monstrance and blessed scrament stolen
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
k, i was wondering why u kept going on about many proofs etc.
i'll read it later.
No problem, take your time.....and even after that, if you don't believe, it's ok. The point I want to make to you is - understand why the Catholics feel sad over such things happening. It's not to convince you.
Proofs that I am talking about, you can read them in those links too.... it has gone through scientific investigation by the most illustrious scientist and it's authenticity proven. The Church do not accept any miracles lightly until they are very sure.
-
Originally posted by catinthehat:
Penance for sacrilege
(loss of monstrance)
In accordance to Canon Law 1211, our Archbishop requests the faithful to fast a meal on
Friday, 6 Feb 09
(those who can)
& to come together for Holy Hour of Reparation on
Sunday, 8 Feb 09
1pm to 2pm.
@ St.joseph's Bukit Timah=====================
Can. 1211 Sacred places are violated by gravely injurious actions done in them with scandal to the faithful, actions which, in the judgment of the local ordinary, are so grave and contrary to the holiness of the place that it is not permitted to carry on worship in them until the damage is repaired by a penitential rite according to the norm of the liturgical books.
I can't find it anywhere other than on the affected Church's website, not even on Veritas.
-
Originally posted by Pennycake:
http://www.anawim.pair.com/CATHOLICS/CATHOLIC%20MASS.htm
"look at John 6:52-55, the Jews had a hard time believing Jesus' words as do non-Catholics."
"Non-Catholics believe that John 6:53 is merely a symbol and not the actual presence of Christ. If Jesus were truly a symbol, then verse 27 through 29 in 1 Cor. 11 would not make sense."
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:hmm. we believe it's a reminder. And when he told the disciples when he did, he was telling them about what he was going to do.
in 1 cor 11, u hv to understand the context of what happened. ...
... but it doesn't mean that the bread is really Jesus' body, or the wine is really his blood. it's purely symbolic. you can go test the wine now and test the bread that u use everyday, unless God performs another miracle, it's just bread, and it's just wine. but it symbolize everything Christ wanted for the church - to remember He died for us, to remember that we can now stand before a holy God in freedom and joy, to remember we don't have to hide in shame, to remember that He loves us, to remember to love others as He loves us.
... so basically 2 issues paul addressed.
1) the need for unity in the family of God
2) not to treat Christ's sacrifice lightly.
St Paul uses very harsh words and warnings about eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner. He describes such a person as sinning/profaning against the body and blood of Christ, eating and drinking judgement upon himself and even links this to the illnesses and deaths being experienced by his audience.
All these warnings/consequences would appear 'over-done' if the bread and wine were mere symbols. The warnings would make much more sense however, if the bread and wine do indeed become the body and blood of Christ when consecrated. This I believe, was the point that the article was making.
What we perceive with our senses is not always a good indicator of spiritual realities. In the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present - body and blood, soul and divinity - under the appearances of bread and wine. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to have eternal life as Jesus taught in John 6:54. The Jews understood Jesus as speaking literally, hence their question, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (John 6:52). Many of Jesus' followers then left him because of the difficulty of this teaching. Did Jesus clarify, ""Hey, guys, come back here, you got it all wrong. I was only speaking symbolically !" ? No, he did not because they did not get it wrong. They understood correctly - we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life within us. And we do this during Holy Communion.
-
Yes, Omnia! Thanks for elucidating the verses.
The priest/Communion minister says "The Body of Christ", and you say "Amen."
"How might we deepen our awareness of the meaning of this small gem of a dialogue? What is its purpose? It is a statement of belief that the gathered Church makes in Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. It is further an acknowledgement of the presence of Christ in the faithful and union with Christ in his Body, the Church."
How is “Amen” an Act of Reverence?
Saying “Amen,” means we assent to our faith with our head and heart and will. Not only do we believe in the real presence but we also commit ourselves to living
and acting as Jesus did and does.
Tertullian, a 3rd century North African theologian, applied the Latin term sacramentum to the rites of baptism and Eucharist. Sacramentum referred to the oath of allegiance that soldiers made to the Roman emperor to serve him, even with their life. At this time in the Church’s history, persecutions were common enough to make baptism into Christ a commitment that could mean dying for the faith. Thus, saying “Amen” to
the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ serves as a Catholic pledge of allegiance to follow Christ."http://www2.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/ministry/StJohns/docs/Girm/j-GIRM_03-The_Body_of_Christ.pdf
The Catholic church is rich in history and meaning. Every act, every movement, every single word carries a whole weight of significance, and it would do well not to judge and belittle our Sacraments.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_Jesus_institute_the_seven_sacraments
-
-
dumbdumb - if your girlfriend owns the book "Bread for the Journey" by Fr. Richards.. he wrote extremely good explanations of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. I challenge you or your church friends to answer him.
i'm waiting for someone in the catholic community to ask God if that is really his flesh and blood, and that miracle happened again, then that'll prove that i'm wrong.
Do not put your God to the test.
Why must it happen again? and where? What if it happens in another country, or even in Singapore, and you are not present - perhaps it was demonic?
Why would a demon wish to prove the Real Presence?
2ndly, if it wasn't demons, the priest wasn't asking God is the bread and wine really embodiment of his flesh and blood, when it turned. He was asking of a different issue. whether can unleavened bread be used or not. and God answered it, just like God telling peter to eat unclean food.
How is turning the Host into Flesh and Blood NOT a sign of the Real Presence in the bread?
-
Did you read these sentences in that Wikipedia article?
The use of "Amen" after a prayer or other statement in Christianity is not strictly orthodox. When used as an equivalent to an oath...
A double amen ("amen and amen") occurs in Psalm 89 (Psalm 41:13; 72:19; 89:52), to confirm the words and invoke the fulfillment of them.
-
Originally posted by Pennycake:
dumbdumb - if your girlfriend owns the book "Bread for the Journey" by Fr. Richards.. he wrote extremely good explanations of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. I challenge you or your church friends to answer him.
Do not put your God to the test.
Why must it happen again? and where? What if it happens in another country, or even in Singapore, and you are not present - perhaps it was demonic?
Why would a demon wish to prove the Real Presence?
How is turning the Host into Flesh and Blood NOT a sign of the Real Presence in the bread?
i think u should read my posts again.
there's a difference between putting God to the test, and testing every spirit and miracle before asserting it as truth.
i nv said that a demon perform that miracle (i'm not saying that it didn't either), i said that demons can perform miracles as well.
because of the way it happened. He was asking about whether it was ok to use leavened bread for communion, and the miracle happened. tts why i said, if the miracle happened again, when someone really ask if the bread and wine is really his flesh and blood, then of course i'll be more inclined to believe mah right?
at best, i see it as God answering a different question, and everyone got ahead of themselves.
at worst, i see that it's not God who performed that miracle. (with all due respect)
i'm just seeing it as logically as i can.
i'm not being bias or trying to attack you la, why so defensive? lol
even if i don't see the bread and wine as Jesus' real physical body and blood, and it's symbolic to me, doesn't mean i treat it flippantly. i definitely see it as spiritual food, and Jesus wants me to take it and remember His death, and ressurection and that He's coming again.
-
Originally posted by Pennycake:
Did you read these sentences in that Wikipedia article?
amen simply means, "so be it" in hebrew. to affirm blessings or curses.
and has nothing to do with reverence etc.
How is “Amen” an Act of Reverence?
Saying “Amen,” means we assent to our faith with our head and heart and will. Not only do we believe in the real presence but we also commit ourselves to living
and acting as Jesus did and does.
Tertullian, a 3rd century North African theologian, applied the Latin term sacramentum to the rites of baptism and Eucharist. Sacramentum referred to the oath of allegiance that soldiers made to the Roman emperor to serve him, even with their life. At this time in the Church’s history, persecutions were common enough to make baptism into Christ a commitment that could mean dying for the faith. Thus, saying “Amen” to
the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ serves as a Catholic pledge of allegiance to follow Christ."i think u might want to review some of the stuff u believe, instead of just erm. quoting because it sounds good and true.
-
haha. sorry I sound like I'm bristling =.=" this is a matter close to my heart.
I will come back in the morning after cooling down ;)
Good night!!
-
Originally posted by Pennycake:
haha. sorry I sound like I'm bristling =.=" this is a matter close to my heart.
I will come back in the morning after cooling down ;)
Good night!!
good night
lesson number 1: winning an argument doesn't change heart.
so it really depends what's ur purpose. to win an argument, or to change my heart.
btw. i attended mass on saturday.
i'd like to pose a question:
the 2nd reading, does anyone know what it means when paul was talking about his reward -
7If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.
