I do not think it is any more blasphemous to say IHS owed thanks to Mary than it is to say He suffered, was circumcised, was presented in the temple, was baptized with sinners. This is why I say the real difference is over the Incarnation.
I do not find the word “actual” in serious Eucharistic language. I don't think it means the same thing as real or substantial. (I don't much like ‘real’, but I can work with it.) In matters of this degree of technicality words get important.
Even “truly” has overtones (in English and Hebrew) mostly of reliability.
Remember Quix? When I got him to slow down long enough to get a glimmer of what we mean by “substantially”, he was almost angry to find how close it was to what he means by “spiritually.” I knew more philosophical work needed to be done, but at least we were FINALLY moving away from gristle and blood clots.
This sometimes-stated qualification itself means that th creator is not indebted to any of His creation, while the other problem is attributing to Mary things that Scripture nowhere states she or any mortal has been given.
It shall not more be said that thing formed shall say to Him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20) than to say to Him, "You owe me thanks."
And the Immaculate Conception is described as a result of a singular grace in the defining document.
Totally absent from Scripture. It is simply a tradition. Possible, yet unnecessary and highly unlikely not to have been stated, as are even less notable aspects of characters in Scripture, and you do not make doctrine out what is possible..
I do not think it is any more blasphemous to say IHS owed thanks to Mary than it is to say He suffered, was circumcised, was presented in the temple, was baptized with sinners.
That is not a valid comparison at all, as to be indebted, to owe thanks means the Creator needed man, versus having to create man whose very breathe is owed to God. Even Pharoah's evil actions were done because of common grace. Man is rewarded in God's covenantal grace to those who really deserved eternal damnation, but who are rewarded due to what they did bcz God enabled and motivated them to do what they otherwise would not and could not have done left to themselves. If i am what i am by the grace of God, (1Cor. 15:9) He owes me nothing, though He owes it to Himself to be faithful to reward in grace that which He promised to reward.
The idea that God owes Mary thanks is simply part of the Catholic elevation of man, and marginalization of the depravity of men, who in his best state is altogether vanity (Ps. 35:5; 62:9) apart from the righteousness which by faith in Christ, but which Catholicism saves by making him morally good enough to enter Heaven, versus holiness being evidence of the justifying faith that God rewards.(Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35)
I do not find the word “actual” in serious Eucharistic language. I don't think it means the same thing as real or substantial..In matters of this degree of technicality words get important..
Really. And it is inferred that all the CFs held to transubstantiation when that itself is difficult to precisely explain.
Remember Quix? When I got him to slow down long enough to get a glimmer of what we mean by “substantially”, he was almost angry to find how close it was to what he means by “spiritually.” I knew more philosophical work needed to be done, but at least we were FINALLY moving away from gristle and blood clots.
Remember with affection - in 28 point colored font! But i think any explanation that denies the elements are the actual body and blood of would place you on some Inquisitors list. A Trad. site states "The Eucharist is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus (as He makes clear), as well as His soul and divinity, but it primarily brings a spiritual endowment." - http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/the_Eucharist.pdf