F
fix
Guest
Because it happens so often and this author is in that camp. Why is it we can’t see things as they are no matter how often we encounter the same problem?
- Status
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
How about this? A person is tired of getting junk in the bulletin, and bulletin is looking more and more like a pile of flyers from the mail.
If you can’t appeal to the Powers That Be from a standpoint of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), try appealing from the fiscal: The darn things cost money and aren’t being read!
If you can’t appeal to the Powers That Be from a standpoint of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), try appealing from the fiscal: The darn things cost money and aren’t being read!
O
otm
Guest
Christ has a resurrected body in Heaven. The writers of the Gospels described it as best they could, and the conclusions that the Church has come to is that Christ actually Rose; there was a real (as opposed to a vision) body there, and it appeared to be both like ours and not like ours. The Church says that it was a real body, but it was a resurrected body; that it had flesh and blood, but not as we have (that is, ours is corruptible). So the answer is - yes and no. Yes, in that the body was real, it wasn’t just a vision; no, in that it is not exactly the same as ours.
Christ’s friend Lazarus was raised from the dead; he was not ressurected. He came back as he was before, in other word like you and me. He could not pass through walls, he could not disappear or bi-locate. And he was subject to dying again. Christ was ressurected and we are still contemplating the experience.
As to the author’s question, it might be noted that the Gospel writers are full of stories of Christ meeting the Pharisees and Saducees repeatedly before His death; but none of the Resurrection stories, as I recall, indicate that He was seen by anyone other thaan the faithfull.
To ask the question of whether or not He could only be seen by the faithful comes right out of the stories. why is it that ony the faithful were reported to have seen Him?
Other than Joseph Smith reporting that he had a vision of Christ, I don’t recall anyone else reporting a vision of Him who was not faithful. Why?
I do not take the question by the article writer to be a statement that Christ didn’t really rise on the third day, or that His body wan’t real; all I see is the question that contemplating the stories might lead to - why is it that only the faithful were reported to have seen Him?
O
otm
Guest
there is no such thing as a historian without bias; what you mean is that you will stick with historians whom you identify as having a bias similar to yours.
Any historian has to sift through such a mound of facts that if they are to give any explanation of the history they are researching, they have to determine which facts get included and which don’t, and that in itself is a value judgement. They then have to attempt to make sense of the facts left after the sifting, and that, too, is done from a value judgement point. Most who have any real integrity will try to presnt more than one viewpoint to the matters at hand, but ultimately, their biases will impact the process.
O
otm
Guest
Sometimes it is not a problem that we are encountering, but a blindness to the problem. Positions become so entrenched that there becomes no possiblity that the other side has anything at all to offer.
I am well aware of some who have fallen off the edge of the earth on the left end of it - Kung, Curran, McBride - and I am not suggesting that anyone deposit their backsides on the floor infront fo their feet and soak up their wisdom. But there are people who have something valid to say who are left of your postion, which could them anywhere from the center, to the left of center (which is not left). You seem so quick to dismiss them.
And as a popint, the Pope recently had luch with Hans Kung; they are obviously of different theological positions on a number of issues, but they have maintained a friendship since the Council. I would bet doughnuts that the Pope is more open to hearing what Hans has to say than you are of this writer.
One can be open minded without having one’s brains fall out.
F
fix
Guest
I prefer those loyal to the Church and orthodox.
We are speaking about Church history and a “Catholic” publication. The publication is not a scholarly paper but an attempt to “inform” the laity. I guess my standards are high. Call me silly.
F
fix
Guest
There should be one side. Loyalty to the Church. I am not interested in the rest.
The author in question can write for whomever he desires. I see no need to foist that stuff on the faithful through a Church bulletin.
Ask the Pope if he thinks Kung should be teaching the faithful his ideas? I will not hold my breath. That the Pope meets with him is one thing. That the faithful should think from that his teachings are helpful is not the correct conclusion.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hmmm. 
The more I think about this statement by the author:
I wonder what the “spying Sanhedrin” would have made of St. Thomas’ actions in extending his hand into thin air. Or the fact that disciples seemed to be talking to someone invisible.
Wait! Even more strange, what would the “spying Sanhedrin” have seen on the shore in John 21? Jesus had a charcoal fire going. He took fish and gave it the apostles.
Just askin’.
VC
The more I think about this statement by the author:
the more strange it becomes.
I wonder what the “spying Sanhedrin” would have made of St. Thomas’ actions in extending his hand into thin air. Or the fact that disciples seemed to be talking to someone invisible.
Wait! Even more strange, what would the “spying Sanhedrin” have seen on the shore in John 21? Jesus had a charcoal fire going. He took fish and gave it the apostles.
Would the fire and the floating fish and bread be invisible too?
Just askin’.
VC
O
otm
Guest
I do not see what he said as heterodox. His opinion is within the spectrum of opinions which are allowed by the Church. Both you and I might agree that he takes a progressive stance as opposed to a conservative stance, but he can take the stance he has in the article and still be loyal and orthodox.
It seems you want no criticism of anything in praxis other than the criticisms you particularly agree with. This seems to be an attitude that approaches a rigid formalism. One can have and express an opinion on historical praxis, differ from you opinion, and still be a good Cathiolic.
I don’t consider my standards low. I said in at least one post herein that I would have editied some of his comments differently. You and I would probably agree, were we editing side by side, on changes I would suggest. But I am not convinced you would not try to re-wrtie the whole article.
i think it is much more than just high standards at issue. The original poster seemd scandalized at the article, one other equated it with garbage; and my take is that the two had little or no real understanding of any historical perspective of Sacramental praxis or the general theological understanding and emphasis of various aspects of the Eucharist. They see the article as bordering on causing serious trouble to people’s faith. I see it as having the potential to enrich people’s faith as it shows how the Eucharist has been perceived through the history of the Church. Much of the perception at any given time is due to over or under emphasis of various aspects of theological perspective. That is a fact of history, and if discussing it is going to cause a crisis in someone’s faith, they had perhaps a very poorly founded faith and a weak one. I would put the sedevacantists and the conspiratorialists in that group, but would assume that those who are not part of those groups could manage this article with some aplomb.
- Status