confused about Transubstantiation...

[distracted]

I can assure that is not my intent, but I do feel it is my duty as a member of this forum to help foster a civil debate and prevent personal attacks of any kind.

your comments sound like attacks… so i guess its just ok for some posters to do that…

. But as I said, in reading your previous posts you have, in my opinion, been walking right along the line. Hence why I gave you a polite warning.

sorry but this sounds pretty arrogant… Who are you to pass out warnings??

as far as you being interested in the truth, I applaud you for that. Please remember that context is as important as the words that were said.

right… i never read things in context… gotcha…

Take this example of a US Marine Corps officer going through survival training:

1st Lt. Nathan Fick was captured during his S.E.R.E training. He refused to answer any questions from his captors. They brought in an unfamiliar face who posed as a member of some Red Cross-type group. The interviewer asked yes/no questions about the treatment that Fick was receiving (food, water, etc.) and Fick answered with head movements.

During the after-action review, Fick was shown the video from that interview. The questions in the video were things like “Do you think the United States is evil?” Without the background, we lose understanding. All they did in that exercise was voice-overs and it completely changed the context of the interview.

So while I understand you have difficulty with the statements and actions of JP II and of Benedict, please do try and find the full context of the interview/speech before you jump to conclusions.

i dontt really ge the Fick story…

as far as the last statement… i wish you would stop presuming that i take all comments out of context…

here’s a little exercise for you

If your spouse wrote a note and put it on the door for you to read when you get home and it said

I am going to the store. I am not sure what i will get there - something for dinner. But i had to go to the store because we are out of food. I don’t want to go to the store cuz i am tired. But i have to go. I don’t know when i will be back but it shouldn’t take me long. i think i will get some chicken for dinner if that’s ok

If all you read of that statement… (say the last 6 sentences got eaten by the dog or something… wouldn’t you still get the main message??
would you be wrong to acknowledge that the person was going to the store???

 

[distracted]

in other words, reading part of w hat someone says is not always a bad thing…

meaning can be found in ONE sentence that cannot be interpreted any other way than what the words say…

so that argument aobut context just doesn’t always fly, for crying out loud

 

[BryanM27]

your comments sound like attacks… so i guess its just ok for some posters to do that…

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I felt that I was being polite and respectful in asking you to be mindful of how your posts may be read by others.

sorry but this sounds pretty arrogant… Who are you to pass out warnings??

I am someone who would like to see everyone treated with respect. Since you have more time on this forum I suspect that you have read the same rules as I have. I am simply asking you to obey those rules.

right… i never read things in context… gotcha…

I never said this. I am asking you to provide context for the quotes that you have provided. Sorry that this was not made clear.

i dontt really ge the Fick story…

Imagine if you saw that video without knowing the backstory to it. You would see someone who hates America based on his responses to the questions you thought were being asked. If you know the backstory, you know it was a trick.

as far as the last statement… i wish you would stop presuming that i take all comments out of context…

I only presume that there is more to the story than simply the quotes you have provided.

here’s a little exercise for you

If your spouse wrote a note and put it on the door for you to read when you get home and it said

I am going to the store. I am not sure what i will get there - something for dinner. But i had to go to the store because we are out of food. I don’t want to go to the store cuz i am tired. But i have to go. I don’t know when i will be back but it shouldn’t take me long. i think i will get some chicken for dinner if that’s ok

If all you read of that statement… (say the last 6 sentences got eaten by the dog or something… wouldn’t you still get the main message??
would you be wrong to acknowledge that the person was going to the store???

Yes, in that example I would still get the main message. However, that is a far more simple example than the situation we are dealing with here. In your example I know the author and I know the audience. In this thread I know only WHO the author is. I know nothing about his audience, and I know nothing about his intent in making these statements. Those are key pieces to help others understand, and that is the context I am asking you to consider. If you have already considered it, then please post it so that the rest of us may consider it as well.

 

[distracted]

I’m sorry that you feel that way. I felt that I was being polite and respectful in asking you to be mindful of how your posts may be read by others.

I am someone who would like to see everyone treated with respect. Since you have more time on this forum I suspect that you have read the same rules as I have. I am simply asking you to obey those rules.

I never said this. I am asking you to provide context for the quotes that you have provided. Sorry that this was not made clear.

Imagine if you saw that video without knowing the backstory to it. You would see someone who hates America based on his responses to the questions you thought were being asked. If you know the backstory, you know it was a trick.

I only presume that there is more to the story than simply the quotes you have provided.

Yes, in that example I would still get the main message. However, that is a far more simple example than the situation we are dealing with here. In your example I know the author and I know the audience. In this thread I know only WHO the author is. I know nothing about his audience, and I know nothing about his intent in making these statements. Those are key pieces to help others understand, and that is the context I am asking you to consider. If you have already considered it, then please post it so that the rest of us may consider it as well.

uh… hmmm… maybe i am tired or something… probably hungry too… but… and maybe i have ADD or something… but i don’t get this paragraph… i mean… like i don’t even get ONE sentence…

1st we were talking about statements made by hierarchy in the Church… now you are talking about… uh… whomever…

 

[BryanM27]

uh… hmmm… maybe i am tired or something… probably hungry too… but… and maybe i have ADD or something… but i don’t get this paragraph… i mean… like i don’t even get ONE sentence…

1st we were talking about statements made by hierarchy in the Church… now you are talking about… uh… whomever…

Yes, we were speaking about statements made by hierarchy in the Church. What I am saying to you in that paragraph is that I (and many others here) have little to no understanding of some of the basic context of these statements. Then Cardinal Joseph Razinger made statements to a large group somewhere (I believe these particular statements were made in Austria). I know nothing about the group he was speaking to, and what issues they were having with their faith or even their daily lives. I also know nothing about the intent of Cardinal Ratzinger when he gave these statements. Those are things needed to provide context so that we may understand.

As I said in response to your example, we can easily understand one sentence written to us from someone we know very well. It is much more difficult when we do not know the audience or the intent of the author.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Question answered, thread closed.