DOMINUS PARS HÆREDITATIS MEÆ

RSS

1/2 Did you actually read John 6: 30-66? "I am the bread which came down from heaven" "I am the bread of life" "I AM the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Anonymous

badwolfcomplex:

thatcurioustruth:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

thatcurioustruth:

*Cough* Not the anon, but it is very reasonable to assume that it is a metaphor; Jesus used them all the time. Except if you take a closer look at this particular passage it makes no sense for Jesus to be using metaphor in this particular instance. :)

http://thatcurioustruth.tumblr.com/post/72893145892/thanks-for-answering-that-im-a-christian-not-a#notes

God bless!

I’m still not convinced but thank you for being somewhat more gracious and a great deal less patronising than the anon. Hey you know I could be wrong, you could be wrong, the way I see it it’s all one church and while these discussions are good to have I don’t think there’s any need for them to cause so much division as they have, and often do :)

Amen! Thanks for reading. :)

Pardon my jumping in, but this is one of my absolute favorite passages to talk about, and since tomorrow is Maundy Thursday—the day we celebrate the institution of the Eucharist and the priesthood (they are intimately bound together)—it seems fitting to elaborate…

The interesting thing is it’s only misleading in English (and then only if the reader doesn’t take the whole passage together—which it is admittedly hard to do, the way the modern Bible is divided up and since so many of us come to the text with preconceived notions.)

In the Greek, Jesus doesn’t just say  ”Eat my flesh”; each time the Jews object when he says that, he strengthens his language, using verbs like “gnaw” and “chew” instead of just “eat”—he emphasized the physicality of the language.

But the best part is that there was a metaphorical idiom in the language of the day centered around “eat my flesh”—and it meant to defame the person, to speak badly of them. If Christ had been using the phrase metaphorically in the way commonly understood by the public at the time, he would have been saying, “Only if you blaspheme me can you have life in you.” Which really doesn’t make sense.

If Christ meant it as a metaphor, why didn’t he explain himself? When his disciples and the crowds said, “How can he give us flesh to eat?” and “This is a hard saying; who can accept it?” and left, thinking he was a lunatic, why let himself remain misunderstood about something so important? If he meant it metaphorically, why didn’t he even let the Twelve in on it? Instead he just asked them if they were going to leave, too.

Many Protestants say, “But what about verse 63? “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are the Spirit and the life.” But this is part of Jesus’ whole confirmation of what he has just said: he asks the apostles if they, too, will abandon him because he taught that this very flesh and blood are the key to eternal life. He says, if you can’t accept this, how can you accept any other miraculous thing? (v. 62). “These words,” i.e. everything I have just been telling you, are the truth, they are life. We’re not talking about base cannibalism (“the flesh is of no avail”), we’re talking about me, about the power of God. And Peter confirms that they do believe: “And we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” (v. 69).

If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then St. Paul must have been over the top in his 1st epistle to the Corinthians (11:27-30): “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. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.”

Moreover, the Church Fathers—the earliest Christian leaders after the Apostles—unanimously proclaim that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Jesus Christ:

crossequalsloveequalslife:

Yes I did read it. Jesus also said ‘I am the true vine’ I don’t think He was literally saying yes look at me I’m a plant, do you?

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1). 

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, … is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20). 

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3). 

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy 
of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9). 

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1). 

(Source)

Moreover, the whole event where Christ proclaimed that he is the Eucharist, the living bread of life, follows closely on the heels of the feeding of the five thousand, where Christ miraculously multiplied the loaves to feed the crowds. The very next thing that happens is he tells the crowds when they ask “what must we do, to be doing the works of God?” that “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” (6:29) So the crowds ask, “Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you?” And Christ’s response is that he is the living bread of heaven, and that to have eternal life is to eat His flesh and drink His blood. 

John is a completely amazing Gospel, thoughtfully and intricately told to show the luminous beauty of Christian truth, of the person of Christ, and this sequence of teachings is at the heart of it.

livinginthespirit:

Amen!😇🙏❤️

livinginthespirit:

Amen!😇🙏❤️

livewith-nolimit:

pleatedjeans:

This is Why We Have Dogs (22 Pics)

Lemme cop a puppy

(Source: terence72)

cultureshift:

alwaysabeautifullife:

conservative-art:

Don’t lose the fight by ~brunonade
“The message pretty much is, everything thats holding her back and making her think she needs an abortion. It’s just saying don’t lose that fight to keep the child.The blue kid is the child further grown up, the future, what the mother could have.”

As someone that’s been pressured to abort my kids, this is exactly how it feels. I speak to young underage women every single day that were FORCED to abort by their parents or boyfriend.

Because ‘pro-choice’ is really pro-abortion. I challenge everyone reading this to visit a ‘pro-choice’ blog here on Tumblr and try to find a post encouraging parenthood or adoption. It’s not going to happen.
Don’t believe the ‘pro-choice’ lie. The only choice they truly advocate for is the choice to poison or slaughter your living son or daughter.
Stand for Life.

cultureshift:

alwaysabeautifullife:

conservative-art:

Don’t lose the fight by ~brunonade

The message pretty much is, everything thats holding her back and making her think she needs an abortion. It’s just saying don’t lose that fight to keep the child.The blue kid is the child further grown up, the future, what the mother could have.”

As someone that’s been pressured to abort my kids, this is exactly how it feels. I speak to young underage women every single day that were FORCED to abort by their parents or boyfriend.

Because ‘pro-choice’ is really pro-abortion. I challenge everyone reading this to visit a ‘pro-choice’ blog here on Tumblr and try to find a post encouraging parenthood or adoption. It’s not going to happen.

Don’t believe the ‘pro-choice’ lie. The only choice they truly advocate for is the choice to poison or slaughter your living son or daughter.

Stand for Life.

Hi, so my friend was hit by a car today while she was biking. As we know right now, she has a fractured leg, I was wondering if you could be praying for her and that her recovery is fast and that nothing is worse than her leg. Thank you so much!

Anonymous

alwaysabeautifullife:

Prayers for your beautiful friend. I hope she recovers quickly and has no complications :)

In Holy Week, when the most bitter sufferings of Jesus Christ are put before us by the liturgy, the Church invites us to come to Calvary and follow in the blood-stained footsteps of the divine Redeemer, to carry the cross willingly with Him, to reproduce in our own hearts His spirit of expiation and atonement, and to die together with Him.

- Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei (via byjoveimbeinghumble)

(Source: intheshoes-ofthefisherman)

Controversial Opinion #1

nikosnature:

digitalpapist:

nikosnature:

digitalpapist:

I felt torn over whether to air misgivings about this, but I suppose I should just put it out there: I have strong reservations about the canonization of John Paul II.

This isn’t to dispute his personal holiness, nor…

Saint John Paul II obviously knew that young people were being sexually molested in the Church. He had to sign every decree which defrocked or laicized those priests who were ousted by Cardinal Ratzinger. And as a bishop and then archbishop in Poland, he would no doubt have dealt with the typical “sins of the clergy” which bishops with long experience have to deal with.

Saint John Paul also allowed Cardinal Ratzinger to bypass canonical procedures calling for formal church trials and to seek the laicization of these priests without the trials to which they had always been entitled before laicization.

But those juicy details have definitely been uncovered—they always are—in the canonical process. But not every detail is published, especially if it is not relevant to a person’s sanctity.

Which now gets to the heart of the matter. Failure to act in the face of great moral evil does not necessarily make you a great sinner, or a coward, or a hypocrite. Even on Tumblr, when you have had friends and acquaintances who are viciously attacked by trolls and malcontents, and you have not acted to defend them, clear their name, or give them written comfort at least through your blog, you have also been guilty of a failure to act.

But failure to act can have many reasons. You may not have the mental and emotional energy to do combat for the people that you should, at the moment that you should. Or you may be having a bad week yourself and may prefer to be a mere Tumblr bystander instead of spending time and energy on the internet that you need to give to other things. Also, you see within your circle of family and friends that all of your interventions to stop evil are often for naught.

People have a way of going around you to continue committing the evil you have tried to stop them from committing. Then, there is just the plain information gap. Are you 90% sure that someone is causing evil and harm to others, or 80%, or 50%, or 30% sure? And even if you are sure, how sure are you that your actions will not cause more harm than good. 

Let’s take as an example the neighbor whose robbery you report to the police so that the sketchy people you know are brought to justice. What if the police arrest those people but then they are lawyered out of jail? What if they take a plea? What if the district attorney says, “I just am not going to prosecute that robbery?” What happens when the sketchy people return to the neighborhood. What do you think they will do with your neighbor? Will there be retaliation? Can you answer that, 100% for sure, with a yes or no?

Even if Saint John Paul knew there was sexual molestation going on, he certainly could not have known, 100% for sure, and in all cases, what the level of involvement or guilt was on the part of particular priests or bishops. The Catholic Church is a storm of flying rumors. Do you want to lay public charges against the a priest by removing him from ministry, based on rumors? 

Do you know if the priest has access to legal counsel? What if that priest you accuse, based on rumors or on your 50% certitude as a bishop, turns around and sues you for defamation? What if he is innocent and you cause his entire circle of friends to turn against the Church? And there is some chance of due process in the U.S. In foreign countries, only God knows what will happen once you involve the authority in the cases of certain priests and the rumor that they are abusing young people.

What did Saint John Paul know? About the sexual abuse problem in general, I am sure he knew a lot—after the fact. About the sexual abuse activities of individual priests, while they were taking place, that is extremely doubtful, because such criminals, and the criminal mind, are expert at forging false appearances and secret and clandestine crime. It has never been easy for the Church to catch such men—they are smooth operators, as are criminals in general. 

So, when we speak of how much a saint knew, and his or her failure to act in the face of moral evil, let’s not pretend this is a black and white problem which admits of easy answers and solutions—they are no easier than the times in my life or your life when we also fail to act.

If knowing about crime and failing to act is an infallible sign to strike someone from the list of saints, then I invite the traditionalist Catholics to declare St. Pius X the biggest fraud and fake who was foisted onto the calendar of saints. Because St. Pius X knew for a fact that King Leopold of Belgium was carrying out massacres in the Congo, against hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans. 

The Belgian King’s crimes in the Congo, taking place even before Catholic missionaries at the turn of the last century, included mass starvation, brutal rape of the female population, failure to give medical attention to the victims of European-introduced diseases, chopping off hands and feet of the African Congolese at times for the mere enjoyment of doing it, if not as punishment for “laziness” and wholesale executions. Meanwhile, the ivory and rubber trade made countless millions for the King, who lavished much of this on his prostitute-mistress—a 16 year old when the King started to have sex with her.

Why the silence from St. Pius X? King Leopold conservatively murdered over 2 million Africans—decades after the crimes witnesses still spoke of 50% of some villages being wiped out by Leopold’s soldiers.

Why the canonization of a Pope who presided over a Catholic holocaust against innocent Africans, in order to spill their blood and enrich the filthy coffers of a degenerate Belgian king? Why? Is it because he was a CATHOLIC king? It is because Leopold was taking the true faith to pagans, even if he was killing millions in the process? Only God knows the answers to those questions—they still leave unanswered the nature and true extend of the most horrific and godless Catholic crimes in all history. But that St. Pius X did not act against Leopold, but instead permitted him a full, pompous, and glorious Tridentine Requiem Mass with all the honors of a “Catholic” monarch, is a fact.

Yet, Pius X is a saint. And he is a saint because good and holy people can and do fail to act in the face of moral evil. What good and holy people cannot do, if they wish to be a saint, is commit great moral evil.

The worse danger to your faith is not doubt.

It is being stupid and immature. Cultivating those traits assure that you will not even know when you are sounding stupid and immature.

Argument for the Existence of God

nikosnature:

Syllogism 1 

1. Either something exists or nothing exists.

2. Nothing cannot exist.

a. Therefore, something exists.

______________________________________________________________

1. There can be no doubt that either something exists, or nothing exists, for the two are dichotomous.  2. Nothing cannot exist, for the idea of nothing itself implies a contradiction.  To say nothing exists is to conceive of some “nothingness” and then say that it, rather than something else exists.  But that “nothingness,” though claiming to represent nothing, would in fact be something, (that which is conceived as “nothingness”) and therefore, something would exist.   In other words, nothing is a term that definitionally has no extension.  But if something has no extension, then it does not exist.  Further, to say, “nothing exists,” requires one to first imagine “something” and then imagine its absence.  Therefore, something must exist since one must necessarily presuppose that something in order to conceive of nothing. 

_________________________________________________________

Syllogism 2

3.     God is that which can be conceived of existing in every possible world, (Definition: God is conceived as a necessary entity)

4.     Only existence can be conceived of existing in every possible world.

a.     Therefore, God is existence.

_________________________________________________________

3. It may be argued that if one defines God as a necessary entity, one is assuming that which needs to be proven, that God exists, since a necessary entity exists necessarily.  But I challenge this on the grounds that it may be impossible to conceive of a necessary entity.  That is to say, a necessary entity may be a term with no extension.  Further, it is clear that any argument seeking to prove or disprove God’s existence must define God as God is properly understood.  God’s necessity is one of the properties of God that believers and nonbelievers consider essential to a definition of God, therefore God must be considered a necessary entity.  Also, it should be noted, if one disagrees with this conception of God, but does not disagree with the rest of the argument, the argument is still sound, having proven the existence of such an entity as was intended to be proven.  The one who disagrees merely disagrees that such an entity is properly called God.  Finally, since God is a necessary being, He must exist in every possible world, for if He did not exist in every possible world, His existence would be conditional on the conditions by which He existed in every world but the ones He did not exist in, but to say God’s existence is conditional is to contradict what has been stated above.  Therefore, God exists in every possible world.  4. Existence must be supposed to exist in a possible world for if we said existence did not exist in this world, it would not be possible for that world to exist, but this would mean it is not a possible world.  Further, existence is the only thing that can be claimed to exist in every possible world, for the absence of any other thing would not make it impossible for the world to exist, but if existence were absent it would be impossible for the world to exist.  Since only existence fulfills the definition of God, it is clear that existence is God. (N.B. By existence I do not mean the totality of existing things, but rather, the principle by which things exist; or put in different words the act of existing itself.)

_____________________________________________________

Syllogism 3

5.     God is existence.

6..     If something exists, then existence exists.

a.     Therefore, if something exists, then God exists.

_________________________________________________________

5. Follows from above.  6. Something cannot exist unless it is possible for things to exist.  It is only possible for things to exist if existence exists.  Therefore, if something exists, then existence exists, and since God is existence, if something exists, then God exists.  By analogy, a man cannot run unless it is possible for men to run.  It is only possible for men to run if running itself exists.  As it is with running, so it is with existence.  Therefore, if something exists, then God exists.

____________________________________________________________

Syllogism 4

7. If something exists, then God exists.

8. Something exists. 1 (2a)

a. Therefore, God exists.

__________________________________________________________

All follows from above.

nikosnature:

avvkvvardness:

the first step in creating something is that you need to be outside and not a part of what you’re creating, so if you’re god and you want to create the universe and, hence, reality, you have to not be real

That assumes that the material universe is the only “reality,” and that there is no reality outside the material universe.  That is of course, assuming that which has yet to be proven.

Howabout this one:

1.     Either something exists or nothing exists.

2.     Nothing cannot exist, or else that nothing would be something.

a.     Therefore, something exists.

3.     God is that which can be conceived of existing in every possible world, (Definition: God is conceived as a necessary entity)

4.     That which can be conceived of existing in every possible world is existence.

a.     Therefore, God is existence.

5.     God is existence.

6.     If something exists, then existence exists.

a.     Therefore, if something exists, then God exists.

7.     If something exists, then God exists.

8.     Something exists. (2a)

a.     Therefore, God exists.

Hi Father! You're the first Father J find on tumblr and it's really exciting!!! I was wondering what you think about the "Big Bang." We've been learning about it in school ad it's been confusing me kind of. I try to mix the story of Adam and Eve with it, but I want to know the Catholic explanation. Thank you!

Hello,

Thank you for the nice words. I am so happy that the blog is helping you out :)

Let me know if the article at this link is helpful for you:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Or try this article by Fr. Robert Spitzer, SJ:

http://net-abbey.org/big-bang-and-creation.htm

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

Father, in the time of Moses, why were Hebrew peoples required to use lamb's blood in order for the Angel of Death to Passover their households? Why use blood? Would the Angel know everyone's thoughts without the marking?

Hello,

That’s a good question. I don’t know why it had to be lamb’s blood. Maybe because lambs are gentle and do not resist, just like God’s people, the Hebrews, who were rounded up like lambs and forced into bitter bondage in Egypt? I am guessing about the lamb.

Of course, the reason that blood was used was because that was the ultimate symbol of life.

Because the lamb that was sacrificed was given partially to God (by being burned/roasted and smoke rising to heaven) and given partially to the people to eat, the blood of the lamb was also a symbol of having communion or fellowship with God. 

It is kind of like if an elderly lady is sick and can’t go to their grandson’s wedding. So someone takes a piece of the wedding cake and takes that to grandma, and when she sees it, it is like part of the wedding joy was brought home to her.

After sacrificing the lamb, the blood on the doorpost of the house became a symbol that this family had “eaten with God” or had fellowship with God through a sacred meal (giving some of the lamb to God, and eating some of it).

Now, because they had made this meal-fellowship with God, and kept some of the blood as a reminder of that meal, the blood reminded the angel that the people in that home were the “friends of God.”

In the ancient Hebrew culture, your closest friends are the ones that you invite to have a meal at your table. Once someone is invited to your table, and they eat a meal with you, they are sealed in friendship. You can never harm them or “kick them out” of your circle of friends, because they broke bread with you at your table.

The sacrificial lamb-meal meant that, now, those Hebrews were the closest friends of God, and so the angel could not harm them. He had to “Pass Over” their homes and leave them unharmed.

Today, in the Catholic Mass, we “eat with God” and because we participate in the eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, His Blood marks the doorpost of our souls. That mark shows that we are Christian, and beloved friends of the Lamb.

God bless and take care! Fr. Angel

paulistpress:

Jesus, therefore came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”  (Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.) Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”

paulistpress:

Jesus, therefore came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?”  (Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it.) Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”