Posted on 10/12/2015 11:40:09 AM PDT by tioga
Ya ha!
But I'll take that back, or at least put it in big brackets. A teaching being "divisive" doesn't make it false. For instance, Christ's teaching about actually eating His Body and drinking His Blood --- his Body being "true" food and His blood "true" drink ---- was considered majorly and offensively divisive back in John 6. It's still considered divisive by some Christians, y'know?
Not true at all, My history lessons did not come from the church, in fact secular normal history was the background of that education.. One cannot deny facts because you don't like them. While the first 100 years of the Catholic church are fairly clear, they can be easily misinterpreted by those who seek to change history. The Church grew from its infancy to the gigantic organization that it is today, not by being wrong, but by being the messenger of Christ and filling the needs of people in seeking redemption.You can argue all you want about the authenticity of this or that, but they have certainly stood the test of time.....challenged through the centuries, and NEVER been disproven......not bad!!!
Of course he did, when the boss chastises you, you pay attention and perhaps change the way you do this or that...Peter was reprimanded and knew it.
Those little statues are really neat...I have several of them on my desk, in my Garden and wherever else...reminders of what these people might have looked like...I also have pictures of mom and dad, all four of my grandparents, my children and a few grandchildren, Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower, Mac Arthur (met him personally,) George Washington, Abraham Lincoln....what's the point???????
You keep bringing up 7 churches somewhere....we' re discussing 2 thousand and fifteen years of church history, what does one have to do with the other????
REAL Christians have believed that it was literal for 2,015 years....even Martin Luther KNEW that it was true....what's your objection to it????
May Guardian Angels keep and guide you and yours!
...therefore some guys asked a point blank question:
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Please tell us how that is POSSIBLE!
I would ask --- then why do you do that very thing, but I do think I already know why...
Meanwhile, one alleged 'fact' still under contention here, your own having said;
is not supported by what evidences of history there are.
There truly is a great deal of evidence against that sort of assertion, and nothing much for that sort of idea other than applying anachronistically upon history those assupmtions which one would find most convenient to their own present-day religious sensibilities.
Really?
Do you actually expect me to believe that is was some [unnamed] 'secular' source that taught you that the center of the Christian Church was located at Rome, "within a few years" of the time of (the Incarnate) Christ upon earth?
Who was it that taught you that as part of some history lesson?
Perhaps we should speculate on the existence of unicorns, next.
I mean, there's so much talk about those creatures, there must be something to it?
Is a sarcasm tag needed for the above? I add one now ---
When, or if you'd ever care to have a more serious (and more honest) conversation about the issues which you raised (never-mind the unicorns), then feel free to let me know.
Until that time, upon occasion I may point to this or that assertion which yourself and others are likely to make, and point out how ill-founded those often can be.
Thanks for posting this onyx, it reminded me once again why it’s still a good thing to donate to this site. I just made another donation.
It’s good, even though I’m Catholic, because I recognize that this “site” isn’t “anti-Catholic”, whereas some of the posters here are. I cannot in good conscience fault Jim for the behavior of some of the posters here because:
A. He (Jim) made it explicit a few months ago that threads started with the express purpose of bashing Catholicism won’t be allowed. This doesn’t mean (and can’t mean, see why below) that no anti-Catholic sentiment is allowed. It just put a stop to the most egregious behavior that quite frankly even I was starting to question my donations in the past. Starting to wonder if the “good” here outweighed the “bad”. No more though. Again for that I humbly thank you Mr Robinson.
B. He (Jim) JUST made it quite clear on THIS thread (as he has in the past) that he believes Catholics are Christians. How could I possibly believe this entire site is “anti-Catholic” when its owner and operator is clearly not? Maybe I have too low a definition of what constitutes an “anti-Catholic” but to me that’s only someone who doesn’t believe Catholics are Christian and/or constantly makes it a habit if not a mission to denigrate the Church and her teachings. Like daily. Neither of these definitions fit Jim Robinson, at all so there’s no way (in my mind at least) that the site he runs can be “anti-Catholic”. But then again maybe my definition is too loose. I don’t think it is though.
More on point A though, specifically, whether or not the anti-Catholic (minority) should be allowed to post at all, let alone whole threads dedicated to that purpose. Quite frankly I wouldn’t want Jim or any moderator to decide what constitutes an “anti Catholic” post (reply) because at the end of the day that’s a judgement call. Subjective by its very nature (with a few extreme examples which have been dealt with and continue to be dealt with appropriately IMO). In other words I’d rather the management default to FReedom, rather than regulation, or else, to put it bluntly, I don’t think I could reasonably call myself a “conservative” at all.
So thanks again onyx for the reminder. And as far as the FReepathon goes lets “Git ER done”!
REAL Christians have believed that it was literal for 2,015 years....even Martin Luther KNEW that it was true....what's your objection to it????
So you believe as Martin Luther once did (as of 1519) that "The bread is changed into his true natural body and the wine into his natural true blood," (Luther's Works,35:47ff.) Is this what you are referring to as Luther believing in the Cath Eucharist?
But within a year it was evident that Luther rejects transubstantiation, though he does not yet condemn those who hold to it. "Therefore I permit every man to hold either of these opinions, as he chooses. . . . One may . . . believe either one view or the other without endangering his salvation" ("The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, p. 145).
According to Luther, it is an error to say that no bread remains, but only the accidents of bread. The bread remains real bread and the wine remains real wine. He emphasized this by talking about the grain of the bread and the grapes of the wine.99 Luther had no regard for the "subtle sophistry" of those who teach that the bread and wine lose their substance. The bread and wine do not surrender or lose their natural essence.
