po18guy
Well-known member
Propelled by the ego, and facilitated by the private interpretation of scripture, there are innumerable alternatives.
- Status
D
DENNYINMI
Guest
One of the biggest misunderstandings’ of the word “remembrance” itself, is that first century Jews did more than “remember”…that is…put their heads down and think about it…they ENTERED INTO IT…
They set the table!!!
{Passover had to be eaten}…
po18guy
Well-known member
Paul, a devout Pharisee prior to his conversion, wrote as much in 1 Corinthians 10:16: “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”
Yes, it was and is so much more than the modern reductionist concept of simply calling a past event to mind. Yet, passing spirits wait to lead even the elect astray, if that were possible…
W
wiggbuggie
Guest
the OT mentions that God is going to make a new covenant and Jesus even said the new covenant is the institution of his blood and body
po18guy
Well-known member
The problem is that we are arguing against the private interpretation of scripture.
That, and seven less books of scripture, and a complete lack of Apostolic Tradition, and…and…and…
I
isaiah_m
Guest
Merry Christmas everyone. May the truth of the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ fill you with his truth and the grace of belief in all He said, did, and commanded us to do and believe for all time.
Pan Dulce,
I have read your responses and get one main theme, your private interpretation of the Bible is the most important point regarding the Bible. Many people have this same feeling. For this reason there are about 33,000 denominations (excluding individual “churches”) throughout the world. A dominant theme of these churches is based on “personal interpretation” of a human, often based on a protest against the beliefs of another religion. A common claim of many of these is being the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ. If someone is not interested in belonging to the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ, why join a church? What is the point of being a Christian if you are not going to be part of the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ. As Jesus said to Thomas in the upper room, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”. Here Jeus Himself says to believe without proof. This is the point of Faith. This faith is the foundation of religion. Where does one place their faith? In the opinion of a human? Who is the human who can be trusted?
The only one who can be trusted is Jesus Christ. Throughout all history, God has appointed someone to be his representative. This person, with the help of God, appointed his successor.
This same process was started in the New Testament by Jesus Christ when He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (Mt 16:17-19). It has continued from that time, with God’s guidance, to the present day. The early Christian leaders had people who wanted to personally interpret the life and teachings of Jesus Christ for their own personal purposes. The Christian leadership of the “One True Church” defended the Truth (Jesus Christ) from all attacks. The same is done today.
I am sure truth is your objective. You may research this in the appropriate sources to show you the truth. I t appears to me you only trust the sources you choose to trust, so there are many good search engines you can use. Be sure to check original Christian sources as well as dissenting sources to weigh which is true. May the true Holy Spirit guide in your search.
May you receive the true peace of Christ
Pan Dulce,
I have read your responses and get one main theme, your private interpretation of the Bible is the most important point regarding the Bible. Many people have this same feeling. For this reason there are about 33,000 denominations (excluding individual “churches”) throughout the world. A dominant theme of these churches is based on “personal interpretation” of a human, often based on a protest against the beliefs of another religion. A common claim of many of these is being the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ. If someone is not interested in belonging to the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ, why join a church? What is the point of being a Christian if you are not going to be part of the “One True Church” founded by Jesus Christ. As Jesus said to Thomas in the upper room, “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe”. Here Jeus Himself says to believe without proof. This is the point of Faith. This faith is the foundation of religion. Where does one place their faith? In the opinion of a human? Who is the human who can be trusted?
The only one who can be trusted is Jesus Christ. Throughout all history, God has appointed someone to be his representative. This person, with the help of God, appointed his successor.
This same process was started in the New Testament by Jesus Christ when He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter (Mt 16:17-19). It has continued from that time, with God’s guidance, to the present day. The early Christian leaders had people who wanted to personally interpret the life and teachings of Jesus Christ for their own personal purposes. The Christian leadership of the “One True Church” defended the Truth (Jesus Christ) from all attacks. The same is done today.
I am sure truth is your objective. You may research this in the appropriate sources to show you the truth. I t appears to me you only trust the sources you choose to trust, so there are many good search engines you can use. Be sure to check original Christian sources as well as dissenting sources to weigh which is true. May the true Holy Spirit guide in your search.
May you receive the true peace of Christ
P
Pan_Dulce
Guest
isaiah m,
I think that these denominations we have in this world are the devils plan of divide and conquer. You may feel that this field of denominations is exclusive of the Catholic church. I don’t want to offend anyone but one group that believes a set of doctrines is no different than another.
Your premise assumes that the Catholic church is the “One True Church.” All these other groups don’t share that belief. An understanding of a concept is a true understanding of that concept. If a group interprets a concept, the truth then is left to a vote or a consensus. That is not necessarily the truth.
I can personally study any subject and master it if I like, especially individually, because I don’t have to limit my studies to a particular line of thought. I can investigate several and, with the additional perspective, have a better understanding of the subject.
I do trust who and what I choose to trust because not all sources are trustworthy. If I held the belief as you do that God has appointed his representative, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. A good percentage of Catholics became such because it was forced on their ancestors and has become part of their culture. If one were to choose Catholicism based on its merits only, there would likely be fewer Catholics.
