man and woman relationship

“Woman, because she was created by being drawn from man’s side, is constantly trying to return to him. She desires the original unity of one flesh and one bone. The desire for unity between man and woman is a mirror of the relationship between Christ and the soul. As woman longs for union with man in human relationships, she is also drawn to unity with God. He calls her to become one with Him: to come under His side and become flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone. This occurs during reception of Eucharist. The covering of the head with a veil symbolizes the reality of woman sheltered in the side of her Source and becoming one with Him. She becomes covered and hidden in her Divine Spouse.”

—	St. John Chrysostom

contradictions?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/

also

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8779

The above link deals with [quote]--

To be specific, the Lefebvrites insist that theDeclaration on Religious Liberty contradicts what they call infallible teachings of Pius IX found inQuanta cura and the Syllabus of Errors. They often point also to Gregory XVI's Mirari vos.These claims can be answered, but a preliminary point should first be made.

The article above gives very good discussion and details on the subject.  Then this one is particularly good:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/07/conscience-and-coercion

"The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence. "

also Brian Harrison’s work on reconciling pre-Vat2 and Vat2 on the issue of religious liberty? Many of his articles are online at http://www.rtforum.org/lt/ – you may be interested in
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt44.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt9.html#II
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt151.html
Also in comment 85 here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/10/on-religious-liberty-an-objection-considered/#comment-78258
 In the same speech, Benedict XVI applied the «hermeneutic of reform in the continuity» precisely to the controversial question of religious liberty. The Pope admitted that there is «some kind of discontinuity» in the Catholic teaching about this issue from Pius IX to the Council. Once the correct hermeneutic is applied, however, we may conclude that there is no rupture. The general principles taught by the Church have not changed. Their applications have changed, also as a consequence of new and different historical situations. The liberalism of the French Revolution considered religious freedom as a philosophical doctrine, implying that all religions are equal and that religious truth is merely subjective. This notion of religious freedom was rightly condemned by Pius IX, the Pope said, and the Church cannot accept it even today. «If religious freedom, the Pope explained, were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge».

However, the meaning of religious liberty derived from the French Revolution is not the only possible meaning. «The American Revolution, the Pope argued, was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution». Thus, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed the right to religious liberty not at a «metaphysical level», but «as a need that derives from human coexistence» within the context of the modern secular State. The Pope did not claim that there is a literal continuity between Pius IX and Dignitatis Humanae. Obviously, there is not. But he did argue that the discontinuity concerned the application of the principles, «the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change», while there was continuity at the more crucial level of «the principles that express the permanent aspect». This «combination of continuity and discontinuity» is precisely a clear example of a «reform in the continuity», as opposed to a rupture.

http://www.cesnur.org/2011/dan-mi.html

see also: https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FR89103.HTM

and http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1883/vatican_ii_and_religious_liberty.aspx#.Uxdiu_mYLw9  
 To this, the Council Fathers say that while the State must “take account of religious life,” it would “clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.”

This language in article three of Dignitatis Humanae was changed in nearly every draft of the document. The 19th-century popes taught that the State could inhibit public acts of religion. To avoid a direct contradiction, the Council Fathers argued that the State could not presume to inhibit such acts as if it were the arbiter of the true religion. The State could only inhibit religious acts if those acts violated public order and thus the common good.

.......................

Dignitatis Humanae’s definition of religious liberty at the start has it that “all men are to be immune from coercion…, within due limits.” That last phrase is most important, for here the Council Fathers had to walk a very narrow line. Article seven of the document starts to unpack the meaning.

Pope Leo XIII criticized the notion that citizens could worship whatever and however they wanted just so long as “public peace” wasn’t disturbed. In other words, condemned is the notion that you’re free to say and do and believe whatever you want so long as you don’t prohibit another from saying and doing and believing what they want. That was too low a bar for Pope Leo.

He taught that the common good should be the standard for State intervention. Practically, this meant that even if no public peace has been violated, the State may at times repress error to maintain the common good. 

Some argue that because the phrase “common good” is replaced with “public order” there is a contradiction. But the drafters had a good reason to avoid using “common good.” Bishop Emile de Smedt, the official spokesperson for the drafters, argued that the term was not used by modern governments. So the drafters chose “public order” as “the more basic component of the common good” but were careful to define “public order” to include not just “public peace” but “public morality.”

