B
BerhaneSelassie
Guest
The so called fifth Marian dogma will not be made dogma according to Cardinal Ratzinger
- Status
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
But, that guy is now the Pope. And, it’s being touted as a dead bang winner. Note my posts on the thread 5th Marian Dogma. I am very disheartened by this news.
(
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Do the Presbyterians and Reform still hold to the WCF and the Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)? Or are the contents still taught today in Presbyterian Churches, schools and Seminaries? Are ministers and laity required to affirm, obey and agree among other ways of affirming, as a condition to the Session accepting them as members in good standing. And for ministers a condition for ordination?
Since Trent, the RCC has had other teachings regarding Protestants. Vatican II comes to mind where Protestants became seperated brothers in Christ. Protestant Churches went from totally devoid of truth, to partial truth. So the RCC has moved away from the harshness of condemnations of the Reformation and the counter Reformation. Have the Reformed or Presbyterians?
The date can be important, if and only if the Reformed/Presbyterians today do not hold to the anti-catholic bigotry of the WCF and the WLC. Have they been changed? Does the current WCF have deleted what the OP has read. Is Vos’ commentary on the WLC not used?
Unfortunately all of it is still there. Pointing to Trent as justification for the WCF is like when one of my kids will justify their bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of a sibling. I pray for the day when insulting passages like the OP posted are consigned to the dust bins of history.
Fr.Mark
L
LilyM
Guest
And the fact that he is now Pope makes it MORE likely that his views will be ignored and it will be made dogma? Rubbish.But, that guy is now the Pope. And, it’s being touted as a dead bang winner. Note my posts on the thread 5th Marian Dogma. I am very disheartened by this news.
Remember, many people were touting that the Church was all set to permit birth control to Catholics in the late '60s when it was considering its position on the issue. Along came Paul VI who didn’t share their view, and being Pope happened to be capable of authoritative, indeed infallible, teaching. Result - Humanae Vitae, and 40 years later birth control is STILL forbidden to Catholics.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Your first sentence makes no sense. Please clarify.
I am concerned about a 5th Marian dogma being promulgated. Not worried that his views will be ignored.
I am worried that his views will be dogma.
G
gugg15
Guest
Hi StrawberryJam, I think Lily M was saying that as Pope Benedict was against the so called 5th Marian Dogma before his papacy, he will certainly be against it afterward. I personally agree that there will not be a fifth Marian Dogma any time in the near future if at all. I love our Blessed Mother, and I do understand the idea of Co-Redemptrix as without her 'Yes" salvation through Christ would not have come into the world. Christ’s whole existence as a human person was dependent on the decision of a 13-14 year old. That’s pretty remarkable. It very well parallel’s Adam’s ability to bring sin into the world. Without Eve’s ‘No’ to God and handing Adam the forbidden fruit, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now. It seems as if Adam was completely dependent on Eve’s actions. The idea of Mediatrix of all graces needs a little more flushing out for me, I haven’t heard it in a way in which I could understand it. In my opinion, if it is a long standing Tradition in the Church, I believe it has not gotten to the point of theological maturity yet to promulgate any sort of dogma concerning it at this point in Church History.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
As a general comment, many Protestants who do believe in the real presence do not believe in using the Eucharist for purposes that it was not intended for. So while it would be ok to reserve sacrament for taking to the sick, say, and ought to be treated with proper reverence, It would not be used in any kind of ceremony of adoration, or for some other purpose.
The idea is that the Eucharist is given for us to eat, and so that is how we should use it. Using it in other ways is seen to lead to two problems. One is that it is not following the command we were given by Christ. THe other is that it can lead to superstition in relation to the Eucharist, which is a very negative thing. Such superstition was quite common in the medieval period, and that is likely why preventing that kind of use was so important to many of the reformers. It isn’t nearly as bad now, so it seems a little less of the moment. But one still sees people who misunderstand practices related only to personal piety as somehow essential, which is a less extreme version of the same thing.
The idea is that the Eucharist is given for us to eat, and so that is how we should use it. Using it in other ways is seen to lead to two problems. One is that it is not following the command we were given by Christ. THe other is that it can lead to superstition in relation to the Eucharist, which is a very negative thing. Such superstition was quite common in the medieval period, and that is likely why preventing that kind of use was so important to many of the reformers. It isn’t nearly as bad now, so it seems a little less of the moment. But one still sees people who misunderstand practices related only to personal piety as somehow essential, which is a less extreme version of the same thing.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Those are good points Bluegoat,
But, as a person who does not believe and has gone to adoration can I ask you something?
What of the passages where Jesus asks can you stay awake (with me?) for one hour?
They fell asleep Bluegoat.
We saw what happened next.
Is it really so wrong to stay awake with him in adoration for one hour based on that verse?
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Could it then also be used in other ways, to accomplish other acts that Christ accomplished, since it is his flesh and blood? He laid hands on the sick and even raised the dead - should we lay the Eucharist on people or try to use it to bring the dead to life somehow? Must we prevent people from pressing it with their teeth (a common expression of personal piety) because that is chewing Jesus?
I don’t think adoration is always a bad thing - some Anglican churches do it on Maundy Thursday through the night with the Sacrament reserved for Good Friday. But, I think care about this is a good thing, and a look at some of the excesses that have occured in the past can shiow us why.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
It’s a hard thing for me to communicate over a forum, because I don’t think I can put words to it properly.
I’m glad I asked you about it. I actually prayed about this very topic this morning. Hoping someone would express their thoughts on it and clearly.
Thank you
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
When I say I prayed about it, I am conveying that while I don’t believe in God, and typically have “thoughts” for people and not prayers specifically, I did try to pray today and don’t really count it since I don’t think it takes if you don’t believe, but hope to.
L
LilyM
Guest
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I offer you my apologies for misunderstanding you.
L
LilyM
Guest
No apology needed - it’s one of the disadvantages of indirect forms of communication such as the internet that misunderstandings can easily occur.
Z
Zooey
Guest
F
FCEGM
Guest
Our Lord fed His Apostles Himself under the appearances of bread and wine in the manner that they would then perpetuate this Memorial Sacrifice through the ages until He comes in glory. Had He cut a piece of His arm and fed it to them, that would, indeed, have been cannibalism - as is sometimes charged against Catholics and Orthodox. But in the sacramental institution of the Eucharist the Apostles were given the fullness of the Crucified and Resurrected Flesh of Our Lord Christ under the appearances of bread and wine they received - just as Catholics and Orthodox continue to do through the succession of the Apostles. Christ, in saving us, gave the Father nothing but the fullness of Himself. Likewise, He gives us nothing but Himself in the Eucharist.
K
kristanl
Guest
I really hope I didnt offend you or anyone else by my post. I was really just trying to get a clear understanding of what she believes- since that is where my friend pointed me. I guess I’m just a little shocked about what is written (even though I realize now, there hasnt been nice things said on both parts) it kinda suprises me that she still follows a document such as this one. I really dont think she is offensive towards Catholics, and while that is written in there- I dont know if she thinks as harsh as those words say.
B
BernadetteM
Guest
I hate to disagree with you, but in my former Anglo Catholilc parish we had Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament every Sunday. We are adoring Christ’s Body during Benediction. I know that many Anglo Catholic parishes also have Bendiction.
We also said the rosary and believed in all the Marian doctrines, confession and believed everything that the Catholic Church taught. Some believed in the Papacy others didn’t.
Now with the Apostolic Constitution many former Anglicans will be attending Adoration also. On Maundy Thursday we had a special altar with a monstrance with the Body of Christ to stay with Him and adore Him.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I have no doubt, but the question was really about the historical reasoning behind the disinclination to this kind of activity. Benediction is very much against the spirit of the 39 articles, for the reasons I have outlined. Anglo-Catholicism is really rather more recent.
One might argue too that any future Catholic Anglicans are not, in fact, Anglicans, but Catholics.
S
SeanTom
Guest
WHY DO CATHOLICS RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION?
I will be making quotes from John 6:51-56, and follow some of these quotes with my comments.
51: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats the bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”.
