Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,323
94%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $4.7k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by daniel1212

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The (Christian) Truth About Yoga (It means "yoked"...)

    09/20/2017 7:38:39 PM PDT · 4 of 20
    daniel1212 to Sontagged
    Beware being told to empty your mind

    Isn't that what so many universities want an real Christians or otherwise conservatives to do?

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/20/2017 7:08:29 PM PDT · 244 of 245
    daniel1212 to Luircin
    So what you’re saying is that according to canon law every Catholic here on FR needs to be excommunicated because they debate about Catholicism?

    Sorry for not seeing this, but the answer is basically no, since because not every Cath here debates about Catholicism, while as said, "as Rome interprets herself, what she said in the past only means what she says in the present," and what one does and effects manifest what one really believes.

    Thus while at one time a lay person who engages in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith might be excommunicated, this (like so much of Catholicism) is subject to interpretation, and it is manifest that is not in force in the modern RCC.

    As is,

    Can. 831 §1. Except for a just and reasonable cause, the Christian faithful are not to write anything for newspapers, magazines, or periodicals which are accustomed to attack openly the Catholic religion or good morals;

    clerics and members of religious institutes, however, are to do so only with the permission of the local ordinary.

    No doubt those V2 RCs which attack the pope that their bishops elected would say they do so for a just and reasonable cause, while Traditional RCs who reject V2, or pick and choose from modern what they judge is valid or not (based on what ancient Cath church teaching states ) would reject this as able to censor them, and interpret anything ancient one this matter as not doing so. All the while censuring evangelicals for judging what is valid teaching based on the most ancient church teaching, that of Scripture.

  • Why Americans can blame pirates for not using the metric system

    09/20/2017 4:39:50 PM PDT · 151 of 152
    daniel1212 to DiogenesLamp
    More so than I like lately. Everyone and their dog wants me to fix their Car, Truck, or whatever.

    In-deed. And if only had a pick up you could move them also! I was never a pro mechanic and the most extensive work I did was replacing head gaskets back in the 70's, yet I have some interesting stores to tell, by God's grace (like resuscitating my dad's work car which I completely sunk in a golf course lagoon), but I am sure you must have some also.

    Nowadays I do fix (usually) bikes for free in this densely packed city with lots of kids, and thank God I can do something to help others, but few want to learn yet.

  • Why Americans can blame pirates for not using the metric system

    09/20/2017 10:05:54 AM PDT · 141 of 152
    daniel1212 to Bob
    While we’re inching toward the metric system, we’ve got miles to go.

    Good one!

  • Why Americans can blame pirates for not using the metric system

    09/20/2017 10:04:55 AM PDT · 140 of 152
    daniel1212 to DiogenesLamp
    I generally bought Craftsman when I bought tools. They are almost as good as SK or Snapon, and so far as my usage goes, they are good enough. Invariably you could not get the 16mm or 18mm sockets or wrenches in any tool set you bought from Craftsman unless it was the super deluxe set.

    Must have changed, as I do see a Craftsman 3/8" Drive 11 Piece 12 Pt Metric Deep Socket ( 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 mm) on Ebay for 20.79 (23.00 at Amazon

    I wonder what ratchet drive sizes they use in Europe?

    wikipedia informs that the ratcheting socket wrench, with interchangeable (indexable) sockets, was invented by an American, J.J. Richardson, of Woodstock, Vermont, USA. The tool was patented (Pat. No. 38,914) through the Scientific American Patent Agency on June 16, 1863 Standard sizes of square drives around the world include 1/4", 3/8", 1/2", 3/4", 1", 1-1/2", 2-1/2" and 3-1/2" square drive sizes (a de facto international standard with no metric equivalents[citation needed]) along with some lesser used drivers such as 5/8" square drive, and both #4 and #5 spline drives specified in ANSI B107 specifications.

