Crazy Jesuit

[dairygirl4u2c]

a jesuit joke i saw today

“Hans Kung, Jacques Dupuis, and Joseph Ratzinger died and stood before the pearly gates of heaven. Before they can enter heaven, they must be cross-examined by Jesus.

“The first one to go was Hans Kung, the theologian who questioned Papal Infallibility. Jesus and Kung talked for 12 hours. Then Kung came out and said, ‘Jesus convinced me that my way of thinking was not right.” And he entered heaven.

“The second one to go was Jacques Dupuis, the theologian who says that all religions are equal paths to God. Jesus and Dupuis talked for 24 hours. Then Dupuis came out and said, “Jesus convinced me that my way of thinking was not right.” And he entered heaven.

“Joseph Ratzinger was listening to the debates between Jesus and Kung and Dupuis. He has his briefcase of notes. Then his turn came. Jesus and Ratzinger talked for 48 hours. Then Jesus came out and said, “Ratzinger convinced me that my way of thinking was not right.”

[Nihil Obstat]

A man walked up to a Franciscan and a Jesuit and asked, "How many novenas must you say to get a Mercedes Benz?"
The Franciscan asked, "What's a Mercedes Benz?" The Jesuit asked, "What's a novena?"

[Nihil Obstat]

Here's one for Cappie though:

A Capuchin dies and goes to heaven, humbly knocks on the door, and is let in without any fanfare. One day, a long time later, he notices lots of commotion. Flowers are arranged, all the candles are lit, and a red carpet is rolled out. He asks an angel what's going on, and is told that they are preparing to welcome a Jesuit into heaven. Perplexed, he asks St. Peter, "I always thought there would be justice and equality in heaven, with no one receiving preferential treatment. Why are you going to such great lengths to welcome a Jesuit, whereas you hardly took any notice of me when I arrived?" St. Peter tells him in reply, "Don't you see? Another Capuchin enters heaven almost every week, but you can't imagine how long it's been since we welcomed the last Jesuit up here!"

[Catholic Fox]

A Franciscan and a Jesuit were friends. They were both smokers whofound it difficult to pray for a long period of time without having acigarette. They decided to go to their superiors and ask permission tosmoke.When they met again, the Franciscan was downcast. “I asked my superior if I could smoke while I pray and he said ‘no,’” he said.

The Jesuit smiled. “I asked I could pray while I smoke. He said ‘of course.’”

[vee]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='26 May 2010 - 11:45 PM' timestamp='1274935525' post='2118932']
The Jesuits have a long tradition of scholasticism and orthodoxy. For the sakes of Ss. Ignatius of Loyola, Isaac Jogues, Francis Xavier, and countless more, I pray that the order survives and thrives in full Communion with the pope. I pray that the order undergoes a rejuvenation and that the Church is led into a new age of faithfulness led first by the prayers of contemplatives, and second by the studies and alms of actives.
[/quote]

This.

[Bennn]

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained [i]truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity[/i] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


Srsly.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]

+Pax Domini,
Ben

[laetitia crucis]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='26 May 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1274920960' post='2118670']
Horrible. Simply Horrible.

Personally, I am fed up with people who mistake errant sons for the whole body (this happens for religious orders as well as those who look at the Church as a whole).

Having been educated by the Jesuits, Benedictines, and Diocesean Priests at different times in my life (college, highschool, and grammar school), I still make the claim that the most orthodox and intelligent priests I have ever met were the Jesuits. [b] In the New Orleans Province, the Jesuits are quite good.[/b] They actually are moving many of the priests out from here to other places to help and placing many of the teachers I had for school as the heads of Jesuit Tampa, Jesuit New Orleans and etc. In fact, one was chosen by the Pope and sent to Oxford for his doctorate in Astronomy and is now working the Vatican Observatory in Rome. Their telescope is awesome. Now all that being said there are 14 novices for the New Orleans provinces this year, the Church is reviving. I think we are coming up on an upswing for vocations. In fact this Corpus Christi, I'll help serve with Jesuit Novices The Archbishop's Annual Eucharistic Procession. This year it is from the Jesuit Church (Immaculate Conception, my home parish) to the Cathedral (through the heart of the city of New Orleans).

