http://www.local10.com/news/4378405/detail.html

I thought Notafraid was in Fort Worth!? <just kidding>

quote:

---

An evangelical Christian talk show host who questioned the beliefs of the Catholic church and entertained a caller's question about whether the late Pope John Paul II would go to heaven has been fired.

---

That is kind of funny seeing as how the Catholic Church and its leaders cannot answer that question either.

-Denny Crane-

"Chuck Gratner, general manager of WORD-FM, didn't dispute Minto's description and said he was let go because of differences in how he conducted his show."

If you don't already know I am Catholic and I think this is horrible if he was fired because of his comments about the Pope because nobody knows who is in heaven. I'm not really buying that he was fired for differences.

They could have at least offered him the opportunity to resign so that he could "spend more time with his family" or "pursue other interests" ...

I wondered that too...

It's pretty obvious the answer is no. He did nothing about the priest sex scandal and he said NO to condoms in Africa, effectively expediting the worst genocide in the history of the world.

No one knows who the elect are but God, but did John Paul II trust in and rest in Christ alone for his Justification, or did He trust in His participation in the medieval system known as the mass, where an unbloody sacrifice occurs that they claim is truly a propitiation? This mechanism, along with the other sacraments is where all justice ether occurs, or is increased. So, IF he believed that God only saved him through this mechanism, offered by the hands of men, that does not seem like the Christian faith we find in the scriptures. I simply don’t know the answer if He was saved or not. He seemed like an ok guy...Did sme strange things, but being called the Vicar of Christ on earth, and head of the church of Jesus Christ is apt to do strange things to you.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/14/2005 11:59a).]

Here we go again.

Why don't you post a Catholic link describing the mass that even approaches that "description" ?

The mass is not a `medieval system', but belongs well within the first Millenium. The essential componets are in place even in the Ante-Nicene church, even before 200 AD.

But that aside, I think the firing is insanse, and the Minto guy was perfectly right to leave the question at least begging. Who can know from outside the Pope's relation? And if he is raising questions on purgatory, again, that seems debateable enough.

I guess it really depends on what "offending his viewers" really referred to, since the boss's quote didn't confirm what it might have been. It might have been a statement against humanist stuff for all we know.

But from what is described, the firing is wildly unjust, foolhardy.

You can't know, and one can reasonalby ask, "Are we sure Mother Theresa went to heaven?" without offending. Just as you can also say, "No, we are not, but considering last moments the probability is far greater she did than Heinrich Himmler."

Redstone,

Read Trent. My language came right from there.

Titan,

Your applying your logic there to liberally.. I as a prot could claim that our view of the sacrament was the same as the first centuries as well… It is the Medieval change of view that I was speaking of. Remember Kung helped educate even RC's about this fact in the 60's...



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/14/2005 2:13p).]

No.

YOU are the one who wrote:
"the medieval system known as the mass, where an unbloody sacrifice occurs that they claim is truly a propitiation? This mechanism, along with the other sacraments is where all justice ether occurs, or is increased. So, IF he believed that God only saved him through this mechanism, offered by the hands of men, that does not seem like the Christian faith we find in the scriptures."

Link and highlight from Trent, or some other (not obviously insane anti-Catholic) source. What you wrote is a total and complete misrepresentation, and I think you know this. But wouldn't it be useful to you and everyone else if you could back it up?

A belief only in salvation through a human mechanism by the "hands of men" alien to Scripture? You are well into Jack Chick territory here. You have ignored my VII challenge to link and highlight, and I expect the same here. Please challenge, thats part of what this board is for, but there are far better ways to go about it.

Soooo....about that DJ that got fired....

Redstone,

I can’t help it if you don’t know what you are talking about. You should be educated in this stuff yourself. Like I said, read Trent yourself. It’s obvious that you never have studied it! Why should I educate you on stuff you should know from the councils of your own church? If you were not such a shill who is just out to disprove everything, or discredit everything I say (Which is obvious from your attitude), I might have done it, but as far as a challenge appealing to my personal pride or something, well, that’s something that does not motivate me, because I can tell the spririt you are approching this stuff with, and it's not a productive one.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/14/2005 4:28p).]

quote:

---

..because I can tell the spririt you are approching this stuff with, and it's not a productive one.

---

Considering the source, that is laughable.

The 'Business and Politics' board has Holden, and this board has notafraid.

[This message has been edited by RAB91 (edited 4/14/2005 4:46p).]

[This message has been edited by JayAggie (edited 4/14/2005 4:54p).]

Trent 7th session says: “holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired.”

Session 22 Describes the Eucharist in this way:

“this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner the same Christ who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross, the holy council teaches that this is truly propitiatory and has this effect”

“For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different.”

“The fruits of that bloody sacrifice, it is well understood, are received most abundantly through this unbloody one”




Hope this helps any RCs looking for truth. I had to take time away from family to look it all up again...



