Very strange homily

[adrift]

The Catechism continues

.

473
But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

474
By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

adrift:

The Catechism continues

Adrift:

Thank you for the CONTEXT.Those last two sections from the Catechism were dynamite.

I had hoped that quoting the Athanasian Creed, which was part of the basis for the Catechism and has been accepted by the Church for over 1,400 years, would end the debate, but it didn’t work.

Thank you for helping to sort that out.

In Christ, Michael

 

[adrift]

Traditional Ang:

Adrift:

Thank you for the CONTEXT.Those last two sections from the Catechism were dynamite.

I had hoped that quoting the Athanasian Creed, which was part of the basis for the Catechism and has been accepted by the Church for over 1,400 years, would end the debate, but it didn’t work.

Thank you for helping to sort that out.

In Christ, Michael

Context is everything and your welcome.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I agree it was a very strange homily. In fact, in another thread, someone asks what a homily is. By the rules, this would not be a homily at all, as it does not discuss what is in the selected texts of scripture.

The would-be-homilist instead has shoveled in some sensational DuhVinci-Code-type speculation.

I have just finished reading Dr. Scott Hahn’s SCRIPTURE MATTERS, which I have briefly discussed also in another thread.

I would suggest that you buy or borrow a copy of his exposition of what the Church recommends for interpreting the Bible. But, in advance of your reading it, I’ll just say that all Biblical interpretation must be within the tradition of the Church.

Any Biblical interpretation that leads us outside the bounds of Church Tradition and teaching is simply not valid. Certainly the sensationalism in that homily and the skepticism that it promotes is outside the Tradition of the Church.

You should add that priest to your prayer list, for sure. And, further, perhaps you should speak up for quality Bible instruction in your diocese. After you read Hahn’s book (each chapter is a separate article on modern topics about the Bible) you might want to go to the www.salvationhistory.com website and explore the FREE} materials there for your own study of scripture.

 

[whosebob]

Lady Cygnus:

Christ wasn’t omnipresent nor omnipowerful during his time on earth, then why would it be a problem if he wasn’t omniscent? Since all three define the trinitarian life, and we know for sure two were not present in Christ, why not a third. We just have to keep in mind that it was his choice.

JMJ + OBT​

This matter is a great mystery, and I think it is very easy to get confused about the consequences of the hypostatic union of Christ’s human and divine natures, especially as regards his consciousness.

I have posted a link to the following book – which can be freely accessed online – in several other related threads in these forums over the past 1 and 1/2 years; and I gladly do so again, because it really is quite helpful and to the point:

The Consciousness of Christ
by the late Fr. William Most

Now, if only some of you would get around to actually reading it . . .

In Christ.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Lady_Cygnus]

Traditional Ang:

Adrift:

Thank you for the CONTEXT.Those last two sections from the Catechism were dynamite.

I had hoped that quoting the Athanasian Creed, which was part of the basis for the Catechism and has been accepted by the Church for over 1,400 years, would end the debate, but it didn’t work.

Thank you for helping to sort that out.

In Christ, Michael

It appears I’ve missed something. I thought we were discussing whether or not Christ knew everything like God knows everything.

None of the things you have quoted seem to support that. They only support that he knew what his mission here on earth was, or it’s purpose. Am I reading these quotes wrong?

whosebob:

This matter is a great mystery, and I think it is very easy to get confused about the consequences of the hypostatic union of Christ’s human and divine natures, especially as regards his consciousness.

I have posted a link to the following book – which can be freely accessed online – in several other related threads in these forums over the past 1 and 1/2 years; and I gladly do so again, because it really is quite helpful and to the point:

The Consciousness of Christ
by the late Fr. William Most

Thanks, this book is at my library, I’ll pick it up and check it out.

 

[estesbob]

St Francis:

We recently heard a homily in which Fr. said the following:

1. Mary was 13 when the Annunciation occurred (this bothers me because when I was young, they said she was 16, thenit was 15 or 16, then 14 or 15, then 13 or 14… what next???).

13 would have been then normal age to be married at the Time of Christ.

. Mary was a “single mother” ( )–not clarified but perhaps implying because she was “unmarried” at the time of Conception?

Nonsense. Mary was married when Jesus was born.

. 3. Mary and Joseph were “illegal immigrants”–I don’t want to start a topic on illegal immigration in the US today, but there are laws, and by definition, illegal immigration is breaking those laws.

More nonsense-If he is refring to their return to Bethlehem Mary and Joseph were following the dictates of the Roman Emperor-that is they were required to return to their “hometown” to be recorded in the census. Since they never left the Roman province of Judea and since they would have been breaking the law if they had NOT returned to Bethlehem the whole premise of the statement is ludicrous

If he is refering to the flight into Egypt its still nonsense. One could travel ANYWHERE in the Roman Empire with no legal restrictions(unless they were a slave).

.

. 4. And that Mary experienced labor pains–I thought that since she was Immaculately conceived that she would have not? Is this not the basis by which we believe in her Assumption?

This is undoubtedly true. Immaculate conception means she was born without sin. That deos not mean one wont expereicne pain-Jeusus sure did! BTW-I believe the Assumpiton is backed up ny Genesis where it states “the wages of sin our death” Since she never sinned she never had to die.

The sermon you heard is a perfect example of what happens when a Priest lets his politics get in the way of his duty to preach the Word of God.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

estesbob:

This is undoubtedly true. Immaculate conception means she was born without sin. That deos not mean one wont expereicne pain-Jeusus sure did! BTW-I believe the Assumpiton is backed up ny Genesis where it states “the wages of sin our death” Since she never sinned she never had to die.

Actually, the IC and the Asumption does state she was born without sin but what it doesn’t state is that she did not die. All it means is we know she is in Heaven and that we do not know if she died. The general thinking of the Church Fathers is that Mary “fell asleep” and was Assumed Body & Soul into Heaven after she “died” (fell asleep). The Eastern Christians (including Catholics) celebrate the Dormition (death) of the Theotokos on August 15th, the same day we celebrate the Assumption. Jesus was also born without Sin because He is God, but I don’t think that means His mother did not suffer death because she was born without Original Sin.

Merry Christmas!