This was still not satisfactory to some. Archbishop Karol Wojtyła—later Pope John Paul II—noted that the Communists appealed to the “public order” all the time as they suppressed and persecuted the Church. He insisted that a reference be made to an objective moral standard. As a result, the drafters decided to define “public order” as the “objective moral order.”

Therefore, according to the declaration and in line with Pope Leo XIII, a right to religious liberty is necessary for the common good, but if one were going to limit religious liberty one would have to demonstrate that the religion was violating the objective moral order.

 Jimmy Aiken's article  here: http://web.archive.org/web/20110911193031/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

praying to saints? some questions/answers

Evidence in the Early Church: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

Also a prayer to Mary in the early days of the church: http://frederica.com/gallery/places-and-things/1067611

Good article here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/02/do-the-saints-pray-for-us-a-response-to-perry-sukstorf-and-marcia-fleischman/

from comment  7 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/a-catholic-reflection-on-the-meaning-of-suffering/comment-page-1/#comment-7404

How can a saint in heaven hear our prayers? Saints are not omniscient or omnipresent; only God is omniscient and omnipresent. So how can they seemingly have such abilities?

The saints in heaven can hear/see our requests to them, though not with physical ears/physical eyes (since they are not embodied, Mary excepted). In three places in the gospels, Jesus tells us that in the resurrection we will be like the angels. One of the ways in which we will be like the angels is that we will not marry. But another way is that we will know, not only by our physical senses, but in a supernatural way, i.e. a way that exceeds the capacity of our epistemic faculties. All the angels and saints presently enjoy the Beatific Vision. (See Benedictus Deus.)

When a person has the Beatific Vision, he not only knows God; he also knows what pertains to himself, through God. St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

The Divine essence is a sufficient medium for knowing all things, and this is evident from the fact that God, by seeing His essence, sees all things. But it does not follow that whoever sees God’s essence knows all things, but only those who comprehend the essence of God [Cf. I, 12, 7,8]: even as the knowledge of a principle does not involve the knowledge of all that follows from that principle unless the whole virtue of the principle be comprehended. Wherefore, since the souls of the saints do not comprehend the Divine essence, it does not follow that they know all that can be known by the Divine essence–for which reason the lower angels are taught concerning certain matters by the higher angels, though they all see the essence of God; but each of the blessed must needs see in the Divine essence as many other things as the perfection of his happiness requires. For the perfection of a man’s happiness requires him to have whatever he will, and to will nothing amiss: and each one wills with a right will, to know what concerns himself. Hence since no rectitude is lacking to the saints, they wish to know what concerns themselves, and consequently it follows that they know it in the Word. Now it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation: for thus they become God’s co-operators, “than which nothing is more Godlike,” as Dionysius declares (Coel. Hier. iii). Wherefore it is evident that the saints are cognizant of such things as are required for this purpose; and so it is manifest that they know in the Word the vows, devotions, and prayers of those who have recourse to their assistance. (Summa Theologica Supp. Q.72 a.1)

As St. Thomas explains, anyone who sees the face of God sees also in God all things pertaining to himself, through God. The petitions of the members of the Church militant, pertain to the saints in heaven. And for this reason they see these petitions supernaturally, through the Beatific Vision. Notice also in the selection from St. Thomas that he points out that “it pertains to their glory that they assist the needy for their salvation.” God doesn’t need the saints to intercede for us. He has given them a great gift, in allowing them to participate in this glorious way, in His work of redemption.

Because God is love, He does not do everything Himself. He created us, and gave us real causal powers. So, He doesn’t operate by the principle, “If I can do it, then there is no point in having anyone else do it.” He works by love, which is the very opposite of such egoism, because by love He gives to us the dignity of participation in His glorious activity. This is what we mean in speaking of His love as self-effusive. Strictly speaking, God did not need to give us causal powers of any sort. God could have done everything, entirely, Himself. He loves to give to us the opportunity to participate as real [secondary] causes in His work. That’s one of the gifts He has given to the saints in heaven, by allowing them to be genuine intercessors on our behalf.

For an explanation of the notion of “Patron Saints,” let me refer you to this article. (Feel free to ask follow-up questions on that, if that is unclear to you in any place.) As for the practice of praying to a particular saint for a particular type of need, we just discussed this in this comments of this thread, see especially comment #64.

Why travel to see the relics of saints or their shrines? Is this to pay respect, to offer penance, or to just to be close to those Giants who have gone before us?

The denial of the practice of venerating the relics of the saints, and denying their ability to hear our prayers was part of the heresy introduced by Eunomius and followed by Vigilantius in the fourth century, as St. Jerome tells us in his work against Vigilantius:

Does the bishop of Rome do wrong when he offers sacrifices to the Lord over the venerable bones of the dead men Peter and Paul, as we should say, but according to you, over a worthless bit of dust, and judges their tombs worthy to be Christ’s altars? And not only is the bishop of one city in error, but the bishops of the whole world, who, despite the tavern-keeper Vigilantius, enter the basilicas of the dead, in which “a worthless bit of dust and ashes lies wrapped up in a cloth,” defiled and defiling all else. Thus, according to you, the sacred buildings are like the sepulchres of the Pharisees, whitened without, while within they have filthy remains, and are full of foul smells and uncleanliness. And then he dares to expectorate his filth upon the subject and to say: “Is it the case that the souls of the martyrs love their ashes, and hover round them, and are always present, lest haply if any one come to pray and they were absent, they could not hear?” Oh, monster, who ought to be banished to the ends of the earth! Do you laugh at the relics of the martyrs, and in company with Eunomius, the father of this heresy, slander the Churches of Christ? Are you not afraid of being in such company, and of speaking against us the same things which he utters against the Church? For all his followers refuse to enter the basilicas of Apostles and martyrs, so that, forsooth, they may worship the dead Eunomius, whose books they consider are of more authority than the Gospels; and they believe that the light of truth was in him, just as other heretics maintain that the Paraclete came into Montanus, and say that Manichaeus himself was the Paraclete. You cannot find an occasion of boasting even in supposing that you are the inventor of a new kind of wickedness, for your heresy long ago broke out against the Church. It found, however, an opponent in Tertullian, a very learned man, who wrote a famous treatise which he called most correctly Scorpiacum, because, as the scorpion bends itself like a bow to inflict its wound, so what was formerly called the heresy of Cain pours poison into the body of the Church; it has slept or rather been buried for a long there, but has been now awakened by Dormitantius. I am surprised you do not tell us that there must upon no account be martyrdoms, inasmuch as God, who does not ask for the blood of goats and bulls, much less requires the blood of men. This is what you say, or rather, even if you do not say it, you are taken as meaning to assert it. For in maintaining that the relics of the martyrs are to be trodden under foot, you forbid the shedding of their blood as being worthy of no honour. (Against Vigilantius, 8)

Not only do the saints in heaven see God (as I explained above), but they retain a relation to their body. It is an ontological relation (i.e. a relation of being — this body does not merely belong to that saint, as he might have possessed a book or a cloak; this body is that saint, not the entirety of the saint, of course, but nonetheless his bodily component). The relation of the saints in heaven to their bodies is also an eschatological relation. They wait patiently to be reunited to their bodies, at the resurrection. To stand before the body of a saint is to stand before a part of someone who is presently enjoying the Beatific Vision, and is presently related (by an ontological relation of identity and an eschatological relation) to this body; it is to stand before something that we know (by the authority of the Church) will be in heaven forever. (We do not know that, with the same certainty, about any other material object, including our own bodies, because “that I [insert your own name] will persevere in faith until death” is not part of the deposit of faith.)

To ask for the intercession of a saint, in the presence of his or her body, is to do two things: (1) to honor that saint, by implicitly recognizing his heroic virtue and present glory, and (2) to draw near to that saint. If that saint’s body had no relation to the saint’s soul, then drawing near to his body would not in any way draw us near to the saint. But because of the body-soul relation, both ontological and eschatological, to draw near to his body is to draw near to the saint. We are not gnostics, who believe that we are all spirits trapped in bodies. A human soul is the form of a body — this particular body. (This is why reincarnation is metaphysically impossible.) The soul is incomplete in itself, as is the body. They are complete only when united as one substance, i.e. the body-soul composite. That is why human death is not natural, but contrary to nature, because the soul is made to remain the animating principle of this body. All this is why coming into the physical presence of the body of a saint, is to come into the presence of that saint who, at that very moment, is in heaven beholding the face of God. So, that is why the early Christians honored the relics of the saints, because they understood Christian anthropology, the communion of the saints, and the implications of the doctrine of the resurrection. (Update: I have discussed this in more detail in “Heroes of the New Covenant.”)

Lastly,

Are their prayers more effective than the living?

Yes. St. James tells us that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) But the saints in heaven are perfectly righteous, while even the most holy saint on earth still sins venially. Hence the prayers of the saints in heaven are more effective than the prayers of those on earth.

Also in a comment here  http://oldlife.org/2012/07/former-saints-remorse/comment-page-1/#comment-53132

.............in Catholic theology and practice the term ‘saint’ is used in two different senses. In one sense, it refers to all those in a state of grace. In other sense it refers to those who by the grace of God have lived lives of heroic virtue and died in a state of grace. To move from Protestant to Catholic does not mean that one ceases to be a saint in the first sense (i.e. being in a state of grace). But merely being in a state of grace does not entail being a saint in the second sense (i.e. living a life of heroic virtue and dying in a state of grace).

More discussion here comment 18  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/objections-to-the-hail-mary-leo-xiii-the-rosary-and-christian-unity-part-5-of-10/#comment-133411  :

More than that, we don’t need a 5 year old to intercede for us when we have the ladies husband himself interceding for us (Romans 8 – “Christ Jesus … is also interceding for us”).

Presupposed in this objection is the notion that sacred theology is determined by pragmatism and the principle of parsimony. But that’s not a safe presupposition. Rather, it is a human philosophical assumption. God is not necessarily limited by what is most efficient, or merely by what is “needed.” God could have forgiven us without the cross. That alone ought to give us pause when attempting to deduce or determine a priori the content of sacred theology by way of the principle of parsimony.

But the Jews never prayed to Eve, and there are no examples of prayers to Moses or Abraham or any other person in heaven in scripture that I’m aware of.

Keep in mind that until Christ ascended, the door of heaven was closed. See “The Harrowing of Hell.”

Even after the “rebuttals” given here, I have to agree with Presbyterian’s first comment – “praying” to Mary is wasting time that could be spent praying to God, …

That would entail that asking your [presently embodied] friends to pray for you is always also “wasting time that could be spent praying to God.” Again, implicit in this objection is the supreme elevation of the [very American / modern] value of maximizing efficiency, to the point of doing theological work, even though sacred theology is entirely based on supernatural divine revelation, not what is entailed by principles of human reason.

Regarding how the saints in heaven can hear our prayers, I’ve written about that in comment #7of “A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering.” Also, I wrote a short post explaining why the prayers of the saints are efficacious, titled “Heroes of the New Covenant.”

from comment 19 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/10/objections-to-the-hail-mary-leo-xiii-the-rosary-and-christian-unity-part-5-of-10/

Christ allows us, as the Body of Christ, to share in His Intercessory ministry. The key here is participation. The Blessed Virgin Mary has a special place in the Body, and as such, a special way that she participates in His Intercessory ministry. So, yes, we only have one Mediator, but He like to share. It all started when he created us.

see also http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/08/the-heroes-of-the-new-covenant/

From a comment 22 here      http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/12/ctc-radio-update/  :

Regarding prayer to the saints,there is plenty of scriptural evidence for the intercession of saints and angels.

Please see the following links:

Do the Saints Pray For us

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

Consider also the vision of Judas Maccabeaus, in which Onias and Jeremiah (both deceased) are seen interceding for the Jews: (2 Maccabees 15):

He told them that he had seen a vision of Onias, the former High Priest, that great and wonderful man of humble and gentle disposition, who was an outstanding orator and who had been taught from childhood how to live a virtuous life. With outstretched arms Onias was praying for the entire Jewish nation. 13 Judas then saw an impressive white-haired man of great dignity and authority. 14 Onias said:

This is God’s prophet Jeremiah, who loves the Jewish people and offers many prayers for us and for Jerusalem, the holy city.
15 Then Jeremiah stretched out his right hand and gave Judas a gold sword, saying as he did so,
16 This holy sword is a gift from God. Take it and destroy your enemies.

And Tobit 12: 15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.”

Compare this to Revelation 5:8:

“And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people.”

That the saints in heaven intercede for the Church on earth is a most biblical doctrine.
That we are to ask their intercession is confirmed by the teaching and practice of the same Church that gathered the sacred scriptures together in the present canon.

I Tim 2:15 Saved Through child bearing; meaning?

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/#comment-77102