G
- Status
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I think clarification is needed here; The Eucharist is for the already baptised believers, not just anyone can discern the true body and blood of Jesus Christ as seen on these threads for those who have difficulty with the word Transubstantiation.
One has to come to the knowledge of the Eucharist less he/she brings judgment upon themself.
Other than that, all are welcomed to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God. BUT you have to be wearing the wedding garment first (baptism) in order to sit at the table of the Lord, for without the wedding garment, you will be thrown out according to the Lord Jesus himself. That is why the Catholic church takes great care in teaching, explaining, describing (transubstantiation) for the believer to announce the profession of faith in the “Amen” since the beginning of the first century Catholic church.
Here what Paul states to the Corinthian church about not discerning the body, blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Corinthians 10:16
**The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? **
1 Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
**27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. **12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
**For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself. **
T
TomaszA
Guest
Peace Emerald,
Even if you invited me, I would not partake in your “Eucharist.”
St Paul said if two brothers are not in agreement, they are not to approach the Lord’s table. We are in disagreement, my friend.
I don’t want to be part of a congregation that has no respect for the Eucharist and Revealed Truth.
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
“Sounds” like you think we are “inferior.” Why don’t you just “say” that? It would be a little more honest.
Neither would I. That doesn’t mean that mine doesn’t have that respect.
S
SIA
Guest
and you wonder why some folks feel the way they do toward Catholics.
T
TomaszA
Guest
Sorry folks, but those who are willfully outside of the Catholic Church have no right to the Eucharist. If anyone is eager to consume the Heavenly Manna, then become Catholic and approach the altar prepared and with a proper disposition to receive Him.
C
CWBetts
Guest
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I didn’t know that anyone had a right, much less deserved, the Eucharist. We’re not even worthy to pick up the crumbs under the table.
The Eucharist is a gift, not a right.
T
TomaszA
Guest
I apologize if I didn’t show charity in my responses.
But the Church is not mistaken in prohibiting those willfully outside of the Church from receiving the Eucharist.
But the Church is not mistaken in prohibiting those willfully outside of the Church from receiving the Eucharist.
S
steve_b
Guest
Jesus taught that part of the faith is to remain ONE. Division from HIS Church is not the faith…Unity and remaining united requires obedience to this faith. Paul speaks of this obedience in his opening and closing remarks in his letter to the Church of Rome.
Rm 16:
17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.
People who divide from the Church aren’t serving Our Lord but their own self interests. (Not my words but Paul’s.)
Paul has to warn people multiple times that division is condemned.
consequence for one who divides & remains divided?
Gal 5:
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God
I don’t know why you left. But you can see, dissent and division is a serious sin. (again, not my opinion but Paul’s) I pray you do what you can to reconcile with the Church, come home, and not remain divided. Just being transparent, I personally would NOT want to hear those words that Paul wrote above, spoken to me after I died. I say that to you in all charity.
H
hmgs1
Guest
The rub, of course, is whether the RCC interpretation of scripture is correct. Did Christ actually ordain a single unitary church, or a single universal church where the sum of its parts is much stronger than the total of each separately (e pluribus unum)? Did the RCC by its refusal to consider Luther’s reforms lose the grace of heaven and its status as God’s True Church? Are some evangelicals correct when they say that those who have not been Baptized by immersion (as was Christ) cannot be considered either Baptized or truly Christian? Paul warned of dissent, but only that which is “contrary to the way you have learned.” Are other forms of dissent therefore possible?
I personally don’t know, but I think if you are honest, what you believe on such issues is ultimately a matter of faith. The greatest minds on the subject cannot agree whether these and many other passages are literal, figurative, poetic or something else. Indeed, I have actually seen a fascinating discussion between credentialed Jewish scholars with a deep background in Aramaic who cannot fully agree whether it was possible to say “This is my body” in that language.
And maybe such mysteries are deliberate to force all Christians to search, learn from each other and dwell on the truly important. And in that respect would God judge what the elements actually become (or not) the most important aspect of the Eucharist?
I really don’t have a notarized by the Archangel Gabriel affidavit from the Almighty informing me of his opinion on this, but my faith would lead me to suspect he isn’t that concerned about it, given His omnipotent presence allows him to be any or all the miracles the elements might be. My faith would suspect He is more concerned about insuring the intimate fusion of God and mortal thru Communion. This bickering on the nature of the elements is likely a human problem only, one the Almighty probably has a good chuckle over from time to time.
And maybe that might be an alternative way to look at the question. While my tradition believes the elements to hold the Real Presence of God spiritually, ultimately, how much does God care and is there something far more important we should concern ourselves with?
I personally don’t know, but I think if you are honest, what you believe on such issues is ultimately a matter of faith. The greatest minds on the subject cannot agree whether these and many other passages are literal, figurative, poetic or something else. Indeed, I have actually seen a fascinating discussion between credentialed Jewish scholars with a deep background in Aramaic who cannot fully agree whether it was possible to say “This is my body” in that language.
And maybe such mysteries are deliberate to force all Christians to search, learn from each other and dwell on the truly important. And in that respect would God judge what the elements actually become (or not) the most important aspect of the Eucharist?
I really don’t have a notarized by the Archangel Gabriel affidavit from the Almighty informing me of his opinion on this, but my faith would lead me to suspect he isn’t that concerned about it, given His omnipotent presence allows him to be any or all the miracles the elements might be. My faith would suspect He is more concerned about insuring the intimate fusion of God and mortal thru Communion. This bickering on the nature of the elements is likely a human problem only, one the Almighty probably has a good chuckle over from time to time.
And maybe that might be an alternative way to look at the question. While my tradition believes the elements to hold the Real Presence of God spiritually, ultimately, how much does God care and is there something far more important we should concern ourselves with?
S
steve_b
Guest
Good morning Colonel
Welcome to CA.
What you’ve said has certainly been offered before in different formats on the forum. Here are my observations.
As a high ranking retired officer in the Army, could you go to the commander and chief of the armed forces and
- question his authority
- leave his orders up to YOUR interpretation whether you obey them or not
- Go AWOL, act insubordinate, or dessert just because you disagree with the old man, or that only you have the right answer
- would you accept this behavior from anyone under you
Re: the Centurion and Jesus,
6and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, fearfully tormented.”
7Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”
8But the centurion said, “Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9"For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, ‘Go!’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come!’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this!’ and he does it.” 10Now whenJesus heard this, He marveled and saidto those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel. [Mt 8:5-10]
Jesus established 1 Church. He put Peter as the head. And He obviously loves obedience to command. This is the faith. This is the chain of command to follow. Jesus expects obedience to what He established. And He shows His followers, a man of great faith, AND obedience of faith
What’s interesting about this centurion, he recognizes Jesus is ALSO a man under authority. Jesus tells us who it is that He is perfectly obedient to and speaks for …
( emphasis mine)
"I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. [Jn 5:19]
I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50 I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."[Jn 12:49-50]
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work [Jn 14:10]
the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me [Jn 14:31]
As I quoted in an earlier post, from Paul to the Church of Rome, those who divide don’t serve Our Lord but their own self interests. [Rm 16:17…]
But notice also what he says for those who don’t divide and remain united to the Church.
Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. [Rom 16:19]
i.e. unity is good, division is evil
Those who divide and remain divided will not inherit the kingdom of God [Gal 5:19-21]
I would just add
but is now disclosed and through the prophetic writings is made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith [Rm 16:26]
The enemy’s job is to divide and cause disobedience to faith. That’s how HE takes souls.
H
hmgs1
Guest
Well, I personally exercise extreme care when comparing faith to secular institutions, lest the Holy See be described as a dictatorship as well as a proper military command structure.
I believe neither!!!
But since you ask, yes, there are times. Marshal Grouchy followed Napoleon’s orders to the letter and thus doomed the French at Waterloo. Marshal Davout deliberately disobeyed Napoleon’s orders and thus insured victory at Austerlitz. And then there was that rabble’s worth of tax evading miscreants that took their boss to task (some chap named George III) and thus created the United States of America.
But you may have missed my point. Your analysis is absolutely correct if the RCC is the sole custodian of sacred truth. Given that the most brilliant minds in the religious world have taken the four words “This is My body” that some scholars swear cannot be uttered in Aramaic, and have defined that as Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Real Presence thru Pious Silence, Pneumatic Real Presence (my head hurts over this one) and Memorialism, ultimately your belief is based on faith, not absolute evidence. So is mine.
I suggest (only) that these mysteries may well be part of a larger plan to encourage us to treat the trivial as such, investigate our faith further and perhaps get closer to God’s truth by dialogue with each other. If we did, perhaps it wouldn’t be such a surprise that Mainline Protestants are skeptical of individual interpretation as well, and so was Luther. That little bit of doctrine actually belongs to the evangelical community under what one author has named SOLO Scriptura.
So perhaps God was not on Luther or Rome’s side, but rather God was on God’s side, and that remains the most important point. I will throw caution to the wind now and and conclude with the secular words of Abraham Lincoln, who also had to deal with a pretty nasty schism.
He said, “The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
Yea verily and Amen.
BTW, what has one to do to get one of these nifty little signature icons I see all the time?
I believe neither!!!
But since you ask, yes, there are times. Marshal Grouchy followed Napoleon’s orders to the letter and thus doomed the French at Waterloo. Marshal Davout deliberately disobeyed Napoleon’s orders and thus insured victory at Austerlitz. And then there was that rabble’s worth of tax evading miscreants that took their boss to task (some chap named George III) and thus created the United States of America.
