Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 5 minutes ago, Quasar said: Is this the religious version of comparing one's opponent to Hitler? If so, this thread may have run its course. True or not, it appears that you are the one who pulled the Godwin card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 16 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: True or not, it appears that you are the one who pulled the Godwin card. Haha! Oh sure, try to deflect blame! Is Nihil short for Thread aNihilator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Nice try. I have nothing to prove to you. Moving on please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quasar Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Good idea. Better luck next time. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 This is why activity is low on this site lately. This is why we cannot have nice things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 The problem is, I think, that sometimes we can descend to subjective negative statements about members on a personal level, rather than staying with the objective and the subject of the thread. To my way of thinking, if one wants to negatively criticise on a personal level, PM would be the better way. Negative criticism on a public level is(without proof), after all, running the risk of a false statement(s) and possibly calumny or detraction. I was surprised to read that one can claim to be a religious and receive that quite public tag without any proof necessary of actually being a religious or priest, or both. It does seem to be open to deception if someone wants to descend to that level that is. I don't mean public proof but via PM before the tag is actually assigned by whoever has the authority, although I don't know how a religious etc. would go about providing proof. When I look at the profile on a thread and if it states religious or cleric, I take it as bona fide........and bona fide even though some statement in some threads might raise my eyebrows............religious life and/or priesthood does not grant infallibility after all. We are all human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: This is why activity is low on this site lately. This is why we cannot have nice things. I thought that activity on Phatmass seems to have dropped off just lately as well. Edited September 5, 2016 by BarbaraTherese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWaySoul Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 13 hours ago, Peace said: Amen to that brother. Nope. Sorry. The Church does not teach this. I think this is a common misunderstanding. There is plenty of stuff online that explains the actual manner in which Jesus is present in the Eucharist, but here is a good one that explains it: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/only-difference-between-christs-body-in.html?m=1 Well-researched, my friend! I was going to say something like this too, but I forgot the particulars of this complex theology and wasn't sure I'd explain it well. I just learned this last spring in my Sacraments class. 7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: This is why activity is low on this site lately. This is why we cannot have nice things. This makes me sad. Yet I think you may be right. People have been so quick to shut down in the face of disagreement and to demonize their opponents lately. It is so important for us to be better at engaging in meaningful dialogue without getting angry at one another over it. Personal attacks and anger do not help us, especially in this case, where, as I said previously, we are discussing something so holy. The grace of our reception of the Eucharist, in whatever way we receive Him, is effective; let's allow it to soften our hearts in order to show charity and love to those who disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 Beyond me to comprehend it all - but then some things are. I am going to have another read tomorrow when my mind is fresh and I might be able to better understand. How on earth are we going to explain something that is the source and summit of The Church as The Blessed Eucharist is, when it can only be explain in a complex manner. How on earth can the ordinary everyday Catholic even understand for oneself. It has certainly crashed my personal understanding and available explanation. Out the window therefore too goes my personal explanation (evangelisation) of The Blessed Eucharist and the greatest gift we have. For myself I am hoping a fresh mind tomorrow might improve the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWaySoul Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 16 minutes ago, BarbaraTherese said: Beyond me to comprehend it all - but then some things are. I am going to have another read tomorrow when my mind is fresh and I might be able to better understand. How on earth are we going to explain something that is the source and summit of The Church as The Blessed Eucharist is, when it can only be explain in a complex manner. How on earth can the ordinary everyday Catholic even understand for oneself. It has certainly crashed my personal understanding and available explanation. Out the window therefore too goes my personal explanation (evangelisation) of The Blessed Eucharist and the greatest gift we have. For myself I am hoping a fresh mind tomorrow might improve the situation. In evangelization, I think, it is not wise to go immediately to the intricacies of high theology (I've made this mistake