magisterial-sniping

[magisterial-sniping]

For the next week or so, I will be posting the creed from Pope St. Paul VI's Solemni Hac Liturgia or Credo for the People of God over at @salty-ofthe-earth

It was written after Vatican II to reaffirm and clarify the core of the faith and is a good, short, but rich statement of the faith.

I think it would be of interest to the followers here.

[magisterial-sniping]

@albertas-worst-nightmare

From St. Cyril's Third Letter to Nestorius, approved by the Council of Ephesus

"we say that the only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten from the very essence of the Father, true God from true God, the light from the light and the one through whom all things in heaven and earth were made, for our salvation came down and emptying himself he became incarnate and was made man. This means that he took flesh from the holy virgin and made it his own, undergoing a birth like ours from her womb and coming forth a man from a woman. He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth."

question that may or may not make sense: when people say that mary is the mother of god, does that mean that jesus was the literal physical embodiment of god on earth? or is it more like "oh, he's the son of god, he represents his father since his father can't be here right now because he's too busy being god."

The question makes sense but essentially, yes, Jesus is God. Mary is the Mother of God. But Jesus’ father is God.

[magisterial-sniping]

"To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love."

-Pope St. Paul VI, Humanae Vitae (1968), paragraph 16

i know i say it all the time but some of my mutual in laws are cuckoo bananas omggggg

[magisterial-sniping]

Pope Pius XI, Casti Conubii (December 31, 1930), paragraph 59:

Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause [ob gravem omnino causam (”for and utterly grave cause”)]  he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.

Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum For Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, (February 12, 1997) 3. Pastoral Guidelines for Confessors, paragraph 13 :

13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist (Casti Conubii, 58). This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met

1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself; (ed. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 2795, 3634)

2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;

3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).

Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Paragraph 2795:

The Holy Office [precursor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] “The Onanistic Act in Marriage,” 6 April 1853 :

Question 1) Can it be that, in a given case, an imperfect marital act (whether it be so by onanism or by the aid of the vile instrument vulgarly known as the “condom”) could ever be licit?

Question 2) Can a wife consciously but passively make herself available to marital congress involving a condom?

Answer 1) No, for it is an intrinsic evil.

Answer 2) No, for she would give aid to an intrinsically illicit act.

Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum Paragraph 3634:

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary, 3 April 1916

Q: May a woman licitly cooperate in the action of her husband, who, wishing to commit the crime of Onan or the Sodomites (so that he may indulge in voluptuous pleasure), threatens her with death or grave harm, unless she cooperates?

a) According to the opinions of esteemed theologians, if a husband wishes to commit the crime of Onan in conjugal union (that is, he wishes to knowingly discharge semen outside the vagina after the beginning of copulation), and he threatens his wife with either death or grave injury unless she accomodates him in his perverse desires, his wife is lawfully able to have sexual intercourse with her husband in this way: she, for her own part, works toward the licit act of marital intercourse but, on the other hand, she permits her husband to commit sin, because of the grave reason, which excuses her, since love, which her husband has been understood to obstruct, does not bind her to such grave harm.

(b) But if the husband should wish to commit with her the sin of the Sodomites, when sodomy is against nature on the part of either participant, thus the wickedness shifts decisively, in the judgement of all learned theologians: from here it is clear that from no cause, not even the avoidance of death, can the wife licitly comply in the shameless act of her husband.

You know what bothers me? That when it comes to whether or not a spouse is culpable if their partner uses BC/condoms for sex, there is never a discussion about consent.

No, you’re not going to hell if your husband distrusts NFP and refuses to have sex without a condom. If you have sex with him if he buys his own condom and puts it on by himself, you are not sinning. Pray for his conversion, blah blah blah. The state of your soul is fine.

But is it coercion if he uses that against you, and blames YOU, for not wanting to have sex?  Do you feel safe in saying no to sex if he puts on a condom? Do you worry that if you say no to sex every time he insists on a condom, that he will cheat on you through adultery or porn? Is it fair for him to get his orgasm if it costs you your mental health and sense of dignity? Is sex truly loving and communal if it spits in the face of your deepest, most serious beliefs? If neither person can agree on a family planning method, are they truly in a safe and consented space to even have healthy, joyful, and fulfilling sex?

I say this as a victim of sexual assault and as someone who has spoken with others who were assaulted. Anytime I read “I feel bad/panicky about my sex life because I do not consent to/am uncomfortable with a part of it,” my head screams “YOU ARE BEING ASSAULTED.” We are overlooking a grave matter of sexual integrity for the sake of “keeping the peace.”

