 |
| |
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
quote:
That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over. |
Isn't this one of the temptations of Satan to Christ? If you are the Son of God, and surely, God will rescue you, why do you not jump off the temple, and let God save you?
What does Christ reply? "It is written, do not put the Lord God to the test."
This is what you are doing here, you are putting God to the test, by asking the Real Presence to be proven through empirical means. Even if it could be done, why would the test be successful? God cannot be constrained to such an experiment, and experiments to be valid require such constraints. |
This is not "testing God," this is testing your doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two.
Consider healing in general. If you are sick and I pray for you, what happens? Depends on many factors, two of which are your faith and my faith. That faith is impeded by the flesh: its demands, its distractions, its foibles, and sin.
When Jesus was walking along minding his own business a woman reached out believing she would be healed. She touched his hem and was healed, instantly, and Jesus felt the power flow from him. The bodily presence of Jesus provides an access to that healing power without the normal impediments of human flesh. Consider the man in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" Even that frail admission was sufficient for Jesus to move.
quote:
Are some people healed? Yes. Are all sick people who come into contact with the eucharist healed? No. Is this any different from any of the miracles of Christ? No. Does not Christ in his miracles say, 'Go, your faith has healed you?' And does he also not say, 'Neither his father nor his mother sinned, but he has suffered so that the glory of God may be shown'. |
The point is that every time Jesus healed it was their faith that made it possible. When he went to Nazareth he could do no miracles except heal a few sick folk because of their unbelief. So either the RC church is afflicted with unbelief that makes Nazareth look like a pew-jumping revival meeting or the "Real Presence" in the eucharist is empty rhetoric.
quote:
Why so? This is the second part, transubstantiation, which is why the priests themselves can consecrate the eucharist, and why no one else has that privilege. Your conclusion is false, the Catholic church teaches that while sacraments are a method, they are only a method, and that God is not constrained to the sacraments, in order to provide salvation. This is a very old argument, and Catholics who have said that salvation can only be had through the sacraments have been repudiated. |
No, the Sacraments are the only method, except that God permits the effect of the Sacraments "by desire." (IIRC, that is the exact phrase.) A conversion alone in the desert, at the moment of death, would not need baptism and last rites physically, but the effects of the those Sacraments would be imputed as God judges the heart.
The same holds for Catholics who are married in civil ceremonies, and many other cases. The Sacraments, in RC doctrine, are the transformation of the ordinary into the sacred. If the transformation has taken place (marriage, conversion, etc) then the Sacrament has taken place, too, without the presence of a wafer, or priest, or whatever else might normally be required. The reverse holds so that in annulment the RC church declares there was no Sacrament despite the administration of the formal rites, thus the marriage was invalid.
quote:
So while you are right, that people can be saved outside of the Catholic church, you are wrong that you partake of the body and blood of Christ, since you do not believe that this is true! No one can be healed, unless he believes that he may be healed, so how can anyone partake of the sacrament of the eucharist, unless they believe in the real presence? |
A person may, in fact, be healed without believing so. I've seen it happen to someone I know; she was stunned and amazed that she didn't die. The cancer had metastasized all throughout her abdomen. She had stopped taking treatments. People she didn't even know were praying for her.
How can we partake of the eucharist without believing in the Real Presence? Because we, in essence, define the eucharist differently. We define salvation differently. We define Apostolic Succession differently. We define the Church differently. By the necessity of human language we use the same terms for nearly everything but use them differently.
In our view the RC church defines them based on centuries of myth, superstition, and error. We don't. In the RC view our definitions don't trump their "truth," so the fact is that the Sacraments are taking place in and around us unwittingly.
quote:
quote:
On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance. |
Yes, it is literally one flesh, just as Christ is married to his church. Don't forget that part of Paul's teachings. |
One problem: that isn't true, according to RC doctrine. Remember the fourth century homoousias versus homoiousios debate? It was part of the greater adoption of neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the church. Jesus is not merely of like substance to God, but of the same substance as God. If we the church were made one Substance with Jesus, then we, too would be not merely like God, but God! Clearly this is not so.
quote:
Interesting. Wasn't the establishment of one of the more longstanding protestant denominations based upon a rejection of a request for annulment? 
