Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
“which insults Prot faith”
Thank you so much. Finally, finally we get to the root of the matter.
To some degree we all decide for ourselves what is and is not insulting. However, it is in Western Civilization thought better to apply the reasonable man standard to those decisions.
You, and I am not mind-reading but rather inferring from actions, find a truly remarkable range of things insulting—at least when it comes to your religion.
Your definition of “insulting” leaves no room for disagreement, humor, or banter, much less for irony. That explains why you kept insisting that statements were bigoted when they weren’t.
I’m sorry: I actually thought you were either stupid or malicious.
Albert Ellis would have known what to do about this.
“And let’s not forget, that we have never seen any Catholic ever post anything that was even a tiny fraction as insulting and abusive as the posts made by Protestants every day all over FR.”
Still true, and none of you has ever demonstrated otherwise.
Uh...your own comments, perhaps? There could be some scintillas there more stable than some "virtual" particle blinking in and out of existence
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3145004/posts?page=62#62
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. (Jude 3) Versus the Roman deformation (with the need for more Prot reformation)
Besides being a non-Christian led by the devil. When you actually an articulate an cogent argument against those of mine that your resort to countering with such charges, and refuse to answer fundamental questions, then you might be less of an argument against Rome. Though that may simply be add to the evidence against her.
That Rome cannot be wrong is illustrated by how you cannot point to any plausible reason, from the text alone, why Jesus would cause some disciples to leave by insisting that we should eat His flesh “indeed”, and then repeated the same thing at the Last Supper, and then St. Paul taught that we must “discern” His body in the Eucharist.
You believe in the scripture alone, — read it every once in a while. It is not a slur, — it is a logical conclusion, that you don’t do that with attention at least on this important topic.
Thanks.
Sure it's a slur. A slur is objective. It doesn't matter if you felt nice and friendly when you said it. What matters is what it says. It suggests your opponent's arguments are flawed because he doesn't read Scripture, which is an attack by innuendo on his character, and which would be manifestly contrary to the totality of evidence from his posting history, that he is an avid student of Scripture. He is simply drawing different conclusions than you from the same text.
But rather than address the "why" behind that difference, you choose non-factual insult. Why would you do that? Perhaps here we have a true case of Schopenhauer's Argumentum Ad Personam, because I can see no useful attachment this has to the flow of argument. It's just shooting the messenger.
I'm disappointed in you, AA.
Well, that is unfortunate because there was nothing ordinary about virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, nor, to that matter, "manna" falling from the sky and five loaves feeding thousands.
Which as you can see is not even remotely about me going for an allegorical explanation without warrant. Now I'm an old guy, and I don't always remember everything just right, so I won't hold this against you. No harm no foul.
However, there is a larger point to pick up here. The use of a well-disciplined hermeneutic actually produces less, not more, obscure meanings, and much less reliance on suspiciously obtained allegory, than an open-ended or even undefined hermeneutic.
So what you regard as a "radically wrong" approach, the looking for analogy when difficulties arise, would indeed be wrong IF applied everywhere. If you thought that's what I meant, you've misunderstood me. Perhaps I was not clear. So let me state it more precisely: If, in the public discourses of Jesus, we meet a saying that is not ordinarily possible the way it was said, we have God Himself telling us to look for an analogy of meaning, as per these three verses:
Mark 4:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.Matthew 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: "I WILL OPEN MY MOUTH IN PARABLES; I WILL UTTER THINGS KEPT SECRET FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD."
Mark 4:11-12 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'SEEING THEY MAY SEE AND NOT PERCEIVE, AND HEARING THEY MAY HEAR AND NOT UNDERSTAND; LEST THEY SHOULD TURN, AND THEIR SINS BE FORGIVEN THEM.' "
So you see how this hermeneutic works. God is telling us to look for analogy in the public teaching ministry of Jesus. So duh, that's what we look for.
BTW, I notice you haven't addressed my question about Augustine versus Trent. For review, here is the "seditious" passage in Augustine:
If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man,” says Christ, “and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us.Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 16.
See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/12023.htm for full context.
So again, what I want to know is why Augustine gets away with saying that but Protestant's don't. The above passage could be read in any Baptist or reformed or Lutheran (etc etc etc) church, and received warmly as Gospel truth. Why does Augustine get a pass on this and we don't?
As to what exactly is the analogy of John 6, it is clear Jesus did NOT mean, and I think we can actually agree on this, that they should try to eat his body and blood right there on the spot. So from the getgo He was pointing past the immediate situation.
But to what? The ceremonial transformation of bread? Not likely. There is no mention of the Passover celebration here. In fact, John doesn't even mention the Eucharistic elements of the final Passover meal at all.
The best clue is still back in the passage itself, in Jesus' words in John 6:63:
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Note the second half of that verse. That is the part that guided my earlier paraphrase, to which you objected, but there are His words. It is belief in Him, the accepting of His words, that nourishes us. That, he says here plainly, is where we find our life. It is through His words we learn that eternal life comes by believing in Him, by looking not to our own righteousness, but to His broken body and his shed blood as our perfect substitute in judgment. All these things, and many more, encompassed in the figure of drawing all the nourishment we will ever need for life eternal, from Him as our principal food, and our most treasured drink.
OBvisiously; this is the CATHOLIC faith; the ONLY right way to do it!
--Wannabe_Catholic_Dude(Come to the loving arms of Mary. She will MAKE time available for YOU!)
And you err in trying to say that a person SHOULD be able to do that.
John 53-63
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
You can have your wafers; I'll take the Word.
John 6:53-63
The Eucharist is another name for Holy Communion. The term comes from the Greek by way of Latin, and it means "thanksgiving."
1 Corinthians 11:27-32
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.
HMMMmmm...
43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:
44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.
46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.
47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.
48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Dan spent a lot of energy (and a lot of virtual paper) to explain away verses which literal meaning is Catholic. The explanation does not hold: between the two discourses on the Eucharist, in John 6 and in 1 Cor. 11, and the Last Supper episode allegory cannot be argued. That he does while proclaiming himself a believer in Sola Scriptura. You don’t think irony is out of place here?
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.