Posted on 07/07/2005 7:58:28 AM PDT by NYer
If you support those policies you should at least be repenting for it in confession before communion. The whole intent of the Vatican's statement is that these are not little choices, or optional policies. The church forms it's opinion inline with scriptural teachings, throwing those out the window is to ignore the teachings of the church and to practice things against the teachings of the church is sinful. Protestant churches take alternative stances on scripture rationalizing all many of behaviors. If the Catholic church has come to a conflusion you cannot support then you should examine whether one of those is in line with your beleifs, not pretend the Catholic church is in line with them.
I emailed her pictures of the development from about 1 week to 21 weeks. She even has pictures of her own ultrasound and has already heard the heartbeat (the ultrasound technician said it is a very strong beat)
She sees, hears but does not FEEL yet.
I am working on that.
Again, thanks for your prayers and support.
And I also continue to pray for others contemplating or involved in abortions.
Since you love John 6...let's see what some of the rest of the chapter says.
Jesus speaks clearly of a spiritual meal when he says in verse 57 and 58.."As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so that he that eateth of me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers DID EAT MANNA, AND ARE DEAD: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever" Christ clearly is drawing an analogy of his consumption of the Father with our need to consume the Son...indeed to consume the Christ is to Consume the Father!
The power of the Eucharist is not in the mere eating of substance for it has no profit in and of itself. The power lies in the spiritual communion with Christ, the humble desperate cry of the human heart for one'sGod and the acknowledgment of Christ's death and resurrection as we partake of the sacramental bread and wine in the context of the Eucharist or Lord's supper depending on one's traditional background. As Christ says in John 6 verse63 "IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING:THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE."
Christ is saying that his words are spirit and they are life. To believe in his word and to do his commandments are our meat and drink...they are the true holy spiritual sacraments that we are to consume daily...these are what truly bring life to us...not just the consumption of a blessed drink and wafer! See also verse 35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that COMETH to me shall NEVER HUNGER; and he that beleiveth on me shall NEVER THIRST" Jesus was speaking of a different sort of "Eucharist" that occurs within the hearts of believers, not just a consumption of a sacramental wafer or drink.!
Do I say it is wrong to celebrate the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup...heaven forbid no! Christ instituted the Eucharist prior to his betrayal and crucifixion and told his disciples.."as often as you would...do this in memory of me!" Which was interesting because he left no specific commands as to when and how often they should do the Lord's supper, just explained the mental and spiritual context in which they were celebrate it!
If you are going to use John 6, make sure you are not lifting verses out of context...Christ does explain himself within the end passages of John 6, as to what he meant by his"blood and flesh" as well as his being "that bread of Life"(much better than St Thomas Acquinas or Augustine I might add!). He was speaking of a surrender of self in faith to his word, indeed the very reading and taking into our hearts of HIS WORD and as sign that we are digesting "of his flesh and blood"..the DOING OF HIS WORD!
Do you read the news? John Geoghan comes readily to mind. If you don't remember him, he was the priest who was convicted of molesting young boys, and was killed recently in prison. So there's one off the top of my head.
In addition to gay and pedophile priests I was also alarmed at reports of specific monastaries where gay priests were anything but celebate. I can't seem to find articles on this though. The way that situation was handled was really aweful.
Did I state this? Correct me if I am wrong and show me where in my posts if I infer this.
Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, Give us this day our daily bread...
Jesus is the bread of life.
More from St. Thomas Aquinas
Whether it is lawful to receive this sacrament daily?
Objection 4. Further, if it were a praiseworthy custom to receive this sacrament frequently, then the oftener it were taken the more praise-worthy it would be. But there would be greater frequency if one were to receive it several. times daily; and yet this is not the custom of the Church. Consequently, it does not seem praiseworthy to receive it daily.
Reply to Objection 4. Because our Lord said (Lk. 11:3), "Give us this day our daily bread," we are not on that account to communicate several times daily, for, by one daily communion the unity of Christ's Passion is set forth.
I never stated that just eating the body and blood of Christ is good enough.
St. Thomas Aquinas says:
Whether the sinner sins in receiving Christ's body sacramentally?
I answer that, In this sacrament, as in the others, that which is a sacrament is a sign of the reality of the sacrament. Now there is a twofold reality of this sacrament, as stated above (73, 6): one which is signified and contained, namely, Christ Himself; while the other is signified but not contained, namely, Christ's mystical body, which is the fellowship of the saints. Therefore, whoever receives this sacrament, expresses thereby that he is made one with Christ, and incorporated in His members; and this is done by living faith, which no one has who is in mortal sin. And therefore it is manifest that whoever receives this sacrament while in mortal sin, is guilty of lying to this sacrament, and consequently of sacrilege, because he profanes the sacrament: and therefore he sins mortally.
