Is The Sacrifice Of The Eucharist In The Bible?

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1083648' date='Oct 4 2006, 08:58 AM']
I find it noteworthy that people have the sure convinction that if they are 'right', it means others are 'wrong'.
[/quote]

Well, it would be silly to believe something that you weren't convinced is the truth. And since God isn't going to force the truth upon is, we are naturally going to arrive at different conclusions.

An EWTN podcast I was listening to yesterday (one of Fr. Groeschel's shows) made a good point: without the gift of faith, there is no true conversion. People can be convinced of anything from Catholicism to Nazism, but if they don't really believe it in then they won't persevere in that belief.

[Mitchell_b55]

[font="Verdana"][size=2][quote] That is what you have exhibited a lack of, and that is the only way one can exhibit a 'Christian disposition' in a debate forum. [/quote]
Aloysius, you hit the nail on the head. This was my intended meaning; however we all make mistakes in speech that alter our intended implication. It was not in the spirit of Christian charity that I made the statement as it is, but it is not contrary to that disposition to say that you lack it, since by your own admission you refuse to conduct a thoroughly humble and Christian act. I apologize for any offence that this causes you.

I will be working on further elaboration in regard to the New Testament and the Eucharist, today.

[quote] I find it noteworthy that people have the sure conviction that if they are 'right', it means others are 'wrong'. [/quote]
Even I, who am so convicted to the Catholic Faith, acknowledge the probability of occasional and even frequent error. This does not infringe on the Church's indefectibility, but is an example of my fallibility. I am not a Pontiff, or Council, or Canon of Scripture and Law. I am a simple person, who has no infallibility bestowed upon me. I do, however, attempt to answer correctly any questions asked of me, with the faculties provided me by God.

For all the mistakes and mangled prose I cheerfully take blame. Anyone who calls to my attention to pieces in this article that are murky, misleading, muddled, or just plain wrong, I promise a grateful reply and future amendments. As the twelfth century historian Henry of Huntingdon so artfully put it,

What I have well performed in grace approve,
Where I have erred, correct me in your love.[/size][/font]

Edited October 4, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Mitchell_b55]

[font="Verdana"][size=2]DOUBLE POST -

Louisville Fan, I think what Anomaly is trying to say is that just because we think we are "right" [Obviously we will if that is what we believe] that does not mean that others are "wrong". We must dissect each others beliefs to see what comparisons can be made, and see what errors and misjudgements we could possibly have made in regard to it.

We must also accept that "... man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." [Eccl. 9: 1] We should know that we are limited, and capable of error and thus remain mindful of that possibility. We do "not" know by what means we are led to or from a thing, and we cannot judge our own relationship with God. We do not know, and will not know until the day of judgement. We can only do as we are commanded and have faith and hope in the Lord, while exercising charity to our neighbors, be they a heathen, infidel, heretic, schismatic, or our own blood in faith.[/size][/font]

Edited October 4, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Anomaly]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1083662' date='Oct 4 2006, 07:38 AM']
[font="Verdana"][size=2]
Even I, who am so convicted to the Catholic Faith, acknowledge the probability of occasional and even frequent error. This does not infringe on the Church's indefectibility, but is an example of my fallibility. I am not a Pontiff, or Council, or Canon of Scripture and Law. I am a simple person, who has no infallibility bestowed upon me. I do, however, attempt to answer correctly any questions asked of me, with the faculties provided me by God.