You imply that such annulments were taken upon casually, which is refuted by what happened to our good ol' Henry VIII. They were not taken upon casually, they were grave affairs, much different from the way in which society views divorce today. |
Henry would have been just as happy with a divorce, but the Pope couldn't do that according to practices at the time. The only recourse was annulment, which the Pope would have granted just as casually as today's civil divorces because kings were accomodated when it came to securing succession. Catherine's uncle Charles V HRE didn't approve and camped an army next to the Vatican to make his point.
quote:
You attack a strawman, again. What does the RC church teach about marriage? Do they permit divorce in certain circumstances, such as marital infidelity?  Isn't that precisely what Christ says in Matthew? |
Yes, they do permit divorce for infidelity. But they grant annulments in other cases. In fact I met someone whose marriage was casually annulled by the RC church. She and her husband were faithful, active life-long Catholics. They divorced but not over infidelity. Ex-husband was influential and sought an annulment, which was granted without so much as consulting her. She got a letter from the Priest she had adored since childhhood informing her that her children were now bastards in the eyes of the RC church. That was her wording, not the letter (she was still just a little bitter about it). She would say that she didn't leave the RC church, the RC church left her.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
This is not "testing God," this is testing your doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two.
Consider healing in general. If you are sick and I pray for you, what happens? Depends on many factors, two of which are your faith and my faith. That faith is impeded by the flesh: its demands, its distractions, its foibles, and sin.
|
One of the very first encounters I had with Christianity, is from a Catholic friend of mine, who I didn't even know was Catholic. She wrote on my board, that God sometimes does not grant prayers in the manner that we expect them to happen.
The problem I have with your method is that it has been an approach contrary to faith throughout history, to test God through empirical means. One of them being a study done to see whether ships carrying a missionary sank less than those without, the idea being that those who are Christians would be less likely to suffer than those who are not. It is very harmful to someone who is suffering to say, God answers prayers only if you are in the right state.
quote:
When Jesus was walking along minding his own business a woman reached out believing she would be healed. She touched his hem and was healed, instantly, and Jesus felt the power flow from him. The bodily presence of Jesus provides an access to that healing power without the normal impediments of human flesh. Consider the man in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" Even that frail admission was sufficient for Jesus to move.
|
Granted, yet having faith in the miracle doesn't mean that the miracle will always occur. God must be willing to help in this manner too.
quote:
The point is that every time Jesus healed it was their faith that made it possible. When he went to Nazareth he could do no miracles except heal a few sick folk because of their unbelief. So either the RC church is afflicted with unbelief that makes Nazareth look like a pew-jumping revival meeting or the "Real Presence" in the eucharist is empty rhetoric.
|
Yet does not Christ also say, wherever two or three of you gather in my name, there I shall be also? His presence is not always demonstrated through miracles.
quote:
No, the Sacraments are the only method, except that God permits the effect of the Sacraments "by desire." (IIRC, that is the exact phrase.) A conversion alone in the desert, at the moment of death, would not need baptism and last rites physically, but the effects of the those Sacraments would be imputed as God judges the heart.
|
We agree, just differ in the precision of the terminology. You are right that the effect of the sacraments is permitted through desire, and not necessarily the actions of the priest.
quote:
The same holds for Catholics who are married in civil ceremonies, and many other cases.
|
No, I'm sorry. If the desire to marry inside the church is there, but the opportunity is lacking, then sure. But if the opportunity to get married in the church is there, then the marriage of two Catholics in a civil ceremony is not recognised as two people being married inside the Catholic church. That's the difference.
quote:
The Sacraments, in RC doctrine, are the transformation of the ordinary into the sacred. If the transformation has taken place (marriage, conversion, etc) then the Sacrament has taken place, too, without the presence of a wafer, or priest, or whatever else might normally be required.
|
In baptism this is true, one can be baptised through desire. This would happen in the case where someone had professed a desire to enter the Catholic church, but before he or she could be confirmed, died, they would still be considered baptised into the church through their desire to do so.
Marriage is the same way, in if a fiancee dies just before the wedding, and his wife wishes to be considered married to him, then she will be considered to be married inside of the Catholic church.