But you may have missed my point. Your analysis is absolutely correct if the RCC is the sole custodian of sacred truth. Given that the most brilliant minds in the religious world have taken the four words “This is My body” that some scholars swear cannot be uttered in Aramaic, and have defined that as Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Real Presence thru Pious Silence, Pneumatic Real Presence (my head hurts over this one) and Memorialism, ultimately your belief is based on faith, not absolute evidence. So is mine.
I suggest (only) that these mysteries may well be part of a larger plan to encourage us to treat the trivial as such, investigate our faith further and perhaps get closer to God’s truth by dialogue with each other. If we did, perhaps it wouldn’t be such a surprise that Mainline Protestants are skeptical of individual interpretation as well, and so was Luther. That little bit of doctrine actually belongs to the evangelical community under what one author has named SOLO Scriptura.
So perhaps God was not on Luther or Rome’s side, but rather God was on God’s side, and that remains the most important point. I will throw caution to the wind now and and conclude with the secular words of Abraham Lincoln, who also had to deal with a pretty nasty schism.
He said, “The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.”
Yea verily and Amen.
BTW, what has one to do to get one of these nifty little signature icons I see all the time?
S
steve_b
Guest
I only brought up the example because Jesus did. When he relays the story of the centurion who had soldiers under him, and how obedience plays an essential role in faith
hmgs:
Did Jesus set up seperate yet parallel and equal system(s) to the only Church which He established and put Peter in charge of?
Those who seperated from the Catholic Church want the world to believe He did.
That’s why I provided a few passages from scripture that clearly say this is NOT true. In fact there are grave consequences as you could see in the passages presented for those who divide.
hmgs:
- I think you have been badly misinformed that “this is my body” can’t be uttered in aramaic?
- The Maronite rite of the Catholic Church uses Aramaic in the liturgy ourladyoflebanon.info/liturgy.htm
- also catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510frs.asp Early Church Father quotes
You have to know The Catholic Church has plenty of evidence for what is taught. We were there from the beginning
Did you know that Luther admitted to adding “sola” to his translation of scripture when it wasn’t in the original manuscripts?
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
He said (paraphrased) yeah I know sola isn’t there, but I will have it there because I’m Martin Luther, and I say it belongs there.
hmgs:
This is relativism. And It contradicts Our Lord’s own words, promising to lead His Church into ALL truth.
hmgs:
Go to “edit your signature.” copy what you want and Add it to your signature
H
hmgs1
Guest
Your references are why I used the phrase “some scholars”, though being Catholic Websites neutrality is tenuous. Regardless, your’re preaching to the choir as my faith recognizes real presence in body and blood. However, from a linguistics standpoint SOME scholars do dispute this noting the absence of the verb “to be” in Aramaic, the only unique word for body being"corpse" and other problems of backwards translation thru Greek.
Your other points, though well reasoned, are again a matter of interpretation that may never be proven or disproven, but if your faith is strong they shouldn’t have to be.
Let us conclude by agreeing to disagree, content that we likely have both learned something we didn’t know before.
Your other points, though well reasoned, are again a matter of interpretation that may never be proven or disproven, but if your faith is strong they shouldn’t have to be.
Let us conclude by agreeing to disagree, content that we likely have both learned something we didn’t know before.
S
steve_b
Guest
I am not trying to be neutral, and neither are you. And I think neither pretends to be.
hmgs:
The word in Aramaic actually means flesh. I have no idea why you would be bringing corpse into this. If you look at all the earliest writings (which I gave) that shows how the Church viewed Jesus words, it IS as the Catholic Church states. It doesn’t matter what some “scholars” have to say in their dissent. They have to make their case or they just look like loons.
hsmg:
This is relativism. Faith + reason must go together. It’s not an either/or proposition. One without the other leads to all kinds of nutyness. May I suggest the following. It goes into detail why both faith + reason must be together.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html
hmgs:
As you wish :tiphat:
S
SIA
Guest
I obviously do not believe as you do. I do not believe that you truly believe as St. Paul did and preached. I appreciate the prayers and the good will, but frankly I am home now. I know God now. I never knew him all those years that I was Catholic. Over 3 decades and I never knew him.
I am not divided from Christ’s people. You may need to take a hard look and ask yourself if you are one who has divided yourself away.
S
steve_b
Guest
What is it that I quoted from him, that you disagree with
I appreciate the prayers and the good will, but frankly I am home now. I know God now. I never knew him all those years that I was Catholic. Over 3 decades and I never knew him.
what were you doing for 30 years that you didn’t know God and NEVER knew Him?
By your own admission, (above) you once WERE Catholic but you left.
The letter that Paul wrote to the Church of Rome is the same Church Benedict XVI presides over today. Bottmline this is the Church you divided from.
- Status