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/14/2005 6:32p).]

The radio host should not have been fired...There is freedom of speech in this country, or so I thought...Maybe not on a private radio station, though.

The Mass is the Liturgy of THE WORD and the Liturgy of THE EUCHARIST, as was performed by Jesus at the Last Supper....Prayers, Scripture Reading, Holy Communion...

Texasag73

If the Pope can't make it - we're all in big trouble.

"...because I can tell the spririt you are approching this stuff with, and it's not a productive one."

I certainly dislike and don't understand your remark, but 1) you have NO idea about the "spirit" I approach anything with. If I have ever crossed the line, as I have said on another thread, post the links, post the quotes. I'm open to apology, but I think you will be hard pressed to come up with something. 2) Consider how you come across before you post....please. I can assure you at least some of it is counterproductive, ie the post I am responding to. Getting reactions does not mean you are "enlightening" - it can be quite the opposite.

Regarding the quotes:

There is a disconnect between your characterization and the selected quotes, a pretty big one. It would still be better if you linked and highlighted from vatican.va, but in any event..

The "mechanism" saves ? No - its the grace granted by God, which we receive in faith, with the Sacraments as the (divinely appointed) conduit. Is it the "only" anything? No, and no Catholic knowledgeable of the faith will say that. I challenge you to find a Catholic link that says only through "mechanisms" or ritual can salvation be obtained or justice reveived. You won't. Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul has short but excellent discussions on these matters. Here, on the sacrifice of the mass:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10006a.htm

Can you find anything that even hints at what you have suggested??? Highlight and post.

Let's take:
“holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired.”

Sounds so narrow and exclusionary. Only Catholics can have true justice, ect. But what are the sacraments? Signs of the sacred with little connection to divine grace? Baptism is just a show of committment? Only memorials?

The Council or Trent, your great boogyman, said:
"If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema"

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John, iii, 5); "He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost" (Tit., iii, 5); "Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts, viii, 17); "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life...For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John, vi, 55, 56).

A sacramental ceremony is in some sense a cause of the grace conferred, which if I understand correctly is your objection. But why, if you object, did Christ give them to us?

"The Holy Ghost comes down from heaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying" (Tertullian, De bapt., c. iv). "Baptism is the expiation of sins, the remission of crimes, the cause of renovation and regeneration" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Orat. in Bapt.". "Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you the regeneration of the soul...Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it" (ibid.) "He that passes through the fountain [Baptism] shall not die but rises to new life" (St. Ambrose, De sacr., I, iv). "Whence this great power of water", exclaims St. Augustine, "that it touches the body and cleanses the soul?" (Tr. 80 in Joann). "Baptism", writes the same Father, "consists not in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who instituted it" (Cont. Cres., IV).

If the seven sacraments were instituted by Christ, which baptism certainly was, I would hope Protestants would agree, we must take them not only seriously but with extra caution. These are not just normal, routine activities, and not just symbols either. God is the principal of the sacraments. They do not work in our lives without us, without our consent and obedience and humbling - faith, in other words - - - God provides the supernatural, the undeserved, grace.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

That does not mean only Catholics go to heaven, or Protestants are doomed or whatever you might suggest. Christ took the thief with him from the cross.

It does mean we should be always grateful to God for those instruments that draw us closer to Him.

Baptism
Reconciliation/Penance/Confession
Holy Eucharist
Confirmation
Matrimony
Holy Orders
Unction

All directly follow the example of Christ and the Apostles. Not all are called to all of them, matrimony and holy orders especially. But these are, I would hope anyone can see, perfectly compatible with all the means of living a better Christian existence.

Redstone,

Aside from your dislike of my use of the term mechanism, I believe you argued my case for me quite well, as well as describing the chief mechanisms (there is that hated word again) of the Roman sacerdotal system.

The sacrament becomes the conduit (as you put it) for God’s saving grace, as offered by these chosen human hands. The eyes of faith therefore on these hands, hands of men acting in the name and clothed with the powers of God. The sacrament’s in this system have BECOME and contain those things which they are visible representations and resemblances of.

I would like for you to pray about and read this quote of Augustine very carefully, more than once if you would, because in it, is contained the position of the sacraments that I believe Rome has lost.

"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith." (Letter 98:9)

Do you see how he speaks of them “resembling”, or being analogous to the reality, but not the reality? This is where I say at some point between Augustine, and Trent, some corruption, or claims that the sacraments became, and contained the realities rather than just pointing the eyes of our faith to the spiritual reality that is unseen, unfelt, and untasted. It is this closeness to the point of calling the sacrament the name of the reality coupled with the disconnect that these were NOT the reality, but beggarly elements that direct weak human faith to things unseen that has become lost and distorted.

notafraid,
I hope we can have more posts in that vein instead of childish outbursts.

