D
distracted
Guest
yes, Whateverā¦No, not whatever.
Mark Thompson is correct, the Trinity is a mystery- God in 3 persons.
We, as Catholics, worship a ātriune Godā.
See the CCC 232, 234, 237
i am correct and you are notā¦
- Status
i am correct and you are notā¦
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
yes, Whateverā¦
i am correct and you are not QUOTE]
I was kind enough to give you some citations from the Catechism,
would you please do the same, I am trying to understand your point.
D
distracted
Guest
distracted;6712318:
QUOTE]
I was kind enough to give you some citations from the Catechism,
would you please do the same, I am trying to understand your point.
i doubt if you are, reallyā¦
i mean, what is so hard to understand about it??
alsoā¦ i dont know if i trust the latest catechismā¦ havenāt always heard good things about itā¦
but in any case, one hardly needs a catechism to understand my postā¦ meaning the theology behind itā¦
D
distracted
Guest
i never have talked to Jesus when in the Real Presenceā¦ except for a few words here & thereā¦
i go there and LISTENā¦
but listening is part of any conversationā¦ whether you are conversating with humans or with Godā¦
so i have no idea why Ratzinger seems to be denying that a conversation is taking place when in the RP
D
distracted
Guest
i said whatever cuz his post sounded defensive and hatefulā¦ not like someone who wants to know the truth even if the truth disagrees with what heās always believedā¦No, not whatever.
Mark Thompson is correct, the Trinity is a mystery- God in 3 persons.
We, as Catholics, worship a ātriune Godā.
See the CCC 232, 234, 237
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Oneofthewomen;6712333:
and you know my heart and mind how?
i mean, what is so hard to understand about it??
alsoā¦ i dont know if i trust the latest catechismā¦ havenāt always heard good things about itā¦
but in any case, one hardly needs a catechism to understand my postā¦ meaning the theology behind itā¦
My perception from your posts is that you do not believe in a āTriune Godā, if I am wrong I apologize. My references to the CCC (the English translation from 1994) were an attempt to show what the Church teaches about the Trinity.
As far as trusting the Catechism, are you saying the Church is wrong?
D
distracted
Guest
distracted;6712342:
the Church (properly understood) is never wrongMy perception from your posts is that you do not believe in a āTriune Godā, if I am wrong I apologize. My references to the CCC (the English translation from 1994) were an attempt to show what the Church teaches about the Trinity.
As far as trusting the Catechism, are you saying the Church is wrong?
but if the CCC you are referring to is the one put out by JP IIā¦ wellā¦ i am in the process of investigating his sayings furtherā¦ a lot of what he has said (hopefully in casual conversation?) dont sound orthodoxā¦
and my post did not say or imply that i dont believe in a triune Godā¦ but (sigh) people are always reading stuff into my postsā¦ and othersā postsā¦ and their own posts, probablyā¦
D
distracted
Guest
.
Jesus is God
.
just felt like āscreamingā something true and upliftingā¦
Jesus is God
.
just felt like āscreamingā something true and upliftingā¦
C
Cristiano
Guest
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
Oneofthewomen;6712371:
is never wrong
but if the CCC you are referring to is the one put out by JP IIā¦ wellā¦ i am in the process of investigating his sayings furtherā¦ a lot of what he has said (hopefully in casual conversation?) dont sound orthodoxā¦
and my post did not say or imply that i dont believe in a triune Godā¦ but (sigh) people are always reading stuff into my postsā¦ and othersā postsā¦ and their own posts, probablyā¦
And that would be the way you understand it, correct?
God is-
the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit,
all 3, and not one or the other.
That is why it is called a MYSTERY!
L
LoyalViews
Guest
Yep. Marc Thompson is āhead over heelsā correct!No, not whatever.
Mark Thompson is correct, the Trinity is a mystery- God in 3 persons.
We, as Catholics, worship a ātriune Godā.
