Jump to content

3DOP

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,971 Excellent

About 3DOP

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    St. Marys, KS
  • Interests
    Peace, Baseball, Beer, Joy, War, Boxing, Tolstoy, Wine, Church, Tennis, Family, Monastics, Economics, Politics, Scotland, Oceans, Prayer, Heaven, Flowers, Space, Bobby Darin, Time, Dracula, Rivers, Fire, Angels, Aquinas, Real Estate, Maureen O'Hara, Fish, Wind, Honey, Motion, The First Lady of Song, Lava, Stomach Acid, Merging, Jumping, Water Softeners, Barbecue, Bone, Bananas, Skin, American Football, Olivia de Havilland, and Michaelangelo.

Recent Profile Visitors

4,419 profile views
  1. Many more Catholic converts seem to migrate from Anglicanism to Anglo-Catholic to Catholic. I have a married niece, that I barely know who seems to be on the way to Rome on this road. There are many roads...but if you keep on going...they all lead to...Rome. Starting as fundamental independent Baptists, we eventually took a more German route. My brother got married in the ELCA and my parents went for a while. I do not know the EKD? Pray tell. Over the course of the last almost forty years, we went Baptist with developments that were frowned upon by peers (yours truly as a 30 yr. old "man of the cloth", what a joke), high church Reformed, some no church days, a little Missouri Synod, considering LDS, Islam, and Bahai (only me, not the frau), some Wisconsin Synod, then Novus Ordo Catholic, then Traditional Catholic for the longest period, 15 years (SSPX). Those Wisconsins would be almost okay if they just had Holy Orders! Are we home yet, speaking after an earthly pilgrimage fashion? Maybe. We might need to go to church for another 20 years still or even a little more. The SSPX is not the Church and we (my wife and I) know it. The Society is not exactly a religious order, but it probably has a shelf life of its own, much as the religious orders. I am glad to believe they (the priests and bishops of the Society) know this, since they taught it to me. I have learned from the SSPX, that to be Catholic is to believe that the Catholic Church has no "shelf life" until, as they say, the day of Jesus Christ, when judgment morning has rolled around (trying to sound Baptist, heh. Ever hear of Lester Roloff? You could google I bet.). Enough levity. I think we will always be home (speaking after the earthly fashion) wherever we can find Traditional Catholics who believe that the Church was built upon the person of St. Peter, who drank of the chalice that our Lord did, and was crucified upside down in the Eternal City.
  2. Mark, that is a wonderful way of understanding the centurion's words, as well as the way the Holy Ghost would intend Catholics to understand the words with a more sublime meaning (of course only if the Catholic Church is true and Jesus is really present, etc. and so forth). So this was taught to you in the 50's? Where did it go? Thank you for pulling it out of obscurity! You have enriched my experience of Holy Mass. I had thought only of the roof of the house! Beautiful. Thank you very much for sharing that. I could never forget such an insight if I tried. I am embarrassed that I have never heard of this (not so much for myself, but for the Church for not telling me today) and have to learn it from you! I happily bestow upon this post my imprimatur. But nihil obstat is inadequate for this. More than nothing objectionable. Most inspiring. I am going to be talking about this with friends to see who knows about it. Have you heard this idea, Jesse? It isn't like my head has been buried in the sand. How could I not have heard this? Not forgetting our differences, Mark, I pray God bless you, and God love you. You are now one of my countless benefactors whatever you may ever say against the church of your youth, and the church of my maturity. In one way, (stream of consciousness time) I actually am more a defender of the church of your youth, and an opponent of the "church" of my maturity! Rory
  3. Yup. So it seems. I'll not be the one to push discussion. But you seem to have possibly pondered this: What good mother could willingly part with her child, whether said free child be happy about it or no? I have pondered too and I side with Mom and hope her love will triumph, while acknowledging "the rights" of child resistance, even to its own demise. I have probably spun your ponderings to please myself and misunderstood...awaiting probable clarification or correction that might be forthcoming. PS: By the way, Mother Church is most accurately understood as "she", singular, not "they" plural. If multiple persons are members of Mother Church, there is but one mind of Christ by which she/they are led.