COMMENT:
Jesus is telling us that he is the living bread. He didn’t say that he is a man; that he is a human being; that he is a miracle worker; but he did say that he is the living bread. He also said that whoever eats this bread (He being the living bread) will live forever. So what is the living bread? Jesus goes further on to say that “the bread that I will give is my flesh”. It is the bread that Jesus gave a special meaning to at the Last Supper and this special meaning carries on today when the bread is consecrated, making this bread the living bread, or the flesh of Jesus.
53: Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.”?
COMMENT:
This is a very direct statement made by Jesus. If we want to have the life which Jesus wants us to have, and if we are to enter His Kingdom, we MUST eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. Otherwise, we will not have life within us. He started off this verse by saying “Amen, amen” twice, which is telling us that what he is about to say is absolutely true and can not be questioned. There is no other meaning to this verse. Yet, some religions completely ignore this command.
54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
COMMENT:
How are we to obtain eternal life and be raised up (to His Kingdom) on the last day? Jesus tells us this in that single sentence: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…….” How can anyone misconstrue or deny what this statement made by Jesus is telling us. Some religions do not believe this statement made by Jesus, believing it to be a form of cannibalism, and totally ignore everything Jesus said about eating His body and drinking His blood - but how can they possibly deny the above statement. Was Jesus just joshing when he said that, was he joking, was he just making small talk? don’t think so. Remember, Jesus created the whole world out of nothing, could He not come into our bodies through bread and wine while still maintaining the original texture of the bread and wine? Is this impossible for Him to do? If one believes in the Holy Spirit, whom you can not see, why not believe that Jesus can come into our bodies through the vessels of bread and wine? Hey, are we to tell Jesus what he can and can not do?
55: “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”
COMMENT: This is telling me that there are no doubts what Jesus meant here. His flesh is TRUE (as opposed to the words false, doubtful, possible, etc.) food. Food meaning the bread that Jesus referred to when he said: “Whoever eats this bread….” which now refers to the consecrated bread that we receive during Communion.
(Continued on next posting)
I will be making quotes from John 6:51-56, and follow some of these quotes with my comments.
51: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats the bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”.
COMMENT:
Jesus is telling us that he is the living bread. He didn’t say that he is a man; that he is a human being; that he is a miracle worker; but he did say that he is the living bread. He also said that whoever eats this bread (He being the living bread) will live forever. So what is the living bread? Jesus goes further on to say that “the bread that I will give is my flesh”. It is the bread that Jesus gave a special meaning to at the Last Supper and this special meaning carries on today when the bread is consecrated, making this bread the living bread, or the flesh of Jesus.
53: Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you.”?
COMMENT:
This is a very direct statement made by Jesus. If we want to have the life which Jesus wants us to have, and if we are to enter His Kingdom, we MUST eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood. Otherwise, we will not have life within us. He started off this verse by saying “Amen, amen” twice, which is telling us that what he is about to say is absolutely true and can not be questioned. There is no other meaning to this verse. Yet, some religions completely ignore this command.
54: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”
COMMENT:
How are we to obtain eternal life and be raised up (to His Kingdom) on the last day? Jesus tells us this in that single sentence: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…….” How can anyone misconstrue or deny what this statement made by Jesus is telling us. Some religions do not believe this statement made by Jesus, believing it to be a form of cannibalism, and totally ignore everything Jesus said about eating His body and drinking His blood - but how can they possibly deny the above statement. Was Jesus just joshing when he said that, was he joking, was he just making small talk? don’t think so. Remember, Jesus created the whole world out of nothing, could He not come into our bodies through bread and wine while still maintaining the original texture of the bread and wine? Is this impossible for Him to do? If one believes in the Holy Spirit, whom you can not see, why not believe that Jesus can come into our bodies through the vessels of bread and wine? Hey, are we to tell Jesus what he can and can not do?
55: “For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink”
COMMENT: This is telling me that there are no doubts what Jesus meant here. His flesh is TRUE (as opposed to the words false, doubtful, possible, etc.) food. Food meaning the bread that Jesus referred to when he said: “Whoever eats this bread….” which now refers to the consecrated bread that we receive during Communion.
(Continued on next posting)
- Status