Posted on 04/27/2008 3:36:18 AM PDT by markomalley
Heaven’s sake, don’t take my word for it. Start here, and there are links at the bottom of the article to Calvinist sources and criticism from other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination
How is Christ physically manifested in the situation you cited?
We believe He is present in the host and wine via transubstantiation. If he is physically present, in what form?
I was researching the thread and came across this. I just want to say that in my case "dumbass" would be a promotion.
Of course it was "built" on Jesus. I don't think you'll find a thoughtful edumicated Calflick who will disagree.
It's about metaphorical and analogical language, I think. I will need help imagining that the "original" behind what we get in the Synoptics is NOT, "You are Cephas and on this Cephas ..." ( an analogy in which IHS is not part of the structure but its builder.)
And besides while we distinguish between Petra and Petros, John seems ot have no difficulty saying Cephas means Petros.
While in terms of either analogy Paul would be a rock built into the Church, still he speaks of us and of himself as contributing to the building. If we try to apply the same analogous schema across every instance where the Church as building is mentioned, we are stuck with rocks which are also housing contractors.
So the kind of foundation which Peter supplies is different, because the metaphorical schema is different, from that which our Lord is, He being, after all, both foundation, corner stone, head of the corner, and head, which makes no sense unless we admit that there are different irreconcilable analogies in play.
Exactly.. Some people when presenting "its raining cats and dogs".. run to the window to see pets falling.. They miss the metaphor.. Being a dumbass don't disqualify you from being a christian.. thank god..
The truth is the smart ones are in sheep pen.. only the dumb ones follow the lords voice out into the pasture.. Smart ones can't seem to "git" the metaphors correctly and sometimes even at all.. i.e. thats WHY they are in the sheep pen.. DOH!..
Jesus when presenting a little child to the apostles as a model of perfection (when they argued about THEIR OWN supremacy in heaven) hit a hole in one.. Oh! to have watched Jesus eyes roll and hear the chuckle upon hearing that argument.. would have been precious..
If Peter was the first Pope.. maybe being Pope is a demotion..
You are asking questions which give me great delight. That's entirely subjective, I suppose, but I'm grateful and when I wake up at around 2:00 because Clint the super cat is chewing on my toes, I will think of your posts.
My first "essay" in the sense of "attempt": From our POV we have the "I am the bread" discourse, and we have the Synoptic Institution narratives and Paul's narrative (I delivered to you ...) and his remarks.
Leaving aside the question of covenantal blood and communion in two kinds (and I think no one on our side would deny that communion in both kinds is the ideal enactment of the sacrament) we have a lot of lingo about sarx and soma. But we should not ignore the sweeping and comprehensive character of "I am the bread ..."
So we have two tings going on here. First we have what might be thought of as the "fleshly scandal". Sarx and soma are very clunky things. Flesh is, well corpulent or smooth or rough, something most of us desired to touch and to have touch us when hormones were the principle source of authority in out lives. Somata -- well, you must understand that I drive by through the UVA grounds to get to the church where I pray the Rosary and participate in the Mass. So, especially now that Spring is here, Soma and all its glory - as minifested by the excessively nubile gal students and the manifestly hormone-rich guy students - impresses itself on me with all its highly unspiritual (not to say anti-Spiritual) power. I mean, can I get a "hubba-hubba" here? The male menopausal hot flash is a terrible thing, "depend upon it, sir".
And our Lord chooses these notoriously (the world over, I would bet) concepts, flesh and body, for what he is talking about in the places I mentioned.
So, in support of our giving extra "intensity" or something to the kind of "presence" in the Sacrament, I would just say that Jesus uses the most scandalous and troublesome words in the discourses that are clearly (the Synoptics) or possibly (I am the bread) related to the Eucharist.
For the faithful, the concept of "Spirit" and Spiritual" is especially thrilling - just as the wind before a thunderstorm is thrilling. But if we examine the thrill, isn;t it the case that part of it is that the usually so subtle as to be easily ignored air suddenly becomes an invisible power? (We just had devastating tornadoes down the road in Richmond. Pray for those people, please.) My wife and I took our two Great Pyrenees for a walk during the height of a hurricane, and it was stupid, dangerous, and ... WONDERFUL!
But usually and to most people "Spiritual" means something unreal, just as we don't think about the air, unless it's making trouble. When the Gentiles say, "We're with you in Spirit," what they really mean is, "We're not with you at all, but we may think of you if we get bored with whatever we're doing."