and am still working on it; it's just the way my brain works). It is enough to say that Christ's Real Presence is there in the Eucharist. He is truly present. He is substantially present. He is fully present. Things such as this. It can be explained in a way that is not complex, but as with all things, there is a depth to the meaning which can be more fully explored if one wishes. I think people say that He is physically present because that is a simple way of driving home the reality of the situation without recourse to theology/philosophy. But perhaps "real," "substantial," or "full" presence would be technically more correct. The Eucharist is still the greatest gift we have. Whether Christ is physically or really/fully/sacramentally present shouldn't make a difference there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriela Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, McM RSCJ said: Gabriela, You were quick to accuse Ortus of "passive-aggressive" behavior for not responding to you directly when you posted that you--and others--do not believe I am a Religious. But when I had responded to you previously, saying that no matter what you (and others) think, I am a Religious, you did not respond. Passive-aggressive? You will understand, I hope, that I am startled (weak verb) at being told that you (and unnamed others) do not believe I am who I say I am, plus a suspicious character to boot. I continue to think that is because I do not agree with your points of view. You say your identity is well-known on this Phorum. So if contact you through the email address in your recruitment letter for dissertation interview subjects, do you think you might then acknowledge on Phatmass I am a Religious of the Sacred Heart and your judgment was wrong? (It is okay if you continue to think I am a suspicious character. Free country). Let me know your response. If your answer is "yes," I will contact you. If your answer is "no," or if you do not respond, I won't try to contact you at that email address No, it wasn't passive-aggressive for me not to respond. I didn't see that a response was necessary. I said my piece. You said yours. Done. It's funny, though, that you should think I might actually be passive-aggressive, since it's much more in my nature to be just plain old-fashioned aggressive. Passive really isn't me. I'm sure you are startled that people don't just buy who you say you are right off the bat, because you say it. Welcome to the internet. It's full of fakes and liars. I have personally investigated one case of false identity in the VS very extensively, so yeah, I'm alert to the signs. We have people sign up on PM all the time with "Sister" and "Reverend" and God knows what else in their usernames. They're usually crazies who go berserk on the phorum and get banned. The real priests and religious put their status in their names only about half the time and they stay quite low-key. I wouldn't call your "Eucharistic oral rape" low-key. Much more like crazy. What I'd like to know is why you're so keen to prove you're a religious. I mean, unless you're trying to derive some kind of power or status or respect from being a religious, what do you care if people believe you are or not? I "attacked" (I don't perceive it as that, but apparently some people do) you because your response to Nihil was a haughty "how dare you call me a heretic I'm a holy religious!" kind of response, as if you can't possibly be wrong or you deserve special treatment because you're a religious. Should we all just bow to what you say because you're an RSCJ? I've interacted with a LOT of religious, and sure, I've seen arrogant ones who want special treatment because they're religious. But they're not the norm, and they typically hide that desire. Your posts seem to flaunt it. So if you are a religious, shame on you. "You've had your reward." That being said, I do appreciate your respecting my public posting of my email address and asking before sending me mail. Honestly, though, you're not likely to convince me you're a religious just by sending me an email. Email addresses can be faked. So I ask again: Why are you so keen for people to "give you credit" for being religious? Edited September 5, 2016 by Gabriela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 12 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: Comparing reception of communion on the tongue to rape is astonishingly offensive and in my opinion outright blasphemous. Good enough for the saints and doctors of the Church, good enough for us. It seems like the two of you are talking past each other a little bit. I don't think she was saying that communion on the tongue is akin to rape generally, but only in the circumstance where a priest literally shoves the host into someone's mouth despite his clear indication that he did not want that. I think she is saying that people who do not want to receive that way should not be physically forced to do so, which is apparently what happened to her (as tough to believe as it may be). It would have been more productive for her to make her point without using the word rape, but maybe she is not saying what you understood her to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 I do not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 5, 2016 Share Posted September 5, 2016 (edited) Fair enough. I did not read her the same way that you did, FWIW. I think that the rape analogy went too far, though. Edited September 5, 2016 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now