This may be true (makes sense, given the size of Corinth), but please take another look at the Scripture passage:
It appears they shared the Lord’s Supper as a single group at least some of the time. So Paul’s statement that they don’t have the Lord’s Supper on account of divisions would apply to all of them as well, wouldn’t it?
I would understand this to mean that the abuses are of the sort that cause the Consecration to be actually invalid. (And if there can be such a thing as an invalid Eucharist, then there has to be such a thing as a valid Eucharist, as well.)
I’m gonna need your help on this. Post 267 was quite largehi deacon 110 how do you fit post 267 in with the Lord’s prayer “forgive one another…” ?
What do you mean exactly??I’m not as familiar with Eusebius as I probably should be, but even so, I don’t think he held to a “symbolic Eucharist” idea, even if his ideas weren’t in complete conformity with the philosophy behind Transubstantiation.
It relates to the point in that it speaks to one’s concept of authority.
He could have done that, sure. But it is very fitting that He chose also to protect Mary from sin, as well.
St. Peter was protected. (Matthew 16:18-19) And St. Peter’s successors are protected. (Isaiah 22:22)
The children of Fatima were given a vision of Hell, and they said that the souls were falling into Hell so thick and fast, it was like the snowflakes in a November blizzard. That was in 1917; I’m sure it’s much worse than that, now.
No Christ is. I’m quoting HIM.Are you saying that Christ’s flesh is of no help?
To preach and fulfill the new covenant which was HIS blood on the Cross. Otherwise how would it have been fulfilled?? Now that Jesus has passed from this life we have HIS Spirit. The Holy Spirit specifically. This is what Jesus promised and as he states it is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh means nothing. The sacrifice is over.
Answered above. The cross completed HIS work in the flesh. Now it is the Spirit that gives us life. Again Jesus words on the CrossAnd how would His death on the cross for our sins been of any effect, then?
Start reading Scott Hahn’s books - he explains it way better than I can.
Why was the doctrine of transubstantiation not created until 1215?
Please re-read what Jesus said. Jesus said this cup is the new covenant in my blood. The covenant is in HIS blood. The cup represents the covenant and likewise the bread represents the body. Then Jesus said do this in remembrance (anamnesis) of me.
Again it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh means nothing. They saw the confirmation of how to express their belief. The Lord’s Supper is an outward expression of our belief IN Jesus. The only other way we do this is Baptism. But that is a one time event. The Lord’s Supper is meant to be repeated. As Jesus states: as often as you drink from this cup… This is pure spiritual nourishment for us. Why? Because it is the spirit that gives life, the flesh means nothing.
Again we’re not drinking HIS blood. This is expressly forbidden in Leviticus 17.
The blood is not in the chalice. The blood is in the covenant. The cup represents the covenant. Jesus didn’t say “this cup of my blood”. He said this cup is the covenant, in my blood.
Again I refer you to what Jesus spoke in this famous meal. Do this is in anamnesis (remembrance) of me.
But I still Love and Pray for you.Catholic Church and Early Church Fathers respectfully disagree with your interpretation. But for the first time I have an inking of how this passage could be misunderstood.
Why die on the Cross?
he was addressing Peter in Matthew 16:18, the quote to which you are referring.
Which Church? What’s a sin in my Church may not be a sin in yours. (Birth control, remarriage after divorce, etc.)
That includes Teaching with Authority.
How do you get Rock=God, when it plainly says, You are Peter (Petros), and on this Rock I will build my Church. You are ROCK and on the ROCK I will build my Church. The French name for Peter is Pierre=Rock. Pierre is also the word for stone. Coincidence?
It’s a secret between Him and the Apostles
See below:We don’t know it all, but certainly the CHURCH (not the POPE) contains the deposit from the Apostles, which is why CC has more Teachings than Protestants.
The Catholic Church agrees with you that Christian Theology should be based on Apostolic Teachings. She hold true both Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Teachings.
But you stood corrected. How else would you like me to say it then??
This is not talking about just animals. We are not to drink the blood of any living thing. Humans included.
You are implying GOD’s blood is a physical blood. Again the flesh means nothing. It is the spirit. GOD’s blood must then be spiritual.The OT prohibition against blood teaches us what the blood is, and prepares us to understand what it means to us when we are commanded to drink God’s blood.
No. I “stand corrected” when I’ve changed my mind and decided to agree with you. That’s my decision to make; not yours.
You should say, “I think that’s incorrect,” or “that doesn’t fit with the facts as I see them,” or something like that.
Not all church Fathers. Incorrect statement. Now when you say misunderstood please explain that.
The one time sacrifice. Why ask me ask GOD
No look again please at Matthew 18:15. He’s addressing a bunch of HIS disciples at this point speaking if your brother sins against you. Jesus prescribes 4 courses of action:
Re-marriage is not a sin. If infidelity is involved then Biblilcally Jesus tells us we can divorce. The others, who knows.
Deuteronomy 32: 4 & 15
Sorry I don’t believe this. No offense really.It’s a secret between Him and the Apostles
We don’t know it all, but certainly the CHURCH (not the POPE) contains the deposit from the Apostles, which is why CC has more Teachings than Protestants.
Ok.The Catholic Church agrees with you that Christian Theology should be based on Apostolic Teachings. She hold true both Apostolic Succession and Apostolic Teachings.
It wasn’t defined until then. In any case, it is the Real Presence that is the doctrine, not Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the philosophical explanation of the Real Presence.
Yes, that’s why we have to consume it.
When the Jews did the anamnesis (remembrance) of the Passover, they had to sacrifice and eat the lambs; they couldn’t make a symbol of the lamb and eat that instead.
Yes, it is, by means of Transubstantiation. The same way that the Jews ate the real sacrifice of the Passover; not a symbol or substitute of it.
According to Scott Hahn, He was referring here to the Passover. The Passover is finished, and has now been replaced by His Sacrifice on the Cross.
This is a question I could find no reasonable answer for. That’s one reason why my heart is becoming Catholic!
Yes he believed it was symbolic. Do some research on it.
GOD says to honor my father and mother. He doesn’t say your mother and father have absolute authority. If my mother makes a request to me I certainly wouldn’t deny her. But if she commands me to do something that I know is flat out wrong, I have a responsibility to communicate that to her. I wouldn’t consider it dis-honoring my mother if I believe she is wrong in a situation. Following blind authority is what satan wants. That way he can mask it and lead us to hell.
In your opinion. I think it’s more fitting that GOD used a simple sinful woman to accomplish such a great task. Look at all the great heroes of the Bible. They are the least expected to be great. Moses, David, Gideon, Peter etc. etc. All with terrible flaws. But that’s the greatness of GOD. It doesn’t take someone special to do GOD’s work. But you are very special when you do GOD’s work. You are blessed as Jesus says.
I love this argument. The Assyrians are ready to tumble the walls down, GOD strips authority and transfers it. Suddenly this is a premonition to the Pope. When did David’s house become the Kingdom of Heaven?? Christ came from this house here on earth.
Did you ever read the severe political connotation of that image?? Enough said.
Ahh ok then. I didn’t mean it offensive. If you said to me you stand corrected and then showed me where I errored then I would in fact stand corrected. I thought I made a correction on a Biblical verse you quoted. Anyway forgive me
If the flesh of Christ is of no avail, then nothing significant happened on the Cross.The one time sacrifice. Why ask me ask GOD
You say that like it’s an established fact, yet up until at least 1965 and possibly even for a short time after that, not only every observant Catholic, but every human being on planet earth who claimed to believe in any sort of deity whatsoever, and had some sort of at least reasonably consistent devotion to it/him/her/them disagreed with that idea; the only people who thought divorce and remarriage were okay were Marxist Communists, anarchists, and the free-love people. (Hippies, I think they were called, at the time.)
When Mary said, Ecce ancilla Domini; fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum.
Deo Gratias!! :extrahappy: