Ahh THE MISCONCEPTIONS

[blovedwolfofgod]

unfortunately, the sacrament of anointing of the sick (well, the application) has changed and it was something that it shouldnt have exclusively been. Vatican II did do some things good (that were explicit).

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='973421' date='May 6 2006, 12:00 PM']
unfortunately, the sacrament of anointing of the sick (well, the application) has changed and it was something that it shouldnt have exclusively been. Vatican II did do some things good (that were explicit).
[/quote]

Really, how so?

For a period the sacrament was known as extrema unction, and the focus was on anointing the dying person. This took place around the black plague. VII emphasised that the sacrament was repeatable and not just for the dying, but for the seriously ill, and changed the name to anointing of the sick. The ex opere operato causality of grace of the sacrament, the res of the sacrament, all have remained the same.

[blovedwolfofgod]

Thats what I was refferring to. Not the ex opere operato grace of the sacrament, however, the emphasis that it was only on the dying and now it has moved to illnesses and is repeatable. The use of it as extreme unction only, I feel, was unfortunate and not the intention of the sacrament. Throughout the gospels, Jesus healed the sick. This outer healing also accompanied an inner healing as well. Healing is a real ministry. As wounded human beings, Christ came to restore us. To heal us. And anointing of the sick is a healing sacrament. Jesus never withheld healing from one who asked. Likewise, he gave his power and authority to his apostles who handed it down from person to person through the bishops. However, this ministry seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth during history. So, the emphasis, i feel, got placed in the wrong area by its exclusivity and now is returning to more of what it should be. The book of James says to gather the presbyters and pray over the sick person so that they may be made well and their sins forgiven. Yes, confession, I know, but that too, is a sacrament of healing. But that one is more the remission of sins and restoration to God's grace. Anointing of the Sick is more of a restoration of the body focus.

[jasJis]

Bro. Adam,
What do you mean Doctrine doesn't change but it develops? Sounds like BS doublespeak to me. I may be willing to accept a claim that Doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and then I'd review doctrine. But to say it doesn't change is not true and is a claim for the TEMPORAL Church to maintain 'athority' or power or control or credibility to some.

[amandaplus5]

Here's the thing- PRACTICES change, DOCTRINE does not. They're two very different things. Practices are the ways in which doctrine is carried out. So, of course they're going to change with time, culture, etc. Doctrine does not change because it is truth, and truth does not change.

That is not "BS doubespeak." Something can develop without changing. Example: I've always been pro-life. But up until a couple of years ago, I didn't know much about the different positions of pro-choice and pro-life people. I have since learned a lot about and come to understand the debate in a more in-depth way. I now can explain my beliefs in a more inteeligent way. My beliefs have not changes, as I am still pro-life, but they most certainly have developed from the basics that they once were. Hence, things CAN develop without changing.

In the same way, Catholic Doctrine has not changes, but it has developed. Example: the Catholic church has always taught that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ (we have early christian letters from Iraneus to prove that). That teaching was not formally defined until years later, when Church officials saw that it needed to be clear. That doctrine was very basic. As the years went on, whenever people started to get confused about what the Church taught about the Eucharist, that doctrine would get more specific. The teachings were always the same, but not every little detail was written down at once. That's how the doctrine developed, but it didn't change.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='blovedwolfofgod' post='973484' date='May 6 2006, 12:43 PM']
Thats what I was refferring to. Not the ex opere operato grace of the sacrament, however, the emphasis that it was only on the dying and now it has moved to illnesses and is repeatable. The use of it as extreme unction only, I feel, was unfortunate and not the intention of the sacrament. Throughout the gospels, Jesus healed the sick. This outer healing also accompanied an inner healing as well. Healing is a real ministry. As wounded human beings, Christ came to restore us. To heal us. And anointing of the sick is a healing sacrament. Jesus never withheld healing from one who asked. Likewise, he gave his power and authority to his apostles who handed it down from person to person through the bishops. However, this ministry seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth during history. So, the emphasis, i feel, got placed in the wrong area by its exclusivity and now is returning to more of what it should be. The book of James says to gather the presbyters and pray over the sick person so that they may be made well and their sins forgiven. Yes, confession, I know, but that too, is a sacrament of healing. But that one is more the remission of sins and restoration to God's grace. Anointing of the Sick is more of a restoration of the body focus.
[/quote]

Right, but it is not a change in doctrine.

