W
Walking_Home
Guest
Not your intent otjm—yet you go on and on about why our Lord did what He did, whether we are theologically correct, etc. etc. What follows your denial — cancels it.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Not your intent otjm—yet you go on and on about why our Lord did what He did, whether we are theologically correct, etc. etc. What follows your denial — cancels it.
O
otjm
Guest
No, I think not. It just makes you uncomfortable, I think.
Not your intent otjm—yet you go on and on about why our Lord did what He did, whether we are theologically correct, etc. etc. What follows your denial — cancels it.
M
Markstorm
Guest
I’ve been refuted, so I’m just going to keep assuming that you’re all uncomfortable. In fact I’ll harp on it with every post that I make. This is conducive to debate!
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home
Not your intent otjm—yet you go on and on about why our Lord did what He did, whether we are theologically correct, etc. etc. What follows your denial — cancels it.
No, I think not. It just makes you uncomfortable, I think.
Think whatever, manipulate it however you want. The truth of the matter is — I don’t fall for your scheme. I know what is true – He becomes present — and offers to me – all that He is – in the Host alone.
O
otjm
Guest
I have manipulated nothing, and I have never denied the theological issue of reception under one species. It is not a scheme. I just want you to think outside the normal pattern you use to approach the issue. Other people get it. perhaps you, too, will some day be able to look at the Eucharist from a different perspective. It is still the Eucharist.
Think whatever, manipulate it however you want. The truth of the matter is — I don’t fall for your scheme. I know what is true – He becomes present — and offers to me – all that He is – in the Host alone.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I have manipulated nothing, and I have never denied the theological issue of reception under one species. It is not a scheme. I just want you to think outside the normal pattern you use to approach the issue. Other people get it. perhaps you, too, will some day be able to look at the Eucharist from a different perspective. It is still the Eucharist.
Think outside the normal pattern — what pattern would that be. The pattern set forth by the Church — the “pattern” you are pushing that we think “outside” off. There have been those in our Church’s history – who have also pushed for thinking “outside” the normal pattern – Arias, the Ultraquists, Luther etc. – and yes they did get people thinking outside the pattern – but we know how that went.
O
otjm
Guest
You are so interesting in the directions you go. You appear to only know linear thinking, based on theological statements. The Eucharist is not about a theological statement; it is about Christ. It would seem that you have never read any of the mystical writings of the saints, but so be it. I am sorry that you cannot see beyond the narrow confines of a doctrinal definition; it seems that you believe that is the sum and total meaning and nothing else matters.
Think outside the normal pattern — what pattern would that be. The pattern set forth by the Church — the “pattern” you are pushing that we think “outside” off. There have been those in our Church’s history – who have also pushed for thinking “outside” the normal pattern – Arias, the Ultraquists, Luther etc. – and yes they did get people thinking outside the pattern – but we know how that went.
As a matter of fact, what I am trying to do has nothing whatsoever to do with Luther, or the Ultraquists, or Arias. I am sorry that you seem so unsure of faith that you cannot look at the sacraments as anything beyond a definitional statement. But here is a hint: there is more to the Eucharist than a simple statement from Trent; and that is not to in any way imply that the statement is not correct. What I have suggested you consider has nothing to with heresy in any way.
Since you do not get it and cannot think beyond the doctrinal definition, there really is no point in continuing the conversation, is there? I hope the questions I have asked will be of benefit to whomever may simply be watching.
You are welcome to make further comments, but I will consider them to be pot shots and not dialogue. I have said all I am going to say.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
You are so interesting in the directions you go. You appear to only know linear thinking, based on theological statements. The Eucharist is not about a theological statement; it is about Christ. It would seem that you have never read any of the mystical writings of the saints, but so be it. I am sorry that you cannot see beyond the narrow confines of a doctrinal definition; it seems that you believe that is the sum and total meaning and nothing else matters.
As a matter of fact, what I am trying to do has nothing whatsoever to do with Luther, or the Ultraquists, or Arias. I am sorry that you seem so unsure of faith that you cannot look at the sacraments as anything beyond a definitional statement. But here is a hint: there is more to the Eucharist than a simple statement from Trent; and that is not to in any way imply that the statement is not correct. What I have suggested you consider has nothing to with heresy in any way.
Since you do not get it and cannot think beyond the doctrinal definition, there really is no point in continuing the conversation, is there? I hope the questions I have asked will be of benefit to whomever may simply be watching.
You are welcome to make further comments, but I will consider them to be pot shots and not dialogue. I have said all I am going to say.
Great, great arguments otjm. Your “superiority” is astounding. It must really be a feat for you – to exist side by side with the rest.
P
palmas85
Guest
Whew Well, I think that I can safely speak for a lot of us on this one.You are so interesting in the directions you go. You appear to only know linear thinking, based on theological statements. The Eucharist is not about a theological statement; it is about Christ. It would seem that you have never read any of the mystical writings of the saints, but so be it. I am sorry that you cannot see beyond the narrow confines of a doctrinal definition; it seems that you believe that is the sum and total meaning and nothing else matters.
As a matter of fact, what I am trying to do has nothing whatsoever to do with Luther, or the Ultraquists, or Arias. I am sorry that you seem so unsure of faith that you cannot look at the sacraments as anything beyond a definitional statement. But here is a hint: there is more to the Eucharist than a simple statement from Trent; and that is not to in any way imply that the statement is not correct. What I have suggested you consider has nothing to with heresy in any way.
Since you do not get it and cannot think beyond the doctrinal definition, there really is no point in continuing the conversation, is there? I hope the questions I have asked will be of benefit to whomever may simply be watching.
You are welcome to make further comments, but I will consider them to be pot shots and not dialogue. ** I have said all I am going to say.**
Thanks.::clapping: We’ve all had just about as much of this thinking outside the narrow confines of Catholic Dogmas as we can stomach without getting violently ill.
And yes my friend, I think we all do get it, believe it or not, even as ignorant and shallow minded as we may be.
We get your point loud and clear.
M
Markstorm
Guest
Of course, that’s where we went wrong. Ah, theology, always getting in the way of things.You are so interesting in the directions you go. You appear to only know linear thinking, based on theological statements.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.