Yes, there are many unorthodox Jesuits (it seems that orthodox priests in general get more attention since they are going against the grain than the orthodox). However, there are many highly orthodox Jesuits that are amazing. I have met more orthodox ones than unorthodox ones actually. There seems to be a general lack of orthodoxy in a generation of priests in general (something that can be seen more in the religious orders and especially the Jesuits since they are more vocal and more out in the eye of the public unlike Benedictines and others), but I think things are picking up. I am hopeful and I pray for the continued guidance of the religious orders and Church as a whole by the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

This is good to hear. (Phew!) One of my good friends from university entered the New Orleans Province of Jesuits a few years ago. He's currently a scholastic and just graduated with philosophy and nursing from SLU.

To say the least, I was a little more than concerned when he joined the Jesuits -- even though I continue to profess my undying love for St. Ignatius of Loyola and pray for his spiritual sons.

May God help them, and all priests and religious that veer from Truth.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Bennn' date='27 May 2010 - 08:44 AM' timestamp='1274967864' post='2119083']
If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained [i]truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity[/i] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. - Council of Trent


Srsly.[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]

+Pax Domini,
Ben
[/quote]

Amen to that, bro.

[MithLuin]

It seems to me he was merely saying 'No one talks about 'substance' and 'accidents' any more, so there should be a quantum mechanics explanation for what we believe rather than the outdated Aristotelian version.'

One could say that without denying the faith - though I am not convinced he was doing so. Asking for a better explanation of the faith is not the same thing as denying. Now, he may very well have been denying it; I can't tell from this snippet, but he does sound a bit iffy on it.

The Jesuits have a lot of good and are not all dying out. They also have some heretics in the bunch, and went through the upheaval where everyone left the order to go help the poor on their own during the 70s. The theology schools (from what I've heard) have great cause for concern, but again, not necessarily universally 'bad.'

I work at a Jesuit school, and I think the education model is great. There is a lot of emphasis on doing better - teachers, students, everyone. We make the students reflect, we share consolations/desolations before faculty meetings, etc. It's all about the Magis and educating the child. Good stuff! The president of the school is a Jesuit, and he drives the mission. We have two scholastics (Jesuits-in-training) teaching. They're both pretty solid guys, from what I can tell.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='27 May 2010 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1274987195' post='2119204']
It seems to me he was merely saying 'No one talks about 'substance' and 'accidents' any more, so there should be a quantum mechanics explanation for what we believe rather than the outdated Aristotelian version.'

One could say that without denying the faith - though I am not convinced he was doing so. Asking for a better explanation of the faith is not the same thing as denying. Now, he may very well have been denying it; I can't tell from this snippet, but he does sound a bit iffy on it.


[/quote]

That doesn't wash because the Church's teaching was NEVER based on physics but on Metaphysics! This has nothing to do with natural science but with philosophy. It is based on what God has revealed. To describe the Church's teaching as "inadequate" is also unacceptable. As Paul VI pointed out in Mysterium Fidei transubstantiation is the BEST term to use. Perhaps Father Kelly never took Metaphysics.

S.

[loveletslive]

there are two things God doesn't know

1) why there are so many franciscan orders
2) what the jesuits are thinking

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='loveletslive' date='29 May 2010 - 11:49 PM' timestamp='1275191361' post='2120544']
there are two things God doesn't know

1) why there are so many franciscan orders
2) what the jesuits are thinking
[/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='26 May 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1274908068' post='2118444']
WHAAAAAAA????????


