tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post929400706763955090..comments2024-03-05T11:44:26.154-08:00Comments on The New Theological Movement: Could there be any 1st class relics of Jesus after the Ascension?Father Ryan Erlenbushhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-74237817065826055132011-06-06T18:24:07.687-07:002011-06-06T18:24:07.687-07:00Michelangelo,
Thanks, I'm glad to know that th...Michelangelo,<br />Thanks, I'm glad to know that this discussion has helped! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-62360544368556675652011-06-06T18:11:45.869-07:002011-06-06T18:11:45.869-07:00Father,
Excellent exposition of the question, th...Father, <br /><br />Excellent exposition of the question, thank you. You have answered many questions which I have pondered for years. Your essential point is that we should not consider them relics. And your point that even eucharistic miracles, which could in a sense be called a physical presence, which we would normally not consume, but rather reserve for adoration, is still, as is the Holy Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine, the "Whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity", and not a "relic". Thank you, Father.Michelangelonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80868204371833192722011-06-06T16:43:03.265-07:002011-06-06T16:43:03.265-07:00Veronica,
I am in complete agreement! :)Veronica,<br />I am in complete agreement! :)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-12390871238680468042011-06-06T16:42:22.446-07:002011-06-06T16:42:22.446-07:00T,
I don't know for sure what happened to the ...T,<br />I don't know for sure what happened to the comment ... I have not yet deleted any ... there is a comment at 3:07pm from June 5, in which you mention the mantle of our Lady and the Shroud.<br /><br />In any case, thank you for all you have added to this discussion! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-3572923218755209492011-06-06T16:36:43.804-07:002011-06-06T16:36:43.804-07:00Joshua,
The point you make is certainly open to th...Joshua,<br />The point you make is certainly open to theological debate.<br />St. Thomas Aquinas is of the opinion that the Eucharist remains the Eucharist when the accidents are changed by a miracle ... however, I do not believe that we must necessarily accept that.<br /><br />cf. ST III, q.76, a.8 -- http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4076.htm#article8<br />(the key point is that the dimensive quantity, which is the "essential accident" remains)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-20336220845982332282011-06-06T16:32:39.177-07:002011-06-06T16:32:39.177-07:00annointed Tau,
If we are to the point of claiming ...annointed Tau,<br />If we are to the point of claiming that the Eucharistic miracle at Lanciano is a first class relic, then this discussion has really hit the bottom.<br />I have already discussed the Eucharist above in the article ... please re-read.<br />How can any reasonable person compare the living presence of Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist to a dead, lifeless relic?!<br /><br />Your dismissive comments about the CCC reveal your attitude toward Tradition and the theological developments of the Fathers, Doctors, and saints.<br /><br />In any case, if you think that Christ's assertion that he is with us always means that his body is physically present on earth in just the manner he was present when he appeared to his apostles after the Resurrection (such that the Ascension is not a definitive event) ... well, I just don't know how to respond to that ... <br /><br /><br />[by the way, "anointed" is not spelled "annointed" (just fyi)]Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-28877127936646374892011-06-06T15:32:39.540-07:002011-06-06T15:32:39.540-07:00The point here is....they would be God (for they w...The point here is....they would be God (for they will be hypostatically united to the divine essence....<br /><br />Well, I for one will claim that.I can truly say He is present in His relics and remains. I care not what the academics think as I personally believe you cannot limit God to mere human reasoning when it comes to mysteries.<br /><br />Even the slightest particle of the consecrated host is God himself!<br /><br />Lanciano is evident of this extraordinary phenomena.<br />Perhaps the Trinity's omnipotence is far greater in His love to remain with us than anyone could ever possibly imagine.We just cannot put limits on Him according to our understanding. You know and I know that if God stopped thinking of us for one zinth we would cease to exist' and this is just the Holy Spirit. Perhaps when Christ said I will be with you always even until the end of times it meant more than we realised. His precious blood could not just dissipate into a material altered state. It is alive with Him because He is present.It is from the same Christ before He ascended, it is the same Christ after He ascended, is it not?<br />Quite frankly your whole argument seems to be based upon assertions. The CCC has had to be corrected more than once. It is not infallible or is it Father?annointed Taunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78155891242657152022011-06-06T15:28:06.632-07:002011-06-06T15:28:06.632-07:00Father,
