S
- Status
T
TOME
Guest
From time to time I get involved in different discussion in these forums and one thing that continues to concern me is how often my fellow Catholics either present a teaching of the Catholic Church which at best is incomplete and at worst is just not so.
This thread is an example. It seems to me that the majority of “Catholic Apologist” here have equated the (Roman) Catholic Church with “The Church” and present this understanding as authentic Catholic teaching which I have pointed out earlier is not authentic Catholic teaching.
My question for my fellow Catholics is why do so many of us ignore the teachings of the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church or why are so many of us, who claim to be knowledgable of authentic teachings of the Catholic Church are, in effect, ignorant of our church’s teaching on the relationship of “The Church” with the “Catholic Church”.
Also, to my protestant brothers and sisters. There were dogmatic teachings from Vatican II which still,in my opinion have not been fully understood nor appreciated either by theologians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Angelican) or by the laity and will not and really cannot be comprehended immediately - it’s a life long process for the Church to come to its full meaning. Still, one teaching, especially in regards to the ministry of the pope but for all bishops and ordained clergy, was the understanding that the role or ministry, of those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, is primarily that of service.
I will grant that the way many of us Catholics do not understand this fundamental principle, but I think it is an essential understanding in any discussion on The Church. Here I would urge all, especially those of us in this discussion who are protestant to begin to read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI (from the time he wrote as Joseph Ratizenger until the present). You may not agree with all he writes but I think you will get a better perspective of authentic thought.
As I wrote sometime before, I think it is necessary for all Catholic, here, to actually read “Lumen Gentium” (The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church) and it would be prudent for all non-catholics to read this document as well.
Still, I would like to end this post with the same quote from Lumen Gentium I used in an earlier post. “This Church constituted and organized as a society, SUBSISTS IN, the Catholic Church…although many elements of sancitification and truth are found outside the visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”.
This thread is an example. It seems to me that the majority of “Catholic Apologist” here have equated the (Roman) Catholic Church with “The Church” and present this understanding as authentic Catholic teaching which I have pointed out earlier is not authentic Catholic teaching.
My question for my fellow Catholics is why do so many of us ignore the teachings of the Dogmatic Constitution On The Church or why are so many of us, who claim to be knowledgable of authentic teachings of the Catholic Church are, in effect, ignorant of our church’s teaching on the relationship of “The Church” with the “Catholic Church”.
Also, to my protestant brothers and sisters. There were dogmatic teachings from Vatican II which still,in my opinion have not been fully understood nor appreciated either by theologians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Angelican) or by the laity and will not and really cannot be comprehended immediately - it’s a life long process for the Church to come to its full meaning. Still, one teaching, especially in regards to the ministry of the pope but for all bishops and ordained clergy, was the understanding that the role or ministry, of those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, is primarily that of service.
I will grant that the way many of us Catholics do not understand this fundamental principle, but I think it is an essential understanding in any discussion on The Church. Here I would urge all, especially those of us in this discussion who are protestant to begin to read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI (from the time he wrote as Joseph Ratizenger until the present). You may not agree with all he writes but I think you will get a better perspective of authentic thought.
As I wrote sometime before, I think it is necessary for all Catholic, here, to actually read “Lumen Gentium” (The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church) and it would be prudent for all non-catholics to read this document as well.
Still, I would like to end this post with the same quote from Lumen Gentium I used in an earlier post. “This Church constituted and organized as a society, SUBSISTS IN, the Catholic Church…although many elements of sancitification and truth are found outside the visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity”.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Exceptionally well said, mate.
By the way, this Lutheran has very much appreciated reading Pope Benedict XVI’s writings. There have been points I’ve been unable to assent to, but I don’t fault either his sense of authentic pastoral selflessness nor his vast understanding of Christian theology (both Roman and otherwise.) He seems a genuinely gifted mind and and passionate heart… a wonderful argument for the role he now fills, and has become a rallying point for Christians world-wide.
I better stop gushing about the Pope and go back to looking the stern, old, German Lutheran… lest anyone get the wrong idea.
:dts:
We are blessed with a great Pope… I pray he will do great things.
Cheers.
