That one's OK, I like that one. That one actually appears in, you know, the Bible.
Christianity and Creationism - some clarification
- Thread starter spudbynight
- Start date
That one's OK, I like that one. That one actually appears in, you know, the Bible.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,633
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
So is transubstantiation.
But is there for only men to perform the act.
In reference to what RDM is saying I did quote Augustine from De Genesi ad Litteram where he quite clearly accepts and states the Allegorical nature of Genesis (although I was using it to illustrate something else)......
Here is another one relevant to the point RDM is making:
"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
Evolution does not preclude God, and a creator God does not preclude Evolution. Evolution is a process, a mechanism by which life on this planet evolved over time.....it does not explain why (or even if there is a why) or the creation of life in the first place (abiogenesis).
The main problem I have always had with believing in the existence of a God is defining God in the first place and until there is a universal acceptance of exactly what definition God fits into, and given the common feeling among religions on the nature of God being beyond our comprehension that will not be forthcoming any time soon if ever, Religion and Science really do not have anything relevant to say to each other in any meaningful spiritual or scientific way.
The term is an invention of C12th Theologians and defined into Catechism by the Council of Trent in 1551 under Pope Julius III, it is not a term found in the bible, it is a doctrine based on an interpretation of scripture.
What many people, including Catholics seem to forget when using Scripture to justify the Eucharist as only being able to be performed by Men because of the gender of Jesus, is that Jesus when referring to his Blood and Body was referring to his spiritual essence, that of the Christ, not that of the Man. I would be careful in using such arguments to justify the Catholic stance of ordination of women, especially one as controversial and easily refuted as Transubstantiation.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Sod that, I wouldn't stand for that nonsense, you have a voice... well fingers, type away man!
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,633
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
The term may have come into practice at the Council of Trent but it was occurring even before the Bible.
I wasn't trying to justify the Catholic stance on the ordination of women - I was simply stating what it was. As a Catholic dogma it is something which I accept as a Catholic.
The main difference I would again suggest is that you give no reason as to why they cannot do it. They just can't.
You honestly feel that a child brought up by homosexual parents would be worse off than one left in our care system?
How do you reconile that list with the fact that some of them are demonstrably untrue? #389 for example, marriage existed before the Catholic Church. #228 Infallible Pope (Have you read some of the history of some very fallible popes!)
A bit of climbdown from questioning dogma will lead to excommunication.
It seems that it is not God you actually believe in but the Catholic Church, which has shown itself on many occassions to be deeply flawed.
Transubstantiation is doctrine within a doctrine, while the Real Presence it is part of is the Dogma.
While the Real Presence and The Eucharist are an Infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, it's constituent parts are not all dogmata, for example....
The first two are De Fide and as such are dogmata and Infallible, the second two are Sententia Certa and as such are Teachings pertaining to the faith, but not yet De Fide or Of the Faith, thus they are subject to revision.
Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and the whole substance of the wine into His Blood.
The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the substance.
The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the change of the substance.
The Sacramental Accidents continue without a subject in which to inhere.
This continues throughout Catholic Dogmata. Of course for a Catholic is makes little difference as you are required to follow Doctrine while it is propagated by the Magisterium regardless of whether it is De Fide or otherwise.
My point is that the ordination of Women is possible without altering the Dogma of the Catholic Faith as within each Doctrine there is the ability to redefine the Dogma to some extent. I'm not saying it would be simple or even theologically supportable (without in-depth consideration it would be difficult to answer categorically) only that it is possible.
Last edited:
however.....
The Sacrament of Order can be validly received by a baptised person of the male sex only. (Sent. certa.)
Note the parenthesis......Sent. Certa, or Sententia Certa, which is a teaching pertaining to the Faith, not Of the Faith and is regarded as intrinsically connected to the teachings of Tradition and Scripture, but not yet taught by the Magisterium.
This means that it is not De Fide or Of The Faith, it is, as I explained earlier, Pertaining to the Faith, and as such can be changed, reinterpreted or even removed by either The Magisterium or The Pope. I will say that it is highly unlikely that once a doctrine is Senta Cera that it is revoked as they are generally accepted as having assent from the Holy See...(assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus)...but nonetheless they are not irrevocable.
There are a whole range of Official Theological Opinions ranging from De Fide down to Sententia Tolerata, each having a lesser degree of certainty than the one preceding it.
The ones that are irrevocable are known as the fides ecclesiastica (fides divina, fides catholica, de Fide Definita).
