Videos: Pope Benedict’s valediction

posted at 8:01 am on February 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Tomorrow, Pope Benedict XVI will become the first Pope to retire in almost 600 years, and the Catholic Church will begin the process of selecting a successor to the seat of St. Peter.  Earlier today, the Pope greeted the public for the last time before he withdraws into seclusion and prayer, offering his blessings in a variety of languages in this final Wednesday audience.  In his English-language remarks, the soon-to-be Emeritus Pope expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to lead the church, and asked for prayers and pledged to pray for all of us as well:

The AP captured the Pope’s entry into St. Peter’s Square, which filled with the faithful who wanted one last glance at Benedict XVI, and later reported on his address:

Addressing a crowd of thousands, the pope said, “I ‘d like to thank everybody for the help I have received.” He said that he has experienced both joyful and difficult moments as pope.

“My heart is open to the world,” the pope said. “I will continue to accompany the Church with my prayers.

“I am asking each of you to pray for me,” he said.

He said that he was resigning not for his own good but for the good of the church, and he thanked the faithful for understanding his decision to resign.

Some 50,000 tickets were requested for Benedict’s final master class in St. Peter’s Square; thousands more people packed the main boulevard leading to the piazza to watch Wednesday’s audience on giant TV screens.

Sky News gives a longer report of the speech:

He said his Papacy had faced joy, but also had undergone ‘difficult moments’. He said that during his time as head of the 1.2bn Catholics around the world, there had been ‘turbulent seas’.

Drawing on a Biblical analogy, he said: “The Lord gave us days of sun and of light breeze, days in which the fishing was good. There were also moments when there were stormy waters and headwinds.”

But, he said, God would not let the church sink.

He said he had resigned not for his own good, but for the good of the Church.

Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday said he was aware of the “gravity and novelty” of his decision to resign and would “accompany” the Church in prayer even after his resignation the following day.

“I took this step in full awareness of its gravity and novelty but with profound serenity of spirit,” he said.

Pope Benedict told the 50,000-strong crowd he was not “coming down from the Cross”, but would remain in the service of the Church through prayer.

Two years ago, I was one of three million people who filled the Vatican and much of Rome for the beatification of Benedict XVI’s predecessor, Blessed John Paul II.  At that time (May 2011), Rome set up giant TV screens all over the city, so that those who could not see the ceremony in person could still watch it with the global community that had assembled. The piazza which the AP notes is probably where my wife and I ended up for the beatification; it’s right outside the walls, near the Vatican Museum.

This crowd was obviously not as large, but then again, this is no longer the big story.  After tomorrow, the story shifts to the conclave, the cardinals — one of whom will be the future Pope — and the path for the Catholic Church going forward.  The next three weeks should be fascinating, even from a secular perspective, as papal transitions are usually a once-a-generation event. Blessed John Paul reminded the world just how powerful and influential the Catholic Church can be in the world, and how important any conclave may be to history.

Kathryn Jean Lopez adds a thought about the future:

He said, in part: “we have been called to renew our joyful trust in the Lord’s presence in our lives and in the life of the Church.” That, of course, is the message of his final act, to step aside as pope. He leaves this role having instituted a year focused on creed, after a pontificate of catechesis. He does so, focused on prayer, dedicating his remaining days to prayer, in what might be his most powerful role yet.

livetweeted some of it this morning. And some thoughts here and hereincluding from the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, as he headed over to Rome for a conclave that must be focused on renewal and reform — the Evangelical Catholicism, which is real Catholicism, George Weigel has written about in great detail.

Stay tuned.

Addendum: Here are a couple of posts from my earlier trip to Rome:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 6:18 PM

YOU (and others) are assuming I walk in Sola Scritura. Nope.
He speaks to His children .. stands at the door and knocks, and to those He invites in, will sit and speak with them.

So, the catechism isn’t truthful when it says that all ‘further revelation’ is derived from the Sensus Fidelium ?
Tell me where I’m mistaken about the Magisterium, please. I’m open. Honest.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Oops, sorry … To those who invite HIM in, He’ll speak.
Typing too fast… LOL.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Just saying .. what more does one need ?
I, and many others, need nothing more.

http://www.casagrandebaptistchurch.com/NamesofJesus.html

May His Light shine upon all who venture here.
We’re good. :-)

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 8:48 PM

. . . And, for the rest, I don’t believe He’s speaking metaphorically, but ‘spiritually’.
Is He truly the actual DRINK / WATER to the woman at the well ?
That, too, was a hard saying, no ? . . .

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 5:49 PM

No, what Jesus said there is not “hard” in the least. And He doesn’t even call Himself the “living water” in that passage.

Here is the passage you mentioned:

John 4:10-15:

“ Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
(The woman) said to him, “Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep; where then can you get this living water?
Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself with his children and his flocks?”
Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;
but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

(end of passage)

In John 6 Jesus clearly calls the bread and wine His Body and Blood. That was what was “hard” for the “disciples” listening. This was something they couldn’t understand and abhorrent to a Jew. John 6 is a tough nut to crack for Protestants (or former Catholics) who sincerely look at it.

Not figurative, as John clearly says in the next chapter about “living water.” John 7:37-39 In John 7 we see the writer telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.

All the early Christians interpreted John 6 the way Catholics and Orthodox do today. There are many examples of their writings from the first 3 centuries of the Church. These were men who were personally taught by St. John himself or one step removed from John. There are no examples to the contrary.

