A reader writes:
A friend just sent me the following question and I’m not sure how to answer. I’m almost certain Aquinas or one of the Church fathers must have addressed this, but for various reasons I can’t find it right now. Can you help? Thanks.
Does God the Father feel pain? If pain is a consequence of the fall, then is it possible for God to feel pain? Did God the Father experience pain of a father watching his son be tortured and killed, or is the Creator immune from pain? Pain exists because it it a component of the punishment He pronounced on a fallen creation. Pain therefore is part of creation. As the Creator is not creature, does he feel pain? God the Son most certainly did. Can God the Holy Spirit feel the pain of rejection? I assume the Holy Spirit knows the pain of Christ’s suffering since He was within Christ at the time. The Holy Spirit is also in us, and therefore one could assume that He can experience our pain as well. But does God the Father – God the Creator – feel pain?
Pain can be understood in two ways: The sensation we experience when certain parts of our nervous system are stimulated and the physiological sensation of pain is produced–as when a person accidentally slams his hand in a door. We may call this physical pain.
This kind of pain is possible only for being that beings with nervous systems. Since the divine essence does not include a nervous system, this kind of pain is impossible for God apart from the acquisition of a second nature, as in the Incarnation. Thus only God the Son can experience physical pain, and then not in his divine nature.
Being omniscient, the other two Persons of the Trinity know about the Son’s experience of physical pain, but it does not cause them physical pain any more than my slamming my hand in a door causes you physical pain. You recognize that I am in physical pain, but that doesn’t put you in physical pain.
The second way in which pain may be conceived is as mental pain. For example, when a person experiences painful emotions, such as sadness or anger. In living humans this is closely tied to the operation of the nervous system, and particularly the central nervous system (especially the brain), but it seems that it is also possible for humans to feel it without physical form–as in the case of damned souls that have not yet been resurrected.
This also seems to be possible for fallen angels, who are completely free of physical form. At least, Scripture speaks of their being tormended following the last day, and this torment must consist of something at least analogous to the mental anguish that we experience in this life.
Scripture also speaks of God experiencing sadness and anger, but Christian theology has historically understood this to be non-literal language.
God in his divine essence experiences infinite beatitude, and this beatitude would be marred if he experienced anguish in his divine essence. This is analogous to the way in which, once we are glorified in heaven, we will be aware of the fact that not all humans are saved, but it will not "ruin heaven for us."
Further, Catholic theologically has historically understood God as not containing passions. There are things in God that may be said to correspond to the passions, but he doesn’t experience them the same way that we do.
God does have DELIGHT AND JOY and LOVE, but he doesn’t HATE anything. He is HAPPY, is HIS OWN HAPPINESS, and has the SUPREME FORM OF HAPPINESS.
In understanding these realities in God, we must recognize the vast difference between him and us and that these things aren’t the same in him as they are in us. For example, in the case of love, we love things by recognizing the good qualities someone has and being attracted to those good qualities. In God’s case, Aquinas would say, God’s love is not attracted to the good qualities someone already possesses. Instead, it is manifest in bestowing those good qualities on the person. His love is active, whereas our is reactive.
When it comes to things like sadness or anger on the part of God, these have been historically understood as signifying things in a different manner as well, not as things that are literally painful to God, marring his beatitude. Thus when Scripture speaks of God being grieved by men’s sins, it is understood that he recognizes the reality and severity of their sins, and when it speaks of him being angry, it is understood that bad consequences are visited on those who are sinning or that bad consequences would be visited on them or they are liable for bad consequences, even if something happens to stop those bad consequences from happening (e.g., someone making atonement or intercession that shields the sinner, as with Job and his sons and daughters or Moses and Israel or Jesus and the whole human race).
Ludwig Ott has more on this in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma if you have a copy of that.
This was a very big deal to the early Church Fathers, because it was seen as part of the eternal unchangeableness of God’s nature. (This also came into play with Jesus humanly suffering and changing, but divinely being always the same. If you conceded too much about God the Son changing, you ended up with some thing like Arianism where Jesus wasn’t really God; but if you didn’t let Jesus change or suffer, you went all Docetist and the Passion was just Scooby Doo playacting.)
IIRC, the theological word is “impassibility”.
I have a follow-on question regarding the unitive nature of God. In that God is one yet three persons, does this mean that the oneness does not extend to the human nature constituted in the second person of the Trinity? I ask this in light of what I have been taught that God is fully present in each of the three persons of the Trinity. I’m trying to understand how God would be fully present in the second person of the Holy Trinity and at the same time the person of the Father not experience the pain of His Son’s death. Is this where the uniqueness of each of the three person’s natures come into play?
Maybe what I’m asking is what is the nature of the One God as opposed to the three persons of the Trinity?
The nature of the Trinity has always been a great mystery to me. I profess and believe it, but I don’t pretend to fully understand it.
No one can. If we did understand it, then it is not God.
As for hate.
I am reluctant to believe God does not hate.
…
I got to go to school now…
I’ll write later…
See you all later…Our Lady help you!
(and pray for me too, school is no fun!)
“I am reluctant to believe God does not hate.”
That may say more about you than it does about God.
God is not like us. His ways are not our ways.
I am reluctant to believe God does not hate.
Sadly, I am not too surprised by this statement, given the history of other comments by this poster.
What a distorted paradigm!!!
Hey “”,
Let’s pipe down on the nasty sniping!
Greetings Terry,
I had to chuckle at your difficulty with the Trinity. You did a great job of stating the mystery. Just last sunday I was reading Gilson’s “The Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas” and in his chapter on the Divine Attributes, there is a discussion of God’s essence not being a composition (made of parts). This leads one to wonder how the Trinity cannot be a composition, which would contradict God’s essence. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will be addressed in Gilson’s book, which is on the philosophy, while the Trinity is a revealed doctrine not accessible to reason alone.
Some Day, I was rather confused about this point myself when I read the Old Testament and got to Esau and Jacob. But I think it helps if you think about small children between the ages of 1 and 3. Even if a toddler is very naughty and annoyingly disobedient, loving parents would never cast that child out into the snow and say, “Never come back.” However, the same parents will allow their 18-year-old to walk out on them. Even at our best, we are sinful and repeatedly disobedient. God doesn’t hate us for it. Even if we walk away, it’s US doing the walk away.
Understand, SomeDay, that I am not offering any insult, or even criticism. I am only pointing out that delving more deeply in to why you feel reluctant to believe that God does not hate might bring some valuable insights.
I’m reluctant to believe we can weigh in strongly on this issue. That we take some elements of Scripture literally and others not literally assumes some margin of error in our interpretation. How do we know how to evaluate text as literal or not?
I appreciate MissJean’s analogy, but I don’t know if I agree with it. Or better said, with no certainty can I agree with it. It sounds nice and is comforting, but does it really reflect the meaning within Scripture? How do we decide which are the “emotions” that are fair to assign to God?
“God is love” makes sense to me. “God is loving” makes less so if he cannot also express negative emotions.
I don’t believe God “feels” pain, so much as God “knows” pain as it is part of creation. That may suggest empathy on some level, but that seems plausible.
Sorry, thinking as I write – doubt I was very helpful here.
