EC2010 - Cardinal Francis Arinze - The Mystery of the Priesthood

[@sdupart1]

You look great for your age. We would be blessed to have you shepherd us all.

[@drndomomelinguitherese]

A great inspiration for sharing. Congratulations to you Eminence Cardinal Francis Arinze

[@tedwazonek7956]

A true man of God! 🙏🏼

[@timonkaple-wena6002]

Very intelligent servant of the lord almighty.

[@leo1moreira]

A simplicidade, clareza, concisão e profundidade de suas palavras são próprias de um grande pastor. Quem nos dera ser ele o nosso próximo Papa. Precisamos voltar à origem, a grande reforma nada mais é que esse poder de resgate daquilo que é, profundamente católico.

[@danielantoniodecarvalhorib5134]

Perfeito

[@judeisnot_rude]

Amazing

[@timonkaple-wena6002]

Very intelligent leader.

[@MImmaculata]

Well, we do have Francis as our Pope now :)

[@josephkatende4204]

Wunderbar

[@thomasemmanuel8882]

His Eminence

[@punkylilkid]

Catholic Priesthood is the pagan practice 'theurgy'. Theurgy (/ˈθiːɜrdʒi/; from Greek θεουργία, Theourgia) describes the practice of rituals, sometimes seen as magical in nature, performed with the intention of invoking the action or evoking the presence of one or more gods, especially with the goal of uniting with the divine, achieving henosis, and perfecting oneself. Theurgy means "divine-working". The first recorded use of the term is found in the mid-second-century neo-Platonist work the Chaldean Oracles (Fragment 153 des Places (Paris, 1971): 'For the theourgoí do not fall under the fate-governed herd'). The source of Western theurgy can be found in the philosophy of late Neoplatonists, especially Iamblichus. In late Neoplatonism, the spiritual Universe is regarded as a series of emanations from the One. From the One emanated the Divine Mind (Nous) and in turn from the Divine Mind emanated the World Soul (Psyche). Neoplatonists insisted that the One is absolutely transcendent and in the emanations nothing of the higher was lost or transmitted to the lower, which remained unchanged by the lower emanations. Although the Neoplatonists are considered polytheists, they embraced a form of monism. The Emperor Julian the Apostate (332-363), embraced Neoplatonic philosophy and worked to replace Christianity with a version of Neoplatonic paganism. Because of his death and the hold mainstream Christianity had over the empire at the time, this was ultimately unsuccessful, but he did produce several works of philosophy and theology, including a popular hymn to the sun. In his theology, Helios, the sun, was the ideal example of the perfection of the gods and light, a symbol of divine emanation. He also held the mother goddess Cybele in high esteem. Julian favored ritual theurgy, with an emphasis on sacrifice and prayer. He was heavily influenced by the ideas of Iamblichus. Esoteric Christianity accepts theurgy as a tradition that could greatly benefit a person. The main feat of Esoteric Christianity is to learn the mysteries of God and to rise to higher consciousness in the understanding of God's relationship relative to individual consciousness. Theurgy, in the esoteric tradition, using this knowledge to heighten one's own spiritual nature. In Esoteric Christianity, theurgy usually is the practice of trying to gain the knowledge and conversation of one's Higher Self, or Inner God, to teach one spiritual truths and wisdom from God that one couldn't learn from man (see Alchemy, Kabbalah, and Theosophy). Some branches of Esoteric Christianity hold that if an Esoteric Christian, Rosicrucian, or Theosophist practices it, he or she could potentially rise to the degree of Magus, or Adept after a certain level of spiritual attainment. In a traditional and magical sense, Theurgy is seen as the opposite of Goetia, even though many argue that they overlap each other. Some organizations, such as The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn claim to teach a type of theurgy that would help one ascend spiritually as well as understand the true nature of the self and its relation to the Divine and the Universe. The Golden Dawn has a somewhat significant historical following and influence; while it is held that many theurgists are usually solitary practitioners and seek the divine light alone through ritual and inner spiritual and psychological equilibration. Theurgy in this hermetic sense stresses the need for the individual to separate and analyze the individual components that constitute everyday consciousness and reunite them in a way that changes one's personal awareness into a state that understands and partakes in spiritual grace. Many Christian writers, including Lactantius, Augustine,Thomas Aquinas, Giordano Bruno (pantheist), considered Hermes Trismegistus to be a wise pagan prophet who foresaw the coming of Christianity. An account of how Hermes Trismegistus received the name "Thrice Great" is derived from the The Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, wherein it is stated that he knew the three parts of the wisdom of the whole universe. The three parts of the wisdom are alchemy, astrology, and theurgy.

