R
ron77nyc
Guest
Yes I know that. This was a response to a conversation I had with po18guy. My intention was to show how the teaching of recrucifying Christ that was so talked about when I was in school came about.
- Status
po18guy
Well-known member
Ron, please forget the mistakes and errors of the past, Your love of Christ will reveal the truth to you. Those who knowingly taught error will answer for their errors. That is why we pray for them. Fear not.
Christ’s peace.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Well I know that Christ cannot be recrucified and I hate to keep harping on it but it was taught when I went to school. My response has always been “Why would you want to do that anyway?”
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Well I thought I was making peace with the past by asking someone to evaluate this article for me which is the subject of this thread. My thoughts are that they didn’t know they were teaching error. I wanted to know if anyone else could misunderstand the meaning of this sentence in the Council of Trent. I now see how easy it is to misunderstand anything that anybody says. I think it’s easy to misinterpret things in writing. Anyway thanks for your response and your sound advice.
po18guy
Well-known member
Ron, it has been a blessing. This points to the scripture of Saint Peter in 2 Peter 1:19-20:
2 Peter 1:19-22 (King James Version) “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
This is from the Protestant KJV, which can be used to prove Catholic teaching. Private interpretation of scripture has flared up since Luther’s day, and is the single reason why there are thousands of disagreeing Protestant denominations today. Christ founded one church, and we, in all confidence and faith, call you to “re-examine” her.
Christ’s peace.
M
mercygate
Guest
OK. That was (as you admit) a long time ago. Are you 100% certain that what you understood to be taught was entirely what was taught? You seem even at this age to have a problem getting a grip on the lucid explanations presented here.
Leave Sister Mary Euthanasia at peace. Start over with a grown up mind and see if the equation doesn’t balance better than it did when you were eleven.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Yes I’m sure about what I was taught. You might want to look into why my questions disturb you so much. Maybe you have some growing up to do yourself.
T
TobyLue
Guest
In regards to the lies that Jesus is re-crucified each time at Mass:
How come those born-agains like to say that they were “saved on such and such a day”? Did Jesus give His life for them on that particular day that they like to mention? Every time that someone says “I was saved on Jan 1 1987” another says on Feb 1 1999 and one hundred mention other dates, is Jesus killed on each of those days time and time again?
M
mesl4
Guest
I don’t know if this was meant to be a rhetorical question, but just in case…It sounds like you don’t understand what they mean by being saved. Christ died for all of us for salvation. It is up to us to accept that gift or not. People are saying the dates they are saved based on the date they accepted his gift. The date they became believers. For many though, it is a gradual process…and for me, I can’t pick a date because I grew up believing the gospel so I can’t remember a time I wasn’t “saved.” However, that’s mainly used for the “once saved always saved” believers, of which I’m not really. However, if at the time the person is saying that, they are still walking in the faith, then they are saved at that time. HOpe that clarifies.
M
Marc_Aupiais
Guest
We are saved from all aeviternity- and are being saved, eternity is our salvation- and aeviternity our soul’s state and destiny-
My fellow was saying- that salvation- like the eucharist occurs at the cross- that we were all saved then through time and space- and continue to be saved then all through existing- and that it is illogical to attack the sacrifice of Christ through time- when there is an example of the same reasoning- however incorrect- for we are not eternally saved at any one point- salvation is a journey- with twists and nooks, and many eyewitnesses to this- we are saved in eternity yes- but the idea of- I never really knew is oft better.
God bless, Marc
My fellow was saying- that salvation- like the eucharist occurs at the cross- that we were all saved then through time and space- and continue to be saved then all through existing- and that it is illogical to attack the sacrifice of Christ through time- when there is an example of the same reasoning- however incorrect- for we are not eternally saved at any one point- salvation is a journey- with twists and nooks, and many eyewitnesses to this- we are saved in eternity yes- but the idea of- I never really knew is oft better.
