Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Take the philosopher survey: http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY me - 1. Kant (100%) 2. John Stuart Mill (95%) 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 4. Epicureans (75%) snip Weeell, my results weren't what I expected (except that Nietzsche Ann Rand were low on my list, and no matches to Hobbes): 1. Aquinas (100%) 2. Aristotle (85%) 3. Spinoza (78%) 4. St. Augustine (73%) 5. Nel Noddings (68%) I've never heard of that last: Traditional western ethics has oppressed female voices...We should look to traditional women's practices as a way of determining our ethics...We should use an ethics of care: emphasizing loving others, meeting needs, and nurturing. OK, that kinda fits... :) I really object to the Augustine part, as the blurb goes: Happiness is a union of the soul with God after one has died. Bodily pleasures are relatively inferior to spiritual pleasures. Philosophical reasoning is not the path to wisdom and happiness. A love of God and faith in Jesus is the only path to happiness. God is the one to allow people to practice the love of God. One must love God in order to fulfill moral law. People are inherently evil; only the grace of God (or is it merit to be saved?) can save them. I _so_ disagree with each one of those statements! :/ 'after death' only path inherently evil must... Bah!!! Debbi whose favorite St. Augustine quote is Lord, make me chaste - but not yet ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Take the philosopher survey: http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY me - 1. Kant (100%) 2. John Stuart Mill (95%) 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 4. Epicureans (75%) snip Weeell, my results weren't what I expected (except that Nietzsche Ann Rand were low on my list, and no matches to Hobbes): 1. Aquinas (100%) 2. Aristotle (85%) 3. Spinoza (78%) 4. St. Augustine (73%) 5. Nel Noddings (68%) I've never heard of that last: Traditional western ethics has oppressed female voices...We should look to traditional women's practices as a way of determining our ethics...We should use an ethics of care: emphasizing loving others, meeting needs, and nurturing. OK, that kinda fits... :) I really object to the Augustine part, as the blurb goes: Happiness is a union of the soul with God after one has died. Bodily pleasures are relatively inferior to spiritual pleasures. Philosophical reasoning is not the path to wisdom and happiness. A love of God and faith in Jesus is the only path to happiness. God is the one to allow people to practice the love of God. One must love God in order to fulfill moral law. People are inherently evil; only the grace of God (or is it merit to be saved?) can save them. I _so_ disagree with each one of those statements! :/ 'after death' only path inherently evil must... Bah!!! Debbi whose favorite St. Augustine quote is Lord, make me chaste - but not yet ;) That is odd that they have you are ranked 85% following Aristotle. I have heard other people complain that they have one philosopher ranked higher or lower than another which they disagreed with but in your case it seems like some questions scored opposite. If I wasn't so busy I would check into their scoring system. Gary Denton - This is only a test Maru #1 on google for liberal news digest ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Take the philosopher survey: http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY me - 1. Kant (100%) 2. John Stuart Mill (95%) 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 4. Epicureans (75%) snip Weeell, my results weren't what I expected (except that Nietzsche Ann Rand were low on my list, and no matches to Hobbes): 1. Aquinas (100%) 2. Aristotle (85%) 3. Spinoza (78%) 4. St. Augustine (73%) 5. Nel Noddings (68%) 1. Jeremy Bentham (100%) 2. John Stuart Mill (99%) 3. Kant (95%) 4. Aquinas (81%) 5. Aristotle (74%) Before I took the test, I'd never heard of Bentham. xponent List Weirdo Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:23 PM Subject: Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver I snipped some stuff. I just want to address some of what was in the post. Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:27 PM Subject: Archbishop Chaput of Denver As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is not just a symbol or a sacred meal or an important ritual expressing our community. Rather it is, quite literally, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It's His living presence in our midst. This is what distinguishes the Catholic faith from nearly every Protestant denomination. In fact, it's one of the central Catholic beliefs that the Protestant Reformation eventually protested. That's not as obvious as you make out. I've discussed this at length, both at the seminary where I was taking classes and with Presbyterian clergy. The real difficulty the Protestant church has is with the use of Aristotelian philosophy in the description. I asked several times, and was told that this formulation is now considered just one of many imperfect descriptions of the Eucharistwith