  4. Yes, yes. Smac. I meant what Miserere says with plurality. I see why that was confusing.
  5. Hi JAHS. The nurse did not have time to consult with anyone and did what she thought best under the extraordinary circumstances. It appears that she understood that if consent could be had, it was necessary. I am no canon lawyer, but as explained, this would seem to be in accord with the law of the Church. Now this baptized person would be your cousin? Since your cousin is already baptized, probably without documentation, what you have explained should be told to church authorities in the ironic event that your cousin ever decided to formally join the Catholic Church. If what you have explained could be confirmed, no baptism could be required. According to Catholic teaching, baptism leaves a permanent mark, or character on the soul. One cannot become unbaptized. If the events could not confirmed, it would seem like only a conditional baptism would be in order because there could be no moral certainty that your cousin was either baptized or unbaptized. When this happens the minister says something to the effect that "Name, if you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of...etc."
  6. Hey M, Excellent post, and you are correct. It would distract from the thread subject to address Jn 6:63. The question is not whether we have a TRUE Sacrament. The question is WHAT we believe about the Mass and how it relates to the Crucifixion. If anybody says they want to see what we could possibly say in defense of our beliefs in the Real Presence, let them show the first interest and start a thread. I am reasoning here from the very fact that we are debating, as proof that the claim that LDS emphasize the crucifixion more than Catholics IS deniable. That does not prove that "the fact" even if it is deniable, is untrue. I am open to being persuaded that "the fact" that LDS emphasize the crucifixion more than any other religion is true. I tend to doubt it, but I wouldn't be displeased to learn that what I tend to think about the matter is otherwise. It does no harm to Catholic claims. It is like arguing about monotheism. Who is the most monotheist? I find Catholics arguing with Muslims about it, saying that we are equally monotheistic. WHAT FOR? Is the true religion necessarily the most rigorously monotheistic? I concede that Islam is more rigorously monotheistic than the Catholic Church. I hold that we are adequately, truly, and proportionately monotheistic. The Muslims are more monotheistic because they will not allow that more than one person can be God. What next? Do I join Islam, while waiting to see if there arises a religion that is even MORE monotheistic? 3DOP
  7. The underlying reason for changing the form (words) of baptism from singular to plural would be from an overemphasis on the Protestant view of the priesthood of all believers. Catholics have always believed in this but not to the point where there is some sense in which everybody present is baptising. It is theologically false that a plurality of persons can validly baptize. Miserere, I completely agree with what you explain here, but we need to explain that an unlawful baptism does not necessarily invalidate the efficacy of the Sacrament. I think our LDS friends could easily misunderstand that if someone, not a priest, baptized when the circumstances were ordinary, that the baptism would be null and void. I will try to dispel such a possible misunderstanding. The Church has long taught that it is unlawful to baptize children without the consent of the parents: "If, however, they [children of unbelievers] have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients "were saved through the faith of their parents." Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents' will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents' will."---St. Thos. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, q.68, a. 10, Denziger #1481 But what happens if a child is baptized unlawfully? Does the Church admit that such a baptism is invalidated? On the contrary, a supernatural event occurs, which according to a letter by Pope Benedict XIV, on Feb 28, 1747, supercedes the force of natural justice put forth above by St. Thomas. I should note that I doubt that the practical application of this judgment by the pope could have ever been carried out if someone ever disobeyed the Church's instructions. The pope is explaining the Church's position so as to discourage any such practise of unlawful baptism as forcefully as he could. Pope Benedict taught that the Church, through baptism would incur an onerous obligation to such an unlawfully, but validly baptized child. In this case, he is speaking of the child of Jewish parents, but the case would be the same for all unbelievers: "But, if they have been already admitted to the sacrament, either they must be detained or recovered from their Hebrew parents and handed over to the faithful of Christ, so that they may be piously and religiously trained by them; for this is the effect of baptism, which, though it may be unlawful, nevertheless is true and valid."