By the way, this Lutheran has very much appreciated reading Pope Benedict XVI’s writings. There have been points I’ve been unable to assent to, but I don’t fault either his sense of authentic pastoral selflessness nor his vast understanding of Christian theology (both Roman and otherwise.) He seems a genuinely gifted mind and and passionate heart… a wonderful argument for the role he now fills, and has become a rallying point for Christians world-wide.
I better stop gushing about the Pope and go back to looking the stern, old, German Lutheran… lest anyone get the wrong idea.
:dts:
We are blessed with a great Pope… I pray he will do great things.
Cheers.
J
jblake
Guest
nsper7;:
joanthon
Luther demonstrated that the papacy had fallen into the gates of hell.
joanthon
A
a_burger
Guest
Here is my challenge to all non-Catholic Christians. I have recently come back to the Catholic Church. In those years I was an Anabaptist- not a Protestant. I attended the Evangelical Free Church. If you’re Catholic please present the following Bible passage. It is in the Gospel of John 53-60. Jesus makes the astonishing statement that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man (incidentally son of Man in the Jewish culture was a sign of Deity) and drink his blood you have no life (eternal life) in you. Whoever eats (actual work chews) my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. He who feeds on this bread will live forever. Jesus said this to his apostles and new disciples shortly after he fed the fish and loaves of bread. (Please read the entire verses because I just paraphrased.) On hearing this many of his disciples said it was too hard of a teaching and who can accept it. Then read verse 66 where it says from this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed Jesus.
Now here is the question for our non-Catholic Christians. Would you have turned back and left Jesus when he stated this. We as Catholics believe that this is the actual body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. This is exactly what jesus said. Ask your non-Catholic Christian friend to read this and then asked them if they would have stayed or turned and left. If they state they would have stayed (after reading this) or would they have turned and went away. Since many of non-Catholics are Anabaptists they will tkae this verse very serious. Even some Protestant s are serious about the Bible.
If you can reach them and they see Jesus himself taught substantiation they will come to the realization of salvation.
There is a movement of Catholics to learn the Bible. We as Catholics can present our faith by quoting the Bible. Everything the Churhc does is biblical. If you don’t believe me read the book by Scott Hahn called Reasons to Believe.
Now here is the question for our non-Catholic Christians. Would you have turned back and left Jesus when he stated this. We as Catholics believe that this is the actual body and blood of Christ during the Eucharist. This is exactly what jesus said. Ask your non-Catholic Christian friend to read this and then asked them if they would have stayed or turned and left. If they state they would have stayed (after reading this) or would they have turned and went away. Since many of non-Catholics are Anabaptists they will tkae this verse very serious. Even some Protestant s are serious about the Bible.
If you can reach them and they see Jesus himself taught substantiation they will come to the realization of salvation.
There is a movement of Catholics to learn the Bible. We as Catholics can present our faith by quoting the Bible. Everything the Churhc does is biblical. If you don’t believe me read the book by Scott Hahn called Reasons to Believe.
C
CoachSTL
Guest
aburger,
This was a very appropriate point to make and eloquently stated. It is a lint at the core of the Catholic Faith.
Thank you
This was a very appropriate point to make and eloquently stated. It is a lint at the core of the Catholic Faith.
Thank you
A
awantz
Guest
We, the believers of Christ, are the church. It’s not a building.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
THANK YOU, THANK YOU!! For that reminder! I was getting so sick of rocks and splitting hairs (and churches). Not a shred of condescension in your post. Excellent!! I’ll check out that book!
It’s funny too that you should mention that, my neighbor is a Lutheran pastor. I have a lot of respect for him and his faith, and I did ask him the question about transubstantiation today, and he confirmed that it isn’t what they believe. Now, I’m not saying his church is “bad”, like I said, I respect his faith… but all Catholic copyright claims on the Holy Eucharist aside, if you just don’t believe it, it probably isn’t happening! So, that’s a little comforting for me on a day like today, when I’m wondering “why” I’m here. Still wish I felt a little less like a fish out of water in the faith I was raised in, but then I’ve never really made it to any pool that let me in anyway. lol
Once a lone wolf, always a lone wolf.
Ehem…sorry to briefly hijack this thread…as you were.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Lest the Lutheran position be unintentionally maligned here…
Let’s remember, that while Lutherans do not confess Transubstantiation, per se, we still confess the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist-- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We take those passages in the Scriptures very seriously and reverently.
