sábado, junio 19, 2004
I got this stuff off of this site: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.catholic.net/RCC/Mary/
mary.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Mary/mary.html
"Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will not have life?"
"Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).
In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.
We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine."
"The Bible says the sins of the fathers are visited on their children down to the fourth generation. How do you square this with Mary's Immaculate Conception, given she had a sinful human father?"
"Granted, Mary was conceived, biologically speaking, according to the normal order of things, unlike her son, who was conceived without a human father; this doesn't mean she necessarily inherited original sin. It indicates only what would have happened had not God intervened.
As for the sins of the fathers being visited upon their children down to the fourth generation, you're misapplying a general observation about how sinful behavior (and divine punishment) can be and often is passed down to descendants.
A "father's" fourth generational descendant would be a great, great, grandson or granddaughter. This would make the "father" a great, great, grandfather. By your argument, Jesus would have had to have been a sinner because his great, great, grandfather (on his mother's side) was a sinner. Since you don't believe the principle that "the sins of the fathers are visited on their children down to the fourth generation" implies this, there's no reason for you to think it implies Mary's sinfulness."
mary.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Mary/mary.html
"Your answer to the question about cannibalism and the Eucharist in the December 1990 issue of This Rock disturbs me. The promise in John 6 of the flesh of Christ to eat and his blood to drink sounds literal. Christ is present substantially (rather than supernaturally); if we eat only the accidents (appearances), how do we eat Christ, who said unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood we will not have life?"
"Your question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).
In consuming the Eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.
We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine."
"The Bible says the sins of the fathers are visited on their children down to the fourth generation. How do you square this with Mary's Immaculate Conception, given she had a sinful human father?"
"Granted, Mary was conceived, biologically speaking, according to the normal order of things, unlike her son, who was conceived without a human father; this doesn't mean she necessarily inherited original sin. It indicates only what would have happened had not God intervened.
As for the sins of the fathers being visited upon their children down to the fourth generation, you're misapplying a general observation about how sinful behavior (and divine punishment) can be and often is passed down to descendants.
A "father's" fourth generational descendant would be a great, great, grandson or granddaughter. This would make the "father" a great, great, grandfather. By your argument, Jesus would have had to have been a sinner because his great, great, grandfather (on his mother's side) was a sinner. Since you don't believe the principle that "the sins of the fathers are visited on their children down to the fourth generation" implies this, there's no reason for you to think it implies Mary's sinfulness."