 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
JackiB
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Methodist; Free Methodist; Assemblies of God; Evangelical Presbyterian; RCIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 04:03 pm |
|
| I am having mixed feelings about my RCIA experience. On the one hand, I love the fellowship with others who are on a similar journey. I am a life-long Protestant. Four years ago I reread CS Lewis's "Mere Christianity" which led to GK Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas, Hillaire Belloc, finding ETWN and Ave Maria Radio. I relished the Truth that I was hearing and took all in hungrily. Then last November, after just having spent a wonderful weekend at the "Deep in History" conference, our RCIA teacher said that she was comforted by the fact that Jesus (this is not an exact quote) also was figuring out his life and mission as he went along (kind of stumbling along through life just like the rest of us). Basically she was saying that Jesus was unsure of His mission and identity. I objected that this implied ignorance in Christ. and how could Christ be ignorant of His mission if He was truly God? She wasn't very happy with my comments and further stated that the gospel of John more deals with Jesus's divinity, but the synoptic gospels more deal with his humanity. At another session a couple of weeks later, she tried to help me see the error of my thinking and ended up telling me that Jesus was a human person. I said that He is the Divine Person of the Word with a divinge and human nature. I could tell that she was very put out with me. She also stated something strange about how we shouldn't refer to Jesus as "Emmanuel" because in the OT, they didn't know about Jesus. She was concerned that she would be singing "O Come O Come Emmanuel" a lot during the Advent season. I don't know what to make of all this. Where does all of this uncertainty about Christ come from? Where are these teachers getting their teaching that casts doubt on Christ? I listen a lot to Fr. Brian Mullady who teaches on EWTN and he says that these teachings cropped up in 1960 and he refutes a 20th century theologian, Karl Rahner, a lot in his CD set on Christology. Somebody please help me understand why an RCIA teacher has such a misunderstanding of Christ. I have become very discouraged. If it wasn't for outside sources, I don't know what I would do.
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 04:48 pm |
|
Hello Jackie,
I may not be able to answer your question as to why there are teachers in RCIA who are uninformed or lacking in their understanding of our Lord's nature. With that said, I too understand to some degree your frustration. I'm not all that pleased with the RCIA program I am attending, but for different reasons. Is it possible for you to transfer to a different RCIA program in a different parish? Or are you at the end of RCIA and becoming a Catholic this Easter?
I must say that I am so thankful for EWTN because the truth of the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching is being preached. However, I think that there are some parishes and dioceses that are more "liberal" (for lack of a better word) than others. I often hear about the negative effects of Vatican II, which possibly may be the ripple effect playing itself out within various parishes. On the other hand, there will always be false teachers within the church. Have you brought up your concerns with the priest in your parish?
Don't give up on the Catholic faith. I suggest you read the Catechism and watch good teaching on EWTN, such as Father Corapi, Father Pacwa, Father Benedict Groeschel and shows such as "Life on the Rock," Johnette Benkovic's program "The Abundant Life," and of course Marcus Grodi's "Journey Home."
Love in Christ,
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 678 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 05:10 pm |
|
I, too, have heard some things that were questionable and others that were just plain incorrect in my RCIA class. It's been frustrating, but I guess I figure I'm not entering the church of (insert teacher's name), but the Church founded by Christ and which at its base has teachings that are correct and inspired by the Holy Spirit. When I hear/read something that doesn't sound right, I try to find it in the Catechism. Keep on sharing your alternative viewpoint. The others in the class need to hear it as they may be wondering the same thing!
Somehow teaching seems to draw those of a liberal mindset. I think of college professors and even journalists who try, through their "reporting," to enlighten the masses.
What does your priest have to say?
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! You know me right well; my frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth." Psalm 139
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 06:21 pm |
|
Hi Jill,
I am a teacher and not liberal at all. But I must agree that many are. I think the mindset in our culture is that one who considers themselves to be a member of academia must be well-educated, which means being well-informed, which means being open-minded to all viewpoints, which means being a relativist, which means being a proponent of secular humanism, which means shedding any resemblance to reliance on a Creator or God.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 06:53 pm |
|
JackiB wrote: I am having mixed feelings about my RCIA experience.
First of all, welcome to the Coming Home Network. We will do our best to support you on your journey and to answer your questions truthfully.
...our RCIA teacher said that she was comforted by the fact that Jesus (this is not an exact quote) also was figuring out his life and mission as he went along (kind of stumbling along through life just like the rest of us). Basically she was saying that Jesus was unsure of His mission and identity. I objected that this implied ignorance in Christ. and how could Christ be ignorant of His mission if He was truly God?
Let's look at what the Church has to say in the Catechism:
471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal. |
So the Church agrees that while the divinity of Jesus certainly had all knowledge, Jesus still had to learn humanity. As an infant he needed to learn to control his bodily functions, walk, and talk. As a young man he studied Jewish law and probably learned to read and write. He had to learn how to mourn when Joseph died, and he probably learned what it felt like to hit his thumb with a hammer. Jesus was a man like us in all things but sin. Like us, he had to learn from his human parents how to be human. He had infinite knowledge of all things that he had been sent to reveal, but not the ability to talk to people without hurting their feelings. The important thing to remember is that any apparent lack of knowledge on the part of the Jesus was voluntary. He was capable of knowing all things, but chose not to so he could fully experience humanity.
Or to look at it a different way, the fact that the Divine Jesus possessed all knowledge does not mean that all knowledge was revealed to the human Jesus before he needed to know it. This is a mystery that we cannot understand, but the Church affirms that even though Jesus as God possessed all knowledge, Jesus as man had to learn certain things through experience. And we don't know where the line is drawn.
At another session a couple of weeks later, she tried to help me see the error of my thinking and ended up telling me that Jesus was a human person. I said that He is the Divine Person of the Word with a divinge and human nature.
Yes, but Jesus is both fully God and fully man. He is the Word of God but also the son of Mary. He is the Divine Son of God, but also fully human. And again, we do not and cannot know where the line is drawn between the two. We do not know where the infinite knowledge of God ends, and the finite knowledge of a human being begins. We only know it's there.
The difference between you and your teacher is that you are probably on opposite ends of the same line, while the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Some of the early Fathers hypothesized that Jesus wasn't really "born" but rather sort of materialized outside of Mary's womb already walking and talking. Personally, I find this rather hard to believe, because that wouldn't make him human.
One of the great mind of the Church said that Jesus came to become what God is not (physical, weak, mortal) so that we can become what man is not (spiritual, strong, immortal). Only Jesus is the perfect blend of the two. So Jesus is both God and man, strong and weak, immortal and mortal, limitless and limited, divine and human. And this is probably the greatest mystery of them all.
Anne Rice (who wrote Interview with a Vampire) has had a conversion and returned to the Catholic faith of her youth. Her latest novel, Christ the Lord Out of Egypt, is a fictional synthesis of Church teaching, scripture, history, and apocryphal writings about a year in the life of the childhood of Jesus. It is a fascinating read if you remember that it is fiction, and if you're not afraid to have your ideas about the humanity of Jesus challenged.
She does a good job of showing how a seven year old boy might have struggled with absorbing the knowledge that he is also the all-powerful God, and with a family and community that aren't sure how to relate to him either. She also shows him in his humanity being occasionally overwhelmed with the awesome knowledge, power, and responsibility he possesses. She also does an excellent job presenting the culture in which Jesus was raised, such as the brutality of the Roman soldiers, the experience of the Temple of Jerusalem, and some of the Jewish practices of his time.
Last edited on Tue Feb 13th, 2007 02:57 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 07:23 pm |
|
Why doesn't the Church just decide to teach RCIA classes strictly from the Catechism? Don't you think there would be much less room for misunderstandings or discrepensies?
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 07:26 pm |
|
JackiB wrote:[My RCIA teacher said] Jesus… also was figuring out his life and mission as he went along (kind of stumbling along through life just like the rest of us). Basically she was saying that Jesus was unsure of His mission and identity. I objected that this implied ignorance in Christ. and how could Christ be ignorant of His mission if He was truly God?
Jacki, you know by now that you are right and your teacher is wrong, so that is not the issue. However, for the benefit of others who might read this thread, I must lay out some of the background. Just yesterday I was reading in a theology book written by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who for 50 years taught at the Angelicum, the Dominican House of Studies in Rome, and who was the mentor of the future John Paul II while he was studying for his doctorate. He wrote exactly what you told the teacher. This is a doctrine of the Church, as the book points out. What your teacher is telling you is based on a popularization of the Modernist heresy, which had its origin in the Rationalist philosophers of two and three centuries ago and reached its zenith at the end of the 19th century.