Lutherans don’t confess Transubstantiation as a doctrine, because it rests on Aristotelean metaphysics that are a bit problematic in both their source and extension… and, because the Eucharist is a Mystery (the root word for Sacrament, by the way) we choose not to try to explain the “how” of the miracle, and stick with the clear “what” that it is. Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with what I think Romans are trying to say through the doctrine of Transubstantian… I just think they tried a little too hard to peer into something obscured from human sight by Divine glory.
Lutherans confess the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist-- in our terms, that would be “in, with, and under the bread and the wine.” It’s simple, it’s Biblical, it’s historic, and it’s catholic. Seems a nice safe place to stand.
And one other thought… 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics, 800 Million Eastern Orthodox, 70-ish million Anglicans, 50-ish million Lutherans all confess the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is only the smallest minority of Christians who don’t… unfortunately, that small minority has a big concentration in the US.
Peace.
Let’s remember, that while Lutherans do not confess Transubstantiation, per se, we still confess the real bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist-- Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. We take those passages in the Scriptures very seriously and reverently.
Lutherans don’t confess Transubstantiation as a doctrine, because it rests on Aristotelean metaphysics that are a bit problematic in both their source and extension… and, because the Eucharist is a Mystery (the root word for Sacrament, by the way) we choose not to try to explain the “how” of the miracle, and stick with the clear “what” that it is. Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with what I think Romans are trying to say through the doctrine of Transubstantian… I just think they tried a little too hard to peer into something obscured from human sight by Divine glory.
Lutherans confess the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist-- in our terms, that would be “in, with, and under the bread and the wine.” It’s simple, it’s Biblical, it’s historic, and it’s catholic. Seems a nice safe place to stand.
And one other thought… 1.2 Billion Roman Catholics, 800 Million Eastern Orthodox, 70-ish million Anglicans, 50-ish million Lutherans all confess the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is only the smallest minority of Christians who don’t… unfortunately, that small minority has a big concentration in the US.
Peace.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
Oh, so I’m attacking Lutherans now, since I noted a personal preference in how I view the Eucharist and how it just happens that my view is the same as my religion’s assertion, and so it allows me to feel more comfortable with being a Catholic. 
I have no way of determining the real truth in the matter, just my own level of comfort. Me? I’m no one, just a person who is, like my log in name: seeking the truth<—meaning “truth in salvation”
I’m not here to convert anyone in a debate or by tearing their religion down. i do occasionally, however, defend our side against one sect that is misleading (unintentionally or not, I can’t say…it’s in other threads) in it’s claim to be “Christian” in the same sense that other Christians use the term, but again, another thread…
So, still with respect and purely out of curiosity: What is the difference between “real bodily presence” and transubstantiation? I’m easily confused with these type of religious definitions and terms. If this seems like off the main thread subject, feel free to PM me. I don’t want to debate you, just learn.
I have no way of determining the real truth in the matter, just my own level of comfort. Me? I’m no one, just a person who is, like my log in name: seeking the truth<—meaning “truth in salvation”I’m not here to convert anyone in a debate or by tearing their religion down. i do occasionally, however, defend our side against one sect that is misleading (unintentionally or not, I can’t say…it’s in other threads) in it’s claim to be “Christian” in the same sense that other Christians use the term, but again, another thread…
So, still with respect and purely out of curiosity: What is the difference between “real bodily presence” and transubstantiation? I’m easily confused with these type of religious definitions and terms. If this seems like off the main thread subject, feel free to PM me. I don’t want to debate you, just learn.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
I didn’t think you were attacking at all… just wanted to clarify the confessional Lutheran position. Like my Roman friends, I always try start our dialogue from the formal church positions (such as the Catechism) and set aside what may be popular distortions of the formal teachings. I wasn’t offended in what you wrote, and I hope I did not offend you.
The differences between a simple confession of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist that Lutherans make, and the Roman position, I believe comes down to a couple key questions:
Our Roman friends might be able to correct or expand my explanation here, but Transubstantiation is defining the change in the bread and wine in their essence to the Body and Blood of Christ, while leaving the physical “accidents” of the bread and wine in place (what Aristotle understood to be things like shape, consistency, smell, taste, color, etc.) So the position is, I believe, that the bread and wine still appear to be bread and wine, but they are really and fully the Body and Blood of Christ… in disguise, as it were.
