The Ascension

First let me say you in no way offended me with your post, and I see validity in the points you made about how an open discussion is different than one within a group from the same Church, but I still think my need to discover the truth overrides those concerns. Yours is too, but I say it this way to show I am not assuming you are wrong in this issue.

jwmcmac said -
That is why this is difficult to say . . . cause I don’t want to be at odds with you on any point of Faith or apologetics of the Faith . . . and this should not lead to that.

And I prefer not to be at odds with anyone on a point of Faith, but I am more concerned with not being at odds with the Catholic Church on any point of Faith. I present the issues as I best understand them and I always stand ready to be corrected, especially by the Catholic Church. So don't ever take anything I say or post here as being unquestionable, as I am most concerned with presenting the truth of a matter and at the same time I claim no special access to that truth. So if I get something wrong please go right ahead and correct me on it.

jwmcmac said -
A thought about these discussions:

In bygone days, when the vast majority of Christians were Catholic, it may have been allowed to have seeming arguments over the finer points and meanings of Doctrine. It would not be so scandalous in a closed environment. However, arguing the Faith, rather than discussing with Charity the Faith, is at least in part what lead to the terrible problems of the Reformation.

I hope I have expressed Charity in my discussion of the Faith with you and if at any time that seemed lacking let me apologize for my tone and any underlying intent that existed or you perceived to exist.

jwmcmac said -
It was not proper then and it is not proper in this forum to do that. We Catholics who are doing our best to properly represent Church Teachings have the Catechism to fall back on much of the time, which is really really great . . . also the writings of the Doctors of the Faith and the examples and writings of the Saints and Mystics, etc . . . which have been approved in some degree by the official Hierarchy of the Church.

I don't know that the specific failures you associate with the Reformation can be used to generalize as to what is proper in an open forum. First I would disagree that the "problem" of open debate was the real issue during the Reformation. I think it was the failure of the individuals involved in that open debate to be ready to submit to the Church (Heb 13:17) when they found this open debate to result in conclusions that were contrary to the doctrine of the Church.

I am only concerned with the teachings of the Catholic Church being represented correctly, both for the observers here, and for my own good, and sometimes that requires determining which Catholic who is presenting those ideas has most closely matched the official position of the Church and thus arises debate. As you said we Catholics have a wealth of sources to call upon to present the basis for these doctrines and as such should use them to correct each others understanding and I think doing this in the open is instructive to all. But like I said I hope it is always a charitable one and if my part in it becomes less than charitable please let me know.

jwmcmac said -
In the meantime, we Catholics with each other, should do as we would do with any other Christian with whom we ‘know’ we don’t agree . . . we should try to read the other’s posts with ‘good-will’ so that we look for the agreement rather than searching heartily for the disagreement with the other.

Although I may have worded something differently in yours and JRoberts' posts had I been the one who wrote them . . . if I read them with good-will . . . I will allow for the fact that you didn’t seem to say it exactly as I would have. I figure that you are trying your best, and JRoberts is trying his best, to say what the Church Teaches . . . because that is the bottom line of being Catholic . . . that we all Believe and express to the best of our ability what CHRIST and HIS Church really Teaches . . . and that the principle is that these Teachings do not contradict either Scripture or Dogma or Nature or Truth of any sort if it is really Truth. Truth is the same yesterday, today and forever. What can grow about Truth is the depth of meaning . . . not the meaning itself. And so it has for these 2000 + years.

I do read your posts with good will and I thought that much of our disagreement was in wording and not in substance but I also thought it important to get the wording down as correctly as possible to clear up this confusion – which is the only reason I pressed the discussion.

jwmcmac said -

***Now to our ongoing discussion ***
Michael said:
I don't think it is correct to say Jesus divine nature died on the cross. I am aware of no statement in the Church's doctrine that says this. I also don't believe the soul dies at the time of our mortal death either. We know only God can kill the soul (Matt 10:28) so using your analogy (as I understand it) just as Christ's divine nature survived the cross, so too our soul survives our bodies death. Otherwise how do you explain the Church Triumphant?

My reply:
I’m kind of surprised that you could get so wrong what I said. Although you sort of got the first sentence correct in your reply . . . the rest of it came from your imagination of what you think I said . . . which is simply not in the wording I used.

You are right that JESUS Divine Nature did not die on the Cross. I can see why you think I said that . . . as I did not go into detail as to the use of my words. Obviously, you don’t know of any way those words can mean anything other than the way you took them.

