picchick Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] Incidentally Meg, I'm so glad you believe what Jesus says. Now tell me: God has announced in Scripture in more than 5 places, the direct, emphatic, and unambiguous statement that "ALL HAVE SINNED". Even a child could understand that......because GOD HAS SAID WHAT HE MEANT. Now why don't you believe it[i]???????[/i] You and your church simply spit in His face and tell us that Mary is an EXCEPTION! What part of "all" was confusing for you my dear? Which is exactly what you will hear from the the Lord (as well as Mary) on Judgment Day. Storm [/quote] Storm, welcome. I do not know you so please don't call me, "my dear." Nothing about "all" was confusing to me. Unless you know the belief and doctrine surrounding Mary, you really cannot comment. I am not going to debate you. I know the truth. Nothing you say and nothing you quote is going to change that. You can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, I will still believe that Jesus is present Body, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. God Bless, Meg
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 5, 2009 Author Posted September 5, 2009 [quote name='picchick' date='05 September 2009 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1252184125' post='1961384'] Storm, welcome. I do not know you so please don't call me, "my dear." Nothing about "all" was confusing to me. Unless you know the belief and doctrine surrounding Mary, you really cannot comment. I am not going to debate you. I know the truth. Nothing you say and nothing you quote is going to change that. You can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, I will still believe that Jesus is present Body, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist. God Bless, Meg [/quote] I agree, because the Scriptures back up the Eucharist. However, since Storm has chosen to move on to another topic, perhaps we should assume he gave up on this one. Of course, another topic should go in a separate thread. I'm sure our PMers will be happy to point out to him that the Greek word for "all" (panta) means not only "all" but also "many" and that even if I say "all" in the English language, that "all" could mean "in general" (in the sense that human nature [i]in general[/i] is marred with sin) not "each and every." That, of course, would just be if he decided to start a new thread.
Slappo Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='05 September 2009 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1252185058' post='1961391'] I agree, because the Scriptures back up the Eucharist. However, since Storm has chosen to move on to another topic, perhaps we should assume he gave up on this one. Of course, another topic should go in a separate thread. I'm sure our PMers will be happy to point out to him that the Greek word for "all" (panta) means not only "all" but also "many" and that even if I say "all" in the English language, that "all" could mean "in general" not "each and every." That, of course, would just be if he decided to start a new thread. [/quote]
Marie-Therese Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Stormstopper, May the peace of Christ be with you, and welcome to Phatmass. I would like to begin by stating that I am a Catholic convert, being raised in the Southern Baptist faith. I am well versed and well educated in Protestant theology and in the arguments which you make. While I am not going to (as yet) refute your post point by point (simply because I do not have the adequate time right now to do so), I would like to initially address a very few points you have made in your last post here, simply because they leapt out at me and I felt compelled to respond. If, as you say, you have spent 25 years studying Catholicism and compiling this argument, surely you would permit a few of us more than a cursory "hello" to compile a response to you. I begin with a request. In the name of Christian charity, and since we are brothers and sisters in Christ (regardless of differences in dogmatic issues), I would ask that you keep your tone in mind. In order to have a productive dialogue, it is important to refrain from condescension. I am an adult with a well-formed faith and I don't need to be insulted. Thank you. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] Thanks to the few who welcomed me.[/quote] You're welcome. We are Catholic, not cretin. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] But seriously now, I went through the string of replies and all you have done is blow a lot of smoke and dust into the air with your trite little comments. What am I supposed to say to the one who said, "don't speak to us in capital letters"?[/quote] This is what I was referring to in terms of tone. We tend to try and respect each other and to observe general etiquette. Simple as that. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] We feel we are [i][b]rightly dividing the word of God [/b][/i]in stark contrast to your belief system [/quote] Catholics don't believe the Word of God is to be "divided." Our belief is that Scripture is one and indivisible. It says the same thing from beginning to end. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] and that izzzzzzz "evangelizing", contrary to the one who said it wasn't. IMHO, most of you are hiding behind the excuse of it being too long so you won't have to lift a finger to support your views. In reality, I think you probably weren't aware of the mountain of logical and biblical arguments to validate Jesus was speaking figuratively-- and so, behind a closed bathroom door you've probably had to grab a sedative with the realization that the word of God is indeed more powerful than any two-edged sword and you just don't know what to do when you see it is chopping down the hocus-pocus-domininocus of "The Real Presence" [i]at its roots. [/i][/quote] 1. Condescending. Rarely are people's hearts and mind won with character assassination. And please, don't respond with the "Jesus turned over the tables" answer. There is a difference between righteous anger and generally just being unpleasant. 2. Since I spent over 30 years as an evangelical Protestant, I'm pretty familiar with the "logical and biblical arguments" against the Catholic position. Your continued little digs and insinuations that somehow Catholicism is a mental problem aren't appreciated. Btw, the word of God is indeed more powerful than a two-edged sword. Hence, I am Catholic. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1252160103' post='1961283'] Incidentally Meg, I'm so glad you believe what Jesus says. Now tell me: God has announced in Scripture in more than 5 places, the direct, emphatic, and unambiguous statement that "ALL HAVE SINNED". Even a child could understand that......because GOD HAS SAID WHAT HE MEANT. Now why don't you believe it[i]???????[/i] You and your church simply spit in His face and tell us that Mary is an EXCEPTION! What part of "all" was confusing for you my dear? Which is exactly what you will hear from the the Lord (as well as Mary) on Judgment Day.[/quote] As others have said, if you are trying to argue a refutation of the Catholic belief of the Eucharist, please stay on topic. However, since you brought it up... 1. A newborn infant dies. Has he/she sinned? 2. Those who live to adulthood yet suffer from some mental incapacitation which prohibits them from comprehending the difference between right and wrong...sinners? I am particularly fascinated that the evangelical position is that the Bible is, in all cases, literally true...well, except for that whole hokey "Eucharist" thing (of course that is figurative!), and the everyone is a sinner thing (because there are obvious exceptions to that evidenced in nature). You can't have a belief that the Bible is literally true in all aspects except where you determine it to be figurative. What documents do you have from the apostles to indicate that Christ taught the Eucharist to be a symbol, outside of your own interpretation of the gospel texts? The Catholic Church has thousands of years of history to reinforce the arguments of its dogma. Evangelicals can date back to roughly the 17th century where they can proudly point to a group of dissenters as their primary source material. I appreciate your vigor in defense of your position. I hope that you can give those of us here equal respect.
sacredheartandbloodofjesus Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 Hello Storm, my fellow brother in Christ Jesus, who has died and is Risen. I see alot of false interpretation of scripture in this argument, Storm. To try and prove your idea, You are pulling all of your quotations of scripture out of context. A very dangerous thing to do. We cannot interpret scripture without the Church, which was founded on Peter. St. Paul says in (2 thess. 2:15) "So then brethren,stand firm and hold the traditions which you were taught by us, either by [u]word of mouth [/u]or by [u]letter[/u]." -It appears that you are putting sola scriptura into practice, And excluding the traditions of the Apostles and Bishops. Which St. Paul clearly says not to do. other scriptures condemnind sola scriptura follow 1Cor. 11:12, 2Tim. 1:13-14, 2Tim. 2: 1-2, 2Peter 1:20-21, and 2John 12. -If the Eucharist is not the real presence of Christ, why would St. Paul say in (1 Cor. 11:27).. "Whoever, therefor, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord" And all of Chapter 6 of John crushes any argument against the Eucharist... That is, if you dont pull little bits and peices out of context. -And it would be very sad if the core of the Church from its very infancy, was worshipping mere bread as its God. Christs church was suffering martydom for this "mere bread" since his Ascension. Study Christian history and observe the facts. So the majority of Christians were worshipping "bread" from the year 33 AD until the 1500's? Even Martin Luther believed in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but he couldnt accept the teachings on adoration and exposition. And truthfully, the Catholic Church is still the largest Christian church. -Also a couple little insights that might help you Storm...Did not Jesus take the form of an embryo inside the womb of Mary? Wouldnt it have been very hard to recognize him in this hiddeness...a little bloody round clot inside Mary the Ark. And yet John the Baptist recognized him and was sanctified in the womb. Later Christ was born in Bethlehem and Bethlehem means "House of Bread", and he was placed in a manger a place for FEEDING, on top of straw....which is the empty remains of what WHEAT is extracted from. And a star guided the very Wise Men to come and ADORE him.
