Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Food for thought

Expand Messages
  • timmopussycat
    Found this in another club. It makes the point quite well. ... Meow Tp
    Message 1 of 18 , May 14, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Found this in another club. It makes the point quite well.

      --- In credoquarterly@y..., "Jerrold H. Lewis" <JHLewis@c...> wrote:
      >
      > A ROMAN MIRACLE(?)
      >
      > A pretty maid, a Protestant, was to a Catholic wed;
      > To love all Bible Truths and tales, quite early she 'd been bred.
      > It sorely grieved her husband's heart that she would not comply
      > And join the Mother Church of Rome and heretics deny.
      > So day by day he flattered her, but still she saw no good
      > Would ever come from bowing down to idols made of wood;
      > The mass, the host, the miracles, were made but to deceive;
      > And transubstantiation, too, she 'd never dare believe.
      >
      > He went to see his clergyman and told him his sad tale
      > "My wife 's an unbeliever, sir, you can perhaps prevail;
      > For all your Romish miracles my wife has strong aversion.,
      > To really work a miracle may lead to her conversion."
      > The priest went with the gentleman - he thought to gain a prize.
      > lie said, "I will convert her, sir, and open both her eyes."
      > So when they came into the house, the husband loudly cried,
      > "The priest has come to dine with us!" "He's welcome," she replied.
      >
      > And when, at last, the meal was o'er, -The priest at once began
      > To teach his hostess all about the sinful state of man;
      > The greatness of our Saviour's love, which Christians can't deny
      > To give Himself a sacrifice and for our sins to die.
      > "I will return tomorrow, lass, prepare some bread and wine;
      > The sacramental miracle will stop your soul's decline."
      > "I'll bake the bread," the lady said. "You may," he did reply.
      > "And when you've seen this miracle, convinced you'll be, say I."
      >
      > The priest did come accordingly, the bread and wine did bless.
      > The lady asked, "Sir, is it changed?" The priest answered, "Yes,
      > It 's changed from common bread and wine to truly flesh and blood;
      > Begorra, lass, this power of mine has changed it into God!"
      > So having blessed the bread and wine, to eat they did prepare;
      > The lady said unto the priest, "I warn you to take care,
      > For half an ounce of arsenic was mixed right in the batter,
      > But since you have its nature changed, it cannot really matter."
      >
      > The priest was struck real dumb--he looked as pale as death.
      > The bread and wine fell from his hands and he did gasp for breath.
      > "Bring me my horse!" the priest cried, "This is a cursed home!"
      > The lady replied, "Be gone, tis you who shares the curse of Rome."
      > The husband too, he sat surprised, and not a word did say
      > At length he spoke, "My dear," said he, "The priest has run away;
      > To gulp such muninery and tripe, I 'm not, for sure, quite able;
      > I'll go with you and will renounce this Roman Catholic Fable."
      >
      > Author Unknown

      Meow

      Tp
    • thebishopsdoom
      ... wrote: Found this in another club. It makes the point quite well. Let me start by stating that I m certainly not here to defend
      Message 2 of 18 , May 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "timmopussycat"
        <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:
        "Found this in another club. It makes the point quite well."
        Let me start by stating that I'm certainly not here to defend
        transsubstantiation, nor rain on your humour. However, having said
        that, if the point was how to rid yourself of a priest, then I
        suppose point well taken. But I'm not sure whether the point was
        supposed to be that the priest in the story gets poisoned by the
        arsenic baked in the bread because transsubstantiation didn't really
        take place. The problem with the assessment is that the priest would
        be poisoned either way, whether transsubstantiation actually occurs
        or not. Whether he's poisoned or not would have no bearing on the
        subject of transsubstantiation, other than that the Roman church
        would have one less priest to argue the point. To deny that he would
        be poisoned either way would I suspect, be regarded as heretical by
        the Roman church.

        "The Accidents of bread and wine continue after the change of the
        substance. (De fide.)
        The Sacramental Accidents retain their physical reality after the
        change of the substance. (Sent. certa.)
        The Sacramental Accidents continue without a subject in which to
        inhere. (Sent. certa.)" ("Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig
        Ott. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1974.)

