What dear friend, do you find strange about Catholicism?

[benhur]

That Ben my friend is a GREAT question Thanks

Here’s how Jesus envisioned it:

While grace takes many forms where we have but limited impute

the definition of Grace from Fr. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary

GRACE. In biblical language the condescension or benevolence (Greek charis) shown by God toward the human race; it is also the unmerited gift proceeding from this benevolent disposition. Grace, therefore, is a totally gratuitous gift on which man has absolutely no claim. Where on occasion the Scriptures speak of grace as pleasing charm or thanks for favors received, this is a derived and not primary use of the term.

As the Church has come to explain the meaning of grace, it refers to something more than the gifts of nature, such as creation or the blessings of bodily health. Grace is the supernatural gift that God, of his free benevolence, bestows on rational creatures for their eternal salvation. The gifts of grace are essentially supernatural. They surpass the being, powers, and claims of created nature, namely sanctifying grace, the infused virtues, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and actual grace. They are the indispensable means necessary to reach the beatific vision. In a secondary sense, grace also includes such blessings as the miraculous gifts of prophecy or healing, or the preternatural gifts of freedom from concupiscence.

The essence of grace, properly so called, is its gratuity, since no creature has a right to the beatific vision, and its finality or purpose is to lead one to eternal life. (Etym. Latin gratia, favor; a gift freely given.) See also ACTUAL GRACE, EFFICACIOUS GRACE, HABITUAL GRACE, JUSTIFYING GRACE, SACRAMENTAL GRACE, SANCTIFYING GRACE, SUFFICIENT GRACE

Grace always remains a TRUE Gift from God. The type of grace and the amount of Grace as a NORM is completely dependent upon God’s Mercy.

That said Sacramental grace which “give the grace that it signifies”** is in-part** reliant on our disposition to receive the grace of that sacrament; and our actually seeking that Sacrament AS a source of God’s grace. Here referring especially to the Sacraments of Confession. Penance/ Reconciliation & and the Most Holy Eucharist.

God is always “asking” [commanding actually] .that we prove our love for him. Because sacraments are in a sense optional [all though essential] man can deny participating in them. Our freewill assent to participate GOD"S way in them, gives God evidence of our love for Him. God then reciprocates by making avail HIS Grace for our effort to show our love for Him.

Sacramental grace than is different than the other forms of grace; in that we CAN initiate the flow of these graces different than our participation in all other forms of grace.

Does that help?

God Bless you,

Patrick
Mary Christmas

.

Thank you for your effort .Like the first part. Solid and straight up .Would have to think more on sacramental grace, though it is explained very well. Seems like you earn it on first look.

Blessings and have a Merry Mary Christmas, and may your flesh be wide awake to midnight Mass it, candle vigil and all.

 

[commenter]

I guess this is more of a question, but here it goes, who gets the big communion wafer? I am not certain, having only been to one mass, but I think that is the thing the priest has in his hands when he does the general blessing over the eucharist. Is it transubstantiated or does it have to be ingested to transubstantiate?

Ingesting the host is unrelated to it’s becoming the Body and Blood. Even hosts that are not consumed at Mass are transubstantiated. Normally they would then go into the tabernacle at church.

The large host is transubstantiated. The priest(s) normally consumes it. It is not different from any other host, it does not really have to be larger. They use a larger host to make it more prominent to the congregation. I suppose when a priest says a private Mass by himself, he uses a normal size host. For that matter, the priest does not absolutely need to be the one who consumes the larger host, anyone can. But he would consume a host.

But in most Masses the priest, and perhaps other priest and deacon present, are the only ones who consume the wine (but now consecrated). Both the Body and Blood of Christ are present in both species.

 

[adrift]

Ingesting the host is unrelated to it’s becoming the Body and Blood. Even hosts that are not consumed at Mass are transubstantiated. Normally they would then go into the tabernacle at church.

The large host is transubstantiated. The priest(s) normally consumes it. It is not different from any other host, it does not really have to be larger. They use a larger host to make it more prominent to the congregation. I suppose when a priest says a private Mass by himself, he uses a normal size host. For that matter, the priest does not absolutely need to be the one who consumes the larger host, anyone can. But he would consume a host.

But in most Masses the priest, and perhaps other priest and deacon present, are the only ones who consume the wine (but now consecrated). Both the Body and Blood of Christ are present in both species.

Good explanation however around here the Blood is distributed to the congregation as well. I have been to many different dioceses and parishes. I haven’t been to a Mass where the congregation don’t receive under both species.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Pete,

Another thought, did Jesus have a ‘fallen body’ or under the curse, that is, that He aged as normal fallen man of His time, and would eventually die of old age, had it not been for the Cross ? Another words if His body was post Eden (though never sinning) why all the fuss over residing in a an immaculate womb ?

Blessings

Hi, and sorry for the slow response. I think the answer to this would be neither yes nor no. (Yes I know about Aristotle and the Principle of Excluded Middle.)

 

[guanophore]

Please read all of 488. Slowly…

Fran, that is the section that proves what you wrote is an error. You stated she could not refuse.

Oh. And while we’re at it, please explain to me how to reconcile man’s free will with God’s Providence. Thanks.

Fran

Thats a little off the thread topic, don’t you think?

Changing the subject will not save you, Fran. You are being confronted because you are posting anti-Catholic answers.

It’s a theological question Adrift. I’m just trying to show you that everything is not as easy as you make it out to be.

It is a theological question, on e that was settled by the Church over a millenia ago.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him,125 he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee, “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary”:126

So God wanted the free cooperation of a creature.
But from all eternity God CHOSE for the mother of His son…

He chose Eve, also, and created her without sin.

Now if it said that He chose in a general way it would be okay. But it specifically points to a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David, and even gives her name as Mary.

Technically speaking, He chose all of us before the beginning of time.

So if God chose her, how did she freely cooperate??

The same way Eve chose to freely be uncooperative.

Look at the title of 488:

“Mary’s Predestination”

So she was predestined?

Then go down to 490:

God enriched Mary with gifts appropriate to such a role.

More proof that He chose her and prepared her.
And what about Luke 1: 31. Is that a request? You never answered.

No, it was not a request. Mary had already consecrated her life to Him and was ready, able and willing at the time of the annunciation. She may even have had a strong sense that God had a huge plan for her life. She was ready to embrace any and all that He desired of her.

This whole discussion brings up the point of reconciling man’s free will with God’s Providence. Not an easy task, and one which I don’t understand.

I don’t either, but I do know the Church teaches that Mary freely chose. It is distressing when a Catholic Catechist such as your self makes such blatant statements contradicting the faith.

So you're asking me to prove something I'm not interested in proving because I don't even understand it!

Do you??

Fran

I will be satisfied if you just refrain from asserting anti-Catholic doctrines.

It is like the Eucharist. I don’t understand it, but I don’t need to. I can just accept that it is what He says it is.

 

[guanophore]

Understand. Again we differ over “This is my Body…” and we will surely differ over “they believe not the Eucahrist to be the Body of…”.

I am curious about how this can be understood symbolically. Ignatius is not specific about what the heretics DID believe about the Eucharist, but it seems clear they did not believe in the Real Presence, as the Apostles did.

How can the Body and Blood of the Lord be descrated if it is not present?

27*Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 I Cor 11

Agree. Glad I did not say that. In fact, in a post I said all communion views have rational, scriptural, historical, and traditional evidences.

Yes, sorry, read that post after I posted.

What I did post is that there is no evidence, or to show me evidence, that in Ch 6 that the apostles took it literally.

Jesus is telling them they must gnaw on him. Figuriatively this would mean to attack him with verbal disparagement and calumny. Do you honestly believe this is what he was saying? He wanted/desired/directed them to gnaw on him this way?

The disciples were offended because eating human flesh and especially drinking blood was abhorent. He was telling them they had to do something that went against millenia of teachings. The Life is in the blood. He did not run after them or attempt to correct them because they misunderstood, as he did on other occasions. They understood exactly what he said - physically chew and swallow. They just could not accept it.

Most Catholics here agree it is not explicit, or that it is not as sure as what they (Peter) did state (thou art the Christ with words of eternal life).

