Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Well, spell it out. Or is that against the dispensationalist handbook?
The picture is coming together. Not only do some non-catholics deny the authority of "Rome" (duh) but they deny the essential requirements of argument.
It's Nominalistic ethics metastasized! The freedom to choose this or that, regardless of right or wrong, is prized above all else.
In addition, one can only see the truth if one has a sort of gnostic experience of the Holy Spirit. While they will take recourse to logical argument, if they lose, they will just say that it's human understanding or something of the kind. Reason is just a disguise they put on when it suits them.
Finally, the construct of dispensationalism is sufficiently artificial that it can't stand a clear presentation. One has got to be hand-led into it or one might suddenly look to either side and see how artificial and ridiculous it is. So they confine themselves to cryptic hints and teasing partial disclosures. Their rebuttals clearly refer to a system of interpretation, but they aren't up front with it, for the same reason.
And, since reason itself is discredited, there is no problem with asking the same question over and over again. It's not just that they don't know what "substance" means in the framework of transubstantiation. It's not that they haven't heard that the Council of Constance settled the time of the transubstantiation. It's not that it hasn't been said more than a dozen times that the transformation is into the substance of the "Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity" of Christ. It's not that no one has pointed out that it is the risen (or "spiritual") body of Christ, not an earthly body that we are talking about.
It's that, with respect to Logos, they are gnostic libertines. They have the secret knowledge. They are delivered from the constraints of courtesy or of logic. It is not necessary for them to know what we believe and teach. It is not what they believe and teach so it must be shouted down by whatever means necessary.
Unfortunately, for some of them "whatever means" means incessant repetition of the same assertions and meaningless put-downs with no effort to show how they apply to the topic at hand. I guess the underlying strategy is that sheer boredom will finally compel us to agree with them.
So there it is. Dialog really isn't in the cards here ...
What? Jesus alone isn’t good enough? You have to add Mary and the Pope? For what reason exactly?
Good grief, the Catholic church makes being a Christian so stinking complicated.
It’s a far cry from what Jesus taught when he said, “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” (John 3:36)
John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
16”For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
That’s it in a nutshell, Jesus own words on the subject.
Where were you defending "the" Inquisition? The civil arm was far more involved in many of the abuses. What excuses Luther should excuse the Spanish Church.
But the whole thing was light-hearted with Quix. And I understand a few too many Minnesota hot-dish buffets have a morbid effect -- gradually morbid, but morbid nonetheless.
I see you skipped over Eucharist-which is Christ and the center of the Catholic Faith
I was wondering because he seems to have to be sharing the stage in that post.
It certainly appears that the Catholic church never means what it says.
We’ve posted time and again things that the Catholic church has stated from its own website and in virtually every case, we’ve been told that the clear, plain meaning of what was printed is not what the Catholic church *really* teaches, or what it *really* means.
I’ve never seen such duplicity in my entire life.
But the Catholics I talk to will piously and reverently receive the Sacrament from the hands of a priest (or bishop) they think very little of personally.
For them (and I'm one of them) it's not the guy, it's what God is doing through the guy.
Must be tough living in her shadow.
Theology, Protestant and Catholic and in between, is complicated. Being a Christian is simple. Not always easy, but simple.
Is there some reason that Catholics just can’t refer to Jesus as “Jesus” for example?
You know, something basic and self-explanatory.
He made the stage and those standing on it. Catholics recognize that
Where the civil authorities were the perps, I don't think I have blasted the Spanish church. When you have the Lutheran church running the inquisition, I'll be more than happy to condemn that work as well.
We do of course. The source in this case was speaking to Catholics. When read by non-Catholics, it has to be pointed out what The Holy Eucharist is - if they don't know the Sacraments. But not to the intended audience of the quote under discussion.
Sometimes we wonder especially after seeing that horrific picture of a woman sitting on a crescent that is sitting on the Arc of the Covenant.
We do. He is Our Eucharist Lord
What you have done is to misrepresent, misquote, and misinterpret the teachings of the when you a actually do post from a Catholic site (but usually it is from some anti-Catholic site).
When it in not obdurate it reveals a total lack of understanding of Catholicism.
Dispensationalism teaches you to analyze, and not accept everything that is presented. It shows you where you are in God's Plan for Man, and gives you His outline for a particular time. You are working hand in hand with God's Word and His commission for you. THere is no confusion about grace, law, kingdom, tribulation. You are a mature member of the Body of Christ. Able to stand strong when others are being swept around with every wind of doctrine that comes along, and smooth talkers who speak of Jesus, but not the SAME Jesus, who preach a gospel, but not the Gospel of Salvation. And you can tell the difference IMMEDIATELY. It doesn't take weeks of going back and forth, wondering, maybe..No you know immediately.
This is why RELIGION attacks Dispensationalism. There is no chance of fooling someone who KNOWS where he is in God's Plan, knows why he's there, what he's to do, and where he's going when his work is completed.
The bread becomes the "Body, Blood, Soul, And Divinity" of Christ when the priest completes the words of Institution pertaining to the Body. And the wine, mutatis mutandis, ditto.
As to the appearance, first, who knows what a Spiritual Body or Spiritual Blood look like?
Second, what a thing IS, it's substance, is different from what a think LOOKS like (tastes like, feels like, etc.).
"Star differs from star in glory" but they are all stars. One can be a gas giant. Another can be a dwarf star. They are all stars, even the ones that no longer shine.
As I have said before, a wedding ring can be gold, silver plated with gold, platinum, or who knows what. But when a disaster happens the wife does not say, "Help, my gold annulus fell in the garbage disposal." She says, "My wedding ring ...." the shape, with room for variations, like embedded jewels, is variable and unimportant, except that it needs to be vaguely donut shaped to serve as a ring. The stuff it's made of is unimportant. Gold, platinum, who cares? The "esse", the "what it IS," the "substance" is "wedding ring," and that's why the wife is in a dither, because of what it is, not because of what it looks like.
It is the "what it is" of the bread and wine which are displaced by the "what it is" of the Body, Blood, etc.
So that's why the appearances are unimportant and do not effect the Sacrament.
HOWEVER, sometimes there are Eucharistic miracles, and links to at least one of them were recently posted.
Now if you EVER say again that nobody ever answers the question, rules or no rules, I will call you a liar. I have posted these exact arguments before more than once on this forum.
Mad Dawg asks "What's the difference between God and God Almighty."
Here are some passages to meditate on those Names of God and the Trinity:
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:14
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. - John 8:58
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground. – John 18:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: - Matthew 28:19
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.