Lutherans thought this an unnecessary attempt at explanation, and frankly, transubstantiation was not a big hang up for Lutherans even at the time of the Reformation. I believe the emphasis in the Council of Trent was substantially trying to communicate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist against other Protestant opinions that disregarded this ancient truth. Most Anglicans and Lutherans don’t really have much of an issue with Transubstantiation, except that we think it is too much human attempt to understand a divine mystery… we don’t think it’s wrong, per se, but that it speaks a bit beyond what we can surely know… or at least beyond what the Scriptures reveal to us, and what the early Fathers communicated regarding the Eucharist. The formal doctrine of Transubstantion doesn’t emerge in earnest until the 7th or 8th century, and doesn’t get formally established as necessary dogma until the 16th century. Thus Lutherans tended to see it as an unecessary novelty.
Anyway, hope that spelled out the difference a bit. Lutherans and Romans are really not substantially divided on the issue of Transubstantiation (no pun intended.)
Cheers,
Brad
The differences between a simple confession of Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist that Lutherans make, and the Roman position, I believe comes down to a couple key questions:
- Is the Eucharist, once consecrated, still both bread and wine as well as Christ’s Body and Blood, or…
- … has it changed from the one into the other, leaving the previous content behind and acquiring a new definitional quality, and…
- … what is the physical explanation for that transformation?
Our Roman friends might be able to correct or expand my explanation here, but Transubstantiation is defining the change in the bread and wine in their essence to the Body and Blood of Christ, while leaving the physical “accidents” of the bread and wine in place (what Aristotle understood to be things like shape, consistency, smell, taste, color, etc.) So the position is, I believe, that the bread and wine still appear to be bread and wine, but they are really and fully the Body and Blood of Christ… in disguise, as it were.
Lutherans thought this an unnecessary attempt at explanation, and frankly, transubstantiation was not a big hang up for Lutherans even at the time of the Reformation. I believe the emphasis in the Council of Trent was substantially trying to communicate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist against other Protestant opinions that disregarded this ancient truth. Most Anglicans and Lutherans don’t really have much of an issue with Transubstantiation, except that we think it is too much human attempt to understand a divine mystery… we don’t think it’s wrong, per se, but that it speaks a bit beyond what we can surely know… or at least beyond what the Scriptures reveal to us, and what the early Fathers communicated regarding the Eucharist. The formal doctrine of Transubstantion doesn’t emerge in earnest until the 7th or 8th century, and doesn’t get formally established as necessary dogma until the 16th century. Thus Lutherans tended to see it as an unecessary novelty.
Anyway, hope that spelled out the difference a bit. Lutherans and Romans are really not substantially divided on the issue of Transubstantiation (no pun intended.)
Cheers,
Brad
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
I agree. I believe Trent was more concerned with the views of Zwingli than Luther with regards to the Eucharist.
The Church concedes that this is a mystery beyond human understanding.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
I see, said the blind man…
So, kind of like the concept of Holy Water retaining it’s “holiness”, Lutherans don’t believe in the Eucharist retaining it’s properties of being Christ’s body?
I admittedly have a hard time with that one too. Like being able to consecrate something and put it in a bottle and carry it around with you, and it’s OK to add a little more water to the Holy Water, just as long as it originally had some holy water in the bottle, and it’s even better holy water if it was blessed by a bishop, and what exactly is it for outside of the sacraments, anyway?..this kind of thinking…which, by the way, is the sort of stuff they teach us in catechism class as children, but then when we grow up and try to engage in discussion, we find that official Church teachings say no such superstitious things, unless you stretch your imagination to very abstract and relative lengths, well at least depending on who you ask for explanation…
So, kind of like the concept of Holy Water retaining it’s “holiness”, Lutherans don’t believe in the Eucharist retaining it’s properties of being Christ’s body?
I admittedly have a hard time with that one too. Like being able to consecrate something and put it in a bottle and carry it around with you, and it’s OK to add a little more water to the Holy Water, just as long as it originally had some holy water in the bottle, and it’s even better holy water if it was blessed by a bishop, and what exactly is it for outside of the sacraments, anyway?..this kind of thinking…which, by the way, is the sort of stuff they teach us in catechism class as children, but then when we grow up and try to engage in discussion, we find that official Church teachings say no such superstitious things, unless you stretch your imagination to very abstract and relative lengths, well at least depending on who you ask for explanation…
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Hmmm… just a bit of follow on…
There’s a divide among Lutherans on whether the consecrated bread and wine retain their essence as the Body and Blood of Christ outside the Eucharistic celebration (ostensibly, outside the celebration of the Mass.)
