Literal or Symbolic?...

[PRmerger]

So adultery is lawful and permitted ?

This is an odd statement.

Adultery is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. I am certain you are aware of that, so not sure where the above question arose from.

Are not all relationships illicit , that is imperfect, breaking God’s perfect law, right from the beginning ?

Um…no, david. Illicit and imperfect are not synonymous.

I can tell you that I will shout from the rooftops that my relationship with my honey is* not *illicit. How dare you!

 

[david_ruiz]

So she took this lady to Adoration with her explaining that Jesus is really in the Host in the Monstrance.

 

[PRmerger]

Never done in earliest Church.

This is irrelevant, david. I guarantee you that most of the things you do at your church were “never done in the earliest Church” either.

The point is that the “earliest Church” is still the same Church that celebrates the Mass, believes in the RP, prays to Mary and the saints, prays for the dead, believes in the Trinity, etc etc etc. That is, is the CC.

Apparently she was not born again in the first place,by her own words.

So there is no such thing, then, as OSAS. Because a person can believe she’s born again, but then realize that she “was not born again in the first place.”

Just like you. You may believe that you were “born again” (in the Protestant sense of course. Because you actually were “born again” at your baptism as an infant.) but then some time in your faith journey realize that you actually were “not born again in the first place.”

Parking yourself in a church, any church, yours or mine, doesn’t make you a Christian, just as parking yourself in a garage doesn’t make you an automobile.

This is very Catholic of you to say, david!

 

[david_ruiz]

This is an odd statement.

Adultery is a mortal sin in the Catholic Church. I am certain you are aware of that, so not sure where the above question arose from.

Um…no, david. Illicit and imperfect are not synonymous.

I can tell you that I will shout from the rooftops that my relationship with my honey is* not *illicit. How dare you!

So is illicit and imperfect antonyms ? Is not illicit unlawful , and unlawful sin ," missing the mark" , not being a perfect bulls-eye , hence “imperfect” ? Follow threads to see where it arose from ,sorry ,in a hurry.

 

[PRmerger]

Apparently she was not born again in the first place,by her own words.

This question of the “faux believer” brings to mind an amusing exchange I read between apologist John Martignoni and a non-Catholic Christian:

Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):

Question: Are there people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: Yes, there are.

Question: Are you saved?

Answer: Yes, I am.

Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?

Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.

Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?

Answer: I suppose so.

Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?

Answer: I just know.

Question: How do you know?

Answer: I just do.

The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t.

Indeed, there is not a single soul out in the OSAS world that believes he’s a faux believer. But he believes that there’s lots of* other* hapless folks who are these faux believers.

Curious that, statistically, it’s always the other guy who’s a faux believer.

 

[PRmerger]

So is illicit and imperfect antonyms ?

No, david. They are not antonyms.

[SIGN]Words can be NOT synonyms, but that does not make them antonyms.[/SIGN]

Take this example:

a pot is NOT SYNONYMOUS with a pan.

However, a pot is NOT THE ANTONYM to a pan.

Is not illicit unlawful ,

Yes. They are synonymous! :extrahappy:

Which is why it’s quite clear that my marriage is NOT illicit.

and unlawful sin ,

No.

" missing the mark" , not being a perfect bulls-eye , hence “imperfect” ? Follow threads to see where it arose from ,sorry ,in a hurry.

Please stop putting a space BEFORE your commas. A space goes AFTER your comma.
Thanks.

 

[benedictus2]

Never done in earliest Church. The Didache, “He tabernacles in our hearts”.

True. But not just in our hearts.

Apparently she was not born again in the first place,by her own words. Parking yourself in a church, any church, yours or mine, doesn’t make you a Christian, just as parking yourself in a garage doesn’t make you an automobile.

Well it seems she is truly Christian because she recognized Jesus in the bread.

The truly Non-Christian will only see bread.

As for your well used analogy.

Parking yourself in a Catholic Church will make you a Christian because God is there and He has the power to make you a Christian.

Our priest told me 5 conversion stories that happened at the Church I go to.

