2007 MAY 03
Talk about confusion. … The conviction that the Eucharist is Christ’s real body and blood …
I fail to recognize the relevance of your point to the topic of this thread, while my previous posts have dealt with the conflict between Protestants, and Catholics, I have at the least attempted to unify Protestants with Catholics, and to stand on the ground, common between us, that we are in fact of the universal church in so far as one, we never left the church, and two, the church being universal is practicable by all, at all times, of all places–this of course, should be seen as pertinent to the topic as relevant to salvation: the practice of faith, essential to salvation.
Your line of thought seems better suited to a discussion about liturgy and sacraments, rather than apologetics–you avoid the points that I raise, and now change the topic to the Eucharist, and Martin Luther’s understanding of it, and at a time when some, or perhaps many undisputably argue, that by-and-large, most Catholics fail in their belief of the Real Presence, a belief long adhered to by all Catholics, inclusive of Martin Luther and therefore, never in dispute by Lutherans. Yes, Jesus said, this is my body. Jesus’ body must be something other than human?Jesus was born into the world as a man. His blood type, if there be any truth at all to the scientific examination both of the Shroud of Turin, and the cloth used by Veronica to wipe Jesus’ face as he carried the cross verify that his blood is A +. There is no miraculous transformation of his flesh at conception, at birth, and during his adulthood prior to the carrying of the cross, and certainly none at the time that he instituted the Eucharist, that anyone has made known and therefore, your concept of the Eucharist as the Real Presence hardly seems invalidated by an interpretation, that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist, though, as there was no physical change of Christs’ body as human flesh, to another sort of flesh, let alone to bread; there is little reason in my opinion to argue, that it is requisite to salvation, that one must accept not only the Real Presence, but also only the interpretation of some within the Catholic Church, to the exclusion of others in the Catholic Church, such as Martin Luther.
His points were raised as questions. To what extent were they thoroughly addressed, disputed, argued, etc. prior to any effort at all involved with then labelling him a “heretic”? Huss was burned at the stake for his support of a translation of the New Testament into English: a blatant affront against The Great Commission of the New Testament?
Is the Church’s stand on the salvation of Protestants the same as what Pope Innocent III established during his “reign” as pope? Is it even plausible; when it is plausible, that there was never any legitimate “schism” caused, sought, or even adhered to by Martin Luther. Martin Luther raised questions according to a protocol established by the U. of Wittenberg. They should have been given the attention appropriate to theses raised by a U. professor, as a matter of propriety, and certainly of justifiable concern with respect to social justice. Was this ever done? Either Martin Luther raised these questions according to the appropriate protocol, or he did not, but if he failed to do this: how is it possible to dispute his claim, that he in fact raised these questions as an apology? What is your answer: did he, or did he not raise these questions in the manner appropriate for such questions to be raised, and were they, or were they not answered in the manner appropriate for questions raised by a priest, a university professor, and undoubtedly beloved by those whom knew him as well?
The consequence of this to salvation is what?
The Catholic Church perhaps never had any rightful claim to monopolize salvation: it seems presumptuous, arrogant, and foolhardy. Perhaps the best defense of the Catholic Church in-so-far as the Roman Rite is concerned is to admit defeat; where and when it has been defeated, and it would seem with the scriptural basis of it being “all but destroyed”; there is room to admit defeat; though you might laude this egregious coercive act of excommunication on the part of Pope Leo as an obvious defeat; wrought by your own papacy, and there you stand; when you could do other.
It seems to me your resolve of historically schismatic acts is not to seek common ground first, as it has been stated should be done by our Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), but instead you seem bent toward confrontation, conflict, and the stimulation of it; quite honestly, it is an affront, and a bore.