the limits of human language requiring that any description fall far short of the wonder of the reality. Here's the difference between the Catholic and Presbyterian views: Catholic: Communion has the real, non-physical presence of Jesus Presbyterian: Communion has the real spiritual presence of Jesus. I really don't think the difference is enough for us to conclude that we can turn other's away from Jesus' communion. [I'm ignoring the last sentence, but leaving it in.] Transubstantiation. My understanding, and I'm sure one of you will correct me if I'm wrong, is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (Lutherans, too. At least, that was the position of Luther) Many Protestant denominations do not. Including Presbyterians. At least, that's my understanding. (I'm a little removed from the Presbyterian heritage my father grew up with.) The present positions of the denominations is not as clear as it once might have appeared...if it was ever that clear in actuality. Unfortunately for me, only a rather long explanation will have any clarity at all...so here goes. Lets consider a range of statements on the Eucharist. The strongest is that bread and wine are changes into the body and blood of Christ is such a spectacular fashion, that even non-Christian observers cannot help but observe and accept that is what's happening. The weakest that I will consider is that it is merely a symbol. No one actually holds the strongest view. It is clear why people don't..its not what is seen. Some Christians do hold the weakest view: it is symbolic only. I can see that there is a significant difference between this view and the view of the Catholic church. Other Christians, including Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, hold a view that is in between these two. The classic Catholic view of transubstantiation is a view very well grounded in Aristotelian philosophy. While a real discussion of Aristotle would require a L6 post, I can briefly discuss the relevant parts. I hope its enough to give a feel. For Aristotle, everything has both accidental and substantial properties. Take for example, a book. Its weight, color, dimensions are all accidental properties. They can be changed without changing the item from a book to something else. But, if one were to change the substantial property of a book by removing the words, then it becomes something else; say a paperweight. The accidental properties of bread and wine are their color, taste, texture, etc. With transubstantiation, none of these are changed..so there are no changes to the appearance. Its the substance that has changed; so in reality it is now the body and blood of Christ. Luther wasn't thrilled with Aristotelian philosophy; although Plato was fine for him. He liked Augustine, but not Aquinas. (Aquinas was based in Aristotle, and Augustine in Plato). So, he came up with a variation that was not dependant on Aristotle. In looking back on this, one needs to remember that Plato and Aristotle were the great figures of philosophy at that time. Augustine and Aquinas were the great doctors of the Church. Because our worldview is so different, this type of view may seem a bit quaint. But, one should remember, we look at things far differently than the people from 1000 BCE to 1600 CE. Since we do look at things far differently, the Catholic church has reviewed transubstantiation, and has decided that Aristotle is not essential to any basic understanding. Other formulations for a real presence are now acceptable. In light of this, the differences in the views that seemed so clear 500
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:53:49 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Dan Minette wrote: snip From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip If you go through confession and absolution, in your heart, that's what counts for Communion, isn't it? So, are your sins between you and God or between you and God and other parties? It is mixed; as others have said. In Christianity, the involvement of the community in confessing sins goes back a long ways. The fact that it is in a gospel indicates that it goes back to the first century. The Protestants have a different view of confession. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1988ii/wilkin.html http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1989i/Wilkin.html Here is the Catholic Church view. http://www.catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp With the reformation, the community has been downplayed. Recently, the idea of just God and me has gained some foothold. One sees a number of non-connectional churches springing up. But, the connectional churches do have some understanding of the involvement of community in reconciliation. snip I'll give you what was/is important to me. Erasmus was a humanist scholar who took the middle ground in the reformation. He was offered a red hat (cardinal) and declined it to remain more objective. He pushed scholarship over later tradition in the translation of scripture. He had a strong sense that the church needed to stay together, instead of splitting into, literally, warring