The why behind the why

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcjones
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rcjones

Guest
In these forums, the answer to questions is often, “Because the church says so.”

Why meat and not fish? The word used is carne.
Why is it a mortal sin? Cause the church says so.
etc.

These are fine answers to a point if you are attempting to resolve the ‘legal’ issue. But they leave the question of why behind the why.

The Jewish law had two parts. There is the moral aspect, and there is, what I call, the dinner theatre aspect. The prophets lived dinner theatre so that the play act would get attention. The contents of it was designed to teach a lesson hidden in riddle. And the purpose of the riddle was not to hide the matter, but to make people think about what the prophet was saying.

This is the same purpose for icons. We are to wonder what it means and through that wonder focus on the scripture that gives it meaning.

It is the same for the law. “The law, having a shadow of the good things coming…” The shadow is the riddle.

Why the fast?

So the question for me is not which law prohibits meat, but why does the law prohibit meat.
So here’s my take on it derived from the sensus plenior.
  1. Jesus coupled the idea of ‘bread’ and 'every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Click to expand...
  1. He then serves bread and fish to the 4000, the 5000, and to the disciples on the beach after the resurrection. So he couples bread and fish.
  2. Therefore ‘fish’ represent 'every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
The conclusion is that one can eat fish during the fast because we should live by ‘every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’.

Further evidence:
Bread is the body of Christ. It is torn because it represents Christ on the cross. We are not to live by the cross alone. He dies so that we may serve him in obedience to every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

It is an unleavened bread. However in popular typology leaven is sin. This cannot be in sensus plenior, because everywhere leaven is used in the Bible it must mean the same thing. Therefore it means ‘teaching’. The kingdom of God is like teaching, not sin. Beware the teaching of the Pharisees…

The body of Jesus is without teaching because he is the source of truth.

So why is there a fast from meat (carne)?

Eating represents partaking of a Word. There are two “words”. The word of the flesh, and the word of the spirit. We share a nature with animals that is instinctive. When we live by instinct, by the flesh, we commit venial sin. When we believe that the ways of the flesh are pre-eminent, we are eating the word of flesh. When we place God’s word as pre-eminent, we are eating fish.

The clean animal ruminates (contemplates the word of God) and it causes him to have a split hoof (separated life).

So the fast is a dinner theatre of putting off the old man (the flesh) and putting on the new man (the spirit).

So there is nothing inherently wrong with the acts of violating dinner theatre laws, or they would be wrong for all men at all times. The Pope could not declare that it is permitted to murder except on Fridays, because this is a moral law, not a dinner theatre law.

Violating the fast becomes a mortal sin if you are under the authority of one who commands the fast, you are aware of the command, and you willfully disobey as an act of defiance. It is the rebellion which is sin, not the act.
Do these interpretations based on the methods of sensus plenior agree with what you know to be Catholic tradition?
 
Why the Eastern cross?

The eastern cross has each of the four points crossed as well and the bottom one is tilted and points to the right.

In sensus plenior ‘four’ always is associated with the four voices of Christ as Prophet, Priest, king and Judge. In the pictures, the Prophet and Judge die, because prophecy ceases and judgment ends. When we are made ‘like’ Christ, we are made to be kings and priests. The two voices which didn’t die.

The king voice is earthly-earthly, the priest heavenly-heavenly, The other two are mixtures of heavenly and earthly. As mixtures, they must die since all the dinner theatre laws prohibit mixing. These two are the horizontal points which his hands were nailed to. Hands represent works, and his works die because they are finished.

The lower point represents his earthly life. His feet, representing his walk/life, are nailed there because his physical life also ended.

The three points where nails were driven represent what man could kill.

The fourth and upper point represents his authority as God. There is not a nail there because man could not kill God.

However, the crossed points of the Eastern cross represent God’s participation in the cross. The Father left the Son on the cross, and so in the realm of the divine, the Son was dead to the Father. A nail here would represent that man had killed God, and that would not do. So all four points of the cross are crosses again to show that Christ was fully dead and separated from the Father as a part of his own will…

The thief had asked to be in the kingdom with Jesus, and so the lower point representing Christ as king, points to the right to indicate that sheep are on his right, goats on the left.
Those in his earthly kingdom who are sheep will be lifted up, in glory with Christ as we bear our own cross. The thief on the left also bore a cross, but the lower point points downward for him, being a goat on the left side.

The body of Christ between the upper and lower points indicates that Christ is the mediator between law (the king) and grace (the priest). And though the king was killed by men (the nail) he was resurrected by his own divine power (the head).

The spear that pierced his side represents the sins of the church. But it is not in the picture because our sins are remembered no more. But the hole in his side is visible, as the birthplace of the church, reminiscent of the rib pulled from Adam’s side, and the flesh hook wielded by Eli’s sons.

