The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Unmarriage, or whatever you want to call it is a distinction without a difference - to anyone who is honest about it.

Indeed.

Great answer!

We are clearly not sacrificing Jesus.

Clearly it is said by the priest and the CCC that the church IS sacrificing Jesus.

There is no other purpose for an altar anyway.

FWIW, Jesus did not hold the Last Supper at an altar, but at a table. And He died on a cross, not an altar.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM

1350 The presentation of the offerings (the Offertory). Then, sometimes in procession, the bread and wine are brought to the altar; they will be offered by the priest in the name of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrifice in which they will become his body and blood. It is the very action of Christ at the Last Supper - "taking the bread and a cup." "The Church alone offers this pure oblation to the Creator, when she offers what comes forth from his creation with thanksgiving."175 The presentation of the offerings at the altar takes up the gesture of Melchizedek and commits the Creator's gifts into the hands of Christ who, in his sacrifice, brings to perfection all human attempts to offer sacrifices.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."188

Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God the father in heaven. He is not still being sacrificed.

It's not the being sacrificed that saves and obtains forgiveness, it's the death, the shedding of blood, that accomplishes that.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Once there is forgiveness, there is no longer any need for sacrifice.

“Let’s not. Church declarations of nullity have no civil effects and civil divorces have no theological effects. The terms are not interchangeable in any respect.”

Yet they are both “unmarriages”, one through divorce, the other through pretending they didn’t get married.

If one cannot have confidence that a sacrament can’t be undone if found inconvenient, why have them at all?

Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God the father in heaven. He is not still being sacrificed.

I think that this is where we as Catholics differ with Protestants. My understanding is that we are not sacrificing Jesus at Mass. We are participating in the sacrifice that occurred on Calvary which is an on-going event. For example, Paul says that the bread we break is a "participation" in the body and blood of Christ. From my perspective this continuing apsect allows us now to "plug in" to the sacrifice through the Mass. I think you can read the passages you quote in this context.

Further, in Revelations 5:6, John sees " the Lion of the tribe of Judah" which turns out to be "a Lamb that seems to have been slain." This Lamb is recognized by most people to be Jesus. He is slain yet he is alive. I submit that this shows the continuing nature of his sacrifice. Jesus is alive in Heaven yet he appears as if he has been slain.

You will no doubt argue now that "Christ died once and for all" but I did not say he is dying again. This is the same death/sacrifice the significance of which carries through to this day.

If one cannot have confidence that a sacrament can’t be undone if found inconvenient, why have them at all?

You misunderstand the point of anullment. If a marriage is anulled, it is because the sacrament was never conferred on the person. It is not being undone. It never happened in the first place. If the finding is that the sacrament was conferred, then no anullment is permitted. I agree that it appears that anullments are given to easily to people like the Kennedy's.

“You misunderstand the point of anullment.”

No I don’t. It’s to get a divorce without actually calling it that.

How is one to know the validity of the sacrament one receives when it’s validity depends on future actions?

If one can receive a sacrament, yet not really receive it, none of them have meaning for the present, it’s only through the lens of the past can one discern whether a sacrament actually was received if one follows that logic.

Sacraments are not supposed to have a “fingers crossed” clause as originally intended.

The death is not carrying through until this day because if it was, Jesus would not have risen from the dead, He'd still be dying.

Jesus died, past tense.

Jesus rose. He conquered death.

He is in heaven a risen Savior, seated at God's right hand. It's not the sacrificing that saves, but the death. The sacrificing continuing means that it's not done, the victim has not died. If the sacrifice is not yet dead, there can be no forgiveness of sins and victory over death.

We are not participating in His death. We who are saves are participating in being seated with Him in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 1:15-23 15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers, 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, 18 having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 2:4-7 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

You misunderstand the point of anullment. If a marriage is anulled, it is because the sacrament was never conferred on the person. It is not being undone. It never happened in the first place. If the finding is that the sacrament was conferred, then no anullment is permitted. I agree that it appears that anullments are given to easily to people like the Kennedy's.

So then, all those people are living in sin.

And by that reasoning, there's not a Catholic couple around who can be sure that their spouse entered into the marriage with pure intent and that their marriage is valid and that they're not living in sin either.

I don't understand your objection. The Church looks to see if the person entering into the marriage at the time of the marriage had the requisite intent to recieve the sacrement. In Fat Teddy's case, it was determined that when he made his vows he did not intend to keep them. There is no dependence on future actions. If he had the correct intent and then later decided to be unfaithful, it would not permit anullment. Similarly, if someone was married with no intent at the time to ever have children, then there would not be a sacremental marriage. A fundemental element of the marriage was missing. On the other hand. if the person later learned that they could not have children but had the intent when they were married, the marriage is still sacremental.