Care to explain why this is the case?
Not, obviously it's not "actually" cannibalistic because transubstantiation is made up.
"In Roman Catholic theology, transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change, in the Eucharist, of the substance of wheat bread and grape wine into the substance of the Body and Blood, respectively, of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before"
"The Fourth Council of the Lateran, which convened beginning November 11, 1215, spoke of the bread and wine as "transubstantiated" into the body and blood of Christ: "His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been transubstantiated, by God's power, into his body and blood""
Because it's the symbolic eating of another fresh & of drinking blood.
Or are you going to deny that now?
So you think any consumption of a part of another human, in this case flesh and blood if we take that to be the literal interpretation, is absolutely cannibalistic rather than that definition being used for an act with the intention to deliberately consume for the purposes of nutrition. And you persist in terming it that way (whilst acknowledging it is not a few posts above) so one can only conclude you are being deliberately antagonistic for the purposes of offending people. So in essence you commit the crimes you castigate others for consistently:
Last edited:
Nice deflection.
I never said "Catholics are cannibals", I merely highlighted how odd it was for a religious ceremony to have aspects of cannibalism (be it symbolic) woven into it.
Sacrifice, cannibalism - it's worth noting how similar the popular religions are to the old & dead religions of old.
I've spoken to a number of religious people, a number of which I've managed to ask certain questions which has caused them to re-evaluate certain aspects of there faith.
Just so you know, I'm not posting for the benefit of the fully converted, or the zealous followers (so I don't expect you to like any of what I say) - but those who have doubts or are sitting on the fence - I simply pose questions/observations about certain aspects of religions/doctrines which are questionable to prompt them to think little more.
I fully admit it's a waste of time on some people, which is why I don't bother.
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,633
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
You are correct that the dogma in question is open to clarification. Thankfully as I already posted, Pope John Paul II did just that :
That seems to be pretty cut and dry to me.
You are aware that several people arguing against you are actually angostic/atheist aren't you?
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,633
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
I have several times given the reason why they cannot - they are just not made that way. It is a very simple concept which you are needlessly complicating.
No and that is not what I have said at any point. I don't believe a child should be brought up by homosexual parents. There are lots of other things that I believe would be unsuitable for adoptive parents but would be better off than being in care.
#389 - God existed before the Catholic Church. There is plenty of reference to marriage in the old testament for example.
#228 - Did you actually read the entire item? Do you know what "ex cathedra" means? It means, literally, "from the chair". It refers to the chair of St. Peter, not the literal chair but the office of Pope. It only refers to very specific occasions.
If you are going to make these sort of suggestions please at least read the item in question properly.
No climbdown at all. These dogma must be accepted by all Catholics otherwise they commit the sin of heresy. A catholic can have a theological discussion around them as long as they accept that the dogma is true. A catholic can't disagree with them. As a catholic these are the things that you have to believe....you can't believe the ones that you like and remain a catholic.A bit of climbdown from questioning dogma will lead to excommunication.
I think that comment is more than a little bit unfair and most certainly incorrect. I believe in God and I am a member of his church. I have no problem accepting that members of the Catholic Church have made mistakes throughout the last 2000 years. Man is imperfect. You will struggle to find a Catholic who thinks otherwise.
How is asking "Why?" ever needlesly complicating things? I can explain why a man cannot give birth, you cannot explain why a woman cannot perform Transubstantiation. "They just can't" really isn't an explanation.
Yet by supporting the position of the Catholic church in opposing gay adoption that is exactly the outcome that will occur. Children will be left in care rather than adopted.
So God invents marriage first as pretty much a legal contract and then waits until Catholicism before revealing it's true purpose? You see that as more likely than Catholicism co-opting something that was already about?
So all the really dodgy popes throughout the years were infallible and talking as the voice of God any time they decided to do it ex cathedra? How do you brush aside the pretty appalling things popes have done and reconcile it with them being God's representative on earth?
The Adam and Eve bits are also somewhat suspect considering our knowledge of human evolution too...
So every Catholic has to agree with every single catechism? How on earth do any get changes then? Surely you are also being a bit on the judgemental side stating what does and does not make a catholic? Considering the large number of Catholics that do not believe in the ban on women priests and the remarkably few excommunications on the matter I would suggest that the Vatican does not share your view.
So why could the ban on the ordination of women priests not be part of the imperfections of man? Why hold, seemingly blindly, to each and every catechism when you know that the men that have written them over time have been flawed?