Today is my last day

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over.

Isn't this one of the temptations of Satan to Christ? If you are the Son of God, and surely, God will rescue you, why do you not jump off the temple, and let God save you?

What does Christ reply? "It is written, do not put the Lord God to the test."

This is what you are doing here, you are putting God to the test, by asking the Real Presence to be proven through empirical means. Even if it could be done, why would the test be successful? God cannot be constrained to such an experiment, and experiments to be valid require such constraints.

This is not "testing God," this is testing your doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two.

Consider healing in general. If you are sick and I pray for you, what happens? Depends on many factors, two of which are your faith and my faith. That faith is impeded by the flesh: its demands, its distractions, its foibles, and sin.

When Jesus was walking along minding his own business a woman reached out believing she would be healed. She touched his hem and was healed, instantly, and Jesus felt the power flow from him. The bodily presence of Jesus provides an access to that healing power without the normal impediments of human flesh. Consider the man in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" Even that frail admission was sufficient for Jesus to move.

Are some people healed? Yes. Are all sick people who come into contact with the eucharist healed? No. Is this any different from any of the miracles of Christ? No. Does not Christ in his miracles say, 'Go, your faith has healed you?' And does he also not say, 'Neither his father nor his mother sinned, but he has suffered so that the glory of God may be shown'.

The point is that every time Jesus healed it was their faith that made it possible. When he went to Nazareth he could do no miracles except heal a few sick folk because of their unbelief. So either the RC church is afflicted with unbelief that makes Nazareth look like a pew-jumping revival meeting or the "Real Presence" in the eucharist is empty rhetoric.

Why so? This is the second part, transubstantiation, which is why the priests themselves can consecrate the eucharist, and why no one else has that privilege. Your conclusion is false, the Catholic church teaches that while sacraments are a method, they are only a method, and that God is not constrained to the sacraments, in order to provide salvation. This is a very old argument, and Catholics who have said that salvation can only be had through the sacraments have been repudiated.

No, the Sacraments are the only method, except that God permits the effect of the Sacraments "by desire." (IIRC, that is the exact phrase.) A conversion alone in the desert, at the moment of death, would not need baptism and last rites physically, but the effects of the those Sacraments would be imputed as God judges the heart.

The same holds for Catholics who are married in civil ceremonies, and many other cases. The Sacraments, in RC doctrine, are the transformation of the ordinary into the sacred. If the transformation has taken place (marriage, conversion, etc) then the Sacrament has taken place, too, without the presence of a wafer, or priest, or whatever else might normally be required. The reverse holds so that in annulment the RC church declares there was no Sacrament despite the administration of the formal rites, thus the marriage was invalid.

So while you are right, that people can be saved outside of the Catholic church, you are wrong that you partake of the body and blood of Christ, since you do not believe that this is true! No one can be healed, unless he believes that he may be healed, so how can anyone partake of the sacrament of the eucharist, unless they believe in the real presence?

A person may, in fact, be healed without believing so. I've seen it happen to someone I know; she was stunned and amazed that she didn't die. The cancer had metastasized all throughout her abdomen. She had stopped taking treatments. People she didn't even know were praying for her.

How can we partake of the eucharist without believing in the Real Presence? Because we, in essence, define the eucharist differently. We define salvation differently. We define Apostolic Succession differently. We define the Church differently. By the necessity of human language we use the same terms for nearly everything but use them differently.

In our view the RC church defines them based on centuries of myth, superstition, and error. We don't. In the RC view our definitions don't trump their "truth," so the fact is that the Sacraments are taking place in and around us unwittingly.

On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance.

Yes, it is literally one flesh, just as Christ is married to his church. Don't forget that part of Paul's teachings.

One problem: that isn't true, according to RC doctrine. Remember the fourth century homoousias versus homoiousios debate? It was part of the greater adoption of neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the church. Jesus is not merely of like substance to God, but of the same substance as God. If we the church were made one Substance with Jesus, then we, too would be not merely like God, but God! Clearly this is not so.

Interesting. Wasn't the establishment of one of the more longstanding protestant denominations based upon a rejection of a request for annulment?

You imply that such annulments were taken upon casually, which is refuted by what happened to our good ol' Henry VIII. They were not taken upon casually, they were grave affairs, much different from the way in which society views divorce today.

Henry would have been just as happy with a divorce, but the Pope couldn't do that according to practices at the time. The only recourse was annulment, which the Pope would have granted just as casually as today's civil divorces because kings were accomodated when it came to securing succession. Catherine's uncle Charles V HRE didn't approve and camped an army next to the Vatican to make his point.

You attack a strawman, again. What does the RC church teach about marriage? Do they permit divorce in certain circumstances, such as marital infidelity? Isn't that precisely what Christ says in Matthew?

Yes, they do permit divorce for infidelity. But they grant annulments in other cases. In fact I met someone whose marriage was casually annulled by the RC church. She and her husband were faithful, active life-long Catholics. They divorced but not over infidelity. Ex-husband was influential and sought an annulment, which was granted without so much as consulting her. She got a letter from the Priest she had adored since childhhood informing her that her children were now bastards in the eyes of the RC church. That was her wording, not the letter (she was still just a little bitter about it). She would say that she didn't leave the RC church, the RC church left her.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry for the delay. I made a promise not to reply to this thread, until I had significant block of time to myself. That time has now come.

[Japher]

BK: Are you staying in San Antonio or are you just on vacation, or what?

(Obviously, I don't read all of your posts)

[Ben Kenobi]

This is not "testing God," this is testing your doctrine. There is a world of difference between the two.

Consider healing in general. If you are sick and I pray for you, what happens? Depends on many factors, two of which are your faith and my faith. That faith is impeded by the flesh: its demands, its distractions, its foibles, and sin.

One of the very first encounters I had with Christianity, is from a Catholic friend of mine, who I didn't even know was Catholic. She wrote on my board, that God sometimes does not grant prayers in the manner that we expect them to happen.

The problem I have with your method is that it has been an approach contrary to faith throughout history, to test God through empirical means. One of them being a study done to see whether ships carrying a missionary sank less than those without, the idea being that those who are Christians would be less likely to suffer than those who are not. It is very harmful to someone who is suffering to say, God answers prayers only if you are in the right state.

When Jesus was walking along minding his own business a woman reached out believing she would be healed. She touched his hem and was healed, instantly, and Jesus felt the power flow from him. The bodily presence of Jesus provides an access to that healing power without the normal impediments of human flesh. Consider the man in Mark 9:24 who said, "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!" Even that frail admission was sufficient for Jesus to move.

Granted, yet having faith in the miracle doesn't mean that the miracle will always occur. God must be willing to help in this manner too.

The point is that every time Jesus healed it was their faith that made it possible. When he went to Nazareth he could do no miracles except heal a few sick folk because of their unbelief. So either the RC church is afflicted with unbelief that makes Nazareth look like a pew-jumping revival meeting or the "Real Presence" in the eucharist is empty rhetoric.

Yet does not Christ also say, wherever two or three of you gather in my name, there I shall be also? His presence is not always demonstrated through miracles.

No, the Sacraments are the only method, except that God permits the effect of the Sacraments "by desire." (IIRC, that is the exact phrase.) A conversion alone in the desert, at the moment of death, would not need baptism and last rites physically, but the effects of the those Sacraments would be imputed as God judges the heart.

We agree, just differ in the precision of the terminology. You are right that the effect of the sacraments is permitted through desire, and not necessarily the actions of the priest.

The same holds for Catholics who are married in civil ceremonies, and many other cases.

No, I'm sorry. If the desire to marry inside the church is there, but the opportunity is lacking, then sure. But if the opportunity to get married in the church is there, then the marriage of two Catholics in a civil ceremony is not recognised as two people being married inside the Catholic church. That's the difference.

The Sacraments, in RC doctrine, are the transformation of the ordinary into the sacred. If the transformation has taken place (marriage, conversion, etc) then the Sacrament has taken place, too, without the presence of a wafer, or priest, or whatever else might normally be required.

In baptism this is true, one can be baptised through desire. This would happen in the case where someone had professed a desire to enter the Catholic church, but before he or she could be confirmed, died, they would still be considered baptised into the church through their desire to do so.

Marriage is the same way, in if a fiancee dies just before the wedding, and his wife wishes to be considered married to him, then she will be considered to be married inside of the Catholic church.

However, a marriage that takes place, in a civil ceremony, between two Catholics, is not considered the same thing as a marriage inside the church, because there is nothing barring the Catholics from being married inside of the church, other than their disagreement with the teachings of the church. Therefore, the desire cannot be said to be there, since the opportunity was there, and they declined to do so.

As for communion, there are special circumstances in the case of remote communities, where it may be difficult to see a priest, and to receive the sacrament through the normal means. However, the same test on desire will be there, that if one deliberately avoids taking the sacrament when it is available, then the provisions of the sacrament cannot be imputed onto the person.

The reverse holds so that in annulment the RC church declares there was no Sacrament despite the administration of the formal rites, thus the marriage was invalid.

For very specific reasons. One of them being the lack of consummation. If the wife can say that the marriage has not been consummated, then it can be annuled, in that it never actually occured. Much in the same way that a sacrament, adminstered contrary to the will of the participants, cannot have the same validity as one administered in accordance to their will.

A person may, in fact, be healed without believing so. I've seen it happen to someone I know; she was stunned and amazed that she didn't die. The cancer had metastasized all throughout her abdomen. She had stopped taking treatments. People she didn't even know were praying for her.

Okay, that's a very good point. However, did she believe was she healed by Christ? That is what I should have clarified when I said that one cannot be healed by Christ unless they believe in him. They can be healed, but it will not be attributed to Christ, unless they believe in him.

How can we partake of the eucharist without believing in the Real Presence? Because we, in essence, define the eucharist differently. We define salvation differently. We define Apostolic Succession differently. We define the Church differently. By the necessity of human language we use the same terms for nearly everything but use them differently.

In the sense that the Catholic church uses the term sacrament, you cannot participate in the sacraments, without first coming to accept their meanings. One can call a goat a dog, but the goat is no more a dog, just because you call it so.

