Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $24,288
Woo hoo!! And the first 28% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by annalex

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/24/2014 6:21:46 AM PDT · 168 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    Rather it looks to the context, the language, the history, etc., to see if analogy is warranted

    Very well, although that way you are still likely to "discover" allegory simply because it becomes an easier explanation. Sort of like some see in the feeding of the thousands by five loaves a figure of human economic cooperation.

    in private he is always explaining the analogies, just as happened in John 6

    So you discard the plain reading of "food indeed" in favor of the imagined private explanation not recorded anywhere in the Scripture. If that is your hermeneutic, why do we need the Bible?

    We see what Christ explained privately to St. Paul. He taught him to teach others to "discern the body". We also see the written text of the speech at the Last supper: "this is my body, which is given for you". No room to imagine allegories privately explained.

    analogy is the default delivery mode for Jesus’ public teaching ministry

    I think I responded. When He tells a parable He usually makes it clear it is a parable. There is a difference between teaching by parable and teaching by parable never explaining that it is a parable. When the parable is not delineated in the text, like with Jesus "the door", that is because it is impossible to take it otherwise: the disciples in it become "sheep", Jesus stops being a door and becomes shepherd, there are wolves involved, then He is vine and we are branches... it is impossible to take literally, it becomes a children's theater with dress-up.

    With John 6 we either have a teacher who drives his disciples away for the sake of telling an offensive to them parable and still does not explain the truth after the parable failed -- or we have what the Bible says without hidden meanings.

    But Peter believed, right then and there, that Jesus was Messiah, the Son of the Living God. Peter through faith, right then and there, had the vital nourishing connection to Christ that is implied in John 6:63, “My words are spirit, and they are life.” When Jesus says “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.,” that is literally fulfilled by Peter and the Apostles believing in Him, trusting in Him and His mediatorial work for their salvation, right then and there.

    Yes, the Apostles believed before the institution of the Eucharist, because Jesus was present in the flesh for them. He would not be in the flesh for us if not the the Eucharist; and so Christ gave us His body in perpetuity. It is a part of the deposit of faith that the Church received.

    If I don't seem to respond, please ask again. My time dedicated for this is limited and I may overlook a point, or consider it unimportant, or simply not respond because I agree with you on that point.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/24/2014 6:02:31 AM PDT · 167 of 168
    annalex to FourtySeven; daniel1212
    I don't trust Her just because she "says" she is of God, has the authority of God, rather I trust her because I haven't been led astray by Her. I have had sin defeated in my life because of cooperating with the Sacraments she offers. I have met and made the best friends I've ever had in my life because of her. I met and married my wife because of her. Finally (but most important) I have met CHRIST through Her.

    Very good. We know the infallibility of the Church in the practice of our faith.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/24/2014 6:00:17 AM PDT · 166 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon
    Dan, that's more of the same. This is the question:

    annalex: point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.

    Leaving the two pages of fluff and random scripture quotes, this is your substantive answer:

    seen in Scripture is much figurative use of eating and drinking, including that of men being called "bread" and drink being called the blood of men, (Jn. 4:34) and words of God being "eaten."

    That is nothing of the kind:

    [33] The disciples therefore said one to another: Hath any man brought him to eat? [34] Jesus saith to them: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may perfect his work. (John 4)
    Where is "figurative use" here, especially of the Eucharistic food Jesus is about to give?

    the rest of Scripture no one is ever shown obtaining life in them, becoming spiritually alive, by physically eating, but by believing the gospel message.

    Right, but a part of that message is John 6 and the doctrine on the Eucharist. You read "believing the gospel message" and think Protestant faith. Think whole entire Catholic faith, because nowhere did Christ said "some stuff that I told you is really a figure; please ignore it".

    As for your proof text, "plausible reason" what Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that i expect should eat His flesh “indeed” is easy to see


    the Lord revealed what was meant to those who walked with Him, as is the case in Jn. 6

    Certainly. At the Last Supper Jesus says "this is my body" and no one asks how could it be. When St. Paul mush later describes a Eucharist celebrated and corrects the celebration y insisting that the congregation "discerns the body", -- that is the faith of the Church at that point. Jesus did explain, and the disciples became priests and did as He commanded them to do. No Protestant memorial snack to be seen anywhere, real presence and the real body of Christ to be "discerned".

    This Word was made flesh

    Correct. You forgot whose side you are arguing? Adn if not, where is your plausible evidence of figurative use of "meat" and "flesh" in John 6? All you did was explain to us the Catholic teaching that the Eucharist is word made flesh and is a necessary component of living Catholic Christian faith.

    As for "indeed," (alēthōs: Jn. 6:55) that simply means "of a truth,"

    Yes. That is supposed to negate what Christ said?

    As for 1Cor. 11:17-34 , that was already been explained, showing that nowhere does it say to discern” His body in the Eucharist, which again is more romish reading into the text, but contextually refers does not refer to the nature of the elements consumed in the Lord's supper, but to recognizing the nature of the church as the body of Christ for which He died, (Acts 20:32) by how they showed His death by that communal meal

    St. Paul cites the words of Christ at the Last supper, "this is my body given up for you, eat it". While St. Paul does speak of the Church being the body of Christ figuratively in other chapters, in 1 Cor. 11:29 the body" is the same body as in Luke 22:19, -- Christ's body.

    You fail again. The Corinthians indeed were not discerning the nature of the Eucharist, but that nature is that it is Christ's body and not food for the stomach, as the text of Paul's speech shows. It is also consistent with the distinctions made in John 6, where Christ explains that the Eucharist does not feed the stomach.

    superficial exegesis

    The Holy Scripture is not a riddle that without a Protestant pastor cannot be figured out. When it says "A is B" that it is not superficial exegesis to understand that A is indeed B, without roundabout musings how the Bible does not mean what is written in it.

    Which reminds me, you did not even touch the Last Supper subject. "This is my body, which is given for you". So Christ, according to the Protestant charlatans, gave not His body but some allegory on the Cross? Or, since we are to understand that it is faith that we symbolically eat in the Eucharist, Christ's faith died on the Cross?

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/24/2014 5:24:49 AM PDT · 165 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; daniel1212
    insult based on ignorance of the Bible

    The end result is, operatively, ignorance. I don't know if Daniel really read the Bible or not; he probably does. But the end result of all these "hermeneutics" is that half the New Testament did not have to be written as it needs to be explained away and negated in order to make it fit the Protestant theological fantasies.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/24/2014 5:21:27 AM PDT · 88 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    In the Scripture, some people are called "saints" but there is never a qualifier that everyone who came to an altar call is automatically a saint form that point on. Instead, St. Paul often speaks of a select group and addresses them saints. It could be that he, as a polite gesture, did not stress it all the time, but that he meant it a group we see in several places. From my yet unfinished book:

    So this is the man who, being a living saint himself, called others “saints”. He never called “saint” just anyone; it is always church goers known by those to whom the letter is addressed, or, of course the addressees themselves: “Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympias; and all the saints that are with them” (Romans 16:15). While references to living saints are numerous, they are never a substitute for “all Christians” or “everyone in your church”: St. Paul makes a reference to a group of people perhaps visibly designated or perhaps not, but always a select group in his mind. The “saints” to Paul are subject of imitation: “receive her in the Lord as becometh saints”, he urges in Romans 16:2. It appears that these “saints” had an ability to judge, not only judge the world in the afterlife but also adjudicate daily disputes:

    Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to be judged before the unjust, and not before the saints? Know you not that the saints shall judge this world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (1 Corinthians 6:1-2)

    Observe a curious turn of the thought: some Corinthians apparently had gone to a non-Christian judge whereas St. Paul expects them to resolve the dispute “before the saints”, but in the next statement he puts the transgressors themselves as putative judges: “are you unworthy to judge”, he asks. This discourse reveals an ecclesial court of peers where select parishioners are asked to judge other parishioners. It is then those capable of judgment that St. Pall calls “saints”, and he urges those in need of judgment to themselves become capable of judgment, -- become saints. This thought is developed further in the letter: “Why do you not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” So St. Paul tells the Corinthians to, first, bring their disputes to the ecclesial court of “saints” and then points out that saints are self-judging because they are glad to suffer injustice; indeed they do, for some of them apparently are “despised in the church” (verse 4). The passage concludes:

    Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.
    The Corinthian Christians are reminded that those who fall to sin cannot “possess the kingdom of God”, apparently despite having been “washed, […] sanctified, […] justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God”. The passage shows that “saints” in Pauline usage has somewhat of a dual meaning: the select group capable of judging, and free from any vice, but at the same time all parishioners are said to be “sanctified” and not “unworthy to judge the smallest matters”. It is curious that the three characteristics of every Catholic Christian that St. Paul lists here, “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified” match the three principal sacraments that mark our struggle with sin, baptism that washes us, confirmation that sanctifies us by clothing us in the Holy Ghost, and confession that justifies us by making us grieve over our faults and pray for absolution. The distinction between a living saint and the rest of parishioners, as it emerges from this passage, is real, but is supposed to be diminished or even erased, as those sanctified in the Church work through their justification toward sainthood.

    The distinction is even more apparent in these passages:

    concerning the collections that are made for the saints… (1 Corinthians 16:1) concerning the ministry that is done towards the saints… (2 Corinthians 9:1, and several similar)

    So the saints to Paul are not the entire local church, but a select group that is a beneficiary of a special ministry; donations are gathered for them from among the parishioners. We don’t know much further; perhaps these “saints” were the elderly in the church, perhaps they were distinguished by their special dedication to the church, or those out on missionary work. They could be some early form of nuns and monks perhaps: people who renounced their possessions and literally lived in the church. Clearly, not every believer was a saint according to Paul.

    That makes St. Paul’s terminology at least analogous to ours, where we tend to call a select group of believers saints. Nevertheless in all these examples St. Paul makes reference to living saints, while we, primarily, speak of, and pray to saints in Heaven. But there is more: on some other occasions St. Paul speaks of sainthood as an aspiration:

    to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2)

    the beloved of God, called to be saints (Romans 1:7)

    Unlike the two previous groups, those capable of judging and those in need of donations, the reference in these passages is explicitly made to all Christians, that is, to all who believe in Christ and love God, or receive God’s love. But to Paul they are not quite “saints” but rather “called to be saints”. That then matches the modern understanding perfectly, where we think of all believers as being on the road to sainthood, rather than necessarily sainted already. The two references to sainthood, “sanctified in Christ Jesus” and “called to be saints” deserve a comment. Since St. Paul is enumerating these separately, we must conclude that sanctification that is spoken about is initiation into sainthood rather than sainthood achieved, and most likely is a reference to the sacrament of confirmation. There is a vulgar translation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 in some Protestant Bibles that makes it simply “to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints”, but that is nothing but a pun on the English word “call”, which can mean both inviting someone and naming someone. The Greek original is κλητοις, plural of κλητός, and it means strictly “called to a purpose, invited, summoned”.

    Was Paul thinking exclusively in terms of this life rather than afterlife as he reminded fellow Christians of their calling? No such narrow focus is apparent from the text itself, and surely St. Paul understood that not everyone would have an opportunity to reach the old age and retire in the church with the “saints” for whom he, Paul, held collections. Indeed, the image of Stephen reaching martyrdom in young age in the presence of Paul surely stood in Paul’s mind. Therefore his “called to be saints” cannot be understood in terms of economic arrangement that the Church might make for its elders. It is a reminder that no matter of what age we die and in what manner, we are all called to be saints in heaven.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/23/2014 8:11:50 PM PDT · 159 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; Elsie; daniel1212; BlueDragon
    The literal hermeneutic, as I explained before, has no trouble picking up supernatural events described in ordinary language

    Ah, OK. If so why can't you accept the Eucharistic miracle described by Jesus in several places in ordinary language: "this bread is my body for you to eat"?

    Go back to your Greek Bible and review the tense

    I shouldn't have said "entire". Naturally, when Jesus describes Himself that is present tense. Indeed He is the bread of life already. Also the general rule "except you eat, etc." is for all times so the tense is again present indefinite. The key, however, is "the bread that I will give is my flesh". This means that the bread is not given yet. Another indication that the reference is to the future Eucharist is in "If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up". These are the future tenses I spoke of. So "the act of actually eating Christ here is always put in the immediate, right now sense" is not accurate.

    Of course, nothing prevented Jesus from having His First Mass happen right there instead of at the Last Supper, -- except that He has his plan already and it was to have the Last Supper instead when "His hour has come". So yes there is a sense of immediacy but still the Eucharist is a future gift, not a present gift at the point of John 6.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/23/2014 7:52:43 PM PDT · 86 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    Ah, I see it now in Tischendorf and in Westcott/Hort. Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority have "πληρης πιστεως". That explains Jerome's "plenus gratia".

    So we see that Jerome uses "gratia plena/plenus" for both Mary and St. Stephen, although he prefers "justificato" for the ideal son of Sirach. The original Greek uses "κεχαριτωμενος/κεχαριτωμενη" for Mary and for the ideal son (of course, Luke is not the Septuagint writer so the consistency of use is especially convincing).

    You are correct that "such grace is not unique to Mary", but you must also see my point: St. Stephen (now that I paid attention to the variants in the Greek codices), and the "justified son" are both filled with grace at the end of their lives; that is to say they both die saints. That should not surprise us. Mary, however, is described as such in the very beginning of her adult life.

    I'll get to the other thread tomorrow.

  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-23-14, SOL. Wednesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/23/2014 7:33:24 PM PDT · 46 of 47
    annalex to annalex

    Supper at Emmaus


    Oil on canvas, 141 x 196 cm
    National Gallery, London
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-23-14, SOL. Wednesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/23/2014 7:29:51 PM PDT · 44 of 47
    annalex to annalex

    The Supper at Emmaus

    Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velázquez.

    c. 1620
    Oil on canvas, 123.2 x 132.7 cm
    Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-23-14, SOL. Wednesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/23/2014 7:29:15 PM PDT · 43 of 47
    annalex to annalex

    Road to Emmaus

    Duccio di Buoninsegna

    Tempera on wood, 51 x 57 cm
    Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-23-14, SOL. Wednesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/23/2014 7:28:41 PM PDT · 42 of 47
    annalex to annalex
    13. And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
    14. And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
    15. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
    16. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
    17. And he said to them, What manner of communications are these that you have one to another, as you walk, and are sad?
    18. And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said to him, Are you only a stranger in Jerusalem, and have not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
    19. And he said to them, What things? And they said to him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
    20. And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
    21. But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, today is the third day since these things were done.
    22. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulcher;
    23. And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
    24. And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulcher, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.

    GLOSS. After the manifestation of Christ's resurrection made by the Angels to the women, the same resurrection is further manifested by an appearance of Christ Himself to His disciples; as it is said, And behold two of them.

    THEOPHYL. Some say that Luke was one of these two, and for this reason concealed his name.

    AMBROSE; Or to two of the disciples by themselves our Lord showed Himself in the evening, namely, Ammaon and Cleophas.

    AUG. The fortress mentioned here we may not unreasonably take to have been also called according to Mark, a village. He next describes the fortress, saying, which was from Jerusalem about the space of sixty stades, called Emmaus.

    BEDE; It is the same as Nicopolis, a remarkable town in Palestine, which after the taking of Judea under the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antonius, changed together with its condition its name also. But the stadium which, as the Greeks say, was invented by Hercules to measure the distances of roads, is the eighth part of a mile; therefore sixty stades are equal to seven miles and fifty paces. And this was the length of journey which they were walking, who were certain about our Lord's death and burial, but doubtful concerning His resurrection. For the resurrection which took place after the seventh day of the week, no one doubts is implied in the number eight. The disciples therefore as the, walk and converse about the Lord had completed the sixth mile of their journey, for they were grieving that He who had lived without blame, had come at length even to death, which He underwent on the sixth day. They had completed also the seventh mile, for they doubted not that He rested in the grave. But of the eighth mile they had only accomplished half; for the glory of His already triumphant resurrection, they did not believe perfectly.

    THEOPHYL. But the disciples above mentioned talked to one another of the things which had happened, not as believing them, but as bewildered at events so extraordinary.

    BEDE; And as they spoke of Him, the Lord comes near and joins them, that He may both influence their minds with faith in His resurrection, and fulfill that which He had promised, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there, am I in the midst of them; as it follows, And it came to pass while they communed to-tether and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near and went with them.

    THEOPHYL. For having now obtained a spiritual body, distance of place is no obstacle to His being present to whom he wished, nor did He any further govern His body by natural laws, but spiritually and supernaturally. Hence as Mark says, He appeared to them in a different form, in which they were not permitted to know Him; for it follows, And their eyes were holden that they should not know him; in order truly that they may reveal their entirely doubtful conceptions, and uncovering their wound may receive a cure; and that they might know that although the same body which suffered, rose again, yet it was no longer such as to be visible to all, but only to those by whom He willed it to be seen; and that they should not wonder why henceforth He walks not among the people, seeing that His conversation was not fit for mankind, but rather divine; which is also the character of the resurrection to come, in which we shall walk as the Angels and the sons of God.

    GREG. Rightly also he refrained from manifesting to them a form which they might recognize, doing that outwardly in the eyes of the body, which was done by themselves inwardly in tile eyes of the mind. For they in themselves inwardly both loved and doubted. Therefore to them as they talked of Him He exhibited His presence, but as they doubted of Him He concealed the appearance which they knew. He indeed conversed with them, for it follows, And he said to them, What manner of communications, &c.

    GREEK EX. They were in truth discoursing among themselves, no longer expecting to see Christ alive, but sorrowing as concerning their Savior slain. Hence it follows, And one of them whose name was Cleophas, answering him said, Are you only a stranger?

    THEOPHYL. As if he said, "Are you a mere stranger, and one dwelling beyond the confines of Jerusalem, and therefore unacquainted with what has happened in the midst of it, that you know not these things;

    BEDE; Or he says this, because they thought Him a stranger, whose countenance they did not recognize. But in reality He was a stranger to them, from the infirmity of whose natures, now that He had obtained the glory of the resurrection, He was far removed, and to whose faith, as yet ignorant of His resurrection, He remained foreign. But again the Lord asks; for it follows, And he said to them, What things? And their answer is given, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet. They confess Him to be a Prophet, but say nothing of the Son of God; either not yet perfectly believing, or fearful of falling into the hands of the persecuting Jews, either knowing not who He was, or concealing the truth which they believed. They add in praise of Him, mighty in deed and word.

    THEOPHYL. First comes deed, then word; for no word of teaching is approved unless first he who teaches shows himself to be a doer thereof. For acting goes before sight; for unless by your works you have cleansed the glass of the understanding, the desired brightness does not appear. But still further it is added, Before God and all the people. For first of all we must please God, and then have regard as far as we can to honesty before men, that placing the honor of God first, we may live without offense to mankind.

    GREEK EX. They next assign the cause of their sadness, the betrayal and passion of Christ; and add in the voice of despair, But we hoped it had been he who should trace redeemed Israel. We hoped, (he says,) not we hope; as if the death of the Lord were like to the deaths of other men.

    THEOPHYL. For they expected that Christ would redeem Israel from the evils that were rising up among them and the Roman slavery. They trusted also that He was an earthly king, whom they thought would be able to escape the sentence of death passed upon Him.

    BEDE; Reason had they then for sorrow, because in some sort they blamed themselves for having hoped redemption in Him whom now they saw dead, and believed not that He would rise again, and most of all they bewailed Him put to death without a cause, whom they knew to be innocent.

    THEOPHYL. And yet those men seem not to have been altogether without faith, by what follows, And besides all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. Whereby they seem to have a recollection of what the Lord had told them that He would rise again on the third day.

    GREEK EX. The disciples also mention the report of the resurrection which was brought by the women; adding, Yes, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, &c. They say this indeed as if they did not believe it; wherefore they speak of themselves as frightened or astonished.

    For they did consider as established what was told them, or that there had been an angelic revelation, but derived from it reason for astonishment and alarm. The testimony of Peter also they did not regard as certain, since he did not say that he had seen our Lord, but conjectured His resurrection from the fact that His body was not lying in the sepulcher.

    Hence it follows, And certain of them that were with us went, &c.

    AUG. But since Luke has said that Peter ran to the sepulcher; and has himself related the words of Cleophas, that some of them went to the sepulcher, he is understood to confirm the testimony of John, that two went to the sepulcher. He first mentioned Peter only, because to him first Mary had related the news.

    25. Then he said to them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
    26. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
    27. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
    28. And they drew nigh to the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
    29. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
    30. And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them.
    31. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
    32. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures?
    33. And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
    34. Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.
    35. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

    THEOPHYL. Because the above-mentioned disciples were troubled with too much doubt, the Lord reproves them, saying, O fools, (for they almost used the same words as those who stood by the cross, He saved others, himself he cannot save.) And He proceeds, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. For it is possible to believe some of these things and not all; as if a man should believe what the Prophets say of the cross of Christ, as in the Psalms, They pierced my hands and my feet; but should not believe what they say of the resurrection, as, You shall not suffer your Holy One to see corruption. But it becomes us in all things to give faith to the Prophets, as well in the glorious things which they predicted of Christ, as the inglorious, since through the suffering of evil things is the entrance into glory.

    Hence it follows, Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? that is, as respects His humanity.

    ISID. PEL. But although it behooved Christ to suffer, yet they who crucified Him are guilty of inflicting the punishment. For they were not concerned to accomplish what God purposed. Therefore their execution of it was impious, but God's purpose most wise, who converted their iniquity into a blessing upon mankind, using as it were the viper's flesh for the working of a health-giving antidote.

