Mary Ann Collins (A Former Catholic Nun)

[Charles33]

John3v36 said:

Every person God use thoghout history is ORDINARY.

What is extroidinary is God use ordinary to do extroidinary things.

Let me say what you are not saying. You are saying no created person in and of themselves, MERITS salvation. Thats what you really mean. And that is not at all what I am talking about. I am talking about the things God does to and for people in the course of their lives for his purposes.

Every person God uses in history is not ordinary. Not even close. God uses people how he will for his purposes.

Luciano Pavarotti is not ordinary. He is very un-ordinary, and is special as a created being. He can do something we can't.

God can change or create a person with special attributes, that make them not ordinary.

You see, you only recognize the common denominator in the human race. The fact that in relation to meriting salvation, none of us have it. Once we get past that point, we see that God did not create robots, but individuals that change, grow, and are dynamicly unique.

If God consecrates a person with His grace, for whatever purpose, that person is no longer ordinary in the non-meritorious realm of human existence.

I understand your point, but I suspect you are completely missing mine.

 

[Charles33]

Hey DHK, what up? Why the statement about the picture? What is that all about?

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "Carson, don't lie to us. That is not Fr. Stan. I know that it is not."

I apologize, your Omniscience.

Who might this particular individual be then?

[above] Fr. Stan (T.O.R.), Carol, and I (with my ugly monk beard) on mission in Jamaica on December 31, 2001.

And then there's another Fr. Stan with whom I'm acquainted:

[above] Fr. Stan Fortuna (C.F.R.) and I at the Steubenville of the Rockies Youth Conference in Denver, Colorado in June of 2003.

I suppose, your Omniscience, this Fr. Stan isn't Fr. Stan either. Or is he?

Will the real Fr. Stan please stand up.

 

[prionseas]

A Question for DHK.
Do you know the identity of the priest in the photo.
If yest please tell us all who he is.
If not how come you called Carson a liar

Untruths should not be spoken by a follower of the One is is Truth.

Prionseas

 

[prionseas]

My question regarding Catholics being agressive was not meant as an attack on Catholics but a perhaps mis-interpreted obsvervation on my part.
It was not meant to be ofensive.

Prionseas

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by prionseas:
My question regarding Catholics being agressive was not meant as an attack on Catholics but a perhaps mis-interpreted obsvervation on my part.
It was not meant to be ofensive.

Prionseas

Prionseas,

I apologize. There tend to be a lot of off-the-handle remarks made around here that generalize people and groups. I am sorry for misreading your intent, and I should no better than to fight it with sarcasm anyway!

God bless you! Peace in Christ,

Grant

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by prionseas:
A Question for DHK.
Do you know the identity of the priest in the photo.
If yest please tell us all who he is.
If not how come you called Carson a liar

Untruths should not be spoken by a follower of the One is is Truth.

Prionseas

First of all I have not lied. That is not Fr. Stan, as Carson claims it to be. I do not know where Fr. Stan is at the present moment but he is not in that picture. His image may be there, but he is not. That is merely a representation of him; it is not Fr. Stan himself. I owe no one an apology. I am speaking the truth. If anyone owes anyone an apology it is the Roman Catholics who all throughout the centuries have been using the same figure of speech to misrepresent Christ's words when Christ himself said:

This is my body, take and eat.
This is my blood, take and drink.

Was it his body? Was it his blood? No, absolutely not!! It was a picture, and the disciples knew that very well. They did not accuse Christ of being a liar as all of you have just accused me. They understood his words. Why didn't you understand Carson's words when he said "this is Fr. Stan." It wasn't, was it? It was only his image, a picture.
DHK

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by prionseas:
A Question for DHK.
Do you know the identity of the priest in the photo.
If yest please tell us all who he is.
If not how come you called Carson a liar

Untruths should not be spoken by a follower of the One is is Truth.

Prionseas

First of all I have not lied. That is not Fr. Stan, as Carson claims it to be. I do not know where Fr. Stan is at the present moment but he is not in that picture. His image may be there, but he is not. That is merely a representation of him; it is not Fr. Stan himself. I owe no one an apology. I am speaking the truth. If anyone owes anyone an apology it is the Roman Catholics who all throughout the centuries have been using the same figure of speech to misrepresent Christ's words when Christ himself said:

This is my body, take and eat.
This is my blood, take and drink.