[jasJis]

Whatever. In 'lawyer speak' we have options in defining what "is" is. Something can develop but not change. How can something develop without being measureably different from what once was?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='jasJis' post='973489' date='May 6 2006, 01:01 PM']
Bro. Adam,
What do you mean Doctrine doesn't change but it develops? Sounds like BS doublespeak to me. I may be willing to accept a claim that Doctrine doesn't contradict itself, and then I'd review doctrine. But to say it doesn't change is not true and is a claim for the TEMPORAL Church to maintain 'athority' or power or control or credibility to some.
[/quote]

Then you clearly don't know nearly as much about the Catholic faith as you think you do. It seems like most other Catholics you have left for the same two reasons - bad catechesis and a personal grudge. I've already provided you with a clear example of the development of christological doctrine in the early Church. Right belief was always maintained, even if it was fully defined. For instance Christ is consubstantial with the Father. The apostles and the early Church always believed this, even if they did not have the word "consubstantial" or "homosuia" as a counciliar definition until Nicea. The right belief is challanged by early heretics such as Arius, and the Church spends years understanding what God has revealed to ultimately settle on an appropriate definition. This is why the authority of the Church is so important. She had the authority and the wherewithall to see that Arius, even though he was easy to be sympathetic towards, and logically spelled out his arguments, was a dangerous heretic, in fact, if we are to believe Arius, we would effectively destroy our redemption. The Church had the authority to condemn Arius, and maintain right belief, defining what was not previously clearly known. The process of the development of doctrine is a discernment of the revelation that has been received by and entrusted to the Church. As new heresies pop up, the Church continues to discern, define, and develop doctrine. You can never find an instance when the Church defined or taught the Eucharist as "mere" symbol and then later on taught "Transubstantiation". The Church did not always know and have the word transubstantiation, but the Church has always held right belief about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

[quote name='jasJis' post='973530' date='May 6 2006, 01:54 PM']
Whatever. In 'lawyer speak' we have options in defining what "is" is. Something can develop but not change. How can something develop without being measureably different from what once was?
[/quote]

I challange you to pick up and read the primary sources contained in "The Christological Contraversy" and "The Trinitarian Contraversy" by Ausburg Publishing House (Lutheran). Its the shortest way to begin to grasp the development of Christian doctrine.

[amandaplus5]

[quote]Then you clearly don't know nearly as much about the Catholic faith as you think you do. It seems like most other Catholics you have left for the same two reasons - bad catechesis and a personal grudge. I've already provided you with a clear example of the development of christological doctrine in the early Church. Right belief was always maintained, even if it was fully defined. For instance Christ is consubstantial with the Father. The apostles and the early Church always believed this, even if they did not have the word "consubstantial" or "homosuia" as a counciliar definition until Nicea. The right belief is challanged by early heretics such as Arius, and the Church spends years understanding what God has revealed to ultimately settle on an appropriate definition. This is why the authority of the Church is so important. She had the authority and the wherewithall to see that Arius, even though he was easy to be sympathetic towards, and logically spelled out his arguments, was a dangerous heretic, in fact, if we are to believe Arius, we would effectively destroy our redemption. The Church had the authority to condemn Arius, and maintain right belief, defining what was not previously clearly known. The process of the development of doctrine is a discernment of the revelation that has been received by and entrusted to the Church. As new heresies pop up, the Church continues to discern, define, and develop doctrine. You can never find an instance when the Church defined or taught the Eucharist as "mere" symbol and then later on taught "Transubstantiation". The Church did not always know and have the word transubstantiation, but the Church has always held right belief about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[/quote]

Exactly. I really don't think that it gets any clearer than that.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='973531' date='May 6 2006, 09:57 AM']
Then you clearly don't know nearly as much about the Catholic faith as you think you do. It seems like most other Catholics you have left for the same two reasons - bad catechesis and a personal grudge. I've already provided you with a clear example of the development of christological doctrine in the early Church. Right belief was always maintained, even if it was fully defined. For instance Christ is consubstantial with the Father. The apostles and the early Church always believed this, even if they did not have the word "consubstantial" or "homosuia" as a counciliar definition until Nicea. The right belief is challanged by early heretics such as Arius, and the Church spends years understanding what God has revealed to ultimately settle on an appropriate definition. This is why the authority of the Church is so important. She had the authority and the wherewithall to see that Arius, even though he was easy to be sympathetic towards, and logically spelled out his arguments, was a dangerous heretic, in fact, if we are to believe Arius, we would effectively destroy our redemption. The Church had the authority to condemn Arius, and maintain right belief, defining what was not previously clearly known. The process of the development of doctrine is a discernment of the revelation that has been received by and entrusted to the Church. As new heresies pop up, the Church continues to discern, define, and develop doctrine. You can never find an instance when the Church defined or taught the Eucharist as "mere" symbol and then later on taught "Transubstantiation". The Church did not always know and have the word transubstantiation, but the Church has always held right belief about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I challange you to pick up and read the primary sources contained in "The Christological Contraversy" and "The Trinitarian Contraversy" by Ausburg Publishing House (Lutheran). Its the shortest way to begin to grasp the development of Christian doctrine.[/quote]
I guess I just wasted my life away. I should have gone for another 8 years of Catholic school. 12 wasn't enough. I'm glad it working out for you at $20k a year at Stubbie.

[Jaime]

If no cogent answers satisfy your frustrations with the Church, then logically it brings one possible conclusion. Your true frustrations have nothing to do with the Church. This is the religious equivalent to road rage.

If that's the case, no answers are going to satisfy you.

[amandaplus5]

[quote]I guess I just wasted my life away. I should have gone for another 8 years of Catholic school. 12 wasn't enough. I'm glad it working out for you at $20k a year at Stubbie.[/quote]

Can we stick to the issue at hand, please? If all you can think of are snide little comments that don't have anything to do with anything, then you must be running out of arguements.

[jasJis]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='973565' date='May 6 2006, 10:13 AM']
If no cogent answers satisfy your frustrations with the Church, then logically it brings one possible conclusion. Your true frustrations have nothing to do with the Church. This is the religious equivalent to road rage.

If that's the case, no answers are going to satisfy you.[/quote]OMG. That just proved it. hot stuff is recognized as 'Church Scholar' at phatmass so what he says is 'cogent' and anyone who challenges him just don't understand their own frustrations, but hot stuff will set them straight.

Thanks dude. You've got the Knowledge. Explain to me where my frustations lie and what I have to do to be a 'good' Catholic. Who am I to challenge the "Learned".

[amandaplus5]

[quote]OMG. That just proved it. hot stuff is recognized as 'Church Scholar' at phatmass so what he says is 'cogent' and anyone who challenges him just don't understand their own frustrations, but hot stuff will set them straight.

Thanks dude. You've got the Knowledge. Explain to me where my frustations lie and what I have to do to be a 'good' Catholic. Who am I to challenge the "Learned".[/quote]

Once again, if you've run out of arguements, please just say so instead of making snide comments to cover that up.

Edited May 6, 2006 by amandaplus5

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' post='973574' date='May 6 2006, 11:23 AM']
OMG. That just proved it. hot stuff is recognized as 'Church Scholar' at phatmass so what he says is 'cogent' and anyone who challenges him just don't understand their own frustrations, but hot stuff will set them straight.

Thanks dude. You've got the Knowledge. Explain to me where my frustations lie and what I have to do to be a 'good' Catholic. Who am I to challenge the "Learned".
[/quote]

You can challenge all you want dude. I didn't read anywhere in the rulebook that the Church Scholar tag granted me infallibility.


So lets cut through fluff. You don't like me. You find me annoying and bothersome. But that's stating the obvious isn't it? (I'm not complaining btw. I have no need to be liked by everyone) So anything that I'm going to say is going to be easily dismissable. Why listen to me afterall? I'm a jerk!

But its easier to be insulting to me. That's why you've "asked" for me to explain where your frustrations lie.


So here it is. Here we have a guy that has demonstrated over and over that he's smart and has a talent for defending the Faith. He's posted countless comments that were insightful and inspiring to many on Phatmass. (myself included) Then one day he's no longer Catholic. He throws out frustrations about the Church (albeit some legit) and disregards anyone who defends the Church because:

She's too young
He's too FUSy
He's a jerk and I don't care for him

Lots of people take the low road but they do so because they have no ability to take a higher one. Some even derive pleasure from bashing the Church. That's not the case here. You've historically demonstrated it. That suggests that you disregard these defenses because you aren't looking for answers to these frustrations. And if you're not looking for answers to these frustrations, that suggests that you have frustrations elsewhere that are causing you real pain. What are they? I don't know. I'm not a psychic. All I know is that with the facts as they are, I'm not buying your story. I think you're hurting and somehow it makes sense to you to be angry with the Church instead of addressing whatever else is bothering you. But (and I'm sincere about this) I truly hope you come to terms with what is hurting you. And if its ok, I'm praying that you will.

Feel free to disregard and insult