Posted on 07/15/2008 4:47:28 PM PDT by Pyro7480
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented on the latest developments to surface regarding the pledge made by Paul Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota, to desecrate the Eucharist:
“Myers was quoted yesterday saying, ‘I have to do something. I’m not going to just let this disappear.’ [Last Friday it was reported that he had acquired a Host.] He continued, ‘Something will be done. It won’t be gross. It won’t be totally tasteless, but yeah, I’ll do something that shows this cracker has no power.’
“The biology professor made it clear that he would never disrespect Islam the way he does Catholicism. When asked about those who abuse the Koran, for example, he said such an act was analogous to desecrating a graveyard. ‘That’s completely different,’ he said. ‘I don’t favor [that idea].’ But when it comes to the Body of Christ, he opines, ‘The cracker is completely different.’
“This isn’t the first time Myers has shown deference to Islam. For instance, two years ago he was critical of the Danish cartoons that simply depicted an image of Muhammad. ‘They [the cartoons] lack artistic or social or even comedic merit, and are presented as an insult to inflame a poor minority.’ So now the Planet-of-the-Apes biologist has divined himself an expert on the artistic value of cartoons. So thoughtful of him. He even went so far as to say that Muslims ‘have cause to be furious.’ (His italic.) Worthy of burning down churches, pledging to behead Christians and shooting a nun in the back, Professor Myers?
“We hope Myers does the right thing and just moves on without further disgracing himself and his university. The letter I received from University of Minnesota President Robert H. Bruininks makes it clear that school officials want nothing to do with his hate-filled remarks. It would also be nice if Myers’ fans would cease and desist with their hate-filled screeds.”
Do you believe this?
Several claims have been made that the blood has been found to be type AB, and claims have been made about DNA testing. We sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York. None of these claims could be confirmed. The blood appears to be so old that the DNA is badly fragmented. Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY has said that “… anyone can walk in off the street and amplify DNA from anything. The hard part is not to amplify what you don’t want and only amplify what you want (endogenous DNA vs contamination).” It is doubtful that good DNA analyses can be obtained from the Shroud.
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq/turin-shroud-faq-02.htm
***God knows the intentions of each person’s heart. It seems reasonable that, if a person receives a consecrated host with dishonest intent, God would know this instantly and cause the holy substance of the host to depart from it.***
This is actually untrue, as is evidenced by St. Paul’s words in Holy Scripture. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.” I Corinthians 11:27-30 St. Paul’s words clearly say that it is the Lord and that it is possible to receive Him unworthily and to also not discern that it is He. St. Paul says that many are sick and have died because they received the Lord, not discerning that it was He - or knowing that it was He, but not caring that they received unworthily. In those cases, Jesus did not leave the host, He was still there and the people got sick and/or died.
***To me, arguing that the holy substance of the host is somehow locked into it is the same as arguing that the priest does have the power to summon God to transform it and cause it to remain transformed***
That is exactly what the Church teaches. Christ has given his priests, through Holy Orders, that power. Transubstantiation means that it is changed and becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, regardless of whether we believe or not. St. Paul’s words back this up.
Of course I believe it!
I wasn’t talking about DNA. I was talking about blood type. They are two entirely different things.
I can’t imagine that the Lord would allow His DNA to be discovered. Scientists would have a field day trying to clone Him!
It says that they could not determine blood type.
I’m not going to argue about your post on the Shroud. That is for another day. The point I’m trying to make is about the Eucharistic Miracles. Did you go to the link I provided? Did you read about all of them? Did you look at the webpage on the Lanciano miracle and view the scientific findings?
Yes I saw them.
Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
What are you trying to say?
Jesus told us to beware of being suckered by miracles
Wow! Excellent insight.
Thank you for your respectful attitude. This is the mark of a civilized human being. It’s refreshing here -— or anywhere!
That isn’t what He said. He said “false Christs” as in people who claim to be Him.
These miracles are not that at all, because it is really Christ present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
Look, you said in post 69, and I quote, “If it bleeds when he cuts it, I assure you that you will have lots of new Catholics. Me and Myers and Dawkins will convert tomorrow.”
I’m saying that this has already happened in these Eucharistic Miracles, so there is no reason to wait to convert. Unless: 1) you didn’t really mean what you said 2) you don’t believe these Eucharistic Miracles ever occurred 3) even if this miracle were to occur for Myers, you wouldn’t believe it because you weren’t there to see it or 4) all of the above. I’m saying that this kind of miracle has already occurred - but people who don’t want to believe won’t. It’s a funny thing, but sometimes when we step out in faith and say with the father of the chid, “Help my unbelief”, (”And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. Mark 9:24) He will hear us, and make the hard parts clear to us. Sometimes faith comes before understanding.