One man was an alcoholic who used to sit by the fence outside this Church. Then one day a voice said to him why don’t you come in. He turned around but there was no one there. But he did go in, right there and then he felt this presence of God and he was converted. From that time on he never took another drink. This Church happens to have Exposition whenever there is no mass. This man came in at the time of exposition.

So yes, one can become a Christian if one parks oneself before our Lord regularly. But no, one can’t become a car by parking one’s self in a garage. The garage has no power to change a human being into an automobile. God has the power to change hearts.

And isn’t that what is sad. Once your celebration is over your building is just that- just another building.

 

[david_ruiz]

True. But not just in our hearts.

Well it seems she is truly Christian because she recognized Jesus in the bread.

The truly Non-Christian will only see bread.

As for your well used analogy.

Parking yourself in a Catholic Church will make you a Christian because God is there and He has the power to make you a Christian.

Our priest told me 5 conversion stories that happened at the Church I go to.

One man was an alcoholic who used to sit by the fence outside this Church. Then one day a voice said to him why don’t you come in. He turned around but there was no one there. But he did go in, right there and then he felt this presence of God and he was converted. From that time on he never took another drink. This Church happens to have Exposition whenever there is no mass. This man came in at the time of exposition.

So yes, one can become a Christian if one parks oneself before our Lord regularly. But no, one can’t become a car by parking one’s self in a garage. The garage has no power to change a human being into an automobile. God has the power to change hearts.

And isn’t that what is sad. Once your celebration is over your building is just that- just another building.

Oh please, it is said He does not enter (tabernacle) in a place made of hands. God is everywhere and can use all material, things, including people, to mirror himself, to reveal himself . Things are just things, and people just people, but it is by His spirit that He quickens His Word to bring forth new life. Shall I venerate a closet, a sofa, tv, radio, street corner, a pulpit, a statue, a communion element ? Even Peter said I am just a man as yourself , but it is the (spiritual) Christ that has healed you… I have also heard it is what happens when you leave the building that is telling. I have proposed that there is no difference in those leaving a building and a building still containing the body of Christ, that is attributable to RP dogma.

 

[david_ruiz]

Which is why it’s quite clear that my marriage is NOT illicit.

 

[david_ruiz]

1. 
   

   This question of the “faux believer” brings to mind an amusing exchange

   I read between apologist John Martignoni and a non-Catholic Christian:
   
   Every believer in once saved always saved that I have ever met, also believes that there are those out there who think they are saved, but really are not – the faux believers, as I call them. So, ask anyone who believes in OSAS these questions (this is from an actual conversation):
   

   Question: Are there people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?
   
   Answer: Yes, there are.
   
   Question: Are you saved?
   
   Answer: Yes, I am.
   
   Question: How do you know you’re not one of those people who think they’re saved, but they really aren’t?
   
   Answer: I know in my heart that I am saved.
   
   Question: Wouldn’t someone who thinks they’re saved, but really aren’t saved, say the same thing?
   
   Answer: I suppose so.
   
   Question: Then how do you know you’re really saved?
   
   Answer: I just know.
   
   Question: How do you know?
   
   Answer: I just do.
   
   The whole point of this line of questioning is that, if it is possible to think you’re saved, but not really be saved, then no one can have eternal security – no one can know for sure that they are saved – because anyone who thinks they’re saved could actually be one of those who think they are but really aren’t.

   Indeed, there is not a single soul out in the OSAS world that believes he’s a faux believer. But he believes that there’s lots of* other* hapless folks who are these faux believers.
   
   Curious that, statistically, it’s always the other guy who’s a faux believer.
   Yes, it is often said that particular problems exist in other churches, but not mine. First .I am not necessarily a proponent to OSAS. I believe that came about to counter the opposite that was so prevalent for centuries, that one can not have assurance, only hope in salvation. I believe it was decreed that by CC that assurance talk is unscriptural and frowned upon. A little like Luther’s “alone” (by faith alone) was to counter prevalent the dependency on works, even indulgences, for salvation. These things must be taken in context. Because something can be done falsely, or even imitated, does not take away from it being done authentically. I think we would all attest to the role of the Spirit bearing witness to truth, and I would say to our salvation. I mean many here have kindly said, insinuated, that the spirit must convict me of your righteous stand on RP. Hence you tell me to read John 6 .Another tells me to partake/ adore,and rest, mediate, and see how the spirit would quicken me to proper understanding…Bottom line is that I strongly believe that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are eternally secure, because of what He did for us .Remember, in the end it is Jesus that saves, not our prayer or baptism or good works. It is impossible for this assurance if you hold to conditions, other than receiving the gift.

 

[You]

…].Remember, in the end it is Jesus that saves, not our prayer or baptism or good works. It is impossible for this assurance if you hold to conditions, other than receiving the gift.

What were the conditions again;

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you** eat the flesh** of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

These are all active things we are told to do ourselves if we want Eternal Life.

 

[david_ruiz]

Well it seems she is truly Christian because she recognized Jesus in the bread.

 

[PRmerger]

So were you both perfect at the altar ? Even David said he was formed in sin (was it David ?)

David, I am not certain why you are not understanding that illicit is not the same thing as imperfect.

My marriage is very valid, LICIT and holy. It is, however, not perfect. And we are not perfect.

Thus, as it is LICIT, divorce is not an option, as Jesus so very clearly teaches. And the CC is the only Church that is humble enough to state that they cannot edit the message of Jesus to make it more palatable.

Now, if you want to insist that *your *marriage is illicit, then, you may do so. :sad_yes:

But if you continue to insist that *my *marriage is, then I will have to regretfully put you on my ignore list. Something I have done to only 3 other members in my over 10,000 post history here. And I will have to formally rescind my friendship offer, something I have never done since I joined the CAFs in 2006.

 

[david_ruiz]

What were the conditions again;

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water

and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Hi You.The water here is not baptism, Acts shows of many people being born again, filled with the spirit upon “hearing” by the word .THEN they were baptized, in water .

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you** eat the flesh**

of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
That is what we discuss here .What constitutes eating. We do eat, in remembrance,and by believing the entire gospel, not just RP,or not.

Abide

in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.
This is after one is regenerated . Tell me, did you pluck yourself off the bad, worldly, satanic vine, and graft yourself to the Vine by sheer unregenerated will power ? This is about bearing fruit after He has miraculously grafted you in. You merely in brokenness and need (which he did also), consented to it. Oh Alleluia ! He does it. He does it all. Hence blessed assurance.

Enter ye in

at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

Yes, this is where He takes, draws, leads us to and through. I merely consent.

These are all active things we are told to do ourselves if we want Eternal Life.

Yes, that is your take, the CC take.You indeed do it yourself.

 

[JonNC]

=You;8421750]Yes, and anyone who needs to receive christ in the chalice can do so.

Celiac disease was not known before it was known. When it was known we see no problem.

Celiac wasn’t the issue for the reformers, it was the restriction of the cup, contrary to Christ’s words, “drink of this, all of you”. Their contention was the cup should not be restricted.

“Redemptionis Sacramentum,” Nos. 48-50, which states:

"[48] The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament. It is a grave abuse to introduce other substances, such as fruit or sugar or honey, into the bread for confecting the Eucharist. Hosts should obviously be made by those who are not only distinguished by their integrity, but also skilled in making them and furnished with suitable tools.

Lutherans, too, generally use unleavened wheat bread. My question is why does Rome accept Orthodox sacrament if they do not use unleavened?

From the Orthodox Church in America

For Orthodox Christians, the Eucharist is a visible sign of unity; to receive the Eucharist in a community to which one does not belong is improper. If one does not accept all that the Church believes and teaches and worships, one cannot make a visible sign of unity with it. The Eucharist is the result of unity, notthe means by which unity is achieved. While many non-Orthodox see this as a sign that the Orthodox Church excludes non-Orthodox from the Eucharist, in reality the opposite is true. Because a non-Orthodox individual has chosen not to embrace all that Orthodox Christianity holds, the non-Orthodox individual makes it impossible for an Orthodox priest to offer him or her communion. It is not so much a matter of Orthodoxy excluding non-Orthodox as it is the non-Orthodox making it impossible for the Orthodox to offer the Eucharist.

