Originally posted by Axios:
Maximus,
I would offer you did not explain the "absolute truth" of this matter, but gave the results if this was an absolute truth.
The suggestion "it is just that way because God says so" is a little disappointing. I think it is fair on a personal level for some to say they accept the Church's practice on a certain matter without a great understanding of it.
But those individuals might be best advised to also abstain from public debate of that topic.
As the theologians have said, every teaching of God has evangelical value. Every sacramental sign and symbol has a meaning. To affirm a sign without attributing a meaning to it is not much different than denying it, according to the Fathers.
Axios
I'm not sure what your exactly getting at with some of your statments here Axios.
Are you saying that I, but not only I, don't have a great understanding of the Church teaching on this - but so to Pope John Paul II and most of the Catholic Bishops, or the greater history of the hierarchy of the Church for that matter - including not only Peter himself but Christ himself.
The asbsolute truth I'm speaking of is Jesus Christ himself the second Person of the Trinity. Of course this is a matter of faith, but so is the Eucharist, and I haven't yet seen the Eucharist bleed of blood and show the veins of warm flesh, but Bishops, Tradition, and Scripture toghether seem to say that the Eucharist is what it is - so yes without so called "great understanding" I try to believe.
Yes I know we don't agree on a number of things. But I bet we may agree on a lot more then what you think. I suppose we only acknowledge each other when we disagree with each other.