Transubstantiation Unsubstantiated

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 September 2009 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1252204176' post='1961567']
Sorry for the drive by quoting. Just wanted to make sure this was clear, because I wasn't positive that it was after the admittedly brief glance I had.

We do teach that outside the Church, there is no salvation. That does not mean that those who do not call themselves Catholics cannot be saved. That would be a rather arrogant statement, considering we're not in charge of who's saved and who's not.

The following section was added for clarification.

When we say that nobody outside the Church is saved, we are saying that when a person is saved, it is through the Church. That's a fine distinction to make.



[/quote]

Nihil,

You are wrong! The Catholic Church is indeed arrogant enought to consign people outside the church to be "outside" of salvation. Vatican 1 clearly says:

[i][font="Eras Demi ITC"][size="2"][color="#800080"]"Resting on the PLAIN [note: it is anything but PLAIN] testimonies of the sacred writings, all of the faithful of Christ must believe that...the Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world...and are bound by their duty of hierarchial subordination...to submit [to him]. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, [u]from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." [/u] (On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff", chapter 3). Ludwig Ott affirms that "Dogmatic Faith" is the indispensable pre-requisite for the achieving of eternal salvation" [which are those things that are dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church such as papal subordination]. See pages 4-5 & 253 of "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.[/color][/size][/font][/i] [font="Eras Demi ITC"][size="2"][color="#800080"][i]To postulate, therefore, that our salvation hinges upon our trust and dedication to a man wearing a religious costume (in red shoes) and sitting on a throne in Italy, is a FALSE GOSPEL. "Cursed be the man who trusteth in man" (Jer 17:5). Our salvation rests entirely on the solitary granduer of what Christ Jesus has accomplished FOR us, in His obedience to the law and carrying it out in our behalf, as well as suffering it's penalty, so we wouldn't have to.


Storm. [/i][/color][/size][/font]

[Nihil Obstat]

That you for reposting verbatim my earlier post. It was very enlightening the second time 'round also.

[Nihil Obstat]

...and this contradicts what I quoted exactly how?
I can't identify anything original or particularly convincing/legitimate in your new argument.

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

Actually we trust in God's work through the Pope. Just as you and I trust in the Bible which was written by man. But God is the author through these men. just as He is the author through the descendants of the 12 apostles.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1252208196' post='1961622']
[i]To postulate, therefore, that our salvation hinges upon our trust and dedication to a man wearing a religious costume (in red shoes) and sitting on a throne in Italy, is a FALSE GOSPEL.
[/quote]

Not when that finely-dressed Italian happens to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

[mortify]

Never understood how a so called Christian holding on to a 500 year old heresy could even think to lecture a Catholic in line with tradition. Such people should bust open a history book and realize *they* are the innovators departing from Christianity, and not the other way around. Real Christians have always believed in the real presence, it's clearly taught in John Ch 6, in Paul's own letter, and numerous early Christian writings. Sorry protestants, but this is one you can't win.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='05 September 2009 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1252208685' post='1961631']
Not when that finely-dressed Italian happens to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Please! He's *German*. (and Italian)
You're so sloppy with your Catholic facts, Res. Need to work on that.

[Apotheoun]

I always begin to fret when a person founds his theology upon an English language dictionary.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='05 September 2009 - 11:03 PM' timestamp='1252209828' post='1961652']
I always begin to fret when a person founds his theology upon an English language dictionary.
[/quote]

[The Bus Station]

This thread is just... well. It exists.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 September 2009 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1252209952' post='1961655']

[/quote]


Evidently our Protestant interlocutor has a problem with the Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine that the divine liturgy is the living memorial of Christ's one all holy oblation.

Now, by what unassailable theological authority does he reject this doctrinal truth? By none other than the great and powerful Webster's online dictionary.

All hail the sixth [i]sola[/i] . . . [i]Sola Dictionarius[/i].

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1252207099' post='1961604']
Will someone please pass the smelling salts, I think I'm gonna faint.[/quote]


[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 September 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1252207099' post='1961604']
I will paste it here because many might be lazy and not wish to go back to the essay[/quote]

I have asked, repeatedly, for you to refrain from condescension and to invoke a spirit of Christian charity in this discussion. Repeatedly you have failed to do so.

Stormstopper, I am sorry, but I fail to see how you believe that your rudeness is going to convey God's eternal Truth. What I have seen from you is a continuous barrage of Scripture out of context, combined with numerous quotes from the Catechism (also lacking context). This is mixed in with a steady stream of disrespectful insults.

