Posted on 05/29/2019 12:37:41 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
May 27, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Speaking with one of the best-known conservative Jews, Dennis Prager, at the PragerU summit last week, world-famous psychologist Jordan Peterson spoke of God and his views of faith. After speaking about his dislike for the question ‘Do you believe in God?’ Peterson said, “I think that Catholicism — that's as sane as people can get.”
Peterson has often been asked about his faith, if he believes in God, and he said the question has always troubled him. He promised a podcast on the matter since he has given his dislike for the question much thought.
He explained, “Who would have the audacity to claim that they believed in God if they examined the way they lived? Who would dare say that?”
“To believe, in a Christian sense,” he added, “means that you live it out fully and that's an that's an unbearable task in some sense.”
Then in one long drawn-out, rapid-fire thought, the type that has enthralled his millions of fans, he laid out extemporaneously the vision of a believer in God:
“To be able to accept the structure of existence, the suffering that goes along with it and the disappointment and the betrayal, and to nonetheless act properly; to aim at the good with all your heart; to dispense with the malevolence and your desire for destruction and revenge and all of that; and to face things courageously and to tell the truth to speak the truth and to act it out, that's what it means to believe -- that's what it means -- it doesn't mean to state it, it means to act it out. And, unless you act it out you should be very careful about claiming it. And so, I've never been comfortable saying anything other than I try to act as if God exists because God only knows what you'd be if you truly believed.”
See the full exchange of Peterson and Prager here.
Already told you. And you can find what the Apostles themselves wrote on the subject, even.
I am sorrowful that you apparently refused to consider it with an open mind.
Is sad.
So, did this post end up with the discussion you expected?
Your abusive post has been reported.
.........................................
Really? What was it that got you frothing at the mouth and caused you to report me for an abusive post?
I was kinda hoping that posting this article in General/Chat, rather than the Religion Forum, would prompt some fresh ideas and insights. Unfortunately such was not the case. It devolved into the predictable sniping and volleying.
Some other day, maybe.
If it’s that important to you, you can have the last word.
Respectfully....who are you to determine if he is in error?
You are but a lay person in Roman Catholicism.
You are not a trained Roman Catholic priest.
You have not been to seminary and ordained as a Roman Catholic priest.
You are doing the very thing ya'll condemn non-Roman Catholics for.
*************************
You probably won't like this quote either from Liguori...he's only been canonized and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.
The dignity of the priest is also estimated from the power that he has over the real and the mystic body of Jesus Christ.
With regard to the power of priests over the real body of Jesus Christ, it is of faith that when they pronounce the words of consecration the Incarnate Word has obliged himself to obey and to come into their hands under the sacramental species. We are struck with wonder when we hear that God obeyed the voice of Josue The Lord obeying the voice of man 1 and made the sun stand when he said move not, O su/i, towards Gabaon, . . . and the sun stood still? But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests Hoc EST CORPUS MEUM God himself descends on the altar, that he comes wherever they call him, and as often as they call him, and places himself in their hands, even though they should be his enemies.
And after having come, he remains, entirely at their disposal; they move him as they please, from one place to another; they may, if they wish, shut him up in the tabernacle, or expose him on the altar, or carry him outside the church; they may, if they choose, eat his flesh, and give him for the food of others.
THE COMPLETE WORKS OF SAINT ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH, Bishop of Saint Agatha, and Founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer.
********************
"Thus the priest may be called the creator of his Creator since by saying the words of consecration he creates, as it were, Jesus in the sacrament, by giving him a sacramental existence, and produces him as victim to be offered to the eternal Father." St. Alphonsus De Liguori de Liguori Collection
***************
If the Mass is to be something more than an Ober-Ammergau Passion Play, then not only must Christ appear in His real personality on the altar, but He must also be in some manner really sacrificed on that very altar. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm
**********
You probably won't like this one either.