---from the epistle "postremo mense" to the Viceregent in the City, Denziger #1482 To reiterate, nobody wants to contemplate the kidnapping of a child from its parents. I doubt that this ever happened even once. I hope not. I believe there were overzealous Catholics, perhaps medical people, or mid-wives who could mistakenly have reasoned with themselves against the Church's law and custom, that they were doing a good thing by secretly baptising a child of an unbeliever. I believe that this undoubtedly happened on numerous occasions, sadly. The pope above is telling this government official to communicate to his citizens that whether this taking the child away from parents, could be carried out in practise, that it should be carried out for the reason given above by St. Thomas. These unlawful baptisms were being performed by souls who had slight thought for the supernatural ramifications of their actions. They probably did this in secret with no thought of separating child from parents. They did not think about, much less accept the Church's judgment, that such an unlawfully baptized child would be "liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents." The point, which I have probably oversold, for our LDS friends is that the Church is for these reasons against any but a priest baptising except the circumstance be extraordinary. But the above makes clear, that even if some Catholic lay person should foolishly baptize under ordinary circumstances, the baptism is valid. 3DOP
  8. "From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it". ---Mt. 16:21-25 "Amen, amen I say to you, unless the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, Itself remaineth alone. But if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world, keepeth it unto life eternal." ---Jn. 12:24, 25 "Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself. (Now this he said, signifying what death he should die.) ---Jn. 12:31-33 "It is truly meet, and just, and right, for our salvation, holy Lord, Father almighty, eternal God: Who didst establish the salvation of mankind on the tree of the cross: that whence death came, thence also life might rise again, and that he who overcame by a tree, by a tree also might be overcome: through Christ our Lord... ---Preface of the Holy Cross, said from Passion Sunday till Maundy Thursday, and on the Feasts of the Holy Cross and of the Precious Blood. So...I hold, Catholics hold, that for the Atonement, Christ had suffered enough when He shed His Precious Blood when He was circumcised at eight days old. I think Catholics are unique in this. If Mormons or Protestants believe this, I have never heard it. I am happy to be corrected. So why, if one is Catholic, does Jesus "hang around" after the atoning sacrifice is finished? For our good God, and His beloved Son, it was not enough to merely atone. God wanted to show that there was no length to which He would not go to convince sinful souls of His seemingly reckless and unbelievable (apart from supernatural grace) love for us. He did not need to do this. He wanted to do it. I do not mean to be flippant, but we do not have images of the Circumcision (though we do have a feast day on Jan 1, an holy day of obligation in the U.S.) The circumcision, while atoning, simply would not "draw all things to myself". -------------- Hi Ahab. I quoted you as being the most obvious hater of the Cross on the thread. Of course it is for you first. But the post is for all. Maybe the Catholic understanding of the Atonement is in every way incompatible with LDS views, I am not sure. I just ask you all to try to see that we Catholics aren't being merely morbid when we express reverence for the Cross on Good Friday, cherish splinters from the true Cross, or have a Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross. There is so much more. If I see any interest, we can look at Christ as the "Last Adam". There is parallel imagery (hinted at in the Preface above), that shows that Christ's spouse came to be in the same way that Adam's spouse came to be. Too much for this post... The Cross, the tree on which Christ CHOSE to perish can be seen as a mere murder weapon. As such, it certainly could not be celebrated. But in Jesus Christ, the Cross becomes so much more than a mere weapon of death. It can also be seen as the poignant and fitting instrument of the reversal of Satan's fortunes, the surprise triumph of the Son of Man, the last Adam, and the Savior and brother of a new race of men, who would have an inheritance in the kingdom of the Father. And our Lord Jesus, already in Mt. 16, contends against his enemy, even St. Peter, immediately after he had proclaimed Jesus as Christ, the son of the living God. Calling Peter "Satan", because he rashly assumes that the suffering Jesus foretells must be stopped, Jesus proceeds to specifically affirm that all who would find life, will by God's grace, and according to His will, imitate our good Jesus, in this matter of the Cross. I have appreciated that few LDS have disputed the relevance and even the reverence given to the Cross. I could suspect that my Catholic friends and I fail to appreciate, surrounded by crucifixes, as LDS are surrounded by garments and Temple imagery, which protests of the wonderful love which would endure such suffering, so as to "draw all things to myself". I don't think we would even be religions if we were trying to love a merely circumcised Savior who suffered only just enough to atone for our sins, long before He accepted His Cross. I would have us consider that Christ on the Cross was not merely trying to suffer the merest minimum that would save us. Rather, His Holy Passion and Suffering was for the purpose of showing us that He would do ANYTHING to convince us of His wholly selfless love. 3DOP PS: For Rob't Smith...not trying to cause a discussion of natural/supernatural. If you read you saw it. How about ordinary/extraordinary?
