Posted on 07/07/2005 7:58:28 AM PDT by NYer
ME too!
"How about mind control! That should be a crime in the Church too. But it isn't>'
The entire corpus of Western Juris Prudence, the concept of individuality and human rights, the concept of equality and freedom, liberty, salvation, and lots of esoteric thought are directly from 2000 years of Roman, yes, Roman Catholicism.
The real question is how many of these bishops will take this mesage back to their dioceses and instruct their priests to speak clearly about this or alternatively, will write a letter to be read at all Masses? How many of the hoi polloi in the pews will actually get to hear about this?
Not very many.
As is usual, in many cases the message will be lost by neglect. The Vatican speaks and the bishops simply pretend not to hear or file it in the "non-urgent" tray. Well many of them do, anyway.
I don't understand some things - It seems that it doesn't matter if everybody who discussed the Eucharist from the year 110 talked about it being the real body and blood until after the reformation. What gave the Reformers the light when Ignatius of Antioch who was an associate of Polycarp and very likely had been instructed by John the Apostle and others who knew John believed that "the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again." (Written in 110 in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans)
Why would Ignatius, who was going towards death, knowing he would be killed for his beliefs, write something he made up?
Why is whatever modern interpretation of the scripture right, and Ignatius wrong?
Why is someone who decided that it was different in 1600 a better source than someone like Justin Martyr who said:
"the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" about 151, and who died for his faith. He certainly was taught by people who were taught by the early church leaders.
I just don't understand.
Why is an interpretation that is from the 1500s, 1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s better than the interpretation of people who were trained by the apostles, or those who were trained just a few years later?
They probably don't. Unfortunately, 'they' are not an authoritative source.
No where does it say that Jesus...changed the bread into a hunk of his own flesh nor changed the wine into a goblet of his own blood before offering it to his disciples. He was laying down a corner stone doctrine explaining that the crucifiction was a sacrifice we would all share in! By the sharing of the bread and drinking of the cup("as often as ye do so...") in remembrance("of me") of him we were SPIRITUALLY sharing in his death so that we might share in his Resurrection as well.
And what is more Spiritually real....simply taking a substance into our mouths , or taking the bread and wine with a humble attitude contemplative of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
I submit to you that even if one could actually consume the actual body and blood, torn dripping raw, literally from Christ's flesh, it would mean nothing to the consumer without the personal spiritual cognizance of the meaning of such a consumption!
ooh.. should send this to my ex-wife (adultress) who thinks that everything is just fine and dandy, and is having a child out of wedleck, with a man who is still married, after her church won't give her an annulment, is engaged, bbi-sexual, has had an abortion and is pro-choice... have i found enough for her ex-communication yet?
"many Catholics had lost the sense of the sacred surrounding communion"
In many Catholic communities the beautiful
traditional music and art was replaced with
less than inspiring bad guitar music and art
in the style of Sister Corita's splish-splash.
Using pictures of Coca Cola and Wonderbread
to symbolize Holy Communion was supposed to
make the Sacrament "relevant" to young people.
All this did was cheapen the sacred.
Mass was too often presented as something
along the lines of the WalMart employees'
morning cheer rather than as a sacred mystery.
The Church has a treasure in its cathedrals,
paintings, and liturgical music, all inspired
by the meaning behind the Sacraments. These
resources have gone too often wasted in the
last forty years.
The Mass in many communities has been presented
in ways that distract from its deeper meaning.
I've seen non-Catholics go up and receive Holy
Communion alongside their Catholic friends or
relatives. These well-meaning people think that
not doing so would be unfriendly. The Church has
used the Mass to emphasize everybody "getting along"
and not surprisingly people have responded to that.
All I can say is... well said!
In principle, I agree that the Church should follow its own teachings. But I'm intrigued by this sentence:
"The document lamented that in some developed countries participation at Sunday Mass was as low at 5 percent and again urged the faithful to keep Sunday holy."
If they're losing the attention of the faithful, is beating this particular drum the answer? What other areas will they start cracking down on? What will the Vatican do with Catholics who practice birth control? They're worried about low attendance *now*. Start excluding 80% of American Catholics and see how many come out on Sunday.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not Catholic-bashing, I am genuinely curious. I know many Catholics, but very few (even conservatives) who profess to following Church teachings on birth control. The vast majority admit that they think Rome is simply unrealistic on this. Where do they stand?
Christ commanded us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. You're explanation is stating that Christ is asking us to do something impossible. Christ never asked mankind to do something impossible.
And what is more Spiritually real....simply taking a substance into our mouths , or taking the bread and wine with a humble attitude contemplative of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
You are in error. Catholics do not simply take a substance into their mouths. Catholics believe they are receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ as he commanded. What's even more spiritually, as you say, is this belief AND the eating and drinking of Jesus' body and blood.
Catholics are cognizant, reverent and humble when coming to Holy Communion. If this was not the case, there wouldn't be strict guidelines set forth over the centuries by the Church in receiving Holy Communion.
Thank you.
A number were charged here in Kentucky alone in the last couple of years...I don't know how many were nationwide. Nevertheless, it is a small minority of them.
But God isn't content with just "spiritually real." If He were, He would not have created the Universe. He would not have made us embodied creatures, and He would not have become incarnate, Himself: real flesh, real blood, real man.
We are incarnate. Our faith is not a relationship between a Mind and a Concept. It is a relationship of a Whole Person with a Whole Person.
The Holy Communion of the Eucharist is analogous to the Holy "Communion" of Marriage. It's fine if your spouse says, "I love ya, honey, I love ya" but it means even more, even deeper, if you give yourself as an total embodied gift, and receive your spouse as a total embodied gift.
Just as sexual intercourse is a constitutive element of the sacrament of Matrimony -- without an act of intercourse, the marriage is not consummated and the bond is held to be null --- receiving Communion with the Lord means receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is what we are privileged to embrace in our very bodies, when we consume the consecrated food of the Sacrament.
Catholics! If we truly grasped this, we would approach Communion on our faces, crawling up to the chalice and shaking all over. But we don't grasp it, not really. We are dolts. We are so much more like Judas than like John: we kiss Him, and then... Kyrie eleison.
But God isn't content with just "spiritually real." If He were, He would not have created the Universe. He would not have made us embodied creatures, and He would not have become incarnate, Himself: real flesh, real blood, real man.
We are incarnate. Our faith is not a relationship between a Mind and a Concept. It is a relationship of a Whole Person with a Whole Person.
The Holy Communion of the Eucharist is analogous to the Holy "Communion" of Marriage. It's fine if your spouse says, "I love ya, honey, I love ya" but it means even more, even deeper, if you give yourself as an total embodied gift, and receive your spouse as a total embodied gift.
Just as sexual intercourse is a constitutive element of the sacrament of Matrimony -- without an act of intercourse, the marriage is not consummated and the bond is held to be null --- receiving Communion with the Lord means receiving His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, which is what we are privileged to embrace in our very bodies, when we consume the consecrated food of the Sacrament.
Catholics! If we truly grasped this, we would approach Communion on our faces, crawling up to the chalice and shaking all over. But we don't grasp it, not really. We are dolts. We are so much more like Judas than like John: we kiss Him, and then... Kyrie eleison.
Intercourse or molestation?
Bravo!!!
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.