I am sure you are convinced that Peter was given the keys to Heaven as the Church teaches but that is an interpretation that is not universally accepted because there is too much wiggle room in what Jesus says to Him. If you study the context, you can find more plausible explanations.
The keys are symbolic of the knowledge to enter the kingdom of Heaven and that whatever you bind or loose will be in agreement with God. To paraphrase, Whatever you bind (or loose) will be, having been bound (or loosed) in Heaven. The only authority Peter has is the same that you or I have - to be in agreement with God.
Consider also:
Peter was married.
Paul openly oppose Peter.
Peter did not preside over the church council. (Acts 15:6-30)
Peter referred to himself as a fellow elder not the one in charge.
Peter was sent by others to go to various place.
Paul was the hardest worker.
When the others were arguing over who was the greatest no one understood it to be Peter.
Further, Matthew 16:18 has Jesus addressing Peter (the little rock petros) and then referring to Himself, Jesus says, “on this rock (petras), I will build my assembly.” The petras is a huge rock. He was contrasting the two rocks. The little Peter rock and the Huge Christ rock. The reason Jesus would say, You are Peter (the little rock) is because Peter had just said, “You are the Christ.”
You probably know all this and more but because the church doesn’t teach this, then it can’t be true. Finally, I find it circular reasoning that the Catholic church, which doesn’t limit its authority to the Bible, gets this authority from the Bible.
I appreciate the kind and sensitive way you commented and I assure you that my sentiments are reciprocal.
I think that these denominations we have in this world are the devils plan of divide and conquer. You may feel that this field of denominations is exclusive of the Catholic church. I don’t want to offend anyone but one group that believes a set of doctrines is no different than another.
Your premise assumes that the Catholic church is the “One True Church.” All these other groups don’t share that belief. An understanding of a concept is a true understanding of that concept. If a group interprets a concept, the truth then is left to a vote or a consensus. That is not necessarily the truth.
I can personally study any subject and master it if I like, especially individually, because I don’t have to limit my studies to a particular line of thought. I can investigate several and, with the additional perspective, have a better understanding of the subject.
I do trust who and what I choose to trust because not all sources are trustworthy. If I held the belief as you do that God has appointed his representative, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. A good percentage of Catholics became such because it was forced on their ancestors and has become part of their culture. If one were to choose Catholicism based on its merits only, there would likely be fewer Catholics.
I am sure you are convinced that Peter was given the keys to Heaven as the Church teaches but that is an interpretation that is not universally accepted because there is too much wiggle room in what Jesus says to Him. If you study the context, you can find more plausible explanations.
The keys are symbolic of the knowledge to enter the kingdom of Heaven and that whatever you bind or loose will be in agreement with God. To paraphrase, Whatever you bind (or loose) will be, having been bound (or loosed) in Heaven. The only authority Peter has is the same that you or I have - to be in agreement with God.
Consider also:
Peter was married.
Paul openly oppose Peter.
Peter did not preside over the church council. (Acts 15:6-30)
Peter referred to himself as a fellow elder not the one in charge.
Peter was sent by others to go to various place.
Paul was the hardest worker.
When the others were arguing over who was the greatest no one understood it to be Peter.
Further, Matthew 16:18 has Jesus addressing Peter (the little rock petros) and then referring to Himself, Jesus says, “on this rock (petras), I will build my assembly.” The petras is a huge rock. He was contrasting the two rocks. The little Peter rock and the Huge Christ rock. The reason Jesus would say, You are Peter (the little rock) is because Peter had just said, “You are the Christ.”
You probably know all this and more but because the church doesn’t teach this, then it can’t be true. Finally, I find it circular reasoning that the Catholic church, which doesn’t limit its authority to the Bible, gets this authority from the Bible.
I appreciate the kind and sensitive way you commented and I assure you that my sentiments are reciprocal.
M
mo3
Guest
This is not a correct understanding. The Catholic Church does not get any authority from the Bible but from Jesus Christ. The Bible, which was compiled by the Catholic Church, is a supportive document to show Jesus Christ gave the authority to the Church.
God bless.
M
mo3
Guest
This does not make sense. Nobody has the “authority” to be in agreement with God. We can choose to be in agreement with God but it has nothing to do with authority.
God bless.
po18guy
Well-known member
If you want to begin a thread on Peter’s primacy, then please do so. This thread needs to remain on track.
po18guy
Well-known member
Most of the prominent verses in support of the real presence, including Jesus’ plain speech, have long since been provided. Accepting them as evidence is a matter of whether one submits to the interpretive authority of the Church, or strikes out on one’s own on a quest for individual truth. Those who seek individual truth (by the leading of the ego) should then not have a problem with truth that is arrived at by any other means, such as recognizing authority in the form of the Church - especially when that authority is specifically enumerated by Christ.
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
There is another scriptural basis for the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist that has not been mentioned yet in this thread - something that goes beyond a one-liner type reference.