I am reluctant to believe God does not hate.
SOME DAY:
Are you out of your mind????
Where did this come from????
If God actually ‘HATED’, He would not have given us His Only Son in order to SAVE us in the first place!
John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
This is one place where the Unmoved Mover of the Greek philosophers differs from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Somehow the Church Fathers didn’t pick up on that, and brought the impassibility into Christianity. Ultimately this led to hyper-Calvinisms double-predestination, because to them, there could be no will but God’s.
In the Bible, God hates sin, loves, grieves, and so on.
In the Bible, God hates sin, loves, grieves, and so on.
Yes, but Puzzled, these were human attributes given to God by the human authors. Thus, it was a ‘human’ understanding of God rather than an actual one.
Isaiah 55:8
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
“Yes, but Puzzled, these were human attributes given to God by the human authors.”
Not that this could be called an error, by any means. It is the use of phenomenological language to express man’s experience of God. Much as any artistic representation of God has to fall back on human conventions (a radiant presence, a venerable old man), so descriptions of God’s interaction with man will use human terms.
In His essence, for God to be God, He is pure action, and does not re-act. Now, if the human nature of Christ (the Son being eternal and beyond time) actually – in some way – figures into the character of God’s interaction with mankind through salvation history, then this might give some insight into the more anthropomorphic traits attributed to God in the OT.
Tim J.,
The point being is that the human authors were relying on their own human qualities, their own human experiences to express the divine.
Yes, ultimately, God is the Author of Scripture; however, that didn’t mean that God had these authors as some sort of automaton merely writing dictations from him.
No, he actually allowed them to utilize their own individual human experiences, human traits, to write the books of the bible and express them in human terms — each according to even their individual human limitation; of course, all under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Ever wonder why people in the Bible never just “like” or “dislike” something? It’s because Biblical Hebrew idiom does not use degrees of comparison, like “better” is the comparative of “good,” or “like” is a weaker emotion than “love.” There are no comparative or superlative forms of adjectives. This is not uncommon in Semitic languages. There are not words for “like” or “dislike” – you either love something or you hate it. To say God loves Jacob, but hates Esau is to say that God prefers Jacob to Esau. I actually can’t think of how you could even say “I love Jacob more than Esau.”
There are no comparative or superlative forms of adjectives. This is not uncommon in Semitic languages. There are not words for “like” or “dislike” – you either love something or you hate it.
Josh Hood:
U da Man, Brutha!
Thanks for the Info!!!
Although, I take exception to (even in both cases):
To say God loves Jacob, but hates Esau is to say that God prefers Jacob to Esau.
God bless ya, dude!
The way I understand it, is from psalm 138:
138:22. I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me.
Perfecto odio oderam illos inimici facti sunt mihi
and look at this link from New Advent:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm
If it is a virtue in us, it must be a reflection of God’s hate for sin.
It is the two faces of the same coin.
If He loves Himself perfectly, then He hates what is not compatable with Himself (evil).
You get me…
I am not crazy people…It is just a subject of which very little people, priests or in general know and much more importantly, like to hear.
I simply disagreed with the post in the part where it said God does not hate, and the link still says it wrong. I know, God hates sin and loves the sinner. But that is still hate right?
And some sinners pass a point where they cannot return (sin against the Holy Spirit), and then that is it, THEY WILL SEE GOD’S HATE FOR EVIL.
But you see, you jumped to conclusion about my person, or at least personality. Why?
It is understandable. No one these days likes to see the other side of the coin, the fact that
He is Justice.
Oh, and as for sprits feeling pain,( the fallen angels) it is not all “mental”.
God created a fire that dorments the souls of the damned, which are currently without a body.
So fallen angels will feel that pain.
But as for God the Father, He never did the miracle of “turning off”the effects of the Beatific Vision. Our Lord Jesus Christ did, that is why He suffered and died, which is a miracle in itself, to stop those effects.
Ohhhh Esau, the all knowing one even has a “God connection”, must have come from his Protestant background and his endeavor to convert the church to Protestanism as well in his “wolf in sheeps clothing act”
Our Lord Jesus Christ (who is God Esau by the way), made the following very clear:
“Do not think I have come to send peace upon earth; I have come to bring a sword, not peace. For I have come to set a man at variance with his father, and a daughter with her mother, and a daughter in law with her mother in law; and a mans enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me, is not worthy of Me. He who finds life will lose it, and he who loses life for My sake, will find Me (Mt 10:34-39)
Esau, I am sure you wont find that reading in any Novus Ordo Love Love Love parish, because now after 1962 years, God is all loving and no one goes to Hell, even the Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Protestants, anyone for that matter as JPII has those wonderful pagan prayer meetings with them
God is merciful but he is just, and if you want to take the low road of the “reform” and think that because some Modernists infiltrated and diluted church teachings that you are saved, then so be it
But Esau, you as a Protestant should know better
Op-Ed John 3:16 only appears once in the NT. Strange?
For more discussion about the “Son of God”, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God#In_the_New_Testament
I hate it when people like John seem to say something right.
But he is wrong, because looking at the Truth in the wrong perspective is still a lie.
Your intentions are not pure of heart John.
When they become so, you’ll see that people will believe what you are saying, because it God who will give the grace to love and understand.
Ahhh Some Day
Hard to admit I am correct, but the church cant keep lying anymore, and neither can Esau who as a Protestant is all for the council that is vague, while he pretends he is so “orthodox”, he loves the fact that it is a free for all as Protestanism is the same.
I do take offense, as you know nothing what is in my heart. Would an evil heart preach as St Paul did and escape for his life time and time as I do with such non-believers here who have bought into modernism and secularism and a One World Religion?
2000 years of condemnation of Modernism, Masonry and other heresy can not now become accepted by the church. Something is wrong and if you pray hard enough and read from another mans perspective, you will find the truth.
If the popes of today were CEO’s they would have been fired for the state of affairs today, and they are responsible for much more than a balance sheet. St Pius x would not have permitted such and did his best to hold if off.
Be careful of the wolf in sheeps clothing
You know nothing.
Because if you did…you would cite to me from the only book and author that clearly put the flashlight on the thief and caught him, and will destroy him.
You know nothing of the battle of the Church against the secret forces you probably swear you know. In the end, you are just a false right tradox, who thinks he and those like him will save the Church…
You could not be any more wrong.
This is a more interesting post and no one blogs.
I guess people like the more troublesome ones. This blog has some killer instinct.
Good grief,
You all give evil too much credit. Compared to God evil is not even a pimple on the face of creation. To actually work up a hate for evil god would give evil too much power. That is why God does not hate. It’s like saying God is disappointed when we do wrong. Such a situation would give us power over God. We would have the power to do something to God. This is obviously bad theology.
As for who God loves, I no more claim to know who God loves than to claim I know whether he hates anyone. That is beyond my human power or reason to know.
Will all Masons, “Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Protestants” go to hell? I don’t know. It’s neither my job or place to decide. To make a determination of that is to put yourself in God’s place.
The only soul I have any say in the final destination of is my own, and that is only because Jesus has already paid my bond price with his blood.
Jesus offered his salvation to all. It’s up to them to choose or reject it, but whether they do or not is not my business.
