Because People who deny the Bread of LIfe which is the real presence of Christ are saying it is impossible to have eternal life in Christ then, Are they not?
THERE ought to be a HUGE “CAUTION SIGN” in from of your post: LOGIC AT WORK; ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK:thumbsup:I’ll admit that I’m actually trying to get you to focus on other things.
Why are you asking me about things I haven’t brought up? Reliance on “human logic” (is there any other kind?) is a topic that you’re bringing to the table, not me. And I haven’t said anything about faith; I certainly haven’t said it MUST rely on human logic. Since that’s the case, I should probably be asking you some questions about that, not the other way around. Like, for example, where did you come up with the idea that faith MUST rely on human logic?
I think my personal philosophy’s pretty sound. There might be a disconnect between what mine is and what yours is, though. And upon closer examination, it seems that there may have been a disconnect between Aristotle’s primary source material and some of the theological applications that were made by medieval theologians upon its discovery. It is a complicated matter, of course, involving reams of really dense material that wasn’t always easy to translate from Greek to Latin. And of course there’s the matter of Z.13 (the portion of Metaphysics dealing with Substances and Universals) and its repeated arguments to the effect that universals are not substances. That’s the fundamental tension in his entire examination of “what is.” He’s committed to several propositions: Substance is form, form is universal, and no universal is substance. (Bit of a contradiction there, if it’s at all accurate). That’s where the interpretations of Aristotle go in all different directions, beginning with the extent to which they agree with such a summary of his propositions. (The third one, at least, is undeniable- Z.13 lays it out clearly, repeatedly, and at great length).
I agree with this. And I’m asserting that transubstantiation is one of the exceptions. You notice how I keep talking about things that are self-contradictory? Octagons with less than eight sides, atoms with a certain amount of subatomic particles in the nucleus that somehow manage to “be” a completely different element, “impossible figures” that can be drawn in two dimensions but never made in three.
Oh come now. We’ve spoken before at great length. You know the answer to that. I think you also know that an affirmative answer necessitates that certain things must follow from that…but certain other things are non sequiturs.
***OK, so you don’t want to discuss it, don’t care about the truth. ***
God is the truth. I'm sure we can agree on that. I see many doctrines as man-made, voted on by councils, often influenced by political conditions and influences at the time. Certain schools of thoughts won the vote. Fine.
However, there were many early heresies which based their arguments on scripture. Modalism, monarchianism, Arianism, adoptianism, etc. There is plenty in the Gospels plus the epistles to support various ways of thinking.
For example, I don't believe in predestination, but in Romans 8 (vs. 29-30) Paul writes seems to endorse it. And Jesus said that God knew when any sparrow fell and even the number of hairs on our head. If God knows everything that will occur in advance, it suggest there is no alternative, thereby no freedom.
The Bible had wonderful sections that inspire. But it also contains considerable material that justifies slavery (even selling a daughter into slavery), execution of heretics, not allowing persons with physical disabilities in the temple, stoning, etc., etc. Even Paul said that women should be silent in the churches and that their heads should be covered. When I attend Mass women read lessons and come bare-headed. Fine with me, but contrary to scripture.
I worship God, and not the Bible nor any church. Over the years I have developed a particular admiration for such groups as the Quakers, the Mennonites, and the Salvation Army. Catholicism, of course, has produced many remarkable people such as the Mother Theresas and the Father Damiens. But Hitler and Mussolini and Franco all were baptized Catholics, too, and this murderer in Norway wants everybody to become Catholic so that we can be inspired by the Crusades and battle Islam.
Still, I believe in the Real Presence of Christ, as I explained, but not particularly in a piece of bread and a cup of wine. Jesus promised that he would be with us always. That's great news that we can celebrate.Won the vote, eh?
There is no point to that statement 1.) these errors faded and have negated how can an untruth negate another untruth, unless one wants to be a relativist. That’s like blaming a good idea, being improperly understood. It’s ironic that someone who adheres to blatantly heretical views that don’t even go along with non-Catholic Christians view on the Bible by blatantly reject parts of scriptures especially the OT (almost reeks of Marcionism, and others) Would argue that they alone have the true understanding of God/Christ.
This is a poor understanding of the Church & scripture. You have a poor understanding of the OT. I dont’ even know how a self proclaimed Christian could insult the Bible in such a way. This requires much prayer.
Do not play the moral equivalence card, to some how say that while the Church has produced saintly people that is somehow negated for those who do not remain Faithful. Let alone cherry pick three great sinners, out of a billion other baptized people who are lukewarm, to whatever. That’s like saying Judaism produced Karl Marx and Lenin. therefore that reflects on the religion even though Jesus & Mary are from Judaism.
The Real Presence you do NOT believe in regard to the Blessed Sacrament. This thinking will dismantle the Incarnation and lead to Modernism.
Is that enough?
