Seven questions from a skecptic, any anwsers?

1.How is it a sacrifice for one to die knowing that he or she will be alive again in a few days?

2.In the English language, to die means to "permanently cease" to be alive. If Jesus died, then he's not alive. If he is alive, then he didn't die. Which is it? Did Jesus die or not?

3. Romans 3:23 says "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life..." Since Jesus was allegedly a deity, and therefore immortal, the only death he could possibly experience was physical. So, if the death that Paul was referring to in the above verse was physical, then we all eventually pay for our own sins when we die, and therefore we should all go to heaven; but if the death he was referring to was the death of the soul, then Jesus never paid that price and we're all going to hell to do it for him. In what sense did Jesus die that is in any way different from the way we all die?

4.So, Jesus died, as we all do. He suffered, as many have. So, in the context of the crucifixion, what did Jesus do that was so special?

6.If heaven is so great and wonderful, then why did God create us down here? Why not just create us in heaven and skip all of the problems?

7.What can God gain through the exercising of grace that he couldn't gain through some more direct, more just means? (To wit: If every sin we commit is deserving of death, then when Adam and Eve sinned, wouldn't it have been more just to send them to hell immediately and start fresh with another pair of beings? If he did that enough times, then he probably would've eventually created a pair that didn't screw up, and Adam and Eve would be getting what they deserve, and the human race would be living happily running about the trees naked today with no knowledge of good or evil, and not flying airplanes into buildings. Does that not make more sense to you? In this way, Adam and Eve would've gotten the punishment they allegedly deserved, and the rest of us wouldn't have inherited a sin nature.) source: http://www.geocities.com/whispersessions/theistfaqs.htm

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002

Answers

Keewee, you had me in a state of shock there right down to the last sentence. That's when I discovered that you had copied this entire set of questions from http://www.geocities.com/whispersessions/theistfaqs.htm

But now I can't help but ask, "Why did you post these questions here?" Do you really not know the answers?
I thought you told us you are Catholic. If you don't know at least the majority of the answers, then the catechesis and preaching must be absolutely horrendous where you live (either all of New Zealand or at least your parish!). If you know few or none of the answers, you are not really a Catholic.
But if you DO know the answers, why did you put the questions before us without writing out those answers too?

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 08, 2002.

hey ca,

i don't know whether KG knows the answers or not but i do know that i've asked myself those questions also. i am a catholic and the preachings here aren't bad. it's just that i've never found any answers in them. i'm not dumb. i just can't accept any answers because it's not from jesus himself. i feel that all the answers that i've been given are not true. they're just other human being's opinions.

-- van vu (pUr3_bRat@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Ca you are right I was being a lazy bugger. Your attitude is basically "get stuffed and wise up sucker how dare you call yourself Catholic and not know the answers to these basic simple questions". I was bored and came across these questions, which I thought I would try and answer for this very lost soul.Why do I not look up the CCC and get the proper answers- cause its easier to ask here and Im lazy!

But ca I will try and answer these questions myself so if any other posters who thought about replying please leave these questions as I will do the best I can. I would appreciate your feedback ca on the correctness of my answers I intend to give to this lost skeptic. Ha could be interesting, stay tuned it may take me a while(days) to find all the answers!

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 09, 2002.

van vu

All the words we say on theis forum ARE NOT just human words but man's relationship with GOD. The Catholic Church which is Christ's own Church is his Teachings and the traditions are his too. All of the Sacraments are directed toward Christ and are from Christ and so on. Everything in the Church is Jesus Christ anf the whole Trinitarian Godhead. I would suggest that you read the CCC which is partly based on the Nicene Creed and learn it then you will see that the Church is fully GOD'S with Peter and his successors in control to keep it from being contaiminated by false theologies. It is as Christ wanted her. HIS CHURCH. His bride and we are his body and blood too. All for Christ.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Keewee, I'm glad that you will seek answers to these questions on your own. For some of them, you won't need to go to the CCC, as the answers are already in your head, if you will just stop and ponder for a while.

Let me help you get started by answering #2, which was ---

2. In the English language, to die means to "permanently cease" to be alive. If Jesus died, then he's not alive. If he is alive, then he didn't die. Which is it? Did Jesus die or not?

The question is invalid because it starts with a false assumption. In English, "to die" does not necessarily mean "permanently to cease to be alive."
On this planet, there are three main visible forms of life -- vegetable, animal, and human.
Vegetable and animal entities possess natural, material souls as their life-sustaining forces. Being simply natural and and material, they are mortal, so when vegetables and animals die, both their bodies and souls do "permanently cease to be alive."
By contrast, though, humans are composite beings consisting of mortal bodies animated by immortal, immaterial (spiritual) souls. Although human bodies die (and remain dead as long as God wills), human souls never die.

Therefore -- to return to the skeptic's question -- Jesus's human body died (and remained dead for a short while), but his human soul never died. Jesus's body came to life again, being reunited with his soul.
Exactly the same thing will happen to each of us some day. (In the case of Our Blessed Mother Mary, it has already happened.)

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 09, 2002.

Not his Human Body, it is his GLORIFIED BODY. His HOLY BODY OF GOD.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

When did the "SOUL" all of in a sudden become "HUMAN"?

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

A human is not part soul part body. Being human is being both body and soul. These are each created; but the soul's not mortal, the body is.

We know almost all ''thorny questions'' ultimately have to be challenges to our faith. When our faith isn't adequate, it's easy to dispute key revelations such as, why God did one thing and not the other?

But it's enough to know that whatever God revealed is true. Not open to questioning. Questioning God is futile. If you won't believe something because:

''i am a catholic and the preachings here aren't bad. it's just that i've never found any answers in them. i'm not dumb. i just can't accept any answers because it's not from jesus himself.'' (Van Vu's objection,)

I will reassure you. It's precisely BECAUSE we believe Jesus that we stand by the doctrines of the Catholic faith. It's ALL on Jesus' say-so. --He is the Son of God, and never revealed to His Church anything which isn't true.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 09, 2002.

Eugene, you said, "A human is not part soul part body. Being human is being both body and soul. These are each created; but the soul's not mortal, the body is."

I'm not sure if this was intended as a correction of something I said earlier -- or just an additional thought. In case it was intended as a correction, I have to say these things:
I did not previously say that a human is "part soul, part body."
I agree that being "human is being both body and soul" -- before death and at the end of the world. However one is also human as a disembodied soul -- in heaven, hell, or purgatory -- between death and the end of the world. If the disembodied soul were not human, she could not suffer or experience joy in the afterlife.

Fred, you said, "Not his Human Body, it is his GLORIFIED BODY. His HOLY BODY OF GOD." and "When did the 'SOUL' all of in a sudden become 'HUMAN'?"

Sir, must you get angry if you disagree? Must you shout (upper-case letters)? Would it not be better to determine first that you are correct before expressing objections so vehemently? Better to object calmly, in case you are mistaken (as in this case).

In reply to your statements -----
It was Jesus's glorified human Body that rose. Yes, He is God, but he does not have a divine Body ("body of God"), since God (in his divine nature) is pure spirit. Jesus has a glorified human Body. He never ceased being a Man, as the Catechism tells us:
CCC 445: "After his Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity."

Jesus's Soul did not "all of a sudden become human." Jesus has a human Soul (created at His conception). I realize that this may come as a surprise, because almost no one ever talks about it, but it is a Catholic teaching:
CCC 626. "Since the 'Author of life' who was killed is the same 'living one (who has) risen', the divine person of the Son of God necessarily continued to possess his human soul and body, separated from each other by death: By the fact that at Chnst's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way, from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word."

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 09, 2002.

KG,

Why don't you attend an RCIA class? You can get all your answers there and learn all about the Catholic church, and its teachings and you will have knowledgeable people on hand to answer your questions.

Or, you can make an appointment with a priest who would be glad to answer your questions. I myself may sign up for the RCIA classes because there is a lot I don't know or don't remember about my catholic faith.

You said:

"4.So, Jesus died, as we all do. He suffered, as many have. So, in the context of the crucifixion, what did Jesus do that was so special?"

We all die, yes, and we all suffer...but we all are not crowned with thorns, whipped, spit at, and crucified. What did Jesus do that was so special??? He performed miracles, for one. He revealed the Father to us, His gave us His Word...He came to give us new life. He died for our sins, and rose again. He is living proof that heaven awaits us and there is eternal life for those who believe. If you don't think that is special, I don't know what else to tell you.

6.If heaven is so great and wonderful, then why did God create us down here? Why not just create us in heaven and skip all of the problems?

First of all, life is not all problems, life is a very special and precious gift and there are many beautiful things to enjoy in life...things for which we must be thankful - family, friends, home, jobs, nature - mountains, the ocean, trees, flowers, food to eat, music, theater, thousands of beautiful things to enjoy in life...and, yes, life can be very hard as well and we all suffer at different times in our lives.

But, God's ways are not our ways and we will not have all the answers to our "why?" until eternity. Faith is believing what we do not see and not every question has an answer.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 09, 2002.

CACACH

I was not shouting at all,I was pointing out clearly to the facts without the tediousness of bolding everthing. Furthermore it gets tedious to speak to a fictional being as you protrayed yourself.

You have come in here trying to play the expert on me yet you show little charisma and I resent that. What are you ? A robot or human?

On the Glorified Body of Christ then why is it that Mary Magdalen and the men walking to Emmaus have trouble recognizing him. I really have thought on this many times and the only answer is that not all would recognize Christ in his Glorified Body after his death and rising. until he broke the bread. Remember the Bible does not specifically say the it is earthly body that they saw after his death. We were not given ALL of the answers. We can only rely on our faith to the best of our God given abilities.

I can only mention what I do know and the rest will be taken care of by Christ.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

CaCaCh

According to what I see in your words I see you are not recognizing clearly that these facts: First Christ IS PART OF THE TRINITY and he did in fact exist before his earthly birth and WAS NOT created as such as he did exist long before birth. The Trinity was in fact a reality long before man knew of it. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit without human seed (CCC 496).

Furthermore. You have not clarified who you are and whether you are really Catholic or not. From what I am starting to see is you are picking through the CCC and using it as YOUR tool and bashing us in this forum.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 09, 2002.

Fred--
What is your problem? Ca is absolutely correct. You are wrong; Jesus has a human body. He is True Man and True God. We do not distinguish for the sake of this argument between the glorified body of Christ, and the body He was born with. The body Jesus was born with LIVES. It is a glorified body without changing into a different one after His glorious Resurrection. So, by attacking this lady --or the gentleman (I can't say which)-- you're going off half-cocked again.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 10, 2002.

MaryLu the local Parish isnt running any RCIA classes this year due to lack of interest, I tried to get myself onto something. ps its many hours drive to the next Parish so it will have to wait until I get to a bigger centre. God Bless Courtenay

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

Gene

Your Qquote:

"Jesus has a human body."

I was not even referring in any way to his "human body" I am fully aware of the fact that Jesus has a human body while he was alive and a "Glorified Body" after his death. What the body after his death was is still to this day a mystical body only because it has the ability to not be recognized, go thru walls, and disappear at will. So it may appear human at sight but was it fully human? It remains a mystery. Let's face it how can a human body in fact go thru walls and disappear at will? There is a missing element here and it probably will never be explained in our lifetimes for it is one of the many mysteries that is for GOD to know and for us to simply accept through faith.

To simply say that he had his earthly body after his death is too far fetched for me to grasp only because of the circumstances of how he was able to do things that are obviously impossible to grasp due to our human nature. I have never doubted for once his living human nature and his Divine Nature in any manner.

So it is only by faith that I have accepted this nature Christ assumed after his death and he had during his life. The only difference he may have had at his final Ascension to heaven to be with the Father is the bright glorious robe he had. This obviously was a sign of his final glory to heaven as King of heaven and as our risen Lord.

Don't worry, I am not one of those people who has the thought that his original body was dumped somewhere after his death. That thought is just too preposterous for me to accept. But you have to realize if the human form is so important, then why the Ash Wednesday statement of "you are from dust to dust you shall return" and the allowance of the bodily cremation and the rest. This is the gray area that never really has been solved physically and will never be. I have only faith in GOD to keep me going and that will never wane for his Being is the real thing that I live for and will die for.

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Thank you, Eugene. Don't worry, Fred. I am a Catholic, and I am not here to misuse the CCC against you. I just use it to show what the Church teaches. Sometimes, you are a little bit off in what you believe, and I am able to try to get your wheels fully on track by quoting the CCC to you. That is, I am able to do it if you are willing to read what I quote and assimilate it into your thinking. But if you are going to ignore what the CCC says, what I am trying to do will go for naught.

Earlier, I quoted this to you ----- CCC 445: "After his Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity." And here are a couple more CCC quotations, which really leave no question about this -----
659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God."[531] Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. ... Jesus' final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand."
663 "Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified."

Notice that he had his human body back, but it was "glorified" -- i.e., it possessed both natural and supernatural qualities. We know that it was a real human and natural human body, because it could be felt (St. Thomas) and could consume food (fish, etc.). But we also know that it had supernatural qualities (able to pass through a door, etc.).

And so, having read those words and having recalled the facts from the gospels, you can see that what you just now told Eugene was not in keeping with the CCC:

"I am fully aware of the fact that Jesus has a human body while he was alive and a 'Glorified Body' after his death. ... So it may appear human at sight but was it fully human?"
{Yes, Fred, the CCC repeatedly tells us that it was human flesh. He has a beating, sacred heart.}

"Let's face it how can a human body in fact go thru walls and disappear at will?"
{You admit that Jesus had a human body before he died. Therefore, why not ask yourself the questions, 'How can a human body disappear, escaping the grasp of a hostile crowd?' and 'How can a human body walk on water?', etc., etc.. In other words, you need to admit that God can help "a human body" to do miraculous things, both before and after death. Jesus has a glorified human body after death.}

"To simply say that he had his earthly body after his death is too far fetched for me to grasp."
{No one said that he had his unglorified earthly body after his death. He has a glorified human body that cannot die.}

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 10, 2002.

If he has a fleshly body then explain how in the world he can go through a rock wall with ease and disappear easily and even change his features and Clothes, He was buried naked and the soldiers made off with his clothes. Don't you see the mystery yet?

That is why FAITH is so important. You DO NOT have ALL of the answers either.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

CaCaCh

"'How can a human body disappear, escaping the grasp of a hostile crowd?' and 'How can a human body walk on water?', etc.,"

Excuse me, if I am correct he escaped the unruly crowds, not DISAPPEARED from them. I have not seen the Gospels say anything about a disappearing act there. Are you starting to twist this fact a bit?

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

CaCaCh

Your Quote:

"It was Jesus's glorified human Body that rose. Yes, He is God, but he does not have a divine Body ("body of God"), since God (in his divine nature) is pure spirit. Jesus has a glorified human Body. He never ceased being a Man, as the Catechism tells us:"

Now this is totally nuts. How in the world can the Holy Trinity be valid if Christ has a body and his Father and Holy Spirit not. It makes absolutely no sense at all. For to be valid the Trinity had to be Spirit in form to even to exist in the beginning. To be what you say makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This is where faith needs to take over for me for the bodily form of Christ being alongside 2 other spirit forms is very hard to grasp.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

Dear Fred,
Don't trouble your mind over it. You say it's beyond your grasp. That says it all. You count going through solid walls as an unearthly thing. But nourishing us by His own Body and Blood & not being visible in His real form is even more mind-boggling. You have believed this.

Theologians have worked out these ''problems'' for centuries, and could no more ''explain'' them than you can. But remember in the OT prophet's vision of glory: ''There appeared at the right hand of the Ancient of Days one as if a Son of Man.'' (I'm paraphrasing from memory)-- We're told by that vision, YES-- Christ is a MAN, not a spirit-- in the Holy Presence of the Father. The Father, for purposes of our human understanding is called ''Ancient of Days''. We know His presence is in unapproachable light. But He can make His divine presence seen, obviously.

It should be enough for us that God has revealed His Son is truly human, and truly God. His body is the very One that lay once in the manger of Bethlehem. No other.

When His holy mother gave Him birth, Jesus came into the world without the need to deflower her chaste body. His life is a miracle without beginning or end; that's all we need to know.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 10, 2002.

I thank you again, Eugene. Fred, really I promise that I am not trying to persuade you to believe anything except what is in the CCC.

Please do re-read the passages I quoted. The things that I have stated, but that you are resisting believing, are things that are in the CCC, in ecumenical council documents, in the writings of the Doctors of the Church, etc.

I won't pressure you any more about it. I think that your heart will eventually be open to it as your faith deepens. It really is base in great mysteries, as Eugene says.

We can pray for one another.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 10, 2002.

CaCaCh Is this the Documentor something of what you were referring to?:

"In 1974 Rome gave an official interpretation of the rubrics on the period after Communion, which makes the posture an option. It states,

After communion they may either kneel, stand, or sit. Accordingly the [1975] GIRM no. 21 gives this rule: "The people sit. . ..if this seems useful during the period of silence after communion." Thus it is a matter of option, not obligation. The GIRM no. 121, should, therefore, be interpreted to match no. 21: Notitiae 10 (1974) 407."

I just want to say that I wish to apologize for being so anxious in my previous postings. I was feeling a bit threatened by the direct and hard attack that I felt by your actions as they were quite too strong for me. I felt threatened by it all and cornered by them. I have worked hard to learn what I do know and treasure it greatly and GOD has become a great source of daily salvation for me for some time now.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

CaCaCh

I DO really believe that Kneeling is still proper and in keeping with respect of honoring Christ as being present in both his Body and Blood in view and his Blessed Sacrament in the Tabernacle being somewhat visable. I also use the kneeling position to allow the Body and Blood which I just recieved to fully absorb my entire being so I can actually feel to very presence of Christ within me. Sitting will not give me that feeling of awe and reduces my outward repect to Christ and tanksgiving to the Holy Spirit and God the Father for what gifts I have just recieved. (GRACES). It saddens me to see this happening in our Glorious Churches. AS we chip away at the rituals and other treasures of our great church we lose more of it's great wealth of respect towards GOD.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

Adoremus: Society for the Renewal of the Sacred Liturgy

Vol. V, No. 4: June 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Every Knee Should Bow ­ But When?

Uncertainty Surrounds the Postures of the People During the Liturgy of the Eucharist

by Helen Hull Hitchcock and Susan Benofy

http://www.adoremus.org/699_Knee.html

__________________________________________________

I found this interesting article in the Adoremus site and it presents some disturbing views on kneeling. Are we becoming Protestants NOW. My GOD don't let these fools strip our Chuch into something less HOLY. Are we now on the verge of removing humility from our worship of GOD? I hope not. And Bishops "ORDERING" people to NOT KNEEL or else be expelled. That is going too far.

Anyone see these things?

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

Fred:
Last year a niece of ours was threatened with expulsion from her Catholic girl's academy for not accepting the host on her hand at Holy Communion. She went to the priest with her mouth open, tongue extended in a pious attitude. He insisted she take communion in the hand. But she left without it, and later her parents had it out with the priest. They were much like you; insisting on the external details we associated once with proprieties in Church.

We heard about this by phone. We live in a different city. I immediately warned my wife; tell the niece's parents to OBEY that pastor.

Even though we may feel a need for absolute piety in the accepted behavior of all Catholics, we have NO authority to defy our priests. Nor the bishops of the Church. They have spiritual authority and must never meet with open defiance. Least of all in public, and by children!

If the child had been correctly advised by these parents, she would have made the same effort to receive communion on the tongue. But, once her priest made it clear to her she would have to take it manually, her obligation was to obey. In the eyes of God, I have to suppose her impulse to piety was very clear. He would have rendered her the grace as if her best intentions had been fulfilled. But, in standing up to the priest, the child offended God. There is no excuse, as the priest is our spiritual father, and deserves obedience,

Before some anti-Catholic GLOMS on my words, and tries to insist these are the reasons for all the recent scandal; the obeisance and trust we've given every Catholic priest traditionally--

I must warn this is not what we're counselled in the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Our obedience toward priests is on a spiritual plane, in our manners and our ecclesiastical DECORUM. Meaning, where their good faith and morals are evident immediately.

No obedience is owed to a perverted or impure overture on the part of a sinful priest.

I DO realise, many (or at least some) children have been lured, and may have been too timid in time to avoid a disaster. --But, this would hardly apply in public. Nor does it mean the child will not have every right to denounce misconduct once he recognises it. Parents ought to train kids in proper reactions to BOTH the good and the bad intentions of all people, including priests. The time to learn this is BEFORE an incident has a chance to occur.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 11, 2002.

GENE

I understand your point fully. I have actually seen some of this and the pains I was suffering were so much that I almost went to another Parish. Later the New Bishop(McCormack) in N.H. ordered the standing during the doxology to cease. I felt a great relief come over me then.

I have found it difficult to contest these things as you say and just found ways to get around it by other means that would not affect others.

I am debating sending an anonymous letter to ouer present pastor on the fact one of our readers is wearing very short skirts and when she sits down in front of the congregation she partially exposes herself and that is just plain disrespectful of her. I think she is trying to get attention and is going about it the wrong way.

Do you think I should write the letter? I value your opinion on this issue.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

Strange, Fred;
You've reminded me of what our pastor recently said: Anonymous letters come to him by the score. They all go in the waste basket, without a reading. It takes a face-to-face meeting, not a letter. I couldn't say if your priest is the kind of man would appreciate you telling him what you observe from the congregational side. He's likely to tell you to keep your eyes off ALL the girls, not just this one girl.

I know there's always some person in Church who can distract our attention. But our eyes ought to be on the holy altar and the priest celebrating. If a girl makes you apprehensive, for any reason, don't look in the direction that is objectionable to you. Give God your undivided attention.

If a good person were mutual acquaintance with you and that girl; let them relay a message to her. Or, speak to her privately on some opportune ocassion. That takes guts. Because a complaint like the one you're making (which is justifiable, to a point) is likely to get the wrong kind of reaction. You will become the ''dirty old man'' who's staring at the sweet young thing during Mass! Not too COOL!

But writing anonymous letters to a priest isn't a way sending constructive criticism. At least write it and sign your name and address and phone. Be careful what you say. Be humble.

In fact, don't even tell who the particular girl is. It isn't nice to accuse somebody behind their back. Just make it general; say,

''Father; you might want to speak to all the young ladies some Sunday; or post it in a church bulletin. Some of them need reminding they're in the House of God! They dress provocatively; and nobody dares to correct them. I've seen such outfits here, right in front of our noses. Since you have ALL the authority to speak about this; I would suggest respectfully, ya dah, ya dah.'' If you wish to speak with me directly, I'm at your convenience. Let me know when and where. In fact-- (Nice idea) my wife Carolyn and I would be honored to receive you. Or invite you to dine with us, etc., where we could discuss this in a relaxed atmosphere.''

Then Father might say, ''OK Fred.'' Or, ''Shutyaface,'' or-- ''Hell NO!!!'' --Yet, don't be surprised if without warning one Sunday-- he says from the lectern:

''A Knight of Columbus whom I respect very deeply has informed me we have some problems in our midst. Indecent attire, being worn to Mass by girls of our parish.--''

Think it over and may God give you courage, Fred!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 11, 2002.

Gene Thanks for the advice. Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 11, 2002.

Fred,

I am completely in agreement with you.

Although it may not be "necessary" to kneel, it appalls me that some seem to forget that Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity enter the church in Physical Presence when transubstantiation occurs. It may not be necessary, but for crying out loud that is God in front of you man, KNEEL!

As for receiving the Host on the hands: I too receive it on the tongue. I understand that the Pope has put his stamp of approval on it [receiving it in your hands], but I still feel the threat of moving further and further away from respecting our Beloved Savior in the Eucharist. One may receive it on the hands in a respectful manner - and they should teach this to you during first communion. Like, both CLEAN hands be used, with one under the other, etc. But inevitably this second step (from tongue directly to hand-to-tongue) has lead some to move unapprovably to a third step: Single hand reception, and popping into your mouth like a sunflower seed! I’ve seen this. Or kids taking it with their thumb and forefinger like a chip. I think that when all the tongue receivers die out and the congregation is predominantly hand receivers, there may be another more prominent, unofficial movement (it doesn't have to be approved by the Pope) toward disrespect for Christ.

Please don't be offended. I don't want to put down those who receive Christ on the Hands correctly; they also are witnesses to how it should be done. However, it is those who do not really know how important the Eucharist is who will falter and make that third step downward. As they say, "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile".

I really hope that I didn’t offend anyone. My family receives on the hand, and in a respectful manner. But I just wanted to express my feelings. Thanks.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 11, 2002.

Most of the Church's many liturgical, disciplinary rules -- which are just as binding on all of us as Canon Law is -- are printed in the front of the big prayerbook seen on the altar.

Item #240 there tells some things about the distribution of Holy Communion. Each national bishops' conference is permitted to pass adaptations to the universal regulations and to seek Vatican approval for them. Such an adaptation was passed and approved for item #240. Here is the text thereof. Please note especially what I have put into bold type -----

"On June 17, 1977, the Congregation of Sacraments and Divine Worship approved the request of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to permit the optional practice of Communion in the hand. The Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, in its catechesis about this optional practice, drew attention to these considerations:
a. Proper catechesis must be provided to assure the proper and reverent reception of Communion without any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence.
b. The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant's personal choice.
c. When Communion is distributed under both kinds by intinction, the host is not placed in the hands of the communicants, nor may the communicants receive the host and dip it into the chalice. Intinction should not be introduced as a means of circumventing the practice of Communion in the hand.
d. Children have the option to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue. No limitations because of age have been established. Careful preparation for first reception of the Eucharist will provide the necessary instruction."
{At least one Vatican instruction has stated similar language about the way of reception being entirely up to the communicant, and that neither way can be required except when intinction is used.}

Therefore, with this quoted passage in mind, we can consider the case of a person (adult or child) being told by a priest that he/she must receive in the hand. Obviously, this is a grave liturgical abuse on the part of the priest. He lacks the authority to command communicants in this way, because no one can disobey nor command disobedience to the Church's law.

We have all learned that we must be obedient to people in authority over us (e.g., parents, government officials, clergy) -- but only when they do not exceed the bounds of their authority (telling us to sin, forcing us to break laws, etc.). It follows then, that a communicant who is told to do something contrary to the Church's liturgical law is not required to obey. If told to receive Communion only in the hand, the communicant who does not desire to do this can be commended for refraining from reception. (The person should do this in silence, because the time and place for correction of the priest is after Mass and in private.) In no way should the communicant be criticized for what he/she does, because it is the priest, not the communicant, who is guilty of the grave abuse.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 11, 2002.

Dear CaCaCh:

You may have canon law on your side, per the cathechism/ Nevertheless, the priest is the flock's leader and father. There can be no question who obeys; and it isn't our priest.

Spiritually, the recipient who is ordered to conform is no doubt commendable for his extraordinary scruples. But the degrees of offense against Our Lord are clear to me: you offend God most when you rebel against His priest's authority than when you conform to a rule you find unfair. We are called to be humble and respectful to the lawful authority. Not headstrong from self-assured piety. The shepherd is over the lambs; lambs do not rebel against him.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 11, 2002.

Again, "Obviously, this is a grave liturgical abuse on the part of the priest. He lacks the authority to command communicants in this way, because no one can disobey nor command disobedience to the Church's law. ... It follows then, that a communicant who is told to do something contrary to the Church's liturgical law is not required to obey."
Disobeying a sinful command is not "rebellion." Au contraire, it is required.

-- CaCaCh (Ca@Ca.Ch), June 12, 2002.

CaCaCh

Obviously you have never encountered a situation of liturgigal abuse as I have seen on many occasions. It is not as easy as you say to confront an errant Priest or Lay person for that matter. I have seen abuse go un touched on many occasions and others just follow along and for one to contest that is like fighting Fort Knox. The power of priests is just insurmountable. Only GOD can change things of that sort, not people.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 12, 2002.

Dear CaCaCh:

You may believe what you wish. I wouldn't care to shake your confidence in the catechism.

Do yourself a favor. Practice the great virtue of humility, for the sake of God's grace. He will certainly reward you. With your catechism, approach the bishop of your diocese. Ask him to deliberate this apparent dilemma; upon the horns of which your friend, Gene is dangling. I'd be interested in his reply.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 12, 2002.

Come on people. Do you really think that the greatest suffering that Christ endured was a physical type. Suffering is knowing that even though you bring your children the gift of eternal life that some will reject it. Do you have children? Have you ever been rejected by your own child? Can you imagine the pain? The pain Jesus endured was physical this is true, but imagine the kind of rejection Jesus endured by his own people. What makes him so special? He hung in pain dying crucified on a cross and He forgave us and He asked our God to forgive us. I'll bet the last time someone pulled out in front of you in traffic the last thing out of your mouth wasn't "I forgive you". The fact that God humbled himself and became man is sacrifice enough. I'm glad you remember the garden of eden, that was Heaven. We screwed it up. God gives us free will and His love is infinitely greater than ours. When your first child disobeys you do you throw him away? He gave us what we wanted. He wants us to love Him and give thanks to Him freely. Can you force your own child to love you? Do your children have the same love for you that you have for them? We'd like to think so, but speaking for myself I only understood the love my parents have for me after I had my own children. I can't claim to understand death, but I do know that without hope, faith, and love there is no content life on ear

-- Jerry (someone @ kobolt.com), December 13, 2002.