        "The substance of Christ's Body in the Eucharist has none of the
        sensible qualities of a human body - it is not extended so as to
        occupy space, although it is united with accidents which do occupy
        space. Contrary to physical laws, as the Catechism of the Council of
        Trent says, "they subsist of themselves, inhering in no subject." It
        would, therefore, be wrong to say: "The Body of Christ is round"
        or "The Blood of Christ has a light color," for these expressions are
        to be used with regard to the accidents alone" ("The Question Box"
        2nd ed., by "Fr." Bertrand L. Conway, CSP. Paulist Press, 1929.)

        In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the
        consecration of the "host" either way, whether transsubstantiation
        occurs or not (this might perhaps be what raging_calvinist would
        refer to as a "win / win situation"). This is because while the
        substance is said to be changed, the accidents of what
        (allegedly) "was" bread and wine will remain, even after the
        consecration. That is why someone who is allergic to wheat will be
        just as allergic to the "host" after consecration as before. The
        ingredients of the "host" after the consecration (including the
        arsenic in the tale in question) will retain all of their original
        accidents. The arsenic baked in the bread in the story would
        be "converted" or "transubstantiated" into the flesh of Christ, but
        that which is seen, handled, tasted, etc. would still retain the same
        poisonous nature as before (which would belong to the accidents, not
        the substance). The poisonous nature would not reside in or emanate
        from the body and blood of Christ, for the accidents no longer have a
        subject after transsubstantiation is said to have taken place.
        According to transsubstantiation, the "accidents" that remain, that
        is, what appears to be bread and wine, are not themselves the body
        and blood of Christ, because the body and blood are in the substance,
        not in the accidents, and the accidents do not have the body and
        blood of Christ as their subjects, but rather have no subject. That
        is one of the reasons why Wycliffe pointed out that even if
        transsubstantiation were true, it would be idolatry to adore what was
        sensed in the "host" as tho it was Christ, since the accidents of
        the "host" properly have no subject and subsist in themselves.
        - thebishopsdoom
      • raging_calvinist
        ... A win/win situation indeed! Speaking of killing priests, did everyone hear about the guy in Baltimore who shot the priest that molested him? I was doing
        Message 3 of 18 , May 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the
          > consecration of the "host" either way, whether transsubstantiation
          > occurs or not (this might perhaps be what raging_calvinist would
          > refer to as a "win / win situation").

          A win/win situation indeed! Speaking of killing priests, did
          everyone hear about the guy in Baltimore who shot the priest that
          molested him?

          I was doing some reading, and I'd like to be that guy's lawyer. He's
          up for attempted murder... HOWEVER....

          When I first read the AP story on him, I wondered what kind of gun
          the guy used. He hit the priest several times and did not kill him.
          I figured he was using a puny .22 or something.

          I read on...

          Turns out, he used a .357 Magnum -- that's a gun that, with good
          ammo, has about an 85% "kill rate." That means that 8 times out of
          10, firing a .357 Magnum once into potentially lethal area of a man
          (like shooting in the chest as opposed to the foot) will result in
          the death of the man being shot. The priest was hit 3 times, but
          still alive. Hmm....

          I read on...

          Turns out the priest was hit once in the hand, and twice in the HIP!
          Now, the way I see it, unless this gun was so heavy that a 26 year
          old male couldn't hold it up straight, or unless the priest jumped
          into the air three times as the young man fired, the target the guy
          had in mind was NOT the chest or head.

          Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that this young
          man, who was molested by this vile "priest," was not attempting to
          murder his perpetrator...

          He was intending to castrate him. The priest turned and covered, and
          the resulting wounds were one shot to the hand, and two to the hip.
          Guilty of malicious wounding, but not necessarily attempted murder.

          gmw, esquire.
        • deejay_39
          Well, Jerry, I hadn t heard of this story. but your hypothesis sure makes sense. If I get into trouble with the law. can I call on your services?? :) ~Deejay
          Message 4 of 18 , May 15, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, Jerry,

            I hadn't heard of this story. but your hypothesis sure makes sense.

            If I get into trouble with the law. can I call on your services?? :)

            ~Deejay

            -----Original Message-----
            From: raging_calvinist
            [mailto:ragingcalvinist@...]
            Sent: 15 May 2002 14:15
            To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation Club] Re: Food for
            thought

            > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be
            poisoned after the
            > consecration of the "host" either way, whether
            transsubstantiation
            > occurs or not (this might perhaps be what
            raging_calvinist would
            > refer to as a "win / win situation").