See the CCC 232, 234, 237
Okay, you are confused. He is not denying that a conversation is taking place, like I have said 2 times already, Ratzinger says that you shouldnāt tal to OUR LORD, who is FULLY PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST, like one of your friends, ācasuallyā. āHey, how ya doināā, like that. For it is our Lord, not a colleage, co-worker, or whoever. We are trying to help you understand what the church teaches, we are not attacking you.i never have talked to Jesus when in the Real Presenceā¦ except for a few words here & thereā¦
i go there and LISTENā¦
but listening is part of any conversationā¦ whether you are conversating with humans or with Godā¦
so i have no idea why Ratzinger seems to be denying that a conversation is taking place when in the RP
Oneofthewomen;6712371:
Yes, what the Church teaches is the truth, there are no errors in what the church teaches. Never will, never has beenthe Church (properly understood) is never wrong
but if the CCC you are referring to is the one put out by JP IIā¦ wellā¦ i am in the process of investigating his sayings furtherā¦ a lot of what he has said (hopefully in casual conversation?) dont sound orthodoxā¦
and my post did not say or imply that i dont believe in a triune Godā¦ but (sigh) people are always reading stuff into my postsā¦ and othersā postsā¦ and their own posts, probablyā¦
D
distracted
Guest
not if he disagrees w/ what i saidā¦
that is NOT what Ratzinger saidā¦ You are putting words in his mouth as you seem to be doing w/ meā¦
well, thatāls lovelyā¦ and waht makes you think you know better than i do? I have been studying Catholicism and her saints, etcā¦ for many yrsā¦ and i dare say i have spent more time in the Real Presence, the Best Teacher of All than you haveā¦ i dare say this because very few catholics spend much time Thereā¦ Usually when i go to be with Him i am completely ALONE (human-wise)
and not everyone in the Church who teachesā¦ teaches correctlyā¦
i do not follow men when they say things that clearly contradict what Jesus said.
O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
D
distracted
Guest
and not everyone in the Church who teachesā¦ teaches correctlyā¦
P
PJM
Guest
Absolutely 100 correct:thumbsup:
**Matt. 26:26-28, Mark 14: 22-24, Luke 22:19-21, Pul 1 Cor. 11: 23-29 ā¦**ALL INCLUDE THE WORDS "THIS IS MY BODY; THIS IS MY BLOOD!
**John 6: 53 -56 ** "So Jesus said to them, āTruly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.ā
Could not be more specific, more clear or more articulate. These are thee words of GODHIMSELF.
D
distracted
Guest
i was being a little ārhetoricalā in that questionā¦ I have known this and believed it for as long as i can rememberā¦
ā¦well, i wasnāt always catechizedā¦ but i think that even when i was ignorant of what the Church teachesā¦ i still believed in the Real Presenceā¦ smehowā¦ or I would have if i had been toldā¦ i always suspected something awesome about the Churchā¦i guess you could say that even as lost as i once wasā¦ clueless about the Real PResnce and allā¦ i stillā¦ felt that presenceā¦ even from a great distanceā¦ (didnāt go to Mass when i was young/ignornat/uncatechized)ā¦ which now that i think of itā¦ makes me wonder how anyone can ā officially ā leave the Churchā¦ Dont they also feel thisā¦ (albeit ādistantā) presenceā¦??? i mean, when i look back on my lifeā¦ i realize that i alwways had this āmsyticalā connection to the Churchā¦ .as far away from it as i wasā¦
maybe those who say thereās no excuse for leaving the churchā¦ are more right than i used to thinkā¦
C
CathFaith1
Guest
This is true. Yet the original complaint in this thread shows some show be quiet and just LISTEN. Not babble.
P
PJM
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
HERE IS THE ACTUAL TEXT AND WHT HE SAID! NOTE IT IS A FAR DIFFERENT MSSAGE THAN āQUOTEDā IN EARILER POST:blush:
A literal German-English translation of the last chapter (Chapter IV) of Fr. Joseph Ratzingerās Die sakramentale BegrĆ¼ndung christlicher Existenz, the transcript of an excerpt of a four-hour lecture given by Fr. Ratzinger in Salzburg, Austria, in 1965.
With these perspectives we have automatically returned to the starting point of our reflections. What in fact ā in this manner we can now ask again ā does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? ***He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only *at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church. **This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content *, ***because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general * but the presence of the man Jesus Christ, which refers to * the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man. ****He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material * media in order to touch the spirit of man. He does so, rather, because he knows that as man he can only encounter God in a human way; but in a human way means: in the form of fellow-man-ship , of incarnation, of historicity. And he does so because he knows that as man he cannot himself direct when God has to show Himself to him, that he is, rather, the recipient, who is dependent upon the given and not-to-be-produced-at-oneās-own-authority power, which represents the sign of Godās sovereign freedom, who determines the manner of his presence for himself.