"Our Lord was immolated on Calvary. He offers Himself again every morning at the altar by the hands of His priest. The sacrifice of the Mass is essentially the same as that of the Cross. What share has the priest in that sacrifice ? Where does he find the victim ? Ubi est victima, could he, like Isaac of old, ask when ascending the steps of the altar. Listen : Hoc est corpus meum, says this priest bending over a small piece of bread. What happens? Agnoscite quod agitis: The divine Victim is present: Ave verum corpus! 'Hic est calix sanguinis mei,' continues the priest: We adore the divine Victim sacrificed to God. Agnoscite quod agitis. The priest says: Hoc est corpus meum, he has to say it for the validity of the consecration. Meum! But it is not he who says these words; his voice indeed we hear, but he is only the instrument of the Sovereign Priest: our Lord speaksthrough His minister. The glory of this minister consists precisely in disappearing, in allowing Jesus to act through his personality: Sacerdos alter Christus.This Christ now offering Himself to God by the hands of the priest is the same Christ who is in heaven. Same happiness, same power, same majesty. He is performing the same acts, offering the same adorations, the same thanksgiving, the same prayers. He, the object of the beatitude of the elect, is now in the hands of the priest: Agnoscite quod agitis.But if really the priest causes our Lord to be present on the altar, if he offers Him, whilst Jesus is now in heaven, have we not to conclude that it is from the very bosom of the Father that the priest draws this divine Victim? Agnoscite quod agitis." Our Priesthood, by Rev.Joseph Bruneau, S.D.D., 149-151 ("nihil obstat" by M.F. Dinneen, S.S.,D.D. -Censor deputatus, "imprimatur" by James Cardinal Gibbons -Archbishop of Baltimore, "Re-Imprimatur" by Michael J. Curley -Archbishop of Baltimore)
**********************
In this work, “On the Priesthood,” St. John Chrysostom is engaged in a dialogue with his friend Basil, who had just accepted the call to the priesthood. St. Chrysostom is seeking to explain to Basil the nature of the dignity of the priestly office, and so he turns to the Eucharist, of which he writes:
For when you see the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood, can you then think that you are still among men, and standing upon the earth?
Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/priesthood-holy-orders/st-crysostom-on-the-dignity-of-the-priesthood/
http://www.documenta-catholica.eu/d_0345-0407-%20Iohannes%20Chrysostomus%20-%20Treatise%20on%20the%20Priesthood%20-%20EN.pdf
If he never makes it clear that ti was "once, for all", then whoever gave him a Nihil Obstat --- if there is one --- was negligent. God knows I've had it up to here with incompetent clerics.
It had both the Nihal Obstat and the Imprimatur.
For those not acquainted with this.
If the bishop concurs that the work is free from doctrinal error, he grants an imprimatur. From the Latin imprimere, meaning to impress or to stamp an imprint, imprimatur translates, “let it be printed.” Technically, this is the bishop’s official declaration that the book is free from doctrinal error and has been approved for publication by a censor.
These other writings confirm what O'brien is saying. You won't like it I am sure. But the evidence is there for the open-minded to read for themselves. Links are included for confirmation.
I decline to accept O'Brien as my spokesman, because of misstatements or ambiguities (which he may have explained elsewhere --- but I wouldn't know, since I have not read his book.)
Well, and here is the kicker for you as a lay Roman Catholic.
You really have no choice but to obey.
Right you are! I have no choice to but to obey ---the Lord Jesus Christ.
If your meaning is that I must uncritically accept any and all of the opinions of the Pope on faith and morals --- or, the statements of Fathers and Doctors even if relayed to me in a fragmentary fashion --- or, even more implausibly, the opinions of this priest, Fr. O'Brien --- you are very much mistaken.
And you would make the most ultramontane of the 1870 Ultramontanists at the First Vatican Council scowl or look quizzically at you: or, the jollier ones, laugh.
(I can imagine William Ward saying "Well, jolly good parody, I'll grant him that.") You are stumbling here, quite innocently I am sure, into the very same mistake you made in your long cut-and-paste on "immolation."
You assumed it meant "killing," tout court, and supplied a dictionary citation to back it up. Fine.
I replied that immolation in a Sacramental context is a synonym for sacrifice, and it means "utterly offered to God" but it does not (in the sacramental sense) mean a bloody slaying, as if Christ were dying over and over again.
It does however refer to, and make present to us, Christ's death as the ultimate Sacrificial Lamb on the Cross, which certainly was immolation in the fullest, bleedingest,most agonizing sense of the word. However, what happens in the Mass is that same sacrifice, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, offered the the Father for the salvation of the world, but without Christ dying AGAIN.
Do you get that?
Christ does not die AGAIN. He is not slain AGAIN. He died once, at Calvary, and rose again: and thenceforth Death has no power over Him. He had conquered sin and death.
You do get that part,right?
"Christ has conquered sin and death." At some point, people, we should all get it.
