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 ...
Catholics believe the Catholic Church is founded and currently led by Jesus Christ.
Therefore Catholics believe it's not a good idea to tell Jesus His Church doesn't matter and is in fact wrong, and that His Church isn't really His, if one wants to go to Heaven.
Obviously a non-Catholic would not normally share those concerns.
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.
In Catholic theology, sacraments are always referred to as signs which really do what they signify. So Baptism is a sign of cleansing, but it also has a real effect which is to remit sin. Communion is a sign of the body and blood, but it is also the real thing. So Augustine's formulation here is consonant with 2000 years of Catholic tradition. So I would just caution you not to make the equation in the Fathers that sign = only a sign with no corresponding reality.
So you will certain find the words symbol and sign in the Fathers. What you will not find, however, in any of the Fathers, is a statement like that in the Book of Common Prayer:
It is hereby declared, That thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received, or unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; (for that were Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one."Maybe transubstantiation is not apparent to you in many of the quotes (Augustine's included). But do we find anything so strongly against it as this?
Catholics believe that Protestants deny some of God's truth.
Protestants believe that Catholics deny some of God's truth.
“Catholics believe the Catholic Church is founded and currently led by Jesus Christ.”
I’m sure that it is. As are the Protestants and the Orthodox. There are some exretemely snooty Catholics that are going to be sorely disappointed in paradise having to be surrounded by all these filthy non-Catholics.
Thanks for defining what "not a true Church" means for everyone here.
The apostate is one who leaves the true faith - i.e. preaches a different gospel But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8
Rome is a faithful church like Israel was faithful under Jeroboam or Ahab. I for one am not at all ashamed of the gospel of the finished work of Christ and I certainly do not mind when an antichrist, who contends that Christs death and resurrection are insufficient to salvation, says I don't belong to his synagogue of Satan.
INDULGE me a little. (Get it Indulge!) If it were not for the reformers the Roman church would most likely still not have the Bible to read and not in their native tongue. The Pope really should have a Luther appreciation day, and repent of: false anathemas, envious excommunications, failure to excommunicate Edward Kennedy, the selling of indulgences, the man-made doctrine of purgatory, the greed of the Vatican, the idolatry of Mary, the St. Bartholomew's day massacre, the syncretism with idolatrous cultures and the exaltation of a man to the position that is Christ's alone.
“Actually, I’ve never told a Catholic that he’s not “in communion with God,” in fact I believe the opposite.”
That is I think the main problem here. Protestants simply wouldn’t have the lack of class and tact, the extreme arrogancy it takes to make a statement like that. If one did, he or she would likely be severely admonished by his or her peers and rightfully so.
The Catholics by and large have no problem in this area.
I didn't intend to convey that impression. Of course doctrine matters -- it's the only way to maintain a firm and consistent teaching about what God wants from us. But as the scribes and Pharisees showed in spades, doctrine must not be allowed to take God's place, and I think church fights tend to fall into that category a lot of times.
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.
Which is what I was really trying to get at. Once you get people fighting each other about doctrine, it's awfully easy to focus on the fight, and next to impossible to focus on following Him.
Doctrinal fights so often seem to turn on bits of arcana that are quite peripheral to the central tenets of Christianity -- the ones that are so easy that a child can understand them. Things like admitting we're sinners, and repenting of our sins. Acknowledging that Jesus came to save us from our sins. Understanding that God loves us, and wants to be with us. Knowing that we're supposed to follow Jesus, and not our own desires. Following His commandment to help others in need. Humility and following His call to serve others first.
That's all pretty basic stuff -- it applies whether you're Catholic, Baptist, or "Basement Churchist." A lot of church fights could have been avoided if folks had simply remembered to put those things first.
Other stuff is, of course, more difficult -- such as when the argument centers on whether or not something is actually a sin or not. But even then, the heat in those arguments tends to be generated because somebody's personal desires are being placed first ... humility is cast aside by one or more participants in the battle.
Your belief is that Jesus Christ is a relativist?!? OO!
And imagine the surprise of those nice people who castigate Catholics as being "non-Christian."
Scripture tells us that God knows and cares about what's in our individual hearts. It's what's in there that matters, when eternal life is on the line. When the Big Day comes, he's probably not gonna care about your views on transubstantiation or "pre-millenial rapturism."
As a friend of mine once put it, Christianity is a relativist religion. Everything is relative to Him.
It doesn't matters much whether one is in communion with this or that earthly denomination. The important thing is whether you're in communion with God, through Jesus Christ -- be you Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.
“Your belief is that Jesus Christ is a relativist?!? OO!”
I believe that Jesus loves all of his children. Not just the Catholic ones.
“Like the tagline. May it one day be so!”
Yep. I look forward to it.
“And imagine the surprise of those nice people who castigate Catholics as being “non-Christian.”
Try this one on for size. I believe that everyone, no matter denomination, that has confessed their sins and turned away from them, that has accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, is going to heaven.
Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox...doesn’t matter. I am not in the business of telling anyone that they are not going to heaven, or that they are not a true church, for wherever the Holy Spirit indwells there stands a temple.
I once got into quite a spirited debate with somebody about whether the Host could be made of something like rice, rather than wheat. Somebody flat-out told me that it had to be wheat or it wasn't Communion. The net effect of their claim was precisely that wheat properties that no other flour could match.... it was, for all intents and purposes, a claim of "magical properties."
In reality, of course, it was a doctrinal issue about the proper contents of the Host, and it's a great example of what I was talking about above, where doctrine supplants Christianity. Does God really care if the wafer is made of wheat or rice, so long as the communicant approaches the rail in faith and submission? Jesus' whole ministry gives us the answer to that: of course God doesn't care about wheat vs. rice. It's the faith and submission part that really matters to Him.
That fits pretty good.
And it has the side benefit that I get to have scads of brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter what building they happen to visit on Sunday morning. Jesus would like that, I think.
“And it has the side benefit that I get to have scads of brothers and sisters in Christ, no matter what building they happen to visit on Sunday morning. Jesus would like that, I think.”
That’s how I look at it and I love all of my brothers and sisters in Christ.
Well, I think to a large extent (not in every case, but probably in most) your assertion of inconsistency is unfairly contrived.
No serious person who knows what a metaphor is would doubt that the bible uses metaphor, and the same for figures of speech. In that sense, I have never personally encountered a “literalist.”
The actual question, which both of us, unfortunately, must misportray due to constraints of language, is if concrete assertions—whether phrased directly or metaphorically—should be superceded by holistic analysis.
As an example, everyone, “literalist” or otherwise, will agree that Jesus’ reference to “sheep” means His followers, and not some woolly quadrapeds He happened to own; but a “literalist” will say that, when Jesus talks about it being better to cut off your hand than allow it to cause you to sin, that this is really true, whereas someone given to intepretation might suggest that that was merely an instance of hyperbole.
In essense, your complaint is probably based in a form of the equivocation fallacy. Taking a literal interpretation of the bible does not preclude the acknowledging of metaphors/parables/etc., and you should not accuse “literalists” of hyprocrisy for doing so; a literal interpretation simply means taking a direct, “Occam’s razor” approach to deciphering the text.
Well, all except those SOBs in the "Middle-southeastern El Paso County Synod of the Reformed Orthodox Brotherhood." They can go to hell.... ;-)
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.