    drive fittings come in four common sizes: 1/4 inch, 3/8 inch, 1/2 inch, and 3/4 inch (referred to as "drives", as in "3/8 drive"). Despite being denominated in inches, these are trade names (common product name), and manufacturers construct them to 6.3 mm, 9.5 mm, 12.5 mm and 19 mm, having been rounded to a reasonable, if haphazard, metric value. Larger drive sizes such as 1 inch and above are usually only encountered on fasteners of larger industrial equipment, such as tractor-trailers (articulated lorries), large cargo aircraft and passenger airliners, and marine work (merchant fleets, navies, shipyards). The sockets themselves come in a full range of inch and metric sizes. ("SAE" is often used as a blanket term for the nonmetric sizes, despite the technical inaccuracy of that usage.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_wrench

    For bikes I prefer the breaker bar

    That has never worked for me. They often just round off the bolt or nut i'm trying to remove. Oddly enough, even though 16 and 18 mm are usually absent in various tool sets i've bought over the years, they are invariably used in many vehicles I have worked on.

    Well, at least you know how to work with your God-given hands (not surer if they are imperial or metric)!

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/20/2017 8:20:23 AM PDT · 241 of 245
    daniel1212 to boatbums; Mrs. Don-o; daniel1212; aMorePerfectUnion; ealgeone
    Bear with me...I'm just wondering...if it truly is the receiving of the body and blood of Christ that imparts eternal life, then why couldn't a non-Catholic participate? Don't Catholics desire that all people attain salvation? If the bread and wine ("properly" confected) are the literal flesh and blood of Christ, then it shouldn't matter whether or not one believes they are or represent them, should it? Where does Scripture tell us that everyone must first belong to a church in order to receive Christ? After all, it is faith IN Jesus Christ that places us into the BODY of Christ, His bride, His called-out ones.

    The answer is basically the same whether one believes in the metaphysical Cath perversion or the Scriptural metaphorical understanding, which is that to take part in the Lord's supper unworthily would be to incur damnation.

    But Scripturally, as seen in 1 Cor. 11:29 it was to hypocritically take part in this commemoration of the Lord's unselfish death by which He purchased the church with His own sinless shed blood, and which they believers were thus supposed to be showing.

    But which they were not doing by treating others as non-members, and selfishly filling their belly, which effect was to "shame them that have not," (1 Cor. 11:21,22) and thus Paul stated, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper." (1 Corinthians 11:20)

    Which means that is not coming together into one place to eat the Lord's supper if they are not doing so in order to show the Lord's death for them by charitable sharing of food and communion with Christ and others. To be impenitently walking contrary to fellowship with Christ in any way would also be to incur chastisement, or damnation as with a case as Judas. "We are thus to told let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup...And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. (1 Corinthians 11:28,34)

    Likewise in the previous chapter to take part in the dedicatory feasts of pagans would be to have fellowship with demons, not because they were physically consuming the "real" flesh of demons but because of the union it symbolized.

    For the Catholic the reason why a non-Catholic are not to participate is not only because they may be morally unfit, but because they do not believe in the Catholic (evidently this was originally a term for the Anglican understanding) "Real Presence," and thus as the article says, "Distributing Holy Communion to people who do not share the Catholic Faith and have not previously confessed their sins profanes the Holy Species, leads the participants to condemnation, and promotes superstition."

    As if the metaphysical "real" Eucharistic body of the crucified christ under the appearance of nonexistent bread (while persons with celiac disease suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) until decay takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.) is not superstition.

  • Why Americans can blame pirates for not using the metric system

    09/20/2017 5:57:50 AM PDT · 133 of 152
    daniel1212 to DiogenesLamp
    Well, at least as re socket sets, I was able to get this set (10mm, 11mm, 12mm, 13mm, 14mm, 15mm, 16mm, 17mm, 18mm, 19mm) for 11.49 at Walmart a few months ago for 11.46, thanks be to God, but now are out of stock.

    They are not SK ot similar, but do the job for the larger bike axle nuts. However, notice that the metric sockets are SAE 3/8-Inch Drive.

