Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Quix, I included you in my response because in my mind I suspected, somehow, in some veiled way, you were in the mind of the respondent. I realize this is presumptious of me but...............?
1) If recollection serves, at the council of Constance, 1415, it was determined that it happens for each 'species' after the relevant "words of institution."
2) I started on this in an earlier post to which you did not respond.
What a thing IS is different from what it looks like or is made of. You can have a wedding ring of gold or of platinum, plain or adorned with precious stones. A penny is made, I believe of bronze (a copper zinc alloy) sandwiched around zinc. But it was a penny when it was all bronze.
It is hard for me to believe that you were ever catechized as a Catholic if you do not know, whether you agree with it or not, that what we claim is that the 'esse', or more technically, the substantia of the bread and wine are removed and replaced with substantia the BBSD of Jesus. What is not 'of the essence', what is technically called accidentia, 99,999 times out of 100,000 remain. It is, as we aver, a miracle.
One of the reasons this is a tough sale is that many of the non-Catholic, non-Orthodox brethren are really philosophical slaves to materialism. They think a thing IS what it is made of, despite the fact that the tearful wife does not tell her husband, 'That gold annulus you gave me just went into the dispose-all," but says, "My wedding ring's in there, honey, DO something!"
It is important to note that Jesus is risen from the dead and that his body is, as Paul says, a "spiritual body." So we ought not to be surprised that it might be in many respects different from what we normally think of when we think of body and blood.
In a way, this whole dispute is sad, because if the notion of substance or 'esse' were more familiar AND if people remembered we are talking about the risen Lord, the bogus distinction between Catholic "materialist" understandings of the Eucharist and non-Catholic "spiritual," or "virtual," teachings would be a little better understood.
3) The whole and entire BBSD is in each particle of either "species" so the "whole" was never withheld, as we think. However since Vatican II the offering of both the Consecrated Bread and the Consecrated Wine has become customary in very many places in the US.
However, we hold that alcoholics who are reasonably afraid of the merest sip of something with the accidentia of alcohol, or those sensitive to gluten who could not handle the least particle of the accidentia of gluten are not in any sacramental way 'missing' anything.
I would say that most Protestant groupings agree that the Church is an instrument. Using an analogy, if the Church is like a hammer then the Protestant groupings "took all the good stuff" but removed the unnecessary varnish on the handle. If they have this "good stuff" then they are as much an instrument as any other grouping. Thus, these Protestant groupings are a part of "The Church" because they are composed of the head and the handle.
And it must be noted that an instrument by itself is useless. Unless the instrument is actually picked up and employed for it's intended function then it is merely like a hammer sitting on a bench not performing it's intended function.
So if these Protestant groupings have the good stuff and are used as an instrument by God how are they any different than your ambiguous "The Church"?
John 6:30 takes place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert."Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
Jesus then told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews thought, just like many protestants that HE was speaking metaphorically.
He then repeated "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."
The Jews then argued among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stunned because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think of flesh, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But some did not believe."After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
Here some followers left Him because of what HE said (perhaps even Judas). If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and say 'no, you misunderstood me, I meant a symbol'? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic/Orthodox
Juvenile graphics aside, I didn't direct the comment at any individual Freeper. However, whomsoever calls a Catholic a "Mary Worshipper" is indeed a liar.
As I said, all the good stuff that is in the Protestant groups come from The Church. There’s a lot more of the good stuff that, thanks to God’s grace, resides IN The Church. And, there’s a lot of bad stuff in the Protestant (big umbrella term incl BAptists, Pentecostals, 7th day adventists etc) that is from non-Church sources.
The Apostolic Church, via Augustine, and against the Pelegians, taught the total corruption of the imago dei that required an all encompassing grace to overcome.
When Rome returned to the Pelegian heresy it lost the essential aspect of the gospel which is God's love shown through free grace.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I don’t know individuals’ hearts unless God shows me.
However, it’s obvious that the Vatican INSTITUTION
hinders many millions from an authentic RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
Prevents many from ever forming such a RELATIONSHIP
and causes many such fragile new relationships to crash and burn on the altars of INSTITUTIONAL RELIGION, DOGMA, BLASPHEMY AND IDOLATRY.