            A win/win situation indeed! Speaking of killing
            priests, did
            everyone hear about the guy in Baltimore who shot the
            priest that
            molested him?

            I was doing some reading, and I'd like to be that guy's
            lawyer. He's
            up for attempted murder... HOWEVER....

            When I first read the AP story on him, I wondered what
            kind of gun
            the guy used. He hit the priest several times and did
            not kill him.
            I figured he was using a puny .22 or something.

            I read on...

            Turns out, he used a .357 Magnum -- that's a gun that,
            with good
            ammo, has about an 85% "kill rate." That means that 8
            times out of
            10, firing a .357 Magnum once into potentially lethal
            area of a man
            (like shooting in the chest as opposed to the foot) will
            result in
            the death of the man being shot. The priest was hit 3
            times, but
            still alive. Hmm....

            I read on...

            Turns out the priest was hit once in the hand, and twice
            in the HIP!
            Now, the way I see it, unless this gun was so heavy that
            a 26 year
            old male couldn't hold it up straight, or unless the
            priest jumped
            into the air three times as the young man fired, the
            target the guy
            had in mind was NOT the chest or head.

            Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that
            this young
            man, who was molested by this vile "priest," was not
            attempting to
            murder his perpetrator...

            He was intending to castrate him. The priest turned and
            covered, and
            the resulting wounds were one shot to the hand, and two
            to the hip.
            Guilty of malicious wounding, but not necessarily
            attempted murder.

            gmw, esquire.





            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            ADVERTISEMENT

            <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226151.2059565.3526966.1974595/D=egroupweb/S=1706
            113926:HM/A=1067881/R=0/*http://www.lifewaystores.com>




            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
            <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • susanandcrew
            ... wrote: ...if the point was how to rid yourself of a priest... Ya know...you just gotta listen to a guy named thebishopsdoom when he s talking about
            Message 5 of 18 , May 15, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., thebishopsdoom <no_reply@y...>
              wrote:
              "...if the point was how to rid yourself of a priest..."

              Ya know...you just gotta listen to a guy named thebishopsdoom when
              he's talking about killin' priests. ;)

              Susan
            • susanandcrew
              lol Esquire, indeed. Touche my friend. Susan
              Message 6 of 18 , May 15, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                lol

                Esquire, indeed.

                Touche' my friend.

                Susan <----used to work for a lawyer


                --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
                <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
                > > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the
                > > consecration of the "host" either way, whether transsubstantiation
                > > occurs or not (this might perhaps be what raging_calvinist would
                > > refer to as a "win / win situation").
                >
                > A win/win situation indeed! Speaking of killing priests, did
                > everyone hear about the guy in Baltimore who shot the priest that
                > molested him?
                >
                > I was doing some reading, and I'd like to be that guy's lawyer.
                He's
                > up for attempted murder... HOWEVER....
                >
                > When I first read the AP story on him, I wondered what kind of gun
                > the guy used. He hit the priest several times and did not kill him.

                > I figured he was using a puny .22 or something.
                >
                > I read on...
                >
                > Turns out, he used a .357 Magnum -- that's a gun that, with good
                > ammo, has about an 85% "kill rate." That means that 8 times out of
                > 10, firing a .357 Magnum once into potentially lethal area of a man
                > (like shooting in the chest as opposed to the foot) will result in
                > the death of the man being shot. The priest was hit 3 times, but
                > still alive. Hmm....
                >
                > I read on...
                >
                > Turns out the priest was hit once in the hand, and twice in the HIP!

                > Now, the way I see it, unless this gun was so heavy that a 26 year
                > old male couldn't hold it up straight, or unless the priest jumped
                > into the air three times as the young man fired, the target the guy
                > had in mind was NOT the chest or head.
                >
                > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that this young
                > man, who was molested by this vile "priest," was not attempting to
                > murder his perpetrator...
                >
                > He was intending to castrate him. The priest turned and covered,
                and
                > the resulting wounds were one shot to the hand, and two to the hip.
                > Guilty of malicious wounding, but not necessarily attempted murder.
                >
                > gmw, esquire.
              • susanandcrew
                Yes, and at the rate this girl is going that event will not be long away. ;) Susan (praying hard about Deejay s mischievous ways) ... guy s ... will ... twice
                Message 7 of 18 , May 15, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Yes, and at the rate this girl is going that event will not be long
                  away. ;)

                  Susan (praying hard about Deejay's mischievous ways)



                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "deejay_39" <deejay_39@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > Well, Jerry,
                  >
                  > I hadn't heard of this story. but your hypothesis sure makes sense.
                  >
                  > If I get into trouble with the law. can I call on your services?? :)
                  >
                  > ~Deejay
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: raging_calvinist
                  > [mailto:ragingcalvinist@c...]
                  > Sent: 15 May 2002 14:15
                  > To: covenantedreformationclub@y...
                  > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation Club] Re: Food for
                  > thought
                  >
                  > > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be
                  > poisoned after the
                  > > consecration of the "host" either way, whether
                  > transsubstantiation
                  > > occurs or not (this might perhaps be what
                  > raging_calvinist would
                  > > refer to as a "win / win situation").
                  >
                  > A win/win situation indeed! Speaking of killing
                  > priests, did
                  > everyone hear about the guy in Baltimore who shot the
                  > priest that
                  > molested him?
                  >
                  > I was doing some reading, and I'd like to be that
                  guy's
                  > lawyer. He's
                  > up for attempted murder... HOWEVER....
                  >
                  > When I first read the AP story on him, I wondered what
                  > kind of gun
                  > the guy used. He hit the priest several times and did
                  > not kill him.
                  > I figured he was using a puny .22 or something.
                  >
                  > I read on...
                  >
                  > Turns out, he used a .357 Magnum -- that's a gun that,
                  > with good
                  > ammo, has about an 85% "kill rate." That means that 8
                  > times out of
                  > 10, firing a .357 Magnum once into potentially lethal
                  > area of a man
                  > (like shooting in the chest as opposed to the foot)
                  will
                  > result in
                  > the death of the man being shot. The priest was hit 3
                  > times, but
                  > still alive. Hmm....
                  >
                  > I read on...
                  >
                  > Turns out the priest was hit once in the hand, and
                  twice
                  > in the HIP!
                  > Now, the way I see it, unless this gun was so heavy
                  that
                  > a 26 year
                  > old male couldn't hold it up straight, or unless the
                  > priest jumped
                  > into the air three times as the young man fired, the
                  > target the guy
                  > had in mind was NOT the chest or head.
                  >
                  > Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I submit to you that
                  > this young
                  > man, who was molested by this vile "priest," was not
                  > attempting to
                  > murder his perpetrator...
                  >
                  > He was intending to castrate him. The priest turned
                  and
                  > covered, and
                  > the resulting wounds were one shot to the hand, and
                  two
                  > to the hip.
                  > Guilty of malicious wounding, but not necessarily
                  > attempted murder.
                  >
                  > gmw, esquire.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226151.2059565.3526966.1974595/D=egroupweb/S=17
                  06
                  > 113926:HM/A=1067881/R=0/*http://www.lifewaystores.com>
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@y...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                  > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • deejay_39
                  Following up on Jerry s hypothesis, I found some interesting statistics about priest and The incidence of sexual abuse in the US: Catholic Pedophile Priests:
                  Message 8 of 18 , May 15, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Following up on Jerry's hypothesis, I found some interesting statistics
                    about priest and The incidence of sexual abuse in the US:


                    Catholic Pedophile Priests:
                    The Effect on U.S. Society


                    By Tom Economus


                    + HOME <http://www.thelinkup.com/index.html> + ARCHIVES
                    <http://www.thelinkup.com/archive.html> +


                    Current estimates of Roman Catholic priests in the U.S.= 49,000 to
                    50,000
                    Estimates of pedophile priests = 3,000 (6.1%) to 8,000 (16.3%)
                    188 Dioceses in the U.S. Divide 3,000 by 188 = 16 perpetrators per
                    diocese
                    Divide 8,000 by 188 = 42 perpetrators per diocese
                    Current experts claim a pedophile could abuse 200-265 children in a
                    lifetime.
                    200 x 16 perps/diocese = 3,200 victims/diocese
                    200 x 42 perps/diocese = 8,400 victims/diocese
                    3,200 victims/diocese x 188 dioceses = 601,600 victims in U.S.
                    8,400 victims/diocese x 188 dioceses = 1,579,200 victims in U.S.
                    Average American family consists of 4-6 people
                    (3,200 victims/diocese) 601,600 victims x 4 family members = 2,406,400
                    indirect victims
                    60l,000 victims x 6 family members = 3,609,600 indirect victims
                    (8,400 victims/diocese) 1,579,200 x 4 family members = 6,316,800
                    indirect victims
                    1,579,200 x 6 family members = 9,475,200 indirect victims
                    These numbers are a reflection of immediate family only and do not
                    reflect the indirect victims within the parishes that are affected.
                    188 Bishops are responsible for the pain of at least 601,600 direct
                    victims and as many as 9,475,200 indirect victims - a total of as many
                    as 10,076,800 people. Clearly, something is wrong.


