Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
Do our Catholic children and most adults know what these images teach?
All of us know one of the elephants in the room of the Catholic Church. Our religious education programs are not handing on the essence of our Catholic Faith, our parents are befuddled about their role in handing on the faith and the materials we use are vapid or if good do not make an impression on young minds. We are afraid of asking for memorization and thus most don't remember anything they've learned about God and Church other than some niceties and feel good emotions.
I teach each class of our grades 1-6 (we don't have 7th or 8th) each Thursday, rotating classes from week to week. For the last two years I have used Baltimore Catechism #1 as my text book. It is wonderful to use with children and it is so simple yet has so much content. If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.
These past two years I've used Baltimore Catechism #2 with our adult religious program which we call Coffee and Conversation following our 9:30 AM Sunday Mass, which coincides with our CCD program which we call PREP (Parish Religious Education Program).
This #2 book has more content and is for middle school, but upper elementary school children must have been more capable of more serious content back when this book was formulated and used through the mid 1960's because it is a great book to use with adults and not childish at all. We all use this same book as a supplemental book for the RCIA because it is so clear, nobly simple and chocked full of content!
Yes, there are some adjustments that need to be made to some chapters, but not that many, in light of Vatican II and the new emphasis we have on certain aspects of Church that are not present in the Baltimore Catechism. But these are really minor.
What is more important though is that when the Baltimore Catechism was used through the mid 1960's it was basically the only book that was used for children in elementary and junior high school. It was used across the board in the USA thus uniting all Catholics in learning the same content. There was not, in other words, a cottage industry of competing publishing houses selling new books and different content each year.
The same thing has occurred with liturgical music, a cottage industry of big bucks has developed around the sale of new hymnals, missalettes and new music put on the open market for parishes to purchase. It is a money making scheme.
Why do our bishop allow this to happen in both liturgical music and parish catechesis? The business of selling stuff to parishes and making mega bucks off of it is a scandal that has not be addressed.
In the meantime, our liturgies suffer and become fragmented because every parish uses a different resource for liturgical music and the same is true of religious formation, everyone uses something different of differing quality or no quality at all.
Isn't it time to wake up and move forward with tried and true practices that were tossed out in favor of a consumerist's approach to our faith that has weakened our liturgies, our parishes and our individual Catholics?
Amen!
Of course the original was not capitalized ,it was to make a point of what Augustine believed that has been part of this conversations on this thread. I assumed you would have figured that out
Here is something to help you with your Eucharist questions and it is exactly what I believe
From the US Bishops website
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/resources-for-the-eucharist/the-real-presence-of-jesus-christ-in-the-sacrament-of-the-eucharist-basic-questions-and-answers.cfm
When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, why do they still look and taste like bread and wine?
In the celebration of the Eucharist, the glorified Christ becomes present under the appearances of bread and wine in a way that is unique, a way that is uniquely suited to the Eucharist. In the Church's traditional theological language, in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the "accidents" or appearances of bread and wine remain. "Substance" and "accident" are here used as philosophical terms that have been adapted by great medieval theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas in their efforts to understand and explain the faith. Such terms are used to convey the fact that what appears to be bread and wine in every way (at the level of "accidents" or physical attributes - that is, what can be seen, touched, tasted, or measured) in fact is now the Body and Blood of Christ (at the level of "substance" or deepest reality). This change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is called "transubstantiation." According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (cf. Catechism, no. 1376). This is a great mystery of our faith—we can only know it from Christ's teaching given us in the Scriptures and in the Tradition of the Church. Every other change that occurs in the world involves a change in accidents or characteristics. Sometimes the accidents change while the substance remains the same. For example, when a child reaches adulthood, the characteristics of the human person change in many ways, but the adult remains the same person—the same substance. At other times, the substance and the accidents both change. For example, when a person eats an apple, the apple is incorporated into the body of that person—is changed into the body of that person. When this change of substance occurs, however, the accidents or characteristics of the apple do not remain. As the apple is changed into the body of the person, it takes on the accidents or characteristics of the body of that person. Christ's presence in the Eucharist is unique in that, even though the consecrated bread and wine truly are in substance the Body and Blood of Christ, they have none of the accidents or characteristics of a human body, but only those of bread and wine.
