Christians: What line are you unwilling to cross for God?

[Abaddon_ire]

So basically, according to Abandon, C/L isn't allowed to independently ponder the articles of her faith or question the decisions of Magistariate. Only unthinking people are true Catholics in his opinion. Let me remind Abandon that the Catholic Church has been one of the most stable intellectual institutions in Western society, the very foundation of the modern university system, rather than community of unquestioning dolts.

It is simple bread, you moron, you simply claim it is human flesh and try to pretend that you did not just claim that.

Wow! You are truly ignorant about Catholic Doctrine if you think the host is considered material human flesh. The catechism clearly says that Christ is present in the bread and wine.

You, like CL before you have now put yourself it direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine. You know better than the Vatican. You know better than the Pope. You even know better than the majority of catholics even though you are not one yourself.

I am intrigued how you will set about defending that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The RCC maintains that the cracker is not just a cracker...that after the magic spell is cast..it's not even a cracker.  

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (CCC, 1376).

The manner of it's transformation may be "not fully understood".... yet another mystery of the Not-A-Mystery-Cult™...but the fact of it's transformation is settled.

'Substance' is a term from Scholastic philosophy that refers to the resulting union from final, formal, efficient, and final causes. If any cause is changed then one substance changes into another. Interpreting the terms of the doctrine through a modern lens leads to the errors of interpretation such as the notion that consuming the host is cannibalism or that its physical matter is human flesh.

Similarly the word mystery in English has different connotations (not comprehensible or unknown) than the Latin word "mysterium" which literally means 'hidden'. As such when the the Eucharist is called a mystery, it refers to that which was hidden but has been revealed to believers by faith.

I don't really fault people for making those errors, since we are seeped in modernity, unless of course they have been informed that the significance of the Eucharist is more subtle and embedded in a tradition that preceded the modern era.

You, like CL before you have now put yourself it direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine. You know better than the Vatican. You know better than the Pope. You even know better than the majority of catholics even though you are not one yourself...I am intrigued how you will set about defending that.

See above. My defense is based on the express interpretation provided by the Magistrate and not the popular understanding of the layity. One doesn't have to be a practicing Catholic to have accurate knowledge of Catholic traditions and intellectual history. You have the same arrogance as someone who says that because he listens to the radio he is an expert in electronics.

[Abaddon_ire]

The RCC maintains that the cracker is not just a cracker...that after the magic spell is cast..it's not even a cracker.  


The manner of it's transformation may be "not fully understood".... yet another mystery of the Not-A-Mystery-Cult™...but the fact of it's transformation is settled.

'Substance' is a term from Scholastic philosophy that refers to the resulting union from final, formal, efficient, and final causes. If any cause is changed then one substance changes into another. Interpreting the terms of the doctrine through a modern lens leads to the errors of interpretation such as the notion that consuming the host is cannibalism or that its physical matter is human flesh.

Similarly the word mystery in English has different connotations (not comprehensible or unknown) that the Latin word "mysterium" which literally means 'hidden'. As such when the the Eucharist is called a mystery, it refers to that which was hidden but has been revealed to believers by faith.

I don't really fault people for making those errors, since we are seeped in modernity, unless of course they have been informed that the significance of the Eucharist is more subtle and embedded in a tradition that preceded the modern era.

---

You, like CL before you have now put yourself it direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine. You know better than the Vatican. You know better than the Pope. You even know better than the majority of catholics even though you are not one yourself...I am intrigued how you will set about defending that.

See above. My defense is based on the express interpretation provided by the Magistrate and not the popular understanding of the layity. One doesn't have to be a practicing Catholic to have knowledge of Catholic traditions. That's like saying that because you listen to the radio you're an expert in electronics.

Pope says your are incorrect. Fail.

ETA: Want me to cite it again? "Mysterium Fidei". You didn't read it last time, what hope you will read it this time?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Pope says your are incorrect. Fail.

LOL...if you say so. From the text your cited...

"34. The few things that We have touched upon concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass encourage Us to say something about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, since both Sacrifice and Sacrament pertain to the same mystery and cannot be separated from each other. The Lord is immolated in an unbloody way in the Sacrifice of the Mass and He re-presents the sacrifice of the Cross and applies its salvific power at the moment when he becomes sacramentally present— through the words of consecration—as the spiritual food of the faithful, under the appearances of bread and wine." - my emphasis

Perhaps you read it but you clearly did not understand it.

