J
- Status
D
dyspepsic
Guest
You are too kind.
You got this bug up your nose, accusing everyone from the Pope on down of Modernism. Modernism doesn’t exist. We don’t even take that oath anymore. There is no threat. You might as well call us Nazis, or Communists, or reactionaries - oh, no, reactionaries - that’s you.
Okay, it is the Feenites and Lebrebreists who are your role models. In any event they are outside the Church. You are afraid that we will give up our faith if they want to join us. Don’t be afraid, that won’t happen.
You support S.P. until the Pope explains what he means by that document.
Maybe Benedict’s visit to the U.S. will settle it.
When did you ever tell me you weren’t a Sedevacantist?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
A friend of mine, a priest, went to the movie, “Out of the Great Silence.” It was shot in the monastery of a contemplative order; the Carthusians, I think. He said something along the lines that the movie was so spellbinding that three hours were over before he knew it, but that he couldn’t last in a place like that for a month. He is a priest of deep faith and reverence, a very prayful man, but he has an active charism. He just was not made to live within that spirituality.
Those you call traditionalists have been asked to worship within the charism of the NO for a long time. Even when the atmosphere has been solemn enough and the attention to rubrics has been attentive enough to be what they consider reverent, this has been hard on them. You are right: some have disobediently refused to yield to discipline. There are others, though, who have been entirely obedient and done their best to comply with what was asked of them, even when asked to endure year upon year without a Mass which observed even the rubrics of the NO. These did not go over to Lefebreve, as much as they wished for what they had loved and lost. We who prefer the NO need to recognize that this has been a tremendous sacrifice for them.
Now that the NO has been installed as an accepted liturgy, it is time to let the TLM re-emerge as one of two alternatives. I am not advocating for the TLM to take the place of the NO, nor for it to be forced upon any parish, but those parishes who want the TLM should be respected and charitably assumed to be desiring the Mass which most deeply calls the participation of the hearts of a substantial number of the faithful receiving pastoral care in that parish. It is an ancient and beloved rite, and in no way the inferior of the NO.
If anyone finds that the TLM provides a deeper connection for them with the One Reality to which every Mass returns us and which every one of us needs, every effort should be made to give that to them. Likewise, with the NO. As long as the rubrics of a valid liturgy are observed, so that the proposed communion with the Divine Mystery takes place and does so reverently, that is the bottom line.
J
JReducation
Guest
I for one agree 100% with you and support the EF for those who need this form (it’s not a rite) on their spiritual journey.
If I may add that we have some people in my parish who would love to have the EF. They asked for it. The Superior of the house told the pastor that it was not possible at this moment because of a number of technical complications that have to be overcome. The two most important are that they have to find a priest who wants to learn it. The second is that the Franciscans use their own missal and lectionary and a new one in the EF has not been published yet. There is a question as to whether they should resurrect the ones in the library from 40 years ago or if there is one coming.
The point is that these people really are holy. They did not get angry or feel there was a conspiracy against them. They said they understood the complication and asked the Pastor to ask his superior if he had any idea when and if this would happen. That’s all they wanted to know. They were so very sweet and loving about it. I’m very impressed by their holiness.
JR
R
rinnie
Guest
ok but i have a little problem with that one. God does have a brain… Nicene Creed By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became Man. Man is a human Being which means he has a brain. God is whoever and whatever he wants to be. He is God. He is I AM. according to the OT. He is Jesus Christ Son Of God according to the NT. He is the One and only according to my Testament.A brain is an organ found only in the animal kingdom. You do not need a brain to be alive. Plants, bacteria and protists are alive and do not have brains.
A brain is part of a central nervous system (CNS). Angels do not have a CNS, because they have no bodies.
Angels are projections of God. God does not have a brain or a central nervous system.
Intelligence and free will are not dependent on a nervous system, except in humans.
JR
R
rinnie
Guest
Jreducatiom Also according to the CCC 311 Angels and men as intelligent and free creatures have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. Unquote. In my opinion you must have a brain to give you the wisdom to make the choice. Because they can go astray just like us. God gives them the choice also to obey or disobey. He permits it however because he respects the freedom of his creatures and mysteriously knows how to derive good from it.
S
SFD
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
You’re not talking about the God-Head, you’re speaking about the second person of the Trinity. The answer to that is yes, Jesus has everything that every human male has. He is fully man in a glorified body. But that does not apply to the God-Head. The God-Head is the Trinity. The Father and the Holy Spirit are not human.
I AM in the OT was not incarnate. Therefore, he was not human.
Is that better?
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Don’t confuse mind with brain. The mind can exist without a brain.
If angels had brains they would be temporal. A brain is physical. It needs a physical enviornment in which to survive. It needs amino acids, hydrogen, oxigen, proteins, bacteria, water and electricity to function.
Angels would have to live in an enviornment that would have all of those things.
I think the word that people are looking for is mind, not brain.
In human beings, the mind exists within the brain, but this is not the case in all creatures. For example, insects have a mind, but they do not have a brain.
JR
S
SanJudas
Guest
God save all here.
I was wondering–where did this idea that the angels have no brain because they do not speak (or vice versa) come from? Everytime the angels appear in Scripture their words are preceded by the phrase, “He/They said…”
Matthew 1,20: “…the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said…”
Luke 1, 28: “And coming to her, he [the angel Gabriel, v. 26] said…”
John 20, 13: “And they [two angels in white, v. 12] said…”
Etc, etc, etc.
Nowhere does it mention metaphysical, telepathic communication.
Come to think of it, God Himself speaks in both the OT and the NT. When He spoke to Moses, the people heard a rumble like thunder, and in Exodus 33, 11 we read, “The Lord use to speak to Moses face to face, as one man speaks to another.”
We are the reflections of God’s own image. Our full range of emotions and ideas mirrors those of God. Why is it unreasonable to assume that our use of speech is also “in the image of God?”
I was wondering–where did this idea that the angels have no brain because they do not speak (or vice versa) come from? Everytime the angels appear in Scripture their words are preceded by the phrase, “He/They said…”
Matthew 1,20: “…the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said…”
Luke 1, 28: “And coming to her, he [the angel Gabriel, v. 26] said…”
John 20, 13: “And they [two angels in white, v. 12] said…”
Etc, etc, etc.
Nowhere does it mention metaphysical, telepathic communication.
Come to think of it, God Himself speaks in both the OT and the NT. When He spoke to Moses, the people heard a rumble like thunder, and in Exodus 33, 11 we read, “The Lord use to speak to Moses face to face, as one man speaks to another.”
We are the reflections of God’s own image. Our full range of emotions and ideas mirrors those of God. Why is it unreasonable to assume that our use of speech is also “in the image of God?”
J
JReducation
Guest
A brain is an organism that runs the central nervous system in a higher order animal. Spirits do not have a central nervous system, because they do not have bodies. To have a central nervous system (CNS) one must have a body.
Jesus had a CNS, because he had a body.
God does not need a brain to communicate with man. He is God. He created the complex central nervous system that we have.
It would be inconceivable and illogical for God to have something that he created.
Does God have intelligence? Yes
Can God communicate? Yes
Can God us human form and language to communicate? Yes
Does God need a central nervous sytem to do this? No
Why not? God is omnipotent.
So why can’t he have a central nervous system? He doesn’t need one. He can do all the things that any living ceature can do and more, because he is all powerful.
So, where is God’s intelligence and will stored? It is stored in the Divine mind, which is different from the human mind, as it does not posses the human atributes, because only the second person of the Trinity is human.
The God-Head which consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not human.
JR
Jesus had a CNS, because he had a body.
God does not need a brain to communicate with man. He is God. He created the complex central nervous system that we have.
It would be inconceivable and illogical for God to have something that he created.
Does God have intelligence? Yes
Can God communicate? Yes
Can God us human form and language to communicate? Yes
Does God need a central nervous sytem to do this? No
Why not? God is omnipotent.
So why can’t he have a central nervous system? He doesn’t need one. He can do all the things that any living ceature can do and more, because he is all powerful.
So, where is God’s intelligence and will stored? It is stored in the Divine mind, which is different from the human mind, as it does not posses the human atributes, because only the second person of the Trinity is human.
The God-Head which consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not human.
JR
S
SanJudas
Guest
Why?
The Divine Mind? Says who? All of this smacks of Gnosticism, to me.So, where is God’s intelligence and will stored? It is stored in the Divine mind, which is different from the human mind, as it does not posses the human atributes, because only the second person of the Trinity is human.
JR
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It goes the other way around. What good thing does not have its origin in God? Every created thing shouts God’s presence, and testifies to reality of the Divine. How could this be done by something that is totally unlike its Creator?It would be inconceivable and illogical for God to have something that he created…
…So, where is God’s intelligence and will stored? It is stored in the Divine mind, which is different from the human mind, as it does not posses the human atributes, because only the second person of the Trinity is human.
The God-Head which consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not human.
JR
All creation gives God glory, and therefore each created thing reflects the Divine Life and the Divine Reality in its own minature and attenuated way.
As for the minds of angels, I think it a little silly to imagine we have even the vaguest concept of how the spiritual realm does and does not have a “physiology.” We know that there are limits in power, presence, and attribute in spiritual beings such as angels, but how that translates to any spiritual parallel to physical form is beyond us. We’re talkin’ a whole 'nother ballgame. As for trying to describe where the infinite and omnipotent mind of God is “stored”…well, let’s not even start kidding ourselves on that one!
J
JReducation
Guest
Far from Gnosticism. These are the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. This was the work of Lactantius entitled The Workmanship of God
**And does any one wonder if the divine mind of God, being extended through all parts of the universe, runs to and fro, and rules all things, governs all things, being everywhere present, everywhere diffused; when the strength and power of the human mind, though enclosed within a mortal body, is so great, that it can in no way be restrained even by the barriers of this heavy and slothful body, to which it is bound, from bestowing upon itself, in its impatience of rest, the power of wandering without restraint? Whether, therefore, the mind has its dwelling in the head or in the breast, can any one comprehend what power of reason effects, that that incomprehensible faculty either remains fixed in the marrow of the brain, or in that blood divided into two parts which is enclosed in the heart; and not infer from this very circumstance how great is the power of God, because the soul does not see itself, or of what nature or where it is; and if it did see, yet it would not be able to perceive in what manner an incorporeal substance is united with one which is corporeal? Or if the mind has no fixed locality, but runs here and there scattered through the whole body,— which is possible, and was asserted by Xenocrates, the disciple of Plato,— then, inasmuch as intelligence is present in every part of the body, it cannot be understood what that mind is, or what its qualities are, since its nature is so subtle and refined, that, though infused into solid organs by a living and, as it were, ardent perception, it is mingled with all the members. **
newadvent.org/fathers/0704.htm
Observe how Lactantius distinguishes between the Divine mind, the human mind and the human brain. The brain is “mixed” with the other organs. Today’s Neuroscience would say that the brain rules the other organs.
The Church Fathers applied philosophy of theology to understand this mystical relationship. This is why it’s so difficult to the average person who has not studied Mystical Theology or Philosophy of Theology to grasp this. Because it’s a stange way of speaking about the brain, the mind and the Divine mind.
This thought was later better developed by St. Bonaventure when he tried to explain how Francis of Assisi became the Mirror of Perfection by entering into the Divine mind through prayer, penace and perfect immitation.
Later St. Ignatius of Loyola in his Spiritual Exercises uses the same concept to teach man to step outside of his own mind so that he may encounter the Divine Mind of God to see God’s will for his life.
This is very deep Mystical Theology.
JR
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Please tell me you aren’t blaming this on Vatican II.
J
JReducation
Guest
All creation reflects the majesty of its creator, but this is not to say that creation looks like the Creator or that it comes into existence in the same way that the Creator exists.
This was explained by Pope John Paul II when he wrote on evolutoin. He says that all creation evolved over millions of years and that the process was set forth by the Creator. He also says that this process reflects the power and grandeur of the creator. But he stops at saying that it looks like the creator. This he does not say. In fact, John Paul II espoused the Big Bang theory, because it was originally a constructed by a Catholic theologian who was also a scientist. Everything that we are, physiologically is a process of millions of years, whereas God has always exsted as he is. While what you say is true, that creation reflects the glory of God, it does not mean that it reflects the physical attributes of God, for God has not such attributes. This was revealed to the Church through Christian Tradition and later through the writings of Catherine of Siena to which I will refer below.
Julian of Norwich also experienced the same thing, the substance of God and Angels. These great women explain it for us in their writings. Also check out The Cloud of Unknowing. It’s all there and none of it is speculation. It’s all real experiences of real people who actually saw these realities.
JR
PS The Cloud of Unknowing is my favourite of all the Catholic Mystical Theologies.
This was explained by Pope John Paul II when he wrote on evolutoin. He says that all creation evolved over millions of years and that the process was set forth by the Creator. He also says that this process reflects the power and grandeur of the creator. But he stops at saying that it looks like the creator. This he does not say. In fact, John Paul II espoused the Big Bang theory, because it was originally a constructed by a Catholic theologian who was also a scientist. Everything that we are, physiologically is a process of millions of years, whereas God has always exsted as he is. While what you say is true, that creation reflects the glory of God, it does not mean that it reflects the physical attributes of God, for God has not such attributes. This was revealed to the Church through Christian Tradition and later through the writings of Catherine of Siena to which I will refer below.
But this was already described for us by Catherine of Siena. That’s how she became a Doctor of the Church. She experienced the Mystical Marriage in which she literally saw the substance of God and angels and she teaches it to the Church in her theology. The Church accepted it, hence earning for her the title Doctor (Teacher) of the Church. There is no kidding here
Julian of Norwich also experienced the same thing, the substance of God and Angels. These great women explain it for us in their writings. Also check out The Cloud of Unknowing. It’s all there and none of it is speculation. It’s all real experiences of real people who actually saw these realities.
JR
PS The Cloud of Unknowing is my favourite of all the Catholic Mystical Theologies.
J
JReducation
Guest
Good grief no! LOL
I was responding to the metaphor of the language of the angels and someone else began to say that angels have a brain with a language centre.
That’s when I responded that this was inaccurate. But that the phrase, “language of the angels” is poetic language not to be taken literally.
As people responded to what I said, it snowballed from there.
I didn’t mean to derail the thread. I was just commenting on the incorrect interpreation of that phrase to justify the use of Latin.
In answer to your question, no absolutely not. This theology existed long before Vatican II and Vatican II did not touch it. In fact, if you notice the Church avoids touching the mystical experiences of the saints. She takes them at face value.
JR
E
EasterJoy
Guest
The Doctors of the Church are doctors in theology, not spiritual physiology. I understand that they wrote all about it, I understand that they knew all about it in a profound experiential way, but it is the nature of mystical writing that it is metaphorical. There are realities for which there are not words that can translate the meaning literally. (And, by the way, even neuroscience is not remotely so simple as the brain running the rest of the body like a computer runs a remotely-controlled car.)But this was already described for us by Catherine of Siena. That’s how she became a Doctor of the Church. She experienced the Mystical Marriage in which she literally saw the substance of God and angels and she teaches it to the Church in her theology. The Church accepted it, hence earning for her the title Doctor (Teacher) of the Church. There is no kidding here
Julian of Norwich also experienced the same thing, the substance of God and Angels. These great women explain it for us in their writings. Also check out The Cloud of Unknowing. It’s all there and none of it is speculation. It’s all real experiences of real people who actually saw these realities.
JR
PS The Cloud of Unknowing is my favourite of all the Catholic Mystical Theologies.
Now, I’m not saying that the spiritual realm has physical attributes. I’m saying that the spiritual realm has attributes which we describe metaphorically and know only vaguely, even within the depths of what the mystics can convey, because of the limits of our language and especially the limits of the printed word.
Besides, all of the spiritual realm, save God Himself, is also created. Doesn’t it logically follow from “it would be inconceivable and illogical for God to have something that he created” then, that God, Creator of both the physical and the spiritual realms, is neither body nor spirit Himself? But of course that is not so.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Yes, there was some discussion about whether a mind needed a brain and whether intelligence needed a mind and whether all intelligence capable of speaking had to have a brain and so on…
I’m sure this is exactly what Vatican II got us all to. Modernism, if I ever heard it. Or was it Aquinas and his ill-conceived foray back into Greek? Oh, who knows.
J
JReducation
Guest
All of what you say is a true, but Catherine claims that she saw the substance of God with her own eyes and Julian or Norwich as well. The Church so subscribed to Catherine’s theology that it declared her a teacher of the universal Church. What good is it to have a teacher (Doctor) of the unversal Church, if we are not going to believe their claims? Also, they are very clear when they are speaking literally or using metaphor, because they can’t find human words to descibe what they have experience.
Catherine is clear that she saw what she saw. It has never been refuted by any Church authority.
As to the comment you made in your other post regarding Aquinas, I’m not quite sure what you were trying to say there. Sorry. I’m lost on that one.
The phrase “language of the angels” someone attributed it to Pius XII, I believe. It’s in a previous post. We’d have to scroll bakc.
JR
- Status