Thomas Aquinas passage refuting transubstantiation

There aren’t many legitimate doctrinal differences. That’s where ‘Internet Orthodoxy’ goes off the tracks. If we limit ourselves strictly to the Articles of Faith as enumerated by Aquinas, there are no properly dogmatic differences at all between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy, at least in terms of what one must believe. But doctrine is a very small part of what goes into constituting a religion.

 

That’s probably true. I remember Geisler saying the same thing honestly. But it still makes me nervous.

 

You remind me of the occasion when the preacher proclaimed 'On that day there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth'. An older gent struggled to his feet and inquired, 'What about them that have no teeth', to which came the reply 'Teeth will be provided for them!'.

Your response in not an engagement, but simply a demonstration of a lack of capacity to imagine that God might indeed be beyond reason. Indeed if he is not then we are all in trouble.

 

This is all stuff I’ve heard from philosophers far more learned and smart than I am. I’m talking about people who give apologetics for God to unbelievers like atheists. There are many, many good rational arguments for why God exists and the whole issue of divine omnipotence paradox must be addressed with some atheists who think it’s a slam dunk on Gods existence or omnipotence.
The Bible also teaches us that we can know there is one God by reason alone. This is what philosophers like Plato and Aristotle accomplished. We of course can never fully grasp or understand God. That doesn’t mean we can’t say some basic things about Him, like he can’t make a square circle.
But I get where you’re coming from.
I just think it’s important to engage in these types of questions, since there are many atheists out there who asks themselves these sorts of things, and if no one ever answers it for them, they probably won’t convert

 

Well, I believe God himself is logic therefore he cannot go against it. This doesn’t make him any less sovereign or omnipotent. It makes God a logical and reasonable Being

 

Meta: what is logic?

 

Kinda sorta answers your question https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P70/the-laws-of-logic-and-the-cosmological-argument

 

I agree with you, and it's very important to teach atheists to have an open mind, and consider new possibilities, which may alter where they stand. The question I have for you is, are you willing to undertake the same procedure? Is it really possible that we could offer you a compelling argument that would shift your position on some issue?

Or is it rather the case that nothing anybody says can shift where you stand, but you on the other hand expect to shift people where they stand?

 

I was just kidding, bruh

 

I don’t really think my mind will be changed.
I have already “undertaken the same procedure” when I became catholic.
I also don’t think you will change your opinion, even if I think it’s wrong
This is the non Anglican discussion. I commented because I feel like there is some confusion as to what Catholics believe, and even if you’re never going to agree it’s still nice to actually have the right version of the doctrine you’re opposing.

I’m also a bit confused as to why there’s so many threads about Catholicism is an Anglican forum. Ive never seen any posts about anglicans on a catholic forum.
I figured some here might be intrigued by Catholicism so I thought I’d clarify our doctrines for those people
I see that’s probably not the case now lol…

Also if If the Catholic Church stopped existing, my next choice after that would be orthodoxy, not the Anglican Church

 

Just off the top of anyone’s head, do the OO’s believe this too?

 

As far as I know, yes. Their liturgies are also considerably older than the EO liturgy.

 

It’s because Anglicans consider ourselves to be inheritors of the fulness of ‘catholic’ tradition, both patristic and medieval:

• triune God,
• threefold ministry,
• threefold rule of prayer;

whereas Roman Catholics do not consider themselves to be inheritors of the fulness of English tradition. Deviating from any one of the three features listed above locates a church/communion outside the catholic Tradition, and one must have all three to be truly within it.

And remember, Internet Catholicism is not the same as actual Catholicism. Same goes for Internet Anglicanism. The fact that we engage strangers on these topics at all is actually rather un-Anglican, lol, and makes us somewhat unrepresentative. One can only infer so much without the benefit of practical experience.

 

Oops, I meant what you call *roman* Catholicism…
There are several threads on here about it

 

I knew what you meant.

 

I'd guess that the Roman apathy derives from that church's utter disregard for anything from the Reformation, by means of the Council of Trent, whereas the Anglican Church is still concerned about sacramentals and walking the via media.

 

Why does this entail talking about Roman Catholic beliefs then?
I’m confused if you understood my question or if I’m not understanding your answer

 

The Catholic Church actually did try to reform.
See Vatican II and the novus ordo. It was specifically made for appealing to Protestant sensibilities….
Obviously I disagree with this. But a lot has been done to cater to Protestants which I don’t think should have been done.
You can’t expect Rome to just sanction sola scriptura or Calvinism or sola fide just to appeal to Protestants. Just like I wouldn’t tell a baptist to change their doctrines on baptism to appeal to Catholics.
It’s not so much “utter disregard” as it is just plain old disagreeing with the doctrine

 

What am I even trying to say here?
It has to do with the Anglicans' fundamental outlook about what orthodoxy and catholicity is, like Invictus said. I should have been more precise; posters, on Roman Catholic forums, are not going to care at all about what Anglicans think - they will just reduce them to wannabe RCs. Anglicans, on the other hand, do care about what the Romans think, because they're explicitly trying to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

It’s about who/what gets to define ‘catholic’ tradition. Hold up a consecrated host and ask an Anglican, “Is this the body of Christ?”, and you will get a “yes” answer, in part because that’s simply what the Prayer Book says. Ask that same Anglican what it means for the host to be the body of Christ, and there’s no telling what answer you may get. So with that lack of conceptual unity, the question naturally arises whether Rome’s finely tuned doctrinal stance should have any normative value for Anglicans today. If the Roman formulation is something we can accept, then there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. So we wrestle with Roman Catholic doctrine because we accept their claim to be fully ‘catholic’ while they deny our claim to be the same.