I have not sought to hide my true feelings about the RCC rites and religion. I have used scripture to show why RCC religion is 'another religion', a gospel different from what Jesus and the New Testament offer.
So far, having posted that paragraph to several catholics not one has had a single objection to the blasphemous assertions it makes. One poster tries to question the authenticity. Another, non-Catholic, referred to the quote as hyperbole, the closest so far to admitting the assertions --which are quoted accurately from page 270 of John O'brien's book, Faith Of Millions, in an edition prior to 1974-- are a red flag.
You just inferred I was being deceitful to not have a catholic verify the quote. A none catholic, Blue Dragon, has verified the quote as found around page 255 in a newer edition.
Why would a catholic apologist not address the assertions in the paragraph yet try to infer the quote is either erroneous or deceitful? Is it because the heart of a catholic must have some twinge when reading such assertions. Continue to squelch that pricking of the soul and God will eventually give them up to their blasphemies.
For the exact same reason that I posted the last three or four times you asked me this question.I have not verified for myself the accuracy of the quote. I have not read the quote myself in context. I don't know if the author was quoting someone else, nor do I know if the author was engaging in hyperbole or taking poetic liberty.
You just inferred I was being deceitful to not have a catholic verify the quote.
First off as the sender of the post I can't "infer" anything, I can "imply", but I did not. It is up to you as the recipient to "infer." I would advise against that since it would constitute mind reading. Second It sounds like someone is either projecting or has a guilty conscience.
Let me give you a perfect example. Are you aware that the Bile itself denies the very existence of God? It is right there in Psalm 14:1 ...There is no God...
My statement is 100% accurate, yet taken in context it says the exact opposite.
In response, I asked for identification and clarification of the offending words. I cannot now find a response to that request.
I have no difficulty objecting to the style and certain expressions in the quote.
Neither those expressions nor the style impinge directly on the dogma. As far as I can see, only one active interlocutor has questioned the nature of substance. (He has my respect and my gratitude, not least because I am putting the Summa Contra Gentiles on my reading list, but mostly because he raised a good objection.) The Al-Ghazali wing has hinted at an infernal odor to the technical vocabulary. This is offered as an argument?
Isaiah 28 mentions those who take refuge in lies. I have found the links to the relevant section of the Summa. In coming up with them I have read in the Summa Contra Gentiles and other parts of the Summa. I also went to Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics to see if I was getting it wrong, to clarify my own thinking, and to see if I could find better analogies and examples.
I even made a "meta" criticism of Aquinas, not for the first time on this or any stage, that He uses "Sacramental" as his drop back and punt word. And what is the response?
Insistence, from those who do not consult Aquinas and who cherry pick conciliar quotes, that our formal, magisterial, teaching is not what we say it is, that they know better what we teach and intend to teach, that our fatigue and boredom under this barrage is in fact a sort of remorse we are hiding from ourselves.
Refuge in lies
One person, between dire predictions of doom and contempt for those who does not think as he does, complains that on a precise question of the meaning of "substance" I do not refer enough to Scripture!
Note, however, that the article of the OP refers to an alleged attribute of the human body without appeal to Scripture. Where is my assailant then?
Oh, This one is good. I maintain that the contemporary, popular meaning of the word "substance" is very different from its meaning in theology. Here's the response:
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]
Evidently some Protestants consider it persuasive, logical, and reasonable to repeat something in colors. It is beyond me HOW this quote is going to show that the meaning of "substance" is what one side says and the other denies. SEE? They used the word SUBSTANCE! Therefore substance means what I say it means and not what YOU say it means! She might as well have stamped her foot and said, "Is TOO!" for all the good this did in advancing the discussion or clarifying the question.
I make a mild claim to a certain reliability on the question of Catholic dogma in this matter, and somebody -- was it you? -- makes irrelevant remarks about whether GOD cares about grades. I devoutly trust not! EXCEPT that, since I have a certain facility in this area, I suspect that God would like it and take it as a gesture of pious gratitude for me to use the gift.
The most attractive explanation (though it is distressing) for this kind of thing is that the OP was made to attract people who would, foolishly -- considering the quality of conversation here, address the points in it. And then the usual suspects would appear with the usual bullying nonsense and think that they had defended Truth by changing the subject, printing things in color, and indulging in sophistries
This is beneath adult human dignity. And it's why I retired from frequent involvement in FR some years ago. I learned that the most vocal of the opponents had weak understanding of the Incarnation, Human Nature, the Salvific work of Christ, God's relationship to space and time, and reason itself. In dealing with this stuff, however hostile the expression, my own understanding was deepened. I got considerable, though obviously unintended, good out of the conversations.
But now I am accused, by someone who keeps careful note of implied insults, of avoiding questions, while others stamp their feet and repeat themselves.
Very well.
I have not sought to hide my true feelings about the RCC rites and religion. I have used scripture to show why RCC religion is ‘another religion’, a gospel different from what Jesus and the New Testament offer.
So far, having posted that paragraph to several catholics not one has had a single objection to the blasphemous assertions it makes.
Of course you would think it to be blasphemous; you reject the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But keep in mind that Catholics do believe the doctrine. And an element of that belief is that it is Christ Himself, acting through the ministry of the priests, who offers this Eucharistic sacrifice. Because of this, the paragraph, while troublesome, is not nearly as objectionable to us as it is to you.
Just so we are clear on the Doctrine, here is the summary of the doctrine and a link to the Catechism. This is what we believe, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.
IN BRIEF
1406 Jesus said: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever;... he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and... abides in me, and I in him” (Jn 6:51, 54, 56).
1407 The Eucharist is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life, for in it Christ associates his Church and all her members with his sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered once for all on the cross to his Father; by this sacrifice he pours out the graces of salvation on his Body which is the Church.
1408 The Eucharistic celebration always includes: the proclamation of the Word of God; thanksgiving to God the Father for all his benefits, above all the gift of his Son; the consecration of bread and wine; and participation in the liturgical banquet by receiving the Lord’s body and blood. These elements constitute one single act of worship.
1409 The Eucharist is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, that is, of the work of salvation accomplished by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, a work made present by the liturgical action.
1410 It is Christ himself, the eternal high priest of the New Covenant who, acting through the ministry of the priests, offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. And it is the same Christ, really present under the species of bread and wine, who is the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
1411 Only validly ordained priests can preside at the Eucharist and consecrate the bread and the wine so that they become the Body and Blood of the Lord.
1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: “This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood....”
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).
1414 As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead and to obtain spiritual or temporal benefits from God.
1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.
1416 Communion with the Body and Blood of Christ increases the communicant’s union with the Lord, forgives his venial sins, and preserves him from grave sins. Since receiving this sacrament strengthens the bonds of charity between the communicant and Christ, it also reinforces the unity of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
1417 The Church warmly recommends that the faithful receive Holy Communion when they participate in the celebration of the Eucharist; she obliges them to do so at least once a year.
1418 Because Christ himself is present in the sacrament of the altar, he is to be honored with the worship of adoration. “To visit the Blessed Sacrament is... a proof of gratitude, an expression of love, and a duty of adoration toward Christ our Lord” (Paul VI, MF 66).
1419 Having passed from this world to the Father, Christ gives us in the Eucharist the pledge of glory with him. Participation in the Holy Sacrifice identifies us with his Heart, sustains our strength along the pilgrimage of this life, makes us long for eternal life, and unites us even now to the Church in heaven, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the saints.