I don’t think so. Most Catholics here on CAF are orthodox, and believe in the RP. Althoug I understand that most Catholics deny it, and are actually Protestants, though they donot realize they are.

What we are likely to agree on is that the Disciples did not understand what He meant until later. After the resurrection, they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread.

I was not referring to what they thought later at the Last Supper, or twenty years later (Paul) or seventy years later(Ignatius).

I think the Apostles were just as confused and maybe horrified as the other disciples that walked away, but they had sufficient faith in Him to know that it would make sense later. Peter’s response even strikes me as wishing there WERE somewhere else to go.

Ignatius certainly can be used as evidence. He may well have believed in your real presence. He may also have written it figuratively. But my unanswered question was why did the Gnostics not believe in real presence, according to what Ignatius wrote before and after his much noted quote ? I believe a fuller version of his ‘quote’ was posted earlier giving the answer.

Blessings

I know your refusal to believe the RP is different from that of the Gnostics. My point is that Ignatius is asserting this tenent of the Apostolic faith.

What would have to change if you were to accept that what Ignatius believed is what the Apostles believed.?

 

[guanophore]

I agree. Can’t even remember how it came up.

The reason I brought it up is to show how free will is not so easy to understand. We throw the words around as if we really understood it. We treat God like He’s something easily understood.

I think He’s too great to be understood - that’s pretty much my point. In learning about prayer you learn that prayer is supposed to be in line with God’s will. Jesus prayed for God’s will. So what IS God’s will ? Is it John 6:40 or is it more?

Is it this grand scheme of things. He’s headed somewhere but we can’t really know where. God’s Providence.

It’s a big mystery to me.

Fran
I rather stick to the simpler things, but some make everything out to be simple!

I agree completely, and am content to leave it as a mystery. I am just asking that we refrain from contradicting the Church in the process.

Fran I don’t mean to be uncharitable; BUT you seem to struggle comprehending the English language

This may be very true. She may think in Italian, and the language may be why there are misunderstandings. On the other hand, when confronted about some of the posts, a defense is presented that makes it appear that it is not a misunderstanding.

Were this NOT a public forum I would not even respond to your post.

God Bless and guide you

Patrick

It is problematic to other readers who are looking for Catholic Answers to read posts by a Catholic Catechist that contradict the Catechism. It has to be confronted. If it is just left hanging there, it can cause a stumbling block to the faithful and those seeking the Truth.

 

[guanophore]

Agree with the not needing part. Just not sure how grace can be merited. Kind of contradiction in terms, not withstanding God’s foreknowledge.

It would be if we apply a modern definition to the term “merit”. If we understand it’s application in it’s ancient context, it is probably better expressed as “worthy”. The Baptist enjoins th converts to do deeds that befit repentance.

Mary was made worthy by God’s grace to prepare her for His plan. She acted in a manner that befitted His grace, a way that was worthy of the gift.

Of course many folks do not have to face such complexities taking the view that she was a normal though righteous Jewish virgin. That Jesus forsook all heavenly privileges, not asking for any extra human privileges (as in an ‘immaculate’, sinless, ever virgin mother) and yet staying within prophecy (a Jewish virgin).

Yes. Her description by the early writers as “pure” and “all holy” are related to her role as Theotokos. His flesh came from her flesh. I agree, if God wanted to purify the human flesh, He could have done so without making Mary free of original sin. But He created her as He did Eve, without sin.

Pjm, you are reacting to my statement as though you feel your church is the only one around, read it again. I know there are churches being established today with an unbiblical basis still claiming to be Christian.

From a Catholic point of view, these are not “churches”. They lack the four marks of the Church taught to us by the Apostles.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran, that is the section that proves what you wrote is an error. You stated she could not refuse.

Thats a little off the thread topic, don’t you think?

Changing the subject will not save you, Fran. You are being confronted because you are posting anti-Catholic answers.

is a theological question, on e that was settled by the Church over a millenia ago.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

He chose Eve, also, and created her without sin.

Technically speaking, He chose all of us before the beginning of time.

The same way Eve chose to freely be uncooperative.