So, in terms of the argument, all tis is to say the real deal is not in the verb eimi. It is rather in the rest of the sentence. The "I" of "I am the bread ..." is the same as that of the "there am I in the midst". The eimi (or estin) is, I daresay, I ain't lookin' now) the same.
But the whole overall thing is more urgently awkward and bulky and in the way when soma and sarx are added to the Eimi.
Despite the continuing and deplorable animosity here, we all know and have felt Our Lord's presence when we gather for either formal or informal prayer. When I "read my office" I am "together" with Catholics all over the world, even though I am alone with the cats. And so I am confident, whatever my feelings and experience, that IHS is with me -- and with every Xtian of whatever persuasion who is reading his Bible or saying her prayers and listening for the footfall of the Word.
But in the sacrament, as we pray and as I receive it OR as I "visit" it, there is a concreteness, a "klunkiness", a fullness such as one might expect from the real live "in the flesh" presence of somebody in the room.
In terms of a kind of head-game intellectual problem, I say again that the flesh and body Jesus "currently" has are "Resurrected" flesh and body. And Paul says "it is raised a spiritual body", which as far as I'm concerned is about as illuminating as saying "dry water" or "glowing black". All I know to do in the face of such language is to say, "Yes sir; whatever, sir," and trust that one day God will give me such understanding as is right for me. But I mention this here to take the raw carnality out of what we profess. It is, we think and say, 'Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity," but it is a spiritual Body and Blood.
Then. of course, there are the Eucharistic miracles. It is of the nature of miracles that they would be so preposterous as to be easily deniable. But from our POV, it seems that once in a while GOd decides to give a little boost to the notion that some wonderful, and incomprehensible change takes place in the Eucharist and that in "a special way", indeed a unique way, Jesus is "there" as He is not "there" in any other case this side of the parousia.
This is not meant to be a persuasive argument but rather a presentation of HOW we think what we think. I hope it is informative.
Seeing such an incapacity to accurately detect where hate is not . . .
I’d guess it’s about as impossible for such RC’s to discern well were Love is
and is not.
No wonder they need such a complex script/dogma for all kinds of Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary stuff.
When the edifice declares that Mary Loves them—it’s more tangibly real to them than the idea that Jesus does.
Fascinating.
Thanks for your reply.
I don’t remember you attacking Protestant beliefs or they attacking your Universalist beliefs on this or other threads. Same for Messianic Judaism.
I don’t think it’s occurred much at all, certainly not in anything near the same quantity.
It’s about time they get off their HOBBY “SACRED” COW.
That is true, alright.
I wish to Love what God Loves and hate what God hates.
don’t believe in Ex Post Facto history? :)
= = =
It’s a feature of their RUBBER HISTORY BOOKS . . . they strech backwards 400 years.
GOOD POINTS:
Since we are told to “hate every false way,” I therefore do not recognize the church of Rome to be the church Christ founded because of its many errors which contradict the word of God...
Mariology.
Transubstantiation.
Priests viewed as “another Christ.”
Purgatory.
Limbo.
Viewing the pope as “infallible” in matters of religion.
Baptismal regeneration.
Seven sacraments instead of the two prescribed in Scripture.
The conceit of the Council of Trent.
The abomination of the mass which seeks to sacrifice Christ again as if His work on the cross is not complete and sufficient.
Prayers to assorted dead people.
Putting the traditions of men ahead of God’s word in Scripture.
The erroneous belief that our confident “presumption of salvation” is a sin.
Believing a magisterium on earth contains all God’s truth when that magisterium clearly denies so much of Scripture.
A “celibate” priestcraft.
Presuming men can forgive sins on earth.
Believing Mary is a “co-mediator.”
The list goes on...
By our fruits we are known.
It doesn’t matter to me.
= = =
Really?
Seems to me from what I observe . . . you could write that 100,000 times and it would still not be accurate.
But then, I’m very much an ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS sort of guy.
I do acknowledge your Olympic Class expertise in such matters . . . . as violating Exx 20:16
I sure wouldn't want the job ....
and lies are then trumped up about us and our factual defenses
= = =
We have no need of lies. The facts are not on the RC side.
And the pontifications seem to grow more absurd month by month.
She defended hating a long list of Catholic beliefs (which she calls errors). Tacit in that defense is the admission that she hates them.
I reluctantly post anything to Petronski - it’s fruitless. But his question begs an answer from Scripture:
Jude 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
and
Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
From His own Word, sounds like the God of Christianity hates evil and condemns wicked people to hell.
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.