Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

[O.S.Luke]

Dear O. S. Luke:

This is not offered as a critical question or statement, but how can you be in communion with the United Methodist Church when their theology does not believe in the Real Presence and transubstance of the Eucharist?

Denial of the transubstancial reality of the Eucharist has always been the response from within the United Methodist community as well as the Free Methodists when I have posed the question to their clergy. “It is only a memorial…It doesn’t really change” are both common responses."

All I can say is that the official theological and sacramental position of the UMC is this:

Our tradition asserts the real, personal, living presence of Jesus Christ. For United Methodists, the Lord’s Supper isanchored in the life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but is not primarily a remembrance or memorial.

We do not embrace the medieval doctrine of transubstantiation, though we do believe that the elements are essential tangible means through which God works. We understand the divine presence in temporal and relational terms. In the Holy Meal of the church, the past, present, and future of the living Christ come together by the power of the Holy Spirit so that we may receive and embody Jesus Christ as God’s saving gift for the whole world. - from This Holy Mystery: A United Methodist Understanding of Holy Communion, adopted in 2004.

Belief in the Real Presence does not mean a subscription to transubstantiation. Real Presence deals with sacramental theology. Transubstantiation is a Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophical concept. You would find the official United Methodist stance very similar to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Real Presence, finding the words metabole, metastoicheiosis or metarrhythmisis more accurate than metousiosis. In short: the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. Period. No explanation needed - since mysteries (sacrament/mysterion) are supernatural and thus cannot be explained, certainly not by philosophy! Every time the Eucharist is celebrated, there is a miracle!!!

As far as the Articles - there is a lot of left-over and unfortunate rhetoric present. If you read the Eucharistic hymnody of the Wesley’s, the Real Presence is alive and well. Such as:

O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!

Sure and real is the grace,
the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways
and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers,
Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, ’tis only ours
to wonder and adore. - vv. 1&4, “O the Depth of Love Divine”

–

Come, and partake the Gospel feast;
Be saved from sin; in Jesus rest;
O taste the goodness of your God,
And eat His flesh, and drink His blood! - v. 3, “Come, Sinners, to the Gospel Feast”

Before you say that hymnody doesn’t transmit or teach doctrine or theology, you should know that for early Methodists, hymnody didn’t just serve to convert and convict at “camp meetings”; hymnody also served as catechesis. Sacramental worship was not only not contrary to true evangelicalism, but was one of its chief results. Also, most of the hymns (written by Charles) were edited by John for theological and doctrinal appropriateness. An excellent book is The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley by J. Ernest Rattenbury (ISBN 1-878009-55-9).

Wherever there are evangelicals who are not sacramentalists, and wherever there are sacramentalists who are not evangelicals, both have some more praying to do.

O+

 

[veritashunter]

Dear O. S. Luke:

I took those quotes not from an Anglican prayer book nor any source related to the Catholic Church or any document on English religious law. I took them from the United Methodist website under the tab “What We Believe”.

Also, the word transubstantiation does specifically and Canonically mean the physical transformation of the the matter under the species of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Jesus. The Orthodox concur in this definiton as they were part of the Church Council that condemned consubstantiation as it related to the Nestorian heresy addressed at Chalcedon. Likewise attempting to separate the Real Presence of Christ from the Eucharist is nearly equal to separating Christ into 2 natures; one spiritually divine and the other human in nature (one not fully existing and subsisting within one body or species) as did Nestorianism.

Consubstantiation or anything less than the transformative-substantiation expressed in Church doctrine might be seen to affirm that Jesus was not being entirely truthful or speaking in shades when he said “This is my flesh…This is my blood…Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall have no life in you…Do this in memory of me.” His command to memorialize that moment does not in any way infer that he was speaking figuratively about the reality of his body and blood. The scriptures also show two different words used by Jesus…trago & phago. Look to the Gospel of John regarding this proclamation by Christ and the emphasis of the 2 words. Strong’s Concordance (a great resource) will show you the way if you look investigate deeply enough. Phago means to knaw and chew like a goat…to masticate. So he meant that we eat his literal flesh…somehow.