No doubt: Our piety is here often a little superficial [has often proceeded a little superficially] and has given occasion for some misunderstanding. In this respect the critical question of modern consciousness will be able to challenge a salutary purification in the self-understanding of the Faith. It may suffice to cite an example, in the end, by which the crisis becomes especially obvious and by which the point * for the purification, which is necessary, can once more, by summary, come to light. ***Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of ****as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner. Statements such as āGod lives hereā and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is only present there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man. ***Eucharistic adoration is in truth related to the Lord, who, through his historical life and suffering, has become ābreadā for us, that is, who through his Incarnation and abandonment unto death has become the one who is open for us [the for-us-open-one]. Such praying, then, refers to the historical mystery of Jesus Christ, to the history of God with man, which * approaches us in the sacrament. And it refers to the mystery of the Church: By referring to the history of God with men, it refers to the entire āBody of Christ,ā to the communion of the believing, in which and through which God comes to us. Thus praying in church and in closeness to the eucharistic sacrament is * a subsumption of our relation [relationship] to God into the mystery of the church as the concrete place where God meets us. ***And this is, after all, the point of our going to church anyway: the subsumption of myself into the history of God with man, in which exclusively I as man have my true human existence and which exclusively, for this reason, also opens up to me the true extent * of my meeting with Godās eternal love. For this love does not merely look for an isolated Spirit which (as we have already said) would only be a specter in relation to the reality of man, but man entirely, in the body of his historicity, and it * gives him, in the holy signs of the sacraments, [the] security of divine response, in which the open question of being human reaches its goal and finds its fulfillment.
LOVE AND PRAYERS
Pat*
A literal German-English translation of the last chapter (Chapter IV) of Fr. Joseph Ratzingerās Die sakramentale BegrĆ¼ndung christlicher Existenz, the transcript of an excerpt of a four-hour lecture given by Fr. Ratzinger in Salzburg, Austria, in 1965.
With these perspectives we have automatically returned to the starting point of our reflections. What in fact ā in this manner we can now ask again ā does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? ***He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only *at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church. **This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content *, ***because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general * but the presence of the man Jesus Christ, which refers to * the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man. ****He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material * media in order to touch the spirit of man. He does so, rather, because he knows that as man he can only encounter God in a human way; but in a human way means: in the form of fellow-man-ship , of incarnation, of historicity. And he does so because he knows that as man he cannot himself direct when God has to show Himself to him, that he is, rather, the recipient, who is dependent upon the given and not-to-be-produced-at-oneās-own-authority power, which represents the sign of Godās sovereign freedom, who determines the manner of his presence for himself.
No doubt: Our piety is here often a little superficial [has often proceeded a little superficially] and has given occasion for some misunderstanding. In this respect the critical question of modern consciousness will be able to challenge a salutary purification in the self-understanding of the Faith. It may suffice to cite an example, in the end, by which the crisis becomes especially obvious and by which the point * for the purification, which is necessary, can once more, by summary, come to light. ***Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of ****as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner. Statements such as āGod lives hereā and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is only present there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man. ***Eucharistic adoration is in truth related to the Lord, who, through his historical life and suffering, has become ābreadā for us, that is, who through his Incarnation and abandonment unto death has become the one who is open for us [the for-us-open-one]. Such praying, then, refers to the historical mystery of Jesus Christ, to the history of God with man, which * approaches us in the sacrament. And it refers to the mystery of the Church: By referring to the history of God with men, it refers to the entire āBody of Christ,ā to the communion of the believing, in which and through which God comes to us. Thus praying in church and in closeness to the eucharistic sacrament is * a subsumption of our relation [relationship] to God into the mystery of the church as the concrete place where God meets us. ***And this is, after all, the point of our going to church anyway: the subsumption of myself into the history of God with man, in which exclusively I as man have my true human existence and which exclusively, for this reason, also opens up to me the true extent * of my meeting with Godās eternal love. For this love does not merely look for an isolated Spirit which (as we have already said) would only be a specter in relation to the reality of man, but man entirely, in the body of his historicity, and it * gives him, in the holy signs of the sacraments, [the] security of divine response, in which the open question of being human reaches its goal and finds its fulfillment.
LOVE AND PRAYERS
Pat*
P
PJM
Guest
- Status