Luther blames the teaching of transubstantiation on adherence to ancient philosophy. He cites Thomas Aquinas as being more influenced by ancient philosophy than by scripture. He says that the church of Thomas is "the Aristotelian church."l0l Even at that, the church survived for 1200 years without the doctrine of transubstantiation. He refers to the official establishment of the dogma as set out by the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.102 Luther challenged the assumption that "heat, color, cold, light, weight, [and] shape are accidents."103 The result was a complex doctrine which became more elaborate and confused as it developed. Luther preferred a simpler explanation for the real presence.
Yet Luther did present a complete and satisfactory explanation, and what he did provide is far from simple or satisfactory ( if one wants to hold to a literalistic understanding) upon examination.
The doctrine of communicatio idiomatum was developed to show the communion of the two natures in Christ; that is, the divine nature is communicated to the human nature in such a way that the two natures share the attributes of each other, Luther maintained that, just as there is real communication in the man Christ who walked in Palestine, so there is real communication of the glorified Christ at the right hand of God.
In conclusion, we see that Luther could refute the radical reformers, who thought the Lord's supper was only a reminder and nothing more, and that he could also refute the Roman Catholic doctrine that says the bread and wine are transformed. He maintained the simplicity of the scripture references which refer to the bread and wine—against the Catholics; and he maintained the real presence through a literal interpretation—against the Reformed theologians. - http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1990s/vol_32_no_3_contents/craycraftluther.html
For her part, Roman Catholicism had to devise a metaphysical explanation to justify her eucharistic claim.
In Sacred Games: A History of Christian Worship, Bernhard Lang argues that, “When in late antiquity the religious elite of the Roman Empire rethought religion and ritual, the choice was not one between Mithraism and Christianity (as Ernest Renan suggested in the 19th century) but between pagan Neoplatonism and Neoplatonic Christianity.”
“In the third century CE, under the leadership of Plotinus, Plato’s philosophy enjoyed a renaissance that was to continue throughout late antiquity. This school of thought had much in common with Christianity: it believed in one God (the “One”), in the necessity of ritual, and in the saving contact with deities that were distinct from the ineffable One and stood closer to humanity. Like Judaism and Christianity, it also had its sacred books–the writings of Plato, and, in its later phase, also the Chaldean Oracles. In fact, major early Christian theologians–Origen, Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysus–can at the same time be considered major representatives of the Neoplatonic school of thought.” - (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2014/04/08/early-churchs-choice-between-neoplatonism)
From a RC monk and defender:
Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...
The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)
Edwin Hatch:
...it is among the Gnostics that there appears for the first time an attempt to realize the change of the elements to the material body and blood of Christ. The fact that they were so regarded is found in Justin Martyr. But at the same time, that the change was not vividly realized, is proved by the fact that, instead of being regarded as too awful for men to touch, the elements were taken by the communicants to their homes and carried about with them on their travels. (Hatch, Edwin, 1835-1889, "The influence of Greek ideas and usages upon the Christian church;" pp. 308-09 https://archive.org/stream/influenceofgreek00hatc/influenceofgreek00hatc_djvu.txt)
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest. ...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
Rather than paganistic or Neoplatonic ideas, it remains that the metaphorical view is indeed the only one that easily conflates with the totality of Scripture, while the literalistic one cannot , but is necessary for her unScriptural priesthood . For the rest of my objection, all you needed to do was to take your mouse and place the cursor on the links provided, and left click on them. Table of Contents
Racist posts aren’t allowed.
Anti-semiotics posts aren’t allowed.
Anti-Catholic posts are allowed.
That’s a choice.
Semiotics = semitic
Darned spellchecker.
You must understand that to be considered "anti-Catholic" by certain vocal RCs simply typically requires one to oppose the elitist claims of the church they constantly promote. And sometimes, like liberals, no matter how reasoned and substantiated, it means that one is a bigot driven by guilt and or blind hatred.
Yet we have been told that there has never been a bit of anti-Protestant bigotry on FR, and that RCs do not post provocative articles.
It just put a stop to the most egregious behavior
And since that time i have not seen even one open tread provocative article posted by any Prot for that general faith, while as predicted, this censure of almost daily articles against Catholicism was promptly interpreted by certain RCs as making them a favored class (and victims: "Hating Catholics–America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice"), and conferring on them special rights, and could continue to post provocative articles for their faith, to which challenges would not be allowed.
But thank God that while any open tread provocative article posted by any Prot for that general faith that may offend Caths seem to be excluded, and while Caths are favored in being allowed to post provocative promotions of their church, at least warranted challenges to such have overall been allowed.
What? You mean that the concept of Scripture, Sacred tradition, and the magisterial office was rejected by Reformers, versus the latter two being subject to the former as being the supreme authority, and that what Scripture, Sacred tradition, and the magisterial office taught was not considered divisive within Christendom for, oh, 1,500 years? And still is ?
For instance, Christ's teaching about actually eating His Body and drinking His Blood --- his Body being "true" food and His blood "true" drink ---- was considered majorly and offensively divisive back in John 6. It's still considered divisive by some Christians, y'know?
So why do most RCs deny Jn. 6:53,54 as being literal? How can you hold that this statement is no less an absolute imperative then other "verily, verily" statements? IOW, since according to the literal skew, literally consuming the Lord's real flesh and blood is essential in order to obtain spiritual eternal life, how can Rome affirm those who deny it as being born again children of God?
From the article:
” .... and prefers the term “orthodox Christian” over “evangelical” to describe herself, given the “cultural baggage” around the word “evangelical”. “
She seems overly concerned about what everyone thinks of her brand of Christianity.
Well put.
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.