No, it was not a request. Mary had already consecrated her life to Him and was ready, able and willing at the time of the annunciation. She may even have had a strong sense that God had a huge plan for her life. She was ready to embrace any and all that He desired of her.

I don’t either, but I do know the Church teaches that Mary freely chose. It is distressing when a Catholic Catechist such as your self makes such blatant statements contradicting the faith.

I will be satisfied if you just refrain from asserting anti-Catholic doctrines.

It is like the Eucharist. I don’t understand it, but I don’t need to. I can just accept that it is what He says it is.

Ben Carson:

The media has a “gotcha” mentality.
Kind of reminds me of you in my regard.

I have a feeling that the people reading along have understood my point.

Fran
Oh. And you can read CCC no. 488 over again - slowly.

 

[frangiuliano115]

I agree completely, and am content to leave it as a mystery. I am just asking that we refrain from contradicting the Church in the process.

This may be very true. She may think in Italian, and the language may be why there are misunderstandings. On the other hand, when confronted about some of the posts, a defense is presented that makes it appear that it is not a misunderstanding.

It is problematic to other readers who are looking for Catholic Answers to read posts by a Catholic Catechist that contradict the Catechism. It has to be confronted. If it is just left hanging there, it can cause a stumbling block to the faithful and those seeking the Truth.

Let’s see.

Is there something lacking in the way I speak English?
If I remember correctly, I did grow up and did all my studying over there.
Of course, speaking 3 languages could present a problem. People that can speak different languages are a bit dumb or they wouldn’t be able to.

Thanks for saying that it APPEARS that I understand in my replies. That’s so generous of you.

Question: Do YOU understand everything? Do you speak only English? Yes. This must be at the crux of the problem, maybe.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Guanophore!

In your post no. 838,

You say:

Mary was made worthy by God’s grace to prepare her for His plan. She acted in a manner that befitted His grace, a way that was worthy of the gift.

Now, I know my English is very limited, but please explain:

Mary was made worthy:

This is a work in progress. A process. Made. You know - to make something. It’s a process.
So God was MAKING her something. Was this BEFORE or AFTER she said Yes?
Just wondering.

She acted in a manner befitting His grace.

Befitting His grace. Again, it seems like God was preparing her for something she had not said Yes to yet. Was it a special grace because she was to be the mother of God? Hmmmm. So she got the grace FIRST? BEFORE she said Yes?

It is a big mystery. Even if you DO know English!

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Thanks , but I meant did Jesus have a mortal body like Adam before the fall or as I think , a body more like you and I, after the fall ? (one would think Adam’s mortal body was perfect, free from any defect, dna/genes ect…).

Hi benhur,

I’d say that Jesus had a perfect, pre-fall body.

Just like the lamb in Exodus 11,12 had to be a perfect lamb with no blemish.

Just a thought.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

While Mary is Jesus physical mom, she is also part of, along with us, His spiritual bride.

Blessings

Luke 1:46,47
My soul exalts the Lord
And my spirit has rejoiced in God
my Savior.

She is indeed a bride also.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Fran, that is the section that proves what you wrote is an error. You stated she could not refuse.

Thats a little off the thread topic, don’t you think?

Changing the subject will not save you, Fran. You are being confronted because you are posting anti-Catholic answers.

It is a theological question, on e that was settled by the Church over a millenia ago.

In your very own post you put no. 488 of the CCC

He chose Eve, also, and created her without sin.

Technically speaking, He chose all of us before the beginning of time.

The same way Eve chose to freely be uncooperative.

No, it was not a request. Mary had already consecrated her life to Him and was ready, able and willing at the time of the annunciation. She may even have had a strong sense that God had a huge plan for her life. She was ready to embrace any and all that He desired of her.

I don’t either, but I do know the Church teaches that Mary freely chose. It is distressing when a Catholic Catechist such as your self makes such blatant statements contradicting the faith.

I will be satisfied if you just refrain from asserting anti-Catholic doctrines.

It is like the Eucharist. I don’t understand it, but I don’t need to. I can just accept that it is what He says it is.

Every now and then I like to restate this:

I retain that right and privilege to assert what I will assert.

I’m not here in the role of a catechist or to teach anyone anything.

I leave that to you and to PJM -.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

I am curious about how this can be understood symbolically. Ignatius is not specific about what the heretics DID believe about the Eucharist, but it seems clear they did not believe in the Real Presence, as the Apostles did.

How can the Body and Blood of the Lord be descrated if it is not present?

27*Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 I Cor 11

Yes, sorry, read that post after I posted.

Jesus is telling them they must gnaw on him. Figuriatively this would mean to attack him with verbal disparagement and calumny. Do you honestly believe this is what he was saying? He wanted/desired/directed them to gnaw on him this way?

The disciples were offended because eating human flesh and especially drinking blood was abhorent. He was telling them they had to do something that went against millenia of teachings. The Life is in the blood. He did not run after them or attempt to correct them because they misunderstood, as he did on other occasions. They understood exactly what he said - physically chew and swallow. They just could not accept it.

I don’t think so. Most Catholics here on CAF are orthodox, and believe in the RP. Althoug I understand that most Catholics deny it, and are actually Protestants, though they donot realize they are.

What we are likely to agree on is that the Disciples did not understand what He meant until later. After the resurrection, they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread.

I think the Apostles were just as confused and maybe horrified as the other disciples that walked away, but they had sufficient faith in Him to know that it would make sense later. Peter’s response even strikes me as wishing there WERE somewhere else to go.

I know your refusal to believe the RP is different from that of the Gnostics. My point is that Ignatius is asserting this tenent of the Apostolic faith.

What would have to change if you were to accept that what Ignatius believed is what the Apostles believed.?

I’m trying to keep my English sharp.

In your post no. 836 to benhur:

What exactly do you mean in the highlighted sentence above?

Do you mean:
What would have to** NECESSARILY ** change if you were to accept that what Ignatius believed…

OR

do you mean:

What would have to change FOR YOU to accept that what Ignatius believed…

I cannot understand what you mean here. There may be other errors. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough time to go through everything to that degree of diligence.
Yes. I think, however, that I’m going to have to start paying more attention.

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

Guanophore!

Caught another error!

You say in regards to my having said something you don’t agree with:

If it is just left hanging there, it can cause a stumbling block to the faithful and those seeking the Truth.

Yes. Just think of all those people that are listening to Fran and being corrupted. Such power I have!

But, back to English:

It’s left HANGING THERE. What kind of English is that? Some kind of dialect??

And how do you CAUSE a stumbling block. You mean, it wasn’t there before and then I made it appear? You can cause something TO BE a stumbling block, but you cannot CAUSE a stumbling block. See?

Who knows how many other mistakes there are. How to find time to go through all your posts??

I just hope I’ve been understanding them correctly!

Fran

 

[Peter_J]

Hi benhur,

I’d say that Jesus had a perfect, pre-fall body.

Perhaps so – certainly, if I had to choose one answer or the other, that’s the one I would say.

 

[rcwitness]

Perhaps so – certainly, if I had to choose one answer or the other, that’s the one I would say.

was there something different with Adam and Eve’s bodies before and after the fall???

Is there some sort of teachings on this?

This concept strikes me as odd, and not something taught by the doctors of the Church. Maybe it could be explained to me…

 

[rcwitness]

was there something different with Adam and Eve’s bodies before and after the fall???

Is there some sort of teachings on this?

This concept strikes me as odd, and not something taught by the doctors of the Church. Maybe it could be explained to me…

The only thing I can think of that may relate to this is the Scripture which the devil quotes to Jesus when being tempted…

‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’

Not sure where this is from… but I see it as being fundamentally different than being physically and bodily different. Rather it is having more to do with divine protection regarding physical dangers.

 

[Peter_J]

was there something different with Adam and Eve’s bodies before and after the fall???

Is there some sort of teachings on this?

This concept strikes me as odd, and not something taught by the doctors of the Church. Maybe it could be explained to me…

Hi. I have a feeling that someone will get to this before I do, but if not then I’ll try to post something about it later.

For the moment, can you explain why you think that

‘On their hands they will bear you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’

is related?