Fulton Sheen Said THIS?!

[@salvadorseekatzrisquez2947]

Wow!! Amazing. I was think those who push for women to be priest, have no idea about this and other mysteries of our faith!! Chris, I really enjoyed the way to explained it all! Thank you!

[@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

We're glad it blessed you!

[@salvadorseekatzrisquez2947]

@@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute thanks for replying to me. I want to take those 3 free classes.

[@hija7sion]

It was not a "mystery" of our faith. It was an analogy. It was an idea that occurred to someone to make things interesting or explain things that were perfectly explained and accepted before.

[@luisnuke8389]

@@hija7sion Paul said it was a great mystery

[@Rich.-]

Mr. Chris, God has graced you with insight beyond most human understanding. Incredible teaching in this video… secrets and mysteries of God are good for the mature Christian Catholic. Stay humble and prayerful and repented. May Christ be your light.

[@sheninfrancis3822]

Perhaps one of the most beautiful ways that you explained what happened at the foot of the Cross between Jesus and Mary and John. I always saw it in the sense that Jesus calls Mary woman, giving her as a Mother to John and all of us but this is thought-provoking. Thank you and God bless you! ♥️

[@joshi_angelo]

Wow, this just shows how important and almost necessary Our Lady is to the Church and our salvation.

[@UnicornsForSale]

loved meeting Christopher and the TOB team at one of your courses. Changed the way I experience my faith!

[@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

Come back soon!

[@Ban-mw9vl]

What an amazing enrichment to reflect upon of our intimate union with the Body of Christ in communion ❤️ your ministry is forever building my understanding of God’s perfect sacrifice and love for us!!

[@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

We're so glad it's blessing you!

[@ralphauer150]

To receive Special Graces. Begin the 1st Saturday devotion to the Blessed Mother, that begins Saturday 🙏

[@DistributistHound]

I struggle with the analogy and the lieteral use of words while listening to theology of the body explanations but I think that is because I've been damaged by impurity so even if the explanations make sense, down to the soul level some healing must happen first, to put it in some way is like I recognize the seed as good but it hasn't bare fruit yet.

[@matthewluisantero5051]

I get that. Because I have listened to C West for a long time now, I've become more comfortable with these analogies and imageries. But as someone exposed to pornography at a very young age, there are still times when, even if I have heard of the good news about our sexuality, the dirty images still pop up in my mind at times. We need the healing grace of Christ the Bridegroom. I will be praying for you.

[@josephcaristo]

I think that this video and explanation is your best so far.

[@davidpeyton1098]

I would love to see more about the reception of God by Mary. At the Annunciation where she says, "behold, the handmaid of the Lord" and at the cross where clearly she receives Our Lord as the Church. The new Eve, the model of women and femininity. How the Feminine Genius orders itself toward the reception of gift and then reciprocates.

[@MultiJpad]

Reading Dark night of the soul, St Terese is next, I want to love God in every way.

[@krystynapodwalnaabebe4758]

Thank you!

[@TheologyoftheBodyInstitute]

You're so welcome!

[@jokerguycz]

Christopher can you please respond to those who dont agree with you?

[@PhonomanPP]

Can anyone point me to where +Abp. Sheen+ said what is being referenced in the video? I can’t find it anywhere.

[@melmerk12]

It’s a book, referenced in video, circa 1974

[@cateclism316]

Thinking dirty makes thinking holy so much more difficult. This won't happen in heaven.

[@renesedonio3340]

It's higher thinking beyond hedonism. Only wisdom gifted by the Holy Spirit thru Bishop Fulton Sheen could uplift the learned spirits some more. For those who are not deserving, strive some more, pray for more wisdom.😇

[@UnicornsForSale]

John is the firstborn because Jesus says to Mary, "Woman, behold your Son." The Son he is referring to is the beloved disciple who was also standing there.