    CHRYS. And therefore our Lord goes on to show that all these things did not happen in a common way, but from the predestined purpose of God. Hence it follows, And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, he expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself: As if He said, Since you are slow I will render you quick, by explaining to you the mysteries of the Scriptures. For the sacrifice of Abraham, when releasing Isaac he sacrificed the ram, prefigured Christ's sacrifice. But in the other writings of the Prophets also there are scattered about mysteries of Christ's cross and the resurrection.

    BEDE; But if Moses and the Prophets spoke of Christ, and prophesied that through His Passion He would enter into glory, how does that man boast that he is a Christian. who neither searches how these Scriptures relate to Christ, nor desires to attain by suffering to that glory which he hopes to have with Christ.

    GREEK EX. But since the Evangelist said before, Their eyes were holden that they should not know him, until the words, of the Lord should move their minds to faith, He fitly affords in addition to their hearing a favorable object to their sight As it follows, And they drew night to the fortress whither they were going, and he feigned as if he was going further.

    AUG. Now this relates not to falsehood. For not every thing we feign is a falsehood, but only when we feign that which means nothing. But when our feigning has reference to a certain meaning it is not a falsehood, but a kind of figure of the truth. Otherwise all the things figuratively spoken by wise and holy men, or even by our Lord Himself must be accounted falsehoods. For to the experienced understanding truth consists not in certain words, but as words so also deeds are feigned without falsehood to signify a particular thing.

    GREG. Because then He was still a stranger to faith in their hearts, He feigned as if he would go further. By the word "fingere" we mean to put together or form, and hence formers or preparers of mud we call "figuli." He who was the Truth itself did nothing then by deceit, but exhibited Himself in the body such as He came before them in their minds. But because they could not be strangers to charity, with whom charity was walking, they invite Him as if a stranger to partake of their hospitality.

    Hence it follows, And they compelled him. From which example it is gathered that strangers are not only to be invited to hospitality, but even to be taken by force.

    GLOSS. They not only compel Him by their actions, but induce Him by their words; for it follows, saying, Abide with us, for it is towards evening, and the day is far gone, (that is, towards its close.)

    GREG. Now behold Christ since He is received through His members, so He seeks His receivers through Himself; for it follows, And he went in with them.

    They lay out a table, they bring food. And God whom they had not known in the expounding of Scriptures, they knew in the breaking of bread; for it follows, And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke, and gave it to them.

    And their eyes were opened, and they knew him.

    CHRYS. This was said not of their bodily eyes, but of their mental sight.

    AUG. For they walked not with their eyes shut, but there was something within them which did not permit them to know that which they saw, which a mist, darkness, or some kind of moisture, frequently occasions. Not that the Lord was not able to transform His flesh that it should be really a different form from that which they were accustomed to behold; since in truth also before His passion, He was transfigured in the mount, so that His face was bright as the sun. But it was not so now. For we do not unfitly take this obstacle in the sight to have been caused by Satan, that Jesus might not be known. But still it was so permitted by Christ up to the sacrament of the bread, that by partaking of the unity of His body, the obstacle of the enemy might be understood to be removed, so that Christ might be known.

    THEOPHYL. But He also implies another thing, that the eyes of those who receive the sacred bread are opened that they should know Christ. For the Lord's flesh has in it a great and ineffable power.

    AUG. Or because the Lord feigned as if He would go farther, when He was accompanying the disciples, expounding to them the sacred Scriptures, who knew not whether it was He, what does He mean to imply but that through the duty of hospitality men may arrive at a knowledge of Him; that when He has departed from mankind far above the heavens, He is still with those who perform this duty to His servants. He therefore holds to Christ, that He should not go far from him, whoever being taught in the word communicates in all good things to him who teaches. For they were taught in the word when He expounded to them the Scriptures. And because they followed hospitality, Him whom they knew not in the expounding of the Scriptures, they know in the breaking of bread. For not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    GREG. Whoever then wishes to understand what he has heard, let him hasten to fulfill in work what he can now understand. Behold the Lord was not known when He was speaking, and He vouchsafed to be known when He is eating. It follows, And he vanished out of their sight.

    THEOPHYL. For He had not such a body as that He was able to abide longer with them, that thereby likewise He might increase their affections. And they said one to another, Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

    ORIGEN; By which is implied, that the words uttered by the Savior inflamed the hearts of the hearers to the love of God.

    GREG. By the word which is heard the spirit is kindled the chill of dullness departs, the mind becomes awakened with heavenly desire. It rejoices to hear heavenly precepts, and every command in which it is instructed, is as it were adding a faggot to the fire.

    THEOPHYL. Their hearts then were turned either by the fire of our Lord's words, to which they listened as the truth, or because as he expounded the Scriptures, their hearts were greatly struck within them, that He who was speaking was the Lord. Therefore were they so rejoiced, that without delay they returned to Jerusalem. And hence what follows, And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem. They rose up indeed the same hour, but they arrived after many hours, as they had to travel sixty stades.

    AUG. It had been already reported that Jesus had risen by the women, and by Simon Peter, to whom He had appeared. For these two disciples found them talking of these things when they came to Jerusalem; as it follows, And they found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them., saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.

    BEDE; It seems that our Lord appeared to Peter first of all those whom the four Evangelists and the Apostle mention.

    CHRYS. For He did not show Himself to all at the same time, in order that He might sow the seeds of faith. For he who had first seen and was sure, told it to the rest. Afterwards the word going forth prepared the mind of the hearer for the sight, and therefore He appeared first to him who was of all the most worthy and faithful. For He had need of the most faithful soul to first receive this sight, that it might be least disturbed by the unexpected appearance. And therefore He is first seen by Peter, that he who first confessed Christ should first deserve to see His resurrection, and also because he had denied Him He wished to see him first, to console him, lest he should despair. But after Peter, He appeared to the rest, at one time fewer in number, at another more, which the two disciples attest; for it follows, And they told what things were done by the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

    AUG. But with respect to what Mark says, that they told the rest, and they did not believe them, whereas Luke says, that they had already begun to say, The Lord is risen indeed, what must we understand, except that there were some even then who refused to believe this?

    Catena Aurea Luke 24
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-23-14, SOL. Wednesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/23/2014 7:27:55 PM PDT · 40 of 47
    annalex to Salvation
      English: Douay-Rheims Latin: Vulgata Clementina Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
      Luke 24
    13 And behold, two of them went, the same day, to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named Emmaus. Et ecce duo ex illis ibant ipsa die in castellum, quod erat in spatio stadiorum sexaginta ab Jerusalem, nomine Emmaus. και ιδου δυο εξ αυτων ησαν πορευομενοι εν αυτη τη ημερα εις κωμην απεχουσαν σταδιους εξηκοντα απο ιερουσαλημ η ονομα εμμαους
    14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened. Et ipsi loquebantur ad invicem de his omnibus quæ acciderant. και αυτοι ωμιλουν προς αλληλους περι παντων των συμβεβηκοτων τουτων
    15 And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also drawing near, went with them. Et factum est, dum fabularentur, et secum quærerent : et ipse Jesus appropinquans ibat cum illis : και εγενετο εν τω ομιλειν αυτους και συζητειν και αυτος ο ιησους εγγισας συνεπορευετο αυτοις
    16 But their eyes were held, that they should not know him. oculi autem illorum tenebantur ne eum agnoscerent. οι δε οφθαλμοι αυτων εκρατουντο του μη επιγνωναι αυτον
    17 And he said to them: What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad? Et ait ad illos : Qui sunt hi sermones, quos confertis ad invicem ambulantes, et estis tristes ? ειπεν δε προς αυτους τινες οι λογοι ουτοι ους αντιβαλλετε προς αλληλους περιπατουντες και εστε σκυθρωποι
    18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? Et respondens unus, cui nomen Cleophas, dixit ei : Tu solus peregrinus es in Jerusalem, et non cognovisti quæ facta sunt in illa his diebus ? αποκριθεις δε ο εις ω ονομα κλεοπας ειπεν προς αυτον συ μονος παροικεις ιερουσαλημ και ουκ εγνως τα γενομενα εν αυτη εν ταις ημεραις ταυταις
    19 To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people; Quibus ille dixit : Quæ ? Et dixerunt : De Jesu Nazareno, qui fuit vir propheta, potens in opere et sermone coram Deo et omni populo : και ειπεν αυτοις ποια οι δε ειπον αυτω τα περι ιησου του ναζωραιου ος εγενετο ανηρ προφητης δυνατος εν εργω και λογω εναντιον του θεου και παντος του λαου
    20 And how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him. et quomodo eum tradiderunt summi sacerdotes et principes nostri in damnationem mortis, et crucifixerunt eum : οπως τε παρεδωκαν αυτον οι αρχιερεις και οι αρχοντες ημων εις κριμα θανατου και εσταυρωσαν αυτον
    21 But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed Israel: and now besides all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. nos autem sperabamus quia ipse esset redempturus Israël : et nunc super hæc omnia, tertia dies est hodie quod hæc facta sunt. ημεις δε ηλπιζομεν οτι αυτος εστιν ο μελλων λυτρουσθαι τον ισραηλ αλλα γε συν πασιν τουτοις τριτην ταυτην ημεραν αγει σημερον αφ ου ταυτα εγενετο
    22 Yea and certain women also of our company affrighted us, who before it was light, were at the sepulchre, Sed et mulieres quædam ex nostris terruerunt nos, quæ ante lucem fuerunt ad monumentum, αλλα και γυναικες τινες εξ ημων εξεστησαν ημας γενομεναι ορθριαι επι το μνημειον
    23 And not finding his body, came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive. et non invento corpore ejus, venerunt, dicentes se etiam visionem angelorum vidisse, qui dicunt eum vivere. και μη ευρουσαι το σωμα αυτου ηλθον λεγουσαι και οπτασιαν αγγελων εωρακεναι οι λεγουσιν αυτον ζην
    24 And some of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said, but him they found not. Et abierunt quidam ex nostris ad monumentum : et ita invenerunt sicut mulieres dixerunt, ipsum vero non invenerunt. και απηλθον τινες των συν ημιν επι το μνημειον και ευρον ουτως καθως και αι γυναικες ειπον αυτον δε ουκ ειδον
    25 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. Et ipse dixit ad eos : O stulti, et tardi corde ad credendum in omnibus quæ locuti sunt prophetæ ! και αυτος ειπεν προς αυτους ω ανοητοι και βραδεις τη καρδια του πιστευειν επι πασιν οις ελαλησαν οι προφηται
    26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? Nonne hæc oportuit pati Christum, et ita intrare in gloriam suam ? ουχι ταυτα εδει παθειν τον χριστον και εισελθειν εις την δοξαν αυτου
    27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. Et incipiens a Moyse, et omnibus prophetis, interpretabatur illis in omnibus scripturis quæ de ipso erant. και αρξαμενος απο μωσεως και απο παντων των προφητων διηρμηνευεν αυτοις εν πασαις ταις γραφαις τα περι εαυτου
    28 And they drew night to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. Et appropinquaverunt castello quo ibant : et ipse se finxit longius ire. και ηγγισαν εις την κωμην ου επορευοντο και αυτος προσεποιειτο πορρωτερω πορευεσθαι
    29 But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. Et coëgerunt illum, dicentes : Mane nobiscum, quoniam advesperascit, et inclinata est jam dies. Et intravit cum illis. και παρεβιασαντο αυτον λεγοντες μεινον μεθ ημων οτι προς εσπεραν εστιν και κεκλικεν η ημερα και εισηλθεν του μειναι συν αυτοις
    30 And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. Et factum est, dum recumberet cum eis, accepit panem, et benedixit, ac fregit, et porrigebat illis. και εγενετο εν τω κατακλιθηναι αυτον μετ αυτων λαβων τον αρτον ευλογησεν και κλασας επεδιδου αυτοις
    31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. Et aperti sunt oculi eorum, et cognoverunt eum : et ipse evanuit ex oculis eorum. αυτων δε διηνοιχθησαν οι οφθαλμοι και επεγνωσαν αυτον και αυτος αφαντος εγενετο απ αυτων
    32 And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? Et dixerunt ad invicem : Nonne cor nostrum ardens erat in nobis dum loqueretur in via, et aperiret nobis Scripturas ? και ειπον προς αλληλους ουχι η καρδια ημων καιομενη ην εν ημιν ως ελαλει ημιν εν τη οδω και ως διηνοιγεν ημιν τας γραφας
    33 And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, Et surgentes eadem hora regressi sunt in Jerusalem : et invenerunt congregatos undecim, et eos qui cum illis erant, και ανασταντες αυτη τη ωρα υπεστρεψαν εις ιερουσαλημ και ευρον συνηθροισμενους τους ενδεκα και τους συν αυτοις
    34 Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. dicentes : Quod surrexit Dominus vere, et apparuit Simoni. λεγοντας οτι ηγερθη ο κυριος οντως και ωφθη σιμωνι
    35 And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread. Et ipsi narrabant quæ gesta erant in via, et quomodo cognoverunt eum in fractione panis. και αυτοι εξηγουντο τα εν τη οδω και ως εγνωσθη αυτοις εν τη κλασει του αρτου
  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/23/2014 6:29:26 AM PDT · 142 of 168
    annalex to Elsie