In our view the RC church defines them based on centuries of myth, superstition, and error. We don't. In the RC view our definitions don't trump their "truth," so the fact is that the Sacraments are taking place in and around us unwittingly.

Interesting. How do you think Catholics see the adoptation of certain sacraments, by those who reject the church as a whole? They see it as an affirmation of their own beliefs, since these folks found things they could not do without. The error in your case, is seen more of omission than commission.

One problem: that isn't true, according to RC doctrine. Remember the fourth century homoousias versus homoiousios debate? It was part of the greater adoption of neo-Aristotelian philosophy in the church. Jesus is not merely of like substance to God, but of the same substance as God. If we the church were made one Substance with Jesus, then we, too would be not merely like God, but God! Clearly this is not so.

Indeed, clearly the relationship between the church and Christ cannot be the same as the relationship between God and Christ. For the church is not the daughter of Christ, as Christ is the Son of God, but rather, Christ is the head of the church.

Henry would have been just as happy with a divorce, but the Pope couldn't do that according to practices at the time. The only recourse was annulment, which the Pope would have granted just as casually as today's civil divorces because kings were accomodated when it came to securing succession. Catherine's uncle Charles V HRE didn't approve and camped an army next to the Vatican to make his point.

If annulments and divorce were a casual affair, then Charles V wouldn't be camping an army by the Vatican.

Yes, they do permit divorce for infidelity. But they grant annulments in other cases. In fact I met someone whose marriage was casually annulled by the RC church. She and her husband were faithful, active life-long Catholics. They divorced but not over infidelity. Ex-husband was influential and sought an annulment, which was granted without so much as consulting her. She got a letter from the Priest she had adored since childhhood informing her that her children were now bastards in the eyes of the RC church. That was her wording, not the letter (she was still just a little bitter about it). She would say that she didn't leave the RC church, the RC church left her.

Yes there are many folks who have cause to be angry and bitter about the Catholic church, and many for much stronger reasons then this. I see this as a problem with the casual annulment, without cause, than with the doctrine of the Catholic church.

[Ben Kenobi]

BK: Are you staying in San Antonio or are you just on vacation, or what?

It's a good question, Japher. Even if you read all my posts, you wouldn't know the answer to that question.

At this point I don't know whether I will be able to stay in San Antonio. I have reasons to stay beyond the summer, and I would like to stay but the question is whether I will be able to stay.

[Ben Kenobi]

I will concede that modern RC statements do not rely on the two I cited. However the historical origins of RC sexual hang-ups about contraception do tie to those two scriptures. In the RC church you cannot separate the past from the present because there is, in their own eyes, unbroken continuity of dogma.

If that were true, than change would not be possible. Since we do know change is possible, then therefore there cannot be an unbroken continuity of dogma, in the sense that you mean here.

Greater understanding can be attained over time, and will be attained, as the Catholic church better understands the teachings of Christ. However, this understanding will not be contrary to the teachings of Christ as a whole.

All that is happening here, is that a better explanation for the rationale behind the doctrine of the church has supplanted the previous explanation. The doctrine has not changed, just the understanding of why.

Ok, I'll break it down for you. Moses died. Elijah disappeared without leaving a body behind, and traditionally he was "assumed" into heaven. So then what happened? Is Elijah sitting around in heaven in a mortal body? Did his mortal body simply slough off, incapable of existing in the realm of the spirit? Has he been given a resurrection body that is qualitatively different? Has Moses been given a resurrection body?

These are all assumptions which can't be answered. There is no answer. Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus. We don't know if they are incorporeal spirits made temporarily visible, but they certainly could be.

Incorporeal spirits are contrary to what is meant by assumption. Bodily assumption into heaven, is how assumption has always been understood. The real question is Moses, who did die, and was buried, and yet appears alongside Elijah who had been bodily assumed.

The doctrine of the Resurrection taught by Paul contradicts RC teaching as you've stated it. The resurrection of believers does not occur until Christ's return.

Where does Paul say this?

This is about as direct a teaching as ever found in scripture. But if you don't understand scripture, how can you judge whether RC doctrine is true just because Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus

I judge it true, because it provides a better explanation as to why Moses and Elijah could appear before Christ, than Luther's belief of all those who have died remaining unconscious until the resurrection.

[Japher]

It's a good question, Japher. Even if you read all my posts, you wouldn't know the answer to that question.

Just so you know, I'm not reading any of those long replies...

Well, if you want to stay I hope you get to. Good luck

[Ben Kenobi]

You know anything about work permits?

The immigration laws in the US have me baffled.

[Japher]

work visa?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You know anything about work permits?

The immigration laws in the US have me baffled.

You don't have to worry about immigrating legally into the United States.

Just travel to Mexico, then come into United States from that country without getting caught. Later, if someone questions your status here, just write a letter to George W. Bush and he will allow you to stay here as a worker.

[Japher]

Or go to Cuba and swim here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nah, I ain't a wetback.

[Alexander's Horse]

you're a senior catholic

[Barinthus]

Just marry an American

[Ben Kenobi]

A marriage of convenience?

Nah, that won't do. I want to marry one special lady, and stay married to her for the rest of my life.