(I'd think the puny little humans would have learned this by now.)
Posted on 07/09/2015 9:33:36 AM PDT by RnMomof7
They seemingly abound...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Are Catholics allowed to speak in tongues?
(I'd think the puny little humans would have learned this by now.)
It has me...
Here ya go! Copy the following code on your computer and use it anytime you wish...Excellent observations!
“per” takes the accusative.
“Nomen” is neuter.
So it would be “per aliud nomen.”
But, “by another name” is interesting. I don’t think “per” gives the sense we want. It really suggests “through.” To the extent that it means “by” it would be more like “by way of,” As in “I went to Boston by Springfield rather than by Providence.” I would have gone with “sub”, under.
“Alio nomine” (ablative case) has a sense of agency, so I don’t think it would do.
So, “Consectatio opus sub aliud nomen est.” Or, I like “Consectatio opus sub nomen alterium est.”
“Consectatio” has a sense of competition. It’s cognate with consequor — follow together. I’m guessing you want to convey a sense of frantic effort more than competition. I don’t know what word I’d use.
Don’t mind me. Free advice, worth every penny. It’s like morning exercises to see if my brain will work today. Result: inconclusive.
WRT #545: LOL!
WRT #546: Thankee! It REALLY interests me.
First, there is no connection or relationship between the unleavened bread matzos) and the “what-is-it” substance (manna). These substances are not even physically alike at all, even though manna is sometimes referred to in Scripture as “bread.”
This is not to argue against what you are saying; I am not familiar with the symbolism used in the Seder meal. But if there was a desire to prepare a substance to symbolize manna, what would you use to represent this “what-is-it”?
PapaFran is, let's say, stimulating my adrenal medulla. What stimulates it (them) even worse is the reporting on him. For example, in the encyclical I call “Tomato, Si! (Yanqui, No!)” at some point he says the Church can't run science or politics. So, once you've read that you see that most of the non “faith and morals” stuff is “just his opinion.” The docile Catholic reads and ponders and says, “Thank you for sharing,” but that's about all we owe ... but we do owe pondering.
I read his other encyclical — senior moment, can't remember the name — and it seemed clear to me that his alleged denunciations of capitalism are of capitalism ALONE. We kind of kicked it around in our “chapter” of sooper, extremely advanced and real smart, just ask us, lay Dominicans.
My conclusion was that, to the extent that it is a “social” encyclical, it has to be read in the context of the earlier encyclicals.
(Wow! Are WE ever wandering far afield!)
My take on the whole stream of social encyclicals is that they all agree on two things:
1) Every political/economic system requires the leavening of the Spirit or it will go bad and become oppressively unjust. Individuals and each human heart matters.
2) There are two basic principles, solidarity and subsidiarity. Each without the other is a disaster.
(2.A) Solidarity. We are all one family. What hurts one hurts the family.
By itself, this has a strong tendency toward totalitarian socialism.
(2.B) Subsidiarity. The function of “higher” political/economic entities is to keep out of the way unless a lower entity needs help. Then the higher entity should assist the lower to get back to where it doesn't need help and THEN get back out of the way again.
So, if a family has a disaster, the neighborhood should help out, and then back off. If New Orleans floods, Louisiana and the Feds should help out, and then back off If Bangladesh has a problem, the “family of nations” should help out and then back off.
AND, the higher entity need not act as an entity. After Katrina I got trained by the Red Cross and then went down to Louisiana and did what they told me. (I think the Red Cross is going bad, but they were the only show in town.) That would be an example of subsidiarity in action. I, as an individual, signed up temporarily with an NGO (allegedly), helped, and left.
...
So, PapaFran can say whatever about a global climate commissariat, but he is as bound by previous encyclicals as the rest of us, not only as regards the coordination and assistance of Solidarity but also concerning the local control and autonomy of Subsidiarity.
So, while he's not making it as easy or as clear as St. J2P2 the Great or PapaBenXVI would have, my unmentionables remain unknotted.
But yeah, they are, just not all the time.
I have found myself referring to the guidelines so often that I have bookmarked them. There is much wisdom in the Miscellaneous statements. Regarding the second statement, there are times when it feels like spitwads are plastered all over my face after reading a comment.
Miscellaneous:
The demeanor of the poster says more about his own confession than the post says about yours. When he is being rude or mean it drives people away from his confession and towards yours. That is of course if you can resist the urge to meet fire with fire, in which case neither confession is appealing to the lurkers. The poster who “turns the other cheek” wins every single time.
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition.
Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
Spiritual maturity is not a prerequisite for posting on the Religion Forum. If the other guy is being childish, be patient with him.
Abusive spammers contribute nothing other than their spam and they don’t last long on Free Republic.
When posting in a foreign language, unless the statement is very common, e.g. adios, always include the English translation of it.
When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions.
When another Freeper asks you not to link to his hosting service, e.g. to use a public domain image hosted there, cooperate with his request. In such cases, you may wish to put a copy of the image on your own hosting service.
Good eats. Crunchy and nutritious.
Are Catholics allowed to speak in tongues?
You are not aware of the Charismatic Catholic movement?
Where IS that like button?
Bottom line, as the coffee goes to work, manna was something real that God gave to the Israelites which could sustain their bodily functions, The matzo was a regular bread dough that was cooked before it had a chance to rise from yeast working in it. This was meant to symbolize the rush to get out of Egypt (the Israelites were to eat this last meal in Egypt with their sandals on, if you get my drift). They were also to have made enough of this matzo so that they had ration for seven days with them we they fled from Egypt. Hence the Passover matzo is eaten for seven days in the Remembrance Seder re-enactment. The matzo is not related to the manna. Jesus was sharing the matzo in the Passover Seder with zero reference to manna. This should give clues to a Bible student for understanding the exchanges in John 6.
I think Aristotle is too readily dismissed as being “mechanical” or something like that. And his clarity and organization makes it possible to “work” his system without really soaking in it.
MY take on an accessible aspect of his thought is that at least once there is a more or less triangular thing there is the “form” of “triangle.” And that form really exists, somehow, objectively. And that's why geometry is an effort in discovery rather than creation. The things of the intellect, things intellectually perceived are not products of the intellect.
(And this is why I balk at the question of “physical or spiritual” as though that exhausted the possibilities. I think that “triangle” exists and is neither physical nor spiritual.)
...
Now here's a thing. Which more completely expresses the complete reality (in this Realist sense) of Fatherhood, God or me? MY current account is like this: FIRST my having and then being a father teach me something about God. But THEN, my contemplation of God's and my fatherhood teaches me that I am ALMOST an ersatz father. I could choose, with uncertain effects and results, to have A child. But I did not choose the child got, until she arrived. Then, when I saw her, I said, “YEAH! THAT one!”
So, I am mostly kinda sorta LIKE a father, while God is a sho’ ‘nuff father. My instantiation taught me about the form, but contemplation of God and the form taught me about the vast imperfections of my particular instantiantion of it.
...
Now I turn to “food indeed”. The carnal man, your humble servant, thinks, basically, pizza and beer = true food. It satisfies hunger, tastes great, makes me feel good, strengthens me, and when eaten with friends creates joviality.
But then I get hungry again, and fat, and my doctor tuts at me. And the friends go home. And, well, it's not really everything I need food to be, just as I am not everything my daughter needs a father to be.
...
At then end of the Paradiso, a wonderful transformation happens. In Dante's scheme, heaven is beyond the sphere of the fixed stars, beyond the sphere that powers the rest. So it is FIRST envisioned as a glorious periphery. But then there's a kind of reversal — and Dante begins to admit that his poetry is not up to the task — and what SEEMED to be the periphery is TRULY seen as the TRUE Center.
I am talking about this kind of reversal. And, at some mean, which Aquinas designates as “sacramental,” between Pizza and the Son of God, there is the Holy Eucharist.
My daughter as she grows ought to become more (lovingly, I hope) aware of my inadequacies as a father because she grows closer, through the Son, to the father of all. And that closeness will, I hope lead her to a greater love and appreciation of me AS she realizes my role as an almost fake imitation of fatherhood.
My enjoyment of pizza and beer is refined and ordered because there is another meal, the Mass, which is truer food. In heaven, we can say both that there is no longer any Mass or that it is ALL Mass, as that which is promised in today's Mass is finally fulfilled.
I suspect some of my Orthodox friends might find something congenial in this. But to me this sort of thinking is far more to the purpose than being picky about substance. Except that when The Philosopher says the soul is “the form of the body” ( and he doesn't mean the ‘shape’) we can see that under the shell of metaphysical technicalities he perceives a lambent and dynamic ousia which beckons to all who hunger for Reality and Truth, that ousia of which we say that the Son is homo-ousion with the Father.
Well said.
Rome says that only IT has the 'authority' to 'interpret'.
The dogma we're discussing didn't originate with Rome, for example. There's a long discussion about what the Sacrament is and about the way to explain it, to the extent that it can be explained. Then a disagreement, aka the Reformation, :-) arises so the council says, “Okay, there is a ‘real’ change and the template, sorta kinda, for describing it is ‘transubstantiation’.”
Rome rarely initiates. It umpires. So, if somebody interpreted and it was weird and it caught on, then at some point Rome would rear back and decide. And on the BIG stuff, usually there's a lot of consensus before Rome utters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.