The only significant differences in Roman Catholic sacramental theology of the Eucharist and those held by the East are that the Roman Catholic Church attests that the moment of transformation is at the moment the matter (bread and wine) are raised toward heaven by the hands of the priest after the words of consecration are spoken where Eastern Eucharistic sacramentality does not assign the exact moment of transformation to the raising of the matter to heaven. The East has had no need to be as precise since it has not been faced with the precise issues we are discussing.

Another difference in most Eastern rites (but not all) is using leavened bread. It simbolizes the resurrection as the unleavened loaf points the way from the Passover toward the Resurrection. The use of leavened bread was a later innovation in the East as Christianity distinguished itself from Judaism as a distinct faith rather than merely a Jewish sect. It is equally valid and part of a “both and” contrasting expression of a single reality rather than an “either or” demand. One points toward and glorifies the other; one as the prophecy and one as its fulfillment.

While it is true that the East does use different language of expression at times it still holds to the definition that the bread and wine are changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus the Christ before reception…not at the moment of reception. It also venerates the sacrament in the Tabernacle. If Orthodoxy did not believe in the actual physical change as do Catholics there would be no need to make special consideration for the blessed bread after communion. And in both Catholic and Orthodox churches if any visible crumb of Eucharist falls to the floor we suspend reception to recover the bread. Why would we do that if the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine of the Real Presence was not also literally present within the physical species of the bread and wine?

Orthodox Eucharistic theology does not oppose the RC definition relating to the moment of consecration or the Real Presence. Because in both the Catholic and Orthodox Sacrament the Real Presence is made fully present both spiritually and physically through the action of transubstantiation. In other words, Jesus comes into our physical presence (not merely spiritually) through the medium of his flesh and blood made real under the species of bread and wine at the time of consecration prior to our reception of the Sacrament.

As an Eastern Rite Catholic I can attest that our theology on the subject of the Real Presence of Christ Jesus exactly matches that of the Orthodox as they are the source of our Eastern Byzantine Tradition. And our Melkite rite is fully Catholic. I have also spoken to my Deacon and priest regarding these points in the past and they have affirmed the same position each time.

Although I will gladly concede that Methodism truly believes in the Real Spiritual Presence it does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ Jesus body, blood, soul, and divinity in simultaneous union within the species of bread and wine as is the Holy Tradition of the apostolic Churches. (Although I am certain that many Methodists…maybe even most…do believe so privately…darned closet Catholics…ha ha.) The Real Presence is both spiritual & physical. Yet we share it spiritually within our intercommnnion as members of the bride of Christ by means of the Eucharist (Christ) conjugally joined to us. Those unable to receive physically may still be able to join spiritually within the body of Christ’s bride by means of their membership in it.

In this Tradition all of the Apostolic Churches are united including the Coptics, Byzantine Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Orientals, Chaldeans, and the other Ancient Churches of the East.

What always comes to mind are the words of Christ to St. Thomas: “You believe because you have seen. But blessed be those who believe yet have not seen.”

This is why I do not state these facts as criticisms toward faith-filled validly baptized Christians. And it is exactly why I invite our separated brothers and sisters to return home to a family who loves them much.

Yourrs in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[O.S.Luke]

Veritas:

Thanks for your post. My thesis was on Eucharistic and Sacramental theology, mostly the work of Dix, Bouyer, and Schillebeeckx. I will say that most E.O. theologians would disagree with some of your statements, but it is academic at best.

As far as the Body and Blood of Christ… it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Period. No further explanation needed. Again - it is a mystery and a miracle - and they take place every day.

O+

 

[Truthstalker]

The Orthodox concur in this definiton as they were part of the Church Council that condemned consubstantiation as it related to the Nestorian heresy addressed at Chalcedon. Likewise attempting to separate the Real Presence of Christ from the Eucharist is nearly equal to separating Christ into 2 natures; one spiritually divine and the other human in nature (one not fully existing and subsisting within one body or species) as did Nestorianism.