Because, this 2 verses seems to go in a circle, if paul reaches voluntarily, he has a reward, which is that he can preach.
but everyone just says "the word of the lord", then go home, but how many ppl understand what this mean?
because the way i see it, if you don't understand it, you can't apply it, if you can't apply it, it won't change your life, it's just like.. a breeze blowing past your ears.
and everyone around me read it, and it's like either they understood it, or.. it doesn't occur to them that it's a difficult verse to understand. because after reading it, nobody seems to be pondering about it. while i kept reading the slip of paper, trying to figure out what it means.
either that or i'm too stupid to get it. lol
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
i think u should read my posts again.
there's a difference between putting God to the test, and testing every spirit and miracle before asserting it as truth.
i nv said that a demon perform that miracle (i'm not saying that it didn't either), i said that demons can perform miracles as well.
because of the way it happened. He was asking about whether it was ok to use leavened bread for communion, and the miracle happened. tts why i said, if the miracle happened again, when someone really ask if the bread and wine is really his flesh and blood, then of course i'll be more inclined to believe mah right?
at best, i see it as God answering a different question, and everyone got ahead of themselves.
at worst, i see that it's not God who performed that miracle. (with all due respect)
i'm just seeing it as logically as i can.
i'm not being bias or trying to attack you la, why so defensive? lol
The miracle actually involved the use of unleavened bread, as the priest involved was used to the Eastern Rite where leavened bread is the only acceptable matter. In both Rites, transubstantiation is believed to take place during the consecration.
You may choose to believe that it was a sign that the matter used didn't matter as the gesture is supposed to be merely symbolic. However, I think the other documented miracles at Betania and Santarem refute that, and show that the power invested in a priest to perform the Eucharist in persona Christi is real.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
The miracle actually involved the use of unleavened bread, as the priest involved was used to the Eastern Rite where leavened bread is the only acceptable matter. In both Rites, transubstantiation is believed to take place during the consecration.
You may choose to believe that it was a sign that the matter used didn't matter as the gesture is supposed to be merely symbolic. However, I think the other documented miracles at Betania and Santarem refute that, and show that the power invested in a priest to perform the Eucharist in persona Christi is real.
yes, i know.. but what i'm saying is.. the priest wasn't asking if the bread was really Jesus' body. God may hv used that miracle to say "yes, it's ok to use leavened bread to have communion", but everyone, awed by the miracle, got ahead of themselves. that's how i see it.
that's why i said. it will be a whole different matter if, a priest asked God if that is really his body, and the miracle happened.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
yes, i know.. but what i'm saying is.. the priest wasn't asking if the bread was really Jesus' body. God may hv used that miracle to say "yes, it's ok to use leavened bread to have communion", but everyone, awed by the miracle, got ahead of themselves. that's how i see it.
that's why i said. it will be a whole different matter if, a priest asked God if that is really his body, and the miracle happened.
If he actually had that particular doubt (whether it was the Real Presence), it would have been a scandalous thing to say publicly, even today. Or perhaps the miracle was framed within the context of the rift between the Eastern and Western churches. Either way, in my eyes, it also implies a doubt in the presence of Christ in the to-be-consecrated matter, because the priest already believed in transubstantiation in the Eastern rite.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
If he actually had that particular doubt (whether it was the Real Presence), it would have been a scandalous thing to say publicly, even today. Or perhaps the miracle was framed within the context of the rift between the Eastern and Western churches. Either way, in my eyes, it also implies a doubt in the presence of Christ in the to-be-consecrated matter, because the priest already believed in transubstantiation in the Eastern rite.
tts the problem. everyone's more concerned with appearing badly than finding out the truth.
oh, it's going to be scandalous, and i'll get punished if i voice doubt - so better keep quiet and agree with what everyone says.
it's not exactly the right course of action.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
tts the problem. everyone's more concerned with appearing badly than finding out the truth.
oh, it's going to be scandalous, and i'll get punished if i voice doubt - so better keep quiet and agree with what everyone says.
it's not exactly the right course of action.
I think you've misunderstood me - I meant that it would have been scandalous for the monk to say afterwards that he had doubted, or it would have been scandalous to his memory (if he didn't say anything to the scribe who recorded the miracle).
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
I think you've misunderstood me - I meant that it would have been scandalous for the monk to say afterwards that he had doubted, or it would have been scandalous to his memory (if he didn't say anything to the scribe who recorded the miracle).
but the fact is still this. he was asking a different question, God may (or may have not) answered it, and everyone got ahead of themselves and interpret the miracle for more than what it really is.
moses turned the river nile into blood, but that's all it is. the miracle was to display God's power to paroah, and it occured only one time to make a point. it doesn't occur again, or whatever.
same way, God may have answered the priest regarding whether it was ok to use leavened bread, but it doesn't mean that the bread is his physical body. but everyone got ahead of themselves and took the miracle more than what it was meant to do - to answer the priest's doubt about whether the leavened bread can be used.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
but the fact is still this. he was asking a different question, God may (or may have not) answered it, and everyone got ahead of themselves and interpret the miracle for more than what it really is.
moses turned the river nile into blood, but that's all it is. the miracle was to display God's power to paroah, and it occured only one time to make a point. it doesn't occur again, or whatever.
same way, God may have answered the priest regarding whether it was ok to use leavened bread, but it doesn't mean that the bread is his physical body. but everyone got ahead of themselves and took the miracle more than what it was meant to do - to answer the priest's doubt about whether the leavened bread can be used.
