Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Actually the choices for what one would say were "I don't understand" and the other denying Christ.
I do not agree that one of those choices was mandatory for me to accept, as I do understand and would not deny my Saviour.
I have nothing aginst you in any way and appreciate being able to debate with you through reasoned dialogue, each of us coming from our particular-seemingly set in stone--viewpoints.
My best to you.
LOL!!!!
And don't forget the all encompassing *all*....
Pinging my favorite...
OK, and thank you. Sorry if I sounded too unyielding at times.
That is not the belief. The scripture is read because, well, it is in remembrance of Christ saying these very words. The transubstantiation is occurring not because the priest reads the scripture but because Christ wishes to give us His flesh to eat.
The Mass is invalid if the priest does not intend to offer it. The rubrics are there to leave no room as to his intention. The real operator in all of this is Christ.
As a general proposition, before you speculate what someone else's beliefs are, it is a smart idea to ask around. On a thread of near five thousand posts you had no chance to ask a Catholic what his beliefs are regarding the Eucharist?
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
Catholic Catechism
I can ask anyone their opinion and every other Catholic could rightly label it as such so I seldom feel the need to solicit personal opinions and instead prefer something a bit more authoritative.
But your are reading like a Protestant, from prooftext to prooftext. Learn to read for knowledge, like authentic Christians do.
306. From whom do the sacraments receive their power to give grace?
The sacraments receive their power to give grace from God, through the merits of Jesus Christ. (Lesson 23 from the Baltimore Cathechism)[...]
353. Does this change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continue to be made in the Church?
The change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ continues to be made in the Church by Jesus Christ, through the ministry of His priests.354. When did Christ give His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood?
Christ gave His priests the power to change bread and wine into His body and blood when He made the apostles priests at the Last Supper by saying to them: "Do this in remembrance of Me."355. How do priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ?
Priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by repeating at the Consecration of the Mass the words of Christ: "This is My Body ... this is My blood." Lesson 26 from the Baltimore Cathechism[...]
1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit (some liturgical traditions put the epiclesis after the anamnesis).
In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ's body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all. (New Catechism, ARTICLE 3. THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST)
Does not look the same when you read in context and with an inquiring mind, does it?
You have an interpretation of the meaning but still English words say what they say. The claim is made that the priests have the power. “Priests exercise their power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by repeating at the Consecration of the Mass the words of Christ: “This is My Body ... this is My blood.”
It clearly says it is by their, the priests’, repetition of certain words that none but a priest can make efficaciously.
Like I said it goes from Merlin with his hand waving and incantations to Hannibal Lecter.
That's a pretty common problem with Catholicism.
Nothing ever says what it says or means what it says.
It means what the Catholic church says it means.
Of course they have the power (Question 355), but the power is not in the incantations but as given to them by Christ (306, 353, 354, CCC 1353). Like I said, learn to read.
That is the assertion and since the “the Church” cannot be in error anything I read must either be in agreement with Church dogma or be heresy.
One redundant and the other worse than useless. So what exactly is it that I am to read?
The Baltimore Catechism is too simple and the latest Catholic Catechism is subject to your interpretation so what’s left for me to read?
Read Baltimore if you can’t figure out the new one. Also, ask someone Catholic when in doubt.
And were I to ask someone Catholic I'm sure it would be dismissed as personal opinion or as the opinions of someone not properly Catechized.
Look at the response when I quoted the very Catholic, Catholic Encyclopedia. No effort to refute or explain but simple dismissal of it as a source.
But since you invited me to “ask someone Catholic...” I will ask you:
What importance does the Infancy Gospel of James play in Catholic belief and is it regarded as anything more than a fraud and myth?
Also, often people feel defensive because they expect that you are trying to trap them in something.
Also, because the Church is so hierarchical people imagine that it is like the military, every tittle pinned down in some document. There are plenty of legitimate disagreements between Catholics.
What importance does the Infancy Gospel of James play in Catholic belief and is it regarded as anything more than a fraud and myth?
I posted a thread on the Gospel of James a while back: The Protoevangelium of James. Feel free to move the discussion there; see my latest post on that thread.
In short, I believe it to be of 2nd c. and so evidence of the beliefs of the Early Church. As such it is very important to us.
As I've made clear this tit-for-tat that goes on is really distasteful and I want no part of it.
“In short, I believe it to be of 2nd c. and so evidence of the beliefs of the Early Church. As such it is very important to us”
“important”? Factual? Formative of Catholic belief? And how would it be known that is was reflective of the early church? There are are other so-called “gospels” that tell equally fantastic tales and claim well known personages as the author.
I will visit that thread right now and return.
I don’t think the assertion that Mary was a temple virgin is taught dogmatically. However, the Church teaches that she remained virgin through her life and had no other children; the Protoevangelium provides a narrative supporting of that. That it reflects the beliefs of the Early Church we know because early in the Church there was a belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity, and there was veneration of her parents. Even the relics of Sts Joachim and Anna were preserved — I venerated them in California. So make your own conclusions whether it is formative of belief or not. It certainly is consistent with the Catholic Faith.
As to factual, like with any accounts of this nature, it is possible that some poetic liberties were taken, but not on the biographical level.
That's like an endorsement from Obama that someone is a fiscal conservative because he agrees with them. I hear he takes...ummm...poetic liberties at times too!
If agrees with the Holy Scripture by providing missing biographical detail. It doesn’t mean the Protoevangelium is wholly inspired or accurate.
Which is exactly the case for many of us here who DO relate what we were taught and brought up believing. We expose the erroneous teachings of the RCC to Scripture and the knee jerk reaction is to dismiss it as personal opinion or as the opinions of someone not properly Catechized.
You nailed it.
It does not agree with Scripture because it teaches things which are contradicted BY Scripture.
It doesn’t mean the Protoevangelium is wholly inspired or accurate.
If there's no certainty of inspiration or accuracy, then one is left picking and choosing which parts they WANT to believe and don't know if they're believing the parts which are fables or not. In that case, anyone who believes it is a fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.