                    _____



                    Additional information:

                    Using the higher estimates of pedophile priests (8,000) and numbers of
                    victims (265), the results are even more astonishing - giving a possible
                    maximum of 2,092,440 direct victims and as many as 12,554,640 indirect
                    victims for a total of 14,647,080. For comparative purposes, using the
                    lower numbers the number of direct victims and survivors alone could
                    populate a city larger than Boston. Using the higher numbers, it would
                    be the fourth largest city in the U.S.- one between the size of Houston
                    and Chicago.
                    * Four in 10 US Catholic nuns report having experienced sexual
                    abuse, (a rate equivalent to that reported by American women in
                    general), a study by Catholic researchers supported by major religious
                    orders, has found. The study found that sisters have known sexual abuse
                    less in childhood, dispelling what the authors call an "anti-Catholic"
                    canard that girls fled to convents to escape sexual advances. During
                    religious life, close to 30% of the nation's 85,000 nuns experienced
                    "sexual trauma," ranging from rape to exploitation to harassment. A
                    total of 40% reported a least one experience of that kind. NCR, 1/15/99
                    * The Wisconsin Psychological Association's survey found offenders
                    distributed among the following professions: Psychiatrists 34%,
                    Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%,
                    Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.
                    * The Center for Domestic Violence found that 12.6% of clergy said
                    they had sex with church members. 47% of clergy women were harassed by
                    clergy colleagues.
                    * The Presbyterian Church stated that 10-23% of clergy have
                    "inappropriate sexual behavior or contact" with clergy and employees.
                    * The United Methodist research (1990) showed 38.6% of Ministers
                    had sexual contact with church members and that 77% of church workers
                    experienced some type of sexual harassment.
                    * The United Church of Christ found that 48% of the women in the
                    work place have been sexually harassed by male clergy.
                    * The Southern Baptists claim 14.1% of their clergy have sexually
                    abused members.
                    In the Roman Catholic Church there are over 800 priests that have been
                    removed from ministry as a result of allegations against them. We also
                    know of 1,400 insurance claims on the books and that the Church has paid
                    out over $1 billion in liability with an estimated $500 million pending.
                    One noted expert claims that there are over 5,000 priests with some type
                    of allegation against them. If this is true, then there are at least
                    1,000,000 direct victims of clergy sexual abuse and between 4-6 million
                    indirect victims in the U.S.
                    Our institutional churches, who have proclaimed themselves to be the
                    moral backbone of society, have failed all of us. We need to continue to
                    bring them to moral and civil accountability. I think we might want to
                    pray for them as well.







                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • twilight_dawns
                    Looks like our friend Jerry missed his calling as a defense attorney. Hey everyone! :) Dawn
                    Message 9 of 18 , May 15, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Looks like our friend Jerry missed his calling as a defense attorney.

                      Hey everyone! :)

                      Dawn
                    • Soles
                      Hi, Dawn Was thinking about you today and wondering how you were for I ve not seen you post for some time... ~Cathie~ how s the twins? ... From:
                      Message 10 of 18 , May 15, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi, Dawn

                        Was thinking about you today and wondering how you were for I've not seen
                        you post for some time...


                        ~Cathie~
                        how's the twins?
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "twilight_dawns" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                        To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:02 PM
                        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation Club] Re: Food for thought


                        > Looks like our friend Jerry missed his calling as a defense attorney.
                        >
                        > Hey everyone! :)
                        >
                        > Dawn
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                      • deejay_39
                        Hey Dawn!! Great to see ya gel!! We ve missed ya! :) ~Deejay ... From: twilight_dawns [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com] Sent: 16 May 2002 04:02 To:
                        Message 11 of 18 , May 16, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey Dawn!! Great to see ya gel!! We've missed ya! :)
                          ~Deejay

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: twilight_dawns [mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com]
                          Sent: 16 May 2002 04:02
                          To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [Covenanted Reformation Club] Re: Food for
                          thought

                          Looks like our friend Jerry missed his calling as a
                          defense attorney.

