Name That Cleric!
#1
We wish to introduce to our fellow Catholic readers a little "game" which can aid us in making sometimes very sad studies interesting.

This is what we propose: We will introduce a public piece of writing, word or act of certain clerics, and you, the reader will "guess who that cleric is." The winner will gain the grand prize of furthering their knowledge and a fraternal cyber pat on the back!

Ok, here we go.

Who is the cleric who wrote this:

See the answer to this intriguing question here:

http://infundelumencordibus.blogspot.com/

P.S. If one is easily excitable, please refrain from playing Name That Cleric.  PAX.
Reply
#2
Lets play a game "vague quote with no context".

Also, even if Cardinal Ratzinger wrote false statements, he was not the Pope then and even if he were..

Well, read this: http://www.fisheaters.com/papolatry.html
Reply
#3
Who's the cleric??

Quote: What is bread? The Body of Christ. And what does it become when we eat it? The Body of Christ; not many bodies but one body. "Just as bread becomes one loaf although it is made of numerous grains of wheat..., so we too are united both with one another and with Christ.... Now, if we are nourished by the same loaf and all become the same thing, why do we not also show the same love, so as to become one in this dimension, too?"
Reply
#4
I have trouble seeing how the content of a blog is not a concern, when it is used for the basis for almost every post. An incidental link in a sig is one thing, but a post which requires reading the blog?
Reply
#5
(09-01-2009, 06:58 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I have trouble seeing how the content of a blog is not a concern, when it is used for the basis for almost every post. An incidental link in a sig is one thing, but a post which requires reading the blog?

If we could see through him more clearly than this he'd be invisible..  ;D
Reply
#6
(09-01-2009, 06:58 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I have trouble seeing how the content of a blog is not a concern, when it is used for the basis for almost every post. An incidental link in a sig is one thing, but a post which requires reading the blog?

There is nothing in this post which would be objectional to you, I am sure, if you did not know my public position concerning the crisis.

If I was a public promoter of the SSPX position, would you have a problem with me pointing out a public quote made by a known cleric?
Reply
#7
(09-01-2009, 07:18 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: There is nothing in this post which would be objectional to you, I am sure, if you did not know my public position concerning the crisis.
Attempting to spread FUD is always objectionable to me.

EDIT: Also, if you didn't know that I knew and object to your "public position", would you find anything objectionable in my post? ;)
Reply
#8
(09-01-2009, 07:26 PM)Rosarium Wrote:
(09-01-2009, 07:18 PM)Br. Pio-Francis T.O.S.F. Wrote: There is nothing in this post which would be objectional to you, I am sure, if you did not know my public position concerning the crisis.
Attempting to spread FUD is always objectionable to me.

From now on I will ignore every post made by "Br." Pio-Francis. I wonder if he realises that his name sake, Saint Padre Pio, not only was known to have attended a NO mass at times, but also openly acknowledged Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI as legitimate Popes? I don't see how these Popes can be legitimate, but not Pope Benedict XVI!
Reply
#9
(09-01-2009, 06:58 PM)Rosarium Wrote: I have trouble seeing how the content of a blog is not a concern, when it is used for the basis for almost every post. An incidental link in a sig is one thing, but a post which requires reading the blog?
Bingo! Seems to me he's 'promoting'!
Reply
#10
I have trouble seeing how it is inherently heretical or contradicts Trent.

Cdl. Ratzinger is stating that to our modern mindset we don't understand how we can be held culpable for something Adam did - we moderns think we are only to blame for our own actions.  Then he goes on to explain a possibility of how original sin caused a fall of humanity by corrupting relationships since sin itself is the destruction of our rightful relationship with God.  It is this brokenness of relationships that propagates sinfulness which we know Original Sin does - that's part of the fall.  Further, our own sin causes more sin down the line.

That does not inherently deny the fact that original sin is propagated via generation.  The theory related to original sin being propagated by generation is related to the concupiscence present in the marital act.  One way of looking at it is like this: because the marital act is not pure due to concupiscence (remember, Aquinas states Adam and Eve would not have suffered concupiscence in the marital act before the fall, but we do) the marital relationship in the act is broken.  Why? Due to the effects of the fall - a pure marital relationship before the fall would not have involved concupiscence therefore sin would not have been transmitted.  So, in the marital act itself, which is generative, there is the transmission of original sin because of the broken relationship between the man and wife (i.e., the concupiscence), and that relationship is broken because both were born stained by Original Sin, and work backward all the way to Adam.

All of that is speculative theology anyhow.  We only know that it is transmitted via generation, not the actual mechanism of it though it is thought to be a result of the concupiscence (or as we might say to align with Cdl. Ratzinger - the broken marital relationship manifested in concupiscence).

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)