Was it his body? Was it his blood? No, absolutely not!! It was a picture, and the disciples knew that very well. They did not accuse Christ of being a liar as all of you have just accused me. They understood his words. Why didn't you understand Carson's words when he said "this is Fr. Stan." It wasn't, was it? It was only his image, a picture.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]WHAT are you smoking??????


Fr Stan is NOT Jesus. You want to put limitations on what God can do, with your little analogy....and it doesnt' work.

Oh and again, we are not 'Roman'Catholics per se....we are Catholics period, some of us are Roman rite yes....but not all. It is the Catholic Church not the 'Roman' Catholic Church.

LaRae

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by LaRae:

Fr Stan is NOT Jesus. You want to put limitations on what God can do, with your little analogy....and it doesnt' work.

Oh and again, we are not 'Roman'Catholics per se....we are Catholics period, some of us are Roman rite yes....but not all. It is the Catholic Church not the 'Roman' Catholic Church.

LaRae

It is not a matter of what God can do; it is a matter of what Jesus said. Take your matter up with Scripture. That is where your problem lies.
DHK

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by DHK:
Was it his body? Was it his blood? No, absolutely not!! It was a picture, and the disciples knew that very well. They did not accuse Christ of being a liar
[/QB]

So let me get this straight - If it was just a picture, but Christ said it was his body, and the disciples didn't accuse him of lying - why did you accuse Carson of lying for doing the same sort of thing as you believe Christ did? Are you saying that if you were there at the last supper, you would have called Christ a liar, because he didn't say it was a picture of his body???

 

[MikeS]

So what you're saying, DHK, is that the bread that Jesus broke looked exactly like Him. It was a clear and obvious representation of Him. It was his image, but not Him. And anybody looking at the bread would have said "That's Jesus," even though they only meant "That's an image of Jesus."

Uh-huh.

BTW, If I were sitting with a bunch of friends and pulled out a photo of myself and handed it to them, I certainly would not have to tell them "This is Mike." But Jesus did have to tell the apostles "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood."

Was it commonplace, then or now, for people to hand other people bread and wine and declare that those substances were actually the person? In other words, was what Jesus did common useage, obvious to all, like the common useage, obvious to all, of saying "This is Stan" when referring to a photo?

[ January 16, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: MikeS ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BrianT:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
Was it his body? Was it his blood? No, absolutely not!! It was a picture, and the disciples knew that very well. They did not accuse Christ of being a liar

So let me get this straight - If it was just a picture, but Christ said it was his body, and the disciples didn't accuse him of lying - why did you accuse Carson of lying for doing the same sort of thing as you believe Christ did? Are you saying that if you were there at the last supper, you would have called Christ a liar, because he didn't say it was a picture of his body??? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Carson's picture was just that, a picture, a representation.
Christ held in his hand a loaf of bread, a picture, a representation of his body. It wasn't his body; it was a picture of his body.
In Carson's picture it wasn't Fr. Stan; it was a picture of Fr. Stan.
In the bread, it is not the body; it is a picture of the body.

You accuse me of lying when I said this isn't Fr. Stan--because I understood it wasn't and you didn't.
The disciples did not accuse Christ of lying because they understood that Christ was using a picture, and you still don't
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MikeS:
So what you're saying, DHK, is that the bread that Jesus broke looked exactly like Him. It was a clear and obvious representation of Him. It was his image, but not Him. And anybody looking at the bread would have said "That's Jesus," even though they only meant "That's an image of Jesus."

Uh-huh.

Did I say that? No. Why put words in my mouth?
The bread is a picture of his body. A picture is a representation. It represented the body of Jesus, just as the picture of Fr. Stan represented Fr. Stan. The disciples understood that, why can't you?
DHK

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by DHK:
Carson's picture was just that, a picture, a representation.
Christ held in his hand a loaf of bread, a picture, a representation of his body. It wasn't his body; it was a picture of his body.
In Carson's picture it wasn't Fr. Stan; it was a picture of Fr. Stan.
In the bread, it is not the body; it is a picture of the body.

Exactly my point - you are saying that both Carson and Jesus both did the same thing - said that it "is", when it is just a picture. And you said Carson was lying.

You accuse me of lying when I said this isn't Fr. Stan--because I understood it wasn't and you didn't.

I didn't accuse you of anything, nor did I convey what I did or did not understand.

