Teresa: "Grace is not conditional. Grace is given to all but but we need to respond to this grace.
And yes, grace is infused. What this means is that grace has the capacity to change us, that it goes into the depths of our being. If you extend your reading of the Bible beyond the common proof texts, you will realize this too."
Well, I finally pulled the term "infused" out of you dear Teresa....
So what? Do you even know what infused grace means? You think you have a "gotcha" but you don't because you don't even understand what it means.
Pointmade, before you reply, read up on what it means and how infused grace relates to salvation.
This is exactly Augustine's doctrine of irresistible grace.
True, it is Calvinism...as related in his "Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Well no. Infused grace does not mean irresistable grace. The only term that means irresistable is efficacious. You are getting your terms completely confused. Please read on this understand it before you reply again.
You write: "But once this grace is given, then a response is asked of us. All of us are given enough grace to respond with a yes. Even those who responds with a no are given the same grace. And this is where free will comes in. When we respond to that grace, this changes us and our faith grows."
I see...and how does an infant respond with a "yes"?
Where did I say that an infant responds with a yes.
Pointmade, before you respond read up first, at the very least a summary of what Predestination means, what grace means, what infused grace means and read up on how all this relate to baptism and salvation in general.
You and I both know that the RCC baptizes an infant to transform the little tyke from the unsaved to the saved
by an unconditional, unilateral, irresistible act of the Holy Spirit.
Not just children. Baptism washes all sins away and confers sanctifying grace that was lost by our first parents.
Now, maybe you can explain to me what is wrong that?
Were you Teresa, as a babe, able to respond to the gospel in FAITH?
Who said that at baptism you need to be able to respond with a yes?
Are you saying that a severely mentally impaired person who is unable to give an assent should not be baptised? Strange kind of Christianity you preach.
Please do not say "yes," I am giving you the benefit of doubt as a intellect here.
Note that you have already written:....
"Faith is both a grace and a response."
Yes, faith. But not sanctifying grace. Sanctifying Grace is not faith. Please learn to read better as this is getting very, very tiresome.
So, you can see why your words confuse me when you say:
"My hope is faith taken through the Eucharist who IS Jesus."
Do you not find that transubstantiation is a theory?
You really ought to broaden your reading if you are going to question dogma's. If you are going to attack something it is good to be knowledgeable about that something.
Transubstantiation is an explanation of what happens at the Eucharist. It is an explanation of how come, this bread is no longer bread but as Christ said, it His Body and Blood.
Before you reply, read up on it.
I ask this, because it was not until 831 that at pronouncement of the Mass, the bread is changed into
the historical body of Christ; it became that and nothing else.
Wrong. The Church has always believed that it is the Body and Blood of CHrist just as He said it is. That is why Eastern Churches believe the same. AS a matter of fact, the first challenge to this doctrine was from Berengarius of Tours in the 1100's. His teaching was regarded as heresy.
History reveals that an abbot of a monastery in France, Paschasius Radbertus, wrote a book "on the Body
and Blood of Christ," which, he dedicated to Emperor Charles the Bald as a Christmas gift (844).
Maurus Rabanus, archbishop of Mainz, Germany also a leading a theologian, opposed it as "a novelty"
and appealed to Augustine who had made a distinction between the historical and the Eucharistic body of Christ.
The view of Maurus Rabanus: Christ has three bodies:
The historical body, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Eucharistic body, created in the Mass.
The spiritual body, the Church. ( Also called the mystical body .)
Now, Teresa, the theory becomes interesting among the Catholic "brethren.
Radbetus was opposed to Ratramus' theory.
He argued that the Eucharist was the body of Christ "in mystery, not in verity."
( This was essentially a symbolic view. )
In the year 1049, a theologian named Berengar of Tours attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation.
The Radbertus and Ratramnus is irrelevant. As I said before sift through the data before you start posting otherwise you end up with this kind of response.
There was no doctrine of transubstantiation until St Thomas named it as such.
Before St Thomas there was only the belief that the Eucharist is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ but there was no explanation. Transubstantiation is how St Thomas explained this mystery to be. It still remains a mystery but this shows a bit more clarity as to why it is so.
As a matter of fact, even Luther believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist although he did not believe in transubstantiation. Rather he believed that Christ is in, with and under the bread.
So, Teresa, your "faith is in the hope of the Eucharist," which In the 9th century the theory of transubstantiation
in the Catholic Church is marked as a "novelty," and 200 years later a man is marked as a heretic if he
opposed it. Yet, in 1215, the Fourth Lateran council declared transubstantiation to be a dogma of the pope.
You and a lot of protestants fall into this grave error of thinking that name preceeds reality. Just because something was named later does not mean that it did not exist until it was named. Otherwise, you were not a being until your parents named you.
Transubstantiation was always a reality that the Church that Christ established have always believed. It was only in the 12th century that they gave a name to it and an explanation of why.
I wouldn't let my imagination run away with me on the theory of transubstantiation that was kicked around
by men of the same cloth who never really came to an agreement.
I guess we could agree that the early Catholics ( before Augustine ), never really received the "infusion" of grace?
But your imagination has in fact galloped at a speed that has left sense miles behind.
The Catholic Church ( which happens to be the Church that Christ established ) has always believed in the infusion of grace. You really have got no clue as to what you are talking about. You don't even know what infused grace is and why we say grace is infused.
Based on your responses, I believe you are deriving your information from usual anti-Catholic literature. Upgrade your reading. Study Catholic books and find out from us exactly what we believe.
Study pointmade. Study. Then you will know what is true.
Here are two links two Catholic sites that will explain to you what we believe and why we believe it. And you will find that all Catholic beliefs are Biblical. It cannot be otherwise because we gave the world the Bible.http://www.catholic.com/http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm
Peace and All Good