Posted on 07/15/2008 4:47:28 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Now, God absolutely can take care of Himself - however, has it ever occurred to you that our response to this man might be the Spirit using us to defend Him?
Whether we are the same as Muslims getting upset over a cartoon - I have yet to see any Catholics call for this man's death. I have no problems with Muslims arguing vocally against the depictions of Mohammad - it is against their religion. When they cross into the realm of "off with his head," I have a slight issue.
Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
This case is fascinating for a number of reasons.
First, he comes right out and says what most of us suspect about these sort of people: He hates Christianity and seeks to defile it openly, while simultaneously he slavishly genuflects to Islam. Most on the Left aren't nearly as honest about this blatant contradiction, so in this narrow sense he's almost refreshing. With him there's no mealy-mouthing, no equivocation: He wears his double standard with pride.
The second thing that comes to mind is: How does he justify the contradiction? How can he be, on one hand, a fearless opponent of the archaic superstition known as Christianity, while at the same time treating the religious traditions of Islam with reverence? It makes no logical sense.
Unless...you are a disciple of the idea of deconstruction. For deconstructionists, the fact that "Muslims represent a poor and oppressed underclass" trumps everything, even logic and reason. If you pointed out that in the Muslim world, Christians are a far poorer and far more oppressed underclass, this person wouldn't admit it. Deconstruction means that you can hold completely contradictory beliefs and get away with it.
Thanks for your kind reply. I don't think we have any disagreement on this point.
Of course, there is a great deal of ceremonial preparation that proceeds the actual consecration of the host; the purification of the altar, the purification of the celebrants, prayers for their spiritual acceptability in performing the Mass, etc. I had focused on the words of the Mass I cited only because they immediately precede the transubstantive (?) event and are said to have some causal effect related to it.
However, we both agree that the priest's recitation of the those words has no power ("mojo") to compel God to transubstantiate the host and the wine at that precise moment. God has been present in His House at least since the congregation of the faithful assembled for worship and could, at any time of His own choosing, transubstantiate the host. Being without limit, God can also just as readily transubtaintiate it back into "ordinary stuff." The point I was making was that whether or not the host and the wine are actually the Body and Blood of Christ is entirely in God's hands at all times.
A problem with this line of thought is that it makes the sacramental presence of God dependent on the inner state of the recipient. The motives of most of us are mixed and impure, part good, part not so good. If we were to adopt the notion of the presence or efficacy of the sacrament being effective or "there" dependent on the state of the believer, we run the risk of a works-based sacramental theology and of the development of a kind of internal sacramental casuistry.
I think you may misconstrue my meaning in the words "dishonest intent." I stipulate your remarks about the fallen nature of Man and his or her conflicted emotional state and intentions. However, the Church does lay down certain minimal requirements that must be met before a person can receive Holy Communion. Spiritual perfection is not one of them.
I was solely focused on the act of obtaining a consecrated host specifically for the purpose of desecrating it. And also on the possibility of God defending its sanctity in the absence of an effective human defense against these persons.
If it is the case, as implied by your comments, that receiving the sacrament in a state of mortal sin (which, I presume, an atheist intent on desecrating it would be in), then the situation for them is actually worse. Since the host remains consecrated, they are guilty of defiling the Body and Blood of Christ and Jesus will preside then, not as SAVIOR, but as JUDGE.
Yes, you are right. They are playing with the most terrible kind of fire.
My wife and Children are Catholics. I don't hate anyone. I hate things like sloppy thinking and pseudoscience. Hypocrites like you I do not hate, I just marvel at the hypocrisy. I understand faith and respect people who admit to it. What I find horrifying is that some people try to justify faith by resorting to pseudoscience, and in the process, do damage to real science. Faith is irrational by definition; why try to rationalize it? Besides, the "Christians" on FR can be some of the most verbally abusive and vindictive.
That is exactly how Muslims feel. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written:
"It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good".
People are trying to get Myers fired. What would Jesus do?
This is what I was responding to. Is it personal?
Yes, see post 43.
Thanks. Isaiah 11:5, TLB. “For He will be clothed with fairness and with truth.”
Ask them how they feel about your support for PZ Myers. Do they know?
I had focused on the words of the Mass I cited only because they immediately precede the transubstantive (?) event and are said to have some causal effect related to it.
(Aka "the words of institution", BTW.) I'm not sure "causal" is precisely right, not in my alleged thinking. A phrase, which always amuses me, often used is "confecting" a sacrament. I would think of the words as a (generally - Catholic weasel word) necessary ingredient, but not causal anymore than leaven causes cake.
From observation (and therefore not reliable) I would say that two kinds of purification of the people are always there, and two more kinds are optionally there:
Always: (1) It's assumed that if you have been in a state of mortal sin, you will have gone to confession. (2)There is a penitential rite normally at the beginning of the Mass. It seems always to include the Kyrie Eleison and optionally to include the Confiteor.
Sometimes the people are "censed". This is when we are doing what is technically referrred to as "putting on the dog," or, alternatively "Struttin' our stuff".
(Yes, I'm being facetious.)
And in that case the altar is censed as well. But other than that I am not aware of any purification of the altar, but I am eager to be enlightened.
The priest has a bunch of prayers about being "worthy", and at the end of the offertory he asks the people to pray and well all pray, "May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands ....," (which, because I will probably die of an excess of facetiousness, I always think of as, "Gee, hope it works ...")
Being without limit, God can also just as readily transubtaintiate it back into "ordinary stuff." The point I was making was that whether or not the host and the wine are actually the Body and Blood of Christ is entirely in God's hands at all times.
Yeah. So I need to spend a little time on how come we're so sure he doesn't "change it back".
You know what I'm thinking of? The time the Philistines got the ark. While I resent the obvious spite this Professor means to display (so MY spiritual homework is clear)(Not only offer it up, but thank God that someone who means to show contempt for the very idea of God, bruises my sensitivities in doing so.) I'm not really worried about God's sanctity or the sanctity of the host.
As to mortal sin, the less rigorous understanding of it requires a certain level of knowledge that a sin is seriously bad. Speculating here: the atheist is in another situation, and certainly atheism is "formally" deadly, but, arguably, he has not so much intentionally turned away from God as never had a clue (maybe). So maybe we have some kind of exculpatory "invincible ignorance."
The case of the little twit in Central Flor'duh University is different if, as his father appears to claim, he was brought up Catholic. Certainly there seems to be a level of self-righteous malice in what he is doing. He certainly SEEMS lost and bewildered, with his changing stories about why he perpetrated the outrage and his bizarre reaction to the perfectly predictable response to his actions.
Oh well. We must pray for these people and even thank God for them, since they remind us that HE never fails and His mercy endures forever.
May the grace of God extend to our being fit vehicles and expositors of His love, so that through our prayers, words, and deeds even the hearts of those who despise us may be softened, and by His grace may we always remember that without Him, our hearts would turn back to stone.
Let's think of words to describe the relationship between faith and reason. (And your homework is to read Fides et Ratio by J2P2, which I think you might really enjoy.) Extra-, meta-, trans-, supra- rational? Is the love I have for my wife, which sometimes in the past 33 years was willed more than 'felt', LESS than rational? I don't know.
Besides, the "Christians" on FR can be some of the most verbally abusive and vindictive.
You blankety-black, son of a whatchamacallit, potty language and other such stuff, how DARE you say such a thing about us? I am OUTraged!!
Uh. Wait a minute.
Did I say something dumb and I still don't realize it? I was tired last night, but now I've had two cups of coffee and it still looks reasonable enough.
I don't care for, nor support PZ Meyers one little bit. I was simply pointing out that, once again, our FR Christians aren't behaving very Christ-like.
What would Jesus do? Jesus would command him to sin no more - not to sin by desecrating His Body, and not to sin by antagonizing his Catholic neighbors.
Technically, the bread becomes Christ "Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity". So does the wine.
Sure. But you are arguing that Christ would vacate (or re-transubstantiate) in order to avoid desecration.
I argue that it is in Christ's nature to accept the worst treatment from twisted and sinful man.
Why? What did they do?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.