However, a marriage that takes place, in a civil ceremony, between two Catholics, is not considered the same thing as a marriage inside the church, because there is nothing barring the Catholics from being married inside of the church, other than their disagreement with the teachings of the church. Therefore, the desire cannot be said to be there, since the opportunity was there, and they declined to do so.
As for communion, there are special circumstances in the case of remote communities, where it may be difficult to see a priest, and to receive the sacrament through the normal means. However, the same test on desire will be there, that if one deliberately avoids taking the sacrament when it is available, then the provisions of the sacrament cannot be imputed onto the person.
quote:
The reverse holds so that in annulment the RC church declares there was no Sacrament despite the administration of the formal rites, thus the marriage was invalid.
|
For very specific reasons. One of them being the lack of consummation. If the wife can say that the marriage has not been consummated, then it can be annuled, in that it never actually occured. Much in the same way that a sacrament, adminstered contrary to the will of the participants, cannot have the same validity as one administered in accordance to their will.
quote:
A person may, in fact, be healed without believing so. I've seen it happen to someone I know; she was stunned and amazed that she didn't die. The cancer had metastasized all throughout her abdomen. She had stopped taking treatments. People she didn't even know were praying for her.
|
Okay, that's a very good point. However, did she believe was she healed by Christ? That is what I should have clarified when I said that one cannot be healed by Christ unless they believe in him. They can be healed, but it will not be attributed to Christ, unless they believe in him.
quote:
How can we partake of the eucharist without believing in the Real Presence? Because we, in essence, define the eucharist differently. We define salvation differently. We define Apostolic Succession differently. We define the Church differently. By the necessity of human language we use the same terms for nearly everything but use them differently.
|
In the sense that the Catholic church uses the term sacrament, you cannot participate in the sacraments, without first coming to accept their meanings. One can call a goat a dog, but the goat is no more a dog, just because you call it so.
quote:
In our view the RC church defines them based on centuries of myth, superstition, and error. We don't. In the RC view our definitions don't trump their "truth," so the fact is that the Sacraments are taking place in and around us unwittingly.
|
Interesting. How do you think Catholics see the adoptation of certain sacraments, by those who reject the church as a whole? They see it as an affirmation of their own beliefs, since these folks found things they could not do without. The error in your case, is seen more of omission than commission.
quote:
One problem: that isn't true, according to RC doctrine. Remember the fourth century homoousias versus homoiousios debate? It was part of the greater adoption of neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the church. Jesus is not merely of like substance to God, but of the same substance as God. If we the church were made one Substance with Jesus, then we, too would be not merely like God, but God! Clearly this is not so.
|
Indeed, clearly the relationship between the church and Christ cannot be the same as the relationship between God and Christ. For the church is not the daughter of Christ, as Christ is the Son of God, but rather, Christ is the head of the church.
quote:
Henry would have been just as happy with a divorce, but the Pope couldn't do that according to practices at the time. The only recourse was annulment, which the Pope would have granted just as casually as today's civil divorces because kings were accomodated when it came to securing succession. Catherine's uncle Charles V HRE didn't approve and camped an army next to the Vatican to make his point.
|
If annulments and divorce were a casual affair, then Charles V wouldn't be camping an army by the Vatican.
quote:
Yes, they do permit divorce for infidelity. But they grant annulments in other cases. In fact I met someone whose marriage was casually annulled by the RC church. She and her husband were faithful, active life-long Catholics. They divorced but not over infidelity. Ex-husband was influential and sought an annulment, which was granted without so much as consulting her. She got a letter from the Priest she had adored since childhhood informing her that her children were now bastards in the eyes of the RC church. That was her wording, not the letter (she was still just a little bitter about it). She would say that she didn't leave the RC church, the RC church left her.
|
Yes there are many folks who have cause to be angry and bitter about the Catholic church, and many for much stronger reasons then this. I see this as a problem with the casual annulment, without cause, than with the doctrine of the Catholic church.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
I will concede that modern RC statements do not rely on the two I cited. However the historical origins of RC sexual hang-ups about contraception do tie to those two scriptures. In the RC church you cannot separate the past from the present because there is, in their own eyes, unbroken continuity of dogma.
|
If that were true, than change would not be possible. Since we do know change is possible, then therefore there cannot be an unbroken continuity of dogma, in the sense that you mean here.