For all the mistakes and mangled prose I cheerfully take blame. Anyone who calls to my attention to pieces in this article that are murky, misleading, muddled, or just plain wrong, I promise a grateful reply and future amendments. As the twelfth century historian Henry of Huntingdon so artfully put it,

What I have well performed in grace approve,
Where I have erred, correct me in your love.[/size][/font]
[/quote]I'm more of a blue collar, GED person. I may be simple minded, but not a simple person. (Well, I am probably a simpleton, but I digress...)
Pontiffs, Councils, and Canon Lawyers are all humans and very prone to error. We don't have to look far to find substantial disagreement. Common sense tells you to don't look for your lost milk cow in the chicken coop. And one cow can't fill a milk bucket. Applicable to the catholic denomination, infallibility is as rare as a blue moon. Infallibility is a gift that may or may not be used, not an innate ability.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='petrus_scholasticus' post='1083670' date='Oct 4 2006, 07:51 AM']
[font="Verdana"][size=2]We do "not" know by what means we are led to or from a thing, and we cannot judge our own relationship with God. We do not know, and will not know until the day of judgement. We can only do as we are commanded and have faith and hope in the Lord, while exercising charity to our neighbors, be they a heathen, infidel, heretic, schismatic, or our own blood in faith.[/size][/font]
[/quote]
I don't think that makes sense.
If we can't judge our own relationship with God, than what hope have we?
If we can't judge our own relationship with God, then we follow what 'commands'?

Shouldn't we know we have an imperfect relationship with God until we join with Him in heaven? Isn't judging a command as improving or or damaging our relationship with God our sole standard? Our human limitations often don't let us know whether we're improving or damaging, but only intentionally destroying or preventing our relationship (mortal sins for your caths) actually can end the relationship.

[Mitchell_b55]

[font="Verdana"][size=2]I haven't the time to respond to your enquiry, if I hope to accomplish my first priority in this thread the "Real Presence". I will however refer you to St. Thomas Aquinas; this is what I insufficiently was attempting to explain. I explained it improperly, and as I said a little later on, I accept cheerfully any criticism of mistake, if it is employed with care and charity. I do not like being insulted and I attempt not to blindly insult others, though from time to time it does occur.

[color="#990000"][b]Objection 1.[/b][/color] It would seem that man can know that he has grace. For grace by its physical reality is in the soul. Now the soul has most certain knowledge of those things that are in it by their physical reality, as appears from Augustine [Gen. ad lit. xii, 31]. Hence grace may be known most certainly by one who has grace.

[color="#990000"][b]Objection 2.[/b] [/color] Further, as knowledge is a gift of God, so is grace. But whoever receives knowledge from God, knows that he has knowledge, according to Wis. 7:17: The Lord "hath given me the true knowledge of the things that are." Hence, with equal reason, whoever receives grace from God, knows that he has grace.

[color="#990000"][b]Objection 3.[/b][/color] Further, light is more knowable than darkness, since, according to the Apostle [Ephesians 5:13], "all that is made manifest is light," Now sin, which is spiritual darkness, may be known with certainty by one that is in sin. Much more, therefore, may grace, which is spiritual light, be known.

[color="#990000"][b]Objection 4.[/b][/color] Further, the Apostle says [1 Corinthians 2:12]: "Now we have received not the Spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God." Now grace is God's first gift. Hence, the man who receives grace by the Holy Spirit, by the same Holy Spirit knows the grace given to him.

[color="#990000"][b]Objection 5.[/b][/color] Further, it was said by the Lord to Abraham [Genesis 22:12]: "Now I know that thou fearest God," i.e. "I have made thee know." Now He is speaking there of chaste fear, which is not apart from grace. Hence a man may know that he has grace.

On the contrary, It is written [Ecclesiastes 9:1]: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred." Now sanctifying grace maketh a man worthy of God's love. Therefore no one can know whether he has sanctifying grace.

I answer that, There are three ways of knowing a thing: first, by revelation, and thus anyone may know that he has grace, for God by a special privilege reveals this at times to some, in order that the joy of safety may begin in them even in this life, and that they may carry on toilsome works with greater trust and greater energy, and may bear the evils of this present life, as when it was said to Paul [2 Corinthians 12:9]: "My grace is sufficient for thee."

