Posted on 06/15/2007 5:33:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Indeed.
I don’t know. There’s child slavery in Utah, been going on for awhile, no one will stop it
LOL. Having been educated from the time I was in preschool in a Catholic private school and having attended a Jesuit four year high school (oh the horror!) I can unequivocally state that such a sentiment was never taught to me. In fact, given the emphasis on sin and the necessity for proper contrition, I was taught time and time again that all men, including priests, are sinful and imperfect, just like the rest of us.
Then there’s Buddhism, how long has it had priests and monks, not allowed to marry. Big big problems with homosexuality.
...As St. Thomas Aquinas says, the proper task of the priest consists in being a mediator between God and men ...The Catholic faith teaches that the priest is another Christ, an alter Christus... The Catholic priest is also a minister, but he is first and foremost a priest because he has been empowered by Christ to offer the sacrifice of the Mass for the salvation of all... A Mass can be invalid for a number of reasons (we presuppose that the priest has been validly ordained): 1) because of a defect in the matter, for example, using sweet rolls instead of bread made only from wheat flour and water; 2) because of a defect in the form, for example, changing the words "This is my body" or "This is the cup of my blood" into something else; 3) because the priest positively excludes the intention to do what the Church does in offering Mass... Thus, Masses offered by heretical priests, by schismatics, by Catholic priests who are plagued by doubts or who have false ideas about the Real Presence or transubstantiation, can be and probably usually are valid Masses. They must of course use the correct words of consecration, use wheat bread and wine made from grapes... One becomes a priest through the power of Jesus Christ operating through the normal channels of his Church. Orders produce an ontological or real change in the one ordained. Once consecrated he is no longer a lay person and he is no longer exactly like non-priests. He has received a charism that consecrates him to continuing Christ's prophetic and sacramental ministry... Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ. Through his ordination he has been granted the amazing gift of being a channel of divine grace for the eternal salvation of those he come into contact with -- both in his official ministry and in his personal life... He is a witness to transcendence both in what he is and what he does... The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ. Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: "What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself."... "By definition a priest is one who offers sacrifice. The Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is a sacrifice; it is, in a mystical sense, a re-presentation of the identical sacrifice that Jesus made of himself on the altar of the Cross on Calvary almost 2000 years ago...
Not "Clergy."
Get the difference?
The only cases we know about in the RCC are those that have been reported to authorities. And they are legion.
I forgive you.
Mozart also had a charism, and so does, apparently Bill Graham. Each had God given talents. To a certain extent, Dr. Graham is also “another Christ,” alike in this respect to St. Francis, who was never. In a sense each has. experienced an ontological change, been “born-again.” Our differences here have to be consided in the light on the essential difference between Catholicism and Protestanism, which is acceptance of the Church’s authority to confer charismatic powers. Let me come at this from a different angle: each candidate for the priesthood is understood to have received a call from God and the Church can do no more than confer on him the powers of Office to which he has been called. What we deny to Dr. Graham—like St. Francis— is not his call or even recognition of the bountiful fruits of his ministry but the powers of office. Like St. Francis he may be Christ-like, more so than many priests, but he has not the right to stand before the altar and bring Christ to us even more directly than by hearing the Word.
So, once again, your church, made up of human beings, can confer powers that even the Holy Spirit cannot?
Immensely sad that even has to be reaffirmed.
Robby,
I don’t think it’s of any use to go on with this. Am I the only Catholic lurker/FReeper who wonders about the possibility that Dr. E. does not want our respect, but our submission?
These threads go on and on and on and on—the entrenched positions don’t change; but the barbs and insults and so-called “discussions” (a misnomer for sure) are in a constant state of revival. Eventually it becomes evident; it seems so pointless. Wouldn’t it be “choosing the better part” to walk away from it?
There is almost no subject pertaining to Catholicism that hasn’t been addressed, rebutted, challenged, proof-texted, linked, condemned and vilified.
The lesson has been amply and forcefully delivered: “Catholicism is false, blasphemous, pagan and unscriptural”. No amount of charitable response, earnest rebuttal of the charge, presentation of another perspective or reasonable exchange is going to make the slightest difference in this lesson/message being delivered.
Wouldn’t it be better to walk away from it? There are so many wonderful things Catholics can do. Is this all there is from which to choose? I hardly think so.
I don’t accept your premise, which is that the Church is not divinely established. To us, the Church is the body of Christ. We are his hands and feet, all of us. A more or less ignored part of the mass is the calling down of the Holy Spirit. This is briefly stated in the Latin mass, but goes out at great length in the eastern liturgies. The analogy is the Holy Spirit decending on Mary. The Holy Spirit, we believe, is already with the Church and the priest—the man— is the instrument by which Jesus appears to us but still behind the veil. If we are worthy, we can go behind that veil and see him with oiur hearts.
No argument delivered in debate is aimed to convince the opponent. Even if he is, he is less likely to be convinced than to retreat to different ground. I am reminded by Dr.Eck’s debate with Dr. Luther. Luther was only convinced that he had not gone far enough, that the common ground he thought he shared with the Church, was not there. Sometimes it serves a purpose to make the other side run up its real standard. Differences do matter. It was the delusion of the liberal priests back in the ‘60s that they don’t. Failing to see the importance of differences, they abandoned their callings and joined the enemy.
Where did you get the idea that the HS is at your beck and call? What is the biblical support for this notion? The bible says that Jesus sends the Comforter. How did you, as mere men, get this power? From the priest who changes intoChrist? Again, where is the scriptural support for this? It has more in common with the antiChrist calling fire down from heaven, showing himself that he is God, and performing signs and wonders.
If you are worthy How does one become "worthy" since God says nothing you can ever do will please Him?
OK...that’s two.
Exactly right. It’s not a matter of Catholic, Protestant or other, it’s a matter of sin/evil. That cuts across all lines.
= =
INDEED.
INCLUDING . . . in all the councils, encyclicals, magicsteriums, confabs, pontifications, . . .
assumptions, inferences, extrapolations, presumptions, fancifications from Scripture . . .
etc.
etc.
etc.
in all RELIGIOUS groups, denominations, . . .
INCLUDING the RC edifice . . . contrary to various pontifications to the contrary.
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.