  9. "Now Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said to him: We have seen the Lord. But he said to them: Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you. Then he saith to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither, and see my hands; and bring hither thy hand, and put it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." ---Jn 20:24-27 The Lamb who was slain, our Lord Jesus, had been disfigured even before the crucifixion, especially by the scourging commanded by Pontius Pilate. Thankfully, the resurrected and glorified body of Christ shows no trace of the atrocious and numerous wounds that Jesus the Lamb endured at the pillar. However, it seems like the glorified body of Jesus retains evidence of his wounds on the Cross. Assuredly they are "glorified wounds" if you will, as evidence and testimony to what the Lamb did for all who will come to Him. His glorified hands and side retain evidence of the pains Christ endured on our behalf. Why does Jesus still have cavities in His flesh caused by His crucifixion, AFTER the Resurrection, into which St. Thomas could thrust his fingers? Maybe it is and always will be a good habit for the worshippers of the Lamb who was slain for them, to frequently recall the price of their redemption which the Lamb paid on the Cross, which is for His followers, the Tree of Life. If some cannot allow that any literal, physical emblem of that sacrifice is permissible to Christians, assuredly all the true followers of the Lamb must keep it foremost, imagining it in their minds. What is the difference? Why would it be wrong, even perhaps morbid to ponder a physical crucifix, when it is essential for His friends to ponder and unite themselves in spirit anyway, with Jesus crucified? May His eternally glorified wounds, caused by crucifixion, make the cold heart melt, and the warm heart burn, now and forever, Amen. Thanks for your consideration. 3DOP
  10. But if you are a Christian you are supposed to take up your cross and die too. "For I, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live to God: with Christ I am nailed to the cross." Gal. 2:19 "A faithful saying: for if we be dead with him, we shall live also with him." 2 Tim. 2:11
  11. MN hey. Christ told us to take up our crosses and follow Him. Our crucifixions will not be as agonizing as His. But the symbol of the Cross reminds us of the Catholic truth that if we would reign with Him, we must suffer with Him. ---2 Tim 2:11, 12 This does not mean that we have to wear a cross. I have never worn a cross or a crucifix in my life. But it means that we should deliberately think about the cross of Christ and that is the reason why I have crucifixes in my house too. Not that I don't forget about the crucifixes, and fail to notice them. Sadly, I do. But once in a while, I will look at one or another of them and ask myself if I am carrying my cross. We need a visual aid once in a while. Many of the saints were careful to surround themselves with these visual reminders of Christ's suffering. The Church knows all of our frailties. She is well aware of our tendencies to forgetfulness and thanklessness. She recommends them to us, knowing that God in His good mercy has often used them as instruments of His grace. This is why Catholics have crucifixes. We know we are weak and need help with remembering amidst all the distractions of life, our primary purpose for being on earth instead of heaven. God help us to remember St. Paul's faithful saying. As bad as we Catholics are about it, trying to escape our crosses, I sometimes think that non-Catholics, because of a cultural antipathy for such a "Catholic" practice, deny themselves of a practical aid that would help them remember the potential value of suffering, and in the possibility of rejoicing in suffering, remembering it is the good will of our good God. It is hard and we need all the helps we can get. ----- Bishops have a big pectoral cross, but it isn't very practical for people in the world to be adorned with something like that on the outside of their clothing. I have seen a teenage boy wear a big wooden cross that made me wince a little, but I admired him for it, and was glad that my son wasn't ashamed to be identified with the Cross. I did not need