factions. He convinced a pope that there was something fundamentally wrong with the financing of the church, but the pope didn't have the courage to take the risk inherent in totally undoing the financial structure of the church. He was regaled by both sides because he was more interested in unity than pointing fingers. From this came a tradition of thought that produced the Enlightenment. I see myself in the tradition of supporting unity within the church; as well as holding enlightenment thought as my basic philosophy. (If I'm anything I'm a Kantiant; and Kant was the greatest philosopher of the Enlightenment.) Take the philosopher survey: http://selectsmart.com/PHILOSOPHY me - 1. Kant (100%) 2. John Stuart Mill (95%) 3. Jean-Paul Sartre (76%) 4. Epicureans (75%) ... Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) We combine a priori and a posteriori knowledge. A priori knowledge is knowledge gained or justified by reason alone, without the direct or indirect influence of experience . A posteriori knowledge is any other sort of knowledge, viz. knowledge the attainment or justification of which requires reference to experience. a.. We have freedom a.. God is not essential for moral argumentation a.. The objective facts about the human knowledge leads to morality a.. We must act out of a sense of duty in order to be moral a.. Moral action does not come out of following inclinations a.. Moral standards must be followed without qualification a.. We must always act so that the means of our actions could be a universal law a.. We must always treat people as ends not means Mill, John Stuart (1806-1873) a.. The Utilitarian principle is correct when the quality of pleasures is accounted for. Utilitarianism is both a theory of the good and a theory of the right. Although Mill was a utilitarian, he argued that not all forms of pleasure are of equal value, using his famous saying It is better to be Socrates unsatisfied, than a pig satisfied. a.. Liberty is the most important pleasure. Politics, philosophy and religion are bound together. I was much more of a libertarian until I decided I was more of a balance-of-powers-atarian and libertarians ignored the liberty reducing power of concentrations of wealth. I was a non-denominational Protestant who had explored Catholicism in college until I decided to research religion esp. Christianity in the 80's. I would have thought i was more Mills than Kant but what do I know, I'm not a philosopher. Hope this was enough. Dan It got me thinking about transubstantiation, confession and the old what philosopher are you test. Gary they didn't have Homer Simpson in the philosophers' Denton The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer by William Irwin The Gospel According to the Simpsons by Mark Pinsky. Homer; You're everywhere, You're omnivorous. Oh Lord! The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. --Plato (427?-347 B.C.) Notebook - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest - http://elemming2.blogspot.com #1 on google for liberal news ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
Julia Thompson wrote: I'm not really familiar with Erasmus. Nutshell description? URL to something I could read in a reasonable period of time? Book recommendation which I might get to sometime in the next 10 years? Thanks! He's famous here even a university is named after him and almost every university has a building, hall, room or at least one location named after Erasmus. So I simply couldn't resist to eradicate this particular instance of ignorance. If anybody posted already I'm sorry but currently I have no time to check if anybody did, so here you go: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm Sonja GCU: Off to bed ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: I'm not really familiar with Erasmus. Nutshell description? URL to something I could read in a reasonable period of time? Book recommendation which I might get to sometime in the next 10 years? He's famous here even a university is named after him and almost every university has a building, hall, room or at least one location named after Erasmus. So I simply couldn't resist to eradicate this particular instance of ignorance. If anybody posted already I'm sorry but currently I have no time to check if anybody did, so here you go: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm He and Martin Luther had a debate on the nature of free will -- I'll bet the metaphorical fur was flying! His collection of proverbs (I discovered by searching) was a popular work, spawning many offshoots; this one is particularly apropos: http://leehrsn.stormloader.com/gg/dbi.html Dulce bellum inexpertis War is sweet to those who have never tasted it * 16 If Painters craft have truly warre dysplayde, Then is it woorsse (and badde it is at best) Where townes destroyde, and fields with bloud berayde, Yong children slaine, olde widdowes foule oppress, Maydes ravished, both men and wives distress: Short tale to make, where sworde and cindring flame Consume as much as earth and ayre may frame. 17 If pryde make warre (as common people prate) Then is it good (no doubt) as good may bee, For pryde is roote of evill in everie state, The sowrse of sinne, the very feend his fee, The head of Hell, the bough, the braunch, the tree, From which do spring and sproute such fleshlie seedes, As nothing else but moane and myschiefe breedes. 18 But if warre be (as I have sayde before) Gods scourge, which doth both Prince and people tame, Then warne the wiser sorte by learned lore, To flee from that which bringeth naught but blame, And let men compt it griefe and not a game, To feele the burden of Gods mightie hande, When he concludes in judgement for to stande. 19 Oh Prince be pleasde with thine owne diademe, Confine thy countries with their common boundes, Enlarge no lance, ne stretch thou not thy streame, Penne up thy pleasure in Repentance poundes, Least thine owne sworde be cause of all thy woundes: Claime nought by warre where title is not good, It is Gods scourge, then Prince beware thy bloud... 207 But to conclude, I meane no more but thus, In all estates some one may treade awrye, And he that list my verses to discusse, Shall see I ment no more, but modestly To warne the wise, that they such faults do flie As put downe peace by covine or debate, Since warre and strife bryng wo to every state. *http://www.users.cloud9.net/~recross/why-not/Civility.htm Here is a look at his work In Praise of Folly: http://www.stupidity.com/erasmus/eracont2.htm It was written in 1509 to amuse Thomas MoreThe text as we have it now moves from lighthearted banter to a serious indictment of theologians and churchmen, before finally expounding the virtues of the Christian way of life, which St. Paul says looks folly to the worId and calls the folly of the Cross (I Corinthians i, 18 ff.)In an era such as our own, which may be thought to be in the grip of a value-shift no less bewildering and of changes in systems of transport and communication no less disturbing, the northern European renaissance must necessarily represent a historical paradigm of interest and importance. The attitudes of Erasmus, in constant and ironic pursuit of peace, stability, sanity and social advance, represent a serious and perhaps increasingly attractive choice from among the values and programmes with which we are confronted It starts off in relaxed mood when Folly, dressed in the unaccustomed garb of a jester, steps forward to claim that she is mankind's greatest benefactor, an assertion which is substantiated with great energy and ingenuity in an amusing parody of a classical declamation. Born in the earthly paradise of Plutus, the young and intoxicated god 'hotblooded with youth', and of Youth herself, 'the loveliest of all the nymphs and the gayest too', Folly was nursed by Drunkenness and Ignorance. She represents freedom from care, youth, vitality and happiness. Her followers include Self-love, Pleasure, Flattery and Sound Sleep, and she presides over the generation of life Debbi who wants some non-hot chocolate, as we are having record-breaking heat here: the fire season is underway __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/5/2004 8:24:10 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I snipped some stuff. Wouldn't that make it a jewish post instead of catholic? That would depend on what got snipped. :) FX: crickets chirping. Oh wellit hasn't been a good day anyway. Sorry to hear that. I wouldn't mind hearing crickets, myself. What I'd *really* like to hear, though, are tree frogs. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
Julia Thompson wrote: My understanding, and I'm sure one of you will correct me if I'm wrong, is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (Lutherans, too. At least, that was the position of Luther) Many Protestant denominations do not. Including Presbyterians. At least, that's my understanding. (I'm a little removed from the Presbyterian heritage my father grew up with.) Not Lutherans. Our belief is consubstantiation, that Christ is present along with the unchanged reality of the elements. This was Luther's position, which he illustrated with an analogy of fire and iron -- put iron into fire and they are united, with the iron becoming red-hot, but they are still fire and iron. I have some familiarity with Luther. I have some familiarity with Calvin. I'm not really familiar with Erasmus. Nutshell description? More sarcastic... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
At 10:23 PM 05/06/04 -0500, Julia wrote: snip Transubstantiation. Get in line in that processional, Step into that small confessional, There, the guy who's got religion'll Tell you if your sin's original. If it is, try playin' it safer, Drink the wine and chew the wafer, Two, four, six, eight, Time to transubstantiate! http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-Vatican-Rag-lyrics-Tom-Lehrer/A51AEADF4C9B32DD48256A7D00254EEF On a note only marginally more serious, I once calculated that a typical bread and wine communion contained some thousands of atoms that really had been part of the body of Christ when he was alive. Of course the same number would have been part of Judas and every other person who lived at the time. Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
- Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:27 PM Subject: Archbishop Chaput of Denver Archbishop's column, taken from the Denver Archdiocese website: It's a matter of honesty: to receive Communion, we need to be in communion We look at it quite differently. It depends on who's communion table it is: Jesus's or the hierarchy. The real question is whether the hierarchy controls the Holy Spirit, or if the Holy Spirit can choose her instruments. If we claim to be Catholic, we need to act like it - all the way, all the time, without excuses Does that include not having a savings account...as is taught by Eccumincal Councils? Remember, the idea of the Pope as infalliable when teaching from Peter's chair is very new; within the last 200 years. The idea of savings accounts as inherently sinful is proclaimed in a Eccumincal Council, which has been thought to be the primary source of inerrent church teachings As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is not just a symbol or a sacred meal or an important ritual expressing our community. Rather it is, quite literally, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It's His living presence in our midst. This is what distinguishes the Catholic faith from nearly every Protestant denomination. In fact, it's one of the central Catholic beliefs that the Protestant Reformation eventually protested. That's not as obvious as you make out. I've discussed this at length, both at the seminary where I was taking classes and with Presbyterian clergy. The real difficulty the Protestant church has is with the use of Aristotelean philosophy in the description. I asked several times, and was told that this formulation is now conisdered just one of many imperfect descriptions of the Eucharistwith the limits of human language requiring that any description fall far short of the wonder of the reality. Here's the difference between the Catholic and Presbyterian views: Catholic: Communion has the real, non-physical presence of Jesus Presbyterian: Communion has the real spiritual presence of Jesus. I really don't think the difference is enough for us to conclude that we can turn other's away from Jesus's communion. What's the lesson for Catholics? Fifty years ago, too many of us avoided receiving Communion out of an excessive fear of our own sins. Today, far too many of us receive Communion unthinkingly, reflexively, with no sense of the urgent need for our own self-examination, humility and conversion. Worse, too many Catholics receive the body and blood of Christ even when they ignore or deny the teachings of His Church. Or, they deny that the hieararcy control's his church It may be helpful to read Macabees here, John. If you accept Macabees I and II as scripture, then you pretty well have to accept that the Lord does not always stay with his origional choice for leadership. The wind blows where the wind will; not where the Vatican buracurats tell it to. It sounds as though you think most church going Catholics are not real Catholics. That would have included my uncle, who was a priest for 50 years, with over 25 of them as a missionary. Are you really arguing that most Catholics really are Protestants and need to go? Finally, I should correct you on my viewpoint. I am a follower of the Erasmus path in the reformation, not that of Luther and Calvin. I delight in bringing up the Catholic understanding in Reformed settings; talking about Luther throwing books out of the bible, for example. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
I snipped some stuff. I just want to address some of what was in the post. Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:27 PM Subject: Archbishop Chaput of Denver As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist is not just a symbol or a sacred meal or an important ritual expressing our community. Rather it is, quite literally, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It's His living presence in our midst. This is what distinguishes the Catholic faith from nearly every Protestant denomination. In fact, it's one of the central Catholic beliefs that the Protestant Reformation eventually protested. That's not as obvious as you make out. I've discussed this at length, both at the seminary where I was taking classes and with Presbyterian clergy. The real difficulty the Protestant church has is with the use of Aristotelean philosophy in the description. I asked several times, and was told that this formulation is now conisdered just one of many imperfect descriptions of the Eucharistwith the limits of human language requiring that any description fall far short of the wonder of the reality. Here's the difference between the Catholic and Presbyterian views: Catholic: Communion has the real, non-physical presence of Jesus Presbyterian: Communion has the real spiritual presence of Jesus. I really don't think the difference is enough for us to conclude that we can turn other's away from Jesus's communion. [I'm ignoring the last sentence, but leaving it in.] Transubstantiation. My understanding, and I'm sure one of you will correct me if I'm wrong, is that Catholics believe in transubstantiation. (Lutherans, too. At least, that was the position of Luther) Many Protestant denominations do not. Including Presbyterians. At least, that's my understanding. (I'm a little removed from the Presbyterian heritage my father grew up with.) What's the lesson for Catholics? Fifty years ago, too many of us avoided receiving Communion out of an excessive fear of our own sins. Today, far too many of us receive Communion unthinkingly, reflexively, with no sense of the urgent need for our own self-examination, humility and conversion. Worse, too many Catholics receive the body and blood of Christ even when they ignore or deny the teachings of His Church. Or, they deny that the hieararcy control's his church It may be helpful to read Macabees here, John. If you accept Macabees I and II as scripture, then you pretty well have to accept that the Lord does not always stay with his origional choice for leadership. The wind blows where the wind will; not where the Vatican buracurats tell it to. If you go through confession and absolution, in your heart, that's what counts for Communion, isn't it? So, are your sins between you and God or between you and God and other parties? It sounds as though you think most church going Catholics are not real Catholics. That would have included my uncle, who was a priest for 50 years, with over 25 of them as a missionary. Are you really arguing that most Catholics really are Protestants and need to go? Finally, I should correct you on my viewpoint. I am a follower of the Erasmus path in the reformation, not that of Luther and Calvin. I delight in bringing up the Catholic understanding in Reformed settings; talking about Luther throwing books out of the bible, for example. :-) I have some familiarity with Luther. I have some familiarity with Calvin. I'm not really familiar with Erasmus. Nutshell description? URL to something I could read in a reasonable period of time? Book recommendation which I might get to sometime in the next 10 years? Thanks! Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
At 10:23 PM 6/5/04, Julia Thompson wrote: I snipped some stuff. I just want to address some of what was in the post. Me, too. If you go through confession and absolution, in your heart, that's what counts for Communion, isn't it? So, are your sins between you and God or between you and God and other parties? (Not a specifically RC or Presb. or any other denomination response, but probably a basically Biblical one:) Partly it depends on what the sin is. If the sin caused harm (physical or emotional) to other parties, some would say that repentance is not complete until one has confessed to and reconciled with the harmed party, and perhaps made restitution to the extent (if any) possible. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (Matthew 5:23-24) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 21:27:10 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Archbishop's column, taken from the Denver Archdiocese website: It's a matter of honesty: to receive Communion, we need to be in communion If we claim to be Catholic, we need to act like it all the way, all the time, without excuses There has been a long argument over the eucharist and communion, in not only the Catholic Church. Although in the 70's it was a Catholic priest who told me that when he arrived at one church he found that no one, or almost no one, was taking communion and found it was because of an attitude that had developed that you had to be without sin to recieve communion. He said he struggled the rest of his time at the church to get the flock to reconnect to Jesus. There have been accusations that the bishop is cherry-picking issues. There was an accusation in the other direction the other day: Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) yesterday released the results of a study that examined nearly two dozen votes and bills to determine which senators supported Catholic teaching most consistently. Kerry's record was the most pro-Catholic. Durbin and his staff denied that they cherry-picked issues to make Kerry come out on top. They said they spent three weeks combing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' annual legislative report and looked at every bill on which the bishops took a clear stand, from abortion and war to raising the minimum wage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11083-2004Jun2.html Someone will raise the objection that you can't compare minimum wage and abortion. I could respond why are some wanting to deny communion to politicians who 'don't condemn abortion as strongly as the Church likes' but has no position on politicians who 'support the death penalty', a position the Church strongly opposes. I think the Church might consider going back to earlier positions - life begins at quickening (first feelable movement of fetus) or first breath (as at the time of Jesus) instead of taking the position that life begins before the sperm and egg are united (as attempts to avoid this are going against God's will and is a sin.) Or perhaps most people should stay out and let individual conscience and doctor-patient relationships make decisions on human life and human conscience and individual priest-church member relationships make decisions on communion. Gary Denton - easter lemming maru #1 on google for easter lemming ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