What an intriguing series of posts, indeed one of the best I have seen on CAF. Here you are linking the doctrines of the incarnation and the Eucharist. What precedent is there for the idea you express above? Was it so stated at Chalcedon, or was this a later inference, and if so, by whom?

I maintain, btw, that Christ is really, truly and fully present in the Eucharist, and that one cannot separate His divine nature from His human nature, so if He is there, He is fully there. But He is also everywhere, I call this the problem of the presence.
I lean towards the statement that transubstantiation is an inadequate description of what happens, not because it is false, but because what really happens is beyond human comprehension or description.

 

[veritashunter]

Dear O. S. Luke:

I would suggest that you refer to the works of Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly a Protestant named Timothy Ware) for confirmation of the points I have made. He has written on many topics including the intercommunion of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. The official teachings of the Orthodox Church do not sacramentally differ from the Catholic Church in significant manner other than what I stated (generally speaking) as related to the Real Presence or the Eucharistic miracle. But it isn’t hard to find a dissenting Orthodox “theologian” nor a similar Catholic one or even a Protestant one.

They are quite common. That is why for the sake of accuracy I refer to and use Canons and Church Law in these postings instead of the opinions of such (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) theologians. Anything other than Canon, Patriarchal/Papal Bulls & Letters, or Catecismal teaching is subject to broad interpretation by all sides. Until it meets one of these catagories it is theoretical in nature even though it may be somewhat enlightening on some points. That is why I don’t use opinions of “Catholic Theologians” either.

For instance, Tertullian was one of the Church Fathers. Many primary doctrines of the Church (East and West) were gleaned from and based on his works and his participation in the Church. But, the Church only accepted some of his teachings…not all…because he died involved in a state of heresy. Not even the Church Fathers were immune from such bias.

What makes our understanding more mutual (and far less unique) for Catholic and Eastern Apsotolic Chirstians is that we all fully beleive that we are not making a “new or re-sacrifice” of Christ. Rather, we believe that Christ is made present (during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy/Mass) and the we re-present the action of Christ through the Holy Spirit and are, therefore, actually re-enterring Calvary of the past in the present moment (not merely in a symbolic way). To my knowledge no Protestant Church actually affirms this specific notion although I expect that the Anglican and Lutheran official belief to be similar. Even so I have not seen this committed to writing definitively in the doctrines of any other Christian assemblies and certainly not in Methodism.

We should all agree to invite more Eucharistic miracles receiving His Real Presence within our own somewhat surreal human presence. I think that is a valid request from all of us.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Dear O. S. Luke:

I would suggest that you refer to the works of Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly a Protestant named Timothy Ware) for confirmation of the points I have made. He has written on many topics including the intercommunion of Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. The official teachings of the Orthodox Church do not sacramentally differ from the Catholic Church in significant manner other than what I stated (generally speaking) as related to the Real Presence or the Eucharistic miracle. But it isn’t hard to find a dissenting Orthodox “theologian” nor a similar Catholic one or even a Protestant one.

They are quite common. That is why for the sake of accuracy I refer to and use Canons and Church Law in these postings instead of the opinions of such (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox) theologians. Anything other than Canon, Patriarchal/Papal Bulls & Letters, or Catecismal teaching is subject to broad interpretation by all sides. Until it meets one of these catagories it is theoretical in nature even though it may be somewhat enlightening on some points. That is why I don’t use opinions of “Catholic Theologians” either.

For instance, Tertullian was one of the Church Fathers. Many primary doctrines of the Church (East and West) were gleaned from and based on his works and his participation in the Church. But, the Church only accepted some of his teachings…not all…because he died involved in a state of heresy. Not even the Church Fathers were immune from such bias.

What makes our understanding more mutual (and far less unique) for Catholic and Eastern Apsotolic Chirstians is that we all fully beleive that we are not making a “new or re-sacrifice” of Christ. Rather, we believe that Christ is made present (during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy/Mass) and the we re-present the action of Christ through the Holy Spirit and are, therefore, actually re-enterring Calvary of the past in the present moment (not merely in a symbolic way). To my knowledge no Protestant Church actually affirms this specific notion although I expect that the Anglican and Lutheran official belief to be similar. Even so I have not seen this committed to writing definitively in the doctrines of any other Christian assemblies and certainly not in Methodism.