    I also see a 1/2 drive metric 1/2 Drive Metric Socket Set (not deep though), : 12 Point, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19 & 22MM for $19.00. They are a dollar more at Amazon.

    But you should be able to us e a 5/8 socket for 16mm, while 19mm is about 3/4 .

    Hope this helps.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 7:04:46 PM PDT · 232 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    John 6:53-55...1 Corinthians 11:27-29...All of these affirm that, while the Body and Blood surely have other layers of meaning --- sign, commemoration, and so forth --- these other meanings are part of the fundamental reality that this IS His Body and Blood.

    They do not such thing except in isolation (typical of Catholics), but to the contrary, rather than partaking of the Lord supper ever being the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, apart from which one does not have this, and with the substantiated bread and wine being spiritual food - all of which is what a literal reading of Jn. 6:53,54 requires this to mean - then as said and shown, it is believing the gospel message that one obtains life in oneself, and with the engrafted word being salvific and nourishing milk, meat, spiritual food to those who receive it.

    And as said, the "real food" of Jn. 5:55 is not what the text says but that it is surely food, which Scripture clearly affirms the word of God is to those who believe/receive it.

    You are just parroting Cath polemics which Scripture has refuted time and time again.

    Would you like to go chapter by chapter through the book of Acts and what follows to see what is presented as the means by which one obtains spiritual life and grows in it?

    It is hardly even conceivable that if the NT church was the Catholic church with its cardinal position and salvific importance of the Cath Eucharist, then the only possible mentions of the Lord's supper in Acts would not simply be that of 2 instances mentioning the breaking of bread together, and with the Lord's supper being completely absent from every other book after the gospels (and which are interpretive of them) except for 1 Cor, and the mention of the feast of charity in Jude 1:12. None of which teach that the Lord's supper or Cath Eucharist is the means by which spiritual life is obtained and eternal life, apart from which one does not have this, but instead it is be believing/ receiving the word of God.

    While you can argue that this obedience would include taking part in the Lord's supper, and indeed it does, but we are taking about the importance of a specific act of obedience, and of a paramount "sacrament" after baptism. Yet do not even see NT pastors manifestly conducting the Lord's supper (let alone distinctive "priests" and unique so).

    1 Corinthians 11:27-29 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

    Which is another case of isolationist eisegesis, for in context the only "body" that was not being discerned/recognized was that of the church, because some were selfishly eating independently to the neglect and shunning of others which effect was to "shame them which have not," in utter contradiction of what they were supposed to be showing, that of the Lord's sacrificial death for them, so that they were bought with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) and were thus to show that unity and love to each by that communal meal.

    When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)

    For as often as ye eat this bread , and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26)

    And as Paul was guilty of persecuting Christ by how he treated his body the church, so "whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:27)

    That this lack of recognition was the problem, versus some failure to believe in the "Real Presence" (which Caths can manifestly do while ignoring others or simply in a perfunctory manner), is further evidenced by the remedy:

    Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)

    You can actually hold to your belief in the Eucharist and still recognize that "not discerning the Lord's body" in the context of 1Cor. 11:27-34 is not referring to failure to believe in the Cath "Real Presence, and in favt the notes in your NAB bible state,

    The self-testing required for proper eating involves discerning the body (1 Cor 11:29), which, from the context, must mean understanding the sense of Jesus’ death (1 Cor 11:26), perceiving the imperative to unity that follows from the fact that Jesus gives himself to all and requires us to repeat his sacrifice in the same spirit (1 Cor 11:18–25). (http://usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11#54011028-1)

    First Apology of St. Justin Martyr, c. 155 AD

    What does such show except an example of the progressive accretion of errors among post-apostolic men, some of which errors perhaps existed among a few during the apostolic age, but later gained the ascendancy, though such could still be saved as being of poor and contrite hearts who yet trusted in Christ to save them on His account.

    Your anti-sacramental POV --- refuting the "real" and "true" description of what is "indeed" His Body and Blood ---can be sustained only be refuting the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, and all Christendom.

    Simply bombast, as it is actually the Gospel of John, the Epistles of Paul, etc. which do not teach the Lord supper ever being the means of obtaining spiritual and eternal life, apart from which one does not have this spiritual life being obtained, but teach believing being the occasion of obtaining this life, and the word being believed/received as being spiritual food by which one is build up.

    I doubt you can show me that anybody made your kind of arguments to "refute" or "deny" Eucharistic realism, for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

    There are those argue that what certain early so-called "church fathers" (they were not) believed was not the Catholic position, but while some can be a Catholic and find salvation despite believing in Catholic Real Presence, yet what matters is what we see in Scripture, in which we nowhere see the metaphysical Catholic Christ being present as non-existent bread and wine, which must be read into the text,as well as the LS being a priestly paramount practice, after baptism, as said.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 10:44:25 AM PDT · 188 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Scripture does teach this sacramental meaning, since Christ in John 6 was not just talking about His words or even His spirit, but, specifically, His Body and Blood. It's this incarnational aspect to which I would respectfully draw your intention.

    Once again, your assertion is refuted by what I provided, and is contrary to what the Holy Spirit, abundantly shows spiritual life-giving "meat and drink" to be, and the use of metaphorical language - which John especially uses - and how the NT church understood the gospels , and who never presents the Lord's supper as a sacrifice for sin by the hands of Catholic priests whereby souls obtain spiritual life, or as essential for obtaining it.

    Only the metaphorical understanding easily conforms to the rest of Scripture, and does not require resorting to Neoplatonic thought and Aristotelian metaphysics to explain and rationalize a christ who by all evidences of matter is mere bread but "really" is the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Christ, corporeally present whole and entire." which is more akin to a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 9:50:54 AM PDT · 185 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Christ's use of the word "real" (or "true") is still real and true. In contrasts with the word "metaphorical."

    No, once again the Lord is stating the it is indeed meat and drink, not in what manner it was, but which He does reveal, with souls living by His word as He lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) by the word of god, thus the doing of it was His by "meat" which his disciples knew not of. (Jn. 4:32-34) and with His words being spirit and life. (Jn. 6:63)

    Christ Himself is indeed the word of God, and the word of God is actually what is called "meat" and "drink" (milk) which (as received) regenerate , nourishes, and builds up, and nowhere is the Lord's supper the means of obtaining spiritual life in oneself. Thus by making the flesh and blood referred to out to be something physically consumed by which one obtains spiritual life in oneself then you are "indeed" "really" truly" reading into the text a teaching which Scripture does not teach!

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 9:39:14 AM PDT · 184 of 245
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Arthur McGowan
    Actually, being a priest, his would be the only “authorized” voice of Catholics on these forums...if he’s a priest...or ever was.

    But if he is a traditionalist then he would be in violation of certain past teachings:

    We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions

    Commenting on this, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,

    “This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....

    But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy.

    But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization... http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm

    It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord." Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo, Canon 64,

    The Quinisext Council of 692 was not held by the western church as authoritative and binding, but it is regarded by the Orthodox as ecumenical/binding, yet as disciplinary canons they can be abrogated. (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm

    Can. 831 §1 Unless there is a just and reasonable cause, no member of Christ's faithful may write in newspapers, pamphlets or periodicals which clearly are accustomed to attack the catholic religion or good morals. Clerics and members of religious institutes may write in them only with the permission of the local Ordinary. - http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2P.HTM

    “the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm

    "One must neither pray nor sing psalms with heretics, and whoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the communion of the Church, whether clergy or layman: let him be excommunicated". (Council of Carthage [not found]

    * “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instil their poison in your mind.” Bl. Isaias Boner of Krakow (Polish, Augustinian priest, theologian, professor of Scripture, d. 1471)

    Catholics justify (if they are to) their public dissent and disputations on current (subject to change) canon law, which states,

    Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate. But which is too broad and ambiguous. But as Rome interprets herself, what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their basic duty is to follow the pastors.