[@rajendrabiswas]

lot of religions teach on semen retention but also women have power to awaken this energy ..and in tantra there is respect of sex energy

[@huntsman528]

The idea that the women receives actually does make sense. There are some problems 1) In the parable of the sower, the good seed is the 'sons of the kingdom' who preach the 'Word'. When the sower sows, He is sending out spirit filled messengers to proclaim the gospel. We are the dirt and we do receive the Word like a women would receive semen, so that part does make sense. 2) John wasn't 'regenerated' at the cross. Regeneration came after Pentecost. 3) Comparing anything at the cross to semen seems wrong since the Church hadn't begun yet. The marriage hadn't happened yet, so if there is any analogy then it would come later like Pentecost. The general idea of God spreading semen I think doesn't sound pleasant to most people. The natural thought process goes to fetish. The church is His bride, so there is place for some analogy. I just think the way it is applied here is incorrect.

[@Teresule]

1) Well, it's possible to read the parables in several ways (there is also another reading of the "side" language: Eve was born from the side of Adam, Church was born from the side of Christ). 2) In the theology of John's Gospel the Cross and the Pentecost are kind of overlapping, thus a "timeline" of 3) also isn't relevant. Anyway, how do you expect for the Church to be mystically born without a mystical conception? 🤔 Tell the Church Fathers that "sperma tou logou" - "seed of the Logos" - sounds fetish... 😬

[@huntsman528]

@@Teresule He asked what we thought. It's an honest thought, I am also saying that there is an application for it, just not the way he was applying it. I think most people's blunt reaction to the statement is negative. First reactions aren't necessarily right or wrong. So you say something isn't possible, but then give an example of when it happened? How can the church by born without a conception? Eve was created without a conception. I'd say the church was created without a conception as well. There is no mother and father of the church, it wasn't "conceived" like a person. It was created or established. Timelines are absolutely relevant. There is a clearly defined point where the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to man. That is the point that we first received the Spirit, with the exceptions of kings and prophets. The work of regeneration couldn't happen until after the death and resurrection of Christ, so to claim that it is before doesn't make any sense. Jesus hadn't even conquered death yet. "theology of John's Gospel the Cross and the Pentecost are kind of overlapping" You'd have to explain this, I don't know how you're getting here. Under the "sides" reading, there is no semen anywhere. Not in genesis, not on the cross. The application of semen and the church I would think Biblically would have to be from the marriage union perspective. It would have to be Christ and his bride (i.e. believers) and would not include unbelievers. Jesus isn't the husband and the father in this analogy. Applying it to both makes it inbreeding. "seed of the Logos" sounds botanical as that is how it gets used in scripture. Most people are familiar with the parables, so I don't think they'd call that "fetish". I appreciate the thoughts.

[@Teresule]

@@huntsman528 - I'm trying to think "out loud", not that I agree with that statement. I answered to your comment precisely because it seemed rational (but lacked some things in my opinion), so your thoughts are also appreciated! - "So you say something isn't possible, but then give an example of when it happened?" - yes, kind of --- because there can be multiple readings in symbolic speech, and sometimes one reading excludes the meaning of the details in another, but as a whole, they don't contradict each other. There can be multiple orthodox ways of "doing theology" (especially in symbolic language), and that's what the synoptics and John do. Often people call (Lucan) Pentecost to be Church's Birthday - which you don't, as I see now, which is consistent. But if you did, the problem (if we want to keep this symbolic language) is that there's no "side" for Her to be taken from in the Lucan image of Pentecost, and therefore the Church is either "conceived" at the Cross and is "born" in (Lucan) Pentecost or begins earlier (at the Cross, in "Eve's way"). So probably the reason why the statement about the semen emerged was that it was an attempt to combine Johannine and Lucan imagery. And it does seem wacky. You're right when you say that "Under the "sides" reading, there is no semen anywhere. Not in genesis, not on the cross." - I don't have my old notes with me, but I had a course on Johannine theology long time ago, and the way John puts things is wayyy different. The Spirit is already somewhat present with the disciples before (Jn 14:17), the Son is glorified on the Cross, and the fullness of the Spirit is poured out at that hour (as is prophesied in Jn 7:38b-39, depending on a more logical punctuation. That's only one of the things how we get there, I just don't remember other arguments), therefore giving of the Spirit to the disciples is way less "flashy" in Jn 20:22. So John is the one who "messes" with the timeline. - "Seed of the Logos" sounds botanical, but "sperma tou logou" doesn't - for the modern ear at least ;) I'm just saying that we need to get used to this language. Sorry for the complicated comment. Better just ignore it, for I don't want to waste more of anybody's time on this :D Have a nice day!

[@hija7sion]

I agree more or less, with you. I also commented on this video that this is not correct. It's unnecessary and in bad taste at best. I mean regeneration before even our Lord has risen, what is that even based on?

[@huntsman528]

@@Teresule Complicated responses aren't a problem. I appreciate rational responses and don't view it as a waste in any manner. I am a Protestant, so I am not familiar with some of this stuff. There are a couple Catholic youtubers who talk about sex in a way that I think it needs to be, and I listen to their content regularly. I can see the argument for John 20:22 being a spiritual conception, but this is after the cross and the resurrection. There is something different about John 20:22 than Pentecost in Acts. I'm still failing to connect it back to the cross or where Mary is involved (the whole statement about Mary being the mother of the church). If anyone was the mother of the church, it would be the disciples, right? They would be the ones who received the seed in this analogy? I'm not necessarily opposed to calling Pentecost the "Church's Birthday". I haven't viewed it from that perspective. I'm not sure if there is a birth implication between John 20:22

[@DivineKnight_115]

I get the analogy but due to fallen human nature, we can’t help but see it as an ick.

[@hija7sion]

Not like it. It's near absolutely unnecessary analogy. I don't think we could model supernatural reality from natural reality to this degree. This can also very easily go wrong. It's not like anyone who says this doesn't seem totally fine is damaged by p***. Our Blessed Lord saved us with His Most Precious Blood, not spiritual semen.

[@veehope2702]

I do find the stuff you come out with bizarre.

[@renesarabia6442]

Jesus bride is the church. I dont think he does incest.

[@jokerguycz]

I think this can be offencive to pious ears

[@blondelking04]

John can't be the first one to be regenerated. Who is the one that held the key to the kingdom of God(Peter)? In the moment John was standing at foot the cross, the kingdom of God hadn't come yet. So I don't think it's accurate to say he was the first one to be regenerated. I could be wrong too, but I know we are made new thanks to the baptism. So the disciples were either already new or they became new the day the kingdom came

[@s.r-mariem9233]

Jesus is the Kingdom of God. In His being He encompasses the fulness of God's kingdom, and He came down at the Annunciation

[@blondelking04]

@@s.r-mariem9233 I love what you said. Nothing's wrong here. My point was that Peter and his brother Andrew were the first disciples Jesus called. Later, Jesus gave the authority to build his church and to open his kingdom to Peter (Matthew 16: 17-20). I believe Jesus baptized all of his disciples. That's why I said I don't think John was being made new at the foot of the cross. They were already new in Jesus's eyes

[@albertito77]

Everyone here has watched porn and/or committed sexual sin with others. We are too wounded to be able to handle this kind of language without it becoming vulgar. We need to find other language to express this mystery

[@hija7sion]

How about we disagree because you're flat out wrong and not "because our minds have been twisted"? Your claim is false where you say "if in the natural reality you need a bride and groom to generate new life, you also need it in the supernatural reality." .... This is ABSURD. What allows you to make that if-then statement? New life in natural physical reality refers to a whole new human being being created, and NOT you experiencing a spiritual re-birth. Plus I thought we had baptism for that. Your great sin here logically speaking is that you just offer the conclusion without reasoning for it. Like gender idealogists do.

[@luisnuke8389]

Baptism is the water that comes from the side of Christ. Have you not seen religious art that shows the graces of the sacraments flowing out of his side?

[@hija7sion]

@@luisnuke8389 I have challenged his reasoning and logic. Looks like you have no reply to that. And the water of baptism is not the point here. In case you didn't get it, I'm have nothing against Christ's water.

[@luisnuke8389]

@@hija7sion God is to the Virgin Mary as Christ is to the church. Heaven is masculine and earth is feminine. Heaven and earth unite in the womb of the Virgin Mary in the incarnation. What is absurd about this?

