Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
Do our Catholic children and most adults know what these images teach?
All of us know one of the elephants in the room of the Catholic Church. Our religious education programs are not handing on the essence of our Catholic Faith, our parents are befuddled about their role in handing on the faith and the materials we use are vapid or if good do not make an impression on young minds. We are afraid of asking for memorization and thus most don't remember anything they've learned about God and Church other than some niceties and feel good emotions.
I teach each class of our grades 1-6 (we don't have 7th or 8th) each Thursday, rotating classes from week to week. For the last two years I have used Baltimore Catechism #1 as my text book. It is wonderful to use with children and it is so simple yet has so much content. If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.
These past two years I've used Baltimore Catechism #2 with our adult religious program which we call Coffee and Conversation following our 9:30 AM Sunday Mass, which coincides with our CCD program which we call PREP (Parish Religious Education Program).
This #2 book has more content and is for middle school, but upper elementary school children must have been more capable of more serious content back when this book was formulated and used through the mid 1960's because it is a great book to use with adults and not childish at all. We all use this same book as a supplemental book for the RCIA because it is so clear, nobly simple and chocked full of content!
Yes, there are some adjustments that need to be made to some chapters, but not that many, in light of Vatican II and the new emphasis we have on certain aspects of Church that are not present in the Baltimore Catechism. But these are really minor.
What is more important though is that when the Baltimore Catechism was used through the mid 1960's it was basically the only book that was used for children in elementary and junior high school. It was used across the board in the USA thus uniting all Catholics in learning the same content. There was not, in other words, a cottage industry of competing publishing houses selling new books and different content each year.
The same thing has occurred with liturgical music, a cottage industry of big bucks has developed around the sale of new hymnals, missalettes and new music put on the open market for parishes to purchase. It is a money making scheme.
Why do our bishop allow this to happen in both liturgical music and parish catechesis? The business of selling stuff to parishes and making mega bucks off of it is a scandal that has not be addressed.
In the meantime, our liturgies suffer and become fragmented because every parish uses a different resource for liturgical music and the same is true of religious formation, everyone uses something different of differing quality or no quality at all.
Isn't it time to wake up and move forward with tried and true practices that were tossed out in favor of a consumerist's approach to our faith that has weakened our liturgies, our parishes and our individual Catholics?
“First among virtues, yes. The discussion had started over seemingly contradictory doctrines, however, not virtues or behaviors.”
But doctrines believed affect behavior. We may say we love our brothers but how do we treat them? Was that not the gist of James’ argument?
I know, James was talking about faith but Paul said love was superior to faith...and hope. (1 Cor. 13:13) Love unexpressed is just as dead as the faith without active expression or works James spoke about.
Doctrinal belief affects behavior and if it does not then what can we call it? Hypocrisy? A form of godly devotion?
“Just to make sure I don't misunderstand your beliefs, “we're saved...by our worship of God”? Is the “truth” that the disciples are sanctified by just another name for “this quality of love that is given top place among the virtues” or is it something else?”
I was a bit astounded when I first read this comment but then I decided given your familiarity with the Scriptures it must a question to further discussion.
In John 17:17 Jesus said that sanctifying “truth” was God's word, “your word is truth”. This was not “truth” in the abstract as a Roman asked Jesus, What is truth? but a whole hearted embrace of God's word that allows the person to be set off to be used for holy works. They would follow “The Way”.
Hence in vs. 19 Jesus said he was sanctifying himself that his disciples might be sanctified by means of this “truth”.
“What lies inside that circle in your belief system?”
Jesus said his disciples were no part of the world as Jesus was no part of the world, a world that John said was in the power of the wicked one. (John 17:14, 1 John 5:19)
“That is the question of the hour. Do you believe there is an “outermost circle”? What lies inside that circle in your belief system? What lies outside?”