The real presence of Christ body is beyond doubts. In your case, you choose not to believe it which is ok.
The problem is you choose to read it out of context. The question is not about if unleavened bread can be used…..the monk was simply having doubt if the bread can really be real body and blood of Christ and that is the question. I quote from the link I gave you:
“After having pronounced the words of Consecration (“This is My Body... This is My Blood”), as Jesus had taught it to His Apostles, the monk saw the host change into a living piece of Flesh, and the wine change into real blood”
And this is not the only one that has happened as per the previous links I gave to you. This has gone through scientific investigations by the most illustrious scientist and it's authenticity proven. I.E. that the flesh and blood are real (human species) proven. And you can even see it today.These miracles are in line with what the Bible is saying and Jesus Himself told us that these are His body and blood. Not symbolic. Omnia and Pennycake has explained the bible verses already.
Not "everyone got ahead of themselves and interpret the miracle for more than what it really is" Rather, many others have tried to downplay this as it merely showed that The Church has the right understanding of the Bible and with miracles as proof.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
good night
lesson number 1: winning an argument doesn't change heart.
so it really depends what's ur purpose. to win an argument, or to change my heart.
btw. i attended mass on saturday.
i'd like to pose a question:
the 2nd reading, does anyone know what it means when paul was talking about his reward -
7If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.
Because, this 2 verses seems to go in a circle, if paul reaches voluntarily, he has a reward, which is that he can preach.
but everyone just says "the word of the lord", then go home, but how many ppl understand what this mean?
because the way i see it, if you don't understand it, you can't apply it, if you can't apply it, it won't change your life, it's just like.. a breeze blowing past your ears.
and everyone around me read it, and it's like either they understood it, or.. it doesn't occur to them that it's a difficult verse to understand. because after reading it, nobody seems to be pondering about it. while i kept reading the slip of paper, trying to figure out what it means.
either that or i'm too stupid to get it. lol
Compare Paul’s sense of purpose with that of Job in the first reading. Job is lamenting about the bad situation of his life and is “hopeless” because he has no purpose in living…..
On the other hand, Paul found the purpose in his life and despite being persecuted, shipwrecked and imprisoned, he found his fulfillment by zealously sharing his God experience with people.
Paul said that he did not preach because it was his job. Rather, it was a calling for him and it was God’s will that he is preaching - it was his vocation. Like Jesus who is here to serve, so is Paul.
So, Paul found the purposes in his life and despite all the hardship, is happy to press on. Job on the other hand has lost his purpose and thus is lamenting.
The 2 readings with the Gospel is telling us to find a purpose in our life. To be of service to our community like Jesus and Paul. I think that in short is the message and hope will be useful for you.Maybe you can share with me your understanding.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
there's a difference between putting God to the test, and testing every spirit and miracle before asserting it as truth.
You are right and all miracles accepted by the Church officially have passed the test.
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
Compare Paul’s sense of purpose with that of Job in the first reading. Job is lamenting about the bad situation of his life and is “hopeless” because he has no purpose in living…..
On the other hand, Paul found the purpose in his life and despite being persecuted, shipwrecked and imprisoned, he found his fulfillment by zealously sharing his God experience with people.
Paul said that he did not preach because it was his job. Rather, it was a calling for him and it was God’s will that he is preaching - it was his vocation. Like Jesus who is here to serve, so is Paul.
So, Paul found the purposes in his life and despite all the hardship, is happy to press on. Job on the other hand has lost his purpose and thus is lamenting.
The 2 readings with the Gospel is telling us to find a purpose in our life. To be of service to our community like Jesus and Paul. I think that in short is the message and hope will be useful for you.Maybe you can share with me your understanding.
ah... thanks =)
i want to take it a little further though, because the entire chapter was about the rights of an apostle.
paul was clearly defending his rights as an apostle, because paul was actually addressing to the corinthian church who seemed to have condemned him, and didn't want to support him financially.
he asserted his status as an apostle to the church, declaring again, how he has seen Jesus, and his works among them - as proof of his love and dedication to them.
then he asserted his rights to food and drinks at the expense of the church, and a wife, but yet, he and barnabas didn't want to use this right - instead chose to work for their daily expenses. so that he will have his reward: (this is the confusing part, because it's tied to him depriving himself of his rights of an apostle), and the reward is that he can preach the gospel free of charge and not make use of his rights in preaching it (the rights refer to living off the church)
so in the light of the entire passage. paul doesn't seem to be talking about how fulfilling his life is now that he has found his purpose.
that's why i'm confused.
what is his reward? if he preaches it freely, he gets his reward, and his reward is to preach it freely.
and how does this passage show that paul was talking about feeling fulfilled spiritually because he found his calling. since he's more or less defending himself
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
ah... thanks =)
i want to take it a little further though, because the entire chapter was about the rights of an apostle.
paul was clearly defending his rights as an apostle, because paul was actually addressing to the corinthian church who seemed to have condemned him, and didn't want to support him financially.
he asserted his status as an apostle to the church, declaring again, how he has seen Jesus, and his works among them - as proof of his love and dedication to them.
then he asserted his rights to food and drinks at the expense of the church, and a wife, but yet, he and barnabas didn't want to use this right - instead chose to work for their daily expenses. so that he will have his reward: (this is the confusing part, because it's tied to him depriving himself of his rights of an apostle), and the reward is that he can preach the gospel free of charge and not make use of his rights in preaching it (the rights refer to living off the church)
so in the light of the entire passage. paul doesn't seem to be talking about how fulfilling his life is now that he has found his purpose.
that's why i'm confused.
what is his reward? if he preaches it freely, he gets his reward, and his reward is to preach it freely.
and how does this passage show that paul was talking about feeling fulfilled spiritually because he found his calling. since he's more or less defending himself
I don't see how Paul is not having a fulfilling life just because of problems with the Corintin Church. Despite his problems, he is able to continue preaching the Gospel because he knew his vocation and purpose. Not just to the corinthians but others as well (including us today by reading his letters). So can I say Paul is able to continue to serve the Lord for free (not because it was a job that pay him well etc) because he knew his vocation and purpose?
Do you think he lead a fruitful life as an apostle of Jesus? I would certainly think so....
Just like in our world today, we are facing problems with the financial crisis and life's pressure....Paul have his fair share of problems too and so do Job. The difference in how they cope is explained in my earlier posts (I hoped I did).
The readings also aims to inspire us in this difficult time. Do we know what God's will for us? Can we live our life doing God's will? For Jesus and Paul, they are servants to God. They are here to serve.......are we ready to serve or expect to be served?
Maybe, we should reflect and take a step back....do we need that big house, that big car or that branded toys etc....? Is that our purpose in life?
Oh, one more thing, do not forget Peter's mother in law.....once she is healed by Jesus, she immediately started to wait on the others.....no MC. That's also telling us to love our neighbour as Jesus has loved us - to serve each other.
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I don't see how Paul is not having a fulfilling life just because of problems with the Corintin Church. Despite his problems, he is able to continue preaching the Gospel because he knew his vocation and purpose. Not just to the corinthians but others as well (including us today by reading his letters). So can I say Paul is able to continue to serve the Lord for free (not because it was a job that pay him well etc) because he knew his vocation and purpose?
Do you think he lead a fruitful life as an apostle of Jesus? I would certainly think so....
Just like in our world today, we are facing problems with the financial crisis and life's pressure....Paul have his fair share of problems too and so do Job. The difference in how they cope is explained in my earlier posts (I hoped I did).
The readings also aims to inspire us in this difficult time. Do we know what God's will for us? Can we live our life doing God's will? For Jesus and Paul, they are servants to God. They are here to serve.......are we ready to serve or expect to be served?
Maybe, we should reflect and take a step back....do we need that big house, that big car or that branded toys etc....? Is that our purpose in life?
Oh, one more thing, do not forget Peter's mother in law.....once she is healed by Jesus, she immediately started to wait on the others.....no MC. That's also telling us to love our neighbour as Jesus has loved us - to serve each other.
i know paul had a fulfilling life. but it's just out of context. the entire passage was paul defending his position to the church in corith that he, as an apostle, should be able to receive material needs from his work in the church, but while that is his right, he gave it up willingly to receive his reward: which is to preach freely.
it's like. it goes in circle?
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
i know paul had a fulfilling life. but it's just out of context. the entire passage was paul defending his position to the church in corith that he, as an apostle, should be able to receive material needs from his work in the church, but while that is his right, he gave it up willingly to receive his reward: which is to preach freely.
it's like. it goes in circle?
The reading is not about Paul and the corinthian church. It is about Paul's spirit as apostle of Christ. I think you are looking at it differently.
It does not go in circles and certianly not out of context. Only few verses are quoted and not the entire letter.
-
this is a hard saying; who can accept?