We should all agree to invite more Eucharistic miracles receiving His Real Presence within our own somewhat surreal human presence. I think that is a valid request from all of us.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

Subject to the usual comments about Anglicans and what they believe, yes, that’s the usual position of the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice, at the hands of the alter Christus, as history and the eternal intersect on the altar.

GKC

 

[O.S.Luke]

I would suggest that you refer to the works of Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly a Protestant named Timothy Ware) for confirmation of the points I have made.

Well aware of Bishop Ware’s works. I would even quote him:

“Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts.” (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, pp. 283-284)

What makes our understanding more mutual (and far less unique) for Catholic and Eastern Apsotolic Chirstians is that we all fully beleive that we are not making a “new or re-sacrifice” of Christ. Rather, we believe that Christ is made present (during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy/Mass) and the we re-present the action of Christ through the Holy Spirit and are, therefore, actually re-enterring Calvary of the past in the present moment (not merely in a symbolic way). To my knowledge no Protestant Church actually affirms this specific notion although I expect that the Anglican and Lutheran official belief to be similar. Even so I have not seen this committed to writing definitively in the doctrines of any other Christian assemblies and certainly not in Methodism.

Eucharist is an eschatological event. And I would again quote This Holy Mystery, United Methodism’s official teaching and stance on the matter:

Holy Communion is remembrance, commemoration, and memorial, but this remembrance is much more than simply intellectual recalling. “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) is anamnesis (the biblical Greek word). This dynamic action becomes re-presentation of past gracious acts of God in the present, so powerfully as to make them truly present now. Christ is risen and is alive here and now, not just remembered for what was done in the past.

Holy Communion is a type of sacrifice. It is a re-presentation, not a repetition, of the sacrifice of Christ. Hebrews 9:26 makes clear that “he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Christ’s atoning life, death, and resurrection make divine grace available to us. We also present ourselves as sacrifice in union with Christ (Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:5) to be used by God in the work of redemption, reconciliation, and justice. In the Great Thanksgiving, the church prays: “We offer ourselves in praise and thanksgiving as a holy and living sacrifice, in union with Christ’s offering for us . . .” (Word and Table I, UMH; page 10). - from This Holy Mystery

O+

 

[lizaanne]

Ok - I’ll admit that I’ve not read every single post here, but I’m very confused.

Anglican & Lutheran Eucharistic miracles

How can you have a Eucharistic miracle when you have no Eucharist? There is only bread and wine at an Anglican or Lutheran service - that’s all. Jesus isn’t there, and he’s not going to be there.



~Liza

 

[O.S.Luke]

How can you have a Eucharistic miracle when you have no Eucharist? There is only bread and wine at an Anglican or Lutheran service - that’s all. ** Jesus isn’t there, and he’s not going to be there.**



~Liza

I guess we have nothing to talk about then, Liz. Pax vobiscum.

 

[veritashunter]

Well aware of Bishop Ware’s works. I would even quote him:

Eucharist is an eschatological event. And I would again quote This Holy Mystery, United Methodism’s official teaching and stance on the matter:

O+

Again…the terminology is different which I agreed with…but the action of changing the bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ prior to reception still stands as being an absolutely common belief between Catholics and Orthodox.

The differences Ware refers to do not change the reality of the Sacrament nor the action of the moment which is consistent with Orthodox Eucharistic theology.

Second, I am glad to now see that Methodism does affirm the re-entry to Calvary. Many Methodists that I have spoken to in the past have not been so informed or disposed to that thinking. More of those pocket theologians I guess. Every denomination has them.

Thank you for the post.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[GKC]

Ok - I’ll admit that I’ve not read every single post here, but I’m very confused.

How can you have a Eucharistic miracle when you have no Eucharist? There is only bread and wine at an Anglican or Lutheran service - that’s all. Jesus isn’t there, and he’s not going to be there.



~Liza

You did come late to the party.

GKC

 

[O.S.Luke]

Veritas:

More of Bishop Ware’s quote, emphases mine:

As the words of the Epiclesis make abundantly plain, the Orthodox Church believes that after the consecration the bread and wine become in very truth the Body and Blood of Christ: they are not mere symbols, but the reality. But while Orthodoxy has always insisted on the REALITY of the change, it has never attempted to explain the MANNER of the change: the Eucharistic Prayer in the Liturgy simply uses the neutral term metaballo, to ‘turn about’, to ‘change’, to ‘alter’.

It is true that in the seventeenth century not only individual Orthodox writers, but Orthodox councils such as that of Jerusalem in 1672, made use of the Latin term ‘transubstantiation’ (in Greek, metousiosis), together with the Scholastic distinction between substance and accidents. But at the same time the Fathers of Jerusalem were careful to add that the use of these terms does not constitute an explanation of the manner of the change, since this is a mystery and must always remain incomprehensible.

Yet despite this disclaimer, many Orthodox felt that Jerusalem had committed itself too unreservedly to the terminology of Latin Scholasticism, and it is significant that when in 1838 the Russian Church issued a translation of the Acts of Jerusalem, while retaining the word transubstantiation, it carefully paraphrased the rest of the passage in such a way that the technical terms substance and accidents were not employed.

Today a few Orthodox writers still use the word transubstantiation, but they insist on two points: first, there are many other words which can with equal legitimacy be used to describe the consecration, and, among them all, the term transubstantiation enjoys no unique or decisive authority; secondly, its use does not commit theologians to the acceptance of Aristotelian philosophical concepts." (ibid, pp. 283-284)

I think we’re making the same point.

The epiclesis from the UMC’s eucharistic liturgy:

Pout out your Holy Spirit on us
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the Body and Blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the Body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.

O+

 

[veritashunter]

What an intriguing series of posts, indeed one of the best I have seen on CAF. Here you are linking the doctrines of the incarnation and the Eucharist. What precedent is there for the idea you express above? Was it so stated at Chalcedon, or was this a later inference, and if so, by whom?

I maintain, btw, that Christ is really, truly and fully present in the Eucharist, and that one cannot separate His divine nature from His human nature, so if He is there, He is fully there. But He is also everywhere, I call this the problem of the presence.
I lean towards the statement that transubstantiation is an inadequate description of what happens, not because it is false, but because what really happens is beyond human comprehension or description.

The linking of the 2 implicitly (if not explicitly) was at the Council of Trent within its definitions and explanation of transubstantiation. It affirmed the previous teachings of the Church. Please permit me to attempt an explanation.

Nestorianism denied the 2 natures of Christ…divine and human in co-existence within the single person of Jesus Christ (one not opposing the other). The Council affirmed that Christ had 2 natures but one person.

In the same way the Eucharist is both the divine nature of God in and through the human Jesus as his body, blood, soul, and divinity (thus the specific language in Eucharistic definitions). Nestorianism denied this truth which is why it is often associated with thinking related to consubstantiation which means “with substance” while transubstantiation means “through or within substance”. One points to God standing along side and around the bread and wine while the other points to God within and through the bread and wine. Understand that those are very simplistic definitions at best…but useful for this discussion.

Nestorianism denied the dual and ever present reality of Christ in the flesh “after” the incarnation. We, as apotolic Christians, belive and teach that “after” the consecration the bread and the wine are the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ Jesus in our presence. We also state that we re-enter the moment of his all loving sacrifice at Calvary in that moment where he truly exists as body, blood, soul, and divinity incarnate (just as in the Eucharist).

Since we know that the Council affirmed that Jesus Christ had 2 natures in one person “after” the incarnation then both Jeusu on the Cross and Jesus in the Eucharist are the same. They co-exist one within the other.

The Council stated that after the incarnation and to all eternity the distinction of the nature continues without confusion or conversion and without separation or division so that the divine will remains forever divine and yet the 2 continue in common life and interpenetrate one another (in all aspects).