1) What date or event between Augustine and Trent was something lost or fundamentally changed? Do you have any candidates?

2) Taking this section:
Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? ...... in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith."

This is in conflict with the links from newadvent where? Where does he hint the sacraments were not started by Christ, or do not convey a larger, unseen spiritual reality? Where does he say they are symbols only?

From VII
"At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

From Augustine
"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).

"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).

Can you draw parallels to your earlier post? Where exactly are the sacraments characterized as you have suggested?

This must stop. I will go no further. You completely ignored the text that I posted in a rush to disprove it, you gathered your evidence, and slammed down a case you felt stood against it.

The only thing that I think might be productive is for you to have an open mind for a bit here, and to post to me a verse by verse, or sentence by sentence commentary of Augustine’s words I posted above, and I will respond back in kind. This is all I am willing to do with you at this point. If you will not do that with me so that we can perhaps have a meeting of the minds on something, even if in the end you say “he was wrong”, then I will go no further.

I will respond back to your decision in the morning.

Fine, okay with me. It would be helpful for you to post the link to the quote for reasons of context. And I am still interested in candidates for dates and/or events.

-"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time."

Salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus was endured once, and is certainly for all time. Those after Christ, and those before Christ, came to salvation through Christ, by faith in and love for the Lord their God, no matter if they had ever heard the name of Jesus.

-In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated.

Special celebrations for Easter in remberence of death and resurrection, a longstanding traiditon.

-Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?

I think I have already addressed this. Further, Christians should be witnesses daily, unashamed of their actions in worship, and not just on Easter. Also, the author asks: "is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter,..." Yes, He is!

-"For if sacraments had notsome points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all."

Very true....the Mass, for example, is based on the Last Supper....and baptism follows in the manner of Jesus....

-"In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble."

Right....holy orders, for example, are holy, because the priest or other religious is committing their person totally to Christ...

-"As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith."

This is Catholic dogma.

You ask:
"Do you see how he speaks of them “resembling”, or being analogous to the reality, but not the reality?"

No, I don't. From your quote, for example, we have:
"As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body..."

quote:

---

Fine, okay with me. It would be helpful for you to post the link to the quote for reasons of context. And I am still interested in candidates for dates and/or events.

---

You mean when things began to fall apart? I think the school men were the ones that Calvin blamed for much. That would be the phenomenon that occurred from about the time of Aquinas until the reformation. There was some mixing of pagan philosophy, and more of an appeal to the authority of philosophy. Aquinas was more the Grandfather of modern humanism, and helped usher in the renascence, and later the enlightenment. He believed that mans will was fallen but not his intellect. This was a key error that helped perpetuate some of what I believe was a lack of willingness to sit humbly under the scriptures. The Reformation was the counter to this, not by an appeal to philosophical constructs of Nominalism, or Thomistic Rationalism, but these medieval speculations were abandoned by the reformers in lue of an appeal back to the scriptures and the historical character of the Christian faith. We can speak of all of this after the Augustine text is fully exhausted between us.


-"You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, 'Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion,' although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time."

He speaks of Easter approaching, and of a common utterance among Christians: “Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord's Passion”, noting that the Passion occurred but once historically, yet each year it is common in speech to speak of it as a present occurrence.


-In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, 'This day the Lord rose from the dead,' although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated.

Here he speaks also of the saying on Easter Sunday “This day the Lord rose from the dead”, drawing our attention again to the fact that while it is said “This day”, speaking of the present day, the day is given the same name as the one historic day (when the event of his rising did occur) so he says it is common to speak of today (Easter Sunday, The Day He rose from the dead) in that way, because it is a sacramental way of celebrating that day.

-Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?

Now, within the context of what he has already said, He speaks of the offering up of Christ, not only on Easter, but each day in the Lord’s supper (Eucharist) , he is said to be offered up as a sacrifice, and while he explains it saying that if a man were questions would say that yes it is true He is offered as a sacrifice, because the true and singular sacrifice is being celebrated today, and so the same name is given to today as that of the historical reality, just as on Easter it is said “This day the Lord Rose from the dead”. (Note: When it is spoken of in the present (or sacramental sense) Augustine is not teaching, but is actually denying that the present sacramental celebration constitutes the reality)

-"For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all."

Here he makes his point clearer, speaking of the reality and the sacramental celebration of the reality as having points of resemblance. He tells us that if they did not resemble the reality, they simply wouldn’t be sacraments to us.

-"In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble."

Here he drives home a distinct point of the nature of what sacraments are. That they are likenesses of, and bear the names of the realities that they resemble. (note: This stands opposed to the entire post medieval concept of the sacraments, where they are said to actually constitute the reality.)


-"As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood,' in the same manner the sacrament of faith is faith."

He says in a “certain manor” the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body, and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood. That “certain manor” is exactly what he has just described. That they are given the names of, and bear the likeness of the realities that they are sacraments of.

quote:

---

You ask:
"Do you see how he speaks of them “resembling”, or being analogous to the reality, but not the reality?"

No, I don't. From your quote, for example, we have:
"As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body..."

---

This statement that you quote as if it is an island within all the he has said. You walked blindly through his entire text, where he was at pangs to define what a sacrament was. The term “certain manor” with which it is His body was painstakingly detailed by Augustine, as I have, pointed out. The definitions of what it IS, speaks also about what it is NOT. If it IS what he says, then it is NOT what you claim it to be.

Largely from this quote (which still needs a link for context):
Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? and yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true?

You arrive at:
When it is spoken of in the present (or sacramental sense) Augustine is not teaching, but is actually denying that the present sacramental celebration constitutes the reality

That doesn't wash. But perhaps someone else can jump in?

Augustine says that every religion, true or false, has its visible signs or sacraments. (Cont. Faust., XIX, xi). There were sacraments under the law of nature and under the Mosaic Law, as there are sacraments of greater dignity under the Law of Christ.

In ancient times men expressed faith by some external signs. But they were more than just symbol and ritual. The same principal is at work today.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

Your right, it doesn't wash if you just pull that verse out of the context of the rest of what he is saying, which is what you are doing. It is meant to be taken with the sentences before and after it. When you place it as an island like that, sure it seems to lead elsewhere, but taken in the entirety of what he is saying, he is explain what that means when it is said, what it is, and is not throughout the whole text.

I think if you were just looking for the honest truth of what he is saying rather than trying to force things to fit in your preprogrammed ideals, you would see it more clearly. It is obvious from your first dealing with the text that you had quite a glossed over understanding of what he was teaching. This is not about outdoing someone, it’s about helping others come to the truth of a thing.

One of the things you keep returning to is that it’s more than just a symbol. On that I think we agree to… Look here at my official doctrinal position. This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standard for my church.

WCOF Chapter 29:7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

1CO 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

I think you tend to say that my position is one of the Baptists who look at it as just a memorial, a remembrance with no real quality beyond that, but as we look to the elements in faith, the spiritual food is as real as the elements themselves. This is truly a means of grace whereby we are spiritually nourished by Christ.

I think this is consistent with Augustine’s view as expressed in the text. I believe he would agree that while the sacrament did not constitute the reality, as received in faith the benefits of that are made present to us in a spiritual manor. Again, I believe the objective of a sacrament is that we weak humans who need to see, and touch and taste, not being able to do so with invisible and spiritual things of God, can come close in a tangible way and have the eyes of our faith lifted up by and through them, so that we are strengthened and benefited spiritually in the inner man by this means of grace.


I think you have been holding a position that falls off the horse on one side, while opposing a position (that you thought was mine) that falls off of the horse on the other. I believe Augustine was more towards the center of those two extremes, and if you will see, so am I.




PS: A good copy of the letter (though not this exact interpretation we have been working with) is here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 4/15/2005 12:33p).]

You mis-characterize Augustine. I might post more quotes and links tonight, if others wish to jump in...I'm not sure where else notafraid and I could go productively.

"The bread which you see on the altar is, sanctified by the word of God, the body of Christ; that chalice, or rather what is contained in the chalice, is, sanctified by the word of God, the blood of Christ." {Sermo 227}

http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/eucharist/eucharist_7.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HISTOREA.HTM
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/tes/quotes2.html

quote:

---

You mis-characterize Augustine. I might post more quotes and links tonight, if others wish to jump in...I'm not sure where else notafraid and I could go productively.

---

Ok, so is the deal that the one of us who covers the other up with the most early church father quotes that supports our positions wins? I think I could give you a run for your money there. I think you are right about it not being productive. Your just wanting to grab links from places that argue other things, but all I asked of you was to look at what He was saying. We even wrote commentaries on the text. I believe you commentary shows the depth of your understanding of it was quite shallow. You got what you were looking for out of it, because you are not looking for the truth.

Well, go ahead and "win" then - you gave me a "run for the money" and you're the winner!

I'll stay "shallow" and blinded to the truth. Your attempts "to educate" - your phrasing from another thread - have failed.

notafraid, you are obnoxious.

You'll probably ignore that and the others on this thread that have said as much, because you have the TRUTH, but thats fine. Have the last word and "win! win! win!"

You already know my "spririt" and that I am a "shill" who is out to disprove YOU, to discredit YOU, so let's leave things be.

Obnoxious, even for the internet!

"I took these guns to the middle east and now I'm gonna take 'em to the ring. I want Holyfield! I want Holyfield!" - Chris Farley

Just figured I would try and lighten the mood.