    Christ is God and worked many miracles. Holding His body in His hands at the Last Supper was one of them.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/23/2014 6:26:41 AM PDT · 141 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    Annalex: Well, that is unfortunate because there was nothing ordinary about virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, nor, to that matter, "manna" falling from the sky and five loaves feeding thousands.

    Spreingfield Reformer: Which as you can see is not even remotely about me going for an allegorical explanation without warrant.

    You perceive a contradiction in my words? The virgin birth, and the resurrection are miracles that the Church believes are not allegory of something but facts. Likewise the manna, likewise the five loaves and two fish feeding thousands, likewise the consecrated bread and wine becoming not allegorical Jesus but substantially Jesus. That is supported by the Holy Scripture because the language describing all these miracles is plain and direct and not indicative of allegory. Any kind of hermeneutics that looks at something contrary to nature described in the Bible and dashes for the allegory is flawed beyond repair.

    If, in the public discourses of Jesus, we meet a saying that is not ordinarily possible the way it was said, we have God Himself telling us to look for an analogy of meaning

    Yup; that is how I understood you the first time. It is wrong. Resurrection and virgin birth, and all the miracles in the Gospel are "not ordinarily possible" the way anyone would describe them. Ordinarily, sexual acts precede birth, dead people stay dead, bread stays bread.

    God is telling us to look for analogy in the public teaching ministry of Jesus

    Good grief. Seriously? Whatever He said I should then seek a hidden (*) meaning? By the way, there is no parable of Jesus that a half-way attentive reader would not understand the meaning of; parables are teaching tools, not obfuscation tools.

    why Augustine gets away with saying that but Protestant's don't

    What do you mean by "gets away"? That quote is plain contrary to the Catholic doctrine. St. Augustine is not inerrant; this would not be the only opinion of his that is held as error by the Church; I listed another, about predestination being an equivalent of grace.

    Anathemas are issued not to teach a doctrine but to point out a falsehood that is endangering souls. Augustine's writing on the "figure" was not creating a schism in the Church till 15 Century; when it became a movement scattering the Church, it was condemned. Of course, Trent did not have an effect on Augustine's person because he was dead already.

    Jesus did NOT mean, and I think we can actually agree on this, that they should try to eat his body and blood right there on the spot.

    Right, but we don't have to reach for non-existent allegories to apprehend that. He said that the bread will be His body; the entire conversation in John 6 is in future tense, and the references to life eternal, divinity of Jesus, and the spirit that would profit throughout the discourse point to something miraculous that will happen but has not happened. It actually happened at the Last Supper, when the phrase is present tense and terse, and a statement of fact: "this is my body".

    There is no mention of the Passover celebration here

    Nor should there be. The Mass is prefigured in the Passover episode which is also reflected in the Seder. However, the Mass is the Golgotha hill, not the Seder. The bitter herbs and the sweets, the multiple cups and the rest of the Passover meal are not present in the Mass and they were not spoken about by Jesus. There are many semantic connections here, but not the actual commingling of the Jewish rite and the Catholic rite.

    he says here plainly, is where we find our life [...]

    Yes, He does, but that -- and the rest of your post there, -- does not negate His previous speech. Of course with the Eucharist we also consume the entirety of the Christian doctrine, -- both by conscious learning at the Liturgy of the word and by turning to the Savior in spirit, letting Him in physically to abide in us. The Mass is entirely consistent with the dual meaning of Christ as the Word (John 1:1).

    Perhaps the confusion begins with seeing the Holy Mass as ceremony, when in fact it is encounter with the Word Entire.


    (*) On that score. Observe that after the Resurrection Christ spends 40 days "speaking of the kingdom of God" (Acts 1:3). You don't think the doctrine was given the nascent Church then?

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/23/2014 5:43:32 AM PDT · 137 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; daniel1212; BlueDragon

    Dan spent a lot of energy (and a lot of virtual paper) to explain away verses which literal meaning is Catholic. The explanation does not hold: between the two discourses on the Eucharist, in John 6 and in 1 Cor. 11, and the Last Supper episode allegory cannot be argued. That he does while proclaiming himself a believer in Sola Scriptura. You don’t think irony is out of place here?

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/23/2014 5:38:58 AM PDT · 133 of 168
    annalex to Elsie
    Co-substantiation is an error because it means the Eucharist is both bread and Jesus at the same time, hence according to that doctrine, Jesus made a mistake when He said "this is my body".
  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/23/2014 5:35:54 AM PDT · 82 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; Iscool
    In Acts 6:8 we don't even have "grace"; there are no neologisms either:
    πληρης πιστεως και δυναμεως

    Why St. Jerome translated "grace" instead of "faith" I don't know.

    The only other use of "κεχαριτωμενη" is in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18:17

    Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
      English: Douay-Rheims Greek OT: LXX [A] Unaccented English: King James Version
      Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 18
    17 Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a justified man. ουκ ιδου λογος υπερ δομα αγαθον και αμφοτερα παρα ανδρι κεχαριτωμενω Lo, is not a word better than a gift? but both are with a gracious man.

    KJV again is working hard to obscure the Bible: Mary is "highly favored" but the idealized "son" in Sirach is "gracious", -- same word and similar context. Mary is described as "full of grace" in Luke and the idealized son as "justified" in Sirach, and indeed he is to be "justified" in anticipation of "the wrath that shall be at the last day" (Ibid. 18:24). The juxtaposition of these two occurrences of κεχαριτωμενος explain the intended meaning of the Archangel's address to Mary: she, while a young girl, is already like the saints in heaven, the justified.

  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-22-14, SOL, Tuesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/22/2014 7:18:17 PM PDT · 41 of 41
    annalex to annalex

    Noli Me Tangere

    Fra Angelico

    Fresco, 166 x 125 cm
    Convento di San Marco, Florence
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-22-14, SOL, Tuesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/22/2014 7:17:39 PM PDT · 40 of 41
    annalex to annalex

    Crucifixion with Saints and Noli Me Tangere

    around 1350
    Tempera and gold on wood, 56 x 38 cm
    Pinacoteca, Vatican
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-22-14, SOL, Tuesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/22/2014 7:17:08 PM PDT · 39 of 41
    annalex to annalex

    Appearence to Mary Magdalene (Noli me tangere)

    Duccio di Buoninsegna

    Tempera on wood, 51 x 57 cm
    Museo dell'Opera del Duomo, Siena
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-22-14, SOL, Tuesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/22/2014 7:16:39 PM PDT · 38 of 41
    annalex to annalex
    11. But Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher,
    12. And sees two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
    13. And they say to her, Woman, why weep you? She says to them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
    14. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
    15. Jesus says to her, Woman, why weep you? whom seek you? She, supposing him to be the gardener, says to him, Sir, if you have borne him from here, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.
    16. Jesus says to her, Mary. She turned herself, and says to him, Rabboni; which is to say Master.
    17. Jesus says to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
    18. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things to her.

    GREG. Mary Magdalene, who had been the sinner in the city, and who had washed out the spots of her sins by her tears, whose soul burned with love, did not retire from the sepulcher when the others did: Then the disciples went away again to their own home.

    AUG. i.e. To the place where they were lodging, and from which they had ran to the sepulcher. But though the men returned, the stronger love of the woman fixed her to the spot. But Mary stood without at the sepulcher weeping.

    AUG. i.e. Outside of the place where the stone sepulcher was, but yet within the garden.

    CHRYS. Be not astonished that Mary wept for love at the sepulcher, and Peter did not; for the female sex is naturally tender, and inclined to weep.

    AUG. The eyes then which had sought our Lord, and found Him not, now wept without interruption; more for grief that our Lord had been removed, than for His death upon the cross. For now even all memorial of Him was taken away.

    AUG. She then saw, with the other women, the Angel sitting on the right, on the stone which had been rolled away from the sepulcher, at whose words it was that she looked into the sepulcher.

    CHRYS. The sight of the sepulcher itself was some consolation. Nay, behold her, to console herself still more, stooping down, to see the very place where the body lay: And as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher.

    GREG. For to have looked once is not enough for love. Love makes one desire to look over and over again.

    AUG. In her too great grief she could believe neither her own eyes, nor the disciples. Or was it a divine impulse which caused her to look in?

