Fullness of the faith??????????

[Rick Otto]

quote=Secundulus; No, it doesn't present a problem because first you have to put it into the historical context of the heresies he was fighting at the time and second, the Catechism does not contradict it.

The heresies only provided an opportunity for RCC inerrancy to express itself in a formal document appropriate for definitions & declarations of a binding &/or loosing nature. It is a very short document and the language in it takes great pains to be as universal & timeless as possible. The fact that it happened long ago in a country far, far away is indeed incidental, but the response to it was overtly intended to settle timeless issues in an everlasting way.
Own it.

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?
836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

All mankind instead of just Jews is the New covenant, but it also involves grace as well as election and we are now to understand the predestination of election (God's mercy) to be Personaly meant & Personaly given to ech individual of the elect.
If we are to believe that Jesus died for all the sins of each individual, then we must believe that there is no justice in anyone actualy going to hell, condemned or not.
By ipso facto officialy reversing it's original rejection of the Pelagian 'free will" heresy at Trent, the RCC again proved its lack of the inerrancy it claims.

 

[Rick Otto]

There's that pesky word agin'

Symbolism is only unsatisfying for mystery junkies.

 

[Trento]

And I have demonstrated that Augustine did not subscribe to any concept remotely resembling transubstantiation, but to the contrary said the bread and wine were symbolic representatives of a spiritual reality, adding that all who read a literal interpretation of it being the actual flesh and blood of Jesus are foolish and carnal.

:o

"Before consecration," writes St. Augustine, "it [the element] is bread and wine, the produce of nature; but after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ, which the blessing consecrated.De Conscr., cap. Utrum sub figuri, etc., dist. 2


He calls on us to adore the Eucharist because it is the Flesh of Christ :
“Being in doubt, I turn to Christ and I find how without impiety the earth may
be adored . . . flesh is from the earth and from the flesh of Mary He has
received flesh, and because in flesh itself He has walked here, and has given
flesh itself to us to be eaten unto salvation; but no one eats that flesh unless
he shall first have adored; we have found how the footstool of the Lord may be
adored, and not only how we do not sin in adoring it, but sin in not adoring it
“ (In Ps. xcviii. n. 9). Compare this passage with the following in St. Ambrose his teacher,
De Spiritu Sancto, III. 11. 79. “Therefore by the footstool the earth is
understood, but by earth the flesh of Christ which today also in the Mysteries
we adore and which the Apostles in the Lord Jesus adored.”

Again he writes: “And he was carried in His own hands (i Kings xxi. 13). Who
understands how this could come to pass in a man? For who is carried in his
own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of others, no one is carried in his
own hands. We have not understood how this may be understood literally of
David himself; but we have discovered (how it is fulfilled) in Christ. For Christ
was carried in His own hands when delivering His very Body He says: ‘This is My
Body’ (Matt. xxvi. 22; Mark xiv. 22; Luke xxii. 19). For He was carrying that
Body in His own hands “ (Enarr. in Ps. xxxiii. i, 10). It is alleged that He was
carrying a sign or figure of His Body, the sign receiving

Contrary to the common misconception, transubstantiation is not dependent upon Aristotelian philosophy, since some notion of the concept goes back to the earliest days of the Church when Aristotle’s philosophy was not known. The eastern Fathers, before the sixth century, used the Greek expression metaousiosis, or "change of being," which is essentially the same idea. The Church did, however, draw upon prevalent philosophical categories, such as substance.

I conclude with the significant admission of the Protestant scholar Leibnitz: "Antiquity [he says] has openly enough declared that bread is changed into the Body of Christ and wine into His Blood; and here and there, ancient Fathers acknowledged a metastoicheiosis which Latins have rightly rendered 'Transubstantiation.

 

[JacksLadder]

Man, it's a throw down today in the GT forums

 

[Secundulus]

All mankind instead of just Jews is the New covenant, but it also involves grace as well as election and we are now to understand the predestination of election (God's mercy) to be Personaly meant & Personaly given to ech individual of the elect.
If we are to believe that Jesus died for all the sins of each individual, then we must believe that there is no justice in anyone actualy going to hell, condemned or not.
By ipso facto officialy reversing it's original rejection of the Pelagian 'free will" heresy at Trent, the RCC again proved its lack of the inerrancy it claims.

It says all men are called. It doesn't say all men are elect. Elect is an entirely different thing. That is clear if you read the whole thing. Grace is offered to all. Those who accept it are foreknown from the foundation of the world and are the elect. Those who reject it are going to the hot place forever. This is hardly an idea of Pelagius who said we are all good and can become perfect under our own power.


As for the other (the Unum Sanctum thing), the beauty of ornate theological language is that it can mean many things. Enough said. LOL

 

[Secundulus]

Man, it's a throw down today in the GT forums

The best kind of day (as long as we don't get personal). It's how we learn and how we sharpen ourselves.

 

[Thekla]

Symbolism is only unsatisfying for mystery junkies.

noooooooo; its too late at night for semiotics :o

()

 

[MamaZ]

If all men are called of God then all men will be saved and we know that is not the truth.. Only those whom the Father gave to Jesus came to Jesus. Not all came.