The fact that there is no "fingers crossed" aspect is why you have to go through a long process to get an anullment. It is not a "no fault" process like divorce these days.

Not only did the Catholic Church compile the Bible, it was undeniably guided by the Holy Spirit in creating the Bible (whereby the Church determined which scriptures were sacred and which ones were not). It would follow then, that the Catholic Church is guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in spiritually interpreting those same scriptures. When people attempt to interpret Sacred Scripture on their own, then that interpretation is guided by human wisdom.

One of the reasons Jesus Christ established His Church was so His Word would be correctly and spiritually conveyed to people. We can look to the Apostles (the followers of Jesus) to see just how difficult it can be for man, on his own, to understand or interpret God’s Word. The Apostles were oftentimes confused by what Jesus told them. There were even times when they completely misinterpreted or misunderstood what He was telling them. It was by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Truth was revealed to them.

“I don’t understand your objection.”

I’m just generally anti-unmarriage as things go as it’s not helpful to society for so many marriages to break down with the end result being unmarriage.

It’s not that there aren’t valid exceptions....just would be better if there didn’t have to be.

I guess you must have ditched Catechism the day they went over this.

Like I said she was never paying attention.

LOL. Sure, no difference at all.

So, when the State recognizes queers married to one another as a valid marriage in the eyes of the State good Protestants will accept queers married to one another as a fine Christian marriage in the eyes of their church.

I can see why so many Protestants are willing to ordain queers now that you've explained it is the State that is the final authority on what you accept as Christian. The fact of the matter is that "anyone who's honest about it" realizes that most Protestants accept whatever the State tells them and whatever is popular within society. Whether they rationalize scamming people to make a quick buck or rationalize contraception to avoid self-control, if it's socially acceptable it's Protestant doctrine sooner or later.

All Protestants end up worshiping their, Most High and Holy Self, sooner or later. No matter where they start from they all end up following Eve rather than Christ.

Projecting again, I see.

I never said anything like that, but if that’s the way your mind is working.......

The death is not carrying through until this day because if it was

I do not dispute obviously that Jesus rose from the dead. What you allude to is a mystery.

But, I quoted passages that support my understanding. The participation is not "in being seated at the right hand of the Father."

1 Cor. 10:16 - "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The Bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

Clearly Paul is writing after the death and resurrection of Jesus, yet he says the bread and wine are a participation in Christ's body and blood. In order to understand the Bible you have to reconcile all of its parts. You cannot simply reject or ignore parts of the Bible if they do not fit your understanding.

That being said, I beieve we are all struggling in good faith to grow in faith. Peace to you.

Metmom God is eternal and infinite. By that I mean that he is not bound by the constraints of time. For a short period Jesus was brought out of eternity and subjected to the effects of time. But now that he is back into the eternal realm he is outside of time.
For him (and the rest of the Trinity) all time is occurring at the same moment. Time is no longer linear for him. So His birth and death are occurring at the same time.
That is why the Catholic Church can accurately say that he died once for all time.

No argument with you on that point.

I am not interested in a cut and paste response from anyone on any topic. I never do that, I always use my own words unless I am quoting Scripture.

Many Catholics disagree with the Church on many things. So what? They do not have the authority to declare binding beliefs on anyone and must answer for their own dissent when the time comes.

A cursory reading of “your” list was enough for me. I found it to be misleading and disingenuous at best.

There are actually only seven doctrines which a Catholic is bound to hold as Truth.....

The Nature of God, as in the Holy Trinity including the Nature of Jesus as True God and True Man
The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Papal Infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals.

The rest is tradition with a small “t” and disciplines and practices which are not defined.

"Projecting again, I see."

That's about as lame as it gets but it's typical.  The usual smart remark, a change of subject, or the pretense that someone said something that was never said.

"I never said anything like that, . . .

In fact, that's exactly what was said. Agreeing to the idea that there's no difference between divorce, a civil action by the State, and an annulment, a religious action by the Church, is in fact stating that you accept as valid within your church whatever the State does because there is no difference between the two.

Typical, "Proddy" evasions that go along with their selective reinterpretation of and ignoring of Scripture. It's funny how the Alynsky fascists and the anti-Catholic "Proddy" crowd use all the same tactics. Probably because both groups are dedicated Self Worshipers who, like Eve, get their advice from whatever spirit agrees with them.

It's sad, but the anti-Catholic "Proddy" crowd progresses from one self-delusion to the next until they finally die and Christ tells them, "I never knew you".

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery