Obviously I don’t want to fall into either extreme of ‘putting God in too small a box’ by saying “no, He can’t/won’t create a miracle in such situations” or “heck, proper sacramentality be darned, let’s have doritos and beer!”. We believe that God instituted the sacraments within the Church in a particular form for a reason and we do our best to follow His lead there. That doesn’t preclude God from manifesting the miraculous elsewhere if it pleases Him.
As usual, you have a number of idiosyncratic opinions, but, mutatis mutandis, I agree with the basic premise.
So the evidence be damned, you believe what you believe.
I’m barely lingual myself. But my daughter taught high school Latin for 5 years.
Greetings, VH.
The fundamental issue here is that no one had presented credible evidence. Catholic miracles are thoroughly investigated, reported, witnessed by credible witnesses and confirmed by or supported by the Bishop who has authority in the region it occurred in. The greater miracles & visions such as Fatima, Lourdes etc. are heavily investigated by ecclesiastical authorities over many years before they are approved. In fact, the tendency within The Catholic Church is to be highly skeptical until there are confirming events, or secondary healing etc.So the evidence be damned, you believe what you believe.
I don’t think God boxed Himself in to the extent that the Catholic church maintains He has. He is in charge of the church, not the other way around. Some posts give me the impression that the Pope, or Mary, or the Magisterium, has every right to order God around.
I am yet to be convinced that the Catholic priesthood is all that important so that grace is restrained by the absence of a priest. Or that God will not extend grace to those of His children who do not happen to be Catholic. Grace is overflowing, superabundant, overpowering.
Two issues: one is that you have already stated that no evidence ever could be credible. The second is that if such things occur among Protestants or Orthodox, not a big deal is made of them. Certainly God’s miraculous action is not used to trumpet the unique rightness of that branch of Christianity, in something that strongly smells of the Catholic Church once again demanding it be acknoweldged as not only superior but sole and taking whatever evidence it can to prove that point. If God did take the elements a Baptist minister consecrated and turn them into the real, palpable flesh and blood of His Son in a service, there would be no proof. For one thing, it would be so unexpected, so unique that it would deeply upset that church or that individual in a way that I doubt it would be something that God would do without bringing, along with the grace of the event, the grace to handle the event.
There have been times when I have seen the “what you bind on earth has been bound in heaven” passage taken to mean, seemingly, that the Church takes the lead on this. I don’t have any examples in front of me. There is the idea that Jesus cannot say no to His Mother, so you ask her and He does what she wants, which means you can control God through His Mother. I have seen Catholic documents that encourage these ideas, though as I said I don’t have any examples.
Satanic Cult can mean one of four things:
a) The Black Mass was first created by a Roman Catholic Priest, to be celebrated in a consecrated Catholic Church;
Prior to circa 1900, the overwhelming majority of material on Ceremonial Magic was written by, or purported to have been written by Catholic Priests. This most notable exceptions are those that are ascribed to Solomon, and Abraham the Jew. Catholic Priests did more to distribute that material, than any other group, or organization.
All it confirms, is that that is the way that Catholic Christianity defines and explains specific events. It says nothing about how other branches of Christianity, and religions other than Christianity define and explain the same events that happen within their theological framework.
Dear JBlake:
What I was pointing out was that different groups can, and do view the exact same event, coming to different conclusions about its cause, effect, and affect. Those conclusions are how the group defines the event.
Such as those great non-Catholics, Pope Honorius and Pope Gregory. (Both of them wrote grimoires.)
That hasn’t prevented Catholic Priests from either practicing, or keeping alive the traditions and knowledge of Ceremonial Magic.
By breaking the disinterested, it is easier to break the Bride of Christ.
Perhaps we should just exchange Communion. It’s One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Jesus told us where two or more are gathered in my name, I am there.
Simply put, because the Catholic Church teaches that Christ is present in a special and particular way in the Eucharist. It calls the Eucharist the “source and summit” of our life. Paul said that anyone who takes the body of the Lord unworthily condemns himself, which is the impetus behind our Eucharistic discipline (no intercommunion, confession of mortal sins prior to receiving, etc).
This is non-biblical. God does not hear the prayers of those living in the grave sin of heresy and separation of His Catholic Church except for repentance. The Catholic Church is the only church in existance who have valid priestly orders and a valid sacramental mass.
Group Think, lack of excellence and compromise around a common mean of error are the only things that come out of group decisions. Truth is not held hostage to a consensus nor a majority view.
You attempt to slander both these popes as well as The Church here. The Church is infallible the popes are not impeccable. Even if you could give evidence of this (can you?) the actions of a individual popes who are not teaching ex-cathedra are personal and do not impugn The Church except for those outside the church who want to persecute The Catholic Church. Woe to such on their day of judgement since willful slander of Christ’s Church is a cooperative marker for predestination in the negative sense.
Bizarre.