Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I'm not railing against St. Basil. I'm saying that his written word amounts to sqauller if it cannot be fully supported in scripture. Just because he's from an early period doesn't make everything he says gold. Nor does it require less scrutiny. Paul couldn't speak anything he pleased and call it gospel just because he was Paul. Paul spoke in agreement with scripture and in agreement with the other Apostles and Jesus. If those that came later can't be shown to do the same thing - what they say is worthless.
LOL. In my make believe world, men act like gentleman. I'm sorry in your world they do not.
I thought we are all supposed to be good stewards of this thread. And threats don't intimidate me - either on-line or in person. :) Take care - Fury
Explain to me, then, how substance and accidents are truly distinct. If the difference is not detectible physically, and can only be perceived spiritually, then how can you say that a physical change happens at consecration? It seems that the most you can say is that something spiritual happens. If a change cannot be detected physically, then it is not really a physical change.
Well, I'm aware of the practice of eucharistic adoration, so I guess at some level I did know it. But I never really thought through the implications. Would you say that the consecrated host can legitimately be an object of latria?
I would guess so. But it gives birth to a complex conversation. If the host is actually Christ's body, then what is being worshiped is Christ and therefore ok. If it is not Christ's body (say for argument that it has not been consecrated), then the individual still believes he is worshiping Christ, not some piece of bread.
If I do something meritorious and say "Not I. but Christ in me has made this possible" then I am serious that Christ has done this thing, though I am still the physical participant. Those who adore the host adore Him who they believe is within the host. I suspect that this mean that the accidents are not worthy of either worship or adoration. So we are back to square one.
The Man of Steel didn't have disciples, silly.
Yes, absolutely.
To those without faith in this miracle, it seems absurd to say that they have been physically changed into the body and blood of Jesus.
Substantially changed. Physically present. But, yes, to those without faith it seems absurd. So does a heck of a lot of other things in which we have faith.
A talking bush?
SD
How is that any different from worshipping a man who has Christ in him? One could make the claim that they aren't worshipping or following the man, but are worshipping and following the Christ that lives in him.
I think that situtations like this is exactly why God gave us the 1st and 2nd commandments.
Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen...:-)
Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen...:-)
Hey didn't you get this out of that same book where they allegorically parted the red sea? :-)
Indeed.
Another difference is that my discovery of myself to be a Jew is not a physical change. A medical exam would reveal the same ol' angelo.
It is a substantial change. It is a change to (at least part of) the answer to "who are you?" You are physically present here. But now you are "angelo the Jew."
In the same way, when transubstantiated, the answer to "what is it?" changes, though the "medical exam" would reveal the same ol' bread and wine.
Third, your analogy would require that the communion bread and wine to have always been "in some cosmic sense" the body and blood of Jesus, and that this "identity" is only revealed at the moment of consecration. I don't think this would jibe with Catholic eucharistic theology.
The analogy breaks down here. Baptism would be a better analogy, but I wanted to customize it for you. :-)
I would not agree that the bread and wine even becomes "spiritually" the body and blood of Jesus, although I will concede its spiritual significance to Christians. A spiritual change is, nevertheless, much less problematic theologically and (dare I say it?) philosophically.
What exactly would a "spiritual change" mean? And how would that differ from a substance change?
SD
Weren't you Catholic?
Does the phrase "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" ring a bell?
Would not all the bowing and genuflecting be idolatry were it not God present?
SD
You'll be happy to know we've rock and rolled some great old hymns. :-)
Good point, but Christ never said "that man over there is me" did he? Whether we accept whether He meant it or not and whether we accept that it happens still today, He certainly did say that the bread was His body. He didn't say "is kinda like", He said "is".
That having been said. We don't follow Paul, we follow Christ in Paul. The pastor (or Pope for that matter) has no authority apart from the authority of Christ that is given him.
Yep.
That does raise an interesting theological question. Why, exactly, does the consecrated bread and wine cease to be the body and blood of Jesus when it loses its distinct physical "accidents", if the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist is in the substance and not in the accidents?
The presence is not just in the substance. The accidents are the only thing that physically exist.
The miracle is the Presence of God under the appearance of bread and wine. When the appearance of bread and wine is no longer, the presence ceases.
In some sense, perhaps, you could say that the Presence is spiritually digested and incorporated into the consumer.
SD
The simplicity of your method is apparent. I'm sure we had a good reason to go into more detail. We've been very creative in spawning heretics.
SD
I think I've found the source of your confusion. We don't teach that a physical change happens. We teach that a substance change happens. And the substance which is changed just happens to be attached to some accidents which are physically present.
The presence is physical, in the sense that you can see and feel and taste it. What is it? It is the Body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Where is it? Right over there.
SD
Drury's goal which broke the game open was an absolute masterpiece. It reminded me of a young Jagr in the absolute determination to let nothing stop him on the way to the goal. Fabulous!
As for the Bruin fans out there, sorry. Enjoy the Super Bowl trophy some more and Vive Les Habitants
SD
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.