[Abaddon_ire]

The hell with it I am going to cite it anyway.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/...erium.html

Note carefully the following...

5. These words highlight both the sacrifice, which pertains to the essence of the Mass that is celebrated daily, and the sacrament in which those who participate in it through holy Communion eat the flesh of Christ and drink the blood of Christ, and thus receive grace, which is the beginning of eternal life, and the "medicine of immortality" according to Our Lord's words: "The man who eats my flesh and drinks my blood enjoys eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (2)

So don't pretend you know anything about catholic doctrine.

[LadyForCamus]

I can’t believe we are actually arguing about whether a cracker is magically turned into human meat, or infused with an invisible spirit. No one from the religious camp is stricken by the ridiculousness of this?

[Abaddon_ire]

I can’t believe we are actually arguing about whether a cracker is magically turned into human meat, or infused with an invisible spirit.  No one from the religious camp is stricken by the ridiculousness of this?

Of course not, it's cognitive dissonance all the way down. In their ivory towers it is absolutely the flesh and blood of Jesus. When talking to heathens it absolutely is NOT the flesh and blood of Jesus. The pope is absolutely wrong in this matter because the pope is absolutely right in this matter. Up is down and left is right because fuck you heathens, it's all a big mystery.

[Catholic_Lady]

So basically, according to Abandon, C/L isn't allowed to independently ponder the articles of her faith or question the decisions of Magistariate. Only unthinking people are true Catholics in his opinion. Let me remind Abandon that the Catholic Church has been one of the most stable intellectual institutions in Western society, the very foundation of the modern university system, rather than community of unquestioning dolts.

It is simple bread, you moron, you simply claim it is human flesh and try to pretend that you did not just claim that.

Wow! You are truly ignorant about Catholic Doctrine if you think the host is considered material human flesh. The catechism clearly says that Christ is present in the bread and wine.

My bold

The weird thing is that in this case, I'm not even pondering/questioning it lol. I believe in the church's teaching on transubstantiation 100%. But for whatever reason, Adabbon, keeps saying I disagree with Church teaching on it. I don't know why he keeps saying that.

---

So basically, according to Abandon, C/L isn't allowed to independently ponder the articles of her faith or question the decisions of Magistariate. Only unthinking people are true Catholics in his opinion. Let me remind Abandon that the Catholic Church has been one of the most stable intellectual institutions in Western society, the very foundation of the modern university system, rather than community of unquestioning dolts.


Wow! You are truly ignorant about Catholic Doctrine if you think the host is considered material human flesh. The catechism clearly says that Christ is present in the bread and wine.

You, like CL before you have now put yourself it direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine. You know better than the Vatican. You know better than the Pope. You even know better than the majority of catholics even though you are not one yourself.

I am intrigued how you will set about defending that.

Abaddon, darling. For the third time... are you going to tell me what it is exactly that I supposedly disagree with the Church on in regards to transubstantiation?

---

I can’t believe we are actually arguing about whether a cracker is magically turned into human meat, or infused with an invisible spirit. No one from the religious camp is stricken by the ridiculousness of this?

No, the argument is about whether or not I am rejecting church doctrine lol.

Abaddon keeps accusing me of disagreeing with Church doctrines on transubstantiation. He will quote something from the Church documents about it, and I have literally said "yes, I agree with all that", yet he keeps telling me I don't lol. His behavior is quite bizarre, really.

When I ask him point blank what exactly it is he perceives me to be disagreeing with (like which part), he doesn't answer me.

His behavior is quite bizarre, really.

I don't know which is the more charitable approach for me to take - to assume he just doesn't understand the simple and clear words I am writing, or to assume he is purposely trolling and gas lighting me.

It has been interesting, to say the least.

[Catholic_Lady]

Wrong thread

[Angrboda]

We're not laughing at you for being a cannibal.  We're laughing at you for being stupid enough to swallow the horseshit logic you quoted.  Laugh that off if you like.

Cuz, ya know... this has a good argument attached to it besides just calling me stupid and talking about laughing at me because you disagree with my beliefs, when I wasn't rude or disrespectful to anyone.

As I said to Steel a week or so ago, I try to be kind to people, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take them treating me like a POS.