So that when the Fathers and Doctors of the Church say that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a true sacrifice, they are right. It is the One Sacrifice. Not a whole bunch of sacrifices. It is Christ dying ONCE, made present to us again because God wills us to have access to this ONE Sacrifice. Not thousands and millions of deaths.
It's not a concept connatural to our limited intellects, but do try.
Therefore, all the quotes you have produced are of no contrary impact, because they speak eloquently and truly of a REAL SACRIFICE, but not of a REPEATED KILLING ,over and over, of Christ.
Not one of them would or could deny that Jesus, once dead, cannot die again: Death has no dominion over Him.
If you have interpreted their statements in such a sense (repeat killing), you have misinterpreted them.
God bless you.
BTW, I love St. Alphonsus Liguori, and really appreciate your reinroducing so much of his work.
I'm glad you've had a change of heart.
At one time you didn't like my postings of his writings on Mary.
The Mass is a contradiction in terms.
It does however refer to, and make present to us, Christ's death as the ultimate Sacrificial Lamb on the Cross, which certainly was immolation in the fullest, bleedingest,most agonizing sense of the word. However, what happens in the Mass is that same sacrifice, His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, offered the the Father for the salvation of the world, but without Christ dying AGAIN.
Trent, and other sources, IIRC, calls what happens at the "Mass" as being the same sacrifice as the Cross...except without blood....daily....hourly....over and over and over again.
At one time you disagreed with that it was done at the command of a priest over and over again. At least that is why I think you were attempting to dismiss O'Brien. But I think I've illustrated that is indeed what is happening.
In either case, the whole thing is against Scripture.
Jesus is not commanded by priests.
The priests do not become Jesus.
There is NOTHING in Scripture to support any of it....maybe other than the names being used.
BTW....there's more I haven't posted yet. Still doing more reading.
It amazes me just how wrong Rome is on this issue...among others.
And respectfully, it is amusing, in an endearing sort of way, to see Evangelicals who are so solemnly clericalist and Ultramontanist.
None of these venerable Fathers and Doctors invented doctrine out of his own imagination, or genius, or even personal piety. They haven't the right to invent doctrine as if they were all-purpose oracles of divine inspiration, and neither has the pope, and neither have I.
They are rightly respected for stalwart fidelity, not for creative innovation.
If anyone invented the notion, for instance, that Christ did not conquer death, but rather remained subject to death, and had to die day after day for us, he would be at least a material heretic whether he were priest or layman, a theology professor with a D.Div or a brother with a broom and dustpan.
I've never hear a Catholic talk about unlimited papal and hierarchical pretensions he way you do.
Hmm....
No, I take that back.
There is Fr. Thomas Rosica.
(Google that.)
Snort!
Of course there is BLOOD involved in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everyone knows that. We receive His Body and Blood.
What there is not, is repeated, redundant dying.
Once dead and risen, Christ cannot die again.
I don't know how I could make that any plainer.
Change of heart. (Now, where’s my eyeroll emoji...)
It was your post that was pulled. In it you admitted you were ‘sort of setting a trqp’. Honesty is foreign to you?
They are rightly respected for stalwart fidelity, not for creative innovation.
Yet that is what has happened.
It can and has been shown in too many of these discussions.
LOL...ok.
We'll have a discussion on Mary again one day and see if you hold the same change of heart.
But there cannot be denial, contradiction, or abrogation of doctrine.
An acorn must develop into an oak. (If it can't sprout, it's a dead acorn.) But it can't morph into a broccoli, a chimpanzee, a chunk of asbestos or a liter of hydrogen.
It can and does grow into a tree, something dramatically deeper, wider, more elaborated, a billionfold bigger: but it can't turn into something else, something opposite.
That's exactly why that Argentinian gentleman currently resident at the Domus Sanctae Martae in Rome, is such a surreal anomaly, and why more people are honestly wondering if he really is the pope in the full sense of the word. He presumes to change doctrine: and in that he is flat wrong.
My pastor and my bishop both know where I stand, and have expressed confidence in my ability to teach Catholic doctrine correctly. I value their confidence because I consult them honestly in carrying out my duties in the parish.
If the pope goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church, he ceases in that moment to be a Catholic teacher. I would say that in any forum in the world, God help me, and to his face.
You’re very good at cherry picking verses to match what you’ve already decided is true.
I hope you read and believe the whole thing someday, especially before it’s too late.
Christ HAS conquered.
Our debate is over how he makes that conquest real to us.
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.