Secondly, a man may, of himself, know something, and with certainty; and in this way no one can know that he has grace. For certitude about a thing can only be had when we may judge of it by its proper principle. Thus it is by undemonstrable universal principles that certitude is obtained concerning demonstrative conclusions. Now no one can know he has the knowledge of a conclusion if he does not know its principle. But the principle of grace and its object is God, Who by reason of His very excellence is unknown to us, according to Job 36:26: "Behold God is great, exceeding our knowledge." [b]And hence His presence in us and His absence cannot be known with certainty, according to Job 9:11: "If He come to me, I shall not see Him; if He depart I shall not understand."[/b] And hence man cannot judge with certainty that he has grace, according to 1 Cor. 4:3,4: "But neither do I judge my own self . . . but He that judgeth me is the Lord."

Thirdly, things are known conjecturally by signs; and thus anyone may know he has grace, when he is conscious of delighting in God, and of despising worldly things, and inasmuch as a man is not conscious of any mortal sin. And thus it is written [Apocalypse 2:17]: "To him that overcometh I will give the hidden manna . . . which no man knoweth, but he that receiveth it," because whoever receives it knows, by experiencing a certain sweetness, which he who does not receive it, does not experience. Yet this knowledge is imperfect; hence the Apostle says [1 Corinthians 4:4]: "I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified," since, according to Ps. 18:13: "Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me, O Lord, and from those of others spare Thy servant."

[color="#990000"][b]Reply to Objection 1.[/b] [/color] Those things which are in the soul by their physical reality, are known through experimental knowledge; in so far as through acts man has experience of their inward principles: thus when we wish, we perceive that we have a will; and when we exercise the functions of life, we observe that there is life in us.

[color="#990000"][b]Reply to Objection 2.[/b][/color] It is an essential condition of knowledge that a man should have certitude of the objects of knowledge; and again, it is an essential condition of faith that a man should be certain of the things of faith, and this, because certitude belongs to the perfection of the intellect, wherein these gifts exist. Hence, whoever has knowledge or faith is certain that he has them. But it is otherwise with grace and charity and such like, which perfect the appetitive faculty.

[color="#990000"][b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b][/color] Sin has for its principal object commutable good, which is known to us. But the object or end of grace is unknown to us on account of the greatness of its light, according to 1 Tim. 6:16: "Who . . . inhabiteth light inaccessible."

[color="#990000"][b]Reply to Objection 4.[/b][/color] The Apostle is here speaking of the gifts of glory, which have been given to us in hope, and these we know most certainly by faith, although we do not know for certain that we have grace to enable us to merit them. Or it may be said that he is speaking of the privileged knowledge, which comes of revelation. Hence he adds [1 Corinthians 2:10]: "But to us God hath revealed them by His Spirit."

[color="#990000"][b]Reply to Objection 5.[/b][/color] What was said to Abraham may refer to experimental knowledge which springs from deeds of which we are cognizant. For in the deed that Abraham had just wrought, he could know experimentally that he had the fear of God. Or it may refer to a revelation.

I hope that the Angelic Doctor is capable of assuaging your confusion. As for the comments on Pontiffs, Councils, and Canon Lawyers [Which I didn't mention, I mentioned a Canon of Scripture, the Books of Scripture, the Books of Law.] this is neither the time nor the place, and such a discussion would rupture the purpose of this thread. Unlike many a debate thread I would like to keep this decently focused. Take it that I believe that such things can be infallible, and, while I believe this, it has no merit for the sake of this particular argument.

Thank you, Pax Vobiscum.
Petrus Scholasticus

P.S. I will ignore [Not out of anger] any further discussion on this topic, if it is in this thread. If someone wishes to discuss this topic I recommend copying St. Thomas' work and discussing it in a new topic. I was not trying to initiate a debate of that nature, I was simply providing my view on human error. If we wish to discuss this view, we must do so elsewhere. I thank you for your cooperation.
[/size][/font]

Edited October 4, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Mitchell_b55]

Bump... I will be posting soon, within the next three hours, I hope.