Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 04/22/2011 6:08:21 AM PDT by verdugo
Theological Deception In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul warns, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col 2:8). Failure to heed this admonition has been the cause of many of the errors currently embraced by Catholics. Theological deception has been a major contributor to the present state of doctrinal confusion.
Anthony J. Wilhelm's popular book "Christ Among Us: A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith" will serve to illustrate the diabolical craftiness of this fraud. This edition has a Nihil Obstat by Rev. Thomas G. Lumpkin Censor Librorum, and an Imprimatur by John Cardinal Dearden, Archbishop of Detroit. On the page with the publication information is the following statement: "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error." The statement conditions the unsuspecting reader to believe that the content of Wilhelm's book is fully in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Such is not the case.
Wow, you went for three and a half hours and this is the best you were able to do to “settle the matter”? I’m a bit disappointed. ;O)
If the bread does not change, then could you explain what exactly is the "substance" that becomes the body of Christ?
I was inviting others to do so since the arguments seem like a large bolt of checked cloth....long, involved, repetitious and nearly endless. And the end looks a lot like the beginning!
That’s why I try to avoid them.
Nope.
In Alice’s rabbit hole!
LOL.
If the bread does not change, then could you explain what exactly is the "substance" that becomes the body of Christ?
But, the bread does change, entirely. It ceases to be bread and becomes the Body of Christ. When we speak of substance we are talking about what a thing truly is. It looks, tastes, smell, and reacts just like bread, but it isn't bread because God has made it otherwise. Should we believe that God is subject to laws of matter, or the other way around? Should we believe that only material things are real, and suggest that unless material things are involved they are not real? Does the Father have a material body? Is he not real then?
Physical properties are not more real than the underlying substance. Just because we can see them and touch them some people equate that to reality, and yet it is not so. We all die physically, and yet we do not die spiritually. Is the physical death real and the spiritual life false? No, the opposite is closer to the truth. Similarly, the substance of a thing is every bit as real as are the accidents, more so, and that is what changes in the Eucharist. There is no physical change whatsoever.
Seems to me that the RCC speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issues involved.
I don't see your point. The Church has clearly presented the doctrine of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and has never varied from it. Where is there any double-talk? People who think they know what the Church teaches like to go around using phrases like "physical presence" but they are not reflecting the teaching of the Church anymore than the KKK actually represents the doctrines of Protestant Christianity. It is merely their mistaken opinion. In the case of the Catholics who talk of physical presence they are misguided by the very human tendency to think that for something to be real it must be physical, and that if the presence is not physical then it must be less than physical. Rather, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is more than physical, it is substantial.
What say we not slam each’s other’s ecclesialb assembly, or even arguments, until after Easter?
In deference to my Bro Mad Dawg’s request just above, . . .
I’ll defer . . .
except to say . . . I’ve not found assertions of doctrine clear, or simple . . . on the part of the RCC . . . particularly when considering the whole of the pages available on an issue.
except to say . . . I’ve not found assertions of doctrine clear, or simple . . . on the part of the RCC . . . particularly when considering the whole of the pages available on an issue.
Well, it depends on what you may have in mind as clear or simple. The doctrine of the Trinity is neither, by most objective standards, but it is consistent and free from double-talk. Additionally, I would say it is clear when considered within the framework it is presented in, and is as simple as is possible given the subject matter. The same is true of the Eucharist. The Church simply doesn't teach a physical change and the author of this article implies that such is the case. That is an error.
I think some people forget that the Church has existed for two millenia. That is a very long time. When we read Shakespeare we know he made perfect sense in his time, and yet we have to have footnotes and dictionaries to make sense of him. Was he unclear? No, but we are removed from his meaning by generations. The same is true for the Council of Trent, and we are even further from St. Thomas and others who contributed so much to the language the Church has used in understanding such mysteries. Terms like accident, substance, species, etc. are all so much gibberish to most of us, but were otherwise at the time they were used or when read by scholars. Given the difficulties inherent in reading and understanding the Nicene Creed I would say the teachings of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist are actually quite reasonably clear.
Thanks for your perspective.
re: I sometimes wonder where conservative Catholics (such as those on FR who are so insistent that the problem does not exist outside “liberal dioceses”) go to church. The Twilight Zone, perhaps?
They go to a less radical church, it’s still liberal, but they don’t think so, because they compare it to the more radical liberals. From the view of Catholic traditon/antiquity, Catholic reality, they are both liberals. You are 100% on!
I'm pretty sure that was written in the letter to the Hebrews, and the reference was to Jewish priests offering sacrifice in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. What makes me think that? The context of the rest of the book, for one thing.
The sacrifice Christ offers through the hands of the Catholic priest is the same sacrifice he offered on Calvary. If you think Calvary didn't take away sins, you aren't a Christian in my book.
By the way, speaking of Hebrews, what do you make of this:
We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle -- Hebrews 13:10 [KJV]
An altar is a table on which a sacrifice is offered, by definition. So the verse says (a) Christians do have an altar, meaning they do offer a sacrifice; and (b) they eat that sacrifice, but the Jewish priests ("they ... which serve the tabernacle") are not permitted to eat of it.
So in other words the bread doesn’t change but it does change???? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn’t this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn’t know any more than you told you it to be so?
As far as physical/spiritual goes, people have reportedly seen ghosts, etc as far back as Samuel. I don’t wish to get into a discussion of this but there are dimensions that people have experienced and have been scientifically captured.
But to say the bread has changed when there is absolutely no evidence is like trying to convince an emperor that nothing is really new clothes. But there are always some that buy into that.
So in other words the bread doesn’t change but it does change???? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn’t this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn’t know any more than you told you it to be so?
Are you serious? How can such cynicism even coexist with any faith at all? Christ was born to a virgin? She didn't have sex, but had a baby? And he was a man, who died, but he was God? Where exactly is the evidence? Doesn't this sound the least strange? How can you know this is true? Because someone who doesn't know any more than you told you it to be so?
But to say the bread has changed when there is absolutely no evidence is like trying to convince an emperor that nothing is really new clothes. But there are always some that buy into that.
And trying to convince someone that the dead go to heaven, or that bodies have souls, or that sins are forgiven by a man being nailed to a piece of wood are all like what exactly? I suppose there always some that buy into that too though, right?
The situation seems quite simple. You can believe only what you can touch, and see and physically prove, or you can have faith. The Holy Spirit, for instance, has no body and his action in the world is by faith. You cannot prove his existence or his activity in any way. And neither can you prove that the Eucharist is Christ. Does that then "prove" these two things to be false? Maybe, for many. But, I take a different view than you. I accept, against all the logic and physical evidence, that God created the universe from nothing because He calleth those things that are not, as those that are. Can I prove this? Nope. However, when that same God who can raise the dead by simply saying it, or can create the universe by a word, says "This is my body" I choose not to argue with him because he won't prove it with physical evidence. When He promised that the thief would that day be with Him in paradise could He prove it? Did the thief demand proof? It was the unsaved thief who demanded proof, as did those who mocked the Lord, and not the man who was promised paradise because of his faith in what was not going to be proven.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Is that book still around? Is anyone still using it? I thought it had faded away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.