Maybe it’s my trauma overriding logic. Maybe I’m being too sensitive. But maybe, too, we need to stop telling women that they should suck up to potential sexual assault and unhealthy sexual situations just to keep the selfish partner happy. Maybe they should be reminded that if “No” is not a safe or available option to them, then their “yes” isn’t true consent. And without that yes, their marriage is in deeper trouble than they think.

[magisterial-sniping]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 67

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2116-2117

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. (Cf. Deut 18:10; Jer 29:8) Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.

If you see this, please say a Hail Mary for the conversion of those who are pagan / practice witchcraft.

[magisterial-sniping]

Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, Definition of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. . . .

And hence the very words with which the Sacred Scriptures speak of Uncreated Wisdom and set forth his eternal origin, the Church, both in its ecclesiastical offices and in its liturgy, has been wont to apply likewise to the origin of the Blessed Virgin, inasmuch as God, by one and the same decree, had established the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of Divine Wisdom. . . .

These ecclesiastical writers in quoting the words by which at the beginning of the world God announced his merciful remedies prepared for the regeneration of mankind — words by which he crushed the audacity of the deceitful serpent and wondrously raised up the hope of our race, saying, “I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed” (Genesis 3:15) — taught that by this divine prophecy the merciful Redeemer of mankind, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, was clearly foretold: That his most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, was prophetically indicated; and, at the same time, the very enmity of both against the evil one was significantly expressed. Hence, just as Christ, the Mediator between God and man, assumed human nature, blotted the handwriting of the decree that stood against us, and fastened it triumphantly to the cross, so the most holy Virgin, united with him by a most intimate and indissoluble bond, was, with him and through him, eternally at enmity with the evil serpent, and most completely triumphed over him, and thus crushed his head with her immaculate foot. . . .

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 492-493

The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (Lumen Gentium, 53, 56). The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love" ( Cf. Ephesians 1:3-4).

The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature" (Lumen Gentium, 56) By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Just learned what the immaculate conception actually is.

It’s worse doctrine than I thought.

Weird idea that a person must first be without sin for God to use them.

[magisterial-sniping]

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (USCCB)

46. Catholic health care providers should be ready to offer compassionate physical, psychological, moral, and spiritual care to those persons who have suffered from the trauma of abortion. 47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child. 48. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

Clarification on Procured Abortion, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)

As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).

Evangelium Vitae, Pope St. John Paul II, paragraph 90

But no one can ever renounce this responsibility, especially when he or she has a legislative or decision-making mandate, which calls that person to answer to God, to his or her own conscience and to the whole of society for choices which may be contrary to the common good. Although laws are not the only means of protecting human life, nevertheless they do play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour. I repeat once more that a law which violates an innocent person's natural right to life is unjust and, as such, is not valid as a law. For this reason I urgently appeal once more to all political leaders not to pass laws which, by disregarding the dignity of the person, undermine the very fabric of society.

The Church well knows that it is difficult to mount an effective legal defence of life in pluralistic democracies, because of the presence of strong cultural currents with differing outlooks. At the same time, certain that moral truth cannot fail to make its presence deeply felt in every conscience, the Church encourages political leaders, starting with those who are Christians, not to give in, but to make those choices which, taking into account what is realistically attainable, will lead to the re- establishment of a just order in the defence and promotion of the value of life. Here it must be noted that it is not enough to remove unjust laws. The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood. A family policy must be the basis and driving force of all social policies. For this reason there need to be set in place social and political initiatives capable of guaranteeing conditions of true freedom of choice in matters of parenthood. It is also necessary to rethink labour, urban, residential and social service policies so as to harmonize working schedules with time available for the family, so that it becomes effectively possible to take care of children and the elderly.

jsyk, the trigger laws that would activate if Roe v. Wade is overturned would not just harm women who have voluntary abortions but any woman who wants to have a child and experiences medical complications. Miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies (pregnancy is a misnomer there, there is no viable baby but still considered one under the laws in place) would now be criminalized or unable to be treated, resulting in the deaths of thousands if not millions of mothers who WANT to have children. At best, they will be rendered permanently infertile and prosecuted. At worst, they and their child (in the case of miscarriages) would die of something preventable due to laws considering any treatment to be "abortion." As a Catholic, my view is this: if you are anti-abortion, fight for better social services that support mothers, children, and all adults. Just as Catholics promote feeding the poor to combat the violence of poverty, we should also promote supporting women and their children who are failed by our current social systems and government to combat the violence that makes women turn to abortion. I suggest listening to the first 3 episodes of the podcast the Bartimaeus Institute puts out to further illustrate why Catholics should fight for any and all people whose bodies are violated and controlled by an empire. Lip service that merely states "abortion bad" is merely contributing to violence perpetuated by the empire. If you wish to speak more on this with me, please reply to this ask publically requesting it for a good-faith discussion on abortion and what Catholics should be doing in the here and now to prevent it.

