What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

Rick Otto · Jul 19, 2015

concretecamper said:
Then leave....oh wait, you did! So much for "to protect group cohesion". Too funny

I know. It is hilarious when it isn't tragic, which failing to discern the body of Christ is.

Great place for a snarkfest?
Depends on your depth, I guess.

concretecamper · Jul 19, 2015

Rick Otto said:
Great place for a snarkfest?
Depends on your depth, I guess.

That exactly what I thought when I read your post....good call my friend.

We all know who the shallow ones are who constantly detract, lie, poke fun at the RCC. Jesus said the world would hate us because it hated Him first.

samcarternx · Jul 19, 2015

concretecamper said:
That wasn't your first question, was it now. If you meant to ask about canonization you should have.

Sorry, I haven't read the fine print. The saints Paul referred to were in the land of the living so forgive me for not understanding "canonization". I have searched the scriptures and just don't see that. Perhaps you can explain? How did "born again" become "pie in the sky when you die"?

Rick Otto · Jul 19, 2015

concretecamper said:
That exactly what I thought when I read your post....good call my friend.

We all know who the shallow ones are who constantly detract, lie, poke fun at the RCC. Jesus said the world would hate us because it hated Him first.

Y'all know melodrama doesn't substantiate paranoia or redeem delusions of grandeur.

concretecamper · Jul 19, 2015

samcarternx said:
Sorry, I haven't read the fine print.

There is no fine print. The CCC is out there for all to read.

samcarternx said:
The saints Paul referred to were in the land of the living so forgive me for not understanding "canonization". I have searched the scriptures and just don't see that. Perhaps you can explain?

Eph 3:14-15 For this cause I pray and bow my knees to the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity (or fatherhood[5]) in heaven and earth is named.

"The Greek word oftentimes signifies a family, and therefore may signify, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named; and thus the sense will be, that God is not only the Father of his eternal Son, but (as not only the Latin text, but even the Greek may signify) of all angelical spirits in heaven, and of all men, especially Christians, made his adoptive sons in baptism."

The Church profess belief in the communion of Saints as did the Church throughout the ages. We are all One family. This is nothing new.

samcarternx said:
How did "born again" become "pie in the sky when you die"?

Not sure what this means. From a Catholic perspective, being born again is Baptism. Do you have question on Baptism from a Catholic POV

Rick Otto · Jul 19, 2015

samcarternx said:
Sorry, I haven't read the fine print. The saints Paul referred to were in the land of the living so forgive me for not understanding "canonization". I have searched the scriptures and just don't see that. Perhaps you can explain? How did "born again" become "pie in the sky when you die"?

It was a guilt come on with a redefinition as pay off.

...Did you used to watch that guy Monty on a show called "Let's Make A Deal"?
That plus a bit of The 3 Stooges, and I'm in The Zone, lol!

samcarternx · Jul 19, 2015

concretecamper said:
Not sure what this means. From a Catholic perspective, being born again is Baptism. Do you have question on Baptism from a Catholic POV

Baptism is when one repents of their sins and they are remitted, but "born again" is when the Holy Spirit enters and His eternal life enlivens the one who died on the cross with Christ, thus producing a new creature alive forever. It happens to all of us with the infilling of the Holy Spirit. I in Him and He in me. Perhaps it is not I who is mistaken, but the vast majority? lol

Albion · Jul 19, 2015

How did "born again" become "pie in the sky when you die"?

samcarternx said:
Baptism is when one repents of their sins and they are remitted, but "born again" is when the Holy Spirit enters and His eternal life enlivens the one who died on the cross with Christ, thus producing a new creature alive forever.

From the Catholic perspective (and that of others of us also) Baptism does accompany a repentance from one's sins but, as a sacrament, it also imparts the Holy Spirit.

samcarternx · Jul 19, 2015

Albion said:
it also imparts the Holy Spirit.

I did not know the church added to the Holy Spirit, I thought the Holy Spirit added to the church.

MarkRohfrietsch · Jul 19, 2015

samcarternx said:
I did not know the church added to the Holy Spirit, I thought the Holy Spirit added to the church.

Sacraments are not what the Chruch does; they are what God does for the Chruch.

Tangible · Jul 19, 2015

samcarternx · Jul 19, 2015

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Sacraments are not what the Chruch does; they are what God does for the Chruch.

So rcc is always doing God's will and everyone is a direct instrument of His will. Sounds like the kingdom of heaven on earth. I don't believe that since I live in the kingdom, It seems that the denomination is so much fun, many want to keep it.

Albion · Jul 19, 2015

samcarternx said:
I did not know the church added to the Holy Spirit, I thought the Holy Spirit added to the church.

The church doesn't add to the Holy Spirit. Baptism enters and enlivens (to use the words you did) the recipient. Baptism was ordained by Jesus for our benefit; it's not done by us in order to impress God.

bbbbbbb · Jul 20, 2015

Open Heart said:
1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."201In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."202 "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."203

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.204 And St. Ambrose says about this conversion:
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.205

1376 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."206

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212

Thank you for assisting me in proving my point. In not a single citation you have provided will you find the word, "physical". You will see all sorts of other words which might be mistaken for "physical" such as real and true, but you cannot find any statement that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood. There is an amazing dance around the definition, but the Catholic Church today denies the "physical" aspect of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I would tell you to try harder, but I know that in the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church it is never stated that your denomination believe that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood.

bbbbbbb · Jul 20, 2015

Open Heart said:
Further testimony from the Vatican that Catholics STILL believe the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium.html
MYSTERIUM FIDEI

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PAUL VI
ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST

SEPTEMBER 3, 1965

To these words of St. Ignatius, we may well add those which Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is a faithful witness to the faith of the Church on this point, addressed to the people: "The Lord did not say: This is symbol of my body, and this is a symbol of my blood, but rather: This is my body and my blood. He teaches us not to look to the nature of what lies before us and is perceived by the senses, because the giving of thanks and the words spoken over it have changed it into flesh and blood."

To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

"I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine that are placed on the altar are, through the mystery of the sacred prayer and the words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the consecration they are the true body of Christ

St. Augustine says: "It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation

Encyclicals, like Papal Bulls, are not the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church; they can be, and have been, denied and discredited by later generations of Catholics.

That said, this encyclical is not terribly unusual. It is written in theological doublespeak. Of particular interest is the following:

nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.

What he is saying is that the "species" remains of the bread and wine. This means that the physical atoms and molecules that make up the bread and wine remain even though it has been truly and actually transubstantiated into the actual and real body and blood of Jesus Christ. Christ is present beneath (apart) from the "species". Christ is not to be confused or conflated with the "species" which, as he stated, is what remains after consecration.

bbbbbbb · Jul 20, 2015

concretecamper said:
Just calling a spade a spade.

Your lie is not that you do not believe transubstantion. Your lie is that you knowingly falsely claim the RCC has changed its teaching about the eucharist along with other doctrines you listed. You can now feel free to offer evidence to clear you reputation.....I'll wait and wait and wait.

You will wait forever because you refuse to believe the evidence. You also refuse to provide the slightest proof of your allegations. I will wait forever, as well, for the Catholic Church to provide the slightest scientific evidence that in the Eucharist the "species" lose their physical properties and cease to remain so.

bbbbbbb · Jul 20, 2015

Albion said:
Unless you're already pretty popular--like John Paul II. Then you'll be deemed a saint almost from the moment of your death, in the absence of any of those miracles that are supposedly required, and the miracles will be reduced in number and hurried up.

Then there is also the conundrum of Saint John Wayne. He was raised in the Presbyterian Church, had a great fondness for Hispanic Catholic women, marrying three and divorcing two. He was also a very active Freemason. At his death he called for a Catholic priest, who baptized him and gave him the Last Rites shortly before he expired. After his death some of his Catholic fans called for his sanctification becauase he had died in a state of utter sinlessless, never having committed a single sin after his conversion.

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

bbbbbbb said:
Thank you for assisting me in proving my point. In not a single citation you have provided will you find the word, "physical". You will see all sorts of other words which might be mistaken for "physical" such as real and true, but you cannot find any statement that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood. There is an amazing dance around the definition, but the Catholic Church today denies the "physical" aspect of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I would tell you to try harder, but I know that in the entire Catechism of the Catholic Church it is never stated that your denomination believe that the bread becomes "physical" flesh and wine becomes "physical" blood.

Whole substance means nothing? You are reaching. Reading the text, finding a word that is not there, then building an argument around that word. Ok, the word physical is not there. Next please.

bbbbbbb said:
Then there is also the conundrum of Saint John Wayne. He was raised in the Presbyterian Church, had a great fondness for Hispanic Catholic women, marrying three and divorcing two. He was also a very active Freemason. At his death he called for a Catholic priest, who baptized him and gave him the Last Rites shortly before he expired. After his death some of his Catholic fans called for his sanctification becauase he had died in a state of utter sinlessless, never having committed a single sin after his conversion.

That is the power of the Christ working through the priest. Isn't it awesome? Unless you are poking fun at the mercy of God, then I'll let you deal with it on your own.

Btw...I am still waiting for you to show us all that the RCC changed its teaching on the Eucharist.

concretecamper · Jul 21, 2015

Come to think of it, wouldn't "whole substance" be a more complete description than "physical". Something can physically change such as water but is still in substance H2O. However, to change in substance, that is a real change. Next please bbbbbbbbb

Albion · Jul 21, 2015

concretecamper said:
Whole substance means nothing? You are reaching. Reading the text, finding a word that is not there, then building an argument around that word. Ok, the word physical is not there.

]
Well, duh. That IS what distinguishes the RCC's definition of Real Presence from the historic definition of Real Presence. You can't really act as though it's a triviality.

What would it take for non-RC Christians to join the RCC?

The Dude Abides

Member of His Church

saint

The Dude Abides

Member of His Church

The Dude Abides

saint

Facilitator

saint

Unapologetic Apologist

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato

saint

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member of His Church

Member of His Church

Facilitator

Similar threads