God bless, Marc
U
Usagi
Guest
The Council of Trent was not teaching re-crucifixion.
Jesus is offered again. He does not die again.
Note the “unbloody” part. A re-crucifixion would be rather bloody.
Now, I realize that you recognize that the talk of “re-crucifixion” in your youth was erroneous. You are primarily concerned that such talk was never corrected.
However, you note that the Baltimore Catechism teaches correctly. Had those who were in error sought the truth, they would easily have found it. Had anyone who knew the true teaching come upon the erroneous one, they too would have corrected it. No one in the Church was hiding the true teaching.
Should the Church be better at correcting mistaken teaching and spreading the correct teaching? Most certainly, then and now. But her resources are not infinite. Even your local bishop probably never heard about what was going around at your school. And you did have those Baltimore Catechisms … the American Church’s effort to insure that children were properly taught the faith.
Oh, as an aside, we do still believe that transubstantiation occurs in the Eucharist – that after the consecration, Christ is truly present in His entirety under the appearances of bread and wine. That has nothing to do with re-crucifixion. However, the Sister who believed one could harm Jesus by chewing the Host was incorrect – the earthly effects inflicted on the appearances of bread and wine do not harm the Risen Christ Whom we receive.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
Nope, big difference there.
Mormons actually believe in brand-new revelation from God in the modern day.
Catholics believe, as do most other Christians, that public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. After that point, there was no more inspired Scripture and no more apostolic Tradition. The Deposit of Faith was complete.
Later Councils and Popes can clarify teachings or restate them in more precise words, or even make a definitive pronouncement on a matter that was commonly but not definitively believed, but they are never granted new public revelation and cannot go against the existing Deposit of Faith.
The Church has the power to establish rules and disciplines for the good of all Christians, yes. The point is not to impose meaningless requirements, but to create times and places and activities that can bring people closer to God.
Now, sometimes these disciplines outlive their usefulness. For example, if Friday abstinence from meat simply becomes a “thing one does” (or even an excuse to eat lobster instead of hamburger), then there’s no point to it. The Church has in recent decades relaxed such disciplines or encouraged the faithful to come up with their own meaningful penitential practices for that very reason.
If one is a Catholic (and thus presumably agrees that the Church has authority in such matters), then to deliberately disobey such a rule is an act of rebellion against God-given authority and therefore a sin. The act itself (e.g., eating “flesh meats” on certain days) is not evil, but the attitude expressed by flouting the rule certainly can be.
Heh, thank you
Well, belonging to the Church (by which I mean any part of the Body of Christ, but especially a visible worldwide Christian church like the Catholic Church) should feel like joining a special fellowship with a Mission from God (literally). There’s a Catholic culture not shared by the Protestant-or-nominal-Protestant majority in this country that could certainly make Catholics seem “strange and different,” though I hope “cult” in its pejorative sense isn’t quite the right word. As for “secret society,” we don’t keep anything secret about our teachings and practices that I know of. It’s all out there, widely published and easily accessible.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
Er, no. No, you could not.
Read the Nicene Creed. Or even the earlier Apostles’ Creed. Notice the bulk of the middle there with all the things we believe about Jesus? If you do not believe those things, you are not even a Christian, much less a “good Catholic.”
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
I know Augustine was down on the sexual pleasure, but I don’t think it’s anything that the Church at large ever accepted.
Today, of course, the Church teaches both procreative and unitive aspects of marital sex, though of course one of the two must not be sought without the other. That means “procreation only” would actually be just as wrong as “unity only.” I’m afraid I don’t know the history on that one, though.
An extremely common belief, and still a permissible one, but never a teaching of the Church.
Basically, we don’t know what happens to unbaptized children. We can’t just declare them in Heaven, because then baptism would have no point. Augustine thought they went to Hell, but that was (understandably) unpalatable for a lot of people. So, on the model of the “limbo of the fathers” where the Old Testament saints stayed until the Resurrection, theologians proposed a “limbo of the children” where such souls would spend eternity in absolute natural happiness.