If Myers conducted an experiment and the host bled, I would want to see the data and see it reproduced according to scientific method. If it really did bleed, you would have converts. Athiest and agnostics believe in things, they just require evidence.
Found by whom?
I"m having a scattered feeling. The only serious ID thing I ever read as very clear that the conclusion suggested a "first designer", but the argument at least made an effort to proceed from empirical data. Also proving a first designer does not accomplish proving the "truths" of Christianity.
But I'm not sure of the relationship of this to the rest.
If, as I believe (based on empirical evidence),that ethics, morality, culture, and religion are the result of evolution through natural selection, then they are part of "everyday life and scientific research" as John Paul II stated. Then they are subject to empiricism. This leaves nothing for religion to do for us as regards understanding truth.
I'm wondering how "should" or things which have to do with "should" (like ethics and morality) derive from an evolutionary process?
It wouldn't be a miracle if it were reproducible in some empirically verifiable sense, would it?
Cultural evolution. Cultures that evolved the Golden Rule held together and those that didn't fell apart and disappeared. Mencius in China, Hillel in Jerusalem, Buddha, and Socrates all were proponents of a version of the Golden Rule at different times and in widely separated places.
I don’t see that that makes the Golden rule one I should follow.
Cultures reinforce compliant behavior and punish noncompliant behavior just like God does. No culture lived the rule, they just held it as a goal and applied it only to those within their group. The ten commandments are just another example. Muslims do not have the golden rule and ironically, that is why a billion of them can't defeat a few million Israelis. Tribes beat individuals and nations defeat tribes. Ethics and morals provide the glue to build larger, more successful groups.
"The Bible says that God is present whenever two or more are gathered in His name. So God is already present at the Mass simply because the faithful have gathered together to honor Him with worship."
Well, there are different degrees, or kinds, or modes, of presence. In the Mass, God is present by virtue of His omnipresence everywhere; by virtue of the proclamation of the Word (Scriptures); by virtue of the gathered believers; by virtue of His presence in each baptized person, whose body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit; and by virtue of Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist.
An analogy might be helpful. Think of several different examples of a man's wife being present n the room with him:
In each case, the wife is present, but in the first example she is present in a way that makes no difference to her husband, and she is "more present" in each successive instance until the last, which may be the most intense experience of her presence.
In a similar way, God is present everywhere at all times; more present to us when we hear the Gospel proclaimed, or when we pray; most present when we are reverently united to Him in the Eucharist. We Catholics are convinced that the Eucharist is the most privileged form of presence that can be experienced on this earth.
Like marital lovemaking, it is not for everyone, at every time, in every place, but only for consecrated people (I use the word generically, to mean those "set aside" by Baptism); at consecrated times, and usually in consecrated places. It is a foretaste of heaven.
God cannot be "ordered" to transubstantiate the host and wine. No priest has that capacity. So, at most, the host and wine are transformed because God agrees to do so. The words "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood" cannot be more than a respectful, reverent invitation from the priest on behalf of the faithful for God to perform the tranformative act. The fact that the host and the wine are transformed is an entirely free and unconstrained act on the part of God for His own purposes. The fact that they are always transformed is a sign of God's lovingkindness to the community of believers.
Everything here is true enough --- you will never find the Church saying that God is in effect our dog, and comes when we whistle. God is always sovereign. Nevertheless, He has lovingly condescended to make His presence known in outward signs which are called Sacraments. We are convinced that the priest has been given (by God's graciousness) the power to make ("confect") the Eucharist which is His Real Presence in an unparalleled way.
This in no way takes away from the many other ways that God is present. It is the Source and Summit of our Christian life.
"God knows the intentions of each person's heart. It seems reasonable that, if a person receives a consecrated host with dishonest intent, God would know this instantly and cause the holy substance of the host to depart from it."
I can understand how you might suppose that, and even more how you might wish it--- not wanting to see Christ blasphemed by mockers. However, when He walked amongst us, Christ did not evade mocking and spitting, though it is ghastly to think of it. Moreover, Scripture indicates, not that the unworthy do not receive Christ because he "exits," but that they receive His Body and Blood in a way that sins against it, in a way that brings condemnation:
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord.
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.