                          Hey everyone! :)

                          Dawn



                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT

                          <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226151.2059565.3526966.1974595/D=egroupweb/S=1706
                          113926:HM/A=989755/R=0/*http://www.lifewaystores.com>




                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
                          <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Soles
                          ... From: thebishopsdoom Re: Food for thought ... consecration of the host either way, whether transsubstantiation occurs or not (this might perhaps be
                          Message 12 of 18 , Jun 2, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "thebishopsdoom" Re: Food for thought


                            >>>>> In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the
                            consecration of the "host" either way, whether transsubstantiation
                            occurs or not (this might perhaps be what raging_calvinist would
                            refer to as a "win / win situation"). This is because while the
                            substance is said to be changed, the accidents of what
                            (allegedly) "was" bread and wine will remain, even after the
                            consecration. That is why someone who is allergic to wheat will be
                            just as allergic to the "host" after consecration as before. The
                            ingredients of the "host" after the consecration (including the
                            arsenic in the tale in question) will retain all of their original
                            accidents. The arsenic baked in the bread in the story would
                            be "converted" or "transubstantiated" into the flesh of Christ, but
                            that which is seen, handled, tasted, etc. would still retain the same
                            poisonous nature as before (which would belong to the accidents, not
                            the substance). The poisonous nature would not reside in or emanate
                            from the body and blood of Christ, for the accidents no longer have a
                            subject after transsubstantiation is said to have taken place.
                            According to transsubstantiation, the "accidents" that remain, that
                            is, what appears to be bread and wine, are not themselves the body
                            and blood of Christ, because the body and blood are in the substance,
                            not in the accidents, and the accidents do not have the body and
                            blood of Christ as their subjects, but rather have no subject. That
                            is one of the reasons why Wycliffe pointed out that even if
                            transsubstantiation were true, it would be idolatry to adore what was
                            sensed in the "host" as tho it was Christ, since the accidents of
                            the "host" properly have no subject and subsist in themselves.>>>>>

                            Wow, BD what a mind twister as well as the tongue, good explanation!

                            ~cis~
                          • jrschuiling
                            ... Ahh, but would not the arsenic be changed as to have no effect considering that per Romanist transubstansiation it is the physical bread-though the
                            Message 13 of 18 , Jun 2, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the
                              > consecration of the "host" either way, whether transsubstantiation
                              > occurs or not

                              Ahh, but would not the arsenic be changed as to have no effect
                              considering that per Romanist transubstansiation it is the physical
                              bread-though the substance not the accidents-that would confer grace
                              unto the partaker thus nullifying the curse of death that the poison
                              would bring by the inherent blessing of the cracker. In other words
                              though the accidents of arsenic still remain should not the very
                              nature of the so-called "holy" bread save the deserving papist from
                              death were his superstitions well-founded?

                              Jason
                            • thebishopsdoom
                              ... wrote: In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after the ... transsubstantiation ... grace ... poison ... In a word: no.
                              Message 14 of 18 , Jun 2, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., jrschuiling <no_reply@y...>
                                wrote:
                                "> > In a nutshell, the priest in the story would be poisoned after
                                the
                                > > consecration of the "host" either way, whether
                                transsubstantiation
                                > > occurs or not
                                >
                                > Ahh, but would not the arsenic be changed as to have no effect
                                > considering that per Romanist transubstansiation it is the physical
                                > bread-though the substance not the accidents-that would confer
                                grace
                                > unto the partaker thus nullifying the curse of death that the
                                poison
                                > would bring by the inherent blessing of the cracker. In other words
                                > though the accidents of arsenic still remain should not the very
                                > nature of the so-called "holy" bread save the deserving papist from
                                > death were his superstitions well-founded?"

                                In a word: no.
                                -thebishopsdoom
                              • jrschuiling
                                ... Well now, that stinks.
                                Message 15 of 18 , Jun 3, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > In a word: no.
                                  > -thebishopsdoom

                                  Well now, that stinks.
                                • Soles
                                  ... From: jrschuiling To: Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:35 AM Subject: [Covenanted
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Jun 3, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "jrschuiling" <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                    To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:35 AM
                                    Subject: [Covenanted Reformation Club] Re: Food for thought


                                    > > In a word: no.
                                    > > -thebishopsdoom
                                    >
                                    > Well now, that stinks.
                                    >>

                                    Jason,
                                    Why does that stink....I can't smell anything from up here?
                                    <smirk>
                                    sending baby foal pics to you today, you farmer wanna-be.