There are abundant examples of Jesus’ knowledge throughout the Gospels. The Church teaches that he enjoyed the beatific vision from the first moment of his earthly existence. Here is a quote from Garrigou-Lagrange’s book, Our Saviour and His Love for Us (TAN Books):
In St. John He said to Nicodemus with regard to spiritual regeneration: “Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony. If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things? And no man hath ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.”
The words “what we know” in this passage are synonymous with “what we have seen,” as is said immediately afterward. Now, Jesus spoke as a man. It was therefore as a man that He saw God and the things of heaven. Must not testimony correspond to the knowledge from which it derives?…
Thus Jesus was already in heaven not only as the Son of God, by reason of His divinity and of His divine intelligence, but as the Son of man, by reason of His human intelligence. Not only was He to be in heaven after His death, resurrection, and ascension, but He was there already at that moment. This was the same as saying that as of that instant through His human intelligence He already saw God face to face, without any intermediary whatever.…
Jesus also said in St. John: “Every one that hath heard of the Fatherm and hath learned, cometh to Me. Not that any man hath seen the Father; but He who is of God, He hath seen the Father. Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in Me, hath everlasting life.” Jesus was here saying that the believers have heard the Father, His word, but have not seen Him; where He, Jesus, “who is of God, He hath seen the Father.” Therefore this can mean only that He was more than a believer, that He was not reduced to believing in God, to believing in His own divinity and in His own divine personality. For He had more than faith; He had the vision that the blessed possess in heaven.
The author proceeds to give several other arguments. It is clear even from Jesus’ words to his parents at age 12 after they found his in the temple, “Did you not know that I must be about my Father’s business?” shows clearly that he knew even as a child who he was and what he was here to do. So the idea that Jesus was ignorant of his identity and mission is unacceptable.
Yes, there is a sense in which it can be said that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:40; but the standard Catholic rendering of this verse is, “The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him”), but it does not refer to his knowledge in the beatific vision. Again Garrigou-Lagrange:
Christ Jesus, like all other men, had the knowledge of experience which He rapidly gained through the exercise of His senses and of His intelligence. This was one more of His perfections, which was not made useless by reason of His superior kknowledge, for even though experience taught Him the same things He already knew by other means, it taught Him to know them in a different way. He foresaw far in advance and infallibly that He would be crucified at a given hour on a certain day. Yet when the moment of the crucifixion came, the experience of pain taught Him in a way something new that no prevision could reveal to Him in the same degree. Thus, St. Paul tells us: “And whereas indeed He [Jesus] was the Son of God, He learned obediene by the things which He suffered: and being consummated, He became, to all that obey Him, the cause of eternal salvation.”
An online book which will present this teaching of the Church in greater detail is The Consciousness of Christ by Fr. William Most. Excerpts from this book are also available on the EWTN website.
Throughout the history of the Church there have been people persuaded by heretics who perpetuate their wrong-minded teaching. It appears that your RCIA teacher is one of these. You say, “If it wasn't for outside sources, I don't know what I would do.” Well, there are outside sources, especially the official teaching of the Church. You should be glad, not discouraged, for it is precisely this that assures all of us that the Catholic Church will remain firm in the truth despite what individuals and isolated groups within the Church may think or do.
Might I suggest that you go ahead and complete your RCIA right where you are and enter the Church with confidence. By now you know that this is where you belong, and you also know that with the freedom of information we enjoy in our present-day world, you will have no difficulty finding the truth.
David
|
|
|
JackiB
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Methodist; Free Methodist; Assemblies of God; Evangelical Presbyterian; RCIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 07:28 pm |
|
Dear Rick,
In listening to both Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Brian Mullady, they clearly show that a belief that Jesus is a human person is the Nestorian heresy. Christ cannot be a human person and a divine person. He cannot be two persons because a person is a radically existing individual with a rational soul. The union of God and man therefore takes place in the person. Christ is the Divine Person of the Word with two natures - a completely divine nature and a completely human nature. (True God and true man.) Fr. Mullady's Christology CD series is an excellent education for anyone desiring to know more about Christ and what the Catholic Church has figured out about him down through the centuries.
Sincerely,
Jacki
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 07:33 pm |
|
Darlene wrote:Why doesn't the Church just decide to teach RCIA classes strictly from the Catechism? Don't you think there would be much less room for misunderstandings or discrepensies?
Perhaps, Darlene, but just as happened with the Rationalists and Modernists with regard to the bible (the topic of this thread), there will always be problems of interpretation. This is why the Catholic Church is firmly seated on the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium. If you rely on just one, or even two of these legs, the stool collapses. But if you maintain all three, the stool will support you no matter who slouches and falls of his own accord.
David
|
|
|
Darlene
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | Pocono Mountains, Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 868 |
| First Name: | Darlene | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Christian, trusting His love and forgiveness |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:00 pm |
|
Thanks David,
I always appreciate your responses.
Darlene
____________________
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. II Corinthians 13:14
|
|
|
JackiB
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Methodist; Free Methodist; Assemblies of God; Evangelical Presbyterian; RCIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:03 pm |
|
Dear David,
Thank you for your excellent response. This will probably set me off on a whole new line of inquiry, which I love. Thank you for your encouragement - everybody who has responded. I appreciate it very much.
Jacki
PS I will make my Profession of Faith on Mother's Day.
|
|
|
JackiB
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Methodist; Free Methodist; Assemblies of God; Evangelical Presbyterian; RCIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:08 pm |
|
Dear Darlene,
Thank you for your encouragement. There is a lot I like about my RCIA. I love my sponsor. I met her at daily Mass this past summer. And I am making really good friends among the other candidates. I was really shaken at the meeting where the question about Jesus's knowledge of his identity and mission was brought up, but it has caused me to dig to find an acceptable answer and thank God He led me to an excellent resource and now I have other resources through all of your excellent replies.
Jacki
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:33 pm |
|
JackiB wrote: In listening to both Fr. Benedict Groeschel and Fr. Brian Mullady, they clearly show that a belief that Jesus is a human person is the Nestorian heresy. Christ cannot be a human person and a divine person. He cannot be two persons because a person is a radically existing individual with a rational soul. The union of God and man therefore takes place in the person. Christ is the Divine Person of the Word with two natures - a completely divine nature and a completely human nature. (True God and true man.)
Jacki, the word "person" as we commonly use it is a poor one to describe Jesus. It cannot correctly describe the Trinity as "three Persons in one God" and it cannot describe the duality of Jesus. Used to mean, as you say, a "radically existing individual with a rational soul," there can be only one person named Jesus, the Word of God who existed before time began, and in his human birth he became both fully human and fully Divine.
Nestorius taught that Jesus was a fully human person (individual) who was assumed by a Divine nature so that the humanity was supressed (an oversimplified explanation of a complicated heresy ... see the Catholic Encyclopedia for full details).
As the Catechism teaches us in #471 quoted above, Jesus possessed a human soul along with his Divinity. He was and is both fully human and fully Divine. We acknowledge this when we describe the Eucharist as Jesus whole and entire, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.
To repeat #472:
472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave". (emphasis added)
We don't know, and the Church doesn't tell us, what Jesus knew and what he didn't, except to say that he knew all that he needed to know to complete his mission (CCC474). Did he know that on September 11, 2001, two planes would fly into the World Trade Center? God certainly knew, so the divinity of Jesus had that knowledge, but that doesn't mean it was revealed to the humanity of Jesus. It was available but voluntarily not accessible, because it was not necessary to complete his mission. (CCC474)
And it is important to remember that any limitations Jesus experienced were voluntary. Jesus was capable of flight or instantaneous teleportation from place to place, and yet he chose to walk. He chose to have a fully human life including human limitations, so that he could experience mortal life and death just as we do. And he was certainly capable of experiencing crucifixion without pain, or to simply choose to save us without his death, but that was not his choice. He chose to live as we do and to die as we do.
And by his choices, the Mystery and Miracle of God who is man is even more wonderful, because he didn't need to do what he freely chose to do to show us God's love for us.
Christ is the Divine Person of the Word with two natures - a completely divine nature and a completely human nature.
Jesus is now a person who is both human and divine, born of Mary and yet eternally God at the same time. "Christ" is "the anointed one," "the Messiah," "the Savior," but still a man like us in all things but sin. The Divine individual certainly existed before the human, so it is correct to say that Jesus is a Divine person who became both fully Divine and fully human, and only in Jesus does that perfect duality exist even to this day.Last edited on Tue Feb 13th, 2007 03:03 pm by CajunRick
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JackiB
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 3rd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| First Name: | Jacki | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Methodist; Free Methodist; Assemblies of God; Evangelical Presbyterian; RCIA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 08:59 pm |
|
Dear David,
I reread the last part of your reply - the part about individuals and groups not following Catholic teaching and I guess what really concerned me at the time and still concerns me is that the person teaching this is an official catechist-not just an isolated individual with an opinion that is not backed up by church teaching. I do feel like I should finish out my RCIA where I am, but it seems when we discuss Christ that we are not given a complete understanding of him. Like a couple of weeks ago when the reading was the Wedding at Cana, we were taught that Jesus's mother had to push him to do what he was reluctant to do on his own, just like we have to push our own kids sometimes. I just do not see Jesus and Mary having that kind of relationship.
Jacki
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1793 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 6th, 2007 10:34 pm |
|
What really concerned me at the time and still concerns me is that the person teaching this is an official catechist.
“Official” is a very broad term. When it is applied to a volunteer worker, such as Rick and me here on the forum, just how “official” is it? The only reason we are here is that the people at CHN trust us to do a good job. If we goof, that is our goof, not CHN’s. In like manner, one cannot blame a heretical teaching on the Catholic Church, whose official teaching is available to all; it belongs to the individual who espouses it. Think of it: there are bishops who do worse. One has just excommunicated himself.
Like a couple of weeks ago when the reading was the Wedding at Cana, we were taught that Jesus's mother had to push him to do what he was reluctant to do on his own, just like we have to push our own kids sometimes. I just do not see Jesus and Mary having that kind of relationship.
I don’t think “pushing” was foremost in Mary’s mind. However, there is an element of “Aw, mom!” about the dialogue, don’t you think? My personal take is that he is cautioning her that if he does as she wishes it will mean the process of the Redemption has started in earnest, and it will lead to the cross. She is willing, and he too is willing, but it is foreboding nonetheless.
It might also be well to mention that this scene demonstrates that Mary knew who her son was, that she knew he could do what she had in mind, and that she was altogether willing to go through with God’s plan to the bitter end. In that light, I consider the character of Mary in the movie The Passion of the Christ as spot on: this was the Mary I knew. Not a “sinner,” not just an “extra” on the stage of Christian beginnings, but a real central figure who quietly accomplished God’s will behind the scenes so that her son could fulfill his mission.
David
|
|
|
Cindy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 41 |
| First Name: | Cindy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 7th, 2007 12:57 am |
|
What Is a Person?
Growing out of the long-running Arian controversies were the two opposed heresies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Nestorianism was a heresy promoted by a bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius (d. c. 451), who held that there were two distinct persons in Christ, one human and one divine. Thus, the Nestorians claimed that it could not be said that God was born, was crucified, or died. Mary merely gave birth to a man whose human person was conjoined to that of God. The Nestorians saw Christ’s divinity as superimposed on his humanity.
Nestorianism was condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 431, where the argument raged over the question of whether Mary was Theotokos ("God-bearer" or "Mother of God") or was merely the "mother of Christ," a man conjoined to God. From the words of the Hail Mary we can figure out what the Church decided at Ephesus, but even today poorly instructed Christians can be found opining that Christ was a "human person." (The same characterization is sometimes even to be encountered today in defective catechetical texts.)
But Christ was not a "human person." He was a divine person who assumed a human nature. The whole question of what a person is was a key question in the Trinitarian and christological definitions formulated by the ancient councils. The ancients were not clear in their minds about what constituted a "person"; it was not apparent to them that there was a "somebody" in each human individual. It was as a direct result of the Church’s definitions concerning the three distinct divine Persons in the Trinity that the very concept of what we understand as personhood today was achieved and that the Roman philosopher Boethius (480–524) was able to formulate his famous definition of a person as "an individual substance of a rational nature."
Once this concept of personhood became clear, the Church was able to promulgate the truth that remains valid and operative to this day, namely, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, is a divine person but possesses both a divine and a human nature.
Excerpt:
They Just Won't Go Away
Ancient Heresies in Post-Modern Dress
by Kenneth D. Whitehead
[size=http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea5.asp]
____________________
"Where Peter is, there is the Church" -- St. Ambrose of Milan
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 08:25 pm |
|
Jesus is a Divine Person with two natures: human and divine.
From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott, p. 144
QUOTE
2. The Teaching of the Church
The Divine and the human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person. (De Fide.)
The dogma asserts that there is in Christ a person, who is the Divine Person of the Logos, and two natures, which belong in the One Divine Person. The human nature is assumed into the unity and dominion of the Divine Person, so that the Divine Person operates in the human nature and through the human nature, as its origin.
. . .
a) Christ Incarnate is a single, that is, a sole Person. He is God and man at the same time.
. . .
c) The human and the divine activities of Christ in Holy Writ and in the Fathers may not be divided between two persons or hypostases, the Man-Christ and the God-Logos, but must be attributed to the one Christ, the Logos become flesh. It is the Divine Logos, who suffered in the flesh, was crucified, died, and rose again.
END QUOTE
Every RCIA teacher is required to teach what the Church teaches. If there is a discrepancy between what is taught and what the Church teaches, the priest should be informed. If no public correction is made to the whole class, report it to the bishop. No one attends RCIA to learn what Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones may believe. Everyone is entitled to be taught TRUE Catholic doctrine.
The Profession of Faith requires the catechumens or candidates to publicly attest that they believe EVERYTHING the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches. This requires proper instruction.
Report incidents like this to the priest, using official Catholic Doctrine. Ott's book is a good source, as well as the Catechism. Otherwise, the instructor will go on teaching error to others, presenting it as the teaching of the Church. Don't hesitate to inform the bishop, if necessary.
This, unfortunately, requires everyone in the RCIA class to study on their own. But in this era, it's the only way you can be sure you're learning Truth and not error. Verify everything you are told.
I LOVE THIS CHURCH!!!
God be with you on your journey,
Jay, ex-Southern Baptist, agnostic, atheist
(bold in the quote from Ott's book is in the oriignal)
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 11th, 2007 10:24 pm |
|
nonsumdignus wrote: The Profession of Faith requires the catechumens or candidates to publicly attest that they believe EVERYTHING the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches. This requires proper instruction.
Unfortunately, even those with Masters' level training in theology may not be aware of the precise theological definition of every single word they speak or write at every moment. If they happen to use a word casually outside of that precise theological definition and are publicly chastised for it, they will most likely stop teaching ... or stop responding.
Sometimes the proper course is to determine a person's meaning, rather than to parse the words used, and then to be charitable.
If every catechist is required to be perfect in thought, word, and deed, we will have no catechists left.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Cindy
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 41 |
| First Name: | Cindy | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Catholic convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2007 01:35 am |
|
Those who teach the Faith have a responsibility to get it right. As the Catechism makes clear, Jesus Christ is a Divine Person with two natures:
466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90
467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God's Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91
We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92
468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."94
The idea that Jesus is a "human person" is a heresy that was condemned by the Church. If an RCIA instructor holds this view and refuses to be corrected, he should stop teaching.
Blessings,
Cindy
"Every single action of Christ was the action of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and this includes every action done by him in his human nature. For natures are sources of action-, but not doers. It is always the person who does them, and in his human nature there was but one single person, and that person was God. There was no human person, for that would have made him two people, each with his own distinct nature. His human nature was complete, but it was united to a divine person, not a human person" -- Frank Sheed, God Became Man
____________________
"Where Peter is, there is the Church" -- St. Ambrose of Milan
|
|
|
nonsumdignus
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 7th, 2006 |
| Location: | Phoenix, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 33 |
| First Name: | Jay | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static" to be Catholic! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12th, 2007 02:30 am |
|
cajunrick wrote: nonsumdignus wrote: The Profession of Faith requires the catechumens or candidates to publicly attest that they believe EVERYTHING the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches. This requires proper instruction.
Unfortunately, even those with Masters' level training in theology may not be aware of the precise theological definition of every single word they speak or write at every moment. If they happen to use a word casually outside of that precise theological definition and are publicly chastised for it, they will most likely stop teaching ... or stop responding.
Sometimes the proper course is to determine a person's meaning, rather than to parse the words used, and then to be charitable.
If every catechist is required to be perfect in thought, word, and deed, we will have no catechists left.
Shall the Church allow heresy to be taught to candidates and catechumens in the name of "charity"? Is it charitable to the inquirers? Many of them will not know they are learning heresy!
Catechists should learn what the Church teaces -- or get out of the classroom. This is elementary stuff -- Catholicism 101 -- not esoteric theology. RCIA horror stories abound all over the U.S., placing souls at risk.
Bishops should demand that catechists be trained and that the catechism be taught throughout every diocese. Then, if catechists misstate a doctrine, inquirers will have an official reference text and can ask for an explanation.
We should recognize that the current problem in catechesis is the result of the shortage of priests. When priests were teaching, we rarely had these situations.
Jay
____________________
"All the waters of the Elbe would not yield me tears sufficient to weep for the miseries caused by the Reformation." Philip Melanchthon, Luther's cohort, Epistles, Book IV, Ep. 100
|
|
| |