I fail to find in your argument anything that would compel me to believe that you possessed knowledge of the fullness of God's revealed Truth. Such bitterness is not representative of Jesus Christ. I will pray that you have His peace.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Marie-Therese

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='XIX' date='05 September 2009 - 09:09 AM' timestamp='1252159768' post='1961281']
At first glance, I noticed a lot of false dichotomies... [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif[/img]


Receiving the Holy Spirit in no way precludes one from receiving Jesus in the Eucharist. Regardless of one's beliefs on the Eucharist, the real presence can not be dis-proven by a presence of the Holy Spirit.


That's definitely a false dichotomy.



Okay, that's more of a strawman than anything else. "Lord I am not worth to receive you." Definitely not an "act of righteousness" as you would portray it.
[/quote]

XIX says we are making a false dichotomy. We deny it, and dealt with that here:

[u] [/u][font="Comic Sans MS"]OBJECTION:[/font][font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] "We believe that as a result of consuming the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, we are granted the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. For as John Paul II has said, [i]"Through our communion in His body and blood, Christ also grants us His Spirit" [/i](and) [i]"the joint and inseparable activity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. . . is at work in the Eucharist"[/i][/color] [color="#0000ff"][i] [/i]{Ecclesia de Eucharistia, #17 & 23}.[/color][/font]

