Posted on 07/01/2015 7:13:05 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Thank you. With all that was flying to and fro, I miss-remembered that O’Brien was citing Thomas Aquinas, not Augustine. Appreciate the correction there ... BTW, I would hate to be given the job of comparing the earlier editions to the later editions. Since it is evident that RCC will change words in scriptures to fit their uses against the reformers, the changes made to O’Brien type props must be even more pernicious!
Luke 4:23
And then you list how flesh can sin, and how the flesh and the spirit war against one another, but by the spirit the flesh can be (eventually if not sooner it is hoped) subdued?
Yet the sense that the flesh "avails" nothing was in regards to how metmom was referencing John 6:63.
The flesh avails nothing...
The flesh itself (our own) gains no nutritional value from Eucharist other than what is the actual substance of the bread (and wine), therefore He was ruling out that he was speaking of His corporeal flesh (actual and "real" human flesh -- His own Divine sort) be what He was speaking towards when He talked about eating His flesh and drinking His blood.
His words were spirit. The flesh avails nothing.
So just what is it you were striving to say?
You sure picked one heck of a place to add;
Doctor doctor doctor, please. Stop digging.
Listen to you, you say, yet say nothing of much usefulness. One practically needs to engage mind-reading in order to square the circle for you, other than to be able to easily enough grasp all the included insult, whether openly stated or else implied. Usually it's a combo.
BTW, portions 251 to 445 are not shown with that Google preview. That is also a more current revision. The library has an older edition in most cities. Even here in East Tennessee.
Interesting opinion. I disagree with it but it is still interesting
It worked for me -- at least once.
I opened up more than one copy. I think a person could scroll down, even though the table of contents and hot-linking was incomplete.
Having hit it more than once, I can't recall how I got to the pages myself, other than to have scrolled down(?)
That would be a good one for certain Pharisees to take to heart. Of any denomination.
-The local library has access to the 1974 edition. I have put in a request for earlier editions. Might find one at a local Catholic Church. We’ll see. The reading is naseauting, mostly.
That's all, huh?
Figures.
Yet you may return to answer #845.
Oh, wait. In the "excessively long post" I already addressed the issue, explaining and answering it for you.
Way ahead of you, boy.
Way ahead. all I see is a the smudge of small dot in my rearview mirror
If it can't fit on a bumper sticker, it's too much to contemplate as sure as if it 'aint Country, it 'aint muzick. Nothing against Bob Wills, Waylon & Willie, Charlie Pride, and Merle.
Meaning that it is interesting, but I disagree with it.
Have you written this same comment to the non-Catholic posts that post inane cartoons, and comments that don’t address issues?
Catholics accept the Real Presence because their faith REQUIRES it.
Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, and Calvinist Reformed/Presbyterians accept the Real Presence because Jesus tells us so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist
I've found that many of those "inane cartoons" and comments which you allege "don't address issues" make perfect sense to myself, in the contexts of the conversations which they often appear.
Hallmark of the Laodicean Age perhaps?
BTW, is Wikipedia the level of proof sourcing you prefer?
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.