Personally, I’m pursuaded that they do-- and that seems to comport with the majority of Christians in the world, and the writings of the early Fathers (or at least the practices of the early Church which infer that the elements remain Christ’s Body and Blood after the Mass is ended.)
As for Sacramentals, there’s a divide among Lutherans on that subject, too… and again, I tend to agree with the Roman position. Once a thing is consecrated to God, there is a sense in which God has applied His grace to it… and there are repercussions to such ideas. Lutherans and Romans might argue a bit over what “infused grace” means in the life and piety of the Christian, but when it comes to Sacramentals, I think the Roman position is more in line with the historic witness of the Church… and to my reading, such a position is not militated against in the Lutheran Confessions.
Cheers.
There’s a divide among Lutherans on whether the consecrated bread and wine retain their essence as the Body and Blood of Christ outside the Eucharistic celebration (ostensibly, outside the celebration of the Mass.)
Personally, I’m pursuaded that they do-- and that seems to comport with the majority of Christians in the world, and the writings of the early Fathers (or at least the practices of the early Church which infer that the elements remain Christ’s Body and Blood after the Mass is ended.)
As for Sacramentals, there’s a divide among Lutherans on that subject, too… and again, I tend to agree with the Roman position. Once a thing is consecrated to God, there is a sense in which God has applied His grace to it… and there are repercussions to such ideas. Lutherans and Romans might argue a bit over what “infused grace” means in the life and piety of the Christian, but when it comes to Sacramentals, I think the Roman position is more in line with the historic witness of the Church… and to my reading, such a position is not militated against in the Lutheran Confessions.
Cheers.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
I guess I’ll never fully understand this! lol! I admit, I’m kind of dense sometimes.
The more you post, the more it sounds exactly what Catholics say. Apparently, it doesn’t matter anyway, from what you’re saying? Nevertheless, don’t leave me at “That’s too strict or too hard to swallow for us Lutherans, so we decided to pick and choose?” I don’t want to think that, but it’s a common slam on here. (I’m no apologist, nor evangelist…other than the type that hopes to do this by one’s own example in RL) C’mon, there has to be a better explanation to what the difference is between the two sides.
The more you post, the more it sounds exactly what Catholics say. Apparently, it doesn’t matter anyway, from what you’re saying? Nevertheless, don’t leave me at “That’s too strict or too hard to swallow for us Lutherans, so we decided to pick and choose?” I don’t want to think that, but it’s a common slam on here. (I’m no apologist, nor evangelist…other than the type that hopes to do this by one’s own example in RL) C’mon, there has to be a better explanation to what the difference is between the two sides.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
Hey, bro,
Well, there certainly are differences between Lutherans and Romans… no doubt about it. They just don’t center on the Eucharist.
The biggest differences we have is in central authority, and the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. We tend to see Scripture as the normalizing factor for both Sacred Tradition and current experience; i.e., because the surest, least debated witness to the Christian faith is the inspired word of God breathed out by God and set to paper by the Holy Prophets and Apostles, that’s the center of gravity for Lutheran Christians.
Romans, and I hope I’m being fair in this assertion, understand Scripture as part of the Great Tradition, and thus it is Tradition-- through the authority of the Magesterium-- that is the normalizing factor in the Church. Romans don’t seperate themselves from Scripture (at least from what I observe) but they add an authoritative structure that Lutherans have observed to be less that 100% faithful over the years in bearing witness to the Apostolic Gospel. We refuse to bow to any earthly authority that will not be governed by the Holy Scriptures.
Lutherans don’t object to authority in the Church, but we do have issues with the role of Scripture-- to our minds, the priests and bishops of the Church are accountable before Christ for the Gospel entrusted to them, which is most surely given to us in the Holy Scriptures. Thus, we tend to argue that no Church personage-- not even a bishop such as the pope-- is above Scripture. This is why Lutherans have, over the centuries, called for another fully ecumenical council, where all the Christian bishops take their seat at the table (like they did before the great schism of 1054) and come to consensus in the light of Scripture. Of course, this would require the Roman bishop to set aside a bit of his acquired glory and power in order to yield himself to the outcomes of a fully ecumenical council… but that shouldn’t be hard for him to do, since Roman dogma asserts that an ecumenical council is infallible. That’s the way the first 7 were conducted.