[u][font="Comic Sans MS"]ANSWER:[/font][/u][color="#0000ff"] [font="Comic Sans MS"]The biblical evidence will not permit the Roman Catholic to have it both ways because the gift of the Spirit has been promised [u]outside[/u] of the Communion ceremony by [u]faith[/u] as Scripture clearly teaches! Because the Catholic Church cannot pinpoint any direct biblical link as to what advantage might result from actually swallowing the physical body of Jesus, she cleverly solves this problem by co-joining the presence of the Holy Spirit as a benefit, so that everything said about the Holy Spirit, may equally be said about the Eucharist. Thus she deceitfully transfers all the attributes of the Spirt's presence which[i] [u]are[/u] [/i]found in the Bible in abundance, and then unwarrantedly transfers them over to the Eucharist, which are not stated [u]anywhere.[/u] [/font][font="Comic Sans MS"] Swallowing the body of Christ, literally or not, is a biblically proven [u]separate[/u] action that does not give any promise [u]equal[/u] to what the Holy Spirit has already been appointed for. The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will "teach us everything", helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control" according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . .. . "to lead us into all truth" --- "to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment" ---- "to shine in our hearts to give us light" --- "to give us wisdom" --- "to quicken us to spiritual life" --- "to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us" --- "to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God" ---and "to be the seal of our inheritence" { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}. [/font][/color]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"]We have as yet to hear of any benefit of the Catholic Church Eucharist that has not [u]already[/u] been defined as one of the Holy Spirit's assigned duties. That being the case, ingesting the [u]actual[/u] body of Christ, even if it were true, does not serve any purpose. The Holy Spirit which inspired the Scripture, singlehandedly multi-tasks [u]all[/u] the benefits Christ promised when He emphatically stated His physical presence was going away and the Comforter sent to fill in the void. Moreover, the catechism as quoted above {#1374} which states that the Eucharist materializes the "real presence" in the fullest sense, is a lie. Galatians 3:26 says that when "we receive the promise of the Spirit by faith" ---- we are [u]filled[/u] with that Spirit and with all the [u]fullness[/u] of God {Luke 1:41; 67, 4:1, Acts 2:4; 4:8; 31; 6:3; 5, 7:55, 9:17, 11:24, 13:9; 52, Eph 3:17-19; 5:18, }. The Catholic Church says the Eucharist brings "fullness" ---but the Holy Spirit says [color="#800000"]HE[/color] [color="#800000"] [/color]does! Both cannot be true since you cannot fill a vessel that is already full with something else! Yet the Catholic Church presses even further by supposing that, [i] "in the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, the Church prays that the Father of Mercies will grant His children the [u]fullness of the Holy Spirit [/u]. . . " [/i]{Ecclesia de Eucharista, #43}. Let the Catholic Church pray all she wishes. The Bible will not support this "dual presence in the fullest sense", and therefore, she has neither one.[i] [/i] [/color][/font]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="#0000ff"] [/color][/font]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='06 September 2009 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1252211055' post='1961662']
All hail the sixth [i]sola[/i] . . . [i]Sola Dictionarius[/i].
[/quote]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='06 September 2009 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1252211081' post='1961663']
I fail to find in your argument anything that would compel me to believe that you possessed knowledge of the fullness of God's revealed Truth. Such bitterness is not representative of Jesus Christ. I will pray that you have His peace.
[/quote]
By their fruits shall ye know them.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Storm, I'm going to be straightforward with you because I don't believe you to be open-minded enough about Catholicism to give us a fair hearing, so here it goes: you misrepresent my theology and offer no actual rebuttal of it, except to insist that it is unbiblical and foolish, without providing any evidence against it. I refuted your claims not on the basis that your Scripture was incorrect, but on the basis that your understanding of the Church's theology was incorrect, and you have tried to rebut by saying that I have not provided scriptural evidence. The problem with your theology is that you think whatever is true and necessary in the Christian faith must be found explicitly in the Scriptures. It seems to me, then, that you are mixing issues. If you wish to debate Sola Scriptura or the development of the faith, then you will need to open a new thread. As it stands, however, I have offered you a summary of the Catholic teaching regarding the temporal transcendence of the Eucharist based on philosophy and you have not replied in kind. If you want a Scriptural support, the Bible nowhere delves into this particular aspect of Eucharistic theology, nor does it need to. There are many things the Scriptures never explicitly tell us and you know it. Stop pretending that your faith is founded completely on the Scripture and face facts: you believe that everything in Christian faith should be found in the Scriptures, but the Scriptures nowhere say that, a self-contradiction. You also surely believe in God as three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that each is truly God, but the Scriptures never spell all that out for us, nor use the word Trinity. Surely logic would lead you to the knowledge that they all dwell within one another, but nowhere do the Scriptures use the word perichoresis. The Scriptures never say that faith alone saves (although they do say that faith alone does not save), but you believe it. Stop the dishonest attempts at bullying Catholics and face the truth. It is blatant hypocrisy to accuse Catholics of having an unbiblical faith when your beliefs are themselves not spelled out in Scripture. Simply because the Church has used her brain for the past 2000 years to come to a deeper knowledge of the faith through the application of philosophy, the sciences, the arts, and the light of human reason does not mean that all those conclusions based on Scripture but not explicit in Scripture are invalid. Stop being afraid of the gift of reason God gave the human race. [b]God never intended the Bible to be the ultimate and sole authority for Christian teaching.[/b] If it were, Christianity's answers to two millennia of heresy would be restricted to short snippets of the Scriptures taken out of context and often misapplied with faulty logic the way sound bytes are misused in a McCarthy documentary on a Catholic crisis of faith. Face it, you have the Catholic Church to thank for defending and preserving the faith handed on to you by those who broke with the Church. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Henry VIII, they all stole the Catholic faith and corrupted her gift of Divine Revelation, manipulating it to their own ends, and then had the arrogance to claim that the Catholic Church, the only means through which they received the Gospel at all, had somehow passed on something faulty. My recommendation to you, sir: start to learn why the Church teaches as she does. Start with the Didache. Read about the controversies in the early Church, the heresies that opposed the Gospel and the reasons for the Church's answer. You will, if your eyes are open, witness the development of many aspects of theology that, though based in Scripture, are elucidated by the light of reason, such that what becomes of the Gospel has truly grown, but not changed, from the seminal form it had in the written Word of God. Jesus said that the Church, fully grown, would not resemble the early Church, that it would grow from a mustard seed to a mustard bush, and yet you accuse that same Church our Lord founded of being different and of having theology you do not recognize. You do not recognize the seed because you are looking at a bush, but the bush is a natural growth from the seed, of the same species, but more mature, more developed. The problem with Fundamentalism is that it condemns the Church for being a living thing, developing and adapting to its environment. Here are some of the basic characteristics of all living things: they react to stimuli (the Church reacts to heresy and error by developing the teachings of the Scriptures), they grow and develop (the Church grows and develops according to its mission, to evangelize a changing world), they reproduce (the Church makes converts and builds up Christian societies), they have organization (the Church is a hierarchy). Fundamentalism wants to look at the Church and see what is portrayed in the New Testament, but every attempt of Fundamentalism to do this will fail, because we live in a different world with a different set of circumstances and different problems faced by the faithful of this day and age. Fundamentalism will die out. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, it takes a living thing to swim against the tide. Fundamentalism is driftwood.