I apologize for misunderstanding your position. I thought you were equating the two (Jesus crucifixion and our death) to show that the soul in some way suffers the same fate as the body. That because Jesus divinity also suffered on the cross, that our souls must also suffer death as our bodies do. I accept your statement that, that was not your intent.

jwmcmac said -

Try this . . .
JESUS’ Divine Nature did not necessarily die on the Cross in time and space . . . it being HIS Sacred Humanity which died for certain on the Cross at Calvary . . . however, in Eternity . . . the 2nd Divine Person of the BLESSED TRINITY WHO Scripture refers to as the LAMB slain before the foundation of the world . . . this Divine Person WHO is GOD . . . was Eternally slain as the LAMB of GOD . . . apparently before Creation was Created . . . whatever that may mean theologically. It seems from Scripture that the 2nd Divine Person of the BLESSED TRINITY must have ‘accepted’ HIS Future Death on the Cross and was actually slain in Eternity . . . before the foundation of the world was even lain.

Now whatever it means to be . . . Eternally slain, before the foundation of the world . . . it does most likely mean that HE was slain in Eternity before the foundation of the world . . . as before Creation was only Eternity. I could be wrong.

The last book of Scripture also refers to this 2nd Divine Person, CHRIST the LAMB, as standing on the Altar in Heaven . . . as if slain — we Catholics saying that CHRIST bears the marks of HIS Crucifixion . . . even now at this moment — just as HE showed to the Apostles. The 2nd Divine Person of the BLESSED TRINITY came from Eternity and Lived and Died on earth as JESUS the CHRIST and went back to Eternity as the Glorified JESUS CHRIST, still remaining the 2nd Divine Person of the BLESSED TRINITY. I Believe the Church is clear on this. Maybe the Church will narrow this all down for us one day . . . or . . . not . . . Dogmatically. Many of these things have been written of in the writings of the Doctors and Saints and Mystics but . . . you are correct . . . these may not be Dogma . . . yet . . . but I believe these writings do not contradict either Scripture or the Dogmas and Doctrines of the Church.

This is certainly a deep subject but one I am not sure we can get into without the chance for introducing more confusion and possible errors and in turn shedding little if any light on the subject at hand.

I hope by saying this I am not minimizing a point you are trying to make or I appear to be trying to duck that point. I just think that to say more than is in scripture on this matter is beyond my understanding of the issue and so I suspect I could easily slip into error.

jwmcmac said -
Don’t mis-read or mis-understand. I did not say the Soul dies? As a Catholic, I would never knowingly say such a thing. No.

All men are appointed to die the first death only . . . which clearly is the separation of our body and soul . . . for a time . . . until the final judgment. Scripture warns further . . . do not die the second death . . . which I may wrongly state to be the eternal ‘death’ of the soul . . . but only so to speak . . . which we also know the Soul cannot die in reality . . . as it is immortal . . . but which Soul will be in hell forever and ever with a corrupt body . . . the second death.

Our body and soul Unity is not the ‘Hypo-static Union’ which exists between CHRIST’s two Natures . . . but it is an image and likeness to that Unity . . . and thus the body and Soul should be considered as one thing at the point of being Created and at the point of our Judgment day reunion . . . in that respect . . . treating our bodies with the same respect that CHRIST treats HIS Sacred Human Nature . . . and only because of that image and likeness to JESUS.

My only point (and it may be as you said we are just saying things differently) is that because the body dies (and will someday be resurrected and glorified/changed) and the soul does not die – that they are different and separable, so this dualism is not contrary to Catholic doctrine. I agree with you that one should not cremate another or be cremated (or do anything else for that matter) if it in anyway weakens their faith in the resurrection of the body.

jwmcmac said -
I don’t mind your clarifications . . . as you are very good at stating the Teachings of the Church.

jwmcmac said -
What I kind of mind . . . and think you would benefit if you would correct just a bit . . . is that you take people the wrong way and don’t leave them any room to agree with you . . . especially JRoberts on occasion . . . and you should not do that . . . especially in this ‘other than Catholic Christian’ forum. Look for the good . . . or at least reply with your ‘comment’ rather than your ‘accusation’ or ‘mis-understanding’ . . . and everything would go soooo much smoother and better for all of us and you too.

I apologize for that attitude you sense in my posts and humbly admit to this failing and will try to do better in the future. Please feel free at any time when reading my posts to assume that I am only stating my understanding of an issue and that I am presenting it in a positive manner as belies my conviction but not my certainty (which is pretty much nil). I hope this difference makes sense to you and you can see I am always open to correction on matters, just that I expect support for the new idea from credible sources and above all clarity and consistency in the final position. If I accused you of anything I apologize. I attempt to focus on ideas and not the presented of them, so I will occasionally accuse ideas of being wrong, but I do not mean to judge the presenter of them.

jwmcmac said -
Michael, Please don’t be offended.

I am not offended and I hear your critiques and will try to do better in the future.