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='05 September 2009 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1252158663' post='1961276'] The first mistake of arrogance is that it blindly condemns others as being inferior. You are making the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures (but that's another debate). Why you make that assumption I don't know, perhaps you were raised in an anti-Catholic environment, perhaps you are a former Catholic who didn't pay attention to the multiple readings and references to Scripture in the Mass that follow a three-year Bible study format, perhaps you have just been deceived by others. In the theology of the Church, the Eucharist is not a separate event from the Cross, but a mystical re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. In fact, the entire life of Christ and not only His death was a sacrifice to God, the same way that our lives of choosing virtue over sin is a sacrifice to God, but it culminated in His death. Even so, the Eucharist is a re-presentation, that is, that a priest in our time offers bread and wine which becomes Christ, the very same Christ who offered Himself once-for-all upon the Cross precisely as Christ offers Himself. It is as if the multiplication of the loaves had been applied to the Crucifixion across time, that the one sacrifice of Christ could be brought to all people. The sacrifice at the Last Supper was simply a pre-presentation instead of a re-presentation. As you surely already know, no typology is a direct and perfect parallel. Aside from that, however, you are incorrect. My above statement on the Eucharistic sacrifice points out that the Eucharist is offered in the same way that Christ was offered on the Cross. The Body offered in the Eucharist at the Last Supper was the Body that hung upon the Cross, mystically in the time of the Crucifixion, not the Last Supper. Okay, the problem here is that you're trying to work out your theology on a topic that transcends time within the limits of temporal expression. There is one Body of Christ. The Eucharist which we receive is the whole Christ, the same Christ who was born of the Virgin, the same Christ who was Crucified, the same Christ who is now glorified in heaven with the Father. You're trying to use that statement and take it into a theological direction that was not intended by the author, which is a strawman fallacy. What you're trying to do is take a series of statements pointing out the significance of the Eucharist (by showing that we are receiving the true Christ, the Son of God become man, living in history and transcending history in eternity) and set those statements against what might be called "Eucharistic time." The problem is that the sacramental presence of Christ is not bound by the temporal or physical locality of His local presence (the term the Church uses to describe Christ's presence in heaven "at this moment" for lack of a better phrase). When we receive Christ in the Eucharist, we receive a Person, not just a body, and that Person brings His entire personal history with Him. It is as if we receive Him in every moment of His life all at once. There is no contradiction. My previous points already address this. The Blood that was within the chalice was bound up in the following day. It would not have been the same had Christ slit His wrists and poured out His Blood into the chalice. Further, as I've said, the Eucharist is the whole Person of Christ, not just His Blood in the chalice and His Body in the host. If the Last Supper is not the first Eucharist, then the Last Supper was a purposeless practice of the Old Covenant that was not transformed into the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Jesus fulfills the Old Covenant. How could He possibly leave the Passover meal unfulfilled by celebrating the Passover and simply using it as a symbolic reference to something entirely different? You accuse us of having inadequate typology, but your typology isn't even typology, since typology has a type and an antitype which [i]fulfills[/i] it. I've already argued against most of this, but it's important to point out that while Jesus' words at the Last Supper certainly call to mind the words of Moses, the reception of the Eucharist by Christ's faithful most perfectly fulfills the sprinkling of blood in the Mosaic rite. If a wealthy man makes a will and divides his wealth among his sons, that man can still give of his wealth freely. Because a living man is not bound by his will (which takes effect when he dies), he is free to give as generously as he wishes from the wealth he has marked for future distribution. While the legal argument you've presented seems solid, it defies this simple understanding. Christ our Lord is not bound only to grant healing and salvation after His death, unless you mean to say that Christ did not have authority over sin and death before He died. A wealthy man could even give one of his sons his portion before his death (in fact, our Lord points this out in the parable of the Prodigal Son). Furthermore, if we understand the Eucharist to be in the moment of the Death of Christ (and to contain the whole Person of Christ with His entire life), then your point is further irrelevant. God bless. [/quote] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Raphael says that my first mistake is one of arrogance, in that I am blindly condemning others as being inferior. Excuse me, but the Catholic Church does this all the time! She is infamous for her long string of declarations that those who are outside of the Catholic Church are in definite peril, and Protestants in particular are to be labeled as "separated brethren" who most certainly do not have the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church may think anything she wishes, but if [u]her[/u] condescending attitude is acceptable in your eyes, then you must not be offended when we assert worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]As for the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures: well let's just say this. Have you seen the video, "Catholicism:Crisis of Faith"? They took a video camera straight to St. Patrick's cathedral in N.Y. and asked those coming out of Mass what gave them the confidence that they were going to heaven. Unfortunately, ALL the answers were [u]wrong[/u] except one, who gave Jesus the credit. The rest were simply hoping that their good deeds would outweigh their bad ones, or, "I'm doing my best".[/color][/font][font="Arial"][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I'm trying to get to those who responded as time permits, so please be patient.[/color][/font]
iheartjp2 Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497'] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Raphael says that my first mistake is one of arrogance, in that I am blindly condemning others as being inferior. Excuse me, but the Catholic Church does this all the time! She is infamous for her long string of declarations that those who are outside of the Catholic Church are in definite peril, and Protestants in particular are to be labeled as "separated brethren" who most certainly do not have the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church may think anything she wishes, but if [u]her[/u] condescending attitude is acceptable in your eyes, then you must not be offended when we assert worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]As for the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures: well let's just say this. Have you seen the video, "Catholicism:Crisis of Faith"? They took a video camera straight to St. Patrick's cathedral in N.Y. and asked those coming out of Mass what gave them the confidence that they were going to heaven. Unfortunately, ALL the answers were [u]wrong[/u] except one, who gave Jesus the credit. The rest were simply hoping that their good deeds would outweigh their bad ones, or, "I'm doing my best".[/color][/font][font="Arial"][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I'm trying to get to those who responded as time permits, so please be patient.[/color][/font] [/quote] I don't think anyone was really so much offended at your denial that the Eucharist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ as they were at your assertion that those who believe such are "blind" and that any attempt at defending said belief amounts to "trite comments". There are a good number of people on this forum, myself included, who are converts to the Church and it was a larger-than-life decision for us to make the journey. I would encourage you to develop some tact if you want anyone to listen to what you have to say. As for the video, who are "they"? How do "they" know that all of the Catholics they interviewed were properly catechized, and how do we know you're not exagerating answers to make it sound like they believed that one could work his way to heaven? Edited September 6, 2009 by iheartjp2
Slappo Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 There's 1.1 billion Catholics and out of all the places to go interview them to see if they know scriptures you pick New York City on what I'm assuming is a Sunday mass to interview Catholics as to their views on heaven... Big surprise that you didn't get astounding theological results. Oh and BTW, St. Patrick's Cathedral is a big tourist site so a lot of the people may not have even been Catholic depending on when this group went. You didn't grab the Catholic's who were putting their rosaries back in their rosary pouches, or who were still kneeling after mass because they were adoring Christ whom they just received in Holy Communion. I'm sure I could manage the same results from most protestant churches...
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='LivingStone' date='05 September 2009 - 12:22 AM' timestamp='1252128164' post='1961209'] Just note that there's a difference between evangelizing and "discussing" (which seems more like debating/argument). Upon first impressions alone, it doesn't seem that these people are seeking out truth in any sense; rather, are content with the 'truth' that they have conceived and are looking to merely rattle a few cages. In other words, this ain't evangelization people. Respond to them and tell them that we'll pray for them. I think that would be most appropriate, but that's my opinion. Peace. [/quote] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]Dear Mr. Stone,[/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]As we said in our essay:[/color][/size][/font][font="Fixedsys"][size="2"]Remember, there is nothing wrong with disputing the facts. The Scriptures conclusively prove that the act of disputing encompassed much of the life of the apostle Paul who was accused of turning the world upside down {Acts 9:22,17:2, 17:6, 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-10; 19:26, 20:31,24:25, 28:23}. He challenged the status quo and was unconcerned about ruffling feathers, saying, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the [i]truth[/i]? {Galatians 4:16}. [/size][/font][font="Fixedsys"][size="2"][/size][/font] [font="Fixedsys"][size="2"][/size][/font]
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497'] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]Raphael says that my first mistake is one of arrogance, in that I am blindly condemning others as being inferior. Excuse me, but the Catholic Church does this all the time! She is infamous for her long string of declarations that those who are outside of the Catholic Church are in definite peril, and Protestants in particular are to be labeled as "separated brethren" who most certainly do not have the fullness of truth. The Catholic Church may think anything she wishes, but if [u]her[/u] condescending attitude is acceptable in your eyes, then you must not be offended when we assert worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry.[/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]As for the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures: well let's just say this. Have you seen the video, "Catholicism:Crisis of Faith"? They took a video camera straight to St. Patrick's cathedral in N.Y. and asked those coming out of Mass what gave them the confidence that they were going to heaven. Unfortunately, ALL the answers were [u]wrong[/u] except one, who gave Jesus the credit. The rest were simply hoping that their good deeds would outweigh their bad ones, or, "I'm doing my best".[/color][/font][font="Arial"][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I'm trying to get to those who responded as time permits, so please be patient.[/color][/font] [/quote] 1. The Catholic Church condemns error and heresy. She does so using logical reasoning and listening to all sides. It is never done lightly and always takes a long time (long enough for some of us to grow impatient frequently over the whole process). You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that you do not understand what you condemn, and so you condemn rashly. 2. As for the video, it was developed by a well-known anti-Catholic who consistently uses deception, lies, misleading questions, and creative video editing. You can read a good Catholic review of it [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Exposing_Catholicism.asp"]here[/url]. The fact that most Catholics are poorly catechized only proves that they are victims of parents who do not know or teach the faith and a media that does not understand Catholicism. As for your insistence that they don't know the Scriptures, that would depend on your interpretation of the Scriptures, which you haven't proven yet, so you're using the fallacy of begging the question. You cannot suppose that the answers of any Catholic off the street are a representation of the Catholic faith. Unlike some religious groups, we have official theological beliefs, not merely the opinions of our faithful. 3. Regarding knowing the Scriptures and quoting them, keep in mind that the reason Catholics quote so many other sources aside from the Scriptures is that our understanding of Revelation has developed for the past 2000 years as we have heard competing theories and interpretations and come up with answers of varying certainty. It's easy for Evangelical Christians and Fundamentalists to make claims that Catholics rely too much on Tradition and not enough on Scripture, but when you consider that you have the Catholic Church to thank for preserving the understanding of Jesus as God (the Council of Nicaea) and other aspects of the authentic faith you take for granted, you need to appreciate why we reference councils and catechisms just as readily as the Scriptures. 4. Please respond to the actual response I made to the topic at hand. God bless.
Marie-Therese Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497'] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]She is infamous for her long string of declarations that those who are outside of the Catholic Church are in definite peril, and Protestants in particular are to be labeled as "separated brethren" who most certainly do not have the fullness of truth.[/quote] 1. Protestants are separated brethren because they separated themselves from the rest of the Church, i.e. the Catholic Church. That is not a character aspersion, it's a pretty simple fact. 2. There are many Protestants who will be comfortably in Heaven with the Lord with the benefit of only 2 sacraments, while many Catholics won't avail themselves of the entire 7 the Church possesses and will find themselves eternally in Hell. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497'] The Catholic Church may think anything she wishes, but if [u]her[/u] condescending attitude is acceptable in your eyes, then you must not be offended when we assert worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry.[/quote] I'm not offended at your position. You are perfectly free to agree or disagree with any position of the Catholic Church. I simply disagree with your conclusion. [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497'][/color][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]As for the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures: well let's just say this. Have you seen the video, "Catholicism:Crisis of Faith"? They took a video camera straight to St. Patrick's cathedral in N.Y. and asked those coming out of Mass what gave them the confidence that they were going to heaven. Unfortunately, ALL the answers were [u]wrong[/u] except one, who gave Jesus the credit. The rest were simply hoping that their good deeds would outweigh their bad ones, or, "I'm doing my best".[/color][/font][font="Arial"][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#008000"]I'm trying to get to those who responded as time permits, so please be patient.[/color][/font] [/quote] I appreciate your answers. However, Stormstopper, this is a pretty specious argument. Go to the United States Capitol building and interview members of Congress as they exit, and ask them a question about parliamentary procedure or about a specific article of the Constitution. See how many correct responses you get. Faith isn't a sidewalk interview segment from David Letterman. Members of all Christian faiths may or may not be properly catechized or, to use a less Catholic term, properly educated in the faith. I heard a story that Howard Stern had some of his staff members interview people in the Bronx prior to the presidential election. Two of the people he questioned were African American, and one was Hispanic. All were self-identified Democrats. None of them were able to correctly identify the Democratic candidate for Vice President. Now, by your example, we could draw a few conclusions from this stunt: one, that democrats are stupid; second, that African Americans are stupid; and third, that Hispanics are stupid. Now, obviously you can not make such generalizations from such an incident. Yet the example you give would do much the same thing to Catholics. Many Catholics will be the first to admit that due to societal change and liturgical change, a large segment of the current Catholic population, especially of the US, is at best poorly educated in their faith and, at worst, grossly ignorant of it. I would wager that such a phenomenon exists in all faith bases, regardless of dogmatic assertion. I am completely serious when I say that I respect your view. I held identical views for many years. However, there were burning questions that Protestant theology simply could not adequately address, and the Catholic Church answers each and every one. I wish that you could find it in your heart to have the same respect and sincerity for Catholics, even if you did not agree with us. Pax Christi. ETA: edited for grammar and clarity. Edited September 6, 2009 by Marie-Therese
Apotheoun Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 The video [i]Catholicism: Crisis of Faith[/i], which is available on Google video, is interesting viewing, but like most Protestant attacks upon the Church it is superficial in its treatment of Catholic doctrine.
Nihil Obstat Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 (edited) [quote]“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.) “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)[/quote] Sorry for the drive by quoting. Just wanted to make sure this was clear, because I wasn't positive that it was after the admittedly brief glance I had. We do teach that outside the Church, there is no salvation. That does not mean that those who do not call themselves Catholics cannot be saved. That would be a rather arrogant statement, considering we're not in charge of who's saved and who's not. The following section was added for clarification. When we say that nobody outside the Church is saved, we are saying that when a person is saved, it is through the Church. That's a fine distinction to make. [quote]846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:[/quote] [quote]847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337 848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338[/quote] Edited September 6, 2009 by Nihil Obstat
Marie-Therese Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 September 2009 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1252204176' post='1961567'] Sorry for the drive by quoting. Just wanted to make sure this was clear, because I wasn't positive that it was after the admittedly brief glance I had. We do teach that outside the Church, there is no salvation. That does not mean that those who do not call themselves Catholics cannot be saved. That would be a rather arrogant statement, considering we're not in charge of who's saved and who's not. The following section was added for clarification. When we say that nobody outside the Church is saved, we are saying that when a person is saved, it is through the Church. That's a fine distinction to make. [/quote] Thanks Nihil. This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Raphael caught my error and so I redacted a portion of my previous comment for clarity.
Nihil Obstat Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Marie-Therese' date='05 September 2009 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1252204542' post='1961573'] Thanks Nihil. This is what I was trying to get at earlier. Raphael caught my error and so I redacted a portion of my previous comment for clarity. [/quote] I wasn't sure if I had misread you or something, so I threw some stuff together just in case. I figured you knew what you were talking about though.
Stormstopper Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Raphael' date='05 September 2009 - 08:51 AM' timestamp='1252158663' post='1961276'] The first mistake of arrogance is that it blindly condemns others as being inferior. You are making the assumption that Catholics don't know their Scriptures (but that's another debate). Why you make that assumption I don't know, perhaps you were raised in an anti-Catholic environment, perhaps you are a former Catholic who didn't pay attention to the multiple readings and references to Scripture in the Mass that follow a three-year Bible study format, perhaps you have just been deceived by others. In the theology of the Church, the Eucharist is not a separate event from the Cross, but a mystical re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross. In fact, the entire life of Christ and not only His death was a sacrifice to God, the same way that our lives of choosing virtue over sin is a sacrifice to God, but it culminated in His death. Even so, the Eucharist is a re-presentation, that is, that a priest in our time offers bread and wine which becomes Christ, the very same Christ who offered Himself once-for-all upon the Cross precisely as Christ offers Himself. It is as if the multiplication of the loaves had been applied to the Crucifixion across time, that the one sacrifice of Christ could be brought to all people. The sacrifice at the Last Supper was simply a pre-presentation instead of a re-presentation. As you surely already know, no typology is a direct and perfect parallel. Aside from that, however, you are incorrect. My above statement on the Eucharistic sacrifice points out that the Eucharist is offered in the same way that Christ was offered on the Cross. The Body offered in the Eucharist at the Last Supper was the Body that hung upon the Cross, mystically in the time of the Crucifixion, not the Last Supper. Okay, the problem here is that you're trying to work out your theology on a topic that transcends time within the limits of temporal expression. There is one Body of Christ. The Eucharist which we receive is the whole Christ, the same Christ who was born of the Virgin, the same Christ who was Crucified, the same Christ who is now glorified in heaven with the Father. You're trying to use that statement and take it into a theological direction that was not intended by the author, which is a strawman fallacy. What you're trying to do is take a series of statements pointing out the significance of the Eucharist (by showing that we are receiving the true Christ, the Son of God become man, living in history and transcending history in eternity) and set those statements against what might be called "Eucharistic time." The problem is that the sacramental presence of Christ is not bound by the temporal or physical locality of His local presence (the term the Church uses to describe Christ's presence in heaven "at this moment" for lack of a better phrase). When we receive Christ in the Eucharist, we receive a Person, not just a body, and that Person brings His entire personal history with Him. It is as if we receive Him in every moment of His life all at once. There is no contradiction. My previous points already address this. The Blood that was within the chalice was bound up in the following day. It would not have been the same had Christ slit His wrists and poured out His Blood into the chalice. Further, as I've said, the Eucharist is the whole Person of Christ, not just His Blood in the chalice and His Body in the host. If the Last Supper is not the first Eucharist, then the Last Supper was a purposeless practice of the Old Covenant that was not transformed into the sacrifice of the New Covenant. Jesus fulfills the Old Covenant. How could He possibly leave the Passover meal unfulfilled by celebrating the Passover and simply using it as a symbolic reference to something entirely different? You accuse us of having inadequate typology, but your typology isn't even typology, since typology has a type and an antitype which [i]fulfills[/i] it. I've already argued against most of this, but it's important to point out that while Jesus' words at the Last Supper certainly call to mind the words of Moses, the reception of the Eucharist by Christ's faithful most perfectly fulfills the sprinkling of blood in the Mosaic rite. If a wealthy man makes a will and divides his wealth among his sons, that man can still give of his wealth freely. Because a living man is not bound by his will (which takes effect when he dies), he is free to give as generously as he wishes from the wealth he has marked for future distribution. While the legal argument you've presented seems solid, it defies this simple understanding. Christ our Lord is not bound only to grant healing and salvation after His death, unless you mean to say that Christ did not have authority over sin and death before He died. A wealthy man could even give one of his sons his portion before his death (in fact, our Lord points this out in the parable of the Prodigal Son). Furthermore, if we understand the Eucharist to be in the moment of the Death of Christ (and to contain the whole Person of Christ with His entire life), then your point is further irrelevant. God bless. [/quote] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"]My favorite Bible story is the one of the unnamed man of God in 1 Kings 13. He was told by the Lord to go on a journey and not stop to accept any invitations. He turns down the first invite, but gives in to the second---when the deceiver says, "But the Lord told me it was alright you come with me, as I too am a prophet". And the text then reads, "But he lied to him". Disasterous results followed for that poor soul, but the lesson is clear: Stick with God's instructions at all costs over and against such arguments as yours. We are going to be judged by the Word of God! (John 12:48). Your theology is constantly running afoul of biblical parameters--and I am not going to be taken in by it. We submitted that Jesus most certainly did [i]not[/i] offer Himself at the Last Supper because He had not yet died---and Hebrews 9:16-20 verifies that in beautiful simplicity. Your response was that the alleged "sacrifice" of Christ at the Last Supper must be categorized as a [i]"pre-presentation"[/i] of the [i]"re-presentation" [/i]that would be offered in future Masses; and that the Body offered at the L.S. was Christ's body hung "mystically" on the cross at the soon-to-be [u][i]actual[/i][/u] crucifixation; and the blood at the L.S. was that blood [i]"bound up" [/i]in that soon to follow event at Calvary. Will someone please pass the smelling salts, I think I'm gonna faint. Need it be said that you haven't a shred of biblical support to back up these assertions? As far as I know, the Catholic Church does not use the terminology "pre-presentation" in any of her official writings and in 25 years I have never come across it. Kindly inform me where it may be found. Moreover, we have already dealt with the illogic of the "re-presentaion" fallacy and I will paste it here because many might be lazy and not wish to go back to the essay: [/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][/color][/size][/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"][size="3"]Next, the Catholic Church claims to be a time traveller. With the powers of a "time-machine" she is able to transport the event at Calvary back into the future! Those of us who are not devotees of science fiction know all too well that we cannot summon an event from the past and bring it into the present. We are dumbfounded that the Catholic Church has the nerve to teach this "Star Trek" myth. Here is how it goes: The Catholic Church has a "Spinmobile" and asserts that the Eucharist [font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]"re-presents" [/color][color="#0000ff"]the sacrifice of the cross, and that Jesus wanted to leave to His beloved spouse, the Church, a sacrifice to be [/color][color="#ff0000"]"re-presented" [/color][color="#0000ff"]{CCC #1366}. Notice, we are not saying the word "represents"-----but rather, "re-presents". To this word, they have arrogantly appointed a new meaning! She says that a past event can now be---[/color][color="#ff0000"]"made present" [/color][color="#0000ff"]in real time! {CCC #1111, 1362-1364, 1366}. Does any dictionary in the world support the meaning that the Catholic Church has assigned to this word? It most certainly does not! Let's take this step by step:[/color][color="#000000"] [/color][/font][/size][color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]A . . . One glance at Webster's on-line dictionary reveals that it means "to present again". No where will you find even a hint that a past event can be taken out of the past and re-presented in the future. [/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]B . . . We then turn to the American Heritage Dictionary, as well as the on-line Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and discover that the words, "representaion" and to "represent" {where, to "re-present" is derived} comes via Old French, from the Latin, "repraesentatio" and "repraesentare".[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]C. . . We then turn to the Oxford Latin Dictionary where these two words are given three possible meanings:[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]i . . . a payment in ready money.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]ii . . . an act of bringing something before the mind.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]iii . . . an image or a representaion in art.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]For obvious reasons, we are mainly concerned with points ii and iii which involve representing something previously absent, now "made present" by either an oratorically vivid illustration, or in art form by some sort of artistic display. [/font] [font="Comic Sans MS"]D . . . The three sources listed above would agree that the orator and artist describe a situation or past event in either words or art, and tries to bring about in our imagination an inner picture, re-presenting the event for us in our minds.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]E . . . We must conclude that Jesus Christ, the great Orator and artistic Creator of the Universe {John 1:1-3}---used both words and the symbols of bread and wine to represent both His life and death {Romans 5:10}----resulting in the perfect fulfillment of ii above. It does not get any more complicated than that.[/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"][font="Comic Sans MS"]F . . . The Catholic Church has now been found GUILTY of appointing an absolutely UNHEARD of definition to "re-present" and it's Latin derivitives; namely, the supposedly "making present" of a past event, brought forth into "real time". This is pure fantasy! The sources above, as well as the universal consensus of the simplicity in receiving a letter "making present" the voice and ideas of the writer, deny this new meaning that the Catholic Church has pulled like a rabbit out of a hat. They admit as much by stating that, "in the New Testament, the memorial takes on [u]new meaning[/u] . . .the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all on the cross, remains ever present" {CCC #1364} . "The Catholic Church's contention is not that Christ is slain afresh, but that His past slaughter is re-[i]presented [/i] afresh" {ibid, Sungenis, p. 91}. "For the priest has power over the very body of Jesus Christ and makes it present upon our altars, [u]offering[/u] Him a victim pleasing to the Divine Majesty" {Pius XI, "Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, 1935}. "Christ's sacrifice is present on the altar" and they may now pray that, "by the hands of your holy [/font][/color][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#ff0000"]angel[/color][color="#0000ff"] this [u]offering[/u] may be borne to your altar in heaven in the sight of your divine majesty" {CCC #1368, 1383} .[/color][color="#000000"] [/color][/font] [color="#0000ff"]And needless to say, the Scriptures do not mention any sacrifice being transported into heaven by ANGELS either.[/color][color="#0000ff"] [/color][/color][/size][/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][size="2"][color="#008000"] [/color][/size][/font]
Vincent Vega Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 [quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1252200220' post='1961497']She is infamous for her long string of declarations that those who are outside of the Catholic Church are in definite peril[/quote] FALSE. [quote], and Protestants in particular are to be labeled as "separated brethren" who most certainly do not have the fullness of truth.[/quote] TRUE [quote]worshipping the Eucharist is idolatry.[/quote] FALSE. [quote]Unfortunately, ALL the answers were [u]wrong[/u] except one, who gave Jesus the credit. The rest were simply hoping that their good deeds would outweigh their bad ones, or, "I'm doing my best". [/quote] I'll give you that one. That reflects less, however, on the fullness of Truth that the Church maintains and more on the sorry excuse for religious education that has been taking place in this country for the last 40 or so years.
Vincent Vega Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Also, I like how instead of taking the time to understand the philosophical meaning and intents of the Church when she talks about the representation of the Holy Sacrifice, you just mock it and compare it to Sci Fi. And by the way, I'm not sure using the American Heritage dictionary adds a great deal to your side of the debate when discussing Transubstantiation. Maybe quoting the Early Church Fathers would be of more use...unless they too were simply tools of the great Whore, who were holding the "true Christians" underground until the 1600s. ( )
Recommended Posts