Greater understanding can be attained over time, and will be attained, as the Catholic church better understands the teachings of Christ. However, this understanding will not be contrary to the teachings of Christ as a whole.
All that is happening here, is that a better explanation for the rationale behind the doctrine of the church has supplanted the previous explanation. The doctrine has not changed, just the understanding of why.
quote:
Ok, I'll break it down for you. Moses died. Elijah disappeared without leaving a body behind, and traditionally he was "assumed" into heaven. So then what happened? Is Elijah sitting around in heaven in a mortal body? Did his mortal body simply slough off, incapable of existing in the realm of the spirit? Has he been given a resurrection body that is qualitatively different? Has Moses been given a resurrection body?
These are all assumptions which can't be answered. There is no answer. Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus. We don't know if they are incorporeal spirits made temporarily visible, but they certainly could be.
|
Incorporeal spirits are contrary to what is meant by assumption. Bodily assumption into heaven, is how assumption has always been understood. The real question is Moses, who did die, and was buried, and yet appears alongside Elijah who had been bodily assumed.
quote:
The doctrine of the Resurrection taught by Paul contradicts RC teaching as you've stated it. The resurrection of believers does not occur until Christ's return.
|
Where does Paul say this?
quote:
This is about as direct a teaching as ever found in scripture. But if you don't understand scripture, how can you judge whether RC doctrine is true just because Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus
|
I judge it true, because it provides a better explanation as to why Moses and Elijah could appear before Christ, than Luther's belief of all those who have died remaining unconscious until the resurrection.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
That's what I'm shooting for, too.  I'd rather remain single than become entangled in a relationship for the wrong reasons, such as impatience.
 I almost did that some years ago. 
Glad you found the time to reply, BK. Time now for two quick responses, more to come later. First, see 1 Thes 4:13ff about the resurrection and the notion of "sleep" to describe believers who have died, also 1 Cor 15.
quote:
Yet does not Christ also say, wherever two or three of you gather in my name, there I shall be also? His presence is not always demonstrated through miracles. |
This is the point. Christ is present, but not in any bodily form. Why? Because His bodily presence is not necessary. Jesus speaks at length about the role of the Holy Spirit (ie, incorporeal presence) to be sent after His ascension. The RC doctrine of the Real Presence in the eucharist says that the presence of Christ wherever two or three are gathered is somehow not "Real" enough. He's only "really" present in the wafer.
quote:
The problem I have with your method is that it has been an approach contrary to faith throughout history, to test God through empirical means. One of them being a study done to see whether ships carrying a missionary sank less than those without, the idea being that those who are Christians would be less likely to suffer than those who are not. It is very harmful to someone who is suffering to say, God answers prayers only if you are in the right state. |
The problem isn't me, it is the doctrine. We have mutually acceptable examples in scripture of what Jesus' bodily presence does, and we don't see things of that nature in the Real Presence. So what changed? Jesus didn't change; if anything His power is more fully expressed in Resurrection.
There are 6 billion people on this planet, most of them in desperate poverty. Why does not God do something? Because God responds to faith, not to need. This is a hard truth.
James says "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." How fine a line does one draw here? It certainly isn't up to me. Maybe some who pray for healing do so out of a selfishness rather than looking to God and seeking Him.
Doing a study of shipwrecks with and without missionaries is pointless. Maybe God wants the ship wrecked at a certain place to reach people that would be overlooked otherwise. Maybe some missionaries are disobedient and God permits them to perish.
Look at Paul, who was shipwrecked on the isle of Malta. Paul warned before the ship left, yet the captain sailed anyway. Paul prayed and although the ship was lost none of the crew or passengers died. Why didn't his prayer stop the storm? Why didn't his prayer enable the ship to reach a safe harbor? We often do not get to specify the form, but our faith allows the expression of miracles.
The RC doctrine of the Real Presence replaces faith in God with ceremonial mysticism. I suppose it feels good to the participants, and maybe a few gain something by seeing past the symbols to God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
This is the point. Christ is present, but not in any bodily form. Why? Because His bodily presence is not necessary. Jesus speaks at length about the role of the Holy Spirit (ie, incorporeal presence) to be sent after His ascension.
|
No, I think you have the wrong idea of what the Holy spirit is. The Holy Spirit is not the same as the incorporeal presence of Christ.
