The Eucharist Controversy

[Aloysius]

theoretically then, Catholics know no truth - only what the lies are?

since infallibility only blocks out the errors - all the rest that you believe to be truth, that could be error as well, it just has not been understood as such as of yet.

nope, we know that the teaching of the Church is free of error. therefore all that we believe to be truth has no error and is thus truth. there could be more to it, unless it has been defined as a dogma.

for example, a doctrine we knew to be true because we believe in the Church we'll just go back a few centuries or w/e, you could prolly go back to even the 3rd or 4th century, but whatever, is the doctrine that Mary was sinless. there was more to it, though, and it was perfectly defined that she was sinless from the moment of her conception in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

:cool:

[Circle_Master]

it's just the cool way the Spirit works. we don't try to understand, just trust in Him.

this scares me

[Aloysius]

yeah, it's kinda scary to just trust the Holy Spirit isn't it :ph34r:

[BLAZEr]

This is why the Pope is so important. There have been many heretic bishops in the Church's history. In fact, at one time the majority of Bishops were heretics following the Arian heresy, however the Pope and a few othern Bishops defeated the Arian heresy and this has been the teaching that endured.

The Bishops exercise their apostolic authority only in communion with the whole Church through Peter (the Pope). We believe that teachings are only dogmatic when they are pronounced from Peter (the Pope). Many of the Church's greatest thinkers have held some heretical ideas (Augustine wasn't all right on the effect of original sin on man, Aquinas didn't believe in the Immaculate Conception, Ratrumnus didn't believe in teh real presence). These people weren't declared heretics for their ideas because the Church had not infallibly defined the areas they were in error on.

The Docrtine of the Real Presence was not clearly defined until the 14th century with much help from Aquinas. This does not mean that the Church did not believe in the real presence before the 14th Century just that the language to describe what we believed hadn't been settled. After the solemn declaration of Faith, disputes with it are handled with juridical penalties, like excommunication. Not before the solemn declaration.

[electricdisk]

Circle,

You seem to have the misunderstanding that priests are given some mystical "magical" ability to only say things that are true and only do things that are "ok with god" No one is without sin... Even the pope goes to confession. But you don't.

.... We have priests in the church that 'promote' homosexuality and abortion.....

We have priests in the church who have abused children....

But that does not make it ok with the church... They are openly (or secretly) going against what the church teaches.....

So I say again -- Who cares about some monk who is long since dead and buried wrote about something that he did not understand.....?? Does it make my faith less real? Does it make the church's dogmas go up in smoke? Not at all.... It just makes an old dead monk incorrect.

The fact remains - he was wrong and the church has stated as such...

[Archangel]

Here's another article I found regarding the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the condemnation of Ratramnus at Vercelli: http://www.stcecelia.com/Nav%20Pages/7sacr...arist_real_.htm

Many articles on the Sacraments there.

[dUSt]

Berengarius was - not ratramnus. read it again

I took your advise and read it again:

"This line of reasoning inevitably leads Ratramnus (and all those who follow his lead) to increasingly regard the Eucharist as a "mere symbol" of the "true" (meaning "non-physical") reality rather than as the true body and blood taught by the Apostles. Eventually, his theory is condemned by the Synod of Vercelli, but the controversy continues for two more centuries and Ratramnus is at length championed by Archdeacon Berengar of Tours. In response to this, Pope Gregory VII writes a formal declaration of the Church's faith (reiterating the biblical and patristic teaching concerning the literalness of the Church's belief on the point) and requires Berengar to submit to it."

I hope your error wasn't intentional.

[BLAZEr]

I'm pretty sure Circle is right on this point dUSt. Ratramnus' teachings were condemned at Vercelli, but he was long since dead. Berengar was the one made to submit to Vercelli.

But maybe not . . . does anyone have the year Ratramnus died?

Vercelli was in the year 1050

[photosynthesis]

calling someone "Monk" sounds odd...kind of unnatural.

are you sure that's his actual name, Circle, and not "Brother?"

Edited January 11, 2004 by photosynthesis

[CatholicAndFanatical]

calling someone "Monk" sounds odd...kind of unnatural.

are you sure that's his actual name, Circle, and not "Brother?"

out of curiousity why is it odd to use 'monk'? If he was indeed a Monk, i dunno, didnt read the article.

im with electric, even if this guy was influencial, he isnt the Pope and his thoughts are just that..thoughts, opinions. They do not reflect the teachings of the Church. He may not have been condemned when he was alive, but as Dust has posted, he was condemned later on. But the important point is..he was condemned.

God Bless,

CatholicAndFanatical

[photosynthesis]

I mean, you don't refer to a woman religious as "Nun" like "Nun so-and-so is here to speak with us about Natural Family Planning" or "Good morning, Nun," and you don't refer to men religious as "monk" as in "Monk Whatshisname will be especially remembered in this liturgy." And people don't refer to priests as "Priest," as in, "Priest so-and-so gave an excellent homily today."

It's just not done.

Nun, Monk, and Priest are functional titles for religious, but not names. Referring to a religious by his or her functional title is strange and awkward. We use Sister, Brother and Father as affectionate and respectful names for our religious, because that is what brothers, sisters and priests prefer to be called.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

ah ok, i get what your saying.

is monk an equivalent to brother? I always viewed a monk as a Priest that have special orders, either to be cloistered or some other engagement.

[photosynthesis]

a monk is a man who lives out the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in a religious community (like the Dominicans, Benidictines or Franciscans) that is governed by a monastic Rule. monks are not to be confused with friars.

a friar is an ordained priest living in a religious community. (correct me if I'm wrong...I'm a lady so I don't know as much about men religious as I do about women religious simply because I don't really look into men's orders ). Friars are traditionally called "Father" because they have recieved the sacrament of Holy Orders. These priests also live out a certain type of spirituality expressed through a monastic Rule. So, friars are a lot like monks...they are living out the same vows, in a monastic setting, but one is a priest, and the other one isn't.

so, friars are called "Father" and monks are called "Brother." and nuns are called "Sister," and so on.

[BLAZEr]

a monk is a man who lives out the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in a religious community (like the Dominicans, Benidictines or Franciscans) that is governed by a monastic Rule. monks are not to be confused with friars.

a friar is an ordained priest living in a religious community. (correct me if I'm wrong...I'm a lady so I don't know as much about men religious as I do about women religious simply because I don't really look into men's orders ). Friars are traditionally called "Father" because they have recieved the sacrament of Holy Orders. These priests also live out a certain type of spirituality expressed through a monastic Rule. So, friars are a lot like monks...they are living out the same vows, in a monastic setting, but one is a priest, and the other one isn't.

so, friars are called "Father" and monks are called "Brother." and nuns are called "Sister," and so on.

You're wrong!

Monks are traditionally those religious that live in monasteries. Same with nuns.

Friars are those religious who belong to the mendicant orders: Dominicans, Franciscans, Society of Mary, etc. Literally Friar means brother. Name of the Franciscan Order is "Order of Friars Minor" or the "Order of Little Brothers"

In a mendicant religious community both the Priests and the lay Brothers are called "Friars."

There are other religious orders that are not monastic and not mendicant. These are commonly described as apostolic religious orders and clerical orders . . . that doens't have anything to do with the apostles, nor does it mean that they are all clerics. It just means that these religious orders are ordered to an apostolate (a type of work) or are composed mainly of Clerics (priests, i.e. a clerical order).

Some apostolic orders, like the Brothers of the Christian Schools, are entirely lay. They have no priests. The Clerical orders, like the Jesuits and the Congreation of Holy Cross are almost entirely priests. They do have lay brothers, but the emphasis is on the priestly vocation so the lay brothers primary task is to assist the priests.

This is very different from the mendicant orders of friars where the emphasis is on the fraternity (brotherhood), or community life, of the friars (brothers). Originally St. Francis didn't envision that Franciscans would be priests, at least not very often. He really emphasized the community life of the brothers over and above their priestly duties.

[Circle_Master]

You seem to have the misunderstanding that priests are given some mystical "magical" ability to only say things that are true and only do things that are "ok with god" No one is without sin... Even the pope goes to confession. But you don't.

I have this misunderstanding? I don't claim that all my bishops have apostolic authority, you do. If a bishop has apostolic authority, then he is an apostle, and you shall see his signs of a true apostle (2 Cor 12:12) - if he does not, he is not an apostle, and he does not have any authority except that of a hierarchy.

I don't go to confession to a man, I go to confession to God - that is a low blow. Confession is so... menial in my mind anyway. I acknowledge my sin before God, and I do repent, but listing them? We are sinful beyond our wildest imagination, and it is so nieve to think we could actually list them - even our motives when confessing can be sinful