    "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 9:15:34 AM PDT · 182 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mrs. Don-o
    Daniel, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making the assumption that there are only two possible senses of a saying of the Lord: metaphorical or literal; so that His sayings must logically be one or the other.

    It is Catholics who assert that they are taking the words of Christ literally, which would mean that the apostles consumed the actual manifestly incarnated Christ which He said to eat, versus a christ who did not appear to be what He really was. Thus I am showing them that they do not take the Lord's words purely literally, but unlike the only manifestly incarnated Christ, whose physically John emphasizes, whose body behaved, looked, etc., and would scientifically test as human flesh and blood, they make make Christ out to be something which looks etc. like an inanimate material, and would scientifically test as bread and wine, but which actually does not, but which can decay, at which point Christ no longer exist under that appearance either.

    There is nothing in the pertinent texts which should preclude to a Catholic that what the apostles consumed was the actual physical flesh and blood of Christ, but the metaphysical sacramental interpretation is read into the text out of necessity, since nothing manifestly changes when the priest utters the "words of consecration."

    There is a third sense, though, and that is sacramental. That is not somewhere between metaphorical or literal, so to speak, but somewhere beyond them: more meaningful than what is merely metaphorical, more real than what is merely literal.

    Which as the metaphysical Catholic interpretation, is read into the text, and is no more meaningful than the metaphorical meaning, any more that making other examples of metaphorical speech to be sacramental via a like metaphysical explanation. David plainly said that the water that his valiant men brought him from the well at Bethlehem was blood, and thus refused to drink it but poured it out unto the Lord. (2 Samuel 23:16-17) A Catholic literalist could interpret that as saying that the water was "Really" literally the blood of these men, or "Really" as per a metaphysical explanation of transubstantiation, and make that a sacramental practice, but the metaphorical meaning does not need either a plainly literal or metaphysical explanation to be most meaningful. And as such it could be a sacramental practice if it was so commanded, reminding people of how risking your life for others if like giving them your own blood.

    This is why Our Lord calls His Body "real food" and His Blood "real drink." "Real" (or some translations say "true") is in contrast to what? In contrast to both metaphorical and literal.

    Scripture (John 6:55) does not say that the Lord calls His Body "real food" and His Blood "real drink," but affirms that both are surely, of a truth (alēthōs), food and drink, which does not refer to what sense they are, but that they are.

    And what sense they are is revealed in the light of the rest of Scripture, in which what souls receive for spiritual life is the life-giving gospel message, that being "in truth [alēthōs], the word of God," (1Ths. 2:13) with the word being called "milk" and "meat," "milk" (1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12,14) by which one is born again, (Ja. 1:8) and nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) And thus rather than uniquely administering the Lord supper as food as priests, the preaching the word was the primary active function of pastors, (2Tim. 4:2) who are charged with feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28)

    In contrast the Lord's supper is only manifestly described in one epistle to the churches, besides the mention of "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12.

    This euchastisric Body and Blood of His are so real, they are real on every Catholic...

    And Hare Krishna's have their imaginations of what is metaphysically real, but neither of which are an argument that they are.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 6:53:18 AM PDT · 171 of 245
    daniel1212 to ealgeone; Arthur McGowan
    McGowan, who may or may not be a Roman Catholic priest, seems to forget these words....It is written.

    McGowan has confirmed that he was a (unscriptural ) Catholic priest, at least a long time ago. It is up to him to confirm that that he claims that status today, which is relevant to the issues here since his statements would be expected to carry more weight with Catholics, at least with those who believe they are to basically be docile sheep who submit to their pastors, and do not engage in public dispute or contradiction of teaching which requires religious (at least) assent, which includes encyclicals. Of course, if a priest engages in such himself...