The Holy Spirit is not the same as Christ, even if the Spirit is God, and Christ is God. They are two persons.
quote:
The RC doctrine of the Real Presence in the eucharist says that the presence of Christ wherever two or three are gathered is somehow not "Real" enough. He's only "really" present in the wafer.
|
News to me. I have seen them cite the same passage as evidence that Christ is bodily present in the eucharist.
quote:
The problem isn't me, it is the doctrine. We have mutually acceptable examples in scripture of what Jesus' bodily presence does, and we don't see things of that nature in the Real Presence. So what changed? Jesus didn't change; if anything His power is more fully expressed in Resurrection.
|
quote:
There are 6 billion people on this planet, most of them in desperate poverty. Why does not God do something? Because God responds to faith, not to need. This is a hard truth.
|
True, he responds to faith, but the lack of a response from God, is not evidence of a lack of faith. Bad things do happen to those who are faithful people, as we have seen throughout history.
Secondly, you say that we have evidence of what occurs in the bodily presence of Christ. If you recall, I said that there is a difference between always and never. People have been healed in the presence of Christ in the eucharist, even though not everyone who partakes will be healed. So one can say that we have seen evidence of the presence of Christ in the eucharist through miracles.
quote:
James says "You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures." How fine a line does one draw here? It certainly isn't up to me. Maybe some who pray for healing do so out of a selfishness rather than looking to God and seeking Him.
|
Men look at outward things, but God looks at the heart. Same principle in how he chooses the king over Israel, as in how he will judge each one of us.
quote:
Doing a study of shipwrecks with and without missionaries is pointless. Maybe God wants the ship wrecked at a certain place to reach people that would be overlooked otherwise. Maybe some missionaries are disobedient and God permits them to perish.
Look at Paul, who was shipwrecked on the isle of Malta. Paul warned before the ship left, yet the captain sailed anyway. Paul prayed and although the ship was lost none of the crew or passengers died. Why didn't his prayer stop the storm? Why didn't his prayer enable the ship to reach a safe harbor? We often do not get to specify the form, but our faith allows the expression of miracles.
|
It became the evidence cited against God, that he could see no statistical difference between the ships with missionaries from the ships without them. What the test forgets is that bad things happen to faithful people, and always have happened.
quote:
The RC doctrine of the Real Presence replaces faith in God with ceremonial mysticism. I suppose it feels good to the participants, and maybe a few gain something by seeing past the symbols to God.
|
The passage used to defend the presence of Christ is seen here: John 6:47-59
quote:
"I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
|
I remember the first homily I heard this, and I remember the reaction of Denise when she heard the priest. At the time, she was afraid I would be put out, but the priest spoke the truth. This has been a difficult teaching of Christ, and still remains so even now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
No, I think you have the wrong idea of what the Holy spirit is. The Holy Spirit is not the same as the incorporeal presence of Christ.
The Holy Spirit is not the same as Christ, even if the Spirit is God, and Christ is God. They are two persons.
quote:
The RC doctrine of the Real Presence in the eucharist says that the presence of Christ wherever two or three are gathered is somehow not "Real" enough. He's only "really" present in the wafer. |
News to me. I have seen them cite the same passage as evidence that Christ is bodily present in the eucharist. |
Yes, but the devil can cite scripture, too. RC doctrine says only a priest can consecrate the wafer, yet here Jesus says, "wherever two or three are gathered, there I am in the midst." They don't even need a wafer, much less a priest, only that they gather. I'll take Jesus' word over Rome's word any day.
Again, I'll take Jesus' word when He says we don't need His bodily presence. I'm not the one who said Jesus and the Father are one, that Jesus came from the Father and ascends to the Father, and the Father sends the Holy Spirit who will lead us into all truth. Where do you get your idea of what the Holy Spirit is?
quote:
I remember the first homily I heard [from John 6:47-59], and I remember the reaction of Denise when she heard the priest. At the time, she was afraid I would be put out, but the priest spoke the truth. This has been a difficult teaching of Christ, and still remains so even now. |
Yes, it is a difficult teaching, mostly because the proof-texters leave off the part where Jesus explains the imagery in private to His disciples. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."
It is also difficult because they then combine the half-explanation from Jesus' public preaching with a misinterpretation of Jesus' teaching at the Last Seder. Jesus didn't say that the Seder is His flesh and blood, He said His flesh and blood is the true sacrifice of which the Passover Lamb is the shadow. The Seder is understood as a symbol of that Passover sacrifice.
Understand this: Jesus' physical flesh and blood didn't come down from heaven! His body was made here on earth. His body was conceived and grew in the womb, built moment by moment from the nutrients in the food his mother ate, just like you and me.
What came down from heaven is the Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... and the Word became flesh..." There is a reason why John said that at the beginning of his Gospel, because everything in it will be misunderstood apart from this principle.
So, it is not some mystical transubstantiation of elements that brings the bodily presence of Christ to us, it is His words that bring the Spirit to us, and life to us.
quote:
True, he responds to faith, but the lack of a response from God, is not evidence of a lack of faith. Bad things do happen to those who are faithful people, as we have seen throughout history. |
God cannot both respond to faith and not respond to faith. "God is not a man, that he should lie." Again, this is a hard truth. I prayed for years that a certain situation change and it did not. My lack of faith is at the root. But when I saw that I was in error, and barely began to shift my perspective and expectations, immediately I got specific guidance from God. Within one day the situation started to change!
I hesitate to make that statement on a forum such as this, as anecdotal evidence is always suspect. I do not cite this as "proof" because I have no intent to demonstrate to you or anyone else what happened or how it happened. Take it for what it is worth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If that were true, than change would not be possible. Since we do know change is possible, then therefore there cannot be an unbroken continuity of dogma, in the sense that you mean here.
Greater understanding can be attained over time, and will be attained, as the Catholic church better understands the teachings of Christ. However, this understanding will not be contrary to the teachings of Christ as a whole.
All that is happening here, is that a better explanation for the rationale behind the doctrine of the church has supplanted the previous explanation. The doctrine has not changed, just the understanding of why. |
The continuity of dogma and the infallibility of the Church expressed by the council of Cardinals and the Pope says that rationale is only there to help us understand. The dogma itself is never in error and can only be expanded. The old can never be obsolete as the RCC has formulated its claim to authority.
quote:
Incorporeal spirits are contrary to what is meant by assumption. Bodily assumption into heaven, is how assumption has always been understood. The real question is Moses, who did die, and was buried, and yet appears alongside Elijah who had been bodily assumed. |
Yes, and the contradiction indicates that the logical and rhetorical assumptions about physical assumption must be incorrect. Again, perhaps the clearest and most direct teaching in the NT is about the resurrection. See 1 Thes 4 and 1 Cor 15.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
quote:
No, the Sacraments are the only method, except that God permits the effect of the Sacraments "by desire." (IIRC, that is the exact phrase.) A conversion alone in the desert, at the moment of death, would not need baptism and last rites physically, but the effects of the those Sacraments would be imputed as God judges the heart. |
We agree, just differ in the precision of the terminology. You are right that the effect of the sacraments is permitted through desire, and not necessarily the actions of the priest. |
So why make this doctrine that only a Priest can perform the sacraments, if at its heart the doctrine is not accurate and constantly needs exceptions and corrections? To me, this seems like Ptolomaic Astronomy, with its epicycles upon epicycles, never quite matching up to reality. Eventually somebody realized it is the model that is wrong.
quote:
quote:
The Sacraments, in RC doctrine, are the transformation of the ordinary into the sacred. If the transformation has taken place (marriage, conversion, etc) then the Sacrament has taken place, too, without the presence of a wafer, or priest, or whatever else might normally be required. |
In baptism this is true...
Marriage is the same way...
However, a marriage that takes place, in a civil ceremony, between two Catholics, is not considered the same thing as a marriage inside the church...
