Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
There are a lot of things Scripture couldn't be more clear about and it STILL escapes an alarming number of people.
Let me just say that I am deeply offended what I read repeated attempts to link Mark 7:19 to the Eucharist. I also expected to get some of this faux indignation for my specific simile. Do you know the number of times that the words "dung heap" and "flies" appear in Scripture? Surely Scripture is not offensive to you.
I introduced that simile as part of an attempt to shock and teach. There are indeed a lot of filthy things in this world, but I don't consider bodily functions to be one of them or the third rail of the Religion Forum. Changing a diaper on an infant, the disabled or the elderly does not disgust me. Bodily functions are properties of the human condition, but they are not what makes us human. God created them too and declared them good. The revulsion you and so many have when a scatological reference is made is incomprehensible in the context of the blasphemy that is not only tolerated but endorsed every day on these threads.
I was addressing how some can remain so obtuse when a discussion of the philosophical terms substance and properties is introduced to a discussion of transubstantiation. As I see it, and you can correct me if I am wrong, most do not engage in these discussions to learn, but to preach, boast and show off.
My conversion is genuine. I spent much of my Saturday taking a group of disabled relatives to an anointing Mass. I witnessed and experienced tears of adoration and joy from some very afflicted persons and when I returned to the FR I saw His name being used in attempts to hurt and harm fellow Christians. Anger is also a property of the human condition that is justified when it attempts to address the injustice and does not seek vengeance. I admit I walked a fine line, but my intention was to teach, not harm. If you were harmed I sincerely apologize.
Peace.
Taking the verse in context, which should always be done when reading and interpreting Scripture for a proper understanding of what's being taught.....
Mark 7:14-23 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
So just what DOES happen to the eucharist after it has been consumed?
Do you know the number of times that the words "dung heap" and "flies" appear in Scripture?
And the term *dung heap* is not even connected to that passage in Mark. There was no reason for you to use it.
And besides, those were Jesus own words concerning the eating of foods. If eating food cannot defile a man, eating food cannot make him holy either. And the principle is simple, it doesn't stay in the man, become part of his intrinsic nature.
Surely Scripture is not offensive to you.
How ironic........
Which part, the divine substance or the physical properties of the specific species?
How to know when to translate “estin” as “is” (actually what is described), “is” (the idiomatic expression)or “means” (as in a standing for) depends, then, upon context.
John 17:3 is a good example of estin in the sense of “means” while the wheat and tares parable of Matt. 13 illustrates leaving estin as the idiomatic “is”.
In the context of Jesus remembrance meal the context is clear enough, Jesus words recorded in Greek use the term “estin” as “means”, Jesus’ flesh and blood was right before the disciples talking to them, not in the cup or disguised as bread.
Finally, Jesus sacrifice had not yet been put upon the altar in heaven so no partaking of it would be possible before then.
No, but I would call Webster's disingenuous and and outright fraudulent citation of sources a text book example of sophistry. It is what one of my professors referred to as footnote padding and another referred to as putting lipstick on a pig.
You would have me believe that Webster's position is fully supported by those he cites when in many cases the exact opposite is true and obvious to anyone familiar with the cited sources.
There are numerous Protestant theologians worthy of citation, but to hang your credibility on a charlatan like Webster is frankly disappointing.
Peace be with you.
Which part????
Jesus said that in order to have eternal life, you had to eat His body and blood. Catholics are the ones who demand that that passage be taken literally.
If that's the case, then the host MUST be literally be transformed into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus and literally be eaten.
Are you now telling us that that is NOT the case?
With each post of yours I read there is less and less evidence that you were ever Catholic. At best you were nominally Catholic. Catholicism has always referred to the Eucharist as the Host. This was especially true when you were allegedly Catholic. What do you think "host" means in plain, literal English? It is a shame that you apparently rejected the faith because you didn't acquire a proper understanding of it. There is more integrity in a person who says "I fully understand the issue and reject or disagree" than with a person who says "I haven't got a clue, I don't care to know, so don't bother me with the facts".
I'll ask you the question again; "Which part, the divine substance or the physical properties of the specific species?"
