Thomas Aquinas passage refuting transubstantiation

A person who is unrepentant of murder would not be the best example to choose, although it is one of the strongest examples you could pick. But let's go to the other end of the pendulum. A RC who willfully chooses to stay in bed (sleep in) on Sunday morning and skip Mass has committed a mortal sin. By RC teaching, if he dies before confessing his sin to a priest, repenting and performing acts of penance for his sin, he will go to hell. Not only are RCs taught that being too lazy to go to Mass is equal to "walking away from God," they are taught that they can (and must) partially atone for their own sins (even though Christ did all the work of atonement for us on the cross).

When you pre-define a sin as "mortal" in that it is claimed to have utterly separated the person from saving grace until such time as that person makes perfect contrition and performs adequate penance, of course the statement would be true under that RC definition. Most non-RC Christians don't believe that God would so readily yank back His gift of saving grace and send them to hell for laziness, or for yielding to the temptation of adultery, or for any number of human foibles and frailties.

It's interesting that the RCC would equate the sin of not receiving the Eucharist annually with the sin of murder, isn't it?

You've heard the saying, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Some of us don't interpret the 'binding and loosing' passage in the way the RCC so self-servingly interprets it.

We agree on that!

 

From your post #17 above: “must be insisted that the Real Presence is precisely corporeal, objective, and historical..."

From Trent: "Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof."

If Jesus' physical (that is, corporeal) flesh and physical blood are not present, is the "whole and entire" Christ present? RC doctrine says 'no.' That's something Anglicans disagree with, and frankly it sounds like you disagree with it also.

 

I just said his physical blood and body are present because body and blood can be nothing else but physical.
But he is not physically locally present as aquinas says. I thought I made it pretty obvious lol

 

Maybe I got confused because you led off your post #17 with, "Catholics believe Christ is sacramentally present, not physically present." So, no, it wasn't obvious.

RCs in the US have long been taught that Christ is locally present in His entirety in each portion of the RC Eucharist. This can be seen in the Baltimore Catechism:
238 Q. What is the Holy Eucharist? A. The Holy Eucharist is the Sacrament which contains the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine.

When we say "contains," we mean the Sacrament which is the body and blood, etc. The Holy Eucharist is the same living body of Our Lord which He had upon earth; but it is in a new form, under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore Our Lord in the tabernacle can see and hear us.

The clergy have been teaching the laity that the host is completely Jesus, eyes and ears and all. That sounds pretty loco... err, local... to me!

 

Well we believe the Lords day is extremely important. We believe Christ is present with us in the Eucharist. If you willingly decide to miss mass, you are saying you don’t want to see Christ in the Eucharist.
That’s a pretty big deal.
This isn’t new either. In the early church, 3 consecutive absences immediately excommunicated to you and you had to do penance to be let back in.
Just compare modern day Christians with the early church, where they were literally persecuted and martyred, yet they still chose to show up. St cyprian has a passage where he tells his flock not to be ashamed or blushed by Christ. What does this mean? They were scared they’d have the smell of wine in their breath from the Eucharist during the night. This is how they caught Christians and killed them.
If you’re lazy and don’t show up to work, you can get fired. So you make sure you show up to work.
Why can’t you be bothered to show up to go to work too?
The thing is you’re focusing on the action instead of the intention of why the person did it.
Latin Catholics do this a lot too and become legalistic.
Think of it like this: why did you miss church?
Where is your spiritual state if you would rather miss church and stay in bed, than worship God and partake of Christ himself?
The Catholic Church offers mass from Saturday evening all the way to Sunday nights that count for the requirement to go to mass. In order to miss mass you’d have to stay at home all day or go do something else all day.
If you say God isn’t worth one mere hour of your time a week, your spiritual state is extremely bad. This can’t be someone who’s exhibiting God working in them, for his goodwill and for his pleasure.
And again, remember the early church was strict like this.3 absences on purpose and you’d be excommunicated and had to do penance.


If by “atone for our own sins” you mean do penance, this is a bad way to explain it. Christ atoned for our sins. But of course we have to make up for offending God, and penance is a way to physically show God we are sorry for what we did.


We differ in our understanding of what it takes to be United to God. A person living in sin cannot be United to God.
They willingly walk away from his grace, God does NOT take it away. It is still there being offered. All you have to do is repent and you can come back into his grace. It’s sort of like you turning your back on god but god is still there, looking at you and waiting for you to come back. He is still offering his grace.
By the way, this is very biblical. There are Many passages that speak about the sins that bar us from heaven, and that we can lose our salvation.
This was also the understanding of the early church.
An unrepentant adulterer or murderer can’t go to hell.
I’m also pretty sure that you get back into a state of grace before you have to do any penance. Sometimes people can’t complete the penance but they’re still back into a state of grace because they’ve repented and confessed.

 

True, but I expounded on my second post. Stalwarts initial post was about locality which is why I said that.

 

How is that different from what we believe? Bishop Ridley: "For the change of the use, office, and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regeneration, and yet the material substance thereof remaineth all one."

Why is that so hard to believe? Aquinas denies the immaculate conception. The fact is, Roman theology has changed a lot over the centuries (despite your protestations).

A similar case may be found with St. Augustine. Here is a RC podcast on how "we Roman Catholics reject many things that Augustine had said": https://youtu.be/zSPFqZgYe3s?t=259 (He later lists some of those things).

Don't buy into the fantasy that Roman theology was always the same. The fact that it changes so much is what prompted Newman to develop his "development of doctrine" thesis (which we reject). To the Roman Catholics, it is possible and indeed inevitable that doctrine will change as long as it's done by their rules. For Anglicans, it isn't possible for doctrine to change or 'develop' at all in any way.

What you're saying is that the category of substance changes, but the category of place does not, correct? (Basing on Aristotelian categories.) If so, then I already discussed this point in post #12 of this thread: https://forums.anglican.net/threads...-refuting-transubstantiation.4102/#post-51248

In a nutshell, the only thing that is retained of bread, in the RC consecration, are the accidents. All the other categories change. Since 'place' is not an accident, it does not remain the same as before the consecration. After the RC consecration, the Body of Christ now has the same category of 'place' that was previously had by the bread.

 

Ah, but consider the source...

 

Honestly I don’t know or care enough about Thomistic metaphysics to answer your question.
Everyone knows though that Thomas denied the immaculate conception. But no one says he denied transubstantiation. You think you’re the only one to discover it while there’s people that are aquinas experts and just haven’t noticed it?

The doctrine is different from the Anglican because we believe the bread and wine cease to be. It can’t be bread and Jesus at the same time.



Also I’m not going to watch a one hour video no offense. What specifically do you think we disagree with Augustine on?
Our church isn’t based on one man so it should be natural we would have some differences in beliefs especially things the church hadn’t defined yet.
The first thing that comes to mind is we have a slightly different view of original sin than he did.


Also Thomas had a different view of the immaculate conception because he had a different view of original sin.

 

As Invictus once said,

Good afternoon, everyone!

 

You kinda have to if you intend to defend transubstantiation; the theory doesn't make much sense outside that context.

In this case, the rule @BedtimePrayers is referring to is still the practice in Eastern Orthodoxy. You have to go to confession and receive absolution for 3 consecutive Sunday absences.

 

do they have the same practices of penance as does Rome?

sorry. I answered my own question.

 

Then why are you participating in a discussion on transubstantiation?

Well I've already shown you something new about Nicea II and the teachings of the church fathers, in the other thread.

And that's why you're here, right? To expose yourself to new views, to learn in a constructive conversation, and hear something from outside of your bubble. Right? Right?

 

Not at all, it's completely different. They don't always assign a penance; it depends on the sin. When they do, it's typically something much more "targeted" than merely saying this many Our Fathers or that many Hail Marys. Confession in EO is not anonymous; it's done face-to-face and always to the same person. You pick your confessor and then you stick with that confessor. Just because you confess doesn't mean they have to absolve you right then and there, and just because they absolve you doesn't mean you can resume taking communion right away. That's usually not the case. Typically, abstaining from communion for a time is part of the penance. Sometime you have to fulfill the penance and then report back. It really varies based on the situation and the individual priest. If you read the ancient canons, the current EO practice represents the older and more authentic tradition on the subject. RC and EO are different enough that I would actually categorize them as distinct religions despite the significant overlap in superficial externals and theological dogmas. In overall ethos and pathos, they are almost completely different.

 

Honestly I don’t know or care enough about Thomistic metaphysics to answer your question.
Everyone knows though that Thomas denied the immaculate conception. But no one says he denied transubstantiation. You think you’re the only one to discover it while there’s people that are aquinas experts and just haven’t noticed it?

The doctrine is different from the Anglican because we believe the bread and wine cease to be. It can’t be bread and Jesus at the same time.



Also I’m not going to watch a one hour video no offense. What specifically do you think we disagree with Augustine on?
Our church isn’t based on one man so it should be natural we would have some differences in beliefs especially things the church hadn’t defined yet.
The first thing that comes to mind is we have a slightly different view of original sin than he did.


Also Thomas had a different view of the immaculate conception because he had a different view of original sin.

what bubble?
I’m participating because I think it’s kind of ridiculous you genuinely believe Roman Catholics, who base most of their anthropology and modern theology off of aquinas, just failed to realize he’s not a “transubstantionalist.”

You also did not show me anything about nicea II but some book from a “who?” Scholar, and his assertions from the 3-4 sentences I read about the popes (who approved nicea II) not believing in venerating icons is ridiculous. He’s also ignoring the deeply political issues at the time during the empire that influenced which side people took on the issue.
I think you should read about the second council of nicea from a more reliable source, like a textbook on early Christianity or something. Polemical books don’t prove anything.

you are also ignoring the fact that the oriental churches also venerate icons, and this isn’t some Byzantine aberration as you happen to think it is.


You reject the Church of England’s tradition of venerating icons and prayer to the Saints that is present in its history if you don’t put wool over your eyes. Even some anglicans of the catholic flavor venerate icons to this day, so I guess you have idolaters within your own communion.

 

Why can't it be? Is it too hard for God to do?

 

Why are you going as far as saying a different religion?
That seems a bit extreme to me. I’d consider myself the same religion as a baptist


Someone said you were a former Eastern Orthodox so I guess this is where you’re getting it from, but the orthodox often make it seem like we have huge irreconcilable differences when it’s really not that different at all.
I often get tired of “you’re looking at it from a western standpoint, you don’t understand what we orthodox mean when we say XYZ” like if Byzantine theology is too lofty a pursuit for anyone born in the Western Hemisphere of the world.
The truth is Byzantine theology is much less developed than even Protestant in some areas, I’m guessing it’s because of all the persecution they’ve had.
This accounts for some of the different practices you see with penance, but different practice does not mean a different religion
From its beginning the western churches have always been more legalistic. The fact that penance is always required doesn’t seem to warrant to me being a different religion, let alone irreconcilable.
Eastern Catholic Churches still retain their original practices.

 

God can’t do something illogical. It’s illogical for an object to be and object and a person at the same time, do you not think?

 

Well, Baptists and Catholics are far more similar to each than either is to the Eastern Orthodox…

It goes back to how one defines ‘religion’ in the first place. Honestly I could probably write a dissertation on the subject, but I don’t have the time (or the space) to do that here. I’ll be happy to give specific examples, though, if you have a question about a particular practice.