Posted on 08/18/2004 6:45:01 AM PDT by NYer
Is the Word really the body, as with the bread?
No.
Yes, if you take it literally and recognize that other statements by Jesus are not literal, then yes, I can fault you, because you condemn those who do not agree with your view of what is and is not to be taken literally.
No, there is a legitimate question in there, albeit one that refutes lugsoul's claim to believe in 99.9% of what the church teaches:
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ was not being metaphorical when he said "this is my body." Yet calling our faith, and Peter who is the depository of our faith, "rock" is a metaphor. How is a Christian to distinguish what is metaphor and what is literal?
This strikes at the core of the issue of "sola scriptura." In the radical way many modern Protestants use the term, sola scriptura denies the truthfulness of any belief not found in the bible. This is nonsense, since one needs information external to the bible to comprehend what the bible in fact says. For instance, when the bible says "Thou shall not murder," what does "thou" mean? What does "shall" mean?
We know what words like "thou" and "shall" mean trhough extra-biblical teachings we received when we were children. Now, tradition is very solid and universal concerning what the word "thou" means, so this sounds silly. And yet, what does "murder" mean? How about "Petros"? The meanings of these words are disagreed on. But even the fact that we learn what "shall" means apart from the text of the bible demonstrates the fallacy of sola scriptura.
It is impossible to interpret scripture using only scripture. For this reason, the apostles demonstrate the principal of Tradition, and passed down that authority, as Acts 2 and numerous 1st-century writings attest.
Anyone who denies the Church's authority to proclaim the truth denies the body of Christ, and anyone who denies that shall not licitly receive communion.
Check your reading.
>>>>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,<<<<
>>At Avila, everyone I saw [...]<<
At least you don't miss your cues, even when they are pointed out to you.
I am glad the mods do allow such discussion, but I am seriously considering whether FR needs a FAQ.
Nope. Not making anything up. Once again, you need to be reminded that false accusation is a sin. You want me to post a picture of the finger?
Ah, yes it is. But the word, by the nature of being word, is immaterial. Bread does have a material nature. Being the body of Christ conflicts with that material nature, or else we would be worshipping bread.
Correct me if I am wrong here: A Protestant Christian, who lives what most Christians would term a Christian life, who prays and worships as instructed by her faith, who keeps the Commandments, who gives of herself and tries to always follow Jesus' example, cannot receive salvation if she does not accept the pronouncements of the Vatican on the meaning of the Scriptures and submit her faith to the authority of the Vatican - that about right?
So the actual corporal body, when it is the word, is not material? Is that right? So it is the actual body in material form, but not in material form?
Well, you complained of not being aboe to receive Eucharist because of silly demands that say that not even someone who believes in 99.9% of what the church teaches can receive communion. If that wasn't self-referential, then you are arguing facts not in evidence, creating a false dilemma for the Catholic position. As I stated, the church does permit those whose formation of conscience is incomplete to recieve the Eucharist, providing they do not rebel against what the church does teach.
>>Nope. Not making anything up. Once again, you need to be reminded that false accusation is a sin. You want me to post a picture of the finger?<<
Now you need to read more carefully. Your cue was to "make up some story *or* *misinterpretation* about how some Catholic you knew always did." Posting a picture of a finger will hardly convince me that the people there were worshipping the finger.
Since you seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of symbolism, the point of the 99.9 figure was to point out that it is not a matter of BELIEF. I could fully believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, but still not be permitted to receive it. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of submission. Not to Jesus Christ. But to a human institution called the Roman Catholic Church. An institution that claims the divine right to be the arbiter and judge of my relationship with God. You can submit to Rome all you want. I prefer to follow Jesus' example when it comes to the question of whether Rome rules the Kingdom of Heaven.
>>So the actual corporal body, when it is the word, is not material? Is that right? So it is the actual body in material form, but not in material form?<<
You seriously need to learn the meanings of words you are flinging around. Corporal means it is material. The Word is immaterial, it is not corporal, so it cannot be consumed. Therefore, it is insufficient for salvation, since Christ demands that we consume his body. If the host were immaterial, then one could not consume it either. We would merely be consuming a material metaphor of the body of Christ, and not the body of Christ itself.
Why do you think they hacked off and displayed body parts reverently?
You said it was the actual body, like the bread. Now you are saying it isn't. Which is it?
>>he point of the 99.9 figure was to point out that it is not a matter of BELIEF. I could fully believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Eucharist, but still not be permitted to receive it. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of submission.<<
No, the fact that you do not believe you must submit to the Body of Christ (i.e., that you can assert your own will contrary to the teachings of the Church) means that you do NOT believe what the church teaches about Eucharist.
>>For one who clings so tightly to literalism, you sure do play fast and loose with others' language. I said praying to the finger. <<
Actually, you said neither. You merely pointed out that they were kneeling as if that were refutation of my assertion that they did not worship artifacts. And no, they weren't praying to the finger. They were praying to God, or praying* to the saint to pray to God with them.
(*Some Catholics have asserted that Catholics do not pray TO saints. In saying this, they are using the word "pray" in the sense that Protestants who accuse them of idolatry use the word -- meaning worship. "Pray" means only to "ask." In a very formal situation, the word pray is used even in strictly non-religious circumstances. For instance, in a lawsuit, one "prays" to the court for redress of a grievance. In this sense, it is true that Catholics pray to saints, just as Protestants pray to the lady at the cash register to give them change for a $20 bill; "Prithee" is a contract of "I pray to thee," and was freqyently spoken among people, as literature attests. [Prithee breakest my twenty :)]And in fact, there are Catholic materials available with titles such as "Prayer to Our Lady of Fatima.")
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.