Yes. In order for the whole Christ to be present—body, blood, soul, and divinity—the bread and wine cannot remain, but must give way so that his glorified Body and Blood may be present. Thus in the Eucharist the bread ceases to be bread in substance, and becomes the Body of Christ, while the wine ceases to be wine in substance, and becomes the Blood of Christ. As St. Thomas Aquinas observed, Christ is not quoted as saying, " This bread is my body," but " This is my body" ( Summa Theologiae, III q. 78, a. 5).
Yes, for this way of being present corresponds perfectly to the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ gives himself to us in a form that employs the symbolism inherent in eating bread and drinking wine. Furthermore, being present under the appearances of bread and wine, Christ gives himself to us in a form that is appropriate for human eating and drinking. Also, this kind of presence corresponds to the virtue of faith, for the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be detected or discerned by any way other than faith. That is why St. Bonaventure affirmed: "There is no difficulty over Christ's being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious" ( In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).
In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of Christ—By no means!—but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: ‘This is my body'; not ‘a foreshadowing of my body' but ‘my body,' and not ‘a foreshadowing of my blood' but ‘my blood'" ( The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]). At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form. We cannot presume to know all the reasons behind God's actions. God uses, however, the symbolism inherent in the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the natural level to illuminate the meaning of what is being accomplished in the Eucharist through Jesus Christ. There are various ways in which the symbolism of eating bread and drinking wine discloses the meaning of the Eucharist. For example, just as natural food gives nourishment to the body, so the eucharistic food gives spiritual nourishment. Furthermore, the sharing of an ordinary meal establishes a certain communion among the people who share it; in the Eucharist, the People of God share a meal that brings them into communion not only with each other but with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, as St. Paul tells us, the single loaf that is shared among many during the eucharistic meal is an indication of the unity of those who have been called together by the Holy Spirit as one body, the Body of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). To take another example, the individual grains of wheat and individual grapes have to be harvested and to undergo a process of grinding or crushing before they are unified as bread and as wine. Because of this, bread and wine point to both the union of the many that takes place in the Body of Christ and the suffering undergone by Christ, a suffering that must also be embraced by his disciples. Much more could be said about the many ways in which the eating of bread and drinking of wine symbolize what God does for us through Christ, since symbols carry multiple meanings and connotations.
No. During the celebration of the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, and this they remain. They cannot turn back into bread and wine, for they are no longer bread and wine at all. There is thus no reason for them to change back to their "normal" state after the special circumstances of the Mass are past. Once the substance has really changed, the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ "endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist" ( Catechism, no. 1377). Against those who maintained that the bread that is consecrated during the Eucharist has no sanctifying power if it is left over until the next day, St. Cyril of Alexandria replied, "Christ is not altered, nor is his holy body changed, but the power of the consecration and his life-giving grace is perpetual in it" ( Letter 83, to Calosyrius, Bishop of Arsinoe [ PG 76, 1076]). The Church teaches that Christ remains present under the appearances of bread and wine as long as the appearances of bread and wine remain (cf. Catechism, no. 1377).
While it would be possible to eat all of the bread that is consecrated during the Mass, some is usually kept in the tabernacle. The Body of Christ under the appearance of bread that is kept or "reserved" after the Mass is commonly referred to as the "Blessed Sacrament." There are several pastoral reasons for reserving the Blessed Sacrament. First of all, it is used for distribution to the dying ( Viaticum), the sick, and those who legitimately cannot be present for the celebration of the Eucharist. Secondly, the Body of Christ in the form of bread is to be adored when it is exposed, as in the Rite of Eucharistic Exposition and Benediction, when it is carried in eucharistic processions, or when it is simply placed in the tabernacle, before which people pray privately. These devotions are based on the fact that Christ himself is present under the appearance of bread. Many holy people well known to American Catholics, such as St. John Neumann, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, St. Katharine Drexel, and Blessed Damien of Molokai, practiced great personal devotion to Christ present in the Blessed Sacrament. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, devotion to the reserved Blessed Sacrament is practiced most directly at the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, offered on weekdays of Lent.