Yes that trickiness has a solution. It’s called Christ giving us his Church and being the invisible Head in the 1st Century A.D. This is why he gave us a visible head, in Peter. This is why protestantism was such a damaging Heresy. It counters God’s WILL here. Acts 2
Why is it that all this self-interpretation it’s just Jesus & Me from now on has peeled into 30,000 denominations. Why is it that those outside of the Church can’t agree on doctrine, yet Catholics have one doctrine, and when pride gets in the way we argue over Church disciplinary stuff?
People don’t have the benefit of the Church & Sacraments anymore so when they are alone in the dark they are more prone to Error if they rely on themselves too much and too proudly. This is why Jehovah’s Witness which is a rehashed heresy, formed in denial of the Son. Lots are shut out from knowing HOW to interpret scripture,
It has to do with other parts of scripture. Jesus kept his divinity concealed to those who did not understand he was divine. He also used hyperbole in some.
Why do you find it necessary to reject the Logos, the Word hidden in the OT for example? How can Scripture written by the Holy Spirit be okay in one case but not in another? Either you are wrong in your reception of the word, or the Word is wrong. There is no middle ground.
If you want to be your own pope that is fine, but I don’t is it fine for the Blessed Lord.
Democracy does not apply to something OTHERWORLDLY. In knowing God. His kingdom is not OF this world. Democracy; I consider myself a Patriot. But all these socio-political ideas; they are Ccaesar’s; they will pass away, but the Lord’s word will not. Nor will the gates of Hell prevail against his Church.
It is not something one can understand through reason alone , but the Holy Spirit WILL guide the understanding. If one challenges the Eucharist, given much in his faith, and enough grace to believe this part of Scripture for what is truly said; in that Jesus knows us men better than ourselves. One is treading on shaky ground to flippantly disregard the institution. We are no better than those who Jesus dwelt among, and the reactions to the Eucharist are again the same. Those who mocked the early Church & those both in & out who scoff NOW at the Church.
Now Roy we have another problem. You seem to believe that Jesus broke his promise to us or something.
**No, no. Knowing and CAUSING. That is the difference. Causing overtakes Freewill and forces it to conform. Knowing is just that: Knowing. No impedeince of our Freewill. **
HOW MANY THOUSANDS of years ago was this? And what was normal practice at the time of the peoples involved. Your taking historical accounts as TEACHING. Can’t be done unless it is MEANT to be a Teaching. If NOT a teaching its just relaying what was, and how it was.
**WITH a 2,000 YEAR history and BILLIONS of past and present Catholics; your not going to find it difficult to find some “Nut jobs” who CHOOSE NOT TO PRACTICE their faith. To judge Catholism and the CC based on these isolated incidents is simply foolish and self-serving. ** Much you express deals with practice NOT doctrine. Practices are chageable.
The Bible to have ANY merit; must be INSPIRED BY GOD and TRUE [when correctly understood]. It’s been around now for nearly 1, 600 years with its current content. ONLY God could cause that to happen..
Thanks for explaining how we get our Doctrine , Rinnie. How Christ does not leave us orphans, nor in the dark concerning Scripture & Tradition, and the Holy Spirit, as well as the misunderstood infallibility of the Church.There were so many attacks on the Church, and the body of Christ throughout his comments, it was hard to address just one thing.
Then, friend, you are very Catholic when you proclaim the above.
This should not be a question for Catholics. This is analogous to asking a married person why they do not believe in marriage. Holy Communion is the centerpiece of Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. It is the primary…I said primary truth which separates the True Church from the confusion and heresy which surrounds non Catholic denoms.
Because it’s a difficult saying. Who could accept it?
I note that a Christian may be posed with the same challenge from an atheist. “You say that this man, this human being who was crucified, was God Incarnate. Give me some of his flesh, and let’s see if it looks divine. We can do all sorts of things to figure this out. I’m pretty sure that if we examine his heart muscle under a microscope, it’s going to look, well, human. Nothing divine in that cardiac muscle.
”Correction, in older posting.
Great post Pat, all things said here one of the misunderstandings of the “real presence” deals with the revelations of Jesus in and through His sacraments.
What is the ROLE of “Faith” if IT MUST rely on human logic?
There seems to be a HUGE disconnect in your personal philosophy.
OMNIPOTENCE. The almighty power of God. He can do whatever does not deny his nature or that is not self-contradictory. Since God is infinite in being, he must also be infinite in power. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + potentia, power: omnipotens, all-powerful.)
OMNISCIENCE. God’s knowledge of all things. Revelation discloses that the wisdom of God is without measure (Psalm 146:5). And the Church teaches that his knowledge is infinite.
The primary object of divine cognition is God himself, whom he knows immediately, that is, without any medium by which he apprehends his nature. He knows himself through himself.
The secondary objects of divine knowledge are everything else, namely the purely possible, the real, and the conditionally future. He knows all that is merely possible by what is called the knowledge of simple intelligence. This means that, in comprehending his infinite imitability and his omnipotence, God knows therein the whole sphere of the possible.
He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause, actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.
By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)
Do you beleive that God exist?
God Bless you,
Pat
THANKS I NEEDED THAT:thumbsup: