Posted on 07/13/2007 11:13:07 AM PDT by JZelle
Nothing stirs the blood like talking about religion. That's why it's taboo to talk about it in casual social conversations. Better to ask the boss's wife whether she ever considered a face-lift.
But Pope Benedict XVI is a man of firm conviction and blunt talk. Not for this pontiff the Vatican II tradition of warm and fuzzy, as the message of Vatican II, which put a friendly expression on the stern countenance of the church of Rome, has been widely interpreted in the circles of those addicted to warm and fuzzy. This week he authorized a statement of "clarification" of Vatican II, and to the consternation of some Roman Catholics here, the secular press interpreted the message to Protestants as no more Mr. Nice Guy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
That's just silly.
I can’t adequately address this major question. In fact, I still don’t understand why, if Jesus was a Jew, His parents gave him a Puerto Rican name....
You see, that just tends to irk some other Christians. Doesn't do a heck of a lot for that ecumenism thingy, either.
And I'm one of the folks who challenges the Catholic bashers around here.
"He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer 'Amen'".
There's nothing in this quotation that states that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. In fact, there's nothing in that cite which necessarily even indicates Augustine was talking about the Lord's Supper at all. Likewise,
"You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."
Again, this quotation relies upon a leading assumption - one must already believe the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation before it becomes apparent that Augustine is supporting that doctrine. Otherwise, the citation could be made to support ANY view. I mean, *I* would affirm that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ, but would take that symbolically (which, however, does not make the assertion any less real). In light of what Augustine clearly said elsewhere when he specifically stated what his view about the elements of the Lord's Supper were, his citation here can just as easily be symbolic as literal. Similarly....
"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf."
....requires that one already hold to Catholic dogma before one sees that it is "obvious" that the communion of which Augustine speaks is a reference to transubstantiate. There is nothing in this statement which INDEPENDENTLY establishes that Augustine was speaking of transubstantiation. As for the last of his statement,
"The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him."
This actually would seem to argue AGAINST the Catholic position. He refers to the commemoration of the Lord's Supper as a sacramental sign (a term which usually indicates the figurativeness of its relationship with what it symbolises). Augustine is incorrect in supposing that the keeping of the communion is a "sacrifice" of Christ (since there's quite a lot in Hebrews 7-10 which flatly destroys that thesis), but be that as it may, his words, again, don't support the doctrine of transubstantiation specifically, as your source tries to imply.
That's all for now, since I'll be away from internet access for the rest of the evening. Feel free to respond, or to FReepmail me if you like. I also want to thank you for the link to the Realpresence site - I actually have been planning on updating the Transubstantiation page, and it will prove a valuable information source.
On the other hand, for a Catholic to deny or ignore Catholic doctrine is an excellent way to go to Hell :)
Well, I would disagree with that. Doctrine matters. Paul uses the word "doctrine" something like 15 times in the three short Pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus. Obviously, Paul's view (under the inspiration of the Spirit) was that doctrine meant something, and that there is right doctrine and wrong doctrine. Paul believed that some doctrines would lead a person to hell, and he "anathemised" those who taught another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9). The Lord Jesus told us to "judge righteous judgment", and John warned us to "try the spirits" to see whether they were of God or of the devil. Doctrine is important, because orthodoxy is necessary before one can really have orthopraxy (right actions). Wrong belief will lead to wrong action. Where I draw the line is when people try to coerce others to believe a certain way. Debate, yes. Argue? Sure. Force? Don't even try it.
Alright, I promised myself, and I am out of here. Cheers, all.
Who said Protestants were going to Hell?
The worst thing the Pope did with his latest statement is expose poor reading comprehension among non-Catholics.
“You see, that just tends to irk some other Christians. Doesn’t do a heck of a lot for that ecumenism thingy, either.
And I’m one of the folks who challenges the Catholic bashers around here.”
As do I, and I’m not a Catholic, but some of the stuff that is said about Catholics is unfair.
Benedict IMO, is not trying to upset ecumenicalism, what he is doing is stating the “primacy” of Rome, not like the first time that has happend, but in this case, I think that it is ill-timed.
Basically what was issued was a paper that redefined what the crucial “Vatican II” meeting issued as an “update” to earlier Church teachings such as Mass could be said in Latin much more easily now, wereas after Vatican II Mass was allowed (or much easier to say) in whichever local language the RCC found itself in (El Salvador or China for example.
Mass is sort of the “Emerson vs Sprinkling” debate inside the RCC.
“If’ he had left the clarification to only RCC matters, then it makes sense, however he didn’t leave it to only RCC internal matters but to Christianity as a whole.
If you wish to debate, then debate, don’t project.
I’m more then willing to discuss..:)
Yes, I can see how telling people who aren't Catholic that they aren't Catholic could be very offensive.
/rolleyes
Thanks for defining what "not a true Church" means for everyone here.
this doesn’t necessarily mean that he had Roman Catholic transubstantiation in view.
In your opinion. However, 1600 years of careful review and study by many scholars much more capable than you or I has shown that he was, indeed, speaking of the Roman Catholic view.
Calling transubstantiation “magical” is bordering on blasphemy since the change takes place by the invoking of the Holy Spirit. Never have I heard the words, “abracdabra” or “shazam” spoken at a Catholic Mass; no one waves a wand to bring about the Real Presence.
“and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation”
Funny, I always thought Jesus was the only WAY to the Father. Silly me reading this silly book.
True. Strange to watch the immediate construction of straw men every time Pope Benedict speaks. Whether its Muslims or certain kinds of non-Catholic Christians, the straw men are erected and all dance giddily while trying to burn their straw men.
The Pope’s opinion of my faith is as important as a fart in a hurricane.
I’m only concerned with the Lord’s opinion, and that ain’t Pope Benedict.
That's the one. Being told that by being a Protestant I'm "not in communion with God." (rolling eyes)
No one does in a Lutheran church either.
“By not being a Catholic, by definition, you would be out of communion with God, the only way to be in communion would of course be by being a Catholic in good standing.”
Yet another reason to NOT be a Catholic. The staggering arrogancy.
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.