It was my understanding that in a Euchari...Father,<br /><br />It was my understanding that in a Eucharistic miracle, where the host turns to flesh or something of that sort, the Eucharist ceases to be. That is, Christ is substantially present as long as the accidents of bread and wine remain, but when the accidents are gone, so is His presence. If the Host no longer has the accidents of bread, then the real presence should cease, even if the accidents are now flesh or blood?Stomachosushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985536970467983132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-80716771489102793032011-06-06T15:28:04.544-07:002011-06-06T15:28:04.544-07:00Father, I might be one of the "anonymouses&qu...Father, I might be one of the "anonymouses" :) I posted a comment mentioning again the Shroud of Turin shortly after the one about St. Thomas and latria, but I never saw it get published and was wondering why not - perhaps I forgot to put my little T in the name box. Sorry about that, if that's what happened. <br /><br />If it isn't - well, I'm befuddled as to where my comment went. Perhaps I only thought I hit publish - and actually just exited the comment screen instead. (That would be a bummer, 'cause at this point I don't remember all of what was in it)Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-9742332896381040492011-06-06T13:21:30.265-07:002011-06-06T13:21:30.265-07:00We have greater than a first class relic of Our Lo...We have greater than a first class relic of Our Lord -<br /><br />He is present in every Tabernacle in every Roman Catholic Church body, blood, soul and divinity.<br /><br />VeronicaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-12469753797279131652011-06-06T09:14:59.520-07:002011-06-06T09:14:59.520-07:00I think something that might be misunderstood here...I think something that might be misunderstood here is that the body of Jesus is quite different from the body of any other human.<br /><br />When Jesus died and his body was placed in the tomb, that body was God. The Catechism states this quite clearly: "During Christ's period in the tomb, his divine person continued to assume both his soul and his body." (CCC 630)<br />[for more on this see: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/04/for-three-days-god-was-dead-body-and.html)<br /><br /><br />The point here is that, if there were remains of Christ's body that were truly 1st Class Relics; these remains would not simply be Relics, they would be God (for they would be hypostatically united to the divine essence through the person of the Word).<br />Now, I don't think anyone here wants to claim that!<br /><br />For this reason, I assert that any possible remains are not properly relics and no longer have a relation to the soul of Christ (as is the case with 1st Class relics of the saints).Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-78946867840505628702011-06-06T08:33:23.605-07:002011-06-06T08:33:23.605-07:00Fred,
My point in the article is not so much to de...Fred,<br />My point in the article is not so much to deal with particular historical questions, but more with the philosophical and theological foundations.<br /><br />In that regard, I am of the opinion that, even if there are remnants of Christ's blood (e.g. the blood stains on the Shroud and the Sudarium), these remnats are not properly "relics" so-called.<br />After Christ has been raised and has ascended into heaven, his soul no longer bears the same relation to these remains as it had before the resurrection.<br /><br />This is the point of my citation from Trent -- the whole logic of relics is that these pieces of bone etc. will one day be re-united to the souls of the saints.<br />However, as Christ has already been raised, it is evident that any possible remains will not be re-united to his soul and therefore are not properly 1st Class Relics.<br /><br />Does this make sense? <br />Certainly, I mean no disrespect to the Shroud or the Sudarium ... I think we can worship both with the true adoration of Latria (following St. Thomas Aquinas and the logic of St. John Damascene)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40128700275579192842011-06-06T08:25:53.927-07:002011-06-06T08:25:53.927-07:00annointed Tau,
Since you ask "with what auth...annointed Tau, <br />Since you ask "with what authority" I say such "a dreadful thing", I presume that you did not read my reference to the Catechism (perhaps you do not know that "CCC" refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church) ... I have copied the relevant portion of CCC 659 below:<br /><br />"Christ's body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. [...] Jesus' final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God's right hand. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul 'as to one untimely born', in a last apparition that established him as an apostle."Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-40212439462325229422011-06-06T08:21:59.731-07:002011-06-06T08:21:59.731-07:00annointed Tau,
