Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Yes, they do communicate a spiritual reality. Just as all the sacraments, the Eucharist uses outward signs to communicate a spiritual reality - such as in Baptism, we see the sign of water washing a person, which visually shows what is happening to their soul as a result of God's Grace. However, the Eucharist is ALSO an actuality. He is visibly present, as He promised in John 6 and further explains and gives of Himself at the Last Supper. According to the "spiritual only" concept, the New Covenant no longer has the meaning that the Letter to the Hebrews mentions. "The Law was a shadow of things to come" - to bring about another shadow?" Jesus didn't come to give us more shadows, but Himself, His ENTIRE self. He continues to give of Himself in the Eucharist. This is the interpretation of the Church from the very beginning. Can you point to any Church interpretation that believed that Christ was NOT present in the Eucharistic elements?
St. Aquinas' "transubstantiation" is an Aristotlean term trying to explain what happens to the elements at time of consecration. It does not fully explain the mystery of the Eucharist, nor can anyone. But it is in line with the Church's teaching that the bread and wine are no longer "bread" and "wine" in the ordinary sense. Just as when Christ, at the Last Supper, gave them bread, and said "this is My Body". He didn't say, "this symbolizes My Body", or "this is like my Body". "This particular piece of bread is right now My Body" - is how the Church taught and understood Christ's Words.
Regards
as Inigo Montoya said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
English and latin don't mix that well. "co-" does not mean equal to in any way at all. I'm sure you've been told that many times.
Wasn't it Augustine that stated: “the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed"?
Yes, I've been told that several times especially in the veneration of Mary. Just so there is no confusion as to what co-redemption means below is an excerpt from MARY Coredemptrix Mediatrix Advocate.
This is particularly true about Mary’s consent to our Redemption by the Son of God, consent given in our name. Mary’s coredeeming consent results from his action inside her freedom. Without God’s cooperating grace (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.II.III.2), Mary could not have consented to our salvation; but we could not consent to our own salvation without Mary’s previous consent to the Redemptive Incarnation for the love of mankind. Thus Mary’s consent, given under the form of a prayer (Lk 1,38), is a prayer obtaining from God our consent to our salvation by Jesus Christ.
:-) Very good! Touche!
He also said "If it were not for the Catholic Church, I would not believe the Gospels"
Be careful when you quote the Church Fathers!
Regards
I am not sure what prompts the question, but according to some early Christian writings, Virgin Mary was the first nun and ran the furst nunnery.
You ever hear of the Latin Vulgate? Also, there were "common" languages of the bible (besides Latin) before the Reformation.
The Church had problems with HERETICS printing Bibles because they had a habit of putting their own words into the Sacred Scriptures, like Luther's German version that added "alone" to Romans 3:28 - totally unacceptable to the defender of the deposit of the faith of the Apostles. Tynadale was even worse. Is it a wonder that the Church would condemn such people?
Regards
Indeed one can be guided by the Holy Ghost, as well as by a demon. There is no assurance of truth outside of the Church with is the very foundation of truth, but that is not saying that everything arrived at privately is necessarily false. Like someone pointed out to me on this thread, I{, or most Catholics do not run to Catechism for every verse either, -- we just read what's written, -- so our reading and interpretation are private at some stage. The difference is that if I interpret the scripture incorrectly, I will take correction from the Church, and one who celebrates his schism will not, anbd so he will perish.
In the Gospel of John, where the Apostles, possibly with a few other disciples present, were the only recipients of it as Christ breathed it. You understand the difference between propagation and procession, do you not?
Yes, the New Testament, as well as the instruction to interpret it, comes from the clergy.
>>It becomes irresistable once we submt to His love,<<
A heart that is drenched in sin (as all unsaved hearts are) cannot submit to God's will without the involvement of the Holy Spirit. (Romans 8:7) (John 15:26-27) (Psalm 10:3-4)
>>yet not everyone accepts Him<<
Dead men cannot choose life. It is given.
>>You are not saved -- yet<<
Really? That's news to me! (Ezek 36:25-27)
>>Believeing in Jesus means more than just a statement; it means becoming Christ-like. Perhaps you have this illusion, but you are not Christ-like yet, as neither am I.<<
What you refer to is SANCTIFICATION, not SALVATION. Salvation is the event where our hearts are regenerated - when we are born again in the spirit. Sanctification is the process that follows - rejecting sin, prayer, worship, mortification of the Old Man, growth in Christ. It ends and is perfected at the moment of Glorification.
>>And all along I thought we are under Grace and not under the Law!<<
We are. I hope you're not suggesting that we're not to obey His commandments? The moral law is still applicable, and we are to follow it.
>>Christian God returns our ingratitude with blessings, not with wrath.<<
So all those people on the broad path to perdition are...?
>>As for to "ask properly without the intercession of Christ. Intercession?<<
Heb 7:25 - "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."
John 14:12-14 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."
We cannot approach God the Father on our own, it is only through the redemptive blood of Christ, our sole justification, that we can. He bridges the gap that seperates us from God. To suggest otherwise is to negate his atonement for our sins.
"In the Gospel of John, where the Apostles, possibly with a few other disciples present, were the only recipients of it as Christ breathed it"
Let's see now, Thomas wasn't there, Matthias wasn't there and Paul wasn't there and they were all Apostles. Paul could lay hands on believers and they received the Holy Spirit just like Peter did. Perhaps the breathing on them had something to do with their being able to patiently wait in the upper room, all 120 of them, until the fulfillment of a portion of Joel's prophecy and the promise of Jesus to send another advocate (that's lawyer for all my despised professional buddies out there)come to fruition at Pentecost. It made tigers out of a bunch of cowering kitties.
Again, -- we've covered this, -- Christ did not have to consecrate His apostles all at the same time or in any particular manner, as He owns His own sacraments. The New Testament does not give the precise account of every apostle's consecration. Both the promise of the Paraclete and the commission to evengelize the world, however, were recorded in the scripture and were given the apostles, with a more specific commission given to St. Peter alone. By the time of the first Jerusalem Council the college of apostles was defined well enough to admit St. Mathias and St. Paul, and they consecrated others. There is no scripture indicating the Holy Ghost's propagation directly from Christ to anyone but a very select, albeit not explicitly listed, group of people.
The distinction between the first disciples and the rest of the world, between pastors and sheep is very clearly drawn in the scripture, unsettling at is may be to the modern subversives.
Now we know where Benny Hinn gets his powers from. ;O)
"***Only Protestants ordain women.***
Try again.'
I'm alwaqys ready to be corrected. Who else?
Reformed Synagogues ordain women Rabbis.
"Reformed Synagogues ordain women Rabbis."
That's just sneaky! :) Besides, Reformed Judaism is the Jewish version of Protestantism.
"That's just sneaky! :) Besides, Reformed Judaism is the Jewish version of Protestantism"
Hey, you know what? I'm a Baptist and we don't consider ourselves to be Protestants. In fact we were persecuted by all of the camps. As Baptists, we even persecuted each other and any one else that didn't use the KJV with Scofield Notes (not updated).
Ah, but we give great potlucks.
Wouldn't that make you Protestant Protestants?
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.