WOW…Do you realize what you just said “only a bit of his heart is present”. That IS the miracle of the Catholic Faith. Yes, the Sacred Heart of Jesus is truly present at every Mass offered every day all around the world!!! This is a matter of Faith for Catholics…just like the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and the Ressurrection!
The bit in the brackets seems rather insulting. We all believe what we understand to be the best view. Should I therefore assume that “your needs” require you to follow a hierarchy that tells you what to believe and so you follow that hierarchy and not the CHURCH Jesus established? We both believe that we are following Christ’s teaching and that the other is misguided on certain points, but your assertion about “my needs” could be presented with more grace.
Tell you what, let’s narrow this a bit. You show me the source documents that expressly establish that the Marion doctrines all existed from the outset and I’ll show you the same for the resurrection. When you realize you can’t trace the Marion doctrines back that far (and that you must assume they were present back then and/or rely on inferences drawn on questionable interpretations of scritpure) then we can note that you aren’t exactly comparing apples to apples.
You have heard of the Orthodox, right? …and how would you respond to a Jewish person suggesting ythat you should join him b/c, after all, all of Christianity has its roots in Judaism?
those like Menno Simons would think almost anything could constitute an improvement
It might be the one you and yours refer to when reciting the creed…but not the rest of us.
yes, one can consider the alleged reality and/or the hypothetical…do you even see how the alleged miracle is at odds with the CC’s claim of full presence in each and every bit?
I’ll tell you what,how about going off the ancient sources (1st,2nd,3rd,4th, etc,etc centuries) and not a second hand source called Google. Get back to me on that one.
Do you think the Apostles were already eating before Jesus broke the bread ?
You know, it never would have occured to me that one should check 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th century sources to see how the 21st century church (led by the bishop of Rome) would distinguish between Petrine Primacy and Petrine Supremacy and embrace the former w/o accepting the latter…I wouldn’t know where to start. Perhaps you would be so kind as to lead the way?I’ll tell you what,how about going off the ancient sources (1st,2nd,3rd,4th, etc,etc centuries) and not a second hand source called Google. Get back to me on that one.
You mentioned it and apparently believe it. Tell me where the Bishop of Rome claims superiority over other bishops? Enlighten me. Give me one primary source from any Roman bishop claiming to have superiority over other bishops?
I must confess that I admire "Cafeteria Catholics", those who think, study, ponder and then decide what parts of traditional Catholicism they will embrace. Somehow I have never thought that remaining true to all the traditions that go back hundreds and hundreds of years is altogether and always admirable and a good thing. The world has changed enormously, and our understanding and perceptions are very different. What was easy for the faithful to believe then seems a bit far fetched today.
If Christian unity is ever achieved it will be in large part because traditionalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants and the hyper-Orthodox of the eastern church come to realize that this world is full of mystery and that no church has a monopoly when it comes to understanding it. They may continue to believe what they now believe, but they will have new respect for other Christians and their beliefs and/or doubts. The bitterness that some seem to feel will be replaced by a geneuine sense of Christian harmony and mutual appreciation.
We need a 'big tent' faith that respects different interpretations of scripture. Some will continue to be loyal to the Holy See - and that is fine - but Christians need the freedom to 'think and let think' without having to endure sharp condemnation.
As for Christ in the Eucharist, some of those early mystery religions were big on consuming the flesh and blood of their god or gods in one way or another. This - some would argue - is a relic from the days when human sacrifice was thought to be required to appease the wrath of God. Now think a minute. Is there something just a bit bizarre about God killing his only son so that our sins can be forgiven? Moreover, while Jesus, of course, underwent enormous torment, he knew that shortly he would again reign forever and ever, King of kings and Lord of lords. Millions of people have gone through intense and prolonged suffering and death without that expectation of an eternal throne. I personally see Jesus on the cross as representative of all the innocent people who have been tortured and/or slaughtered by wars, persecutions, natural disasters, horrendous diseases, slavery, and other cruelties. That's how I personally view Christ in the Eucharist.
God bless all people of faith, and may religion become a bridge and not a barrier.From the CCC:
Um…so you don’t accept the biblical accounts of the Lord’s Supper then?
