[QUOTE=Big Blocker;2494806]Another mischaracterization. Getting used to it.
Ftr, Jesus was not a Trifecta anything. He was the Son. Your first error.
Second, the wine and bread represents the spiritual host, not actual body and blood. What else don't you know about Christianity?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry you feel it is a mischaracterization. I am also sorry you feel you needed to question my integrity again.
However, being raised Catholic, I can assure you that Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. A unified trifecta, seperate but joined, all part of God Himself.
And while I cannot speak for any other Catholic parishes, the one I was raised in in Long Island taught that in the Consecration of the Eucharist, it does become the Body and the Blood of Christ. And yes, they teach that this is a literal interpratation, that the substance of the objects involved have changed, not merely a symbolic one.
Whilst Wikipedia is of course a questionable source, even with it's references intact, it's the easiest to check quickly:
On the Trinity:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia][U]The Trinity is a doctrine, stating that God is one Being Who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons[/U] : the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as " three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. The doctrine also teaches that the Son himself has two distinct natures, one fully divine and the other fully human, united in a hypostatic union. Support of the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism. Most denominations within Christianity are Trinitarian, and regard belief in the Trinity as a mark of Christian orthodoxy.[/QUOTE]
On the Holy Eucharist:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia][U]According to the Roman Catholic Church, when the bread and wine are consecrated in the Eucharist, they cease to be bread and wine, and become instead the body and blood of Christ[/U]: although the empirical appearances are not changed, the reality is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit who has been called down upon the bread and wine. The consecration of the bread (known as the host) and wine represents the separation of Jesus' body from his blood at Calvary. However, since he has risen, the Church teaches that his body and blood can no longer be truly separated. Where one is, the other must be. Therefore, although the priest (or minister) says "The body of Christ" when administering the host, and "The blood of Christ" when presenting the chalice, the communicant who receives either one receives Christ, whole and entire.
The Council of Trent declared subject to the ecclesiastical penalty of anathema anyone who "denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue".
^ Council of Trent, Session XIII, canon 3;Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1390; Catholic Encyclopedia, Communion under Both Kinds [/QUOTE]
Of course, I would defer to my friend CanadaSteve, if he chooses to add to the discussion, as I am sure he knows far more on this topic than I.
[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2492147]I don't think panty waist liberals could survive a third Bush term. They'd be spiking their Starbucks Joya del Dia Blend with arsenic or driving their Volvos into oncoming traffic.
Personally, I'd like to have seen Fred Thompson get the Republican nomination.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the country could survive a third Bush term. We only survived the second Bush term (so far) because he has become a lame duck. Literally, I don't think it could survive. States would be seceding and **** if Bush had another 4 years. Luckily for all of us, thats not possible.
[QUOTE=cr726;2490672]Rush's brother does an article pointing out how the other side is complaining. Both sides pull this stuff over and over.
I can not wait for there to be a nominee and then we can get back to the good old your guy sucks and our guy is great BS.
Then some real discussions will happen.
It is funny how the Republicans on here want everyone to forget that McCain is their nominee and concentrate on Obama and Hillary.
McCain, especially if he picks Mitt as a Vice-President, will be getting attacked all over again. Mitt is a magic underwear wearing flip flopper, I don't care how smart the guy is, he was an absolute joke during his run.[/QUOTE]its funny.you liberals always pooh-pooh the stuff you lose on.you call them wedge issues.like guns and abortion and immigration and religion and taxes.always running back to your touch-stone issues like education,health care etc.
[QUOTE=cr726;2494672]If it wasn't for Rudy people would be talking about how bad of an campaign Mitt ran.
The guy has the looks and work background and lost. What does that say about what a bad race he ran?
His flip flops and misremembers are what everyone will and does remember.
If gets VP and Obama is the Dem nomination, everyone will attack Mitt's religion because ALL blacks went to hell until about 35 years ago. That is a huge problem.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree, I think he ran a bad campaign. I don't think he a very good or natural or talented politician and his feints to the left while running for office in MA came back to bite him, but it was a calculated risk because without those victories he is't even a possible canidate. I am not one of those conspiracy kooks or people with man-crushes on who I support. I agree - he ran a bad campaign and has only himself to blame.
I do tihnk he started hitting his stride towards the end and got better and do not think he'd be the albatross you think he'd be to McCain. I think Romney has a bright future in the national GOP. Either as a VP or a candidate in 2012. I don't think his religion is a very big deal. Catholics practice ritualistic cannibalism and Christians believe in Virgin Birth. One religion calling another bigoted or wacky is like a midget calling a dwarf short.
[QUOTE=jets5ever;2501166]Oh, I agree, I think he ran a bad campaign. I don't think he a very good or natural or talented politician and his feints to the left while running for office in MA came back to bite him, but it was a calculated risk because without those victories he is't even a possible canidate. I am not one of those conspiracy kooks or people with man-crushes on who I support. I agree - he ran a bad campaign and has only himself to blame.
I do tihnk he started hitting his stride towards the end and got better and do not think he'd be the albatross you think he'd be to McCain. I think Romney has a bright future in the national GOP. Either as a VP or a candidate in 2012. I don't think his religion is a very big deal. Catholics practice ritualistic cannibalism and Christians believe in Virgin Birth. One religion calling another bigoted or wacky is like a midget calling a dwarf short.[/QUOTE]
the problem is, at least among the mainstream populace, defending Mormonism by pointing out some of the more arcane practices of more universally acceptable religions to that of Mormonism will fall on deaf ears, no matter how unfair that is.
Romney's Mormonism would be a very sticky issue and will probably always be considered "kooky". I don't think there is anyway he would do well in the South...
although it would have been a fascinating race to watch if it were Obama vs Romney.....that very well could have been the most interesting match-up of all time with regards to who wins what state.....