to correct him. Of course, he eventually realized that it wouldn't be practical for work situations and everyday life, especially in the Marine Corps! I don't remember when he stopped exactly. I am thankful that he still has the faith and goes to the Traditional Mass with his wife and our grandchildren. Other than my boy and our bishops, I cannot ever remember seeing any Catholic wearing a medal, a scapular, a cross, or a crucifix over their garments. I wonder if perhaps the practice might also be discouraged because we don't want to give scandal, wearing ostentatious advertisements of our faith, and then possibly behaving in ways contrary to our outer "habit". I know that they say that a scapular represents for a lay person what the habit represents for a religious. I suppose if it were customary among Catholics I might try to defend public displays on our person. But since it is NOT customary I think it is more appropriate for us lay folk to have our "habit" as a private witness to ourselves and heaven rather than the public witness of sacrifice that a cassock or religious habit represents. Rory
  12. Hi. Just a minor point, but I have seen Catholics make those crosses out of palm leaves on Palm Sunday, a feat of geometrical know how and engineering beyond my capabilities. I wasn't aware that it was a Protestant practice. Now I will make a point of telling my fellow Catholics that they should not do it any more because the Protestants do, 😉.
  13. We watched Dodge City last night, with Errol Flynn and Olivia deHavilland, who passed away last week at the age of 104. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031235/
  14. For goodness sake...Urloony...Joined in September 2004! Two or three posts a year? Congratulations. Would that I were less verbose. Do we know each other? Your name seems familiar. I wasn't here until December...2004...getting weaned off of ZLMB. LDS are anti-Catholic. It must be so. You think we have no valid priesthood. No hard feelings on my side. You just take Protestantism to a more logical conclusion. That is what I like about you guys. A valid priesthood is the only question that matters and I think a few of your more advanced thinking fellows will not be offended and agree. That has been my position for these years. I have heard of, but never cared, studied, or tried to know about Book of Mormon geography, DNA, Books of Abraham, Mountain Meadows, or First Visions. Non-Catholic "Anti's" are just so much fodder for you to blow up as you please. I understand if someone LDS might lament their faith-affirming absence.
  15. I have moved from a place of rioting and masking to a place of non-rioting and non-masking...for now. It is probably inevitable though. Where can one continue to flee? It feels like Nevil Shute's On the Beach. Raingirl. Hi. I remember that you were close by. I am far away now, not driving a truck anymore. I used to take care of Good Sam, Emanuel, the VA, and OHSU up on the hill when everybody was asleep. Prov Portland out on Glisan, looming large on I-84. Adventist out east on the other side of the 205. Portland was once described by a priest I admired as a "beautiful lady on the river". Who could argue, while Mt. Hood cast her chilly year round smile from a mere fifty air miles away? I was born across that river 64 years ago. I am afraid Portland has grown old, tired, ugly, and...demented. She wanted to be singular, proud of being WEIRD. She was jealous of her big sister Seattle. Wanted notoriety. She has received her reward. A couple of years ago I grew exasperated with the filthy homeless camps the city decided to hold up in honour as a testament to the supposed injustice of American society. She may reform, but at my age, I shall never see Portland again, healthy, lovely, a "beautiful lady on the river". For now, so long as the tide holds back, I'll take the humidity, mosquitoes, bugs, and generally brown look of the Midwest, with human faces, rather than a land of beauty and comfort with masks on those who are made in the image of God. We've got some big tomatoes already!. Tasty of course. It ain't all bad! Our good God left traces of His beauty everywhere, in all that He made, but my heart will always be where you now live, Raingirl.
×
×
  • Create New...