No insult intended.
Maybe this quote from the Catechism might help.
937 The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls”
Where did I say “specifically in reference to other bishops”?
where did I say that the Pope worked alone?..I said that the CC claims supremacy for him…your quote attributes titles of “Vicar of Christ” and “head”…if those titles don’t denote a form of supremacy, then what other bishop is said to possess such titles?
…and it would seem that in addition to claiming supremacy for its Pope, the CC claims supremacy for its priesthood…no surprise there. The Pope is said to have supreme power over the entire church, including the supreme priesthood.
Please, you are only going further off topic and (I have got to think that you must have an inkling that) you are only embarassing yourself. If you really want to pursue this, start a thread in the Apologetics Forum, declare that the Pope doesn’t possess supremacy and see how you do with your fellow Catholics.
What fallacy would that be?..perhaps the fallacy of understanding history in a fashion that isn’t dictated by the requirements of the hierarchy of the CC? One man’s fallacy is another man’s good sense.
In reality, those early church councils weren’t all that early, now were they?
Protestant? Would that be a Protestant from a communion which holds to a RP?..and if so, then what would be his bias? In any event, I’ll see your Kelly and raise you a Pelikan and a Van der Meer. Pelikan, in his first volume of The Christian Tradition writes:
Yep, seen this stuff before….and dealt with the Ignatius quotes and Augustine quotes on other threads…if anyone is interested where, ask and I will provide a link.
It doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church is over 2000 years old, older than any other Church. And Jesus was on this earth more than 2000 years ago. So it shows the Church we refer to when reciting the Creed is the one Christ established.
I don’t believe there is anyting in Jewish law that forbids one from changing their name.
Your problem isn’t that it is just Protestants who are proposing a history of the church that undermines the Catholic claim to a unanimous consent of the Church fathers…your problem is that this bothersome history is also coming from Catholic, Orthodox, and all stripes of non-Christian historians. It seems that your response is to simply complain that they are reaching a conclusion that is different from the old one that you treasure…I guess that shouldn’t be too surprising, after all, how long did it take the CC to admit Galileo had a true discovery?
Right…and I wouldn’t suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine wrt Christ’s two natures are the product of divine revelation…they are the product of man’s attempt to reasonably define the mystery of God (with reference to God’s revelation).
No, b/c everyone has a bias…it is merely a question of how well one eliminates its effect.
do really want to put your knowledge of the ECFs up against the likes of Pelikan?..you are only going to embarass yourself.
Did you read these? Did you note that Iggy says Christ’s blood = incorruptible love? Not exactly literal…which isn’t unusual at all. Ignatius tends to stray from the literal which is why you can’t be sure that when he said that the “Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ” that he was talking about a RP. At that point he is talking about the Docetists. When Ignatius states that the Eucharist is the flesh, he could mean that the Eucharist is the flesh a)literally, b)symbolically, c)sacramentally, d)representatively, or e)mysteriously etc. The Docetists seemed to deny that Christ came in the flesh. As such, they would not confess that the Eucharist was literally the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. Likewise, they would not confess that the Eucharist was symbolically the flesh of Christ b/c no such flesh existed. In fact, they would not confess that the Eucharist was the flesh of Christ in any way, shape or form b/c (they believed that) no such flesh existed. Here is an article that goes into detail…you won’t like the conclusion (b/c it doesn’t suit your faith), but the reasoning is sound.
No it is you who is confused…I suspect you are projecting your usage onto Augustine’s words. Just b/c you mean a RP by that terminology doesn’t mean that Augustine did. You need to read more than a few snippets of Augustine to grasp his view. Follow this thread from start to finish and tell me if you have anything to add…your quoting of a few sentences out of context does not begin to address the matter…but before you even start, you should ask yourself, if Augustine’s support for a RP is as obvious as your sentence or two from sermon 227 would suggest, how could the experts so badly miss Augustine’s belief in a RP? What is more likely? A) that you haven’t grasped Augustine’s meaning; or B) the experts somehow missed those passages that every Catholic apologist wannabe copies and pastes at the drop of a hat?