M
Michael16
Guest
The teachings you were taught, @mcq72; were made by men who didn’t know God as the Apostles knew Christ in the flesh.
- Status
M
Michael16
Guest
What error is that, @mcq72?
M
mcq72
Guest
Again the essence of the error we see in each other.
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
I see in you a good man. A good man who wants very much to be saved. I saw that in you in that core shaking experience in that conversation we had.
What I’ve seen in our discussion today is you tried very hard to defend your positions but nothing overcame Catholic teaching except holding onto your position with good old fashioned stubborn tenacity.
I see in you a good man. A good man who wants very much to be saved. I saw that in you in that core shaking experience in that conversation we had.
What I’ve seen in our discussion today is you tried very hard to defend your positions but nothing overcame Catholic teaching except holding onto your position with good old fashioned stubborn tenacity.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
As Jesus said, you have posted with me this long and you haven’t seen my contrary positions?.. you want this to go all the way into bext year?
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
If it be God’s Will; May it be done according to His Word.
If it be God’s Will; May it be done according to His Word.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
Michael16:
you want this to go all the way into next year?
Next yr is only hours away.
BTW, for information purposes, Jan 1 2020, is the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. A holy Day of obligation. I’m going to mass this evening, at today’s vigil.
I love the Blessed Mother.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
So do I, @steve-b.
Mother Mary keep you and God bless.
Mother Mary keep you and God bless.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Here is an interesting statements from Pope St John Paul II encyclical Ut Unum Sint that I feel some Roman Catholics in the thread need to acknowledge:
“Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse.” (emphasis not mine)
These words are spoken directly towards Catholics since this is an encyclical directed to Catholics.
John Paul II goes on:
“With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.” (Bold emphasis mine)
Roman Catholics seem to think that they are not at fault for any divisions yet John Paul II is saying that we all are at fault.
I’m rereading the encyclical so I’ll be back.
ZP
“Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse.” (emphasis not mine)
These words are spoken directly towards Catholics since this is an encyclical directed to Catholics.
John Paul II goes on:
“With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord’s disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people’s minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation.” (Bold emphasis mine)
Roman Catholics seem to think that they are not at fault for any divisions yet John Paul II is saying that we all are at fault.
I’m rereading the encyclical so I’ll be back.
ZP
M
Michael16
Guest
You raised a good point, @ziapueblo.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Another goodie from the encyclical:
“The Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the weaknesses of her members, conscious that their sins are so many betrayals of and obstacles to the accomplishment of the Saviour’s plan.” (emphasis not mine)
ZP
“The Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the weaknesses of her members, conscious that their sins are so many betrayals of and obstacles to the accomplishment of the Saviour’s plan.” (emphasis not mine)
ZP
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Ut Unum Sint
“I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium. That will be an exceptional occasion, in view of which she asks the Lord to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion.3 The present Encyclical Letter is meant as a contribution to this most noble goal. Essentially pastoral in character, it seeks to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.“ (bold emphasis mine)
I’m not sure that this means cramming things down people’s throats with a we’re right, you’re wrong approach. This goes for all sides. That’s not to say that one does not speak what they think the truth is but not in a “mic drop” sort of way.
“I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative aimed at making the witness of the entire Catholic community understood in its full purity and consistency, especially considering the engagement which awaits the Church at the threshold of the new Millennium. That will be an exceptional occasion, in view of which she asks the Lord to increase the unity of all Christians until they reach full communion.3 The present Encyclical Letter is meant as a contribution to this most noble goal. Essentially pastoral in character, it seeks to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.“ (bold emphasis mine)
I’m not sure that this means cramming things down people’s throats with a we’re right, you’re wrong approach. This goes for all sides. That’s not to say that one does not speak what they think the truth is but not in a “mic drop” sort of way.
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
Ut Unum Sint
Pope St John Paul II writes that his specific duty as the successor of Peter is not supreme jurisdiction but “to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.”
“Indeed, if Christ himself gave Peter this special mission in the Church and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, he also made clear to him his human weakness and his special need of conversion: “And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).“
As an Orthodox, I agree with this statement and I don’t see how this is seen as immediate jurisdiction.
ZP
Pope St John Paul II writes that his specific duty as the successor of Peter is not supreme jurisdiction but “to encourage the efforts of all who work for the cause of unity.”
“Indeed, if Christ himself gave Peter this special mission in the Church and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, he also made clear to him his human weakness and his special need of conversion: “And when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).“
As an Orthodox, I agree with this statement and I don’t see how this is seen as immediate jurisdiction.
ZP
Last edited:
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
That’s the Douay-Rheims Bible (which is the English version of the Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible for hundreds of years). Imo, all the others you cited look like they’re Protestant.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
That’s an inaccurate translation. Douay-Rheims Bible, Matt. 26: 26 et seq. (w/ footnotes):
[26]] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.
[26] “This is my body”: He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.
[27] “Drink ye all of this”: This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says St. Mark 14. 23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice; any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and at the same time, bid the apostles do so; in these words, St. Luke 22. 19, Do this for a commemoration of me.
[28] “Blood of the new testament”: As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc., Heb. 9. 20; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc.
[29] “Fruit of the vine”: These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
[26]] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. [29] And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. [30] And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet.
[26] “This is my body”: He does not say, This is the figure of my body, but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6.) Neither does he say in this, or with this is my body; but absolutely, This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation.
[27] “Drink ye all of this”: This was spoken to the twelve apostles; who were the all then present; and they all drank of it, says St. Mark 14. 23. But it no ways follows from these words spoken to the apostles, that all the faithful are here commanded to drink of the chalice; any more than that all the faithful are commanded to consecrate, offer and administer this sacrament; because Christ upon this same occasion, and at the same time, bid the apostles do so; in these words, St. Luke 22. 19, Do this for a commemoration of me.
[28] “Blood of the new testament”: As the old testament was dedicated with the blood of victims, by Moses, in these words: This is the blood of the testament, etc., Heb. 9. 20; so here is the dedication and institution of the new testament, in the blood of Christ, here mystically shed by these words: This is the blood of the new testament, etc.
[29] “Fruit of the vine”: These words, by the account of St. Luke 26: 22. 18, were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents or qualities of wine.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Lol…good one
M
Michael16
Guest
Not a good one, @mcq72.
The truth.
The truth.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Incorrect. Please see the footnote I posted earlier to Matt. 26: 26 et seq.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
I feel this is weak. The Lord also did not say, I am the figure of a Door, I am the figure of a vine, I am a figure of a good shepherd.
Normally, when doesnt mention the word figurative when speaking figuratively…they may but more often not…finally He does not say, I am changing this bread to me , or this bread is transubstantiated to my body.
The plainest meaning would be figurative, and the least problematic.
From footnote:
“Though the sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness,”
Why mention this if indeed the referenced cup for sure was not the consecrated cup?
To me it woud be odd to mention the consecrated cup quite explicitly and then mention a cup of the fruit of the vine, shortly thereafter and not be the same cup.
.
Never the less i might be correct and might not be per said footnote that the consecrated cup was referenced by our Lord as wine.
Understand there is much discussion to the nature of the meal, and natures of the cup(s).
Last edited:
- Status