Stating that “Catholics can become fanatical about one form of the Body of Christ in the bread of the Eucharist as the REAL presence of Christ,” Father Michael Kelly, the Jesuit CEO of the Asian Catholic news agency UCA News, criticized the doctrine of transubstantiation in a May 24 column.
In his column-- a critique of the new, more accurate liturgical translations that reflect the content and dignity of the original Latin-- Father Kelly writes:


Regrettably, all too frequently, the only Presence focused on is Christ’s presence in the elements of bread and wine. Inadequately described as the change of the “substance” (not the “accidents”) of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, the mystery of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist carries the intellectual baggage of a physics no one accepts. Aristotelian physics makes such nice, however implausible and now unintelligible, distinctions. They are meaningless in the post-Newtonian world of quantum physics, which is the scientific context we live in today.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, teaches:


The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation." (no. 1376)
[/quote]

I'd like to know how quantum physics disproved Aristotelian metaphysics.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Raphael' date='30 May 2010 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1275227041' post='2120633']
I'd like to know how quantum physics disproved Aristotelian metaphysics.
[/quote]

You got it. It can't. Stephen M. Barr, who happens to be a real physicist has an answer for Fr. Kelly at "First Things":

"Catholic World News reports that Fr. Michael Kelly, S.J. the CEO of the Asian Catholic News agency, finds the Catholic doctrine of "transubstantiation" meaningless in this "post-Newtonian world of quantum physics". Since I use quantum mechanics every day in my work, I think I can match my understanding of this post-Newtonian world of quantum physics against Fr. Kelly's, and I do not find the doctrine "meaningless".
It was a standard maneuver of dissident theologians in the 1960s to affect incomprehension of binding doctrine rather than honestly and forthrightly saying that they rejected it. No one is fooled by that transparent ploy anymore, and one assumes that Fr. Kelly realizes that. It must be, therefore, that he is genuinely confused. I will try to unconfuse him.
The Church has made it clear that one does not have to accept all of Aristotelian philosophy to accept the doctrine of transubstantiation. The substance of the doctrine (so to speak) is easily explained without the Aristotelian terminology. To say that 'the accidents of bread and wine' remain after consecration means that empirically the consecrated elements are completely indistinguishable from bread and wine. They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. To say that 'the substance' of the consecrated elements is the Body and Blood of Christ, means that in reality the elements are no longer bread and wine but are the Body and Blood of Christ.

If one looks at the consecrated elements and asks 'What are these?", the correct answer (according to the doctrine of transubstantiation) is "These are the Body and Blood of Christ." If one asks, "What do these appear to be under any empirical test?", the answer is "bread and wine." Basically, that is all there is to it. The dogmatic definition used Aristotelian terminology to express this, but it can be expressed without that terminology.

Some alternative beliefs to transubstantiation are the following:

(a) The consecrated elements not only appear to be but are bread and wine, and only symbolize the Body and Blood of Christ.

(b) The consecrated elements are not in themselves the Body and Blood of Christ, but spiritually and in effect are for the believer who consumes them, in the sense that when the believer consumes them he is united in a spiritual manner with the Body of Christ. (The corollary being that if the elements are not consumed or are consumed by a non-believer, they are not the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus the "presence" of Christ depends on both what is done with the consecrated elements and on the internal disposition of the recipient.)

© The consecrated elements are still bread and wine, but in some way the Body and Blood of Christ is also present with them or in them in a manner that is objective in that it does not depend on the disposition of the recipient ("consubstantiation").

[b]In short, one can explain the doctrine of transubstantiation and distinguish it from other beliefs about the Eucharist without any use of the Aristotelian apparatus. I don't know what quantum mechanics has to do with any of this. If anything, quantum mechanics makes a straightforward connection between what appears empirically and what is "really there" more obscure than it was in Newtonian physics, and to that extent would make it easier rather than harder to affirm the doctrine."[/b]

[url="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/25/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless/"]http://www.firstthin...on-meaningless/[/url]

S.
[b]
[/b]

Edited May 30, 2010 by Skinzo

[Noel's angel]

http://www.ucanews.com/2010/05/24/whats-in-a-word/

There's the article in full.