If I understand your picture of circles correctly....yes, And I think Jesus defined it well enough for us as a guide when he said, “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves”.(John 13:35)
This was not the same thing as love of neighbor, a commandment of the law, but the kind of love Jesus had showed toward his disciples, “a new commandment”.
“What lies outside?” The weeds. The pseudo-christians with their forms of godly devotion, their ministries of powerful works they claim are in Christ's name but he calls works of lawlessness. He ‘never knew them’ as his disciples doing the work he assigned in the way he assigned.
“What lies outside?”
The Catholics and Protestants of Rwanda who happily butchered each other, the Catholics and Protestants of Ireland that murdered others of their “brothers” for some political cause. And those who enabled them. Those who gave mental assent to such things. Need more?
I wasn't asking what Augustine said, or for his own opinions to be presented in highly truncated manner. Nor did I ask for some presentation from US Bishops (who themselves seemed by turns loathed and praised by Romanists) but I did ask you a direct question, that deserves direct answer. A yes, or a no, would not only suffice, but is required. As also clearly stated, only after that precise question be answered, can we then proceed, to which I will add, you may be surprised as to extent we come to agreement. And is not that which you are pressing for? For me to "agree"?
Yet twice now the simple question has been shied away from, with anything but direct simple answer, substituted...
Neither was I asking for "instruction", nor am I in particular need of it, though I would suffer it much better if the simple question had first been answered.
Yet I will venture some comment towards the "instruction", though be advised will not look kindly upon further discussion or rebuttal of that which I say, if the original question remains not answered with --- a simple yes, or no.
The first bullet point suggests the "accident" or "species" changes, provided if Aristotelian substance theory and hylomorphism be not part of the there unstated definition of the word "substance". That precise word in common usage today (outside of religion and philosophy) carries with it blandly concrete meaning, such as "substance" being near interchangeable with "element" as in regard to Periodic Table. Sans a carrying forward into this era, the Greek philosophy-flavored usages of "substance" and "accident" as Thomas Aquinas applied those, but instead is allowed modern definition or idea of substance to apply, the result is a significant advancement since the Council of Trent, although one subtle and difficult to pin down, hence the pointed question.
Am I talking over your head? Or do you understand the above paragraph? Consider that carefully.
Please remember also, what the title of this thread is upon which we are conversing. Illiteracy of laity concerning "the [Roman] Catholic faith". I daresay the confusion, and much of the table-pounding concerning transubstantiation and the like, is due to either the misunderstanding (never understanding?) or a forgetting of the transformation be said to take place under the forms of the bread and wine, with those outwardly visible forms themselves not having undergone any material change detectible by natural human (physical) senses.
Do you understand the Greek philosophy descriptions for this trans-"substance" description (of what is said to occur) was borrowed from? In it, the word "substance" doesn't quite mean what it does in today's usage...but that's only the beginning of trouble as to how the description is asserted, and understood; with the troubles being more the additional baggage inexorably freighted with the "sole proprietorship" line of thought (concerning the trans-formative process) along with consideration of how Mary (now in Heaven) be now included in the sending of this "bread from Heaven" ---as if she presides over the heavenly aspect of the "body", since she was mother to the Lord's earthly, bodily Incarnation, etc.
Here is the question again;
In the meantime consider also, this;
From Exodus 1614 When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. 15 When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, “What is it?” For they did not know what it was.
Moses said to them, “It is the bread the Lord has given you to eat. 16 This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need..."
17 ...some gathered much, some little. 18 And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.
Skipping a couple of verses, we find this;
21 Each morning everyone gathered as much as they needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away.with that which "melted away" be understood to be in regard to that having not been "gathered"; which offers some refutation towards that which you have presented (bullet point #4) indicating to me that much of later arising "tradition" and surrounding mindset in regards to the Lord's supper (as Paul referred to it) isn't entirely kosher.
There is more, much more that not only could be but should be considered regarding this bread from Heaven (even Christ) including Moses pleading for the people's sake after Exodus 32:10 and that an omer of the manna was to be kept before Him (the Creator) "at all times" which is much significant to this day in light of Eucharist, and our communion with Him. Yet for now...let us begin with a simple answer to a simple question (the one I am attempted to have you answer).
Now you may disagree on other things if you like, or take exception to the manner I address the subject(s), and that would be OK to do so, for that is the prerogative of each of us here. Yet please first answer the *question --- then we may proceed. Be sure to include that answer in preface, or beginning of any further reply. Lacking direct answer, don't expect me to take you seriously, or be in any way tolerant of unasked for "instruction". This forum does not exist as platform for lopsided promotional dissemination of Romanist viewpoint, regardless of the all-out effort by some to "transubstantiate" the religion forum in particular into being so. If one desires to give then they must be willing to take. It is called "conversation".
Now I have left much on your plate, perhaps too much? Yet for us to find agreement of any sort, again, first the simple question must be answered
Oh, he way, way, surpassed any of those guys. None of then threw part of the Bible in the trash can, but Luther did because he couldn’t find any way around free will being clearly spelled out in Sirach, Purgatory being laid out clearly in Maccabees, and a half dozen other things he couldn't even twist his way out of without just throwing them out. Just like he refused to accept anything from James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation because they all very clearly contradict the Gospel of Martin Luther even though they are without a doubt part of what Christ and the Apostles taught.
Here is a list of some Church leaders throughout history who rejected part or all of the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha books:
•Origen, a second-century theologian, rejected the Apocrypha, listing the canon to be 22 books (equivalent to the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Athanasius, the fourth-century bishop of Alexandria, rejected most of the Apocrypha, holding to a 22-book Old Testament canon.
•Jerome, who was commissioned by the Church in the fifth century to translate the Scriptures into Latin, produced the Latin Vulgate, which was the Church-approved translation for over a thousand years. He did not accept the Apocrypha but adhered to a Jewish canon of 22 books.
•Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, rejected the book of 1 Maccabees.
•The Venerable Bede, historian and doctor of the Church, in his commentary on Revelation, listed the Old Testament books to be 24 in number (the same as the Jewish and Protestant canon).
•Ambrose of Autpert, a ninth-century theologian, rejected all or part of the Apocrypha.
•Hugh of St. Victor, a leading theologian of the twelfth century had problems with it.
•John of Salisbury, one of the leading scholars of the twelfth century who became the Bishop of Chartres also rejected all or part of it.
•Rupert of Deutz, an early twelfth century theologian rejected it. •Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis), a Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century rejected it.
•Nicholas of Lyra, one of the most highly regarded and influential theologians of the Middle Ages, surpassing even Thomas Aquinas in authority as a biblical commentator, rejected it.
•William of Ockham, in his Dialogues, wrote that the Church did not receive the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
•Cardinal Cajetan, the opponent of Martin Luther, wrote a commentary on all the books of the Bible and even dedicated it to the Pope, saying that the Apocrypha was not canonical in the “strict sense.” Therefore, the deuterocanonical books were not included in his commentary and he fought against their canonization at Trent.
•Glossa ordinaria, the standard commentary of the late Middle Ages studied and respected by all in the Church, says that the Church did not believe the deuterocanonical books were inspired. Here is the preface: “The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them.” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/why-do-i-reject-the-apocrypha/
Can you say Spanish Inquisition? BTW, Rome is not Spiritual Israel.
Now we're getting somewhere. I have seen you say similar before (God bless you).
On those terms GPH may agree. That seems to be what he has been tending towards all along, even as the not physical/but still literal seems to confuse, for it be reliant upon "in the spiritual sense" leaving a fairly wide range of understanding fundamentally correct, encompassing even Memorialism well enough (Him present within) that those whom hold that view should not be bashed over the head or by force compelled, yet stop short of encompassing Suspension as at all proper, albeit though they too may sup with Him in inward manner to the extent it be sacramentally evident and shared by their own manner of testimony of life lived in dedication to those greatest of all commandments upon which hang all the law and the prophets.
Nonetheless I do tend know that it be impossible that by our works we earn fellowship with Him, or can do so by understanding of mind, mental assent only,for one does not become born again, born of above, by their own works or *thinking*, with all desperately needing this re-birth in order to be able to be in union with the Lord John 14, coming to the place of inward, deep knowing (as evidenced within us by the Presence of the Holy Ghost mentioned in chptr 15) of the beautifully & poetically expressed;
See? That wasn't so hard, now was it?
Lost me there. Too difficult to focus upon how the "happens" as it is being imposed upon the text makes a difference, with the conversation being too strung out at this point to easily pull various thread together to see how the "this is what happens can even be imposed...
But thanks for much of the rest. At least it was bravely approaching "the species does not change".
IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat..."<.i>
Or, you could interpret it to mean "If you get the right cut, the meat tastes a little like chicken...
Apparently GPH derives this conclusion from this passage of Tractate 25: “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)
So you had to rip the sentence out of the paragraph to make it mean something on it's own...
This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat
But you changed it to:
This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent. “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”
So Augustine says that when you eat the cracker, then you can or will believe on who God has sent, Jesus...
Nope...Didn't happen...Ain't gonna happen...It doesn't matter how far and wide Catholics want to twist and turn what Augustine said, he said what he said...And it means what it means...
And I'm not buying that any Catholics on FR believe this nonsense either...
Hey, wasn't it Tischendorf who dug your own Catholic Sinaiticus out of a dumpster that was about to be used for fire starting by some Catholic monks??? They had no use for it but now it is one of the most famous of Catholic manuscripts, even tho it disagrees with it's sister manuscripts in over 3000 places...But hey, it's just history...
If I accepted the lie that the Eucharist was only a cracker then I too would call it nonsense and reject it.
The truth is not determined by skillful debate or rude commentary on FR. The Truth was established at the beginning of time when God's concept of Himself and creation was manifest in the Logos. It is not our task to conform the Logos to our notions and to the limitations of our education and powers of reason, but to conform ourselves to the Truth.
Peace be to you
I really don’t appreciate the sarky nature of your post. Thus,I will make it simple for you if this is what you want to hear of what I believe..
The bread and wine no longer are bread and wine at the consecration in any way-the bread and wine are now fully Christ in His Body, Blood ,Soul and Divinity.
We spiritually believe this and see the full Christ through the eyes of our faith
It’s a Miracle and a mystery that surpasses scientific and human knowledge. I understand why the Eastern Orthodox took issue with Blessed Aquinas trying to explain things further in a scientific manner.
And regarding Exodus 16- there is a whole lot of Typology that has been historically understood
Here is an Example...(sorry about the bad formatting for this part, but you can read the full PDF at http://hebrewca.ipower.com/files/11.10TypologyofMoses.pdf
Manna as a Figure of the Eucharist
The manna that nourished the Israelites for forty years as
they wandered in the desert is a magnificent figure of the
Eucharist that Jesus instituted as a sacrament of spiritual
nourishment. The event is described in Exodus 16:4–35.
After the people blamed Moses for taking them out of
Egypt where they “sat by the fleshpots and ate bread to
the full,” the Lord said to Moses:
“Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the
people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that
I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or not.
On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it
will be twice as much as they gather daily.” So Moses and
Aaron said to all the people of Israel, “At evening you shall
know that it was the Lord who brought you out of the land of
Egypt, and in the morning you shall see the glory of the Lord.
. . . in the morning dew lay round about the camp. And when
the dew had gone up, there was on the face of the wilderness
a fine, flake-like thing, fine as hoarfrost on the ground. When
the people of Israel saw it, they said to one another, “What
is it?” For they did not know what it was. And Moses said
to them, “It is the bread which the Lord has given you to eat.
This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Gather of it, every
man of you, as much as he can eat; you shall take an omer
apiece, according to the number of the persons whom each
of you has in his tent.’” And the people of Israel did so; they
gathered, some more, some less. But when they measured it
with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and
he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according
to what he could eat. And Moses said to them, “Let no man
leave any of it till the morning.” But they did not listen to
Moses; some left part of it till the morning, and it bred worms
and became foul; and Moses was angry with them. Morning
by morning they gathered it, each as much as he could eat;
but when the sun grew hot, it melted. . . . Now the house
of Israel called its name manna; it was like coriander seed,
white, and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey.
And Moses said, “This is what the Lord has commanded:
‘Let an omer of it be kept throughout your generations, that
they may see the bread with which I fed you in the wilder
-
ness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt.’”
And
the people of Israel ate the manna forty years, till they came
to a habitable land; they ate the manna, till they came to the
border of the land of Canaan.
That Jesus instituted a better kind of manna—miracu
-
lous bread from heaven for our journey through the desert
of this life—is a prime motive of credibility for faith in
Jesus as the Messiah. What Moses won from God for the
Israelites in the desert, Jesus gave to the Church for her
entire pilgrimage through history. Instead of feeding us
with perishable food for forty years, Jesus’ bread from
heaven has nourished the People of God with the divine
life for two thousand years.
26
The manna is a figure of the Eucharist in various respects.
First, because it is “
bread from heaven
.” Normal bread
comes from the earth, in that it is made from grains of
wheat. This bread was rained down on Israel from above.
Thus it is a natural symbol of the fact that the Eucharist
nourishes us with a reality that is not from this earth nor
even from the natural order, but supremely from above. It
is in fact the Word Incarnate. Jesus brings out this figure
in John 6:48–51:
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes
down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I
am the living bread which came down from heaven.
The manna also was not the product of human toil like
normal bread, but came down from above as the dewfall.
This prefigures the fact that the Eucharist in its interior
reality is not the fruit of human technology or accomplish
-
ment, but is the supremely gratuitous gift of God.
The manna is a figure of the Eucharist also because it
was something utterly
unknown
to the Israelites, which
is expressed by the name “manna,” which means “what
is it?” This mystery prefigures the Eucharist because it is
the reality of the New Covenant most veiled in mystery.
Transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the Mass, and Holy
Communion, although not contradictory, utterly transcend
everything that pertains to our ordinary experience. The
mysteriousness of the manna as a figure of the supernatural
mystery of the Eucharist is also indicated in Deuteronomy
8:3: “And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you
with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers
know; that he might make you know that man does not
live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that
proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.”
27
Furthermore, the manna is a figure of the effects of
grace of the Eucharist in that God gave them each only
I won’t be able to respond for awhile since my mother is very ill and I have much work to do
I wish you Blessings.
Pharisee approved "set" but not subset of scripture, indeed.
It was NOT philosophy coming from Luther. It was TRUTH and Rome and it's subjects DO NOT KNOW Truth when they hear or read it! So not surprised Rome and their subjects are still in angst over it - and the reason being IT IS TRUTH. Their 'man made teachings' got exposed - Thank YOU, JESUS - Your plan all along for Luther!
I didn't read the quotes you printed - coming from ROME it is only deception! It's garbage in, garbage out so I will not take it in. It would be wise for you to do the same.
And yet we PROTESTants still have them.
It's MIRACLE; I tell ya!
How DARE you demand things of us!!
—CatholicDude(—this space reserved for snappy comebacks—)
How DARE you present OTHER things from history!!
—CatholicDude(—this space reserved for snappy comebacks—)
But it IS!
“Tell these stones to turn into bread...
“Tell this cracker to turn into Christ’s flesh...
SOMEbody is looking REALLY hard at the elephant; while ignoring the mouse!
It is only perceived as a cracker to those without Faith.
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.