CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51  
Old 3rd April 2007, 06:26 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MARIAN View Post
I am probably completely off the wall here but this concept of Jesus not knowing things in his human mind is the kind of argument advanced by those who want women priests. They say he was constrained by the customs of his era and if he lived today he would allow women priests. It seems a dangerous concept to advance to have a division between his human and divine mind.
Mary

I know what you mean. Some persons claim that Jesus could be mistaken, could misunderstand, could be limited in his understanding in a way that would limit the truth of his teaching, as if He were not able to understand the whole truth.

On the other hand, the human nature of Jesus is like us in all things but sin. Therefore, his human nature is finite and has human limitations (but not those limitations associated with original or personal sin). So the mind of Jesus does not contain all knowledge all in one act, as the Divine Mind does.

The idea that there is no division or no distinction, between Christ's human and divine natures, or between Christ's human and divine minds, would not be compatible with Church teaching on the hypostatic union of the human and divine natures of Christ. In that teaching, the two natures are closely united in one person, Jesus, but they remain distinct and each nature retains all its characteristics. The divine nature of Christ is not diminished by his human nature, and his human nature is not so amplified by his divine nature as to cease to be human and finite.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 3rd April 2007, 11:45 PM
garyo951
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Regarding 'chewing', I had once heard in a homily explaining John chapter 6 in detail described the verb that Jesus used in the sentence" 'you must EAT of the flesh of the Son of Man or you will have no life in you'...'eat' was in the original translation something that translated more like the word 'crunch'.

Ron - in your analysis, does this correspond?? In that particular homily, the point was to underscore that the message was one of really 'eating' the flesh, and not just 'understanding his teachings' as some protestants (and Jews at that moment before turning away) might have wanted to believe.

If really the case, then it appears that chewing may be just fine. However, I am stuck with the habit of letting the host 'melt'.

-Gary
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 4th April 2007, 01:09 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyo951 View Post
Regarding 'chewing', I had once heard in a homily explaining John chapter 6 in detail described the verb that Jesus used in the sentence" 'you must EAT of the flesh of the Son of Man or you will have no life in you'...'eat' was in the original translation something that translated more like the word 'crunch'.

Ron - in your analysis, does this correspond?? In that particular homily, the point was to underscore that the message was one of really 'eating' the flesh, and not just 'understanding his teachings' as some protestants (and Jews at that moment before turning away) might have wanted to believe.

If really the case, then it appears that chewing may be just fine. However, I am stuck with the habit of letting the host 'melt'.

-Gary

[John]
{6:52} Si quis manducaverit ex hoc pane, vivet in æternum: et panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita.
{6:52} If anyone eats from this bread, he shall live in eternity. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”[SIZE=4][/SIZE]

The Latin word does have something of the meaning of chewing. However, I would not draw a conclusion from that on how to comsume the Eucharist.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 4th April 2007, 03:14 PM
Mary49
 
Posts: n/a
Default Limbo?

We were taught that when a baby dies without being batized through no fault of their own that it goes to a place called limbo. Is that still true? I find it hard to believe that God would not let the baby go directly to heaven.

Also, about St. Christopher. He's still consider a saint right? If my memory serves me right, the church took that title away from him or am I wrong. Thanks Mary
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 4th April 2007, 03:48 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mary49 View Post
We were taught that when a baby dies without being batized through no fault of their own that it goes to a place called limbo. Is that still true? I find it hard to believe that God would not let the baby go directly to heaven.

Also, about St. Christopher. He's still consider a saint right? If my memory serves me right, the church took that title away from him or am I wrong. Thanks Mary

See my article on Limbo:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/RCC/baptism-limbo.htm

The Church has not definitively decided the question, but my theological opinion is that all prenatals, infants, and young children who die at such a young age certainly go to Heaven to dwell there for eternity with the full Beatific Vision. Perhaps they first go to the limbo of Purgatory, not to be punished, but to complete their spiritual development so as to be better able to experience Heaven.

