Eternity...What next?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

ON ENTERING ETERNITY

Death is a revealing of God, in fact that is by far the greatest happening in death.

How often do we look that far ahead, or consider seriously what we have to expect in death. We take it for granted, at least generally, but rarely think of it. Yet it opens a way of life that lasts forever. Life here will soon end for all of us, as we read daily in the death notices, or see at a funeral as the remains of someone we know is lying there lifeless and cold.

That body - must soon be buried, because decay sets in, so short is its life..

If the grave were opened again some time later we would find little left of that body which received so much attention in life, where its needs and desires, and its many pleasures and comforts were so sought after. So often are these fleshly desires our goal, too often even at the cost of the life of God in us, sin is committed and this most important life of all is destroyed.

Repeatedly we endanger that divine life, and even drive it away in sin, seeking rather the goods of this body which will soon die and rot in the grave, instead of those of the soul which will live forever.

GRIM REALITY OF JUDGMENT OF GOD

The grim reality of judgment by God, with its eternal consequences of

Heaven or hell is seldom faced and little prepared for. The world is so fleeting, so temporal, and so unable to satisfy our true needs.

The greatest goods it has to offer are only a weak reflection of eternal goods in Heaven. Earthly goods come from Him who is infinite Good. If there is any good on earth, it can only come from Him Who made it good and then He must be infinitely more good. What fools then men must be to forget about Him -Who created all goods. What fools men must be to spend a lifetime here seeking more and more of these limited goods and rarely thinking about, much less seeking properly, the goods which last forever.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 01, 2003

Answers

And the author is ... ?

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

John;
Our friend Ed is likely to have cribbed the sermon from another source. Or, has the inspiration momentarily. Hardly the same one he suddenly revealed to me yesterday:

That the Pope and his minions have tried to destroy the Church in New Zealand, as well as elsewhere. A case of split personality-?-?-? --Hmmm.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.




-- (tgif@fri.com), May 02, 2003.

Yeah, someone else wrote it. I am not allowed to say who... And John, stop worrying about who crossed the t"s and dotted the I's. What are you a lawyer or something or just a f_ _ t? Is that all you get out of something that should be thought provoking.

I suggest that you do some investigating on your own, to find the brilliant guy that thinks many means all

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.


Many? All? Did the sacrifice of Calvary redeem just ''many'' but wasn't good enough to purchase us all? Those remaining in His fold are assured of being saved. They are the many.

Other ones, redeemed from sin but unwilling to stay within the fold of the Good Shepherd, if by mortal sin, or if by schism and disloyalty are still part of the ALL. But no longer part of ''the many''.

You are still groping. But quoting Thomas A Kempis is better than predicting the end of the Catholic Church. Gotta hand you that!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.



Gene, you refuse to read the catechism of Trent session 22.... They tell you exactly why Many instead of All is used. You want to revel in your ignorance, well go right ahead. Even Paul 6th used Many in the original N.O. Mass. The ICEL, "smart guys" decided to change it. No one in any other Catholic church that you might attend uses it. I attend a Ukranian Church, on occasion, and they say Many. You dig this All stuff out of other sections of the Bible and install it at the Last supper. Quite clever.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

You say that it is a Catholic truth that Jesus shed His blood for all men, so therefore the Mass must be valid if the priest uses those words in the Consecration of the wine.    My reply: Yes, there is a truth in the Novus Ordo English version of the form of the Consecration. Christ did shed His blood for all. But there is also a lie in that new form. There are two words that insert a LIE into that new form, and those two words are, “AND SAID.” Jesus did not say “for all.” St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “ When the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, (the Eucharist) the priest no longer uses his own words, but the words of Christ.” (Summa Theologica,III,Q.78, Where are those words found and where do they come from? The Magisterium tells us:    “We believe that the form of the words as found in the Canon, the Apostles received from Christ and their successors from them.” Pope Innocent III, Denzinger, 415    And what are those words? Again, the Magisterium: “The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this Sacrament, are the form of this Sacrament; for the priest speaking in the Person of Christ effects this Sacrament (the Eucharist).”    " . . . the form of the words, by which . . . the Holy, Roman Church, confirmed by the teaching and auth­ority of the Apostles, has always been accustomed to use . . . in the Consecration of the blood it uses the following form of words: “For this is the chalice of my blood, the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured forth for you and many for the remission of sins.” Council of Florence (1438—1445), Denzinger 698, 715

Furthermore, you say, although He said “for many”, he really meant “for all,” because in Biblical idiom “many” is often used as a synonym for “all.” I answer: “Often” does not mean “always.” St. Augustine wrote that, in Holy Scriptures, “many” sometimes means “all.” (CITY OF GOD, Book XX, Ch. 23)    Now what is the evidence that Jesus, at the Last ‘ Supper, when He said “for many” did not mean “for all?”    SCRIPTURE: In every New Testament account the words used by Jesus were “for you and for many”, and He never said “for all.” In his prayer to His Father after the supper, He said, “ I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine.” (John 17, 9)    TRADITION: There is no example in any approved Catholic Liturgy of the East or West of the use of the word “all” or its equivalent in the Con­secration of the wine.    THE MAGISTERIUM: The Council Of Trent commanded all Bishops and priests to explain the Sacraments to the people before they administer them, “in accordance with the form which will be prescribed by the Holy Council in a Catechism.” Council of Trent, Session 24, Ch. VII

This Catechism, ordered to be written by the Council of Trent, is called the ROMAN CATECHISM or the CATECHISM OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. When it explains the form of the Consecration of the wine, it emphatically forbids the use of the words “for all men” (even in the sixteenth century was it being claimed that Jesus meant “all?”). The reason “all” must not be used, says the Catechism, is this: Jesus, in this place, was speaking of the elect, only, (the Efficacy aspect) to whom His passion would bring the fruits of salvation. He was not speaking of “all” (the Sufficiency aspect).    Now if Jesus was not speaking of “all”, and did not use the word “all” when He consecrated the wine into His blood, then the form in the English Novus Ordo, which has changed His words and meaning, is false and probably invalid, as the instructions in the pre-Vatican II altar missal clearly indicate.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.


Vatican II expressed the same thing given us in Trent; only BETTER, as pertains to the actual sacrifice of the Mass. What ''many'' pertains to is the saved; and what ''all'' pertains to is the Redeemed. Christ Redeems us in the bloody sacrifice of Calvary. When this is foretold by John ''[He] was the true light that enlightens EVERY man who comes into the world.'' (John 1:9). Plus, it sustains the word ALL in the Consecration. Jesus stated, ''When I have been lifted up, (Calvary = His Precious Blood) I will draw ALL MEN to me.''

This meant He was dying for everybody's redemption.

You may think the New Rite makes Christ a liar; but you in turn, deny the scripture where it foretells the efficacy of Calvary. And, by association, the Holy Eucharist.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.


To mop up on your recent mistakes, I quote:

) ''Now if Jesus was not speaking of “all”, and did not use the word “all” when He consecrated the wine into His blood, then the form in the English Novus Ordo, which has changed His words and meaning, is false and probably invalid, as the instructions in the pre-Vatican II altar missal clearly indicate.''

Lets inspect that:

''Now if Jesus was not speaking of “all”, and did not use the word “all” WHO told you He didn't? when He consecrated the wine into His blood, then the form in the English Novus Ordo, which has changed His words and meaning, His meaning according to YOU; or according to the Council?' is false and probably invalid,Do you say it's invalid? as the instructions in the pre-Vatican II altar missal clearly indicate.'' By your interpretation; but are you a Cardinal? Do Cardinals read the Tridentine Missal, or not? Does the Pope condemn the Tridentine Missal? Is that what you think?

What Ed ignores is his own layman's ignorance compared to the theological foundation upon which all prelates present at Vatican II worked. In the gathering at this Council assisted the most brilliant Catholic minds of the century as well as protestant ecumenics and laymen-- every one quite capable of detecting and rectifying the slightest contradiction of or against doctrine, apostolic Tradition or jurisprudence.

But NO-- Ed Richards is superior to them and overrides their authority. In each and every way, including judgment over what the INTERPRETATIONS of Christ's Aramaic words positively are, Ed is a Doctor of the Church! (Yes, In a pig's eye-)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.


Eugene, you may not be the most ignorant man that I have ever come across, but you are a close second, (next to me of course)..

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.


Yes, there is a truth in the Novus Ordo English version of the form of the Consecration. Christ did shed His blood for all. But there is also a lie in that new form. There are two words that insert a LIE into that new form, and those two words are, “AND SAID.” Jesus did not say “for all.” St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: “ When the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, (the Eucharist) the priest no longer uses his own words, but the words of Christ.” (Summa Theologica,III,Q.78, Where are those words found and where do they come from? The Magisterium tells us. THEY AE RIGHT OUT OF THE BIBLE, THAT'S WHERE. Pick up any bible you like and read it to me,

Sifting through all your gobbledegook, did the Lord say "For All"..

Easy question, yes or no! If you say no... you are just a basket case.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.


Are you perfectly sure you have the Aramaic words Our Lord said at His Last Supper; and can read them for comparison? Are you positive the Tridentine Missal is true to the Aramaic? Is it up to you to correct the biblical interpretation of any version of the Holy Bible? Could you make the slightest difference in a court of Canon law, as the defender of the Mass?

Neither could I. But I don't presume.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 02, 2003.


Eugene. Isn't the Council of Trent good enough for you? It was a dogmatic counci for goodness sake! V2 was not. Trent said "Many" I didn't say it, they did!

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

P./  and cause us to be numbered in the flock you have chosen.     For God to "cause us to be numbered" would to be the equivalent of Him taking away our free will. This is something that would be counterproductive to the purpose for the creation of intellectual beings designed to share with Him in eternal life. Asking for human  free will  to be diminished should be seen as an insult to God's creative design. Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground Just another defect in N.O.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.

