Posted on 08/18/2004 6:45:01 AM PDT by NYer
There was no apology involved, let's just make that clear.
Jesus said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.
Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.
From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.
Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.
Medieval philosophers and theologians sought simply to label this simple biblical faith: Jesus said that bread is his body and wine is his blood even though it did not appear to change into visible flesh and blood.
Transubstantiation means the substance part of the bread and wine elements changes; but the accidental parts--sight, taste, smell, touch--do not. Catholics believe that since Jesus said it and He is God, he can do it. They believe! "Transubstantiation" merely labels it.
In everyday life, it is not at all uncommon to believe in things man cannot perceive by the senses: wind, electricity, love, peace, etc. All the more when Jesus says it.
Those within your church who express views such as yours are precisely the reason I will do everything in my power to ensure that my daughter's Christian instruction will not be performed in the Catholic Church. That's a fine ministry you've got going.
"No. Add "in the Roman Catholic Church" after "subscribe to the sacraments" and it will be."
No, the Orthodox faith, while it is in impaired communion, is not held by the Roman Catholic Church to be substantially deficient (at least as far as I know) because they do believe in the sacraments. Please note, however, that I also *did* state "and to the obedience to the Body of Christ [i.e., the Catholic Church] which partaking in those sacraments require."
When Jesus said that Peter would be the rock, was he turned into stone like Lot's wife? Did just the "accidents" of Peter remain?
You might want to go back and reread what I have said. That is NOT what was said at all. Please show me where I said that I get a kick out of the reaction or that my intention was to shock the priest (it wasn't a priest anyway.)If I did, then I need to correct it. You comments though are the reason that I don't usually continue to engage in discussions with people who don't seem willing to discuss, but read what they want to read and fling accusations, etc. Sigh.
Now you are just being confusing. Which is the body of Christ, the unleavened bread or the Catholic Church?
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
>>And what is 'the truth' about praying to the dessicated body part of a saint designated as such by a bureaucracy in Rome?<<
Wow! EVERY thread, EVERY SINGLE BLASTED THREAD, some anti-Catholic makes this ridiculous assertion.
The truth is no Catholic does that. Catholics do believe, as is explictly stated in Revelations, that saints and angels are in Heaven, observing the events on Earth, and praying to God in Heaven in unison with the souls on Earth. Hence, Catholics are not worshipping the saints, but rather either praying to God with the saint, or beseeching the saint to pray with them. This is done only with canonized saints to assure that the will of the person being prayed with is in accord with the will of God.
Icons, statues and artifacts only serve as a reminder of the characteristics of the saint which demonstrated their godliness, and thus serve to increase our immediate awareness of God working on the Earth. While pious Catholics may find this helpful, no devotion requires an icon, statue or artifact.
This is your cue now, according to the FR tradition, to make up some story or misinterpretation about how some Catholic you knew always did, in fact worship a saint, and to assert you know the intents of Catholics better than Catholics do.
There is no disrespect at all. You said that "Catholics" believe in the literal nature of the words in the Bible. The point is that this is not always true. Jesus often spoke metaphorically. He purposefully used parables. Even in the passage you cited, you don't think he was referring to actual "keys" do you?
>>What I find depressing, however, is that Christians will so readily condemn other Christians to hellfire over the issue of uncritical acceptance of a single interpretation of this language, when the critical part of the sacrament is spiritual communion with the Lord.<<
No, the hellfire is warned of because you refuse to accept the Catholic Church. Mind you, I warned of the possibility. I did also state the extra-ordinary workings of Christ. Plus the possibility of conversion is always implicit. I'm tempted to say something about the fact you get a little thrill shocking the correct and pious people you claim communion with is a bad sign, but in truth God often allows such rebellion to be manifest before he purges the heart.
>>I can - and do - believe that it is objectively the body of Christ. I do not believe that in a physical realm it is actually flesh concealed by the "accidents" of bread, nor do I believe that is a necessary reading of the language, because I do not believe that reality is limited to physical space.<<
You need to study some Greek philosophy then to understand the meaning of these terms better. The spiritual realm and physical realm do not contradict. You might find you actually believe what the church teaches if you studied the metaphysics of what the church teaches. YOu don't need to understand transubstantiation to receive Eucharist. How many peasants in 15th-century Germany did? You only need to accept the church's authority.
I am confused where you are at. If you believe in so much of what the CHurch teaches, why do you stay apart? You claim your disagreements are so minor, yet they are major enough to keep you from the Church which Christ founded. Perhaps maybe all you need is to be made aware of the seriousness of your separation? If you are so Catholic in your thought, then why not make the plunge?
Also (and some trads might blow the roof at me saying this), the persistent belief in a minor point which would be heresy if proclaimed should not preclude you from becoming Catholic; if people's faiths were perfect, there'd be a lot more mountains being moved by Catholics. You only need to open to the movement of the Holy Spirit in correcting a possible error, and resist proclaiming the error as truth. You are not expected to be a hypocrit, to have a perfectly formed faith, or rebel against your own conscience.
"Those within your church who express views such as yours are precisely the reason I will do everything in my power to ensure that my daughter's Christian instruction will not be performed in the Catholic Church."
And that's why you shouldn't receive communion.
I've seen a couple. Mostly in Spain. At Avila, everyone I saw who passed the finger of St. Teresa knelt and prayed before proceeding. Just a finger, there in a jar. In the gift shop at the Cathedral. No kidding. Her arm is apparently is Alba de Tormes, but I didn't get a chance to see it.
By your statements, these people praying were not Catholics, because "no Catholic does that". I guess you should be the one to tell that to the one who was wearing a habit.
No, I don't know their intent. All I know is that some folks were compelled by something in their Church to cut off pieces of corpses and treat them with religious significance, and that those pieces are still treated that way today. I also know that their isn't any Scripture that sanctions this practice. And I point it out merely to show those who would contend otherwise that the Roman Catholic Church is not immune to the fallibility of men either in its practices or its doctrine, to the extent the practices or doctrine depend on amplification or explanation of the Scriptures.
Based upon your last post, I expect you'll claim this is made up. Before you do, though, you should look into that "false witness" thing.
No, I'm certain there was.
>>Now you are just being confusing. Which is the body of Christ, the unleavened bread or the Catholic Church?<<
The body of Christ exists on Earth in three ways:
The Word.
The Communion of believers. (i.e., the assembly.)
The Holy Sacrifice of mass (i.e., what used to be bread and wine.)
Since we are required, however, to eat the body of Christ, reception of Holy Sacrifice is required; one cannot substitute other manifestations of the body of Christ for the Holy Sacrifice.
(Eating the pages of the bible would be a serious misunderstanding of "the Word.")
My daughter's grandmother, my mother, never set foot in a Catholic Church until my daughter was baptized. She is, however, a pious and loving Christian. You seem to think it best that my daughter be taught that her grandmother is condemned for her ignorance.
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.