Read this book!
Posted on 02/22/2018 8:33:27 PM PST by ebb tide
The Francis Effect meeting the German Heresiarchy leads to an explosive decision of cataclysmic consequences.
(Excerpt) Read more at rorate-caeli.blogspot.com ...
It's more than that...the Mass is in contradiction of the NT as has been shown numerous times.
You can’t win with your types which is why no one should ever make nice. You are to Catholics what liberal dems are to conservatives.
Read this book!
I’m interested. Did any Christian believe the Mass was in contradiction to the NT until the 16th or 17th century? It seems to be an novel idea that didn’t occur to anybody until new paradigms of Christianity emerged 1500+ years after the birth of the Church. But if there was anybody, I’d like to know.
What part? I do not subscribe to transubstantiation but what of the communion?
LOL! Good call.
WHY should no one make nice? Especially on a religious thread? Did he say something offensive or simple something you don't agree with? As far as the "can't win" part, why is that? Is it because your side lacks merit or is there something else?
I think you’re smart enough to know that everyone here knows each other of a long time. No one changes here much less the person you are taking about or myself, for that matter. Let’s try and be realistic and not challenging for no good reason.
I’m not sure how smart I am but I was interested in the main topic that was posted. I sincerely wanted everyone’s opinion on Catholic communion for non-Catholics. I have visited church’s that I was in disagreement on with certain tenets but that didn’t keep from satisfying my curiosity. Have you been to a Protestant Church lately? Ever curious?
Are you, a non-priest, saying that O'brien, a Roman Catholic priest is wrong?
The ECFs are in varied opinions on the issue of transubstantiation as you are aware.
I did find this brief history of transubstantiation:
The doctrine of transubstantiation is the result of a theological dispute started in the 11th century, when Berengar of Tours denied that any material change in the elements was needed to explain the Eucharistic Presence, thereby provoking a considerable stir.[22] Berengar's position was never diametrically opposed to that of his critics, and he was probably never excommunicated, but the controversies that he aroused (see Stercoranism) forced people to clarify the doctrine of the Eucharist.[23] The earliest known use of the term "transubstantiation" to describe the change from bread and wine to body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist was by Hildebert de Lavardin, Archbishop of Tours, in the 11th century.[24] By the end of the 12th century the term was in widespread use.[22]
The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood".[25] It was only later in the 13th century that Aristotelian metaphysics was accepted and a philosophical elaboration in line with that metaphysics was developed, which found classic formulation in the teaching of Thomas Aquinas."[22]
In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[34]
In its 13th session ending 11 October 1551, the Council defined transubstantiation as "that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining – which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation".[34] This council officially approved use of the term "transubstantiation" to express the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject of the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, with the aim of safeguarding Christ's presence as a literal truth, while emphasizing the fact that there is no change in the empirical appearances of the bread and wine.[35] It did not however impose the Aristotelian theory of substance and accidents: it spoke only of the species (the appearances), not the philosophical term "accidents", and the word "substance" was in ecclesiastical use for many centuries before Aristotelian philosophy was adopted in the West,[36] as shown for instance by its use in the Nicene Creed which speaks of Christ having the same "οὐσία" (Greek) or "substantia" (Latin) as the Father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Communion in the Catholic Church is for those who are in a state of grace and have been educated in the sacrament of Holy Communion. We receive this sacrament first at about the age of 7. To be in the state of grace, we attend the sacrament of Confession prior to Communion.
Personally, I have been to Methodist services at the Great Auditorium in Ocean Grove, NJ and many Bar Mitzvahs and bris in Manhattan.
I do post in hopes that some Roman Catholics will see their error but I know the struggle is uphill.
I primarily post for the casual reader of these threads.
I once got socked in the eye at a Bas Mitzah when the girls threw candy out at the parishioners.
Oh I know. It’s the whole concept of the Mass that’s opposed to the NT.
Peter had the honor of preaching the Gospel after Christ died. He did so at Pentecost...but he wasn't the only one.
Nor was he the only one who died in service to Christ.
I don't know about such things. I read the Bible and don't see where the Disciples had to be "educated" or attend the sacrament of Confession before Communion with Jesus. I tend to keep things simple and Bible oriented. The Catholics, it seems to me, makes things so difficult. I was talking with one person once on what it took to be a (Catholic)deacon and it was a real ordeal.
I did not need you to reproduce the Wikipedia article on transubstantiation. It is related to, but not the same as, Eucharistic Realism, i.e. the firm conviction, based on the very words of Jesus Christ, that the Eucharist is His True Body and Blood. This was the continuous belief of Christians for centuries before the technical term "transubstantiation" was adopted, and for 1500+ before the ancient doctrine was rejected altogether by the Protestant new paradigm.
But I didn't ask you about "transubstantiation." I asked you:
Ears perked. I am sincerely interested. I am here to learn.
being as how I've never been to Mass, I wouldn't know. I have have been through Protestant Communion services including the foot washing. But never a Catholic Mass.
Question for you?
Did the Bible come from oral tradition or Holy Tradition?
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.