If you choose to be obtuse and to obfuscate to mask your inability or unwillingness to answer a tough but relevant question that is your prerogative. Just don't waste my time with mini-lectures and questions while doing so. Dialog is a bi-directional communication, not a hostile interrogation in which you get to ask all of the questions and answer none.
May you grow in Grace and Wisdom.
All Webster does is take out of context from those sources he uses and never brings forth the totality of consistency of the entire writings of Church Fathers.He finds a few writings from sources that he can use to try and make people believe the Church Fathers were not being as clear and ignores the consistency of the Church Fathers.
The way Webster does this regarding the Eucharist and the Church Fathers is downright manipulative and diabolical.
How difficult do you think it would be for someone to go through all of your writings here on FR and pick out a few that you might not be as specific regarding what you believe because you know the people you are conversing with already know your beliefs because you posted them many times? How would you feel if people kept referring back to the few times you were unclear and used it to say your unclear writings raises doubt of your belief?
This is what William Webster does with the Church Fathers.I can see how people like Webster can cause people to become atheist in the way he manipulates Christan history
Time and time again many of us here on FR have shown the consistency of the Church Fathers that leaves NO doubt they believed in The Real Presence,yet somehow you still post from this Charlton Webster as if he is some scholar about Catholicism,which Webster clearly is not.
I wish you a Blessed day!
Meant to ping you to #1109,my apologies
NO apologies necessary. We really cannot expect those who selectively excerpt Scripture to support a false doctrine to be any more judicious when it comes to the Church Fathers or even the selective citation of our own posts. In this very thread we have been told that we must "rightly divide Scripture" and run it through the Protestant sausage machine because if we attempt to take it in its totality we end up with "one big mess", which is another reference to the Catholic Church. (Go figure, now we are being accused by those who say we never use Scripture of using too much of it.) I just want to go on record as saying that I love that "one big mess" because it is one created by God and isn't so messy to those who know and believe. It does, however, pose difficulties to those who seek to bend it to their will.
Peace and Blessings to you.
According to the RCC you can’t have it both ways. If you claim that the “physical properties” of the bread and wine remain you are anathema.
“CANON II. If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species Only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, 13th session) “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ.” (Council of Florence, 8th Session)
In John 6 Jesus says that anyone that eats of Him should live forever. Then why do people who take communion in the Catholic church die?John 6:53 “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. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Or do ALL Catholics who take communion go to heaven? This verse indicates that there is nothing else required.
Do Catholics who eat the host but are not given the wine disqualifed? Why not? The verse states flesh AND blood must be partaken.
Since only priests can transform the bread and wine, what happens to those with no access to a priest?
When Arianism engulfed the church, what happend to those who could only get communion from Arian priests?
Nothing new about dismissing the credibility of the source when it impugns RCM, but which has even extended to falsely accusing the posters of fabrications.
No so much replaced, but overshadowed.
I am sympathetic that your ignorance is again displayed in this respect. I implore you to familiarize yourself with the meanings and difference in the terms "Substance" and "Property" The canon clearly and repeatedly refers to the substance of the Eucharist being changed. The fact that your source referenced the presence of a host is evidence that the Church acknowledges the remaining physical properties of bread and wine in the species.
What you are claiming is "transignification" rather than transubstantiation which was definitely rejected by Pope Paul VI in 1965. Transignification, a strawman argument put forth by modernists and Protestant apologists, is the contention that a physical or chemical change in the elements does or must take place for there to be a Real Presence. This is in opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church that there is a change only of the underlying reality or substance of the species, but not of anything that concerns physics or chemistry properties of the species.
Peace be with you.
1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202
and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204
1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206
1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.211
Aside from the worst poetry ever composed, there's so much else wrong with it that one hardly knows where to start.
*worship* the eucharist, eh?
Exodus 20:4-6 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
A better word for sure. Although listening to most Catholics I would challenge anyone to count the references to Mary as opposed to those of Jesus.
They can, but what is significant is that in all the physical miracles the Lord or anyone did then there was a real change that was or would be apparent.
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.