1. Salpingectomies are a non abortive treatment for ectopic pregnancies.

2. The only criminal cases I've ever seen regarding miscarriages were because they resulted from the mother actively harming her pregnancy by doing meth or something

3. We absolutely must do all we can to assist women, mothers, and help prevent the types of thinking, environments, and choices that lead women to ultimately have abortion. This includes removing our societal reliance on contraception, caring for the poor and addicted, and support for survivors of rape and domestic violence. We are also required to fight abortion itself because it is a grave evil.

4. I'll check out the podcast tomorrow.

[magisterial-sniping]

Second Ecumenical Council at the Vatican, Gaudium et Spes, paragraph 78

That earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor symbolizes and results from the peace of Christ which radiates from God the Father. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all men with God. By thus restoring all men to the unity of one people and one body, He slew hatred in His own flesh; and, after being lifted on high by His resurrection, He poured forth the spirit of love into the hearts of men.

For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.

Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself.

Pope St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, paragraph 113

Everyone, however, must realize that, unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reach men's very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or—and this is the main thing—ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men's minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today's world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; (Pope St. Paul VI, Populorum Progressio para. 53) it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

Brother, don't appropriate our Catholic faith for your own murderous, hateful fantasies. Great, despicable pseudo-Christian heresy that is Americanism still damned by the influence of heretical Protestant sects is clearly showing. You're not better than us, we who aren't monarchists, wannabe tough guys and political idolators.

Thank you for reaching out anon. You don’t seem to like me very much, or agree with my stances, but you’ve made a lot of assumptions in your ask that, for me at least, are out of left field and completely baseless. Please feel free to reach out in a message or future ask to clarify.

My page is for the sheepdog and the shepherd and less for the sheep or those not of the flock, though I feel there is a little for everybody on my page.

First, I am curious how I am trying to appropriate the Catholic faith, least of all for any negative purpose. Then you accuse me of murderous and hateful fantasies? Is that because I encourage people to arm themselves? Luke 22:36 a quote DIRECTLY FROM CHRIST tells us “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” CHRIST is telling us to sell our luxuries and to buy a sword, which was the cutting edge of personal weaponry at that time. Telling us to sell our luxuries in order to arm ourselves puts arming ourselves, as commanded by Christ, on the level of a necessity.

Is it because I support the police? Romans 13:4 tells us “For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Police are by and large needed, and by and large good. There are over a million police officers in the US and only a few thousand people are killed a year by them, the majority of those are violent offenders violently offending. That is not to say that when the police are wrong, they should not be called to account, or that they are somehow unfillable.

Is it because I post new stories about attacks on and threats to Christianity? That is literally it. I am just reblogging the news and oppression against Christians that is very real. John 15:18-19 tells us “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Is it because I talk about the Crusades and the Templars? I can guarantee that the reality of the Knights Templar and the Crusades is drastically different than what you have been led to believe. It is a vast and complicated topic that I could and in fact am writing books about. So, I will give you a quick blurb to showcase the ignorance of people hating on the initial crusades and the Templars. The first crusade was viewed as defensive by the people of the time, pilgrims to the holy land were being robbed, rapped, and murdered for their faith. Christians were being oppressed and enslaved across the Muslim world, and the idea of the time was that the first crusade was an expression of John 15:13 “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.” Crusaders were granted a forgiveness for their sins for crusading but it was not in perpetuity, it was for sins committed up to the point of the remittance. They were also required by the church to go on pilgrimage, they had to participate in pilgrim rites, etc. The first few crusades were also based around the principle of Just War, look it up, its fascinating.

The Templars were literally monks, they lived a monk lifestyle, swearing vows, and praying eight times a day. The main difference between Templars and regular monks is warfare, instead of chores or tilling the field, Templars, at least those in the middle east, would instead train with swords, horses, and lances. They were disbanded and condemned but they were later absolved of those charges. So, far from being Satan worshiping douchebags they were politically condemned warriors of Christ.