I have no fear for the Church. Have you forgotten Matt 16:18?
“..you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.ā
So obviously you don’t believe scripture, you don’t believe in the tradition of the Church, which decides how the Church invokes the Holy Spirit to choose Peter’s successor, or you don’t believe in the power of the Magisterium?
I hate to break it to you but any one of those beliefs is heretical.
You aren’t refering to me are you?
Because I have backed up what I am saying, and not like John Lenin over there.
John,
You could never say I “bought”into anything.
I am no pharisee, I don’t buy anything.
You on the other hand are.
You bought into thinking you know something.
And what you don’t know is that what you know is that what they want you to know so that when you say it you sound like a UFO watcher.
Crazy.
An op-ed about Matt 16: 18, (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark 8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.) i.e. not said by the historical Jesus.
See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html
I’m a closet homosexual who obsesses about pedophile priests because they turn me on!
(shhhh!!!)
I have dealt – in what are admittedly speculations, and extreme speculations at that – with something like this theme, in this essay: http://community.livejournal.com/fpb_de_fide/2629.html. I would like someone’s view of it – even if you think that I have indulged in the most howling heresy.
“An op-ed about Matt 16: 18…”
90% probability the above post was not said by the historical Realist.
It’s most likely a later addition, an accretion – or technically – junk.
FaithFutures? How about Faith Fantasies?
Tim J,
Strange how over one hundred contemporary NT scholars disagree with you. Hmmm, you and the self-authenicating Bible and a collection of self-authenicating “Vaticanites” vs. 100 plus NT scholars?? Time for a global debate!!!
Merely a 100 so-called NT scholars, Realist?
Jesus took on more than that when He was alive!
If the consensus of the multitude actually makes for ‘Truth’ these days, then what does that say about the consensus of the multitude that was responsible for putting Jesus to death?
John 17:14
14 I have given them thy word, and the world hath hated them: because they are not of the world, as I also am not of the world.
Also, such consensus of opinions by these ‘scholars’ of yours is easily explained by the popular ethos of group mentality these days and the singular ambitious nature of various scholars who gain such notoriety only by engaging in such sensationalistic so-called ‘earth-shattering’ claims.
As for going against these 100 so-called ‘scholars’, rather I stand with God than the fallible opinion of men!
Romans 8:31
31 Ā¶ What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us?
That’s the thing, Realist. The debate is over. Or more properly, there never was any debate. The Jesus Seminar hooey was in the Twilight Zone to begin with.
They are irrelevant, and growing moreso every day, and (as Martha Stewart would say), “That’s a good thing”.
Just roll with it. Accept the inevitable. the Church has rejected the very foundations of all this “historic Jesus” nonsense. We have taken a pass. We have, as they say, “been there & done that”. We have put this thing to bed, put it out of its misery, cast it aside, “86”-ed it, given it the heave-ho… it has been trashed, flushed, tried and found wanting, discarded, dismissed…
It is a failure. Those who still cling to it are a tiny and shrinking sliver of the theological pie. The Church, being ever-renewed in the Holy Spirit, has absorbed and assimilated what there was of higher criticism that was true and useful, and has moved on, leaving the frenzied hothouse theorizing of the higher critics in the dustbin of history.
I wouldn’t put all my hopes on this “Vatican III” you are holding out for. It’s a mirage.
Why do you folks take Realist so seriously? He’s either:
1) Literally insane.
2) A liar looking for converts to his theology (or rather antitheology).
3) A troll looking to get a rise out of people who are unwise enough to take him seriously.
I dare anyone to find a fourth option about how he could believe what he believes and still claim to be a Catholic. Realist’s theology is less compatible with Catholicism (or any kind of Christianity really) than oil is with water.
Realist’s theology is less compatible with Catholicism (or any kind of Christianity really) than oil is with water.
That’s just it, Anon.
Realist doesn’t realize the non-polar/polar incompatible nature of his theology to that of Christianity in general.
That’s like attempting to make a chemical reaction happen where the energy barrier is so high, not even the help of a catalyst as that of an enzyme could help make such a reaction to proceed to their end products.
“That’s like attempting to make a chemical reaction happen where the energy barrier is so high, not even the help of a catalyst as that of an enzyme could help make such a reaction to proceed to their end products.”
I was about to say that.
Sorry… couldn’t help it.
Admittedly, it was not the Holy Spirit speaking but the nerd in me! <8^)
Let us just say again that I try to keep in step with what is being taught in theology classes at major Catholic universities. (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U). And what is being taught agrees with much of what the Jesus Seminarians have concluded.
To reiterate a sampling:
Yes, Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly — earth bound distractions.
Yes, Christ’s and Mary’s bodies are not in Heaven. For
one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into “spiritual body.” No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
embodied person.
Yes, The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning
to life), Ascension (of Jesus’ crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary’s
corpse) into heaven did not take place. The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church. Only Luke’s Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus’ mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus’ followers The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary’s special role as “Christ bearer” (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus’ Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary’s assumption also shows God’s positive regard, not only for Christ’s male body, but also for female
bodies.
Realist_
‘ For
one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into “spiritual body.” No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.’
Paul knew exactly what he meant by it.
The Greek work for body is “Soma”– never used of anything but a tangible element in Scripture.
” Touch me and handle me for I am not a Spirit”…Jesus said in a post resurrection appearance.
Spiritual Body means just that—a body adapted for the spiritual realm.
“Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an
embodied person.”
This reeks of New Age Spiritism…….quite contrary to the Spiritual meaning Jesus gave….”A ghost has not flesh and bones as you see me have….”— “As I am You shall be”. etc.
Cool! FINALLY! Bible Study Time & Reference to the Greek! Unfortunately, it wasn’t a Catholic who initiated the discussion, but, no doubt, a Catholic!
However, erick — you’re wrong buddy!
In Luke 24:39:
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
The Greek word that’s used there is: ĻĪ½ĪµĻ Ī¼Ī± (or pneuma) which is the same word Paul uses in his epistles.
See, St. Paul uses that term pneuma in Greek, āSpiritā as a sort of āGod-Consciousnessā that we have when we receive the gift of sanctifying grace; thatās that spiritual part of us that helps us to understand the things of God as 1 Cor 2:14 says that keeps us in relationship with God; that is the supernatural life of God that is in our souls. According to Paul, those outside of Christ donāt have that and, therefore, they have no relationship with Christ.
I meant:
Unfortunately, it wasn’t a Catholic who initiated the discussion, but, no doubt, a Protestant!
Thank God somebody reads/studies the Bible!
I’m a closet homosexual who obsesses about pedophile priests because they turn me on!
(shhhh!!!)
I think that your obsession with me (Esau quite possibly?) is scary, possibly because you are such a failure as an Apologist
With respect to homosexual priests, I am amazed how you all are in such approval of them, possibly you yourself approve of homosexuality? Stating I am obsessed with homosexuality in the priesthood? Maybe you should see the havoc they have caused the church, but then again they fit right into your liberal Protestant agenda
I am also amazed how you defend Cardinal Law, possibly you are of that orientation, but I am not as nasty and as uncharitable as you and your liberal Protestant cronies who really have nothing but 40 years of failure to base their so called “obedience ” on.
John!
Whoa!
I didn’t even know you were, in fact, a homosexual!
Does your wife know?
Go straight to the Church and confess!
Ewwww!
esau-
However it is YOU who are wrong—-
I was not talking about the “spirit” word— but the “body” word which is the qualifier for the “essence” of which it is made of.
The word is “soma” and it ALWAYS means a tangible object of sorts.
You rush too much and always miss the point.
The point is that the resurrection body, while being of a “spirit kind” , is nevertheless a BODY.
Contrary to what realist says— the BODY of Jesus is what resurrected…it was not a new body created for him as a post resurrection identity (as Jehovah Witness teach)– but Jesu’s “soma”– ” it is I myself”.
The rest of what you wrote— I agree with.
The rest of what you wrote— I agree with.
Thanks, erick.
Also, I appreciate your actually having introduced some ‘bible’ here!
Sometimes, I’ve got to admit, I missed those bible study days with my Strong concordance and Unger bible dictionary!
Nominal Catholics aren’t into those things, unfortunately.
Please, please post again! The more bible, the better!
God Bless!
In the spirit of the discussion, Luke 24:39 as per the Jesus Seminarians, was not said by the historical Jesus.
18Ā±. Revealed to Disciples: (1) 1 Cor 15:5b,7b; (2) Matt 28:16-20; (3a) Luke 24:36-39; (3b) John 20:19-21; (4) Ign. Smyrn. 3.2b-3
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb018.html
An excerpt: from Gerd Luedemann
“Luke 24:36-53 The emphatic realism in the recognition scene that begins this appearance story mans “one can hardly avoid seeing this as a thrust against docetism. Evidently in this verse Luke is combating the same challenges to the bodily reality of Jesus as Ignatius, To the Smyrneans 3.2, does at the beginning of the second century.” Luedemann concludes, “The historical yield is nil, both in respect of the real historical event and in connection with the visions which were the catalyst for the rise of Christianity.” [Jesus, 413-415]
In re: John & Realist–
There doesnae appear to be a Full Moon, yet the dafties are out in Full Force,all the same….
Realist—
Luke is not combating anything!-.
All anyone had to do was point out where jesus’s body was—- and BAM!- (according to Paul in I Cor. 15-)- there goes the Cristian faith!!!!.
Only in Cristianity do we see all of the faith “hinge” upon this one HISTORICAL event!!!.
This is a DARE to the open minded skeptic to look into the facts.
Luke’s contemporaries were never able to dis-prove the empty tomb!— neither can these “Jesus” seminarians either!.
Esau said:
“John!
Whoa!
I didn’t even know you were, in fact, a homosexual!
Does your wife know?
Go straight to the Church and confess!
Ewwww!”
You are shameful to make such a statement, and I wonder why Jimmy Akin would allow such statements to be posted on his board
You seem obsessed with me and for that matter this blog. I think you are unfortunatly mentally ill
John, I don’t think Esau is the one who originally made the nasty anonymous comments in your name, though he should apologize if he did.
For the second comment, I agree it is shameful and he should apologize.
Esau may have been confused by the fact that you reproduces the nasty post without putting quotation marks around it.
He may have thought, then, that you were making the comment yourself.
Tim
Esau and at times others here may differ on areas of faith, as I am obviously looking to stop and roll back reforms-But I never ever resort to name calling and personal attacks, except at times when I have to defend myself, and I dont like to do that
Now I would be sure that Esau will go back (as he has everyone of my posts saved as he seems to have an obsession with me) and will take something out of context, but I never intiate the name calling and I find such words as attacking someone like above slander and worse.
With respect to citing statistics about our clergy and their orientation, there is a reason for not allowing these men to become priests and their presence to date has devastated the church morally and financially, and should be defrocked chaste or not as the church for centuries has considered homosexuality sinful and to permit clergy to be such, one might as well go to your local county jail and recruit convicted child molesters and murderers for the seminary
For Esau to attack someone on a personal level just goes to show his anger and frustration on having to debate on a purely intellectual level
Reread the posts and it isn’t exactly like John is making himself very clear. Moreover, he continues to call Esau a Protestant which he surely isn’t. Actually, he calls all of us, who are loyal to the Catholic magisterium, protestants, when he says
“you and your liberal Protestant cronies who really have nothing but 40 years of failure to base their so called “obedience ” on.”
Furthermore, John attacks Esau in saying ‘you are such a failure as an Apologist’, which I think others wouldn’t in anyway agree. That is not to say he is equal to St. Irenaus.. however.
So considering the lack of clarity on Johns side of things, and also his clear and even humorous insults provided to Esau and any who agree with him,( us “protestants”) I think both that no apology is needed, but that Esau’s humor was ‘becoming’ and worth the chuckle! š
By the way, John does a good job at ‘stirring the pot’!
However, seriously, I hope he does a good reading of ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ as it is filled with Divine Wisdom, Guidance and Love!
And how do we distinguish who are the true faithful? Listen to the Lord: “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another.” John 13:35
John, you are no doubt aware that I agree with what Esau says 90% of the time, while I disagree with many of your assertions.
I agree that self-professed homosexuals should not be priests, but I also disagree on your estimates of the number of such priests. There are many groups – on the far left AND far right – that have a vested interest in greatly inflating the estimated numbers of gay priests.
I also allow, as the Church does, that a man with temptations to homosexuality may still be able to function well as a priest, by overcoming his temptations with the help of the Holy Spirit. How many priests deal with temptations to fornication or gluttony or avarice the same way?
Remarks about the possible “sexual orienattion” of individuals in the combox – even jokingly – is over the line, in my opinion.
John:
Please stop all your lying and deceiving.
For one thing, haven’t you noticed that it is you who keep posting stuff to me?
For example, this very thread here, while everybody here were discussing material pertinent to the topic of this thread, it was you, yet again, who couldn’t help go on your little heinous tangents as that in your Mar 14, 2007 2:57:51 PM post that read:
Thus, it is you, as always (as in other threads), who have this so-called ill and demented obsession with me!
Further, it is you who are highly incapable in engaging in any sort of discussion, being that an actual discussion is two-way, yet any discussion with you happens only one-way: you simply throw out what you want to say and dictate while disregarding anything that others have to say!
In addition, all this ‘pretense’ of yours that it is you who are the one charitable as compared to us is a crock full of manure!
How many times have you said the most outrageous uncharitable things (lies, in fact) about folks in the Church like past popes, JP II and John XXIII as well as Mother Teresa?
And many times, you keep twisting the truth just to suit your agenda, like the time you did with Innocencio and here in fact with me!
For example, when have I ever defended Cardinal Law?
Never!
So, you go back to your demented ways of attacking the Catholic Church and doing the work of the Devil as you always do!
I’m done with you!
As for your prejudice against Protestants, I have a far greater respect for such as our seperated brethren than with a sorry excuse for a Catholic like you!
For anybody who claims himself a ‘true’ Catholic and yet committs such outrageous actions against the Church as you have, the very fact that you claim to have such respect for the Traditional Teachings of the Church that you should actually know better, that you would actually go to the extent of besmirching the very foundation of the Catholic Church by not only rejecting the Authority of the Pope and the Council of Bishops but, even further, arbitrarily substitute your own authority over that of the Church, and, worse, you would actually go to the horrid extent of spreading such lies about not only innocent clergy but also holy folk like Mother Teresa and JP II!