                                    blessings~
                                    ~Cathie~
                                  • raging_calvinist
                                    ... Well how about this.... Even we Reformed who find our salvation in Christ and His imputed righteousness, which is infinately more efficacious than any
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Jun 3, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., jrschuiling <no_reply@y...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > > In a word: no.
                                      > > -thebishopsdoom
                                      >
                                      > Well now, that stinks.

                                      Well how about this....

                                      Even we Reformed who find our salvation in Christ and His imputed
                                      righteousness, which is infinately more efficacious than any
                                      righteousness of our own, see death as a release from this body of
                                      sin and corruption. So, if we, being justified by way of Christ's
                                      imputed righteousness, could die from being poisoned, how much more
                                      could a Roman Catholic who (supposing the error to be true for reason
                                      of argument) mixes his own righteousness and the righteousness
                                      borrowed from the storehouse of the saints with the sacrifice of the
                                      mass for justification, die from poisoning?

                                      gmw.
                                    • Thomas Britton
                                      This lowly frame of spirit is highly reasonable, if we look abroad in the world, and particularly the land in which we live. O what great cause of deep
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Jun 21, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        This lowly frame of spirit is highly reasonable, if we look abroad in the world, and particularly the land in which we live. O what great cause of deep humiliation have we this day before the Lord, when we take a view of the abounding profanity of our day! All ranks have "corrupted their way;" a flood of atheism and wickedness, Jordan like, has broken down all its banks. Have we not reason to be humbled for the universal barrenness that is to be found amongst us, under the drops of the glorious gospel? May not the Lord say to us, as he said of his vineyard, Isa. 5. "I planted thee in a fruitful soil;" I took all imaginable pains upon thee, by ordinances, by the rod, by mercies and crosses; yet, after all, "when I looked that they should bring forth grapes, behold, they brought forth wild grapes?"

                                        Again; have we not reason to be humbled for the lamentable divisions that are to be found among us? "Ephraim against Manasseh, Manasseh against Ephraim, and both they together against Israel." Because of the divisions of Reuben, there are great thoughts of heart. Church and state are divided. And, among other divisions that have been of late, we are like to have a new division in point of doctrine. There is a handful of ministers, who have lately put in a petition to our National Assembly, in favour of some of the pure and precious truths of the gospel, which they conceive to be injured ... There is a mighty cry raised against them, both in pulpits and in common conversation, as if they were the troublers of Israel, New-schemers, Antinomians, and what not. Many strange errors are fathered upon them, of which they never once thought. I shall be far from bringing a railing accusation against them who study to wound their reputation, and to mar the success of their ministry: for I look on many of them as great and good men. But if they be helped to bear reproach for the name of Christ, and for the cause of his truths, with humility and lowliness of mind, the Lord in his own time will find out a way to bring them forth to the light, so as they shalt behold his righteousness. And although their reputation should sink for ever in the world, under a load of calumny that is cast upon them, I hope they think it but a small sacrifice for the least truth of God, which is of more worth than heaven and earth. However, I say, this, among other things, is ground and cause of humiliation in our day, that any of the precious truths of Christ should be under a cloud, and that we should be divided in our sentiments respecting them. Have we not reason to be deeply humbled for our woeful defections and backslidings, which are the ground of our divisions? We are departed from the Lord, and the Lord is in a great measure departed from us. What a woeful withering wind has blown upon God's vineyard in the land! We are "fallen from our first love," our former zeal for God and his precious truths, and the royalties of our Redeemer's crown. And is there not a lamentable decay as to the power and life of godliness, which has dwindled away into an empty form with the most? To conclude, it is not with the nobles, gentry, ministers, or people, in [this land], as once it has been; and the worst of it is, that though it be so, though gray hairs are here and there upon us, yet we do not perceive it: we "make our faces harder than a rock, and refuse to return" to the Lord.

                                         

                                        From "The Humble Soul the Particular Favourite of Heaven," by Ebenezer Erskine

                                        http://www.puritansermons.com/erskine/eerskin03.htm


                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.