Familial Love

[Beaver]

Familial Love
by Donald F Hudzinski

The child loves mommy and daddy because mommy and daddy love the Real Presence. Daddy loves mommy because mommy love the Real Presence and mommy loves daddy because daddy loves the Real Presence. This mutual love of Christ in the Real Presence is the formation of familial love.

This dynamic is called the communion of saints and the reason for it is so that, all will become a new creation in Christ. This dynamic is what generates, the second is like it, “Thou shall love our neighbor as ourself”. Our neighbor may not share this dynamic with us, but it does not matter, it is our dynamic and it may not be his. It is our mutual love of the Real Presence that will draw him into the dynamic, we are only to reflect that love of the Real Presence to our neighbor. He upon observing it will be drawn into it, just as we are.

Intercessory prayer is the language of this dynamic. We pray for each other to encourage this change in our natures, this new creation.

The Eucharist is the spiritual catalyst of this dynamic, encouraging each who receive it to become a new creation in Christ.

This is why it may be improper for a Christian to say, “I love you”. The term “I love you” is not properly qualified. The reason we love one another is that, we first and foremost love the Real Presence. We change that dynamic when we say, “I love you”.

The way we view familial love can change everything, including our culture.

 

[chevalier]

What if one of the spouses loves the other despite the other’s lack of belief in Real Presence? Also, do you suggest that non-believers in Real Presence don’t love each other? I don’t think Jesus would agree. He told us to love our enemies not because we would otherwise not love our families (“do not the pagans do that?” and all). Additionally, we’re supposed to love people for what they are rather than because they love Real Presence.

Let there be no mistake: I’m a Catholic myself and I love Real Presence. I just can’t agree with that little text. Not everything which is written with a pious zeal for a pious purpose is necessarily accurate.

 

[Beaver]

What if one of the spouses loves the other despite the other’s lack of belief in Real Presence?

Are you saying that you wish to become a new creation in your spouse? Love conforms us to the object we love. Where in the bible does it say, we should become a new creation in our spouse.

Also, do you suggest that non-believers in Real Presence don’t love each other?

Yes, where does the bible say, they should be, other than a new creation in Christ.

I don’t think Jesus would agree. He told us to love our enemies not because we would otherwise not love our families (“do not the pagans do that?” and all). Additionally, we’re supposed to love people for what they are rather than because they love Real Presence.

Let there be no mistake: I’m a Catholic myself and I love Real Presence. I just can’t agree with that little text. Not everything which is written with a pious zeal for a pious purpose is necessarily accurate.

Then do you believe than no one should be a new creation in Christ?

 

[chevalier]

Where exactly did I say a single thing about creation? Please don’t put in my mouth what I didn’t say. I am discussing precisely what I said and opposing precisely what I pointed out. The fact I disagree with one thing from the text doesn’t mean I disagree with something else in it.

Once again: Family members should be loved regardless of their religious beliefs, as should all people. It is possible to love without believing in Real Presence. It is not improper to state love for someone without any contextual relation to Real Presence. Jesus wants us to love people who do not believe in Real Presence as well. These are my points. I am not talking about creation. Please respond to my points instead of turning it around and making it look like I’m questioning something about new creation.

 

[Beaver]

Where exactly did I say a single thing about creation? Please don’t put in my mouth what I didn’t say. I am discussing precisely what I said and opposing precisely what I pointed out. The fact I disagree with one thing from the text doesn’t mean I disagree with something else in it.

Once again: Family members should be loved regardless of their religious beliefs, as should all people. It is possible to love without believing in Real Presence. It is not improper to state love for someone without any contextual relation to Real Presence. Jesus wants us to love people who do not believe in Real Presence as well. These are my points. I am not talking about creation. Please respond to my points instead of turning it around and making it look like I’m questioning something about new creation.

Familial Love
by Donald F Hudzinski

The child loves mommy and daddy because mommy and daddy love the Real Presence. Daddy loves mommy because mommy love the Real Presence and mommy loves daddy because daddy loves the Real Presence. This mutual love of Christ in the Real Presence is the formation of familial love.

This dynamic is called the communion of saints and the reason for it is so that, all will become a new creation in Christ. This dynamic is what generates, the second is like it, “Thou shall love our neighbor as ourself”. Our neighbor may not share this dynamic with us, but it does not matter, it is our dynamic and it may not be his. It is our mutual love of the Real Presence that will draw him into the dynamic, we are only to reflect that love of the Real Presence to our neighbor. He upon observing it will be drawn into it, just as we are.

Intercessory prayer is the language of this dynamic. We pray for each other to encourage this change in our natures, this new creation.

The Eucharist is the spiritual catalyst of this dynamic, encouraging each who receive it to become a new creation in Christ.

This is why it may be improper for a Christian to say, “I love you”. The term “I love you” is not properly qualified. The reason we love one another is that, we first and foremost love the Real Presence. We change that dynamic when we say, “I love you”.

The way we view familial love can change everything, including our culture.

 

[Beaver]

People who thing they can love without the dynamic are wrong.

Love is the act of becoming a new creation in Christ.

 

[chevalier]

You just quote your post further, bolding some stuff from a paragraph above what I quoted and you reassure me I’m wrong. Are you really trying to discuss with me and solve the problem or just to push the point through?

Pagans can love. Atheists can love. Whoever loves knows God because he’s born of Him. Regardless of the presence or absence of belief in Real Presence. I’ve been loved by people who haven’t believed in Real Presence and I have loved them as well. I also loved my family members as a child before I got an understanding of what Real Presence really meant. You didn’t?

 

[Beaver]

You just quote your post further, bolding some stuff from a paragraph above what I quoted and you reassure me I’m wrong. Are you really trying to discuss with me and solve the problem or just to push the point through?

Pagans can love. Atheists can love. Whoever loves knows God because he’s born of Him. Regardless of the presence or absence of belief in Real Presence. I’ve been loved by people who haven’t believed in Real Presence and I have loved them as well. I also loved my family members as a child before I got an understanding of what Real Presence really meant. You didn’t?

This is not love but the counterfeit lust.

 

[chevalier]

This is not love but the counterfeit lust.

Therefore Abraham didn’t love Sarah, but felt counterfeit lust for her because Real Presence was not yet established, because there was no sacrament of the Eucharist yet? St. Joseph didn’t love Mary because he never went to communion and died when Jesus was a boy?

Therefore a Jewish or Muslim or atheist even mother doesn’t love her children but merely feels a fake possessive urge? A child before the age of reason doesn’t love his parents but feels some counterfeit lust all until he is explained what Real Presence is?

You call that Christianity?

Do you also want to say that God feels counterfeit lust towards those of us who don’t love or even know Real Presence? Or that God feels nothing to those people? God didn’t love the people in the Old Testament? God didn’t love my ex girlfriend who was agnostic? God didn’t love me until I knew what Real Presence was?

 

[Beaver]

Therefore Abraham didn’t love Sarah, but felt counterfeit lust for her because Real Presence was not yet established, because there was no sacrament of the Eucharist yet? St. Joseph didn’t love Mary because he never went to communion and died when Jesus was a boy?

Therefore a Jewish or Muslim or atheist even mother doesn’t love her children but merely feels a fake possessive urge? A child before the age of reason doesn’t love his parents but feels some counterfeit lust all until he is explained what Real Presence is?

You call that Christianity?

Do you also want to say that God feels counterfeit lust towards those of us who don’t love or even know Real Presence? Or that God feels nothing to those people? God didn’t love the people in the Old Testament? God didn’t love my ex girlfriend who was agnostic? God didn’t love me until I knew what Real Presence was?

God and the Real Presence are One and He has always love His creation. He was in the garden with Adam & Eve from the very beginning of time. He guided all of the patriarchs and prophets. They knew and loved Him and because they did, they loved. Love is the communion they all enjoyed with the Real Presence. All else is lust. It is a good counterfeit.

 

[chevalier]

God and the Real Presence are One and He has always love His creation. He was in the garden with Adam & Eve from the very beginning of time. He guided all of the patriarchs and prophets. They knew and loved Him and because they did, they loved. Love is the communion they all enjoyed with the Real Presence. All else is lust. It is a good counterfeit.

You still state that loving a person who doesn’t love Real Presence is lust. You also state that loving anyone without loving Real Presence is lust.

Therefore, why would God love someone who doesn’t love Real Presence? And God loves everyone, including those who hate Him. God is incapable of lust. I will readily forgive you the statement that my own loving someone who doesn’t believe in Real Presence is lust, but you can’t make such claims about God. Also, the way you make statements about God leading the Patriarchs and therefore taking away from the weight of your point about Real Presence, one could claim that God works in Protestant and other churches and yes indeed, the Holy Spirit does work through such churches as well. You can disagree with me on this, but I don’t recommend disagreeing with Cardinal Newman.

Sorry, but in my view, that’s about it with your claims. You just seem to want to tie the Eucharist into every case of love, but it’s not as simple as you are making it look. Unless you are willing to admit that loving God is sufficient and whoever loves sincerely loves God (even without knowing Him or knowing one loves Him), but then your religious and theological point regard Real Presence would be moot. You are probably intuitively right in some way, because God is indeed in the centre of things and the Eucharist is in the centre of Christian life, and God is love, but the claims you derive from your premises don’t seem to hold logically and some of the statements you make are really worrying. The language you use is also worrying because, “mommy loves daddy because daddy loves Real Presence,” sounds like some kind of propaganda leaflet. No offence or hurt intended. It also sounds like you don’t want to consider your points, give them some kind of rational examination, but you just want to hold to them to the point of dodging direct questions and driving around issues, repeating yourself and putting in my mouth what I didn’t say, which is arguing with yourself, not with me. I humbly suggest that you take a little break before going public with your claims and rethink them once or twice in a calm mind and maybe give a thought or two to my concerns.