From that hole poured a mixture of water (word) and blood (life). As Moses poured water (word) in the dust (earthly) and it became blood (life), as a shadow of Christ’s incarnation, as Christs word and life pour into the earthly, it produces the living church “like him”.

His head has the crown of thorns which represent “the cares of the world” according to the parable. He cared for the world and died for it.

The icon of the cross should have us meditate on these things.
Do these interpretations based on the methods of sensus plenior agree with what you know to be Catholic tradition?
 
Oh and the fast is on Friday, because it is the day of the cross where Jesus put off the flesh for the last time. Throughout his ministry he was faced with the same temptation of avoiding the cross. By finally facing it, the last temptation of the flesh, to preserve itself was finally conquered.
 
I’ve seen a lot of these questions here, and while some of the answers are “cos the Church says so, so meh :p” there are a lot of answers that are “the Church says yay or nay because…”

I’m sure you’ll find your answers, its jsut a matter of patience and purusing what’s there.
 
I must admit it is a bit disappointing for these things apparently not to ring true with anyone.

Also for no one to offer a correction to them if they are wrong. If this or something like this is not behind the symbols, pointing one to Christ, then I would think the symbols are nothing more than idolatry and the church laws nothing more than legalism.
 
It’s not a matter that Catholics do not find the things you mentioned in this thread to ring true - I’m sure to many these are great things to ponder. But from a Catholic viewpoint, it’s just one or two ways of placing the focus on Christ amongst thousands available for us through the Church. The most profound way we not only focus on Christ, but worship him as well, is contained in the Mass, where not only does the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice is represented through the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist, it requires that we participate in that sacrifice, mentally, spiritually, and physically.

Why get just parts of it when we can experience it wholly and completely?
 
Are you suggesting it is a bias against non-Catholics that prevents people from acknowledging it? That if the little tag in the right corner said Catholic rather than Christian, people might feel freer to converse about it?

Certainly most threads don’t contain the full experience of the Eucharist, yet it is never suggested that they are less worthy threads because the fullness of the Mass says it all.

I doubt what you suggest is true. It may be your bias, but I doubt it for most.
 
I’m just suggesting that this may be the case in the Catholic POV - however, as you know, Catholics come in all shapes and sizes - and their focuses are just as varied.

A forum member’s faith tradition was never a hindrance in fostering meaningful discussions on a thread. I’m just throwing out the suggestion that maybe the issues you’ve brought up here of may have already been pondered on greatly.
 
rcjones:

I agree with your points, but it is somewhat worse than you mention. The fact is that Catholics actually believe that the Pope can bind the Heavenly government to its decisions on why or why not. They can dictate to God how things will be, since whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

With those rules, you cant lose.

Its just that is not a good interoperation of that scripture, since it would make no sense why Jesus would be King - King of what? If they are right, we should be pleading with the Pope to save us, as he has the power to do all things. I guess he can tell God what to do…makes sense to me…? (not really)
 
johnnyprc said:
rcjones:

I agree with your points, but it is somewhat worse than you mention. The fact is that Catholics actually believe that the Pope can bind the Heavenly government to its decisions on why or why not. They can dictate to God how things will be, since whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

With those rules, you cant lose.

Its just that is not a good interoperation of that scripture, since it would make no sense why Jesus would be King - King of what? If they are right, we should be pleading with the Pope to save us, as he has the power to do all things. I guess he can tell God what to do…makes sense to me…? (not really)
Click to expand...
Misinformation can be damaging ya know.:mad:
 
johnnyprc said:
rcjones:

I agree with your points, but it is somewhat worse than you mention. The fact is that Catholics actually believe that the Pope can bind the Heavenly government to its decisions on why or why not. They can dictate to God how things will be, since whatever they bind on earth will be bound in heaven.

With those rules, you cant lose.

Its just that is not a good interoperation of that scripture, since it would make no sense why Jesus would be King - King of what? If they are right, we should be pleading with the Pope to save us, as he has the power to do all things. I guess he can tell God what to do…makes sense to me…? (not really)
Click to expand...
It might be worth discussing issues with you if you actually had any clue what you are talking about instead of simply having an anti-Catholic rant.
Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then come back with sensible questions and comments.
 
What I have found so far about this Forum is that Catholics really don’t know what their own religion teaches. I come out and say something that sounds ridiculous, and I am told that is not true. However, when I study the issue with a Priest and retired Bishop (including church documents) to get to the bottom of the teachings, what I am saying here is the bottom line.

Granted, I was also told that even though the Pope possesses this ability, he has never used it - nor will he ever use it. I was told it was a negative charism.

Now, if you guys want to come with official church documents showing otherwise - go for it. Also, why don’t you try to explain then what Mt. 18 is saying…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top