Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Kolokotronis; Mr Rogers; kosta50; MarkBsnr; wmfights; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; the_conscience
Its one thing to reject the Latin dogma of transubstantiation, an innovation in itself. It is quite another to deny the Real Presence

Thank you, Kolokotronis, for this clarification. The Real Presence is the fundamental belief of the Undivided Church. The Transubstantiation is how the Catholic Church explains the Real Presence in terms of rational philosophy. Our beliefs don't differ on the matter, our ways of talking about them differ. We have statues, you have icons. Two lungs, same air.

1,344 posted on 12/10/2009 3:56:18 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1237 | View Replies ]


To: annalex; kosta50

“The Transubstantiation is how the Catholic Church explains the Real Presence in terms of rational philosophy.”

Rather like the rationalizing of the Incarnation we saw earlier on this thread, Alex. I don’t accept the rationalizations at any level. I even think, frankly, that they are unhelpful, but then again I don’t need those explanations. Mystery is mystery.

“Our beliefs don’t differ on the matter, our ways of talking about them differ.”

Yes, they differ profoundly but to the extent that the words can be separated from the belief, you are likely correct. The ramifications of ways we talk about the Eucharist, however, are broad.


1,367 posted on 12/11/2009 4:12:27 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1344 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson