“Real” is not “real” just as “cold” is not “cold” you’ve just oversimplified the matter because you seemingly cannot get the distinction between different uses of the word. The Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are a whole other issue that do not even fit into the spiritual presence we speak of in the “Christians praying together” example. The Divinity does not absorb the Humanity and the Humanity does not lessen or diminish the Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
We will be raised in our bodies, which are the physical bodies we have now in a glorified state. Jesus rose from the dead bodily, not merely in a spiritual sense. Both/and-there can be no drastic dichotomy placed between soul and body unless we want to wonder off into the various Christological heresies.
You are a Catholic? Then why are we even arguing about this? That said, you should know very well that the Blessed Sacrament, since It is truly God, is to be given the worship of latria which is reserved to God alone. Creatures, even the most sublime are only given hyperdulia (BVM) or dulia.
Like I said in a previous post, that would be idolatry-wholly unpleasing to God and wholly offensive to pious ears.
Dulia. Believe me, the Benedictines do not worship men. The distinction held by the Sovereign Pontiffs are likewise held by orthdox Benedictines. Let all guests be received LIKE Christ…
We are integrally bound up body AND soul. The matter of the Eucharist cannot be forced into a dichotomy because we make no distinction that God the Son is lesser than God the Father because of His humanity but we also recognize that every “presence” is not on the same level. Christ is also present in the altar-but the altar is not God!
There is absolutely NO presence whatsoever in a non-Sacramental (Catholic or EO) Eucharist but only in people on account of their baptism and their humanity.
Agreed. However my point is to highlight the presence of Christ, recognized IN the stranger (and the effect this would have on the world if we recognized this in other people as much as we do a piece of bread.)
Actually, my point was that you are valuing the physical presence over the spiritual which you acknowledged was present in non-Catholic celebrations of the Eucharist. Since you acknowledge that every presence is not equal, which takes precedence?
Prove it. You can’t, you can only argue doctrine and church “authority”. Step over to the EO forum for their thoughts on the authority matters in general. You may have complete faith in the “authority” of the church, but faith is far different a matter than proof. I think it is completely presumptuous to assume what God can and will do, church “authority” or otherwise.
Well, and going with what I said before and what the Church teaches, they are two different things. The “piece of bread” is not bread at all any more. Jesus is not present “within” the bread, the substance has completely and utterly changed. The accidents of bread are tasted and seen, but Jesus is substantially there-no bread remains.
There is no dichotomy between spritual and physical-in the Eucharist there are both, and all Presence of Christ. To what degree Jesus is present (since God is omnipresent anyway) amongst non-Catholics is varied and debatable anyway.
Prove that we are wrong. We don’t rest on “proofs”. Besides, if you are Catholic then you do not believe what the EO believe regarding authority anyway.
Truth is not “elitism”, nor do we even claim that the Holy Spirit only communicates through the Pope.
Well, He can’t be telling us one thing and you another. Someone’s gotta be getting the wrong message.
Do you think the Church needs to foot the bill every time someone wants to get married again and has to make everything right for them? Two thousand is chump change compared to what it would cost if you had secular lawyers working on a case like that in the same format. Also, we are always willing to help people out who absolutely cannot afford such an expense.
He would tell you exactly that because He does love you.
From the Council of Trent
In the Eucharist that is true. But are you saying that 1st and 3rd persons of the Trinity are physical?
Thanks for making that point for me. No one can prove it either way. We rest on faith. Since faith can’t be refuted in an objective fashion and you acknowledge this, your insistence in calling other’s beliefs wrong would be charitably be described as purposefully divisive.
As a Catholic I have absolutely no investment in the Pope’s “authority”, nor will I subscribe to any sort of partisan-religio-patriotism on his behalf. I acknowledge him as my spiritual leader. I will not make claims as to his authority over others.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
Jesus ONLY established one Church - the Catholic Church. The rest of them are man-made. Jesus has no authority over these other church organizations (“authority” comes from the root word author meaning establisher, composer, organizer) because He did not make them. Human beings made them.
No, of course I’m not saying that the 1st and 3rd Persons are physical beings.
What the Church teaches is beyond “objective” proofs but is no less true. I cannot look at a protestant host under a microscope and see if Jesus is there or not, but I can have recourse to the Council of Trent and say with absolute certainty that He isn’t. As the Church has again clarified, there is only one true Church. Divisive? I suppose, but Jesus did say He came not to bring peace but the sword.
As a Catholic you are obligated to believe with divine and Catholic faith in the infallibility of the Pope and this means that he is more than just a mere “spiritual leader”.
Well, that is what the Church teaches. Other Churches and ecclesial communities have elements of the truth. Where do they get that truth? The Catholic Church. They have absolutely no efficacy on their own. So, ultimately, He does only work through our Church because all elements of truth found in other groups come from the Church.
I will give you this much. However, 2000 years after the fact many would disagree as to which church now represents best the Church that Jesus intended, as well as its structure, components and necessary elements. Ultimately this discussion will prove futile as some say Peter, some say his confession of faith.
but my favorite spiritual mentor sang this, I think it fits, hope you think so;Ok. You agree that two parts of the Trinity are non-physical. You agree that non-catholic celebrations of the Eucharist have at least the spiritual (non-physical) presence of Christ but due to their lack of “apostolic-succession” they can’t produce a “valid” (whatever that is) Eucharist which becomes physically the body of Christ. On this basis their Eucharist is (let’s borrow from the Pope) “defective”. They have Christ in their celebrations but only the Church can say when and where Christ physically appears. In your eyes, the physical presence is superior to the spiritual presence of Christ because, by your (and the Church’s) criteria, only the Catholic church can have it.
Ohhkay. Poor Galileo.
It would be interesting but probably un-productive to hear your definition of “divine and Catholic” faith. Is it an ex cathedra statement that I promote the Pope’s authority over others?
It looks like a whole thread has been devoted to this one, I won’t waste my time here on it.
It is not a matter of “best represents.” You’re speaking as though Christ’s Church that He established were no longer here, and that we now must look for the best imitator of that Church.
“Valid” is an important word, related to the concept of authority. For example, if you did not have a “valid” driver’s license, you would not be allowed to drive your car on public roads, even if you were an expert motorist. An appropriate authority has to ascertain that you do indeed have these skills, and authorize you to drive, by giving you a “valid” driver’s license.
This makes no sense whatsoever. All truth comes from God, and flows to the Catholic Church. Any truth that anyone outside the Catholic Church has, they got it from the Catholic Church.
Comrade Andrei is no doubt using the standard definition of this phrase, which is that to believe with divine and Catholic faith is simply to fulfill the promise that we all made before God when we made our Profession of Faith at the Easter Vigil or when we received the Sacrament of Confirmation - to avoid all heresies, and to believe that “whatever the Church teaches me is true, because Christ established it and is protecting it from error.” If you are a practicing Catholic adult, then at some point in time, you made this promise to God.
Yes, I am sure that it is a perfect example of 2000 years of the least becoming the first…
Your statement makes no sense unless you assume that the Roman church is the sole arbiter of truth via God. This is an article of faith, not fact. Without daring to think or analyze beyond your assumptions, you will automatically condemn anything that does not conform to your worldview. This is exactly what is wrong with the Roman (imperial?) approach to ecumenism. My way or the higway does not lead to dialogue nor does it encourage people to consider your view as valid. Many hear this approach and simply dismiss Catholicism as arrogant. Certainly you will say “they do so at the peril of their souls and the truth” but you can only do so because you have defined your tradition as the sole arbiter of the truth. How convenient and condescending. Why even try?
A condemned criminal went on to become Emperor of the whole world. Yeah, I’d actually say it was the prime example of the least becoming first. Thanks for pointing that out!!
I’m a convert from wishy washy liberal Protestantism. Thinking beyond my world view is how I got here.
A plain reading of history and the Gospels brings us to the realization that the Church Christ founded is the Roman Catholic Church. It’s still here. Always has been. The rest of them came more than 900 years later. He was not here on the earth to establish them or to authorize them.
Jesus “issues the licenses.” The root word of “authority” is “author.” Jesus only “authored” one Church - the Catholic Church.