The disciples did not accuse Christ of lying because they understood that Christ was using a picture

Then why did you accuse Carson of lying even though you understood he was using a picture? Would you accuse Christ of lying even though your understanding is that he was using a picture?

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeS:
So what you're saying, DHK, is that the bread that Jesus broke looked exactly like Him. It was a clear and obvious representation of Him. It was his image, but not Him. And anybody looking at the bread would have said "That's Jesus," even though they only meant "That's an image of Jesus."

Uh-huh.

Did I say that? No. Why put words in my mouth?
The bread is a picture of his body. A picture is a representation. It represented the body of Jesus, just as the picture of Fr. Stan represented Fr. Stan. The disciples understood that, why can't you?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I'm just following your analogy between a photograph and a loaf of bread. Photo = obvious representation of Stan. Loaf of bread = obvious representation of Jesus. Seems to break down somewhere.

Or do you believe that everybody would have reacted in exactly the same way if Carson had held up, say, a pencil and declared "This is Fr. Stan."? That we would all have jumped on you for declaring "No, Carson, that is not Fr. Stan" the way we did regarding the photo? Do you really assert that?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Exactly my point - you are saying that both Carson and Jesus both did the same thing - said that it "is", when it is just a picture. And you said Carson was lying.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Carson wasn't lying in pointing out Fr. Stan in the picture, then neither was Jesus lying in pointing out that the bread was merely representative of the body and not the real thing. Yet you claim he was saying it was his actual body. You are not consistent. If Jesus was saying it was his real body, then Carson must be lying also, for he is using the same figure of speech. Why have a double standard? This is plain hypocrisy.

The disciples did not accuse Christ of lying because they understood that Christ was using a picture

Then why did you accuse Carson of lying even though you understood he was using a picture? Would you accuse Christ of lying even though your understanding is that he was using a picture?

Carson was lying if you are going to take his words literally just as you take Jesus words literally. The bread is not literally the body of Christ. Neither is the picture literally Fr. Stan. These truths are self-evident.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MikeS:
I'm just following your analogy between a photograph and a loaf of bread. Photo = obvious representation of Stan. Loaf of bread = obvious representation of Jesus. Seems to break down somewhere.

Or do you believe that everybody would have reacted in exactly the same way if Carson had held up, say, a pencil and declared "This is Fr. Stan."? That we would all have jumped on you for declaring "No, Carson, that is not Fr. Stan" the way we did regarding the photo? Do you really assert that?

Context is everything, isn't it? What was Carson talking about, and what was Christ talking about?
Carson would have no reason in the context that he was speaking of to declare a pencil as a representation of Fr. Stan. In another context he may put two pencils together at 90 degree angles to each other, and say this is a representation of Christ. It is all in the context isn't it?
DHK

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by DHK:
The bread is not literally the body of Christ. Neither is the picture literally Fr. Stan. These truths are self-evident.
DHK

The two situations are equivalent only if you deny the Divinity and Omnipotence of Christ.

Interestingly, atheists use terms like "self-evident" all the time in debunking God...

 

[LaRae]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LaRae:

Fr Stan is NOT Jesus. You want to put limitations on what God can do, with your little analogy....and it doesnt' work.


LaRae

It is not a matter of what God can do; it is a matter of what Jesus said. Take your matter up with Scripture. That is where your problem lies.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Nice tap dancing....you got caught and you know it. Instead of dealing with it you prefer to try an sidetrack the conversation.

So noted.


LaRae

 

[BrianT]

OK, one more time, slowly.

Originally posted by DHK:
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If Carson wasn't lying in pointing out Fr. Stan in the picture,....

But you said Carson WAS lying!

then neither was Jesus lying in pointing out that the bread was merely representative of the body and not the real thing.

If you believe Carson was lying, then you believe Jesus was lying *for the same reason*. You yourself said Carson was lying!

Yet you claim he was saying it was his actual body. You are not consistent.

Where have I made any claims? How do you know what I believe?

If Jesus was saying it was his real body, then Carson must be lying also, for he is using the same figure of speech. Why have a double standard? This is plain hypocrisy.

EXACTLY!!! And you said Carson lied!!!

By your very own logic, either you owe Carson a big apology, or you have proved that Jesus was being literal but lying. Any other logical conclusion is "a double standard" and "plain hypocrisy".