So, for you to attack these as you have is not only regarded as a personal attack but an offense that directly strikes at Jesus since you attack His Church!
And if you don’t believe that, go to this wonderful book that real Catholics as well as Protestants have deep respect for — it’s called the Bible!
There, you’ll find Jesus having asked Saul:
Acts 9:4
4 And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
Ask yourself if you’re not doing the same with all these offenses you’ve actually committed against not only the Church but to Our Lord with all your lying, deceiving and calumny!
Again, with you, I’m done!
I also allow, as the Church does, that a man with temptations to homosexuality may still be able to function well as a priest, by overcoming his temptations with the help of the Holy Spirit. How many priests deal with temptations to fornication or gluttony or avarice the same way?
Actually, Tim J., I really don’t think that the Church should ever give such leeway to homosexuals to becoming priest.
For one thing, what do these folks actually give up?
They’re not sacrificing anything!
Yet, for those of us guys who actually even seriously consider such a calling, there is SO MUCH we are called to sacrifice in terms of this as compared to homosexual candidates.
For one thing, it means never again to experience the full intimacy and sensual pleasure of being with a woman, giving up the entire prospect for a family life and having children, etc.
Yet, what do homosexual candidates actually sacrifice?
Forgive me for my language here, but if anything, it would be like giving them the key to what would be the equivalent to playboy mansion.
For one thing, what do these folks actually give up?
They’re not sacrificing anything!
How can you say this Esau? If a person is homosexual (not necessarily actively), and yet is committed to following Christ by denying this temptation — how can you make light of that?
We at least, as heterosexuals, have the option of marriage and experiencing that intimacy; homosexuals who follow the Church are called to lifelong celibacy! That’s a hard cross.
Do NOT make light of their cross.
Esau
Your actions or someone’s for that matter of placing posts on the internet pretending to be someone else, as well as making their e-mail address such as mine public knowledge is a violation of FCC as well as other privacy acts which you can easily be traced back to your IP address
One such as yourself who basically is on every possibly thread seems to be obessesed to a scary point with what I and others who disagree with you say, all in pretense of being “obedient”
As far as my calling you Protestant, it is only because you once was and clearly admitted to such. I have no proof of your conversion, as you can easily be a Protestant pretending to be Catholic on a blog trying to corrupt others with your clear lack of knowledge of the catechism and how much the church as reformed
Smoky:
I’m not against Homosexuals — I’m only against them becoming priests!
Did you ever learn of not putting one’s self in the near occasion of sin?
Let me put it this way (please forgive me folks if I become graphic here) — if you were given access to the playboy mansion for the rest of your life, are you actually going to tell me that you would NOT actually sleep or, at the very least, make out with any of the ladies there?
Esau,
I’m not against Homosexuals — I’m only against them becoming priests!
Did you ever learn of not putting one’s self in the near occasion of sin?
How are priests with temptations towards homosexuality any more in a near occasion of sin than heterosexual priests who work with and counsel women?
Forgot to sign the above.
I also think the analogy to the playboy mansion is inappropriate — not even due to its graphicness, but rather to its inaccuracy.
Are the male priests and lay people that a homosexual priest comes in contact with generally naked? Do they generally act provocatively? How is this an apt analogy?
I don’t see how it is any different than the temptations that a heterosexual priest could encounter when working with women.
For one thing, there aren’t any women in the seminary (except maybe for some in the faculty, but they only go there during business hours)!
Are you actually aware that when somebody enters the seminary, they’re there 24 hours a day?
They don’t just go there during school and go back home — they stay there!
Again:
Let me put it this way (please forgive me folks if I become graphic here) — if you were given access to the playboy mansion for the rest of your life, are you actually going to tell me that you would NOT actually sleep or, at the very least, make out with any of the ladies there?
Comparing other seminarians in the seminary to playboy playmates is just absurd, and probably offsensive to some.
What I am accentuating here is that in the seminary, the seminarians are there 24 hours-a-day!
They not only are there during school but even before and after!
Also, they not only shower there, but they also sleep there!
Therefore, there is no privacy for a seminarian there!
So, my analogy is rather appropriate!
Plus, if it weren’t for the minority of deviants that were allowed to enter into the seminary from John’s beloved Tridentine days leading up to our modern crisis, we perhaps may not have experienced the horrible events we’re suffering today, with all the innocent victims, the Church itself, as well as the innocent clergy out there, who have come to suffer the brunt of the circumstances in our times.
Esau,
I don’t think the ‘sacrifice’ is what really counts, but the true vocation and love of Christ, who can make ‘heavy burdens’ light!. All of life demands sacrifices of one form or another, and really, sex is not the highest of goods, nor the greatest of sacrifices possible, in this life. Really, the greatest good is indeed the devotion and love that we experience when we love others and spread the Gospel! Sensual pleasure, at least for me, is quite secondary and even unwanted and distracting, quite often. Pure spiritual zeal and love, on the otherhand, is always pleasurable! And one 90+ year old lady, my friend, once ‘said it’ well, when a young person asked why she didn’t get tired or bored by going to 2 masses each day. “You can’t get bored with Love!” she emphatically replied!
However, what you say about Homosexuals not being suited to the priesthood, I can agree with in the sense that only MEN are admitted by the Church. Now, if one is confused about whether he indeed is a MAN or NOT is the problem.
And moreover, you seem to be right.. that there would be considerably more temptation provided such a homosexually orientated priest…somewhat similar to the extreme temptations that might occur if a monk were to be admitted into a monastery for cloistered nuns! However, holy they are, there would always be the temptations waiting! So, really, if we want to reduce this obvious ‘occasion of sin’, I think it better if those with homosexual orientation be joined with, or associte predominately with, females, whom they aren’t naturally attracted to!
However, due to all the complications that would occur in this logical scenario, It seems logical to just make sure that ONLY THOSE WITH THE SAME SEXUAL ORIENTATION can live in community together, whether it be a monastery or a rectory. (Or maybe, such HO priests and religious, should have a dwelling apart from the others?..like being an extern?)
How else can this dilemma be solved? It would be a WORSE EVIL for the HO candidate to be provided this evil of continual, life long temptation, than to refuse his candidacy to the priesthood in the first place. Then, if he needs spiritual support as a layman, he would have the opportunity to associate predominately with woman.. who wouldn’t be such a source of temptation and ‘occasion of sin’.
However, that’s just my opinion. Maybe one day the Church will ‘refine’ her teaching on this dilemma?
…somewhat similar to the extreme temptations that might occur if a monk were to be admitted into a monastery for cloistered nuns!
Thanks A. Williams for seeing my point!
It would be a WORSE EVIL for the HO candidate to be provided this evil of continual, life long temptation, than to refuse his candidacy to the priesthood in the first place.
I’m sorry to disagree with you, but I still believe they should not ever be allowed to the priesthood.
Again, I’m not personally against them — only against them becoming priests.
