April 20, 2006

Let's Take a Closer Look
Everett

Farlas, a literal reading of Fenesis 1 cannot be squared with a literal reading of Genesis 2 brcause the chronology of events is different in each one. In Genesis 1, the creation story proceeds from the creation of the world through the creation of life, from plants, to sea creatures, to birds, to land animals, and ends with the creation of man as the crown of creation. In Genesis 2, man is the first living thing created, before even the plants. God then creates the plants for food for Adam, and proceeds to create all of the other animals in an attempt to make a suitable help-mate for him. Thus, a literal reading of one contradicts a literal reading of the other because man cannot be both the first and last living thing created. It has to be one, the other, or neither (possible if a figurative reading of both Genesis 1 & 2 is admitted).

Now, to your question about saints. By definition, a saint is anyone who is in Heaven. There they worship God and intercede for us because, let's face it, we need all the prayer we can get. The Catholic Church designates as saints those people it can verify are in Heaven. There are several steps in this process which I am unable to lay out fully because I don't know what each step entails. However, I do know that before the Church declares someone a saint, two miracles resulting from intercession to the candidate for sainthood must be verified as such, though it is also possible for someone to be made a saint by popular acclamation (hence the signs at John Paul the Great's funeral reading "Santo subito" or "Saint immediately"). They are venerated for what they have done in their lives because in honoring what they have done we are actually honoring what God has done in them. Hope that helps.

Oh, and St. Joseph is the husband of Mary. Also, it has been determined that Jesus was actually born on Halloween. He came as a baby.

You can stop reading if you want, Farlas. We Catholics are going to argue amongst ourselves now.

Annatar, I'm rather curious as to how you have arrived at your conclusion about the nature of the Eucharist, as it seems to fly in the face of Church teaching. For one, you seem to be embracing Docetism (the belief that Jesus was truly divine, but not truly man) at best and Monophysitism (the belief that Christ's divine nature absorbed his human nature) at worst.

Even if I am reading too far into what you wrote, your statements on the nature of the Eucharist are still contrary to the teachings of the Church, though you are right in saying that the reception of the Eucharist is not a cannibalistic act.

Paragraph 1374 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads

"The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the EUcharist "the body and blood, to gether with the soul and divinity , of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real'-by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.""

Paragraph 1376 reads

"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 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.""

To say that the host is a "flame from God" is all well and good, but to say that that is all it is is to reduce the Eucharist to a shot of spiritual whiskey.

I think I'll save the topics of war, capital punishment, and the rights and duties of government vs the rights and duties of individuals for next time, but I would like to try and answer your question about what GWB said about Pearl Harbor and when.

From what I've bee able to find, the comment was made not during a State of the Union (though he may have said something similar in one or several of them), but during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations this past December 7, the anniversary of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. Here is the quote you probably heard about: "The strike on Pearl Harbor was the start of a long war for America -- a massive struggle against those who attacked us, and those who shared their destructive ambitions."

Clearly no reasonable reading of this quote could imply that WWII didn't start until Japan attacke Pearl Harbor.

Here's the URL for the transcript of the speech if you're interested:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051207-1.html