The Body and Blood of Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine are treated with the greatest reverence both during and after the celebration of the Eucharist (cf. Mysterium Fidei, nos. 56-61). For example, the tabernacle in which the consecrated bread is reserved is placed "in some part of the church or oratory which is distinguished, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer" ( Code of Canon Law, Can. 938, §2). According to the tradition of the Latin Church, one should genuflect in the presence of the tabernacle containing the reserved sacrament. In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the traditional practice is to make the sign of the cross and to bow profoundly. The liturgical gestures from both traditions reflect reverence, respect, and adoration. It is appropriate for the members of the assembly to greet each other in the gathering space of the church (that is, the vestibule or narthex), but it is not appropriate to speak in loud or boisterous tones in the body of the church (that is, the nave) because of the presence of Christ in the tabernacle. Also, the Church requires everyone to fast before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ as a sign of reverence and recollection (unless illness prevents one from doing so). In the Latin Church, one must generally fast for at least one hour; members of Eastern Catholic Churches must follow the practice established by their own Church.
If "to receive" means "to consume," the answer is yes, for what the person consumes is the Body and Blood of Christ. If "to receive" means "to accept the Body and Blood of Christ knowingly and willingly as what they are, so as to obtain the spiritual benefit," then the answer is no. A lack of faith on the part of the person eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ cannot change what these are, but it does prevent the person from obtaining the spiritual benefit, which is communion with Christ. Such reception of Christ's Body and Blood would be in vain and, if done knowingly, would be sacrilegious (1 Cor 11:29). Reception of the Blessed Sacrament is not an automatic remedy. If we do not desire communion with Christ, God does not force this upon us. Rather, we must by faith accept God's offer of communion in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, and cooperate with God's grace in order to have our hearts and minds transformed and our faith and love of God increased.
Yes. The attitude or disposition of the recipient cannot change what the consecrated bread and wine are. The question here is thus not primarily about the nature of the Real Presence, but about how sin affects the relationship between an individual and the Lord. Before one steps forward to receive the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion, one needs to be in a right relationship with the Lord and his Mystical Body, the Church - that is, in a state of grace, free of all mortal sin. While sin damages, and can even destroy, that relationship, the sacrament of Penance can restore it. St. Paul tells us that "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup" (1 Cor 11:27-28). Anyone who is conscious of having committed a mortal sin should be reconciled through the sacrament of Penance before receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, unless a grave reason exists for doing so and there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, that is, an act of sorrow for sins that "arises from a love by which God is loved above all else" ( Catechism, no. 1452). The act of perfect contrition must be accompanied by the firm intention of making a sacramental confession as soon as possible.
Yes. Christ Jesus, our Lord and Savior, is wholly present under the appearance either of bread or of wine in the Eucharist. Furthermore, Christ is wholly present in any fragment of the consecrated Host or in any drop of the Precious Blood. Nevertheless, it is especially fitting to receive Christ in both forms during the celebration of the Eucharist. This allows the Eucharist to appear more perfectly as a banquet, a banquet that is a foretaste of the banquet that will be celebrated with Christ at the end of time when the Kingdom of God is established in its fullness (cf. Eucharisticum Mysterium, no. 32).
First among virtues, yes. The discussion had started over seemingly contradictory doctrines, however, not virtues or behaviors.
As to the third, we're not saved by doctrines but by our worship of God “in spirit and truth” as Jesus prayed for his disciples to be sanctified by “truth”.
Just to make sure I don't misunderstand your beliefs, "we're saved...by our worship of God"? Is the "truth" that the disciples are sanctified by just another name for "this quality of love that is given top place among the virtues" or is it something else?
An “outermost circle”? A sort of minimum of belief and action? Does the Scripture set some minimum or define the edges of that circle?
That is the question of the hour. Do you believe there is an "outermost circle"? What lies inside that circle in your belief system? What lies outside?
Yes.
Yes it was.
The people who showed up for the event - maybe about 5 MORMON folks and about the same number of non-Mormons; didn't find out he was 'busy' until about two hours after the start time.
Someone was passing by the meeting room and said, "Oh. he won't be able to make it tonight."
(We'd already kinda figgered that out and had a bit of discussing done already.)
It well fairly well, as we tend to be a bit more cordial face-to-face with other humans. ;^)
The young MORMONs were Stepford like when they got presented with LDS history and quotes; while the older one (2?) got to do most of the speaking, staying AWAY from themes MORMON and speaking Christian words and phrases.
The only person fooled by this was my wife; who I had drug halfway across Indiana with me that evening.
(She teaches small kids at our church and really doesn't get very deep into theology - if you know what I mean.)
No matter how often you assert that it is out of context or in error, it simply is not persuasive since you consistently fail to even attempt at reconciling it with your views. Quoting one sentence over and over again as if it is a response, when Augustine declares later that that sentence is figurative, does not help your cause.
Within the context then, what is it a figure of???
How did you figure out how things were interpreted back then??? How do you know and we don't...
So 'back then', people meant the opposite of what they said???
Ha!
This thread is NOT going anywhere in the Never Ending C vs P 'discussion'; so I may as well toss in a few more MORMON replies.
{snip}
I don't think we can ever transcend Joseph Smith or consider him to be a valued personality, but now we'll move on.I don't think you'll see that among believers in the faith, because there are too many other things that came from himthat are the reasons why we do what we do and we are what we are. That there are unanswered questions, to be sure.That there are things that I'm as anxious as the next guy to learn more detail on, I really want to know. But in the interim,it really doesn't, doesn't trouble me.We're in the religion-making business, as you intimated earlier, only for a short time, I mean, compared to theChristian church, which has been at this for a couple of millennia. We're about halfway to Nicaea.And so, and so in that sense — I remember a very tender moment. I was speaking with — I've been invitedto the Salt Lake Theological Seminary, basically an Evangelical seminary, to discuss a book I had done on Jesus.And they had read it, and they wanted me to come and just respond to questions.And it was, it was a very enjoyable couple of hours.The very last question that was asked by one of my friends there was this one.He said, 'Bob, what can we do for you?'And I, I wasn't ready for that question. I said, 'What do you mean?'He said, 'What can we, as Evangelicals, do for our Mormon friends?'And I, I guess my mind could have gone a hundred different ways, but what I came back with was this.I said, 'Boy, I appreciate you asking that. I don't think I've ever been asked that.'But, but I said, 'Try this. Cut us a little slack, will you? Give us a little time.We're in the religion-making business, and this takes time. It takes centuries.And, and trying to explain the faith and articulate the faith, that doesn't come over night.We've really only been about that for 20 or 30 years.'
Posted on Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:16:24 PM by Alex Murphy
Multiple sources from within the COB have confirmed that Robert L. Millet has been chosen by President Monson to fill the recent vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve.
Uh... looks like he did NOT make the cut!
http://www.lds.org/church/leaders/quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles?lang=eng
Good Girl!
There are many multiple translations in a side by side printing available.
I have a ...
KJV
Modern Language
Living Bible
Revision Standard Version
in one binding.
I have this one... 
.. that is in English, but leaves all the Jewishness found in the bible intact; choosing NOT to use the English translations of Hebrew words. It takes a bit of getting used to, but really makes the bible seem more real; especially the NT.
I mean a WORLD wide religion - not just something that the Western English speaking people are pushing.
When the shipment DOES come in; I was told it'd be a couple of YEARS before my name would move up the list.
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
| 4 So Yosef, because he was a descendant of David, went up from the town of Natzeret in the Galil to the town of David, called Beit-Lechem, in Y'hudah, | 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. |
| 5 to be registered, with Miryam, to whom he was engaged, and who was pregnant. | 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. |
Don’t hold your breath.