To become a priest, one offers to Our Lord a great sacrifice; I just don’t see how theirs is actually a sacrifice at all when you consider the grand scheme of things.
Bold off.
A. Williams:
Consider this, at least —
Don’t you think it interesting that because of a few minority of deviants that were actually allowed to enter the seminary way back then in John’s days; suddenly, the Church is suffering such a crisis as it is today?
I think that it SPEAKS VOLUMES of the fact that this should NOT have even been allowed in the first place!
Now, because of this, not only do we have innocent victims (many of them being young kids, in fact) as well as clergy and several of the laity suffering, but, the overall Church as well!
Catholic churches are closing down, old folks dependent on nearby churches can no longer attend Mass because the local church has been closed down, the general trust in the Church has been erroded greatly, respect for Authority has as well, etc.
All of these things — all due to having permitted such leeway!
It is like having a hole in the damn — now, that hole has become wider and the waters are rushing forth!
Only our Faith and adherence to God’s Will (not ours) can help to save it!
“It would be a WORSE EVIL for the HO candidate to be provided this evil of continual, life long temptation, than to refuse his candidacy to the priesthood in the first place.”
Esau, I think you read me wrong. What I was trying to say was that providing life long temptation is definately evil. It’s not good for the HO priest to be in this environment. And this is why the Church separates the sexes(monasteries, rectories,some schools, etc.) in the first place!
So this is one evil.
The other ‘supposed’ evil, or so might say various HO priests, would be the evil of denying them the opportunity to be ordained. And what I was saying is that I thought that the temptation provided in living in close proximity to the opposite sex was a greater threat to the soul…and so this is a justification for NOT allowing their ordinations.
And also, just as the Church sees fit not to ordain women, so too is it justified in not admitting homosexuals, because of the homosexual’s claim of not having a normal ‘male’ sexual orientation–basically saying that they are really females living inside male bodies.
However, as I said, I hope the Theologians can straighten all this stuff out, because it does seem to be a bit confusing…who is who, and who is what..,and what is what, and to what degree….. and the what not!
I would like to keep everything simple. Ordain Men only! Not women, not half men, not men in womans bodies, or women in mens bodies. Just regular, old…men in mens bodies!
Now, if who’s on first…what’s on second? If not,then who’s on second…oh forget it!
I think you both are failures as Apologists; (that was a lame comeback John). I suggest you read HOW NOT TO SHARE YOUR FAITH. Go hang out with your families and leave each other alone.
I’m kind of thinking that the poster “John” above, is really CHOLO! It sure sounds like him!:
..”As far as my calling you Protestant, it is only because you once was and clearly admitted to such. I have no proof of your conversion, as you can easily be a Protestant pretending to be Catholic on a blog trying to corrupt others with your clear lack of knowledge of the catechism and how much the church as reformed”
Isn’t this Cholo? John is normally a better writer than this..more coherent!
I can accept some of what Esau and A. Williams are saying regarding avoidance of lifelong temptation.
I still find the playboy mansion analogy extremely distasteful.
But this statement, similar to Esau’s original statement, is what provoked my response:
I just don’t see how theirs is actually a sacrifice at all when you consider the grand scheme of things.
That bothers me. I should think homosexually-oriented people who live chaste lives make a greater sacrifice than heterosexuals who do so; homosexually-oriented individuals, in following the teachings of the Church, need to consciously decide to avoid all sexual intimacy their entire lives. Heterosexuals, at least, have the option of marriage.
Heather L.
If you looked at this thread alone, you would see that I posted nothing here to John and that it was he who instigated the exchange as he had often done likewise in other threads.
But, if it is actually acceptable to you that John does what he does (like say the most horrible and untrue things about JP II and Mother Teresa and spread such awful things about the Church itself; e.g., masonic conspiracy, it being another religion, etc.), then that’s fine; you have the right to believe as you believe as your own individual.
As for me, discussions with him has proven not only fruitless and futile, but also tiring and, thus, terminate any such exchange with him now and in the future.
God bless!
It’s him, A Williams.
If you read the entire post, it reads in ‘John Speak’.
That bothers me. I should think homosexually-oriented people who live chaste lives make a greater sacrifice than heterosexuals who do so; homosexually-oriented individuals, in following the teachings of the Church, need to consciously decide to avoid all sexual intimacy their entire lives.
Again, Smoky, as I’ve mentioned, I’m not against them — but against them becoming priests.
Smoky,
You are very correct on your notion of their lives being more difficult than hetrosexuals. And they should definitely be shown compassion, even as everyone, with what ever disability, poverty, handicap or difficulty might have. This is completely in line with what Jesus teaches and how He acted!
Never, should we push the ‘ass’ deeper into the pit..or worse yet, put a top on it!…but rather labor and suffer to free it!
So too, we are all sinners, and have all been in the pit! St. Francis of Assisi understood all of this well, that is..the relativity of it all. He said “If a robber or thief were given the abundant graces that I have recieved He would be far better than I am!”
So no one can really judge himself accurately, because, we really don’t know how many ‘talents’ we have actually been given by God to start with in this life! Woe to us if we judge ourselves to be good, thinking that we have accumulated 100 talents, when, infact, the Lord gave us 500 to start with! And worse yet, we look at another man who only has 50 talents, and we say he is only half as virtuous as we are….but the Lord actually only gave him 10 talents to start with!
So whereas He advanced by 500%, we, at the same time lost 500%! And we still think that we’re 100% better than this other fellow!
This is why, I think, the Lord taught that it was SO HARD for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven…because his understanding and judgement might lack this notion of relativity, wherein his mind and heart can be easily corrupted by wealth, power and fame…gravely mistaking these worldly things to be the same thing as heavenly virtue.
The Painful Vatican II priesthood and Coverups continue
http://www.rcf.org/docs/20060119LifeSiteBishopsDelay.htm
Thursday January 19, 2006
Revealed: US Bishops Asked Pope to Delay Homosexuality and the Priesthood Document
By John-Henry Westen
Source URL: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jan/06011910.html
CHICAGO, January 19, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an annual interview with Chicago Sun Times reporter Cathleen Falsani, Chicago Cardinal Francis George revealed that last year the United States Bishops visiting with the Pope asked the Vatican to delay release of the long-awaited document on homosexuality and the priesthood.
The document entitled, “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders”, reinforced Church teaching barring men “who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'”, from becoming priests.
“We asked them not not to publish it, but to delay it — to wait — otherwise it would color the visitations,” Cardinal George told the Times.
He said the bishops were concerned that the document would be released during the official visits of US bishops with the Pope over the issue of sexual abuse in seminaries, and thus would ignite the sensitivities of homosexuals activists. Explained George: “We said, ‘If you do this, it will be taken as a commentary on the visitations and we’ll get into this whole business that the gay community is so sensitive to of, ‘You’re blaming us for the pedophilia.'”
In fact, however, the study on sexual abuse commissioned by the US Bishops after the scandals broke in 2002, confirmed that homosexuality indeed was a major part of the problem. The John Jay study (available online: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ ) noted that 80% of the sexual abuse in the priesthood involved adolescent males rather than young boys, pointing to the core problem being one of homosexuality, not strictly pedophilia.