Perhaps on a technicality, any properly catechized [Roman] Catholic would know those details. [HOWEVER, even many of them somehow seem to ignore those details and go rushing headlong right ahead in clearly worshiping Mary in a long list of ways--always with proper denials when called on it,]
But then again, the [Roman] Catholic church is chock-a-block full of improperly catechized folks according to FRoman Catholics, based on what the rest of us encounter in our everyday lives.
So, while the church may technically deny worship of Mary, in practice, it seems to be a pretty common occurrence amongst those naming the name of [Roman] Catholic.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED TO THE MAX. It boggles my mind that any rational person could see otherwise in all the BRAZEN ABUNDANCE OF SUCH HORRIFIC, OUTRAGEOUS, UNBIBLICAL JUNK.
It would be difficult to find a single term which would satisfy all who call themselves “Catholic”. After all, there are many brands of Catholicism and it is not up to you to ask each and every individual which term they wish to be identified with.
I note that the official Vatica site, Vatican.Va , refers to itself as “Roman Catholic” hundreds of times so it would be difficult for me to imagine someone taking umbrage at the abbreviation RC or RCC.
No matter, I will continue to use it without apology.
As an aside, I have seen frequent references from RC’s of FR to a quote from Augustine; “Rome has spoken...”, also from Ignatius; “Rome has spoken...” (Whether spurious or not is not the question). I would imagine that is implied permission for you to use “Rome” as a substitute for “Catholic” as you wish. :-)
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
Most of the carping is probably merely intolerance of allowing a Proddy any freedom in posting THE TRUTH without an RC’ fairly compulsive and automatic wailing and whining about it. And, too, a lot of them have to weasel out of the truth in order to go on pretending to their mirrors that they have it right.
The Catholic church doesn’t resemble at all what is portrayed in the book of Acts.
But then again, sadly many Protestant denominations don’t either.
INDEED. I COR 12-14 IS THE PATTERN . . . rarely found anywhere.
Mad Daw, I’ll give you three scriptures that explain dispensations in the simplest way possible.
“Wherefore remember, that ye being IN TIME PAST Gentiles in the flesh...”(Eph. 2:11,12)>
“BUT NOW in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13).
“That in the AGES TO COME he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:7).
There is a TIME PAST, BUT NOW, and the AGES TO COME. At its most basic.
Also, Ephesians 3:2,3,5,6,9 speak plainly of the DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD given to Paul. There are 4 times the word is used in the NT (1Cor 9:17, Eph. 1:10, 3:2; Col. 1:25. If you want more on dispensations let me know. Otherwise I’ll stop with these 4.
EXCELLENT ANOTHER SIMPLE PROOF THAT DISPENSATIONALISM was there in the beginning.
You simply MUST be wrong.
Why 100% of the members of all the RC rabid cliques and all their hangers on think I'm a model picture slightly blow sainthood.
Now THAT would be lying . . . or brazen satire!
Thanks for the image. It's one of the more appropriate ones for many rabid clique posts.
When you say, "There's a lot more (emphasis mine) of the good stuff that, thanks to God's grace, resides IN The Church, it implies that there may be some bad stuff in "The Church" or that "The Church" has relatively more good stuff than Protestant groupings. For what reason would God grace the ambiguous "The Church" more than he would grace Protestant groupings?
When you say Protestant groupings get their bad stuff from non-Church sources, and by implication "The Church" gets it good stuff from "The Church", it renders your theory tautologous.
The rabid cliques hereon have established a new level of brazen haughty ostentaciousness . . .
either claiming to have personal first hand accurate and professional knowledge of the hearts and lives of over a billion Roman Catholics . . .
OR
BRAZENLY ASSUMING that all such persons have not a shred of idolatry in their lives--at least toward Mary.
INCREDIBLE.
And such folks want us to still consider them AND THEIR THEOLOGY
RATIONAL!
GUFFAWS TO THE MAX.
Thankfully, most Pentecostals would likely not make such a claim about 100% of their local congregations in terms of idolatry toward SOMETHING or someone.
I guess that's normal. Most Pentecostals are at least 100% MORE HONEST with themselves and others about their beliefs and flaws than seemingly a majority of RC's on FR are.
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.