    GREG. She sought the body, and found it not; she persevered in seeking; and so it came to pass that she found. Her longings growing the stronger, the more they were disappointed, at last found and laid hold on their object. For holy longings ever gain strength by delay, did they not, they would not be longings. Mary so loved, that not content with seeing the sepulcher, she stooped down and looked in: let us see the fruit which came of this persevering love: And sees two Angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain,

    CHRYS. As her understanding was not so raised as to be able to gather from the napkins the fact of the resurrection, she is given the sight of Angels in bright apparel, who soothe her sorrow

    AUG. But why did one sit at the head, the other at the feet? To signify that the glad tidings of Christ's Gospel was to be delivered from the head to the feet, from the beginning to the end. The Greek word Angel means one who delivers news.

    GREG. The Angel sits at the head when the Apostles preach that in the beginning was the Word: he sits, as it were, at the feet, when it is said, The Word was made flesh. By the two Angels too we may understand the two testaments; both of which proclaim alike the incarnation, death, and resurrection of our Lord. The Old seems to sit at the head, the New at the feet.

    CHRYS. The Angels who appear say nothing about the resurrection; but by degrees the subject is entered on. First of all they address her compassionately, to prevent her from being overpowered by a spectacle of such extraordinary brightness: And they say to her, Woman, why weep you? The Angels forbade tears, and announced, as it were, the joy that was at hand: Why weep you? As if to say, Weep not.

    GREG. The very declarations of Scripture which excite our tears of love, wipe away those very tears, by promising us the sight of our Redeemer again.

    AUG. But she, thinking that they wanted to know why she wept, tells them the reason: She says to them, Because they have taken away my Lord. The lifeless body of her Lord, she calls her Lord, putting the part for the whole; just as we confess that Jesus Christ the Son of God was buried, when only His flesh was buried. And I know not where here they hare placed Him: it was a still greater grief, that she did not know where to go to console her grief.

    CHRYS. As yet she knew nothing of the resurrection, but thought the body had been taken away.

    AUG. Here the Angels must be understood to rise up, for Luke describes them as seen standing.

    AUG. The hour was now come, which the Angels announced, when sorrow should be succeeded by joy: And when she had thus said, she turned herself back.

    CHRYS. But why, when she is talking to the Angels, and before she has heard any thing from them, does she turn back? It seems to me that while she was speaking, Christ appeared behind her, and that the Angels by their posture, look, and motion, showed that they saw our Lord, and that thus it was that she turned back.

    GREG. We must observe that Mary, who as yet doubted our Lord's resurrection, turned back to see Jesus. By her doubting she turned her back, as it were, upon our Lord. Yet inasmuch as she loved, she saw Him. She loved and doubted: she saw, and did not recognize Him: And saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

    CHRYS. To the Angels He appeared as their Lord but not so to c the woman, for the sight coming upon her all at once, would have stupefied her. She was not to be lifted suddenly, but gradually to high things.

    GREG. Jesus says to her, Woman, why do you weep? He asks the cause of her grief, to set her longing still more. For the mere mentioning His name whom she sought would inflame her love for Him.

    CHRYS. Because He appeared as a common person, she c thought Him the gardener: She, supposing Him to be the gardener, says to Him, Sir, if you have borne Him from here, tell me where you have laid Him, and 1 will take Him away. i.e. If you have taken Him away from fear of the Jews, tell me, and I will take Him again.

    THEOPHYL. She was afraid that the Jews might vent their rage even on the lifeless body, and therefore wished to remove it to some secret place.

    GREG. Perhaps, however, the woman was right, in believing Jesus to be the gardener. Was not He the spiritual Gardener, who by the power of His love had sown strong seeds of virtue in her breast? But how is it that, as soon as she sees the gardener, as she supposes Him to be, she says without having told Him who it was she was seeking, Sir, if you have borne Him from here? It arises from her love; when one loves a person, one never thinks that any one else can be ignorant of him.

    Our Lord, after calling her by the common name of her sex, and not being recognized, calls her by her own name: Jesus says to her, Mary; as if to say, Recognize Him, who recognizes you. Mary, being called by name, recognizes Him; that it was He whom she sought externally, and He who taught her internally to seek. She turned herself, and says to Him, Rabooni; which its to say, Master.

    CHRYS. Just as He was sometimes in the midst of the Jews, and they did not know Him till He pleased to make Himself known. But why does she turn herself; when she had turned herself before? It seems to me that when she said, Where you have laid Him, she turned to the Angels, to ask why they were astonished. Then Christ, calling her, discovered Himself by His voice, and made her turn to Him again.

    AUG. Or she first turned her body, but thought Him what He was not; now she was turned in heart, and knew who He was. Let no one however blame her, because she called the gardener, Lord, and Jesus, Master. The one was a title of courtesy to a person from whom she was asking a favor; the other of respect to a Teacher from whom she was used to learn to distinguish the divine from the human. The word Lord is used in different senses, when she says, They have taken away my Lord, and when she says, Lord, if you have borne Him away.

    GREG The Evangelist does not add what she did upon recognizing Him, but we know from what our Lord said to her: Jesus says to her, Touch Me not. Mary then had tried to embrace His feet, but was not allowed. Why not? The reason follows: For I am not yet ascended to My Father.

    AUG. But if standing upon the earth, He is not touched, how shall He be touched sitting in heaven? And did He not before His ascension offer Himself to the touch of the disciples: Handle Me and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones? Who can be so absurd as to suppose that He was willing that disciples should touch Him before He ascended to His Father, and unwilling that women should till after Nay, we read of women after the resurrection, and before He ascended to His Father, touching Him, one of whom was Mary Magdalene herself, according to Matthew. Either then Mary here is a type of the Gentile Church, which did not believe in Christ till after His ascension: or the meaning is that Jesus is to be believed in, i.e. spiritually touched, in no other way, but as being one with the Father. He ascends to the Father mystically, as it were, in the mind of him who has so far advanced as to acknowledge that He is equal to the Father. But how could Mary believe in Him otherwise than carnally, when she wept for Him as a man?

    AUG. Touch is as it were the end of knowledge and He was unwilling that a soul intent upon Him should have its end, in thinking Him only what He seemed to be.

    CHRYS. Mary wished to be as familiar with Christ now, as she was before His Passion; forgetting, in her joy, that His body was made much more holy by its resurrection. So, Touch Me not, He says, to remind her of this, and make her feel awe in talking with Him. For which reason too He no longer keeps company with His disciples, viz. that they might look upon Him with the greater awe. Again, by saying I have not yet ascended, He shows that He is hastening there. And He who was going to depart and live no more with men, ought not to be regarded with the same feeling that He was before: But go to My brethren, and say to them, I ascend to My Father, and you Father; and to My God, and your God.

    HILARY. Heretics, among their other impieties, misinterpret these words of our Lord's, and say, that if His Father is their Father, His God their God, He cannot be God Himself. But though He remained in the form of God, He took upon Him the form of a servant; and Christ says this in the form of a servant to men. And we cannot doubt that in so far as He is man, the Father is His Father in the same sense in which He is of other men, and God His God in like manner. Indeed He begins with saying, Go to My brethren, But God can only have brethren according to the flesh; the Only-Begotten God, being Only-Begotten, is without brethren.

    AUG. He does not say, Our Father, but, My Father and your Father: Mine therefore and yours in a different sense; Mine by nature, yours by grace. Nor does He say, Our God, but My God - under Him I am man - and your God; between you and Him I am Mediator.

    AUG. She then went away from. the sepulcher, i.e. from that part of the garden before the rock which had been hollowed out, and with her the other women. But these, according to Mark, were seized with trembling and amazement, and said nothing to any man: Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things to her.

    GREG. So the sin of mankind is buried in the very place whence it came forth. For whereas in Paradise the woman gave the man the deadly fruit, a woman from the sepulcher announced life to men; a woman delivers the message of Him who raises us from the dead, as a woman had delivered the words of the serpent who slew us.

    AUG. While she was going with the other women, according to Matthew, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. So we gather that there were two visions of Angels ; and that our Lord too was seen twice once when Mary took Him for the gardener, and again, when He met them by the way, and by this repeating His presence confirmed their faith. And so Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples, not alone, but with the other women whom Luke mentions.

    BEDE. Mystically, Mary, which name signifies, mistress, enlightened, enlightener, star of the sea, stands for the Church, which is also Magdalene, i.e. towered, (Magdalene being Greek for tower) as we read in the Psalms, you have been a strong tower for me. In that she announced Christ's resurrection to the disciples, all, especially those to whom the office of preaching is committed are admonished to be zealous in setting forth to others whatever is revealed from above.

    Catena Aurea John 20
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-22-14, SOL, Tuesday in the Octave of Easter

    04/22/2014 7:16:06 PM PDT · 37 of 41
    annalex to Salvation
      English: Douay-Rheims Latin: Vulgata Clementina Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
      John 20
    11 But Mary stood at the sepulchre without, weeping. Now as she was weeping, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, Maria autem stabat ad monumentum foris, plorans. Dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se, et prospexit in monumentum : μαρια δε ειστηκει προς το μνημειον κλαιουσα εξω ως ουν εκλαιεν παρεκυψεν εις το μνημειον
    12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid. et vidit duos angelos in albis sedentes, unum ad caput, et unum ad pedes, ubi positum fuerat corpus Jesu. και θεωρει δυο αγγελους εν λευκοις καθεζομενους ενα προς τη κεφαλη και ενα προς τοις ποσιν οπου εκειτο το σωμα του ιησου
    13 They say to her: Woman, why weepest thou? She saith to them: Because they have taken away my Lord; and I know not where they have laid him. Dicunt ei illi : Mulier, quid ploras ? Dicit eis : Quia tulerunt Dominum meum : et nescio ubi posuerunt eum. και λεγουσιν αυτη εκεινοι γυναι τι κλαιεις λεγει αυτοις οτι ηραν τον κυριον μου και ουκ οιδα που εθηκαν αυτον
    14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing; and she knew not that it was Jesus. Hæc cum dixisset, conversa est retrorsum, et vidit Jesum stantem : et non sciebat quia Jesus est. και ταυτα ειπουσα εστραφη εις τα οπισω και θεωρει τον ιησουν εστωτα και ουκ ηδει οτι ιησους εστιν
    15 Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Dicit ei Jesus : Mulier, quid ploras ? quem quæris ? Illa existimans quia hortulanus esset, dicit ei : Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum, et ego eum tollam. λεγει αυτη ο ιησους γυναι τι κλαιεις τινα ζητεις εκεινη δοκουσα οτι ο κηπουρος εστιν λεγει αυτω κυριε ει συ εβαστασας αυτον ειπε μοι που εθηκας αυτον καγω αυτον αρω
    16 Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master). Dicit ei Jesus : Maria. Conversa illa, dicit ei : Rabboni (quod dicitur Magister). λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μαρια στραφεισα εκεινη λεγει αυτω ραββουνι ο λεγεται διδασκαλε
    17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. Dicit ei Jesus : Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum : vade autem ad fratres meos, et dic eis : Ascendo ad Patrem meum, et Patrem vestrum, Deum meum, et Deum vestrum. λεγει αυτη ο ιησους μη μου απτου ουπω γαρ αναβεβηκα προς τον πατερα μου πορευου δε προς τους αδελφους μου και ειπε αυτοις αναβαινω προς τον πατερα μου και πατερα υμων και θεον μου και θεον υμων
    18 Mary Magdalen cometh, and telleth the disciples: I have seen the Lord, and these things he said to me. Venit Maria Magdalene annuntians discipulis : Quia vidi Dominum, et hæc dixit mihi. ερχεται μαρια η μαγδαληνη απαγγελλουσα τοις μαθηταις οτι εωρακεν τον κυριον και ταυτα ειπεν αυτη
  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/22/2014 6:16:53 PM PDT · 80 of 88
    annalex to Iscool

    That is a good indication that Mary is sinless and had been before the Angel came; but we know it from the Church, not from the scripture alone. The scripture merely confirms what we know.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/22/2014 6:14:57 PM PDT · 127 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon


  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/22/2014 6:14:20 PM PDT · 126 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer; BlueDragon

    That Rome cannot be wrong is illustrated by how you cannot point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.