Please do not missunderstand -- the...annointed Tau,<br />Please do not missunderstand -- the apparitions are true and real. However, I am quite certain (and the Church herself seems to be quite certain) that Jesus does not appear in his proper physical body.<br /><br />Have you looked at CCC 659 yet? The point is that, if Jesus' apparitions to saints were the same as when he appeared to his disciples after the Resurrection, then the Ascension would not be a definitive moment. <br /><br />Jesus does not appear in his proper physical body, because that body is in heaven and no longer on earth.<br />By analogy, the same holds true for Mary.<br /><br />Likewise, please do remember that many of the saints have appeared and "touched", "held", "lifted" various persons and objects -- however, we would be quite wrong to presume that this means that those saints have been assumed into heaven! (this seems to be your reasoning with St. Joseph ... as though any saint who appeared in an apparition, must necessarily have been assumed into heaven)<br /><br />I do not say that the apparition is a mere "hologram", but I do insist that it is not the proper body of the Lord or of his Mother or of the saints (especially in cases like St. Joan of Arc's, where St. Michael appeared in bodily form, though he is an angel and has never had nor could ever have a proper body).<br /><br />I hope that this helps ... and, yes, I am "really serious"Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-81168919278950697992011-06-06T08:00:35.537-07:002011-06-06T08:00:35.537-07:00Perhaps I've perused this article -and these c...Perhaps I've perused this article -and these comments - too quickly, but the Shroud of Turin is not merely a third class relic as a coth that has touched our Lord, but is a first class relic because it is suffused with His Precious Blood.Frednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-35858609163907085102011-06-06T06:56:02.068-07:002011-06-06T06:56:02.068-07:00What about Catherine Laboure? She actually leaned ...What about Catherine Laboure? She actually leaned on the knee of Our Lady in an apparition. But you say, no Mary would not descend in her proper body... Explain that please.annointed Taunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-53424719640246252632011-06-06T06:49:46.093-07:002011-06-06T06:49:46.093-07:00"Jesus. Mary and Joseph are not apparitions i..."Jesus. Mary and Joseph are not apparitions in their proper bodies..".so you say. Well what bodies or ghosts or whatever do you mean? And with what authority do you say such a thing as if it was not them really present? Are you really serious? How can you say such a dreadful thing? Do you mean that every apparition is nothing more than some type of hologram?annointed Taunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-54879298776029702462011-06-06T06:38:50.800-07:002011-06-06T06:38:50.800-07:00annointed Tau,
The apparitions of Mary, Joseph, th...annointed Tau,<br />The apparitions of Mary, Joseph, the other saints, and even of Christ are not apparitions in their proper bodies.<br /><br />Jesus and Mary do not descend from heaven in their own proper bodies in these apparitions.<br />This is what makes St. Paul's vision so unique -- Jesus did appear to him in his own proper body (he came down from heaven to visit Paul).<br /><br />However, the saints have never claimed that the apparitions received (whether Fatima or Lourdes, etc) entail the literal second coming of Christ -- i.e. his return to earth in his proper body.<br /><br />So, no, I do not think that this would "totally turn my theory upside down". Because I am quite convinced that neither Joseph nor Mary nor Jesus appear in their proper physical bodies.<br /><br />Cf. CCC 659 which explains how unique was Paul's vision.Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-72652794225780210102011-06-06T06:31:32.922-07:002011-06-06T06:31:32.922-07:00Wasn't there an apparition of St Joseph at the...Wasn't there an apparition of St Joseph at the last apparition on October 13 1917 when the miracle at Fatima occured? He appeared with the Holy Family. If so, how can we have bone relics of St Joseph today?<br /><br />This will totally turn your theory upside down.annointed Taunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-23405368691896351192011-06-06T06:23:08.350-07:002011-06-06T06:23:08.350-07:00@anonymous (12:44am),