So, “after” the moment of consecration and “before” reception of the Eucharist both Jesus the Christ, human and divine, exist in the present reality of Calvary as we are present there and in the literal flesh of the bread and blood of the wine. Anything less than that (regardless of terminology used) is a denial of truth. It would imply the same logic as did the Nestorians. It would attempt to separate “the Christ” from “the Jesus” and “the Divine spiritual nature” from the “material reality of the bread and wine”.

If this isn’t true then Protestants, Cathoilics, and Orthodox all have a very big problem with fulfilling the command the “you must eat my body and drink my blood or there shall be no life in you”.

If you read the Council of Trent you will find references to this regarding the previous Council(s) and the nature of Christ Jesus.

I hope this helps. It is hard for me to put this into words…it’s to big to get your arms around…and even worse for my small mind. I wish I was better with words.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

*I tried to post this earlier. I apologize if itis duplicated.

 

[veritashunter]

Dear O. S. Luke:

Phago means to knaw and chew like a goat…to masticate. So he meant that we eat his literal flesh…somehow.

To all:

Sorry about the word inversion in this note…I meant to use the word “Trago”. Trago means to chew or masticate…it also means a he-goat (tragos).

I apologize for the mistake. It is only one of many in life.

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[O.S.Luke]

My Greek grows rustier by the day… thanks for being forthright enough to post a correction. I gave you the benefit of the doubt - been 19 years since my Greek class in seminary.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

Veritas:

More of Bishop Ware’s quote, emphases mine:

I think we’re making the same point.

The epiclesis from the UMC’s eucharistic liturgy:

Pout out your Holy Spirit on us
and on these gifts of bread and wine.
Make them be for us the Body and Blood of Christ,
that we may be for the world the Body of Christ,
redeemed by his blood.

O+

I haven’t been able to completely pin you down on the issue. Do Methodists believe that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine and stay the Body and Blood?

If this isn’t what you believe, why do you say you believe as the Orthodox on the Eucharist as you have said in the past? Other Methodist ministers have professed a type of “consubstantiation” as you yourself have lent the opinion of. Just reaching for understanding.

Al-Masih Qam!

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Steadfast]

The Eucharist is itself a miracle, that in bread and wine Christ comes to us is miraculous.

It is the Gospel in edible form.

 

[veritashunter]

I haven’t been able to completely pin you down on the issue. Do Methodists believe that the bread and wine cease being bread and wine and stay the Body and Blood?

If this isn’t what you believe, why do you say you believe as the Orthodox on the Eucharist as you have said in the past? Other Methodist ministers have professed a type of “consubstantiation” as you yourself have lent the opinion of. Just reaching for understanding.

Al-Masih Qam!

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

Dear Andrew:

Just wanted to answer you “Haqqan qam!”

“Ya Ruburham wa Allahmahk”.

I meant to say: Truly, He is risen! Lord have mercy and God be with you."

I am trying to learn Arabic (self taught). So, if I am a poor student it is because I have an even worse teacher. Ha Ha

God bless you, brother!

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

 

[Harpazo]

Dear Andrew:

Just wanted to answer you “Haqqan qam!”

“Ya Ruburham wa Allahmahk”.

I meant to say: Truly, He is risen! Lord have mercy and God be with you."

I am trying to learn Arabic (self taught). So, if I am a poor student it is because I have an even worse teacher. Ha Ha

God bless you, brother!

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter

Hahaha thanks. I’m getting ready to start learning it myself. I attend a Maronite parish and my pastor is fluent in Arabic. There are also a ton of native speakers there as well.

God bless!

Al-Masih qam!
Andrew

 

[veritashunter]

Hahaha thanks. I’m getting ready to start learning it myself. I attend a Maronite parish and my pastor is fluent in Arabic. There are also a ton of native speakers there as well.

God bless!

Al-Masih qam!
Andrew

Dear Andrew:

Where is your parish located? We have a wonderful Maronite community in Akron (Our Lady of the Cedars Parish) and one in Cleveland as well. The one in Cleveland has a great Arabic bakery next door! Always an added bonus for weekly devotions!

Yours in Christ,

Veritashunter