    You believe in the scripture alone, — read it every once in a while. It is not a slur, — it is a logical conclusion, that you don’t do that with attention at least on this important topic.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/22/2014 6:41:06 AM PDT · 118 of 168
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    can avoid the use of private judgment in becoming RC, so why is private judgment condemned?

    Baptism marks the soul. God does it, so no volition needs to be involved. The result is a Christian soul, ready to be saved at that moment. (You realize that we understand salvation as a process that ends with judgment upon death; this is different from Protestant concept of salvation already achieved at the moment of willing acceptance of Christ as Lord ans Savior).

    Unless that baptised infant dies and goes to heaven, an adult will emerge and he will develop both reason and inclination to sin, and he will sin. At that point an upward cycle of confession, absolution, strengthening of the soul through the reception of the Eucharist and generally life in the Church leads a man to salvation. All these are acts of volition on the part of man. If the man wills not to eat the Eucharist, -- perhaps for reasons that seem good to him, -- he loses his salvation, the doors of the Temple close to him and his soul is near death. But of course, grace continues to bathe him and often it breaks though and he comes back, and dies saved.

    So, no, free will is central to the Catholic anthropology. "Private judgment", however, is something else. Whether or not it is as you say "condemned" depends on what is being privately judged. For example, -- and I suspect that is what you have in mind, -- the private judgment of what the Bible means is indeed condemned, -- not not because we are not supposed to think for ourselves but because private judgment of the Holy Scripture is an act against reason. Why is it an act against reason? Because the Church gave you the Bible (wrote in part, translated, canonized all of it, refused to canonize other works, promoted as a tool of sanctification to all) as a part of her sacred deposit of Faith. Just like you would not have a private judgment about what Freeper X writes without asking Freeper X to clarify, so shouldn't you read the Bible without asking the Church to clarify.

    It is at precisely this moment when he explains to them that their carnal understanding, their thinking of this in terms of his literal flesh, is the key to their misunderstanding, that instead they should be seeing this in spiritual terms, not carnal.

    I agree, but let is clarify what "carnal understanding" we are talking about. To understand the Eucharist is an act of cannibalism is that carnal understanding. We are accused of practicing cannibalism today. There are two extremes here between which Jesus steers through a difficult idea. One extreme is that just how the disciples ate the breads and the fishes, and just how the ancient Jews ate the manna, so we should eat Jesus's flesh. That line of thinking Jesus opposes first by pointing to the manna not leading to eternal life, and at the end of his discourse by poitning to His divinity and immediately after directly explaining that the Eucharist does not feed the stomach. Its "profit" is spiritual.

    But at the same time He insisted passionately: "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world"; "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day"; "my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed". And indeed, the words at the Last Supper are plain "this is my body". With that He militates against the other extreme: spiritualizing the Eucharist to the point that it becomes only a symbol. He wants us to do something that would speak to our senses directly, go to our belly and become a physical indwelling of God in us.

    as Jesus says, that it is His words that are to be spiritually understood, that produce a spiritual benefit, as opposite from the unprofitable view of seeing his body and blood as physical foods.

    Eh, no. He does not say that. I inserted nothing; He said

    It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing

    He is not referring to "unprofitable view"; the text says "η σαρξ ουκ ωφελει ουδεν", -- the flesh does not profit. Profit from what? From the thing in focus, the Eucharist. That is the final rejection of the "cannibalistic" view, but it comes after the insistence on physically eating Him has been made with great force.

    Jesus made a habit of redirecting his hearers to rise above their carnal misunderstanding of spiritual truth

    Yes, and so it is here, but he pattern intertwines with the insistence of the Eucharist being really Him and really food. Indeed there is another pattern, of giving us physical objects in addition to theory. So, baptism is of water, mud heals the blind, His clothes heal hemorrhage, and above all His Incarnation gave us a man-God of flesh. By giving us the Eucharist Christ gave us a direct, first hand experience of His Incarnation (tasting His flesh), His Passion (consuming his flesh) and His Resurrection (abiding in us forever in spirit).

    if any opportunity is presented to take a difficult saying and render it as an analogy (or more precisely as a parable), then that analogy is the presumptively correct interpretation.

    No, that is radically wrong. That kind of hermeneutics is what takes half the scripture and throws it away. When Christ speaks in parables, He first indicates that it is a parable and when there is a misunderstanding, He immediately explains it. In John 6 we clearly have misunderstanding, people even leave, and He still does not explain His words about eating the flesh "indeed" anyhow differently. He is only concerned about them eating only the Eucharist form then on. and at the Last Supper He again says "this is my body". Finally, St. Paul understood Him in the perfect Catholic way in 1 Cor. 11: (1) feed your stomachs at home; (2) This is Christ's body according to His words; (3) if you don't understand that this is His body, you die. So you can cite Augustine, not a universal authority in Catholicism, I'll stick with St. Paul in 1 Century and St. Ignatius of Antioch in the 2 Century.

    how ... you as one not committed to transubstantiation per se can avoid anathematization

    Real Presence means that the bread and the wine become truly Jesus and not conjoined with Jesus. I am with Trent. What I said is that the medieval scholasticism is not a necessary part of the dogma; it is a way to explain it. Also note that anathemas correct error; they do not establish dogmas. The error is co-substantiation and it ought to be condemned.

    You somewhere chided me for limiting myself to the historical grammatical hermeneutic

    I did? I think I perhaps "chided" you for going for an allegorical explanation without evidence the text being written allegorically. "This is my body" is indeed on par with “Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead”, requiring no "special meanings of words". I wish you read John 6 as you read John 11.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/22/2014 5:41:03 AM PDT · 115 of 168
    annalex to Elsie
    Catholic writers express all kinds of things that are not New Testement.

    Of course, -- we had two thousand years of Christian practice to put into words.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/22/2014 5:39:40 AM PDT · 114 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon
    Do you have any theological questions?

    None that the Holy Catholic Church hasn't answered.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/22/2014 5:38:28 AM PDT · 78 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer
    I understand that grace leads to the acceptance of man back in the Garden, from which he was expelled. I don't dislike "accepted" as poetry; if a commentator on the Gospel wrote something like this I would see a valuable insight in it. In fact, St. Ephrem the Syrian is the one who taught me this theology of physical journey away and back in the Garden (see his Hymns on Paradise). The problem is that King James Bible is supposed to be not a commentary but a translation; I prefer the semantic lines to be kept as written, not improved upon.

    It is indeed the issue also with the Catholic desire to take words of Christ literally where no allegorical speech is in evidence, as in His words regarding the Eucharist, and a few other Catholic distinctives.

    It almost seems as if Protestants and Catholics have a fundamentally different view of what grace is

    For sure, St. Augustine's idea that grace is no different than predestination -- and therefore those passed over for the election have no access of grace, -- is completely non-Catholic. I suspect that at least more calvinistically minded Protestant would join Augustine on that.

    between grace and predestination there is only this difference, that predestination is the preparation for grace, while grace is the donation itself. […] Abraham […] believed, giving glory to God, ‘that what he has promised, he is able also to do’. He does not say, to foretell— he does not say, to foreknow; for He can foretell and foreknow the doings of strangers also; but he says, He is able also to do; and thus he is speaking not of the doings of others, but of His own. (On the Predestination of the Saints I.19, quoting Romans 4:21)

    A Catholic would immediately rebut with

    [God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4)

    We believe that grace is available for all; grace is the reason grass grows underfoot. The predestination occurs across time as God foreknows the responses of men to grace, and leads those whom He elects to salvation based on the foreknown content of their heart. Compare “the Lord beholdeth the heart” (1 Kings/1 Samuel. 16:7).

  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-21-14, SOL, Monday in the Octave of Easter

    04/21/2014 7:34:31 PM PDT · 42 of 42
    annalex to annalex


    Hans Memling (1440 - 1494)

    Oil on oak, 58 x 28,2 cm
    Szépmûvészeti Múzeum, Budapest
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-21-14, SOL, Monday in the Octave of Easter

    04/21/2014 7:34:07 PM PDT · 41 of 42
    annalex to annalex

    Resurrection of Christ and Women at the Tomb

    Frs Angelico

    Fresco, 181 x 151 cm
    Convento di San Marco, Florence
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-21-14, SOL, Monday in the Octave of Easter

    04/21/2014 7:33:42 PM PDT · 40 of 42
    annalex to annalex

    The Resurrection

    Tempera on spruce, 132 x 92 cm
    Národní Galerie, Prague
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-21-14, SOL, Monday in the Octave of Easter

    04/21/2014 7:33:08 PM PDT · 39 of 42
    annalex to annalex
    8. And they departed quickly from the sepulcher with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
    9. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
    10. Then said Jesus to them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

    HILARY; The women having been comforted by the Angel, are straightway met by the Lord, that when they should proclaim His resurrection to the disciples, they should speak rasher from Christ's own mouth than from an Angel's.

    AUG. They departed forth of the tomb, that is, from that spot of the garden which was before the tomb hewn in the rock.

    JEROME; A twofold feeling possessed the minds of the women, fear and joy; fear, at the greatness of the miracle; joy, in their desire of Him that was risen; but both added speed to their women's steps, as it follows, And did run to bring his disciples word. They went to the Apostles, that through them might be spread abroad the seed of the faith. They who thus desired, and who thus ran, merited to have their rising Lord come to meet them; whence it follows, And, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail.

    RABAN. Hereby He showed that He will meet with His help all those who begin the ways of virtue, and enable them to attain to e, everlasting salvation.

    JEROME; The women ought first to hear this Hail, that the curse of the woman Eve may be removed in these women.