taking the position that life begins before the sperm and egg are united (as attempts to avoid this are going against God's will and is a sin.) From what I know, that's not quite right. The Catholic belief is that life begins at fertilization. The point about birth control is that by using it you are denying God's gift to your marriage, the gift of procreation, or are denying the creaton of new life within the marriage. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Archbishop Chaput of Denver
JDG wrote: None of us earns the gift of Christ's love. None of us deserves the Eucharist. I don't understand how all of the things that this article says one needs to do fits with the sentence above. The Eucharist remains today the source and summit of Catholic life. And like every Catholic generation before us, we need to take the words of St. Paul very seriously: 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 (1 Cor 11:27). And are we to take it that this is an instruction for when it is okay to offer or receive communion, or is it another reminder of our imperfection and need for God? No one may take part (in the Eucharist) unless he believes that what we teach is true, has received baptism for the forgiveness of sins and new birth, and lives in keeping with what Christ taught. I read this as self-righteous legalism. Worse, too many Catholics receive the body and blood of Christ even when they ignore or deny the teachings of His Church. Christ ignored or denied the teachings of the church! That's what the Pharisees condemned him for. When we sin by theft, lying, adultery, pride, gossip, anger, envy, callousness to the poor, pornography or indifference, we do not live in keeping with what Christ taught. Since I'm certain this was written by a sinner, I read it as self-righteous legalism... not in keeping with what Christ taught. We remove ourselves, by our actions, from friendship with God. Nothing can separate us from God's love, Scripture says. Certainly not our failures. God doesn't love us as we should be -- we'll never be as we should be. That means we need to turn back to the sacrament of penance before we receive Communion. In fact, many of us today need a deeper devotion to confession simply to regain a basic understanding of grace and sin. I don't hear grace in these words. Confession doesn't change God, it changes me, but what I hear in the words above are that God demands repentance as a condition of forgiveness... which flies in the face of agape, unconditional love. Christ chose to spend his time with people whose imperfections were no secret, saving his harshest criticisms for the self-righteous ones. Claiming to be Catholic and then rejecting Catholic teaching is an act of dishonesty and a lack of personal integrity. That leaves no room for prophets, no room for reform from within. The church, as a human institution, is in constant need of reform. This language seems to ask me to worship the church, not God. Worse, if we then receive Communion, we violate every Catholic who does believe and does strive to live the faith fully and unselfishly. And that compounds a sin against honesty with a sin against justice and charity. Again, as Justin Martyr said: No one may take part (in the Eucharist) unless he believes what we teach is true. In my opinion, this paragraph is a guilt trip, which has no place in Christianity. If we claim to believe in Jesus Christ and the Catholic faith, then we need to act like it without caveats, all the way, all the time, with all our heart, including our lives in the public square. And who can do that? Not me. And no pastor, priest or politician, either. I find this appallingly self-righteous... but I'm fairly sensitive to self-righteousness, in the way that a former smoker is sensitive to others' smoking. Denying anyone Communion is a very grave matter. It should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal. Goodness, this puts into a different perspective all the times I've gone to a Catholic mass and not been allowed communion. Apparently I am an extraordinary public scandal, I guess because I'm not Catholic. I'll add that this issue is meaningful to me beyond just my participation in communion as a recipient. I also take and serve communion (consecrated in our Sunday services) to people who are homebound, hospitalized, etc. I did so on Tuesday in the chapel of a Catholic hospital, and couldn't help wondering how scandalized some Catholics might be if they knew that a lay Lutheran was serving communion in their chapel. But hey, Jesus was quite the scandalous character to his church, not to mention undignified and foolish. And transparent. -- Nick Arnett Director, Business Intelligence Services LiveWorld Inc. Phone/fax: (408) 551-0427 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