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 6:42:07 AM PDT · 168 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    When I was a Catholic, MANY years ago, I was absolutely, totally, completely, 💯% convinced I was going to Hell. I

    And indeed you were before your Biblical "day of salvation," but with the old emphasis on guilt and perpetual penance even for past sins done before conversion (while modern Rome basically sends Teddy K Catholics off to glory), it is no wonder you were convinced I was going to Hell:

    From a Traditional RC site:

    Properly viewed, having a perpetual reminder of one’s misdeeds in the form of public “shunning,” is not cruel, but rather in itself a great mercy to the woman who might thereby bewail her sins for the rest of her life.

    This is what the first Pope of the Church did all his life, after the Passion. It is a solid tradition that there were caverns under the eyes of St. Peter caused by the tears that he shed every day for his public thrice denial of Christ. St. Mary Magdalene spent the last decades of her life as a hermit in a cave doing penance for her past sins. — http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k011rpUnwedMothers_Stretenovic.html

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 5:14:33 AM PDT · 155 of 245
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan
    I don’t demean Scripture. I demean the brainless way some people exploit isolated verses of Scripture.

    Relegating inspired Biblical teaching on child discipline to being "crude scientific beliefs from the Bronze Age" is indeed demeaning Scripture, as is your own exploitation of isolated verses of Scripture.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/19/2017 5:07:05 AM PDT · 154 of 245
    daniel1212 to Mark17
    When I was a Catholic, MANY years ago, I was absolutely, totally, completely, 💯% convinced I was going to Hell. I KNEW it. Obviously, I don't think that way now. I just thought of something. Do you suppose, it is also the sin of presumption in reverse, to presume one will go to Hell? A conundrum?

    Rome says

    No one can be absolutely certain of his or her salvation unless--as to Magdalen, to the man with the palsy, or to the penitent thief--a special revelation be given [that one is part of the elect]. (Trent, Sess. VI, can. xvi).

    No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself. [Trent, The Sixth Session, CHAPTER XII, http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct06.html]

    It is one think to deny that one can know that one now has eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) and will go to Heaven as a believer, which is not presumption by God's promise, and it would be sin to believe Christ will abandon believers, and that believers will not go to be with the Lord after this life, which leaves the only sin of presumption in this regard to be that of presuming you could never choose to walk away from Christ in unbelief - including not believing "that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ," (Philippians 1:6) - and die as a unbeliever, one fallen from grace, against which Scripture warns believers. (Heb. 3:12; 10:39,39; Gal. 5:1-5)

    Likewise it would not be a sin of presumption to believe you would go to Hell as an unbeliever, but it may be be a sin of presumption to believe you will never come to saving faith in the risen Lord Jesus, unless you know you have committed the unpardonable sin.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/18/2017 8:10:36 PM PDT · 129 of 245
    daniel1212 to Luircin; firebrand; aMorePerfectUnion; Mrs. Don-o
    What I get from them is that a miracle happens on the altar and the bread and wine is transformed into Jesus’ flesh and blood, but it’s flesh that tastes like bread and blood that tastes like wine?

    Yes, its a miracle like no other, since there unlike healings or changing water into wine, there is no manifest change, as unlike the Biblical incarnated Christ, "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life," (1 John 1:1) who was manifestly incarnated, and behaved, looked, felt, and would taste and scientifically test as real flesh and blood;

    the Eucharistic christ is manifest as inanimate objects, which behave, look, feel, and taste and would scientifically test as mere bread and wine, but which are said to no longer exist, but Christ does instead (in either and both species, while His body in its spatial existence in Heaven remains), even to subatomic particles (some of which would become airborne...).

    Until as said, the non-existent bread and wine begin to show decay (as in mold), at which point Christ is no longer present, even though the manifest decay is not real.

    See here for substantiation, by God's grace

    And at the same time, Jesus in heaven is re-crucified. Again and again and again every time they say these words.