By the miracles of the loaves and fishes and the walking upon the waters, on the previous day, Christ not only prepared His hearers for the sublime discourse containing the promise of the Eucharist, but also proved to them that He possessed, as Almighty God-man, a power superior to and independent of the laws of nature, and could, therefore, provide such a supernatural food, none other, in fact, than His own Flesh and Blood. This discourse was delivered at Capharnaum (John 6:26-72), and is divided into two distinct parts, about the relation of which Catholic exegetes vary in opinion. Nothing hinders our interpreting the first part [John 6:26-48 (51)] metaphorically and understanding by "bread of heaven" Christ Himself as the object of faith, to be received in a figurative sense as a spiritual food by the mouth of faith. Such a figurative explanation of the second part of the discourse (John, vi, 52-72), however, is not only unusual but absolutely impossible, as even Protestant exegetes (Delitzsch, Kostlin, Keil, Kahnis, and others) readily concede. First of all the whole structure of the discourse of promise demands a literal interpretation of the words: "eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood". For Christ mentions a threefold food in His address, the manna of the past (John 6:31, 32, 49, 59), the heavenly bread of the present (John 6:32 sq.), and the Bread of Life of the future (John 6:27, 52). Corresponding to the three kinds of food and the three periods, there are as many dispensers -- Moses dispensing the manna, the Father nourishing man's faith in the Son of God made flesh, finally Christ giving His own-Flesh and Blood. Although the manna, a type of the Eucharist, was indeed eaten with the mouth, it could not, being a transitory food, ward off death. The second food, that offered by the Heavenly Father, is the bread of heaven, which He dispenses hic et nunc to the Jews for their spiritual nourishment, inasmuch as by reason of the Incarnation He holds up His Son to them as the object of their faith. If, however, the third kind of food, which Christ Himself promises to give only at a future time, is a new refection, differing from the last-named food of faith, it can be none other than His true Flesh and Blood, to be really eaten and drunk in Holy Communion. This is why Christ was so ready to use the realistic expression "to chew" (John 6:54, 56, 58: trogein) when speaking of this, His Bread of Life, in addition to the phrase, "to eat" (John 6:51, 53: phagein). Cardinal Bellarmine (De Euchar., I, 3), moreover, calls attention to the fact, and rightly so, that if in Christ's mind the manna was a figure of the Eucharist, the latter must have been something more than merely blessed bread, as otherwise the prototype would not substantially excel the type. The same holds true of the other figures of the Eucharist, as the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech, the loaves of proposition (panes propositionis), the paschal lamb. The impossibility of a figurative interpretation is brought home more forcibly by an analysis of the following text: "Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-56). It is true that even among the Semites, and in Scripture itself, the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh", has a figurative meaning, namely, "to persecute, to bitterly hate some one". If, then, the words of Jesus are to be taken figuratively, it would appear that Christ had promised to His enemies eternal life and a glorious resurrection in recompense for the injuries and persecutions directed against Him. The other phrase, "to drink some one's blood", in Scripture, especially, has no other figurative meaning than that of dire chastisement (cf. Isaias 49:26; Apocalypse 16:6); but, in the present text, this interpretation is just as impossible here as in the phrase, "to eat some one's flesh". Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.
This interpretation agrees perfectly with the conduct of the hearers and the attitude of Christ regarding their doubts and objections. Again, the murmuring of the Jews is the clearest evidence that they had understood the preceding words of Jesus literally (John 6:53). Yet far from repudiating this construction as a gross misunderstanding, Christ repeated them in a most solemn manner, in John (6:54 sqq.). In consequence, many of His Disciples were scandalized and said: "This saying is hard, and who can hear it?" (John 6:61); but instead of retracting what He had said, Christ rather reproached them for their want of faith, by alluding to His sublimer origin and His future Ascension into heaven. And without further ado He allowed these Disciples to go their way (John 6:62 sqq.). Finally He turned to His twelve Apostles with the question: "Will you also go away? Then Peter stepped forth and with humble faith replied: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God" (John 6:68 sqq.). The entire scene of the discourse and murmurings against it proves that the Zwinglian and Anglican interpretation of the passage, "It is the spirit that quickeneth", etc., in the sense of a glossing over or retractation, is wholly inadmissible. For in spite of these words the Disciples severed their connection with Jesus, while the Twelve accepted with simple faith a mystery which as yet they did not understand. Nor did Christ say: "My flesh is spirit", i.e. to be understood in a figurative sense, but: "My words are spirit and life". There are two views regarding the sense in which this text is to be interpreted. Many of the Fathers declare that the true Flesh of Jesus (sarx) is not to be understood as separated from His Divinity (spiritus), and hence not in a cannibalistic sense, but as belonging entirely to the supernatural economy. The second and more scientific explanation asserts that in the Scriptural opposition of "flesh and blood" to "spirit", the former always signifies carnal-mindedness, the latter mental perception illumined by faith, so that it was the intention of Jesus in this passage to give prominence to the fact that the sublime mystery of the Eucharist can be grasped in the light of supernatural faith alone, whereas it cannot be understood by the carnal-minded, who are weighed down under the burden of sin. Under such circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the Fathers and several Ecumenical councils (Ephesus, 431; Nicæa, 787) adopted the literal sense of the words, though it was not dogmatically defined (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, c. i). If it be true that a few Catholic theologians (as Cajetan, Ruardus Tapper, Johann Hessel, and the elder Jansenius) preferred the figurative interpretation, it was merely for controversial reasons, because in their perplexity they imagined that otherwise the claims of the Hussite and Protestant Utraquists for the partaking of the Chalice by the laity could not be answered by argument from Scripture. (Cf. Patrizi, "De Christo pane vitæ", Rome, 1851; Schmitt, "Die Verheissung der Eucharistie bei den Vütern", 2 vols., Würzburg, 1900-03.)
Do I detect some not-so-subtle sarcasm, ArmyDoc?
FYI:
Paul, for the sake of evagelism, applies the discipline of the Church in a variety of ways to the following: Procuring circumcision (Acts 16:3); eating unclean (unkosher) meat (1 Corinthians 8:4); and submitting to the Jewish purification rites (Acts 21:24, 26). YET, in Galatians Paul says (In agreement with Peter in Acts 15:11):
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is no justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
A little less sarcasm, please. There was only one perfect man, and that is our Lord and Savior.
I'm sorry if my sarcasm offended you. My point was that error (in teaching doctrine or applying it) arose very early in the Church. Just because the ECF's believed or taught something doesn't make it true. It must be held to the standard of scripture.
Thanks for all you prayers. It's working. It's a miracle.
Just in case no one told you yet today, you are one incredible person!! And thanks for the update.
"Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen." (Isa 44:2)
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.