Look at the Scripture again that pannw talked about. (bless her. I also have those pesky family members always looking to be fed every day. lol)

Note: We aren’t even mentioning here the 4 times in Scripture (Gospels and St. Paul in 1 Corinthians Ch 11,) where Jesus repeats that “this is my Body.” Repetition in Scripture is significant in interpretation.

Nowhere does the Bible say or imply He was being figurative about eating His flesh.

So we turn to other Scripture to confirm or contradict that plain interpretation. Since the Bible must be taken as a whole, one complete Gospel, we use Scripture interpreting Scripture. John 6 which says, “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (or “food indeed” or “food verily”)

Then some of Jesus’ disciples who followed Him, (not just those in the crowd listening) said “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” . . . As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

These were men who knew Him, followed Jesus around as disciples. They left Him and no longer followed Him. And Jesus let them go. He didn’t call after them, “no, you misunderstand. I was speaking figuratively.” (As John clearly says in the next chapter 7 about “living water.” John 7:37-39 Again, here we see St. John telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.) He did not explain it to them differently even though they were “shocked.” In fact, when they began murmuring their displeasure with what Jesus said, He started using even stronger language.

“How can he give us his flesh to eat? . . . this saying is hard; who can accept it?” What would have been so “hard” if Jesus had explained to them it was simply a metaphor and explained why?

Would the Jesus you know allow them to misunderstand and believe an untruth without an explanation or correction?

And Jesus would not have used the language of flesh and blood for a metaphor to the Jews. Drinking blood was abhorrent to them, unclean and forbidden. The Passover was only to eat the flesh of the lamb. Jesus, our Paschal Lamb, said “eat my flesh.” To eat a person’s flesh in the Old Testament meant to conquer their enemy. So Jesus was telling us to conquer Him? No. Jesus used that language because that is exactly and actually what He meant.

Also in John 6, Jesus says He is the “bread that came down from Heaven” and compares Himself to the manna “bread from Heaven” that the Israelites ate. Manna was a real physical miracle, actual miraculous bread from Heaven. And Jesus said that we should eat the Bread from Heaven that is Himself. All the Old Testament prefigurements are lesser signs that point to the New Testament fulfillment. All the types, covenants and precursors are greater in the New Testament. Like the new Adam or Jesus being our Davidic King forever, He is the new Pasqual Lamb of God, the new covenant in His blood, etc.

This would be the only time it would be the reverse, if Jesus was only speaking figuratively or as a metaphor. It would be actual miraculous bread from Heaven pointing to only a symbol or sign in the New Covenant. A symbol and analogy is less than a physical miracle. And the manna was real bread to eat and a real miracle. So Jesus being bread from Heaven was not real and not a miracle? Only a sign and symbol of the salvation He gave us? Or was one miracle of the old covenant pointing to a greater miracle in the new? That is how the rest of the Bible works. So why should John 6 be different?

The analogy would have to be an even greater miracle in the New Testament. (Like the miracle of the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.)

In Exodus the Israelites were instructed by God to “eat the flesh” of the unblemished lamb. And in John 6 Jesus tells us to “eat my flesh.” And the Greek words used for “eat” and “flesh” were very graphic. Not figurative. Back then those words meant “gnaw/chew on my meat, physical flesh.” (Later that Greek word for “eat” evolved to mean regular human eating and consuming.)

Exodus says the Passover meal was to be a “memorial feast” and a “perpetual institution.” Perpetual is forever. Yet Christians stopped doing it. Did they? Or did the Eucharist become that perpetual institution. “The wedding supper of the lamb” that we see even in Heaven in the book of Revelation.

And as far as the memorial feast, Jews believed it was more than a remembering, it was a participation in the first Passover. Similarly, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 quotes Jesus in the Gospels saying to “do this in remembrance of me,” proclaiming Christ’s sacrifice until He comes again. A memorial feast. And the word Paul uses is “anamnesis.” There is an aspect to this word, like the Hebrew one in Exodus, which also means more than a mental recollection. Like a present participation with the past.

1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

And then Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The King James Version is even stronger. “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. . . . eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

So we are to discern the body. And both these translations mean one would be guilty of a crime against the body of Jesus Himself. Clearly this is not a mere symbol of Christ. Or something only spiritual. Strong language. With strong consequences. His actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. His actual presence, His substance.

Then in Luke 24, the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus at first did not recognize Jesus, even though their hearts were “burning” inside them when He spoke of Scripture. But, “while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, . . . HE WAS MADE KNOWN TO THEM IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD.”

At the end of John’s Gospel we see Jesus telling Peter to “feed my sheep” and “feed my lambs.”

There are also the prophet Malachi’s “pure offerings” and the book of Hebrews where Jesus is our High Priest forever in the “order of Melchisedek,” who offered bread and wine.

The Eucharist is an “unbloody sacrifice.” We are present at Christ’s one sacrifice at Calvary and Christ is making that same offering of His present today in an unbloody way through the gifts of bread and wine. Then His glorified Body is made present under the appearances of that bread and wine. A “pure offering.”

A pure offering that the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, talks about, when God tells the Israelites that one day He will not accept their sacrifices, but will accept the sacrifices of all nations that will offer pure offerings. The early Christians said that Malachi foretold the Eucharist.

This is from the 1st century Didache 14:

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]”

John 6:63:
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Some Protestants take this one sentence out of the whole chapter and thinks it negates all the direct and strong language in the chapter.

Was Jesus saying that eating His flesh is important over and over again in definitive language throughout the whole chapter, then saying, “never mind, not important, my flesh is meaningless, it’s of no avail.”

Verse 63 isn’t talking about Jesus’ flesh, it’s talking about OUR flesh. Jesus wasn’t saying His flesh was “of no avail.” How could Jesus’ flesh EVER be described as being of no avail? “The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” Flesh that died on the cross; flesh that was sacrificed for our salvation. Flesh that rose again and ascended into Heaven (His actual Body, His Flesh, not just His Spirit) and His flesh that will come again, His resurrected and glorified Body.

When Jesus is saying “spirit” here it means that one can only understand this truth about the Eucharist and trust His Words here with faith. The Spirit gives us faith to believe His truth on the Eucharist. Without the Spirit we have no faith and our lives, our bodies, our flesh is useless alone to come to the truth. Our flesh is of no avail on our own. So some of the disciple who followed Him could not have faith in Jesus’ Words about the Eucharist because they were using their human judgment, not relying on the Spirit to help them understand. As the excerpt below says, “natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable.”

Spirit does not mean symbolic. The word Spirit is never used that way in the Bible.

John 6 begins with Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes and feeding the multitude with regular food. Then the next day the people return to Jesus and He says in verses 26 and 27:

“Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” ”

Jesus is telling them that they only came back to be fed physical food to sustain their bodies and not their souls. Then He discusses the “bread from Heaven”, Himself, (the Eucharist to Catholics and Orthodox.)

Then in the final paragraph of the chapter verse 63 it says,
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Christ is wrapping up the whole Chapter here and going back to what he said in verses 26 and 27. Telling them not to look for food for their bodies, because “the flesh is of no avail.” The words he spoke, the bread of life, “are spirit and life.” Not the bread He gave them the day before. The bread He will give us all at the Last Supper and for all eternity are life itself. He is saying our souls are more important than our bodies.

Elisa on February 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Didn’t mean to submit that.

Here is another one with the bolds to make it easier to read quickly.

Elisa on February 27, 2013 at 8:53 PM

. . And, for the rest, I don’t believe He’s speaking metaphorically, but ‘spiritually’.
Is He truly the actual DRINK / WATER to the woman at the well ?
That, too, was a hard saying, no ? . . .

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 5:49 PM

No, what Jesus said there is not “hard” in the least. And He doesn’t even call Himself the “living water” in that passage.

Here is the passage you mentioned:

John 4:10-15:

“ Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God and who is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”
(The woman) said to him, “Sir, you do not even have a bucket and the cistern is deep; where then can you get this living water?
Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us this cistern and drank from it himself with his children and his flocks?”
Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;
but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may not be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

(end of passage)

In John 6 Jesus clearly calls the bread and wine His Body and Blood. That was what was “hard” for the “disciples” listening. This was something they couldn’t understand and abhorrent to a Jew. John 6 is a tough nut to crack for Protestants (or former Catholics) who sincerely look at it.

Not figurative, as John clearly says in the next chapter about “living water.” John 7:37-39 In John 7 we see the writer telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.

All the early Christians interpreted John 6 the way Catholics and Orthodox do today.
There are many examples of their writings from the first 3 centuries of the Church. These were men who were personally taught by St. John himself or one step removed from John. There are no examples to the contrary.

Look at the Scripture again that pannw talked about. (bless her. I also have those pesky family members always looking to be fed every day. lol)

Note: We aren’t even mentioning here the 4 times in Scripture (Gospels and St. Paul in 1 Corinthians Ch 11,) where Jesus repeats that “this is my Body.” Repetition in Scripture is significant in interpretation.

Nowhere does the Bible say or imply He was being figurative about eating His flesh.

So we turn to other Scripture to confirm or contradict that plain interpretation. Since the Bible must be taken as a whole, one complete Gospel, we use Scripture interpreting Scripture. John 6 which says, “for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.” (or “food indeed” or “food verily”)

Then some of Jesus’ disciples who followed Him, (not just those in the crowd listening) said “this saying is hard; who can accept it?” . . . As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.”

These were men who knew Him, followed Jesus around as disciples. They left Him and no longer followed Him. And Jesus let them go. He didn’t call after them, “no, you misunderstand. I was speaking figuratively.” (As John clearly says in the next chapter 7 about “living water.” John 7:37-39 Again, here we see St. John telling us specifically that the living water we will receive is figurative of the Holy Spirit, not real drink.) He did not explain it to them differently even though they were “shocked.” In fact, when they began murmuring their displeasure with what Jesus said, He started using even stronger language.

“How can he give us his flesh to eat? . . . this saying is hard; who can accept it?” What would have been so “hard” if Jesus had explained to them it was simply a metaphor and explained why?

Would the Jesus you know allow them to misunderstand and believe an untruth without an explanation or correction?

And Jesus would not have used the language of flesh and blood for a metaphor to the Jews. Drinking blood was abhorrent to them, unclean and forbidden. The Passover was only to eat the flesh of the lamb. Jesus, our Paschal Lamb, said “eat my flesh.” To eat a person’s flesh in the Old Testament meant to conquer their enemy. So Jesus was telling us to conquer Him? No. Jesus used that language because that is exactly and actually what He meant.

Also in John 6, Jesus says He is the “bread that came down from Heaven” and compares Himself to the manna “bread from Heaven” that the Israelites ate. Manna was a real physical miracle, actual miraculous bread from Heaven. And Jesus said that we should eat the Bread from Heaven that is Himself. All the Old Testament prefigurements are lesser signs that point to the New Testament fulfillment. All the types, covenants and precursors are greater in the New Testament. Like the new Adam or Jesus being our Davidic King forever, He is the new Pasqual Lamb of God, the new covenant in His blood, etc.

This would be the only time it would be the reverse, if Jesus was only speaking figuratively or as a metaphor. It would be actual miraculous bread from Heaven pointing to only a symbol or sign in the New Covenant. A symbol and analogy is less than a physical miracle. And the manna was real bread to eat and a real miracle. So Jesus being bread from Heaven was not real and not a miracle? Only a sign and symbol of the salvation He gave us? Or was one miracle of the old covenant pointing to a greater miracle in the new? That is how the rest of the Bible works. So why should John 6 be different?

The analogy would have to be an even greater miracle in the New Testament. (Like the miracle of the Eucharist in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.)

In Exodus the Israelites were instructed by God to “eat the flesh” of the unblemished lamb. And in John 6 Jesus tells us to “eat my flesh.” And the Greek words used for “eat” and “flesh” were very graphic. Not figurative. Back then those words meant “gnaw/chew on my meat, physical flesh.” (Later that Greek word for “eat” evolved to mean regular human eating and consuming.)

Exodus says the Passover meal was to be a “memorial feast” and a “perpetual institution.” Perpetual is forever. Yet Christians stopped doing it. Did they? Or did the Eucharist become that perpetual institution. “The wedding supper of the lamb” that we see even in Heaven in the book of Revelation.

And as far as the memorial feast, Jews believed it was more than a remembering, it was a participation in the first Passover. Similarly, St. Paul in 1 Corinthians Chapter 11 quotes Jesus in the Gospels saying to “do this in remembrance of me,” proclaiming Christ’s sacrifice until He comes again. A memorial feast. And the word Paul uses is “anamnesis.” There is an aspect to this word, like the Hebrew one in Exodus, which also means more than a mental recollection. Like a present participation with the past.

1 Corinthians 10:16: “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

And then Paul says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

The King James Version is even stronger. “shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. . . . eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”

So we are to discern the body. And both these translations mean one would be guilty of a crime against the body of Jesus Himself. Clearly this is not a mere symbol of Christ. Or something only spiritual. Strong language. With strong consequences. His actual Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. His actual presence, His substance.

Then in Luke 24, the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus at first did not recognize Jesus, even though their hearts were “burning” inside them when He spoke of Scripture. But, “while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, . . . HE WAS MADE KNOWN TO THEM IN THE BREAKING OF THE BREAD.”

At the end of John’s Gospel we see Jesus telling Peter to “feed my sheep” and “feed my lambs.”

There are also the prophet Malachi’s “pure offerings” and the book of Hebrews where Jesus is our High Priest forever in the “order of Melchisedek,” who offered bread and wine.

The Eucharist is an “unbloody sacrifice.” We are present at Christ’s one sacrifice at Calvary and Christ is making that same offering of His present today in an unbloody way through the gifts of bread and wine. Then His glorified Body is made present under the appearances of that bread and wine. A “pure offering.”

A pure offering that the last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, talks about, when God tells the Israelites that one day He will not accept their sacrifices, but will accept the sacrifices of all nations that will offer pure offerings. The early Christians said that Malachi foretold the Eucharist.

This is from the 1st century Didache 14:

“Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]”

John 6:63:
“It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.”

Some Protestants take this one sentence out of the whole chapter and thinks it negates all the direct and strong language in the chapter.

Was Jesus saying that eating His flesh is important over and over again in definitive language throughout the whole chapter, then saying, “never mind, not important, my flesh is meaningless, it’s of no avail.”

Verse 63 isn’t talking about Jesus’ flesh, it’s talking about OUR flesh. Jesus wasn’t saying His flesh was “of no avail.” How could Jesus’ flesh EVER be described as being of no avail? “The Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us.” Flesh that died on the cross; flesh that was sacrificed for our salvation. Flesh that rose again and ascended into Heaven (His actual Body, His Flesh, not just His Spirit) and His flesh that will come again, His resurrected and glorified Body.

When Jesus is saying “spirit” here it means that one can only understand this truth about the Eucharist and trust His Words here with faith. The Spirit gives us faith to believe His truth on the Eucharist. Without the Spirit we have no faith and our lives, our bodies, our flesh is useless alone to come to the truth. Our flesh is of no avail on our own. So some of the disciple who followed Him could not have faith in Jesus’ Words about the Eucharist because they were using their human judgment, not relying on the Spirit to help them understand. As the excerpt below says, “natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable.”

Spirit does not mean symbolic. The word Spirit is never used that way in the Bible.

John 6 begins with Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes and feeding the multitude with regular food. Then the next day the people return to Jesus and He says in verses 26 and 27:

“Jesus answered them and said, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you are looking for me not because you saw signs but because you ate the loaves and were filled. Do not work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.” ”

Jesus is telling them that they only came back to be fed physical food to sustain their bodies and not their souls. Then He discusses the “bread from Heaven”, Himself, (the Eucharist to Catholics and Orthodox.)

Then in the final paragraph of the chapter verse 63 it says,
“It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

Christ is wrapping up the whole Chapter here and going back to what he said in verses 26 and 27. Telling them not to look for food for their bodies, because “the flesh is of no avail.” The words he spoke, the bread of life, “are spirit and life.” Not the bread He gave them the day before. The bread He will give us all at the Last Supper and for all eternity are life itself. He is saying our souls are more important than our bodies.

Hope this helps, pambi. You said you are truly open to a sincere relook at Catholic teaching.

Nothing could be more important than the Eucharist. It is Jesus Himself. The center of worship from the first century on. If they were wrong in the first centuries about the Eucharist, then how can anyone trust what they wrote and compiled into the Bible?

Good night to you and God bless you and all here.

Elisa on February 27, 2013 at 9:05 PM

Elisa on February 27, 2013 at 9:05 PM

I honor you Elisa, and completely devoid of any snark, honest.
You are a good and faithful servant of the church.
Blessings ! And good night.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 9:18 PM

I just don’t need the Catholic Church to eat of the Bread of Spirit and Life and Water, etc.
Pax. .

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Elisa on February 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Agnus Dei,
quitollis peccata mundi: miserere nobis.
Agnus Dei,
quitollis peccata mundi: miserere nobis.
Agnus Dei,
quitollis peccata mundi: dona nobis pacem.

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 9:56 PM

OT…Looks like Catholic Parochial Schools in the UK will be closed.

The site has the correspondence in PDF form at the link.

‘To many of us in the United States, this is frightening, but realize, we’re not far behind (we’ve been trailing about 10 years behind England).

Catholic schools will be forced to teach about gay marriage

Read correspondence between bishops and Equalities Minister20 February 2013, 9:00
This week the bishops’ conference of England and Wales published its correspondence with Maria Miller, Minister for Women and Equalities, on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
The Government rejected proposed amendments by the Church to its gay marriage Bill, and said the new definition of marriage will have to be taught in Catholic schools.
The Church suggested a number of amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill during a meeting with Culture Minister Maria Miller in January.
In a letter to Archbishop Smith that was released yesterday, Ms Miller said teachers in Catholic schools will need to reflect the fact that ‘marriage is open to both opposite and same sex couples.’ She said, however that ‘the discussion or criticism of same sex marriage [in schools] would not be ‘of itself’ discrimination under the current law,’ and that this would only be the case if this took place ‘in an inappropriate manner or context’ which resulted in discrimination.
You can read a letter to Archbishop Peter Smith from Ms Miller dated 3 February 2013, and Archbishop Peter Smith’s response. This is in the form of a detailed memorandum prepared with expert legal advice from Professor Christopher McCrudden. Also attached is a summary of the memorandum.
Both the Secretary of State’s letter and the memorandum were submitted to the Public Bill Committee, which will be considering amendments to the Bill in the coming weeks.

You can read a letter to Archbishop Peter Smith from Ms Miller dated 3 February 2013, and Archbishop Peter Smith’s response. This is in the form of a detailed memorandum prepared with expert legal advice from Professor Christopher McCrudden. Also attached is a summary of the memorandum.
Both the Secretary of State’s letter and the memorandum were submitted to the Public Bill Committee, which will be considering amendments to the Bill in the coming weeks.

Link:
http://www.battleforthecoreoftheworld.com/2013/02/england-catholic-schools-must-teach-gay.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+The

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 10:05 PM

It’s awfully late and I don’t know if you are still here, but…

He speaks to His children .. stands at the door and knocks, and to those He invites in, will sit and speak with them.

So, the catechism isn’t truthful when it says that all ‘further revelation’ is derived from the Sensus Fidelium ?
Tell me where I’m mistaken about the Magisterium, please. I’m open. Honest.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 6:24 PM

You do not have the catechism correctly represented. It does not say that further revelation is derived from the sensus fidelium, but rather Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

And to further understand what is meant by sensus fidelium, I give you Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict challenges dissenters misusing sensus fidelium to mean public opinion.

Oh, how I am going to miss that man!

As to Jesus speaking to His children…in what way do you mean that? Do you mean that by prayer you are able to feel His presense in your conscience and thus understand, and know right from wrong, etc, or do you mean He speaks out loud? What has He told you about certain things, for instance, the validity of divorce, in vitro fertilization, contraception, or the position of His mother in salvation history? If you believe He has told you something different than what the Church teaches on these things, how do you explain why He would tell you one thing, while telling His Vicar, the successor to Peter, who was given the authority to loose and bind, something else? One of you is obviously wrong, because Jesus isn’t ‘divided’. He is not two faced. By what authority do you decide what is a sin and what is not? Do you beleive you have ‘the keys to the kingdom’ and if so why do you have them, when Jesus didn’t even give them to His apostles, aside from the one, Simon, who is called Peter?

Do you have a denominational church where you attend services? If so, why, if Jesus speaks to you all you need to know? What authority does the preacher there have to teach? From Scripture, we learn that one of the first things Peter did with the authority given him was to call for a replacement for Judas, thereby establishing apostolic succession. It is handed down to this day within the Church, through the successors of the apostles. Where does your preacher get his authority? If you do not have one, why not? We are taught in Scripture and in Tradition the importance of joining together. Jesus told His apostles, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. Why would He send them to teach if He would simply teach us individually? For that matter, why did he tell them to go and teach, rather than write all these things down so everyone can read them and decide for themselves? The consummation of the world has not occurred, so He is still with those teaching, wouldn’t you think? Why did they then go out and teach that we were to gather for the Eucharist on The Lord’s Day of the Lord, to appoint Bishops and deacons, confess our sins before being admitted to the Eucharist, recieve those who teach…?

And on and on… both Scripture and Church Tradition point to the fact that the Church holds the fullness of Truth. Please continue searching for the Truth. As a cradle Catholic, I was woefully lacking in my study of Scripture, but have tried to remedy that these last few years, and the more I search, the more I find the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Here is my favorite super user friendly place to learn what the Church teaches and why . My favorite part is the quotes section from the Early Church.

Now time for bed! Good night.

pannw on February 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Ooopss…Ha, so many posts I missed while taking forever to finish mine.

pannw on February 27, 2013 at 10:15 PM

If you can’t be bothered to spell the name of the book correctly, what reason do I have to believe you got anything right?

The Monster on February 27, 2013 at 3:59 PM

For one, I didn’t spell the name of the book incorrectly. Second, you don’t have to believe a word I say — but if your major criterium is to say that because someone added an “s” to Revelation, their argument is therefore false — well, I’ve read a lot of papers in my day with dreadful misspellings, but that didn’t make the material in those papers any less true — or false, for that matter.

I’m pointing out that arguing on the merits is the way to go, not seizing on a minor fault in spelling or in pronunciation and using that to call the statement made false.

When I first moved to LA, I called a major thoroughfare Se-pool-vee-da because I’d never heard it pronounced correctly, and one of the towns near San Diego was La-joll-la. It took me just a bit to figure out that I was saying these wrong, but not because people were correcting me — they understood what I was saying, translated it properly, and didn’t fault my directions. My directions weren’t wrong — coming as they were from a Thomas Bros. map — but how I pronounced them was.

That you understood that the extra “s” ought to be removed to make sense of the comment was obvious from your response. Again, it’s better to debate on the merits of your opponent’s argument, not on his or her elocution.

unclesmrgol on February 27, 2013 at 10:16 PM

Do you have a denominational church where you attend services? If so, why, if Jesus speaks to you all you need to know? What authority does the preacher there have to teach?

Yes, I am listening to our pastor, via Ustream, as I type, so forgive me if I sound distracted.
Why can only Catholics be anointed with the truth ??
If what He tells me/us does not agree with the written Word, we do not accept it as truth.
There are many instructions in the Word as how to discern truth from falsehood.
We follow those, same as His early church did.
Yes, He has spoken out loud to me .. Especially when I decide I don’t want to listen !!
And, He LOVES to waltz, too, by the way.
Pax.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 10:22 PM

When we talk, He is MOST interested in how He can continue to form His nature within me, NOT what man decides is über-important (rules). So, I can’t answer you on what He’s told me about divorce, IN GENERAL, etc.
Mt. Sinai vs Mt Zion .. Hebrews.
He DID intervene mightily when I’d decide our marriage should end, because of the only scriptural reason for it, tho. I had scriptural cause, and He’d agreed that I did, but it just wasn’t His will for us, the divorce. That was 26 years ago, and His will in that has produced uncountable lessons as to His heart, His perfect will, etc..
Pax.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 10:37 PM

Hmm .. How many Catholics were there, within the early scriptures ?
Did that keep them from knowing themTruth ?
Are they doomed ?
Just asking.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Hmm .. How many Catholics were there, within the early scriptures ?
Did that keep them from knowing themTruth ?
Are they doomed ?
Just asking.

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 11:18 PM

They were called Catholic because they were universal christian followers of Christ in parishes founded by the Apostles…

Catholic means Universal in Greek

The Holy See is in Rome and has been since St. Peter established his Bishopric.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome in Apostolic succession from St. Peter.

St. Peter’s Basilica was built over the Tomb of St. Peter

St Paul’s Outside the Walls Basilica was built over the Tomb of St. Paul

Both are in Rome.

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 11:43 PM

And to further understand what is meant by sensus fidelium, I give you Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict challenges dissenters misusing sensus fidelium to mean public opinion.

Oh, how I am going to miss that man!
pannw on February 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I will miss him as well & will pray for him as he is praying for us.

We are fortunate in Pope Benedict XVI in that he is a marvelous teacher, a formidable theologian and we have his writings.

His reforms have set the groundwork and I pray his successor continues the reforms.

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 11:43 PM

Ok, so anyone who believes in the apostles’ teachings is therefore catholic ?

I believe in the one apostolic church, since belief in Christ’s salvation can be universal, but if one doen’t believe Peter was the head of ‘His church, universal’ where does that leave them ?

pambi on February 27, 2013 at 11:55 PM

BTW, I do not misconstrue the sensus fidelium to mean public opinion, but rather a consensus of what the Fathers agree to as truth, as the majority believes the Spirit is saying, amongst them.
Isn’t that what it means ?
Just wanted to clarify.

pambi on February 28, 2013 at 12:13 AM

Wiki, granted, but who, here, disagrees with this ? Anyone ?
Who are these ‘People of God’ ??
Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)

“The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary were defined predominantly on the basis of the sensus fidei. Pope Benedict XVI said: “Faith both in the Immaculate Conception and in the bodily Assumption of the Virgin was already present in the People of God, while theology had not yet found the key to interpreting it in the totality of the doctrine of the faith. The People of God therefore precede theologians and this is all thanks to that supernatural sensus fidei, namely, that capacity infused by the Holy Spirit that qualifies us to embrace the reality of the faith with humility of heart and mind. In this sense, the People of God is the ‘teacher that goes first’ and must then be more deeply examined and intellectually accepted by theology.“[19] In each case, the dogma was defined “not so much because of proofs in scripture or ancient tradition, but due to a profound sensus fidelium and the Magisterium”.[20] Each of the two popes concerned consulted the bishops of the world about the faith of the community before proceeding to define the dogma.[21]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensus_fidelium#Use_by_the_magisterium

pambi on February 28, 2013 at 1:01 AM

pambi on February 28, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Jesus founded exactly one Church. Your guess as to what that Church is — you are welcome to guess a church whose theology is less than 500 years old, or you can place your bet on the Church which traces its lineage all the way back to Peter — and from him to Jesus the Christ. Jesus did not say he was founding multiple Churches — which is what we have today, or we would not be having the argument we are having here.

In this modern world, any person, having read Scripture a few times, can proclaim themselves an authority — a pastor, if you will. They can open a church, and many people will come. Now, it’s faintly possible that the Holy Spirit has moved them to this act, but that would imply that there are two churches with the truth on this planet — or that the older one has completely erred and must now be discarded. Given what Jesus says in Scripture about his Church, either of these scenarios is quite unlikely.

So, is it possible that Westboro Baptist Church (the last two words being used very loosely) has the way and the truth and the life? After all, they have a very literal interpretation of Scripture — but is their interpretation correct?

Now, vocabulary — and Wikipedia is not necessarily your friend in this if you want to understand how Catholics view the words you are bandying about.

sensus fidelium means “sense of the faithful”. It means that the Church that Jesus founded commits no error in the manner in which it transmits Jesus’ message from age to age. It is aided by the Holy Spirit in doing so. Individual humans may be subject to error, but the Church itself is incapable of error.

magisterium means “sacred teaching authority”. If you study Scripture, who corrects your interpretation of Scripture to assure that you have obtained the proper knowledge? One would assume that you interpret scripture with the aid of some authority. You will most likely have by your side a concordance and a commentary. If you are really interested in proper interpretation of Scripture, you will have carefully vetted your tools for truthfulness. In that regard, us Catholics are really lucky — we can look for two signatures — a “nihil obstat” (nothing stands in the way) and an “imprimitur” (let it be printed) — the two together meaning that the Church officially finds no error in the tools and, hence, that the tools will not inadvertently lead us into error. Even our Bibles have these two essential approvals.

Paul describes the role of the Church in doing both of these (keeping the truth; having a teaching authority) in 1 Tim:

I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Now, you are welcome to avoid the Church, or to spurn it, but now at least you understand where we Catholics stand from a Scriptural point of view.

unclesmrgol on February 28, 2013 at 1:50 AM

workingclass artist on February 27, 2013 at 10:05 PM

In the words of Theoden, as the evil hordes attack, “And so it begins.”

“I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor a martyr in the public square.”~ Francis Cardinal George of Chicago.

I’m not sure I believe it will take that long. Things are happening so quickly. So few years ago it was sodomy that was a crime, (only 10 years ago Texas’ law was stricken down) and now, it is the Church’s teaching that is outlawed in England (and Canada will be right behind them, and then no doubt, the US, though Obama and his admin might beat them to it).

Now is a good time to remember Jesus’ promises.

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Deo Gratias.

pannw on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 AM

pambi on February 28, 2013 at 1:01 AM

The Marian dogma existed already in Tradition.

With regard to Marian dogma, many traditions existed long before these became dogma. Theologians throughout Church history have defined and refined understanding to avoid error and schism.

In the earliest days of the faith…The church battled heresy and anti-christian propaganda. For example, the early Christians were accused of being cannibals, because of the distortion of the Eucharist in propaganda written by both Roman authorities & Jewish Rabbinical authorities who considered the Jewish converts to Christianity a dangerous heresy since the Romans considered these Christians a troublesome Jewish sect. For the Jewish Rabbis their objection was both theological and political.
(The Nag-Hammadi Gnostic Apocrypha are an early example, as are early Jewish & Roman propaganda pamphlets/commentary distributed throughout the Roman world…in this case Alexandria, which had the largest Jewish population after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD)

Yet…Christ’s Church continued to grow.

For 300 years Catholics suffered persecution within the Roman Empire until Constantine ended it to insure stability.

There are four dogmas stating Mary’s personal relationship with God and her role in human salvation .

1) Divine Motherhood

Mary’s divine motherhood was proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Council of Ephesus (431) attributed to Mary the title, Mother of God. This needs to be read against the Council’s declaration that in Christ there are two natures, one divine and one human, but only one person. Indeed, according to the Council the holy virgin is the Mother of God since she begot according to the flesh the Word of God made flesh. This decision was further explained by the Council of Chalcedon (451) which says with regard to Mary’s divine motherhood:

“…begotten from the Father before the ages as regards his godhead, and in the last days, the same, because of us and because of our salvation begotten from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as regards his manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten…”

Mary’s Divine Motherhood was not the object of an independent or exclusive dogmatic declaration. The statement is embedded in texts defining the person and natures of Jesus Christ. Thus, the dogma of Divine Motherhood becomes an integral part of the christological dogma. This does not diminish its definitive and binding character. The dogma of Divine Motherhood is generally accepted by all Christian denominations.

2) Perpetual Virginity

The expression perpetual virginity, ever-virgin, or simply “Mary the Virgin” refers primarily to the conception and birth of Jesus. From the first formulations of faith, especially in baptismal formulas or professions of faith, the Church professed that Jesus Christ was conceived without human seed by the power of the Holy Spirit only. Here lies the decisive meaning of expressions such as “conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary,” “Mary’s virginal conception,” or “virgin birth.” The early baptismal formula (since the 3rd century) state Mary’s virginity without further explaining it, but there is no doubt about its physical meaning. Later statements are more explicit. Mary conceived “without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth” (Council of the Lateran, 649).

Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ’s birth. It stresses thus the radical novelty of the Incarnation and Mary’s no less radical and exclusive dedication to her mission as mother of her Son, Jesus Christ. Vatican II reiterated the teaching about Mary, the Ever-Virgin, by stating that Christ’s birth did not diminish Mary’s virginal integrity but sanctified it . The Catechism of the Catholic Church ponders the deeper meaning of the virgin bride and perpetual virginity (499-507). It also maintains that Jesus Christ was Mary’s only child. The so-called “brothers and sisters” are close relations.

3) Immaculate Conception

The solemn definition of Mary’s Immaculate Conception is like Divine Motherhood and Perpetual Virginity part of the christological doctrine, but it was proclaimed as an independent dogma by Pope Pius IX in his Apostolic Constitution “Ineffabilis Deus” (December 8, 1854). Though highlighting a privilege of Mary it in fact stresses the dignity and holiness required to become “Mother of God.” The privilege of the Immaculate Conception is the source and basis for Mary’s all-holiness as Mother of God.

More specifically, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states “that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege from Almighty God and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, was kept free of every stain of original sin.”

This dogma has both a “negative” and a “positive” meaning which complement each other. The “negative” meaning stresses Mary’s freedom from original sin thanks to the anticipated or retroactive (here called preventive) grace of Christ’s redemptive act. By the same token, the dogma suggests Mary’s all-holiness. This “positive” meaning is the consequence of the absence of original sin. Mary’s life is permanently and intimately related to God, and thus she is the all-holy.

Although difficult to explain, original sin provokes disorderliness in thought and behavior, especially with regard to the primacy of God’s presence in our life. Consequently, in declaring Mary immaculately conceived, the Church sees in Mary one who never denied God the least sign of love. Thus, the dogma declares that from her beginning Mary was exceptionally holy and in constant union with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit.

4) The Assumption

This marian dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.

A distinction needs to be made between Ascension and Assumption. Jesus Christ, Son of God and Risen Lord, ascended into heaven, a sign of divine power. Mary, on the contrary, was elevated or assumed into heaven by the power and grace of God.

The dogma states that “Mary, Immaculate Mother of God ever Virgin, after finishing the course of her life on earth, was taken up in body and soul to heavenly glory.” This definition as well as that of the Immaculate Conception makes not only reference to the universal, certain and firm consent of the Magisterium but makes allusion to the concordant belief of the faithful. The Assumption had been a part of the Church’s spiritual and doctrinal patrimony for centuries. It had been part of theological reflection but also of the liturgy and was part of the sense of the faithful.

This dogma has no direct basis in scripture. It was nonetheless declared “divinely revealed,” meaning that it is contained implicitly in divine Revelation. It may be understood as the logical conclusion of Mary’s vocation on earth, and the way she lived her life in union with God and her mission. The assumption may be seen as a consequence of Divine Motherhood. Being through, with, and for her Son on earth, it would seem fitting for Mary to be through, with, and for her Son in heaven, too. She was on earth the generous associate of her Son. The Assumption tells us that this association continues in heaven. Mary is indissolubly linked to her Son on earth and in heaven.

In heaven, Mary’s active involvement in salvation history continues: “Taken up to heaven, she did not lay aside her salvific duty … By her maternal love she cares for the brothers and sisters of her Son who still journey on earth” (LG). Mary is the “eschatological icon of the Church” (CCC 972), meaning the Church contemplates in Mary her own end of times…”

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM

pannw on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Hedge Schools in Great Britain?

Perhaps Catholics in the UK will send their children to Ireland for schooling?

In any event…The Bishops have been instructed by Pope Benedict XVI and in this country are united.

Pope Benedict XVI strengthened Canon law on Episcopate oversight with regards to Charities in response to secular coercion, such as we see here with Obamacare.

“Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio on Catholic charities and the role of episcopal oversight establishes new decrees that apply to adoption agencies associated with the Catholic church and the Bishops Conference international development agency CAFOD.

What’s important about this Motu Proprio is that it closes off a loop hole in Canon Law that has meant that some Catholic charities act as if they’re independent of their local bishop. The Holy Father’s new decrees establishes for the first time that the bishop has the duty and authority to oversee Catholic charities alongside his role as teacher of the faith and authority about the celebration of sacraments..”

http://protectthepope.com/?p=6142

It is likely that the next Pope will enact Canon Law to protect Catholic education from secular onslaught.

In her long history…The Church has seen many Neros.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

In the words of Theoden, as the evil hordes attack, “And so it begins.”

“I expect to die in my bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor a martyr in the public square.”~ Francis Cardinal George of Chicago.
pannw on February 28, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Yes.

Preparing the flock.

“We will be a smaller and purer church” – Pope Benedict XVI

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 9:30 AM

In her long history…The Church has seen many Neros.

workingclass artist on February 28, 2013 at 9:22 AM

Yep. Oddly enough, (or not surprisingly) Nero was into homosexual ‘marriage’ too. Nothing new under the sun…

Come Holy Spirit.

pannw on February 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2