[@hija7sion]

@@luisnuke8389 You really need to read better first what you want to respond to. No one talked about Mary's womb, and masculinity and femininity or any of that you just said. You're not understanding my words. I've said he makes a logical error and his reasoning is absurd. I also challenge that he calls anyone who disagrees "twisted by porn".

[@luisnuke8389]

@@hija7sion so you think he's calling those who didn't agree with his if-then statement "twisted by porn"? I thought he was calling those uncomfortable with thinking about spiritual seed coming out of Christ's side "twisted by porn" Idk I'm not smart like you

[@hija7sion]

Also, you take a huge unwarranted fallacious leap; you can't just proclaim a personal albeit expert take of a venerated bishop as the "truth of our faith". The truth of the catholic faith is a clear cut term with a definition that most definitely does not include spiritual semen take of Jesus over Mary for rebirthing John and the church. The phrase "the truth of our faith" is not something for anyone yo play around with. A bishop ot anyone can use human characteristics to make us understand some spiritual or mysterious facts better, but your fallacy is where you make a loop and turn it on its head and you basically claim the spiritual fact is modelled after the human reality. Stop sexualizing everything about our faith. And no I'm not twisted. I just don't need to translate everything on sexual terms. Our Lord is the Word. God spoke and there was light. God forbid the day you bring semen into that or the incarnation of the Divine Verb.

[@jokerguycz]

thank you

[@hija7sion]

@@jokerguycz you're most welcome.

[@luisnuke8389]

I disagree, I don't think he's saying that the spiritual fact is modeled after the human reality. Rather everything God made points to him, including sex since it exists.

[@hija7sion]

@@luisnuke8389 you are saying what you wish he had said.

[@luisnuke8389]

@@hija7sion well you're the smart one here

[@jokerguycz]

you better be realy carefull with this doctrine because it can morph peoples understanding of the mass not as a sacrifice but as essentialy sex and well I dont realy think you should be participating in spiritual sex especialy when kids are involved.

[@jokerguycz]

not to mention procreation is temporary spiritual communion is eternal all images will fade only truth will last and within God there is no sex.

[@Dupstan]

He clarified that in the video.

[@hija7sion]

Agreed. Our Lord is still on the Cross. Nothing is sexual about this stage.

[@UnicornsForSale]

I think the idea is that the holy, loving sex between a husband and wife IS a sacrifice, though. Sure, we think of the ecstasy--but that's not all. Husband and wife are also sacrificing by giving their bodies totally to one another. Sharing their fertility, potentially conceiving a child. Carrying a child and loving them is one of the biggest sacrifices anyone can make. Like he mentioned in the video, the analogy of marriage (and therefore, sex!) is used all throughout the Bible. God is the faithful bridegroom to his unfaithful bride Israel. Husbands, love your wives like Christ loved the Church. Christ on the cross, the Eucharist, the Mass, is his total gift of his body to us. It is agony, sacrifice. But through this gift of his body, in which we are united to Christ, our bridegroom, is also our salvation, our freedom--ecstasy.

[@hija7sion]

@@UnicornsForSale sure, we get it. marriage has sacrifice in it. Who said it doesn't. But the sacrifice of our lord doesn't have to be sexulaized if it's not. Also sex is not a sacrifice. It's a pleasurable act out of which many married couples may come out stained by sin. Not having sex for maintaining purity even in a marriage is a sacrifice, though. Like our Lady did. the consequences of the sex is the sacrifice. Marriage is love and sacrifice of the self for the other person and children potentially, not sex. We have marriage complementarian examples, analogies. But so what? It doesn't mean you can squeeze sexual analogies to the cross or whenever there is an exchange between male and female, or wherever water is running somewhere. Rebecca gave water to the man and his camels, and that was a moment of grace. Was that a spiritual semen thing ?? No.

[@crohunter100]

Maybe “spiritual ejaculation” might be more accurate?

[@albertito77]

No. Just no.

[@metamentality9818]

YO THIS IS GAY

[@metamentality9818]

im jus kiddin