That was the best anyone could come up with for a long time. More recently, the thinking has been that we have placed too many limits on the mercy of God, who is not Himself bound by the sacramental rules He sets down for us. Thus, we may hope that even the unbaptized are granted Heaven, which does away with the need for limbo.
Even back then, the three conditions for a mortal sin were understood and taught. The “change” is that we now have a better understanding of human psychology and realize that few if any suicides meet those conditions.
Suicide remains grave matter, so if it were to be done with full knowledge and consent, it would be a mortal sin. It would be unforgiveable not because there is anything particularly heinous about suicide, but simply because the person is already dead and past the point of repentance. (Even in the old days, it was recognized that one who committed suicide by a non-instantaneous method – say, jumping off a bridge – could theoretically “repent on the way down.”)
The teaching is that neither life may deliberately be sacrificed to save the other. It’s possible it was phrased as “child first” because most likely the impulse would be to abort the child and save the mother. Also, the mother may choose to increase the child’s chances at the expense of her own (though she still may not actively commit suicide or solicit her own murder), whereas the child is not able to make such a choice.
True, not because there’s anything wrong with meat per se, but because to do so knowingly and deliberately as a Catholic would be to rebel against the God-given authority of the Church.
The immoral act would be “rebellion against the lawful authority God has set up, in a matter that is not sinful” (which remains immoral and always will), not “eating a particular food on a particular day.”
I honestly don’t know. Obviously, the pope cannot personally supervise every Catholic school religion class. At best, he could act like the Supreme Court, making a ruling when a problem is brought to his attention.
The Friday abstinence would obviously have been known and approved of (and followed personally) by popes. Many of them likely believed in limbo as the reasonable hypothesis of the time. Some popes may likewise have held incorrect opinions on the other matters above.
I can tell you that no pope ever proclaimed any of these beliefs as definitively binding on the universal Church.
Usagi
U
Usagi
Guest
There is no required formula for making such a declaration, but the words “declare and define” or even “proclaim, declare, and define” are usually in there somewhere.
Look at the one case in which we know the Pope was exercising his already-defined infallibility – the definition of the Assumption of Mary in 1950.
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html
Any future ex cathedra definition is certain to be at least that obvious about it. If still unsure, people will be able to submit questions to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and receive official answers.
It’s the question of past infallible statements that is cloudier, since obviously popes of the past couldn’t know what the eventually defined conditions for the pope to personally speak infallibly would be.
You probably know the Vatican I conditions, but just in case, here they are:
- The Pope must be speaking as Pope, invoking the authority of his office. That means it will almost certainly be a formal pronouncement, not something he mutters on the side or mentions casually in an interview. Likewise, his opinions as a private citizen don’t count.
- He must be speaking to the entire Church. An admonition to bishops or believers in a particular area may be authoritative and even binding on that audience, but it is not a universal and irreformable definition. Things can’t be infallibly true for some people and not for others. Likewise, a thing can’t be infallibly true sometimes and not at other times. A pope can elevate a previously held belief to dogmatic status, but can’t just make up an entirely new dogma that’s never been heard of before. Nor can he reverse an infallible teaching of the past. Things that can change over time or in different parts of the Church (rules on fast and abstinence or priestly marriage; the precise form of the liturgy) are not matters for infallible definition.
- He must intend to define for all time a truth of faith or morals. This is where phrasings like “declare and define” come in handy. A pope might personally believe in a theological or moral idea (say, limbo, or the morality of a particular economic system) and even preach strongly about it, but he is not necessarily binding the consciences of all Catholics to believe as he does. Modern popes have often spoken to discourage states from resorting to war or capital punishment, but no pope could ever declare those activities to be always and everywhere wrong, because they have been permitted and even commanded by God in the past.
- Status