 

[Rhamiel]

If all men are called of God then all men will be saved and we know that is not the truth.. Only those whom the Father gave to Jesus came to Jesus. Not all came.

what is this post in referance to sister? seems to come out of the blue
some are called but do not listen to the call

 

[MamaZ]

what is this post in referance to sister? seems to come out of the blue
some are called but do not listen to the call

This is in reference to the above posts of God calling all men. The call of God is not based on human will. It is based on if you are called of God you will do what He calls you to do. When God called Moses He did not want to go either.. When God called Jonah we see he tried to run. When God called balam we see that God even used a donkey . So the call of God does not go unanswered.. His calling is a sure thing. Have you read in the OT where God called men and they in return chose not to heed the calling and got away with it? God has not changed..

 

[chestertonrules]

If all men are called of God then all men will be saved and we know that is not the truth.. Only those whom the Father gave to Jesus came to Jesus. Not all came.

God has given man the power to accept or reject his grace.

Why don't you believe God is capable of this?

 

[sunlover1]

As for the other (the Unum Sanctum thing), the beauty of ornate theological language is that it can mean many things. Enough said. LOL

The best kind of day (as long as we don't get personal). It's how we learn and how we sharpen ourselves.

A little intellectual stimulation is always nice.

 

[chestertonrules]

This is in reference to the above posts of God calling all men. The call of God is not based on human will. It is based on if you are called of God you will do what He calls you to do. When God called Moses He did not want to go either.. When God called Jonah we see he tried to run. When God called balam we see that God even used a donkey . So the call of God does not go unanswered.. His calling is a sure thing. Have you read in the OT where God called men and they in return chose not to heed the calling and got away with it? God has not changed..

1 Thes 4
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

 

[simonthezealot]

As for the other (the Unum Sanctum thing), the beauty of ornate theological language is that it can mean many things. Enough said. LOL

Here's the thing about unum sanctum; people try and down play its legitimacy and reliability because of its age yet as recent as JP2 it was substantially referenced by him. I'll find the link in a little bit if anyone is interested?

 

[Rhamiel]

Here's the thing about unum sanctum; people try and down play its legitimacy and reliability because of its age yet as recent as JP2 it was substantially referenced by him. I'll find the link in a little bit if anyone is interested?

of course it was referanced by JP2, i would not be surprised to hear it referanced by Pope Benedict, no one is saying it is not still in effect, but we do not let non-Catholics tell us what it means, it is a Catholic document for Catholics

 

[sunlover1]

Here's the thing about unum sanctum; people try and down play its legitimacy and reliability because of its age yet as recent as JP2 it was substantially referenced by him. I'll find the link in a little bit if anyone is interested?

I think that we should keep in mind the 'reason' it was done
at least according to wikipedia:

On 18 November 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull Unam sanctam[1] which historians consider one of the most extreme statements of Papal spiritual supremacy ever made. The original document is lost but a version of the text can be found in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vatican Archives.[2] It arose due to the Pope's conflict with Philip IV of France over attempts of each to prevent the other from receiving money from taxes.

Filthy lucre!
Isnt that always how it goes?

 

[MamaZ]

God has given man the power to accept or reject his grace.

Why don't you believe God is capable of this?

Well with the whole counsel of the written scriptures I do not see where man has the choice to accept Gods will or to reject Gods will if indeed called by God. I guess it would depend on what you belive Grace to be..

 

[sunlover1]

of course it was referanced by JP2, i would not be surprised to hear it referanced by Pope Benedict, no one is saying it is not still in effect, but we do not let non-Catholics tell us what it means,

NonCatholics never could understand anything anyhow.

it is a Catholic document for Catholics

But you certainly must be able to understand why some
of it's content might incite those who are not.

The bull ends "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

It incites me anyhow.
There is no other name under heaven by which men must be saved.

 

[MamaZ]

1 Thes 4
3It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; 6and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

What does this have to do with God calling men? Who is rejecting this instruction?

 

[MamaZ]

1Th 1:1 Paul and Silvanus and Timothy to the assembly of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Th 1:2 We give thanks to God always concerning you all, making mention of you on our prayers,
1Th 1:3 remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love, and the patience of hope of our Lord Jesus Christ before our God and Father,
1Th 1:4 knowing, brothers, having been loved, your election by God.
1Th 1:5 For our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Spirit, and in much assurance, even as you know what kind we were among you for your sake.
1Th 1:6 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, welcoming the Word in much affliction with joy of the Holy Spirit.
1Th 1:7 So that you became examples to all those believing in Macedonia and Achaia.
1Th 1:8 For the Word of the Lord sounded out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone out, so that there is no need for us to have to say anything.
1Th 1:9 For they themselves announce concerning us what kind of entrance we have to you, and how you had turned to God from the idols, to serve the true and living God,
1Th 1:10 and to await His Son from Heaven, whom He raised from the dead, Jesus, the One delivering us from the coming wrath.