[magisterial-sniping]

“The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. (Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641)” -The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1377

“Here the pastor should explain that in this Sacrament are contained not only the true body of Christ and all the constituents of a true body, such as bones and sinews, but also Christ whole and entire. He should point out that the word Christ designates the God-man, that is to say, one Person in whom are united the divine and human natures; that the Holy Eucharist, therefore, contains both, and whatever is included in the idea of both, the Divinity and humanity whole and entire, consisting of the soul, all the parts of the body and the blood,- all of which must be believed to be in this Sacrament.” -The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part II: The Sacrament of the Eucharist

To what extent does Jesus's body still have distinct parts like a living humans'l? I ask because I am curious about if the feeling Jesus get's when Catholics eat the eucharist is general or specific, like the arm for example.

It’s fully Jesus. It’s not broken up into parts.

[magisterial-sniping]

“Christian families will be able to show greater readiness to adopt and foster children who have lost their parents or have been abandoned by them. Rediscovering the warmth of affection of a family, these children will be able to experience God's loving and provident fatherhood witnessed to by Christian parents, and they will thus be able to grow up with serenity and confidence in life. At the same time the whole family will be enriched with the spiritual values of a wider fraternity.” -Pope St. John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, 41

“Adopting children, regarding and treating them as one's own children, means recognizing that the relationship between parents and children is not measured only by genetic standards. Procreative love is first and foremost a gift of self. There is a form of "procreation" which occurs through acceptance, concern and devotion. The resulting relationship is so intimate and enduring that it is in no way inferior to one based on a biological connection. When this is also juridically protected, as it is in adoption, in a family united by the stable bond of marriage, it assures the child that peaceful atmosphere and that paternal and maternal love which he needs for his full human development.” -Pope St. John Paul II, “To The Meeting of the Adoptive Families Organized by the Missionaries of Charity“ 5 September 2000

“We’ve accepted adoption as a good. Adoption can often be very good; it is an institution that finds parents for helpless children who desperately need a decent home. But, at some point, our concept of adoption slid. Many people now think of it primarily as a way of “getting” kids. We know that adoption is made possible by the fact that the relationship between biological parent and child has been severed. So if adoption is good, some reason, then the severing of that relationship must at least be neutral.

“But it is not neutral. It’s actually very sad.”

- Alana Newman

[magisterial-sniping]

“By his virginal conception, Jesus, the New Adam, ushers in the new birth of children adopted in the Holy Spirit through faith. ‘How can this be?’(Lk 1:34; cf. Jn 3:9) Participation in the divine life arises ‘not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God’.( Jn 1:13)”

-Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 505. See also paragraphs 654, 690, 1265, 1709, 2009, and 2782

“We’ve accepted adoption as a good. Adoption can often be very good; it is an institution that finds parents for helpless children who desperately need a decent home. But, at some point, our concept of adoption slid. Many people now think of it primarily as a way of “getting” kids. We know that adoption is made possible by the fact that the relationship between biological parent and child has been severed. So if adoption is good, some reason, then the severing of that relationship must at least be neutral.

“But it is not neutral. It’s actually very sad.”

- Alana Newman

[magisterial-sniping]

“The pastor should next teach that our Lord is not in the Sacrament as in a place. Place regards things only inasmuch as they have magnitude. Now we do not say that Christ is in the Sacrament inasmuch as He is great or small, terms which belong to quantity, but inasmuch as He is a substance. The substance of the bread is changed into the substance of Christ, not into magnitude or quantity; and substance, it will be acknowledged by all, is contained in a small as well as in a large space. The substance of air, for instance, and its entire nature must be present under a small as well as a large quantity, and likewise the entire nature of water must be present no less in a glass than in a river. Since, then, the body of our Lord succeeds to the substance of the bread, we must confess it to be in the Sacrament after the same manner as the substance of the bread was before consecration; whether the substance of the bread was present in greater or less quantity is a matter of entire indifference.” 

-Catechism of the Council of Trent Part II: The Sacrament of the Eucharist

Question 7: Assuming that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is correct, estimate how tall Christ our Lord must have been in order for His body to furnish all properly consecrated Communion wafers consumed to date. Justify your assumptions.

[magisterial-sniping]

81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."(Dei Verbum, 9) "and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."(Dei Verbum, 9) 82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."(Dei Verbum, 9) Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions 83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 81-83

[magisterial-sniping]

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."(Dei Verbum 7 # 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 1) Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."(Dei Verbum 8 # 1) 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."(Dei Verbum 10 #  2). This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."(DV 10 para 2.) 87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",(Luke 10:16; cf. Lumen Gentium 20.) The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 77 and 85-87