Anyway… much more could be said. However, I prefer to emphasize our commonalities and not our differences.
Cheers.
Well, there certainly are differences between Lutherans and Romans… no doubt about it. They just don’t center on the Eucharist.
The biggest differences we have is in central authority, and the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. We tend to see Scripture as the normalizing factor for both Sacred Tradition and current experience; i.e., because the surest, least debated witness to the Christian faith is the inspired word of God breathed out by God and set to paper by the Holy Prophets and Apostles, that’s the center of gravity for Lutheran Christians.
Romans, and I hope I’m being fair in this assertion, understand Scripture as part of the Great Tradition, and thus it is Tradition-- through the authority of the Magesterium-- that is the normalizing factor in the Church. Romans don’t seperate themselves from Scripture (at least from what I observe) but they add an authoritative structure that Lutherans have observed to be less that 100% faithful over the years in bearing witness to the Apostolic Gospel. We refuse to bow to any earthly authority that will not be governed by the Holy Scriptures.
Lutherans don’t object to authority in the Church, but we do have issues with the role of Scripture-- to our minds, the priests and bishops of the Church are accountable before Christ for the Gospel entrusted to them, which is most surely given to us in the Holy Scriptures. Thus, we tend to argue that no Church personage-- not even a bishop such as the pope-- is above Scripture. This is why Lutherans have, over the centuries, called for another fully ecumenical council, where all the Christian bishops take their seat at the table (like they did before the great schism of 1054) and come to consensus in the light of Scripture. Of course, this would require the Roman bishop to set aside a bit of his acquired glory and power in order to yield himself to the outcomes of a fully ecumenical council… but that shouldn’t be hard for him to do, since Roman dogma asserts that an ecumenical council is infallible. That’s the way the first 7 were conducted.
Anyway… much more could be said. However, I prefer to emphasize our commonalities and not our differences.
Cheers.
S
seekdatruth
Guest
“Bro”? I guess it doesn’t mention my gender, but that’s OK, I take it as a compliment! I try to avoid “female emotional sentiments”, which would “cloud” my reasoning in the view of most people, even other women. “Bro” is much better than, “Look, LADY! You think you know something about…” Funny how the whole tone of things changes once I reveal my gender…
Anyway,
thanks for your explanation and patience. I think I really understand now. yeah, another council might be nice, but we shouldn’t hold our breath! We’re still grappling with Vatican ll!
Anyway,
thanks for your explanation and patience. I think I really understand now. yeah, another council might be nice, but we shouldn’t hold our breath! We’re still grappling with Vatican ll!
A
a_burger
Guest
It sounds to me you would have stayed and didn’t find this concept of eating the flesh and drinking the blood too hard. Congratulations.
S
stbruderklaus
Guest
My humble apologies, sis!
I find gender neutral language so… flavorless. So, I figure I have about a 50-50 chance on blogs or other venues where gender isn’t immediately obvious… and then I can humbly beg forgiveness if I’ve given offense by guessing wrongly.
Besides, you’ve gotta expect your bro to stick his foot in his mouth time to time, right? I usually oblige at least once a day.
Peace be with you!
I find gender neutral language so… flavorless. So, I figure I have about a 50-50 chance on blogs or other venues where gender isn’t immediately obvious… and then I can humbly beg forgiveness if I’ve given offense by guessing wrongly.
Besides, you’ve gotta expect your bro to stick his foot in his mouth time to time, right? I usually oblige at least once a day.
Peace be with you!
S
seekdatruth
Guest
That’s me!
Besides, now someone get me completely straight on this because I’m not entirely sure, but wasn’t there something in ancient Hebrew culture about kings, and eating their flesh and blood, at least in some symbolic way, of showing absolute submission? So like, maybe it wasn’t too much of a stretch to think they didn’t just cringe because the idea was “yucky”.
Gosh, I have to go look it up now…
stbruderklaus,
like I said, no offense taken!
- Status