We need you around.....
I think we have something like that on our bookshelf. It was printed by Jews for Jesus, IIRC. I’ll have to get it out and check it out again.
I think I may have figured out where the source of disagreement lies here, at least wrt Augustine’s Tractate 25. So this will address that but I suspect the source of disagreement elsewhere will lie in a similar source, namely, the way each of us are reading the Saint’s words. Observe....
GPH stated, “If Jesus gives Himself in the Eucharist, how can Augustine assert that the command “Believe on Him whom the Father has sent” is to “labor for that meat which perishes not.”
Apparently GPH derives this conclusion from this passage of Tractate 25: “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.” This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)”
Or more specifically from this sentence: This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life.
This sentence, or the interpretation of the phrase “This is then to eat the meat...” Is where the central disagreement lies here (I believe)
IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”
GPH interprets it to say, “This is what it MEANS to say ‘we eat this meat’...”
Now I will conclude by saying this: Both interpretations, when taken at face value and divorced from the history of the author (Augustine) himself and from historical interpretation are valid and/or reasonable. But this is why I’ve said before that the historical framework in which this (and other Augustinian works) have been written cannot and should not be ignored, to whit, the man’s own personal history AND the Church (even at that time) Tradition to which he converted. Given THAT context, his words carry a clear meaning which I have described before which is, that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s body, understood in the spiritual SENSE, not the PHYSICAL sense, but still LITERALLY His Body nonetheless.
I do not know how much more clear I could be in explaining the difference of opinion here and I dare say I don’t know what else could be added at this point other than a simple agreement to disagree about the interpretation of the Saint’s words above (and elsewhere).
None of those guys taught heresy or denied any of what had been taught as Truth ever since the Apostles were alive and teaching those who would fill their shoes, but Luther did because he chose to follow Eve rather than Jesus Christ. No Pope ever preached that following Eve was the same as following Jesus Christ, but Luther did and those who follow in his footsteps likewise preach that following Even and worshiping their own, Most High and Holy Self is the same as following Jesus Christ. Only people who worship their Self would throw out part of the Bible and then have the gall to mock Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, by claiming to believe in Scripture as His Word.
Luther’s didn’t bother with a few fingers, they dug up, hanged, drew, and quartered Cromwell who not so long before they had hailed as a great man of God. When they were done mutilating the corpse, not just setting it in a chair, they kept his head on a post for quite some time. Of course, Marty preferred encouraging the nobility to slaughter peasants who were following Luther’s own writings to messing with corpses.
Nepotism? Pffft. Mere nepotism is a faint shadow of rule by nobility who pass their titles on in their family for generations and Marty loved the nobility. He loved them so much he said that each noble should dictate what everyone in duchy or fiefdom would believe and that all religion should be subject to control by the State.
Spending 1/7 or even ½ of the reserves others have built up pales by comparison to the outright theft of lands and buildings the Church had owned, built and improved for centuries. But, Luther saw nothing wrong with the nobles stealing whatever they wanted to enrich their families and strengthen their control over the ignorant peasents he damned for interpreting Scripture for themselves instead of listening to him. Anyone who was a little concerned over such theft could just ask Marty if it’s Ok and Marty assured them it was. After all, there was none of that garbage about the Ten Commandments for Marty. Anything you thought might be a sin, Marty could excuse. Like stating that husbands or wives to could fornicate whenever they liked with whoever they liked if their spouse didn’t please them sexually.
Yeah, Marty exceeded all those guys by a long shot. So much so that good old Adolph Hitler praised him as a farsighted and wise German for knowing how evil the Jooooooz were.
Those Popes were corrupt sinners, but they were all pikers compared to good old heretic and liar Marty.
And compared to 7/8ths of the people who have followed in Marty's footsteps by throwing out part of the Bible.
It's called tradition,dear, IC
We have many CF writings that it's easy to see this
Nice Job. Thanks
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.