I am amazed that you are so ...@anonymous (12:44am),<br />I am amazed that you are so competent regarding the official pronouncement of what is "mere legend" and what is "Dogma"!<br />Many of the saints have believed that John's assumption was more than mere 'human tradition'! Many (even St. Thomas) thought that the tradition of the faithful was more than 'just a legend'!<br /><br />There are biblical reasons to think John was assumed. There are reasons stemming from the Tradition to think John was assumed.<br />If you had read the article (which I am quite sure you have not) you would have recognized this.<br /><br />In any case, my point is not to debate whether or not John was assumed (personally, I think not), but rather to point out that the faithful have a certain sense that no relics remain of those who have been assumed into heaven -- and this is testified to by no less an authority than the Angelic Doctor!Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-89359351562267045042011-06-06T06:16:51.788-07:002011-06-06T06:16:51.788-07:00@anonymous (11:21pm),
Your comment is utterly biza...@anonymous (11:21pm),<br />Your comment is utterly bizarre!<br />Nothing I have said would undermine the devotion of the Church toward relics. <br />My point is simply that it does not seem like there could be "relics" of Jesus and Mary in the same way as there are relics of the saints ... since Jesus and Mary have already gone up to heaven in their proper bodies.<br /><br />Your ramblings make no sense to me at all! (literally, I cannot tell what you are trying to say)Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-25283018975002605702011-06-06T06:10:54.569-07:002011-06-06T06:10:54.569-07:00@anonymouses,
You simply MUST start using some id/...@anonymouses,<br />You simply MUST start using some id/tag/pseudonym! <br />It is simply too difficult to carry on serious discussion when I cannot tell who is who ... then again, as you all are continuing to refuse this simple courtesy, may you really aren't interested in serious discussion?<br /><br />In any case, I will not be posting any comments that do not have at least a simple pseudonym, at least the bottom of the comment ... like so ...<br /><br />-ReginaldusFather Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-30791227948492603832011-06-06T00:44:24.950-07:002011-06-06T00:44:24.950-07:00"I wonder what you would have said about the ..."I wonder what you would have said about the sense of the faithful regarding the Assumption of Mary before the ex cathedra pronouncement (perhaps you forget that the Pope referred his pronouncement to the long-standing Tradition which was found in the discernment of the faithful)."<br /><br />Doctrine is NOT legend. There is a difference, one which you seem to be confused about, so it seems. Allow me clarify the two for you.<br /><br />A doctrine is a long-held belief, rooted in the Word of God (Scripture and Tradition), whereas a legend is a long-held tradition, rooted in a doctrine. It is the difference between Divine Tradition and human tradition.<br /><br />That is why the Assumption of Mary is a dogmatically defined doctrine, whereas the assumption of John is just a legend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-2685060235975909042011-06-05T23:21:16.747-07:002011-06-05T23:21:16.747-07:00If we have relics of St Joseph I ask who was highe...If we have relics of St Joseph I ask who was higher than him? St John?<br /><br />And why is it that a relic of Christ will make the devil and his cohorts flee in an exorcism?<br /><br />It would be total folly to undermine the Holy Relics.<br /><br />Holy Relics are so important that a Latin Mass used to be said in honour of the Holy relics on November 5th.<br /><br />If Our Lady could treasure the relics of the holy then we had better too.<br /><br />Blessed Katerina Emmerich said that the saints hover over their relics. So why should Christ not be present with his?<br /><br />The very thin veil over our eyes is a test of our love and faith. I am grateful that the father reveals himself to those who have childlike faith so enough of our own so called wisdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5578980753063154388.post-68563029616423674592011-06-05T21:54:00.841-07:002011-06-05T21:54:00.841-07:00@TeaPot562,
I am very open to the idea of 2nd clas...@TeaPot562,<br />I am very open to the idea of 2nd class relics of Jesus and Mary. I have seen many myself.<br /><br /><br /><br />@T, St. Thomas' claim is really not that radical (it is actually quite simple). The main point he makes is that we worship the Divine Essence in itself and for itself. We worship the Humanity of Christ on account of its union with the Divinity. And we worship the Cross etc. on account of their union with the humanity (and through the humanity, with the person of the Word).<br /><br />If any think we should worship Christ's sacred humanity (whether this be his body and blood in the Eucharist or his body and blood in its proper species in heaven), then we must admit that Latria can be given to more than simply the Divine Essence.<br /><br />In any case, I think the article will give some sense to the claim.<br />Peace to you! +Father Ryan Erlenbushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07557817305024750902noreply@blogger.com