Both Luther and Cranmer ended their services with a blessing and omit the Last Gospel - as does the Novus Ordo. It is interesting to note that in Cranmer's 1549 rite the people received Holy Communion from the hands of a priest on the tongue while kneeling. However, in the 1552 Prayer Book the minister is directed to give the bread "to the people in their hands while kneeling," The fact that the communicants were still required to kneel should not be construed as a sign of reverence. It was just another step in the gradual process of destroying the Roman Rite. Of course, we are all aware of the final culmination of the process. Just attend a Novus Ordo mass, and observe the similarities.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 03, 2003.


Jmj

Ed R, you angrily wrote:
"Yeah, someone else wrote it. I am not allowed to say who... And John, stop worrying about who crossed the t's and dotted the I's. What are you a lawyer or something or just a f_ _ t? Is that all you get out of something that should be thought provoking."

It was "thought-provoking" on its own until I reached the end and saw who posted it, at which time the message completely left my mind. It was when I saw your name at the end that the "thought [was] provok[ed]" that this must be the fourth time that I have had to tell you to stop plagiarizing and taking credit for other people's work. You have apologized for doing this in the past -- but I know that your apologies have been totally insincere, because this time you exposed your true self in two ways:
(1) You refused to apologize and name the author, instead trying to deflect attention away from your plagiarism and toward me. You used deception and vulgar language, just as I would expect from someone who has fallen into a state of (objective) mortal sin.
(2) You then went on to respond several times to Eugene with none of your own personal thoughts, Ed, but with MORE copied-and-pasted material -- garbage from a schismatic or sedevacantist Internet site. All your trash is copied from an essay entitled "The Lie Continues" by Eugenie Kuss. [Google to it.]

To be honest, Ed, I don't think that you have had an original thought since you were knee-high to a grasshopper. Like so many schismatics, dissenters, and heretics, you are just being led around like an ox with a ring through his nose. Your filthy messages disgust me. May God have mercy on you. Get into the confessional at an orthodox Catholic church, admit all your sacrilegious Communions, and then start attending a licitly celebrated Mass (any rite). Until you do, stay the heck away from this forum, which doesn't need your pollution.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.


John, Your constant whining, is ban this guy, or ban that other guy. Is that all you know?

Maybe you should begin some plagerizing, as you have little or nothing to say.. except "Please don't let the bogey man get me" What a wingger.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.


We should ban John from this site!

Ooof! That sounded spooky. I'm just messing with you John. You are a pretty educated person with a wealth of infromation. Some of us, like me, are simply little rough sketches on a pad waiting for some sense of meaning. Yeah, I guess being banned wouldn't make any difference. Some characters have pushed the envelop and would make for good banning. But, I wonder if those people are worthy of the Word? Hmm? Uh.............yes?

How we judge others will be how we are judged. Where did I hear this?

Maybe, I should be banned for being, well, me.

Let's see....."banned"......."excommunicated"......."banned".......hey! I understand !

ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 04, 2003.


Ed R, I think that you must read and post on very few threads here. For, as anyone who reads all the forum's threads would tell you, your last comment is absolute nonsense.
Here are some facts for you to moan over:

1. I have probably suggested a banning in fewer than 1% of my total posts.
2. It's weird that you bring up my suggestions of banning on thisthread, wherein I made no such suggestion. [Here I just asked you to leave voluntarily, since here you are like a fish out of water, or like a Jew in a mosque.]
3. I recently stated that I don't really want anyone to be banned, but rather to change! How did you miss that? By not reading enough threads, I guess.
4. I equate "banning" with "excommunication," which the Church does as a "medicinal" penalty to persuade a person to repent, shape up, and come back in. That's exactly what you and your schismatics/heretical cronies need. The worst possible thing for your spiritual life is to be allowed to stay here, wreaking havoc and being led to believe that you are saying legitimate things.
5. You showed poor character by actually recommending that I start plagiarizing as you do.
6. I have a lot to say, and I say it, right from my own mind and heart -- which you would know if you would get around to more threads.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.


Believe it or not, Rod, you and I posted almost simultaneously, so I didn't see your post until just now. Interesting how we (coincidentally) paired banning and excommunication.

By the way, it has never even occurred to me to suggest that you be banned, because you never break the forum's rules. That is my criterion.

God bless you.
John
PS: Thanks for the compliment. Don't put yourself down!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.


John, Would you say that I am as much out of place here, as a pope in a synagogue?

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.

John, hopefully that is the last cheap shot I will take at you. I offered peace to Eugene and he did noy accept. I offer the same to you.

Will you accept?

God bless you Ed R.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.


Jmj

As the sayings go, Ed R, "Talk is cheap" and "Actions speak louder than words."

If you were to continue to try to spread schismatic or heretical theology immediately after a "truce" between us, what good would be the "peace" to which we had agreed? It would be useless, empty language.

Surely you know what is needed. The question is -- can you do it? Can you turn your back on all the wrong stuff that Gene and I have been rejecting throughout the months you have been here? That's what matters -- not empty words of "peace."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