Josiah said:
So do Zwinglian "Evangelicals." So do Mormons.
The RC priest says the words, but the RCC
's new dogma insists it's "This has changed from one reality to a foreign reality via the precise, technical mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation." The whole point of the new alternative of the RCC
is that what Jesus said and Paul penned ain't necessarily so...... What follows the "is" (that the RCC's new dogma deletes and replaces) perhaps is NOT. Don't believe that what follows the consecration exists, is real, IS. At least in any usual, full, real sense. Don't believe the words.... they don't MEAN what they STATE.
Okay, we all know - the RCC's 16th Century alternative is that that bread and wine aren't real (they are ACCIDENTS), so you can't believe what follows the "IS" (which it dogmatically replaced). Zwingli's 16th Century alterantive is that the body and blood aren't real (they are SYMBOLS), so you can't believe what follows the "IS" (which he dogmatically replaced). You will argue with the Zwinglians til Jesus returns as to which word to replace "IS" with, and which of the realites after the "IS" actually aren't. But both alternatives are based on the premise that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said/penned. When you rebuke each other, it's just pot calling kettle black. It's Jesus log/speck point so clearly revealed.
Thank you.
.
To my knowledge neither Mormons nor Evangelicals substitute something for 'is' though I readily admit that evangelicals explain 'is' to mean something like 'means' or 'represents'.
EXACTLY. So just because those who have tossed out "Real Presence" and come up with alternatives SAY the words does not necessarily mean they MEAN them. Often, their whole new dogma is that Jesus and Paul did NOT mean what they said/penned - thus they SHOUT, "BUT... BUT.... what Jesus and Paul MEANT was......." And their whole point is to deny that what follows .... IS. Some of it, anyway, is NOT (their dogma stresses). They disagree on what to replace "IS" with.... they disagree on what realities after the consecration ARN'T but it's the same premise: Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said.
Again, the RCC's 16th Century alternative is that that bread and wine aren't real (they are
ACCIDENTS), so you can't believe what follows the "IS" (which it dogmatically replaced). Zwingli's 16th Century alterantive is that the body and blood aren't real (they are
SYMBOLS), so you can't believe what follows the "IS" (which he dogmatically replaced). You will argue with the Zwinglians til Jesus returns as to which word to replace "IS" with, and which of the realites after the "IS" actually aren't. But both alternatives are based on the premise that Jesus and Paul didn't mean what they said/penned. When you rebuke each other, it's just
pot calling kettle black. It's Jesus
log/speck point so clearly revealed. It's ironic to see each rebuking the other for what they are also doing. In the words of my friend, "The Roman Church simply WILL NOT shut up." "The Roman Church WILL NOT leave well enough alone but insists on MESSING IT UP with its silly theories."
Catholics on the other hand use 'is'
Yes. ALL but the Salvation Army chants that word. ALL of them. But when it's dogmatically state to NOT be what is
MEANT.... and when it is dogmatically stressed that what comes after it.... well.....
ain't necessarily, then it it's just a chant.
See post
# 3. Do what post
# 57 indicates (it's revealing)
Now, I'll post this again because I don't want any to loose sight of something important to me: I'm FAR, FAR more comfortable with the RCC's 16th Century alternative to Real Presence because when it threw out that view, it did not throw out the Body and Blood, the RCC still believes that Christ's Body and Blood are received (it just destroyed any textual reason to beleive that). And in that, I REJOICE! It's one reason why I regard the RCC Eucharist to be valid. I'm not TOO upset over their insistence that bread and wine aren't. Of the two major new alternatives to Real Presence, the RCC's is far superior: if "IS" is to be denied, and half the realities stated are to be denied, at least the RCC threw out what arguably can be considered the less important.
- Josiah
.