I don't know about St. Christopher.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 4th April 2007, 05:47 PM
Climacus Areopagite Climacus Areopagite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,433
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garyo951 View Post
Regarding 'chewing'

If really the case, then it appears that chewing may be just fine. However, I am stuck with the habit of letting the host 'melt'.

-Gary

Gary,

I have a pious opinion about consuming the Eucharist. I think pious Catholics refrain from chewing the Eucharist out of reverence. I think people who tend to chew the Eucharist usually do not realize what they are receiving though this is not always the case.

When the priest receives the Eucharist usually it is a bigger consecrated host then the faithful receive therefore it is necessary for them to break it and chew it to a certain extent. So perhaps the act of chewing the Eucharist is not inherently sinful but a matter of reverence and higher perfection.


Nicholas
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 4th April 2007, 11:14 PM
Hope
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
I have a pious opinion about consuming the Eucharist. I think pious Catholics refrain from chewing the Eucharist out of reverence. I think people who tend to chew the Eucharist usually do not realize what they are receiving though this is not always the case.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think it is necessarily more pious to not chew the Eucharist. Whether for good or bad, what probably influenced my opinion about this the most was a tiny gem of a book called, Our Lady Says: Let Holy Mass Be Your Life, By Rev. Albert J.M. Shamon. According Rev. Shamon, one of the words Christ used to describe what one was "trogein", which means "to crunch with one's teeth."

Quote:
Then Jesus explained what was to be the object of their faith, namely, Himself as bread. I Myself am the living bread . . . If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever.

The crowed murmured, "how can He give us His flesh to eat?" They took Him literally! Were they correct in so doing?

Well, whenever Jesus was misunderstood, He explained away the misunderstanding. When Nicodemus misunderstood Jesus, when He was talking about being born again, Jesus explained what He meant. When the Samaritan woman took living water to mean drinking water, our Lord once again explained away the misunderstanding. When His disciples misunderstood His remark that "Lazaraus sleeps," Jesus came right out and said, "Lazarus is dead."

But whenever people understood Jesus correctly, but objected to His taeching., He would only reinforce what he had said. So here, when the crowd took Him literally when He spoke of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, Jesus—far from backing down—reaffirmed more strongly what He had been saying.

This reaffirmation of His becomes even clearer in the Greek. The ordinary word "to eat" is phagein. Jesus used this word twice when He promised eternal life to the crowds from the eating of this bread. But when the crowds objected, then Jesus switched words from phagein to the much stronger word trogein, meaning "to crunch with one’s teeth." Four times our Lord used trogon. Our translation trieds to catch this nuance by using "eat" for phagein and "feed" for trogein—thus, if you do not eat (phagete) the flesh of the Son of man . . . He who feeds (trogon) on My flesh . . . (jn. l:53-54)

Then to leave absolutely no doubt that He meant to be taken literally. Jesus said, My flesh is real food and My blood is real drink. (Jn. l:55)

Personally, I try not to chew the Bread in order to prolong the experience, but if someone else wants to chew, I don't automatically think that this means that they are unaware of What they are receiving. Doubtful, but possible--it might just mean that they are "crunching" the Host because they believe it is closer to perfection because it is closer to the literal translation.

Last edited by Hope : 4th April 2007 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 5th April 2007, 12:26 PM
Padraig
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very interesting I was taught that there were only a few dogmas. I see that may be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 5th April 2007, 01:29 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

It depends on your defintion of dogma, and there is not official Church definition of the word; it has been used in very different ways throughout the history of the Church.

My use of the word dogma applies it to infallible teachings:

1. infallible papal definitions
2. infallible definitions of Councils
3. the infallible teachings of the ordinary universal Magisterium

Most infallilbe teaching fall into the third category.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 5th April 2007, 01:32 PM
Padraig
 
Posts: n/a
Talking

Would it not be better if the word, 'Dogma' had a precise universally understood meaning to avoid giving people like me a headache?

I have a sneaking suspicion some theologians may be using ambiguity about this to slip out from under?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.