For comment, LifeSiteNews.com contacted Michael Rose, the author of the best seller ‘Good Bye, Good Men’. The book catalogued the homosexual activism in Catholic seminaries during the 70s and 80s which led to the acceptance into the priesthood of many practicing homosexuals and rejection from seminary of many men who followed Church teaching on homosexuality.
Rose noted that the document, already delayed for some ten years, was important for the whole church, and a request to delay it to ward off criticism from homosexual activists was concerning. “The request of the Pope by the US bishops to delay the release of the (already long delayed) document seems at best self-serving,” said Rose. It is “again, sending the wrong message to the faithful (and others), that our bishops are overly concerned with outward appearances, perhaps to the detriment of more important things.”
Cardinal George noted that the Vatican disregarded the request and published the document as scheduled.
“Their response was, ‘Well, we’re sorry about that, but this is a universal document. It’s not directed at the United States. It’s directed to the whole church. So we’re gonna do it.’ They have their own schedule,” he said.
See the Chicago Sun Times interview online:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/falsani/cst-nws-cardinal16.ht…
And your point is?
Never, should we push the ‘ass’ deeper into the pit..or worse yet, put a top on it!…but rather labor and suffer to free it!
A. Williams:
Couldn’t you find a more decent expression than this considering the topic?
As for a charitable treatment of such individuals, of course!
They deserve the same as you would others as Jesus had taught; however, again, the point is that they should not be allowed to become priests.
Kindly remember that the very crisis we suffer today in the Church might perhaps be due to the fact that we had allowed such a thing to occur in the past.
Esau,
I was just trying to be faithful to the Gospel text, there. However, if we want ..we might try “Donkey”..
…but ‘mule’ just might be stretching it a tad! š
I’m pretty sure everyone knows that were talking about ‘animals’…beasts of burden, anyway!
Also, you might have missed a response I made to you a while back, wherein I stated that you probably misread my first post on this subject. I never was advocating the ordination of HO men. Just the opposite. You might want to re-read.. a few posts back.
The idea is the same anyway. “Do unto other’s what you would have other’s do unto you”…but this doesn’t necessarily mean they should be ordained.
Agreed, A. Williams!
A-MEN!
Tim J, who agrees with Esau 90% of the time (his own admission) stated:
“And your point is?”
To a post above which, contradicts, along with other statiscal evidence provided to Esau which contradicts Esau’s invalid assertion that the homosexual/pedophila crisis started before the 1950’s and 1960’s and called the Traditional Priests “Pink Palaces”.
“In fact, however, the study on sexual abuse commissioned by the US Bishops after the scandals broke in 2002, confirmed that homosexuality indeed was a major part of the problem. The John Jay study (available online: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ ) noted that 80% of the sexual abuse in the priesthood involved adolescent males rather than young boys, pointing to the core problem being one of homosexuality, not strictly pedophilia…..homosexual activism in Catholic seminaries during the 70s and 80s which led to the acceptance into the priesthood of many practicing homosexuals and rejection from seminary of many men who followed Church teaching on homosexuality.”
Sorry Esau, you are incorrect again
Dont you ever get tired of trying to defend sin?
In clear violation of Canon Law, which has all but been ignored by the church of Vatican II which was starting to see an influx of homosexuals with the loosening of the reigns in the 1960’s with Vatican II looming and in progress, issued the following:
THE CANON LAW DIGEST
Officially Published Documents Affecting the Code of Canon Law
Volume V
Canon 973
Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders (S.C. rel., 2 Feb, 1961) pp 452–486
30. Those to be excluded; practical directives
4. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
And your point is??
………TO GET ESAU’s GOAT?
Most of us here, and the Church, too, agree that homosexually orientated men are not perfect candidates for ordination. However, the Church doesn’t exclude them completely, and there are probably countless examples wherein HO priests lived exceptionally chaste and highly devout lives. But we won’t know for sure until we meet them in Heaven. Moreover, I wouldn’t want to judge any of them without having strong evidence of wrong doing, considering the admonition of the Lord “Judge not, lest you be judged”!
And I lived in San Francisco for all of my youth, and have encountered, confessed to, and made friendships with, a great number of PROBABLY,’less than hetrosexual’ orientated priests. But, since their private lives were not published, I never was in a position to judge them, nor did I consider it my business, and they always seemed to be fairly decent people and adequate servants of God.
However, I also would have preferred to associate with priests the likes of St. John Bosco, the Cure’ de Ars, or St. Anthony Mary Claret! But, unfortuantely were not living in a perfect world, wherein we get everything we want in this life, both spiritually and materially!
And it’s not good to judge to harshly the Church in the 60’s and 70’s…because we all know the radical times they were, with the drugs, anti-war protests, race riots, fears of WWWIII and a generally liberal and institutionally rebellious population. So we shouldn’t make the error of blaming the Vatican for Ozzie Osbourne, Led Zepplin and Jerry Garcia, nor for Colombian cocaine, and ‘impeach Nixon’ bumper stickers! They were wild times!
And if the Church loosened up a bit, to try to reach this crowd…of which I was one of them…we shouldn’t overly condemn the Church, as the times were NEW back then, and the errors of those days were not yet exposed. To put things simply, I don’t think extra tonsures would have changed things significantly, and possibly might have even made things much worse. But we’ll never know!
So, let’s go a little easier on our Holy Church.
If things take time to correct, it is because the Church needed the proper structures to make those corrections secure and valid. It needed all of the documents that Pope Benedict currently cites when discussing or promulgating his current reforms.
Do the critics really think it is a small deal to creat a NEW Catholic Catequism? New Code of Canon Law? New Roman Missal etc..?? These things take TIME! But now we have all of these ‘foundational’ documents, and the popes of the future will use them to focus and direct the Church for decades, if not centuries, to come!
So let’s look on the bright side of things! We have the infrastructure in ‘black and white’! The hard work has been done. Now all we need to do is follow the lead of B16 and try to reconvert the millions of Catholics, and all others too, which ‘bought into’ the liberal ideologies of the last 40 years!
But please, let’s stop blaming Vatican II for all the liberalism. It would have happened with or without the Church! It’s better to accept the positive things the we attained during this time, and then, with God’s grace and help, work for a HOLY future!
A. Williams:
Don’t even bother.
That is, the ‘Pink Palaces’ that our seminaries had become in the past more than likely had their origins in the days of the Tridentine when you seriously consider that if it were not so, their infiltration into the Church would not have occurred in the manner it had.
Could it really be such a coincidence that most pedophiles (who consists of a very small minority in the clergy) were found to be of such old age and many of them, when sought by the authorities, had already passed away or were so old, that they couldn’t be tried criminally due to the statutes of limitation?
A. Williams:
Here is an example of the fact that you really can’t trust even these so-called Traditionalists:
Traditionalist Catholic Sex Scandal
Esau posted (and he must have searched far and wide for something with the word “Traditional in it to try and win a tiny bit of this discussion):
“The Society of St. John began as a breakaway group from the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic order founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. When Bishop Timlin canonically established the Society in his diocese in 1997….”
Esau..BREAKAWAY from SSPX-They are not part of any Traditionalist group-they broke away from SSPX because SSPX would never go for this sort of immoral behavior!!