[@brianingram4709]

+David Leone' Was Christ similarly engaging in the pagan practice of theurgy when he offered Himself up in a bloody sacrifice on the cross for our sins? Was He engaging in an empty ritual, or magic when He asserted that the bread and wine offered was really His Body and Blood? (Matthew 26:28)And yes Christ was being literal when He said that the bread was His Body and the Wine His Blood, or was St Paul similarly deceived when he castigated the Corithians for not believing(1 Corinthians 10:16) Again in John 20:23 was Christ encouraging in theurgy among'st His followers when he gave them authority to forgive and retain sins? The fact is the Church from the beginning believed that the priesthood was instituted by Christ, and imbued with real power and authority. And I quote from the Church Fathers; Clement of Rome Recognitions book 6 ch 15 (27-97 ad) ..and baptized them; and celebrating the Eucharist with them, he appointed, as bishop over them, Maro, who had entertained him in his house, and who was now perfect in all things; and with him he ordained twelve presbyters and deacons at the same time. Ignatius of Antioch Epistle to the Smyraeans ch 6-8 [50-117 AD] "Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Cyprian of Carthage epistle 67 par 5 (200-270 ad) For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. That the position of Bishop and in the priesthood is one of a personholding an office with power and authority is clear both in scripture, (Acts 1:20 “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”) and what has been traditionally been taught and practiced from the beginning.

[@punkylilkid]

You have flawed logic and poor spiritual discernment; When Christ offered Himself on the Christ is was 'type meeting anti-type'. I.E. lamb (representation) vs. Lamb of God (literal and Substantial). When Christ was breaking bread and said 'this is my body'. He was showing them that the bread 'represented' His offering of His incarnate body as a sacrifice. How do I know? Because Christ was right there in His own body tearing ordinary bread. His Body and that bread was NOT synonymous with each other. He and the bread they were eating was not a theurgic nor for Christ a cannibal moment. You should learn what IS 'Substance' to God instead of what 'man' calls 'substance'. The bread eaten as a 'memorial'... "which are a shadow of things to come, but the Substance is of Christ."Col 2:17

[@brianingram4709]

+David Leone' You might have a grasp of metaphysics but your theology is wanting. Christ as God is not limited by time, space, physics or our human limitations. For example the miracle of the loaves and fishes, was Christ limited to the physical reality of only having five loaves and and two fishes to feed 4000? Of course not! And when they had been feed the 4000 the disciples picked up 12 baskets of leftovers. Your statement That Christ could not change the bread into His flesh or the wine into His blood, because “Christ was there in His own Body”?? Is He not God the all powerful? You write; When Christ was breaking bread and said 'this is my body'. He was showing them that the bread 'represented' His offering of His incarnate body” Really How? You show a plain lack of English comprehension in your reasoning. Christ plainly said in Matthew 26:27“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."He did not say this represents the blood that I will shed for you (future tense)but said “this is the blood of the new covenant” (present tense)Christ as God is not limited by time, He made present His future sacrifice of the new covenant to His Apostles, just as in the offering of that pure sacrifice for our own sins in the Catholic or Orthodox Mass, the Body and Blood of the new covenant is made present and the grace Jesus merited for us through His sacrifice is applied to us. In John 6 The followers of Jesus clearly understood Jesus was talking literally not in metaphors, and many left Him, He did not say “hang on you misunderstand me” because Jesus was clearly talking in the Literal sense “52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man anddrink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.”

[@punkylilkid]

Your fake science and bad theology is tragic. The trick literalism betrays your blindness. Jhn 2:19-21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body. Jhn 3:3-4 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? And those who cannot hear and take what is 'spiritual' for literal ... This, my friend would be you!

[@brianingram4709]

+David Leone' Yes one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. You decide what the senses are reading the scriptures alone or following along like a sheep led by some else private interpretation of scripture devoid of any understanding or ignorance in this case of what the Church has always taught and understood. What guarantee do you have you are right? I have provided clear scriptural evidence such as John 6 where Christ was very blunt that He was talking in a literal sense to such a degree He lost many disciples who could not stomach the teaching (such as yourself). I also quoted early Church leaders who clearly understood as St Paul did that in regards the Eucharist, Christ was talking in a literal sense. You counter with a straw man argument that in other instances Christ was talking in an allegorical manner, which I have to ask 'so what'? I never asserted that Christ always had to be taken literally. It funny when I have asked Protestants of various persuasions what does scripture assert is the 'pillar and foundation of truth'. The answer is always something along the lines "scripture and the Holy spirit gives me the correct answer" And that's why you are wrong and I am right. 1 Timothy 3:15 clearly teaches that it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth, and in the case of the Eucharist the Church has always taught from the beginning that it is the literal sense. It was only 1600+ years later that Heretical Catholics such as Luther taught otherwise. If they are correct then the Church that Christ founded has been wrong for 1600 years. Hmm I wonder who I would bet is correct.