    CHRYSOL. That in these women is contained a full figure c of the Church is shown hereby, that Christ convinces His disciples when in doubt concerning the Resurrection, and confirms them when in fear; and when He meets them He does not terrify them by His power, but prevents them with the ardor of love. And Christ in His Church salutes Himself, for He has taken it into His own Body.

    AUG. We conclude that they had speech of Angels twice at the sepulcher; when they saw one Angel, of whom Matthew and Mark speak; and again when they saw two Angels, as Luke and John relate. And twice in like manner of the Lord; once at that time when Mary supposed Him to be the gardener, and now again when He met them in the way to confirm them by repetition, and to restore them from their faintness.

    CHRYSOL. Then Mary was not suffered to touch Him; now she has permission not only to touch, but to hold Him altogether; they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

    RABAN. It was told above how He rose when the sepulcher was closed, to show that that body which had been shut up therein dead, was now become immortal. He now offers His feet to be held by the women, to show that He had real flesh, which can be touched by mortal creatures.

    CHRYSOL. They hold Christ's feet, who in the Church present the type of Evangelic preaching, and merit this privilege by their running to Him; and by faith so detain their Savior's footsteps, that they may come to the honor of His perfect Godhead. She is deservedly bid to touch me not, who mourns her Lord upon earth, and so seeks Him dead in the tomb, as not to know that He reigns in heaven with the Father. This, that the same Mary, one while exalted to the summit of faith, touches Christ, and holds Him with entire and holy affection; and again, cast down in weakness of flesh, and womanly infirmity, doubts, undeserving to touch her Lord, causes us no difficulty. For that is of mystery, this of her sex; that is of divine grace, this of human nature. And so also we, when we have knowledge of divine things, live to God; when we are wise in human things, we are blinded so by our own selves.

    ID. They held His feet to show that the head of Christ is the man, but that the woman is in Christ's feet, and that it was given to them through Christ, not to go before, but to follow the man. Christ also repeats what the Angel had said, that what an Angel had made sure, Christ might make yet more sure. It follows, Then said Jesus to them, Fear not.

    JEROME; This may be always observed, both in the Old and New Testament, that when there is an appearance of any majestic person, the first thing done is to banish fear, that the mind being tranquilized may receive the things that are said.

    HILARY; The same order as of old now followed in the reversal of our woe, that whereas death began from the female sex, the same should now first see the glory of the Resurrection, and be made the messenger thereof. Whence the Lord adds, Go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, there shall they see me.

    CHRYSOL. He calls them brethren whom He has made akin to His own body; brethren whom the generous Heir has made His co-heirs; brethren, whom He has adopted to be sons of His own Father.

    AUG. That the Lord, both by His own mouth, and by the Angel, directs them to seek for Him, not in that place in which He was to show Himself first but in Galilee, makes every believer anxious to understand in what mystery it is spoken. Galilee is interpreted 'transmigration,' or 'revelation'. And according to the first interpretation what meaning offers itself, save this, that the grace of Christ was to pass from the people of Israel to the Gentiles, who would not believe when the Apostles should preach the Gospel to them, unless the Lord Himself should first make ready their way in the hearts of men. This is the signification of that, He shall go before you into Galilee. There shall you see him, means, there shall you find His members, there shall you perceive His living Body in such as shall receive you. According to the other interpretation, 'revelation,' it is to be understood, you shall see him no longer in the form of a servant, but in that in which He is equal with the Father. That revelation will be the true Galilee, when we shall be like him, and shall see him as he is. That will be the blessed passing from this world to that eternity.

    11. Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and showed to the Chief Priests all the things that were done.
    12. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money to the soldiers,
    13. Saying, Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
    14. And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
    15. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

    CHRYS. Of the signs which were shown around Christ, some were common to the whole world, as the darkness; some peculiar to the watch, as the wonderful apparition of Angels, and the earthquake, which were wrought for the soldiers' sake, that they might be stunned with amazement, and bear testimony to the truth. For when truth is proclaimed by its adversaries, it adds to its brightness. Which befell now; Some of the watch came into the city, and showed to the Chief Priests all the things that were done.

    RABAN. Simple minds, and unlearned country-folk, often make manifest without guile the truth of a matter, as the thing is; but on the other hand, a crafty wickedness studies how to recommend falsehood by ing words.

    JEROME; Thus the Chief Priests, who ought to have been by this turned to penitence, and to seek Jesus risen, persevere in their wickedness, and convert the money which was given for the use of the Temple to the purchase of a lie, as before they had given thirty pieces of silver to the traitor Judas.

    CHRYSOL. Not content to have put the Master to death, they plot how they may destroy the disciples, and make the Master's power matter of charge against His disciples. The soldiers indeed lost Him, the Jews missed Him, but the disciples carried Him away, not by theft, but by faith; by virtue, and not by fraud; by holiness, and not by wickedness; alive, and not dead.

    CHRYS. How should the disciples carry Him away by stealth, men poor, and of no station, and who scarcely dared to show themselves? They fled when afterwards they saw Christ alive, how, when He was dead, would they not have feared so great a multitude of soldiers? How were they to remove the door of the sepulcher? One might have done it unperceived by the guard. But a large stone was rolled to the mouth requiring many hands. And was not the seal thereon? And why did they not attempt it the first night, when there was none at the sepulcher? For it was on the Sabbath that they begged the body of Jesus.

    Moreover, what mean these napkins which Peter sees laid here? Had the disciples stolen the Body, they would never have stripped it, both because it might so receive hurt, and cause unnecessary delay to themselves, and so expose them to be taken by the watch; especially since the Body and clothes were covered with myrrh, a glutinous spice, which would cause them to adhere. The allegation of the theft then is improbable. So that their endeavors to conceal the Resurrection do but make it more manifest. For when they say, His disciples stole the body, they confess that it is not in the sepulcher. And as they thus confess that they had not the Body, and as the watch, the sealing, and the fears of the disciples, make the theft improbable, there is seen evidence of the Resurrection not to be gainsaid.

    REMIG. But if the guards slept, how saw they the theft? And if they saw it not, how could they witness thereto? So that what they desire to show, they cannot show.

    GLOSS. That the fear of the Governor might not restrain them from this lie, they promise them impunity.

    CHRYS. See how all are corrupted; Pilate persuaded; the people stirred up; the soldiers bribed; as it follows, And they took the money, and did as they were instructed. If money prevailed with a disciple so far as to make him become the betrayer of his Master, what wonder that the soldiers are overcome by it.

    HILARY; The concealment of the Resurrection, and the false allegation of theft, is purchased by money; because by the honor of this world, which consists in money and desire, Christ's glory is denied.

    RABAN. But as the guilt of His blood, which they imprecated upon themselves and their children, presses them down with a heavy weight of sin, so the purchase of the lie, by which they deny the truth of the Resurrection, charges this guilt upon them for ever; as it follows, And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

    CHRYSOL. Among the Jews, not among the Christians; what in Judea the Jew concealed by his gold, is by faith blazed abroad throughout the world.

    JEROME; All who abuse to other purposes the money of the Temple, and the contributions for the use of the Church, purchasing with them their own pleasure, are like the Scribes and Priests who bought this lie, and the blood of the Savior.

    Catena Aurea Matthew 28
  • Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 04-21-14, SOL, Monday in the Octave of Easter

    04/21/2014 7:32:42 PM PDT · 38 of 42
    annalex to Salvation
      English: Douay-Rheims Latin: Vulgata Clementina Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
      Matthew 28
    8 And they went out quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, running to tell his disciples. Et exierunt cito de monumento cum timore et gaudio magno, currentes nuntiare discipulis ejus. και εξελθουσαι ταχυ απο του μνημειου μετα φοβου και χαρας μεγαλης εδραμον απαγγειλαι τοις μαθηταις αυτου
    9 And behold Jesus met them, saying: All hail. But they came up and took hold of his feet, and adored him. Et ecce Jesus occurrit illis, dicens : Avete. Illæ autem accesserunt, et tenuerunt pedes ejus, et adoraverunt eum. ως δε επορευοντο απαγγειλαι τοις μαθηταις αυτου και ιδου ιησους απηντησεν αυταις λεγων χαιρετε αι δε προσελθουσαι εκρατησαν αυτου τους ποδας και προσεκυνησαν αυτω
    10 Then Jesus said to them: Fear not. Go, tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, there they shall see me. Tunc ait illis Jesus : Nolite timere : ite, nuntiare fratribus meis ut eant in Galilæam ; ibi me videbunt. τοτε λεγει αυταις ο ιησους μη φοβεισθε υπαγετε απαγγειλατε τοις αδελφοις μου ινα απελθωσιν εις την γαλιλαιαν και εκει με οψονται
    11 Who when they were departed, behold some of the guards came into the city, and told the chief priests all things that had been done. Quæ cum abiissent, ecce quidam de custodibus venerunt in civitatem, et nuntiaverunt principibus sacerdotum omnia quæ facta fuerant. πορευομενων δε αυτων ιδου τινες της κουστωδιας ελθοντες εις την πολιν απηγγειλαν τοις αρχιερευσιν απαντα τα γενομενα
    12 And they being assembled together with the ancients, taking counsel, gave a great sum of money to the soldiers, Et congregati cum senioribus consilio accepto, pecuniam copiosam dederunt militibus, και συναχθεντες μετα των πρεσβυτερων συμβουλιον τε λαβοντες αργυρια ικανα εδωκαν τοις στρατιωταις
    13 Saying: Say you, His disciples came by night, and stole him away when we were asleep. dicentes : Dicite quia discipuli ejus nocte venerunt, et furati sunt eum, nobis dormientibus. λεγοντες ειπατε οτι οι μαθηται αυτου νυκτος ελθοντες εκλεψαν αυτον ημων κοιμωμενων
    14 And if the governor shall hear this, we will persuade him, and secure you. Et si hoc auditum fuerit a præside, nos suadebimus ei, et securos vos faciemus. και εαν ακουσθη τουτο επι του ηγεμονος ημεις πεισομεν αυτον και υμας αμεριμνους ποιησομεν
    15 So they taking the money, did as they were taught: and this word was spread abroad among the Jews even unto this day. At illi, accepta pecunia, fecerunt sicut erant edocti. Et divulgatum est verbum istud apud Judæos, usque in hodiernum diem. οι δε λαβοντες τα αργυρια εποιησαν ως εδιδαχθησαν και διεφημισθη ο λογος ουτος παρα ιουδαιοις μεχρι της σημερον
  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/21/2014 7:24:45 PM PDT · 108 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon; daniel1212
    anything that is said is open to challenge & scrutiny.

    And that is fine. Daniel, at least initially does scrutiny and challenge and I respond to his analytic posts without complaint. It is when people post feelings and opinions that I lose interest.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/21/2014 7:21:50 PM PDT · 107 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer; metmom; redleghunter
    Most of Scripture was already est[ablished(?)] ... individuals wrote them

    I mean the New Testament. It was not written before the Pentecost, you know. The inspired writers of the New Testament expressed nothing that would not be Catholic, and which work to canonize and which not to canonize was a decision not of theirs but of the Holy Catholic Church.

    your interpretation of Scripture is driven by the premise that the Latin church (Rome) is infallible

    I argued nothing but the plain text in front of us. You don't have any evidence for allegorical usage in either case.