You dont even read what you cut and paste!!!
Does anyone really believe that the Roman Catholic Church will EVER be free from sinner’s and scandal in it’s midst? If so, they are pretty ignorant Christians!
What any real follower of Christ needs to do is listen to the words written in the Gospels,and then pay great attention to everything Jesus said and did. How many parables are about sinners in the midst of the Church? What do you think about Jesus, permitting the company of Judas, whom he actually called “a devil”, signifies? How often did Jesus exhort His apostles to have “perception”..to understand the things He was doing??
Those who know the Lord, ‘His Sheep’ who “hear His voice”, understand that there are many things in this life that we have power over, and many things that we do not! This is all in the Divine Providence of God. And if evil exists in the Church we should all do our jobs to try to stop it, but also know that this will never be completely possible, and that is why we are “the Church MILITANT and not the Church TRIUMPHANT!
So, only new or weak Christians should be surprised at any scandal in the Church! These Christians haven’t yet learned to ‘percieve’ as Jesus so often complained about! They haven’t come to understand the message of the Cross, and true Christian spirituality.
However, those who study the mind and heart of Jesus, both in the Gospels, and by imitating Him…will one day come to an understanding of both and the Sacred Heart and the Divine Wisdom of Jesus. They will also understand the Divine Providence of God, who alone has the power to ‘raise up’ and ‘cast down’.
Our job is to do that which we are given by God, and do it as faithfully and lovingly as possible. The rest is none of our business. And the All Powerful, All Good and All Knowing Lord will take care of and provide for His own sheep–His Holy Catholic Church!
And all to the glory of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Amen.
erick:
I was going over the Greek this weekend in the passage:
In Luke 24:39:
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
The actual Greek word there is ĻĪ±ĻĪŗĪ± or sarx, meaning physical flesh, which, by the way, is the same Greek word used in other passages as regards Jesus’ flesh:
For example, John 6:54:
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Esau, and how would you demonstrate this? And why do you reject the teaching of the BIble and of the Church that the Bible is inerrant?
Tim, where is this idea of God as pure action, and never re-acting come from? It doesn’t come from the Bible. It probably comes from the heretic Plotinus.(actually, not really a heretic, because he wasn’t a Christian in the first place, just the inventor of neo-Platonism)
Esau, “no prophet of Scripture wrote by his own interpretation, but as he was moved along by the Holy Spirit.”
The whole Process theology trail leads in the end, to panentheism.
Puzzled,
It is the Bible that tells us that God does not change.
Esau, and how would you demonstrate this? And why do you reject the teaching of the BIble and of the Church that the Bible is inerrant?
Puzzled:
What are you babbling about?
You make it appear that the human authors were but taking dictations from God, and nothing more, which is NOT what the Church teaches!
Go to the following website in order to educate yourself on this matter:
Understanding Inspiration: How the Bible was Written
As I’ve said:
Puzzled:
I found something from Scott Hahn that might help:
Sacred Scripture is inspired and inerrant. āInspiredāāfrom a word meaning ābreathed ināāmeans that God himself guided the authors who wrote the books of the Bible. The writersā intellects were enlightened directly by the action of the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted and nothing more. This process took place over several thousand years. The Spirit moved them to write without in any way impairing their freedom to write what was in their intellects. Though God is the principal author of scripture, the human authors are also true authors because they acted as free, subordinate, intelligent instruments of the Holy Spirit.
esau-
Regarding your post as to the “physical flesh” of Jesus…..THAT”S RIGHT!.
We agree…..!
As the well known creed states…” I believe in the resurrection of the flesh…”.
We agree…..!
erick:
Hallelujah, brother!
God bless you and keep up the great work studying the WORD!
Esau,
I guess using Scott Hahn as a reference, a former Protestant is acceptable now that he is Catholic, but did not Luther also rejectthe role of oral tradition as being equally authoritative with Scripture (which the church agrees to) and hence questioned the Church’s right to say which books were canonical?
Whether a book is canonical or not, accepted by the church is most important. What does one say then about the so called “disputed books”?
For example 1 Clement, even though internally claiming inspiration and being acclaimed as inspired by some churches, was not used everywhere and therefore was not canonical, this is not saying that the book is not inspired by God but that the book is not normative.
Canonicity and inspiration are two different
things.
Books that are not part of the churc’s canon help make up what is her Tradition and are testimonies of the Holy Spirit working in the People of God. The true test of Apostolic Tradition is the main factor, could the book be applied to an apostle or disciple? That is the question as you fail to clearly distinguish between what is inspired, and what is canonical.
That is the question as you fail to clearly distinguish between what is inspired, and what is canonical.
John,
What the heck are you babbling about?
That was not my intention as this was not the main topic of the original discussion!
I was addressing the fact that when it comes to interpreting Scripture, one must keep in mind that though God is the Principal author, the human authors were not relegated to mere writing instruments that merely took down dictations from God!
Also, it would do you well to actually read the link I provided above to an article I found that elaborates on the topic.
As for your statement:
I guess using Scott Hahn as a reference, a former Protestant is acceptable now that he is Catholic
I cannot help to observe but a distinct distaste you have for Protestant converts as made evident by this remark and, therefore, would anticipate nothing but perhaps biased, prejudiced remarks in this regard; thus, if you are to even carry on such dialogue, I would warn you to tread with something that gives a far better appearance of fair and balanced point-of-view than the prejudice you’ve just demonstrated here by your remark!
When I mentioned:
“The point being is that the human authors were relying on their own human qualities, their own human experiences to express the divine.
Yes, ultimately, God is the Author of Scripture; however, that didn’t mean that God had these authors as some sort of automaton merely writing dictations from him.
No, he actually allowed them to utilize their own individual human experiences, human traits, to write the books of the bible and express them in human terms — each according to even their individual human limitation; of course, all under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
Posted by: Esau | Mar 14, 2007 2:16:24 PM
To further corroborate my point, here is something from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:
Nature of Inerrance
“The inerrancy of Scripture means that its hermeneutic truth is also objectively true, and that its genuine sense is adequately presented by its literal expression, at least by its complete literal expression, found in the original text interpreted in the light of the special purpose of the Holy Ghost and of its intended circle of readers. But this perfection of literary presentation does not remove obscurity and ambiguity of expression, defects which flow naturally from the human authors of the various books of Sacred Scripture, and were foreseen, and for good reasons permitted or even intended, by the Holy Ghost. Nor does the absolute truthfulness of Sacred Scripture imply that the Bible always presents the whole truth under all its aspects, nor does it demand that all the saying quoted by the Bible as historical facts are objectively true. Words quoted in Scripture as spoken by infallibly truthful speakers, e.g., by God Himself, or the good angels, or the prophets and apostles actually inspired, or by the sacred writer himself while under the influence of inspiration, all these words are nor merely historically, but also objectively, true; but words quoted in Scripture as proceeding from speakers open to error are not necessarily objectively true, though they are historically true. If however such profane words are expressly approved of by the inspired writers, they are also objectively true.”
By the way, I LIKE this —
FINALLY, at the very least, we’re actually exploring Scripture!
“1 Clement, even though internally claiming inspiration…”
Can you point out where 1 Clement makes this claim?