Sometimes people argue, “But Father, I believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches.” If this is indeed the case, then the question is not one of Eucharistic hospitality but, rather, “Then if you believe everything the Orthodox Church teaches, why haven’t you become an Orthodox Christian?”

I am not sure of the relevence.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No it wasn’t always the practice to distribute in both forms. I am not certain of my facts here but I think it has to do with the fear of spilling the precious blood. Also, during viral outbreaks distribution of the Blood is discouraged.

Actually, it was the practice in the early Church to bring just ordinary leavened bread. In the western Church the shift came I think from Spain to do as would have been done at the Passover meal - use unleavened bread.

After the East - West Schism and in an attempt to patch up the difference, it was agreed that both types are valid.

Thanks, Cory. And your second point validates what I was saying to poster YOU.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I think Gabe’s point was that if one spilt the blood one could end up stepping on them. They were very careful not desecrate the Host and the Precious Blood. Which is why back then one receives communion with plate place under the chin to make sure that the Host does not fall to the ground.

Hey Cory,
Is this still the typical practice in Catholic parishes. I actually respect and honor this reverence toward the host.

Jon

 

[david_ruiz]

David, I am not certain why you are not understanding that illicit is not the same thing as imperfect.

My marriage is very valid, LICIT and holy. It is, however, not perfect. And we are not perfect.

Thus, as it is LICIT, divorce is not an option, as Jesus so very clearly teaches. And the CC is the only Church that is humble enough to state that they cannot edit the message of Jesus to make it more palatable.

Now, if you want to insist that *your *marriage is illicit, then, you may do so. :sad_yes:

But if you continue to insist that *my *marriage is, then I will have to regretfully put you on my ignore list. Something I have done to only 3 other members in my over 10,000 post history here. And I will have to formally rescind my friendship offer, something I have never done since I joined the CAFs in 2006.

Of course your/mine marriage is not elicit .Even in imperfection, He consecrates or blesses our commitment.
So my apologies .You are quite unique (as we all are) , and I would not want to be the cause of offense, over this misunderstanding .I have been blessed by you …I have been a bulldog with this semantics to show, and follow the mindset that was set forth by the opposing argument, the inconsistency .The priest on the radio was trying to use, or find some “imperfection”, like a bad gene that defrauds, or makes elicit the callers marriage. Another words there may have been an inherent “flaw” that nullified the marriage. The flaws that were discussed seemed to be basic imperfections . They were not like he was she, or they lied about who they were. Anyways, this was only one priest with limited air time etc., and I may be totally wrong, but what I heard seemed a bit like circumventing the spirit of CC dogma . It would be an interesting study to see annulments and there basis. I can also say that one priest was strict and did not allow my uncle an annulment when he married a German girl, while he was stationed in Germany in the late 50’s. She refused to come back to the states with him .I do not know if she stated otherwise before the marriage. Oh how he tried for an annulment, to no avail, and could not remarry later in a Catholic Church. Anyways, this is not my forte. I will admit I am fascinated what has been proposed here about the Greek word translated adultery, that really means “unlawful”. It deserves respectful study and answer.Thank-you and may we be at peace over this.

 

[You]

Hi You.The water here is not baptism, Acts shows of many people being born again, filled with the spirit upon “hearing” by the word .THEN they were baptized, in water .

Yes they were baptised with water and the Holy Spirit. As Jesus ordered they to be.

That is what we discuss here .What constitutes eating. We do eat, in remembrance,and by believing the entire gospel, not just RP,or not.

The Jews and disciples present said they thought Jesus meant them to eat His flesh. But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them:
Doth this scandalize you?
So both Jesus and the Jews and disciples were all speaking about eating His flesh.
According to your wrong interpretation Jesus it to mean ‘believing in Him’, but neither He nor the Jews nor the disciples were talking about believing in Him they were talking about eating His flesh. His disciples left Him at that point, along with all of protestantism; and they followed Him no more.