    I don't see the rest worth much, sorry. You just list your opinions; I am not interested in them. We discussed the scripture. There is no allegory there in these passages. That is the salient point.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 7:13:13 PM PDT · 74 of 88
    annalex to Iscool
    To say 'we have been graced' is far too broad of a definition

    You don't have to like the Holy Scripture, but that is exactly what it says in the original: "graced".

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 7:11:33 PM PDT · 73 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; Iscool

    I understand that word-for-word is often impossible and when possible, can be undesirable. The famed “gratia plena” is a good example of a translation that would not be possible literally as the unique for the case Greek morphology could not be rendered.

    But here we have a well-used word, with a specific theological meaning, and a simple grammatical conjugation of it. “Made us accepted” is both clumsy and steers away from the concept of grace, present in the original.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 7:06:52 PM PDT · 72 of 88
    annalex to cornelis

    I would advise to stick to the Unicode fonts; anything else may not display correctly on the Internet.

    Thank you, good thing.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/21/2014 6:11:32 AM PDT · 87 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer
    cannibalistic literalism

    I'll stick with the inerrant Bible and not your dirty fantasies about it, thank you.

    To be consistent with the literalism insisted upon in Jn. 6:53,54, one must be baptized and then believe and partake of the RP. But V2 affirms properly baptized Prots have.

    But you must be. The point is that Christ explains that He is in the Eucharist and we must eat of Him as "food indeed" to have life eternal. What stages one goes through before he gets to eat Him are another matter; yes, there are people who never get to go the whole way, invincibly. Because of the damage to Christianity wrought by Luther, great many are in that intermediate stage, and may yet be saved.

    this "Verily verily" saying is an absolute statement

    Right. So take it as such; it is written for you to read.

    John uses metaphors abundantly

    But not in this passage. Verily.

    That is all I see of substance in your post, even though it is much longer than the response. I repeat: read the Holy Scripture honestly, especially now that you had left the Holy Church still intending to somehow get saved.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/21/2014 6:00:49 AM PDT · 86 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon
    I am not here to ask any of you

    You're asking from my time though. Please don't.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 5:59:23 AM PDT · 64 of 88
    annalex to Springfield Reformer; re_nortex; Iscool
    Somewhat a paraphrase

    That's the point: in a translation that does not pretend to be really a paraphrase, like the "dynamic" trash, it is not acceptable (pardon the pun).

    The use of modern pronouns is also not for serious reading of the Bible.

    I should add that indeed one must verify Douay against the Greek (or Young's Literal) before arguing from it; it kept the errors of Vulgate, some quite serious, like:

    1 Corinthians
      English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) English: King James Version
      1 Corinthians 15
    51 Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. ιδου μυστηριον υμιν λεγω παντες μεν ου κοιμηθησομεθα παντες δε αλλαγησομεθα Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

    Who knows why St. Jerome got himself confused by these "μεν" (in some copies, "indeed"), “ου” (“not”) and “δε” (“but”). Maybe he had a corrupted copy.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 5:47:30 AM PDT · 63 of 88
    annalex to Verginius Rufus
    Yes and yes. The point about infinitives is that dictionaries give the first person present tense as headwords.

    Both translations, Douay and KJ, correctly translate "χαιρετε" as "all hail". Compare "χαιρε" in Luke 1:28. "Hello" would not match the elevated style of the Gospel but in a context of another book would be correct. In fact, in modern Greek, "χαιρετε" is a frequent greeting of several people, -- you'd hear the word often.

    I use mostly Include "Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)", or any other Greek variants among the versions, pick the chapter and verse segment, and it will let you copy and paste from Greek or Hebrew, or any other language. is less convenient for quick searches but works as well. Here's John 1:1 from Textus Receptus:

    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

    A difficult decision is whether to choose accented or unaccented Greek. I prefer unaccented, but opinions probably vary.

    If you want a Greek keyboard, you probably will have to either buy one with the keys marked in Greek, or make one using phonetic match, so you don't have to remember what English key is what. For Windows there is Microsoft Keyboard Layout Creator. Also there may exist online virtual keyboards for Greek.

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/21/2014 5:27:57 AM PDT · 62 of 88
    annalex to Iscool
    The word, χαρις, in theological context means grace, so any translation that substitutes something else introduces its own meaning.
  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/20/2014 6:40:19 PM PDT · 41 of 88
    annalex to Verginius Rufus
    Just copy and paste from a Greek source, e.g. from Liddell-Scott.

    Yes, χαριτόω is indeed "I bestow grace" (Greek has no infinitive, so first person is used to refer to verbs). So "εχαριτωσεν" is "bestowed grace", or simply "graced".

    The noun here is "χάρις", "grace", or in mundane contexts "favor".

    "Made us accepted" sounds like a loose rephrasing.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/20/2014 6:29:37 PM PDT · 79 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon
    It was not funneled through Peter "later" to be then distributed thru Peter, or for Peter to rule over the others in that authority, or any such notions.

    Nor did I say that. The point remains, to Peter "binding and loosing" is given first , and is accompanied with the gift of the Keys to Heaven and other forms of exaltation; to the disciples is given the power of binding and loosing, but not the keys, nor other attributes. Make of it what you will.

    Do you have a question to me that I missed?

  • Bible Critic Says Jesus Isn't God, Stephen Colbert Leaves Him Speechless (Video)

    04/20/2014 5:56:06 PM PDT · 30 of 88
    annalex to re_nortex
    Douay-Rheims Bible

    I don't see what's so "accurate" about KJV.

      English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) English: King James Version
      Ephesians 1
    6 Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son. εις επαινον δοξης της χαριτος αυτου εν η εχαριτωσεν ημας εν τω ηγαπημενω To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

    "εχαριτωσεν ημας" = "made us accepted"? Seriously?

    1 Corinthians
      English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) English: King James Version
      1 Corinthians 11
    27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. ωστε ος αν εσθιη τον αρτον τουτον η πινη το ποτηριον του κυριου αναξιως του κυριου ενοχος εσται του σωματος και του αιματος του κυριου Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

    These are just nonsensical translations, I leave alone choices biased against Catholicism.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/20/2014 5:20:44 PM PDT · 77 of 168
    annalex to BlueDragon
    See verse 63

    What about it? It teaches that the Eucharist does not "profit" the stomach. And indeed it doesn't. That finishes the contrast to the Manna, which only fed the stomach. This does not say anything about the nature of the Eucharist itself.

    Yes, binding and loosing was later given the entire Catholic Church.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/20/2014 5:09:52 PM PDT · 76 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer; Elsie

    I don’t see anything meaningful here. If you have a question,please ask.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: ROSMINIANISM, 04-16-14

    04/20/2014 5:08:35 PM PDT · 75 of 168
    annalex to daniel1212; Springfield Reformer; blue-duncan
    I will respond to a few key points; what you posted is too long to reply in detail. If you need a question answered, please ask again, or point to it in prior posts.

    your basis for assurance of Truth, which you are still not facing.

    You invited me on this unrelated to anything thread because you wanted to discuss the statements of mine that expressed the said basis. Remember? So no, I don't think I was evading any questions. The pillar and ground of all truth is the Catholic Church (1 Timothy 3:15)

    If you are puzzled why I listen to the Church but argue from the scripture, -- I believe I answered that as well: The Holy Church produced the inerrant scripture precisely because she wished to provide a set of absolutes from which to argue and understand the doctrine. So, the texts of John 6, the three synoptic accounts of the Last Supper and 1 Cor. 11 provide such purely scriptural basis for the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

    you are claiming individual laity have the gift of infallibility

    LOL. Two fallible men disagree. They cannot both be right. Does this mean that the one who is right is also infallible? I am right because I learn from the Church who is both infallible and right. Doesn't say anything about me. The least, wholly illiterate bungling goatherd somewhere up in the Andes cannot speak a falsehood as pertains to the matters of Catholic faith so far as she had retained it correctly; that has nothing to do with her merits either.

    There is absolutely nothing in Jn. 14 about Peter or perpetuated leadership being promised assured infallibility

    Read the holy Scripture every once in a while and you will discover amazing things.

    "The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17, several similar in the chapter)

    So the spirit is (1) of truth; (2) is known and received in the Church rather than in the world; (3) abides in the Church. That is not infallibility?

    No Peter is not mentioned, because the Holy Ghost is not in St. Peter alone but in the entire Church. Of course, of Peter we also know the ability to recover from error and confirm fellow bishops (Luke 22:32), and the possession of the Keys to Heaven; but here Jesus is talking to the Church and of the Church as a whole.

    the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses

    What does that have to do with anything? That every heretic should also dissent every time he hears from Christ something he doesn't like?

    Rome ... Rome ... Rome

    What you think of "Rome" does not interest me. I would like to focus on the Holy Scripture, however unpleasant it is to you.

    "communion" vs "submission"

    Matter of translation and of context. Certainly, theological communion is the least requirement; we have such with the Orthodox. On the other hand, political submission -- like popes dictating to kings, -- is of course a good thing, but is not universally required. The point is that the Protestant communities of faith do good inasmuch as they speak in agreement with the Church, but not otherwise.

    to place one in the kingdom of Christ or exclude on is their response to the gospel of grace, which all the church also preached

    No one is arguing with that. However, at the same time:

    I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)

    Observe: second person singular, "thou" -- that is to Peter personally. You have to read the scripture and see its authority even in matters you "dissent" about.

    this works against Rome's papacy and doctrine, for this also testifies to the keys to the kingdom being the gospel, (Col. 1:13) besides that of a “pope” living as a guest in the house of a tanner [...]

    The popes are there to protect the Gospel from charlatans and nothing says that popes should act like royalty; Christianity generally teaches and admires humility, even in the popes.

    Peter was one who was to be publicly rebuked

    But not for a doctrinal error; it was Peter who initiated baptizing the Gentiles. Paul rebuked Peter for not living up to his own doctrine. This is not in contradiction to infallibility. That there was a little mutual disagreement between Sts Paul and Peter we know. See also 2 Peter 3:16.

    "The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal" ...

    Good quote. So you understand now that this is spiritual authority above all else, and political authority and imperial attitude, when it accompanies the Pope at all, -- all men are different, and all are sinners, -- is secondary to the spiritual authority?

    it means for Rome that the office of Peter uniquely posses assured infallibility

    Not true, the Church is infallible as a whole as well.

    .Mt. 18:15-20 simply is not referring to binding and loosing in doctrinal legislative action

    Really? Where is that in the Bible?

    loosing can refer to being “loosed from thine infirmity”

    Or loosing a dog, or a belt. Words are funny that way: they can apply to many different things.