Now, there's a big word!
Peter (aka THE LITERARY CURMUDGEON, PETER'S GOLF BAG, THE WINE CURMUDGEON,THE CURMUDGEON EXPRESS, RIGHT AS RAIN, THE TWITTER CURMUDGEON, THE INCONSTANT CURMUDGEON, THE CULTURED CURMUDGEON, THE LAZY CURMUDGEON, THE MUSIC CURMUDGEON, THE FOOD CURMUDGEON, THE RELIGIOUS CURMUDGEON, THE MUNDANE CURMUDGEON, THE CHURCH OF THE BLESSED CURMUDGEON, THE NOSTALGIC CURMUDGEON, THE CURMUDGEON'S - AGONY AUNT, THE ALUMINIUM FOIL CURMUDGEON, IRASCIBLE OLD BASTARD, THE NEW DIFFERENT TIME ZONE BILL, NORTHLAND MUSINGS, THE CURMUDGEON, THE CURMUDGEONLY LUDDITE, THE CURMUDGEONLY INVENTOR, THE HAPPY CURMUDGEON,THE POLEMICAL CURMUDGEON, THE PHILOSOPHICAL CURMUDGEON, DEACON TANIMATE and THE DARKER CURMUDGEON) challenged the blogger, now known as Rob, to convince him (them) that Transubstantiation is true.
For those of you who may not have heard of it, Transubstantiation is the process where bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Sounds logical enough. Anyway, on his blog, you'll find it under 'Robert' on our LINKS service, he wrote an explanation that is about a million words long.
I tried to read it all and got over halfway through it. I left a comment.
You've got to say, "Good on you Robert." for leaving such a 'detailed' reply to Peter (with all the other names that I won't repeat here). The trouble is that I tried very hard to read it all and I wasn't feeling that I was getting a distinct line of information, other than Transubstantiation is true and must be believed. Maybe I (and others) need a distinct summary that clearly sets out the main points?
I did get the point that Tom Aquinas was/is the greatest of scholastic theologians. He said that the existence in the Eucharist of Christ's real body and blood "cannot be grasped by the experience of the senses. but only by the faith which has divine authority and its support."
The faith which has divine authority and its support.
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
3 commenti:
A good old theological argument - that’s what’s needed on a Sunday morning. Well done, this should get you those comments you crave.
I didn’t read that propaganda that Robert published. Life’s too short.
It’s sad though that he can’t explain the things he believes in especially after challenging me to ask him any question about his religion promising to throw back an answer to me. What’s even sadder is that seemingly the whole Catholic ‘machine’’ can’t come up with a simple and meaningful answer to just that one question without resorting to the old “ you have to have faith to believe” non argument.
Ah well, it gives us stuff to post about.
Richard (of RBB)
Posta un commento