not have been until later in the day.

As for “limbo” that is simply a term no longer used, but the beautiful teaching on purgatory is still alive and well. Limbo use to be used to refer to unbaptized babies and it just meant that the Church did not know the fate of these human beings and they still don’t. We leave that up to God and always have, but some might have tried to make a theological explanation and used words like limbo.

As for St. Christopher many lay people liked the guy and had a devotion to him, but the Church simply clarified that they didn’t have enough evidence regarding many of the stories associated with him. This is a good thing. The Church does not just declare someone a Saint based on legends or because some stories about someone took off. They look into these matters and do research.

It’s funny how skeptics and non believers think they know why or what the Church does and if they didn’t understand something properly they assume the Church changed some truth or teaching when often what happens is the Church is clarifying or correcting something that some seem to have gotten the wrong idea about. I think there is much you do not understand or are quick to accept the anti-Catholic explanation. When it comes to criticizing the Church any stick will do. The Church can be criticized for being too involved in politics and at other times being to other worldly and not concerned about practical matters. The Church can be said to be too lenient and forgiving and other times too strict and rigid. Take your pick.


Quote:
My soul is not available for public dissection but should you be curious as to my beliefs, then a PM might be okay.


I understand. That's why I asked. You’re in my prayers.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 79: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:40 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to marco]

Most Catholics think that Vatican II did away with the requirement of not eating meat on any Friday of the year. Most think it is now just Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent that we cannot eat meat.

This is what the new Code of Canon Law brought out in 1983 says about the matter:

Canon 1251
Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Canon Law still requires that Catholics not eat meat on Fridays!

Of course, most Episcopal Conferences have determined that, instead of abstaining from meat, Catholics may perform an act of penance of their choosing. But, do you ever remember to abstain from a particular food or do some other penance on Fridays? And, at any rate, the main rule is still to abstain from meat on Fridays, the performance of another penance instead is an optional alternative.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/life/fridaymeat.asp

For my family the no meat on Friday is just a no brainer. We actually don't usually have fish. We usually have eggs. My kids almost always know Fridays means eggs. Of Course I have been known to make grilled cheese sandwiches, fish sticks, cheese pizza, or even pancakes for dinner on Fridays, but usually, it is eggs. I do mix it up though. They never know if it will be omelets, egg sandwiches, quiche, scrambled eggs, egg casserole, or fried eggs and toast. I'm flexible like that Angel

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 80: Wed Aug 02, 2017 9:59 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to marco]

Contrary to what you might have heard, limbo is not dead.

The confusion stems from a 41-page report the International Theological Commission issued in 2007, exploring the theological and liturgical grounds for having hope that unbaptized infants who die are saved. The report was immediately hailed in secular media as a death knell to traditional Catholic belief that unbaptized infants go to limbo. One headline in Reuters summed up the slant of the secular media—“Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries.”
Except the commission, which does not have the authority of the magisterium, did no such thing. Instead, it declared the following, right at the outset of the report:

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of Limbo. … This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.

This was no dismissal or demotion of limbo: it had always been a valid opinion and that’s exactly where the commission left it. And today, despite the compelling case for the alternative scenario made by the commission, limbo itself remains an opinion worth holding and defending.

http://catholicexchange.com/whatever-happened-to-limbo

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version