    No, that is not what is theologically said to occur, even though the Eucharist is "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence);

    As often as the sacrifice of the Cross by which 'Christ our Pasch has been sacrificed' is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out.”(CCC 1414; 1364) “...that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross;...For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.” (Council of Trent, The Twenty-Second Session)

    For it is imagined that the priest “offers up again the same sacrifice of adoration and atonement which Christ offered on Calvary.” (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, p. 256; Nihtt obstat, Imprimatur)

    However, "crucified anew" does not mean again "in the historical sense:" "Christ was offered once, and is offered daily, but in one manner then, in another now." (Peter Lombard, Sentences, Lib. IV, Dist. 12)

    And for some reason, only the priest is allowed to drink the blood/wine/whatever.

    No, that is no longer true. In Vatican Two Catholicism the laity can consume both species, even though the smallest particle would give them the whole body and blood of Christ. Yes, that is what imagines occurred at the Last Supper.

    I mean, even if you take ‘this is my body’ 100% literally, doesn’t this Catholic thing go a little bit beyond what the Bible says?

    Actually as explained if you take ‘this is my body which is broken for you’ 100% literally, then it would be taking is less that 100% literal, since the only body of Christ that would be broken and His life-blood poured out (cf. Is. 53:10,12) was the manifestly incarnated body, not some `versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ which was not what he appeared to be. to be.

    But only the metaphorical understanding conforms to Scripture.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/18/2017 7:31:41 PM PDT · 126 of 245
    daniel1212 to Arthur McGowan
    If there’s anything the sola scriptura crowd hates, it’s scripture.

    Pure bombast by one who often has been refuted by Scripture, and who demeans Scripture like a liberal.

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/18/2017 7:08:56 PM PDT · 121 of 245
    daniel1212 to Elsie
    Rome says the host is REALLY Christ's flesh.

    But it REALLY does not look like the Lord's body which was broken, and His blood which was shed, with its manifest physicality that John emphasized, versus a Gnostic or Docetist Christ who was not what He appeared to be. And which soon to be crucified manifest flesh and blood a straight-forward literal reading of the "words of consecration" would refer to. Nor is there anything in the text which requires this to still look like bread and wine.

    But since Cath priests cannot change the bead and wine into the manifestly incarnated flesh and blood of Christ (aside from a few purported miracles which do not conform to Eucharistic theology), then while what Caths receive REALLY looks like bread and wine, they are to believe that it REALLY is the crucified body and blood of Christ (even in the smallest particle), while the bread and wine REALLY no longer exist, Christ being present instead.

    That is, until the bread and wine which no longer exist REALLY exist begin to manifest decay, at which point the Catholic christ REALLY no longer exist under that appearance. Nor does the bread and wine either according to Aquinas. At which point as concerns the "Real Presence" in that locale, theologically

    they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. (John 20:13)

  • The "Ecumenical Mass" Has Started

    09/18/2017 6:44:03 PM PDT · 113 of 245
    daniel1212 to vladimir998; aMorePerfectUnion
    through the power of God’s grace we are actually transformed (Romans 12:2). That’s why St. Paul talks of the new man, a new creature (Eph. 4:24; 2 Corinthians 4:16). God shares Himself with us, shares His divine life with us. That’s called holiness and it is transformative. We are new creatures, not just imputed to be new, but actually new, transformed. This is one of the reasons why John saw no Temple in Heaven in Revelation 21:22. ]

    None of which is contrary to salvation by grace thru faith, which, contrary to Cath propaganda does not mean one is simply whitewashed, but that while one is accounted righteous and made accepted in the Beloved, and seated together with Him in Heaven, one His account, not because we have attained heavenly perfection of character, yet belief in the Lord Jesus also means that one is made spiritually alive, with an interior change of heart resulting in a changed life.

    Luther even said such things as,

    faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

    The kind of faith which overall will effect holiness and obedience is what appropriates the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, and thus the effects of faith are necessary if faith is to be considered salvific, and in fact the effects of faith justify one as being a believer. However, God justifieth the ungodly by faith which is counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5)

    And thus believers are warned against having an evil heart of unbelief, thus drawing back to perdition, which unbelief, as with faith, is evidence what what it effects. Thus faith and works go together.