If you look at things from the point of view that Christ was instituting the Eucharist in exactly the way the church says, then a whole bunch of things make sense that I can not make sense of any other way.
Why did they record the Wedding at Cana? With the Eucharist, we can understand that Jesus is showing us his ability to multiple the wine to as many people as he wants - and what he enables priests to do at mass per his instructions.
Why did they record the multiplication of the loaves and fishes? Jesus is showing us his ability to multiple the bread to as many people as he needs. Scripture clearly says that the apostles did not fully appreciate the meaning of this until later. The setting up of the Eucharist is all through the scripture. But you can’t see it if you start out by denying it.
What I can’t accept (if the Catholic interpretation is wrong) is that if God can provide food and drink for all of the starving people, then why doesn’t he do it? But if the church is right, then with the Eucharist, we know that God wants to feed us himself. That is the life we need. We will all die without his spirit even if we have mere bread and wine.
If you look at things from the point of view that Christ was instituting the Eucharist in exactly the way the church says, then a whole bunch of things make sense that I can not make sense of any other way.
Why did they record the Wedding at Cana? With the Eucharist, we can understand that Jesus is showing us his ability to multiple the wine to as many people as he wants - and what he enables priests to do at mass per his instructions.
Why did they record the multiplication of the loaves and fishes? Jesus is showing us his ability to multiple the bread to as many people as he needs. Scripture clearly says that the apostles did not fully appreciate the meaning of this until later. The setting up of the Eucharist is all through the scripture. But you can’t see it if you start out by denying it.
What I can’t accept (if the Catholic interpretation is wrong) is that if God can provide food and drink for all of the starving people, then why doesn’t he do it? But if the church is right, then with the Eucharist, we know that God wants to feed us himself. That is the life we need. We will all die without his spirit even if we have mere bread and wine.
S
Sojo79
Guest
Does anyone know where I can find this? Preferably free, online?
P
Phyllo
Guest
I, too, would be interested in reading this. I checked the net but couldn’t find anything. Maybe I asked the wrong questions.
B
Black_Knight
Guest
You can find them here. The Eucharist IS Scriptural
T
Tous_Logous
Guest
Real Presence Verses: See John 6: 31-40; John 6:51-56; Luke 22: 19-20; 1 Corinthians 5: 7; 1 Corinthians 10: 14-17; 1 Corinthians 11: 23-29; 1 Corinthians 11: 20-22; Acts 2: 42.
S
Sojo79
Guest
Thanks. I am familiar with the Scripture references as I have studied a great deal on this subject, but I was looking specifically for Des Mahis- the protestant turned catholic. I am in need of some extra-biblical writings to help me.
I
irenetoews
Guest
In the Bread of Life discourse in John 6 Jesus explained to all that Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day* After this discourse *As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. *
At no point did Jesus say to his disciples, “Hey Folks, come on back, I was just talking about a symbol, a metaphor”
If He had meant this action as a symbol He would have said so as he did with many other of His sayings.
At no point did Jesus say to his disciples, “Hey Folks, come on back, I was just talking about a symbol, a metaphor”
If He had meant this action as a symbol He would have said so as he did with many other of His sayings.
C
Ctruth7
Guest
Hi All, I am new, so new that I thought the topic was an article and I wanted to read it.
I have read a few posts here. Perhaps what I have to say has been said, but here goes.
I believe Jesus said that one of the reasons he healed and produced other supernatural events (“miracles”) was to support His claim as being One with the Father (or something roughly like that.)
He also worked over 40 miracles (maybe 47?, I forget). My point is, that the Vatican published a book “The Eucharistic Miracles of the World”. I loved reading over 100 supernatural events regarding the Eucharist and they occurred long after the Cross.
In various combinations the bread and wine were witnessed as flesh and blood sometimes by an entire congregation. One scientific study of the materials remaining from about 900AD
showed the flesh to be human cardiac tissue. (Lanciano, Italy). You can read many if not most of these on line at www.therealpresence.org.
For me, any debate about the presence of our Savior in the Eucharist is sealed by these events in addition to scripture.
Thanks for reading this.
Bob (Ctruth7)
I have read a few posts here. Perhaps what I have to say has been said, but here goes.
I believe Jesus said that one of the reasons he healed and produced other supernatural events (“miracles”) was to support His claim as being One with the Father (or something roughly like that.)
He also worked over 40 miracles (maybe 47?, I forget). My point is, that the Vatican published a book “The Eucharistic Miracles of the World”. I loved reading over 100 supernatural events regarding the Eucharist and they occurred long after the Cross.
In various combinations the bread and wine were witnessed as flesh and blood sometimes by an entire congregation. One scientific study of the materials remaining from about 900AD
showed the flesh to be human cardiac tissue. (Lanciano, Italy). You can read many if not most of these on line at www.therealpresence.org.
For me, any debate about the presence of our Savior in the Eucharist is sealed by these events in addition to scripture.
Thanks for reading this.
Bob (Ctruth7)
- Status