As for communion, there are special circumstances... |
The transformation of the invisible Substance is the Sacrament. In effect, the RCC admits that it has to construct blind guidelines to guess at whether any transformation actually takes place, always subject to later revision case by case, but again according to blind guidelines.
quote:
quote:
The reverse holds so that in annulment the RC church declares there was no Sacrament despite the administration of the formal rites, thus the marriage was invalid. |
For very specific reasons. One of them being the lack of consummation. If the wife can say that the marriage has not been consummated, then it can be annuled, in that it never actually occured. Much in the same way that a sacrament, adminstered contrary to the will of the participants, cannot have the same validity as one administered in accordance to their will. |
Again, you are missing the point. If the Sacrament is a change in the invisible Substance of the persons, then whether there is any consummation by their Accidental forms in coitus is immaterial.
What we have is an ancient tradition that marriage must be physically consummated in order to be legally binding superposed upon a philosophical supposition on the nature of marriage. The RC church, because of its squeemishness about sex, cannot simply state that the act of consummation is a part of the Sacramental Rite and therefore an unconsummated marriage is an incomplete Rite and may be invalid as a Sacrament.
quote:
quote:
How can we partake of the eucharist without believing in the Real Presence? Because we, in essence, define the eucharist differently. We define salvation differently. We define Apostolic Succession differently. We define the Church differently. By the necessity of human language we use the same terms for nearly everything but use them differently. |
In the sense that the Catholic church uses the term sacrament, you cannot participate in the sacraments, without first coming to accept their meanings. One can call a goat a dog, but the goat is no more a dog, just because you call it so. |
We aren't calling a goat a dog, we are calling a ceremony a ceremony and not dogmatically insisting that some imperceptible transformation takes place.
The RC church admits that the key element is the will of the participants. They cannot partake in the Rite if they don't properly understand, but they do in fact partake in the Sacrament, else they cannot be saved. If the participants are improperly educated in the view of the RCC, having been raised in a Protestant church and culture, the sacrament is believed by the RCC to have taken place anyway on an individual basis.
Of course, then the RCC has to apply the double standard to keep the Catholics in line, insisting they have to follow Rome or be denied the Sacramental blessing even if the RC church fails to educate its own.
quote:
quote:
In our view the RC church defines them based on centuries of myth, superstition, and error. We don't. In the RC view our definitions don't trump their "truth," so the fact is that the Sacraments are taking place in and around us unwittingly. |
Interesting. How do you think Catholics see the adoptation of certain sacraments, by those who reject the church as a whole? They see it as an affirmation of their own beliefs, since these folks found things they could not do without. The error in your case, is seen more of omission than commission. |
Once more my point sailed by without effect. We don't adopt any of the Sacraments. We hold certain ceremonies in common: baptism, marriage, the eucharist, and ordination. We call the ceremonies sacraments to distinguish them from ceremonies that are purely secular in tradition, such as burial. The only transformation that Protestants recognize is that of conversion, the "new birth," which some insist occurs at the moment of baptism. Conversion is the one transformation that the RC church in essence denies.
quote:
If annulments and divorce were a casual affair, then Charles V wouldn't be camping an army by the Vatican. |
No, if annulments were not a casual affair but a reflection of fact that the Sacrament of marriage never took place, then the Pope would have recognized the annulment no matter how many armies threatened.
quote:
Yes there are many folks who have cause to be angry and bitter about the Catholic church, and many for much stronger reasons then this. I see this as a problem with the casual annulment, without cause, than with the doctrine of the Catholic church. |
The two go hand in hand. You have a undetectable and permanent Sacramental transformation, and no way to back down except by the fiction of annulment. It is the model that is broken, not the reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
as a protestant.
So what should I do?
My confirmation will be tonight at the Easter vigil, where I will be getting both confirmed and taking my first communion.
I've been looking forward to this day for some time now, and working towards this over the last three years.
I might not have been sure where I would end up, but I am happy with where this has taken me. |
Do you want the real answer, or the diplomatic one?
The Real Answer:
Give up on the fairy tales and accept the world with your own mind and eyes. That is my way.
The Diplomatic Answer
If you are truly spiritual, why the heck do you care how others regard you? You should not worry.
In short
Forge on where your heart takes you, carpe diem!
It is your reality, and not for anyone else.
So, if you don't hurt anyone else, by all means, go where you have to go to seek your answers...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2005 08:17
|