This is after one is regenerated . Tell me, did you pluck yourself off the bad, worldly, satanic vine, and graft yourself to the Vine by sheer unregenerated will power ? This is about bearing fruit after He has miraculously grafted you in. You merely in brokenness and need (which he did also), consented to it. Oh Alleluia ! He does it. He does it all. Hence blessed assurance.

He tells you to Abide in Him, Unless you Abide in Him - Abide is a special word, it means to remain in, that is your job, to remain in Him, its your job because it is a possibility that you may not remain in Him if you decide so.

Yes, this is where He takes, draws, leads us to and through. I merely consent.

No, He says Fight Your Way In Through The Narrow Door. This is one of the most Active lines in scripture. It is something He more than strongly suggests you need to do.

English Standard Version (©2001)
“Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

International Standard Version (©2008)
"Keep on struggling to enter through the narrow door, because I tell you that many people will try to enter, but won’t be able to do so.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
But Yeshua said to them, “Strive hard to enter the narrow gate, for I say to you, many shall seek to enter and they shall not be able.”

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"Try hard to enter through the narrow door. I can guarantee that many will try to enter, but they won’t succeed.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
Strive to enter in at the narrow gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.

Darby Bible Translation
Strive with earnestness to enter in through the narrow door, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter in and will not be able.

Weymouth New Testament
“Strain every nerve to force your way in through the narrow gate,” He answered; "for multitudes, I tell you, will endeavour to find a way in and will not succeed.

Young’s Literal Translation
'Be striving to go in through the straight gate, because many, I say to you, will seek to go in, and shall not be able;

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Strive - Literally, “agonize.” The word is taken from the Grecian games. **In their races, and wrestlings, and various athletic exercises, they “strove or agonized,” or put forth all their powers to gain the victory. **Thousands witnessed them. They were long trained for the conflict, and the honor of victory was one of the highest honors among the people. So Jesus says that we should strive to enter in; and he means by it that we should be diligent, be active, be earnest; that we should make it our first and chief business to overcome our sinful propensities, and to endeavor to enter into heaven. This same figure or allusion to the Grecian games is often used in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 9:24-26; Philippians 2:16; Hebrews 12:1.

Strait gate - See the notes at Matthew 7:13-14. Dr. Thomson (“The Land and the Book,” vol. i. p. 32) says: “I have seen these strait gates and narrow ways, ‘with here and there a traveler.’ They are in retired corners, and must be sought for, and are opened only to those who knock; and when the sun goes down and the night comes on, they are shut and locked. It is then too late.”

Yes, that is your take, the CC take.You indeed do it yourself.

If you will not Strive to Enter yourself you will be one who tried and were not able to enter ~ you must strive. That is what the scripture says.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course your/mine marriage is not elicit .Even in imperfection, He consecrates or blesses our commitment.
So my apologies .

Apology accepted.

So you do understand, then, that a marriage can be imperfect yet still be LICIT, yes?

And imperfect marriages, while imperfect, are still marriages. And no one can divorce his wife over this.

ILLICIT marriages are, well, not marriages. That’s why they can be declared to be NULLIFIED.

The priest on the radio was trying to use, or find some “imperfection”, like a bad gene that defrauds, or makes elicit the callers marriage. Another words there may have been an inherent “flaw” that nullified the marriage. The flaws that were discussed seemed to be basic imperfections .

Perhaps it would help if you explained what these “flaws that were discussed” were. And why you see them as "basic imperfections.

.I do not know if she stated otherwise before the marriage. Oh how he tried for an annulment, to no avail, and could not remarry later in a Catholic Church.

The important point, I think, is that one ought take very, very seriously any vow one makes before God, in His Church, about a promise to love another person fully.

If he did this before God, then, well, it ought to be considered permanent (until death, of course) unless proven otherwise.

Anyways, this is not my forte. I will admit I am fascinated what has been proposed here about the Greek word translated adultery, that really means “unlawful”. It deserves respectful study and answer.Thank-you and may we be at peace over this.

See this thread for a discussion on the Greek word translated “adultery”.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583878