You talk about truth as if it’s not an absolute. I disagree. If we believe two different things about the Eucharist in the Catholic Church, one of us is wrong.
And yet again, you prove that you don’t know what the Church teaches. Talk about a straw man argument! You insist that the Church teaches that there is no truth in other denominations or in non-Christian religions. But I’m sure you’ll call me a liar on that point, too.I guess you’ll just have to put me down as another of the “poorly” catechized Catholics, since I know what I was taught as a Catholic about the Eucharist, and it had nothing to do with apostolic succession.
You can scream it all day, every day, and it will not change things. You believe that no other consecrations but RC ones are valid. WE GET IT. Your church teaches that. WE GET THAT.
We don’t agree that they are invalid. Your opinion and belief are noted for the record.
I’m not angry, and you are just saying that because I accused you of that. I am saddened that the RCC determines that as a church it should invite to the table rather than Jesus.
Again you prove that you don’t know what the CC teaches. All are invited to the table. There are rules about recieving, though, that apply to all, including Catholics. You are invited to Communion in the Catholic Church. You are the one who refuses to come.
I don’t think it is different regardless of what you say. It makes no difference who the wafer and wine becomes the body and blood, we are happy to let it remain a mystery and miracle. But we do believe it is the real presence of Jesus. I rather suspect that is enough. But the point is past, I don’t attend Catholic churches and so it’s a mute point.
Mute? Is that a typo or did you mean something cynical by that?And, of course, this is not Catholic teaching, so though you think this, it is not the same belief that Catholics hold. And this is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand. You keep implying that your beliefs about the Eucharist are the same as a Catholic’s, and this is simply not true. You use the same words, real presence, but they don’t have the same meaning.
As to transubstantiation, we don’t require belief in it, since it is but a manmade construct to help explain the inexplicable.
Again, a non-Catholic belief. You keep proving that your beliefs and Catholic’s beliefs about the Eucharist are different. And, yes, you do have to believe that the Eucharist is what it is to recieve, though you accused me of mistating Catholic teaching on that, too.
We are more than free to leave it as mystery, and as miracle which it truly is. I have no need of some scientific explanation. But my church certainly doesn’t prevent anyone from adopting it if they feel the need to have an explanation. Some people do need this type of “proof” to believe. Others do not.
And yet again, you prove you don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches. Transubstantaion is not a scientific explanation, and we know that it is a mystery. That you think that Transubstantation is supposed to be proof, just goes to show that your belief about the real presence is not the same as the CC’s.
Again, save the straw man argument that I am angry. I have quite pleasant conversations with anyone who admits that what they believe is belief and not fact beyond the confines of their own minds. Honesty always wins out. This game of insisting that only the RCC can have truth because it says it can be the only truth giver is not helpful, not proveable, and insulting to others who are perfectly happy in their own faith traditions and frankly believe just as fervently as you that they have the “truth.”
Who’s “they”?
A good friend of mine, who is (perhaps was*) a deacon in the ECUSA helped me understand that. While you will find Episcopalians on all points in the spectrum between Real Presence and symbolism, she’s definitely in the Real Presence camp.
Now now, masuwerte, let’s not encourage this sort of thing. :tsktsk:I accwpted your wxplanation swvwral pagws ago.
Pixie, you are so right. My section of Episcopalianism is quite progressive and I am thankful for that. We are badly split at the present, and it seems we are losing our ability to put aside our differences on Sunday as we are called to do.
You make it hard to answer by answering within the quote box which doesn’t print out on the reply.
Very true. We Catholics definitely disagree amongst ourselves about some things. As a matter of fact, I think one of my pet peeves is when somebody hears/reads something that another Catholic said, and assumes I agree with it.
I think you should pick up a copy of the CCC. You are up in arms about Catholic teaching, but you don’t know that CC teaching really is. You’re upset that the CC teaches A, when it really doesn’t teach A. The truth will set you free.Well, at least it will ease your mind about these things that you think the Church teachesYou make it hard to answer by answering within the quote box which doesn’t print out on the reply.
We have beat this subject to death.
I agree the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that there is no truth in any other faith community, but you have to admit that a good many RC’s here say that.
I haven’t seen anyone here say that. When someone says that a teaching in another church is wrong, it’s not the same as saying there is no truth to be found in that Chruch. If someone says that there is no truth in another church, they are saying that the common beliefs are also untrue, and that is saying that what you believe is true is untrue. It makes no sense to say that.
When you claim that my church has no valid priest or Eucharist, you are claiming that some truth is and right to define it resides exclusively with the RCC. That is clearly not defendable but is opinion. I have no issue with your belief that that is true, since your Church teaches it and requires your assent to it, but that doesn’t make it true, it remains the opinion of the RCC.
Look at it this way: You say, you have no valid priest and no valid Eucharist as if I’m supposed to agree with you. I don’t and it would be ludicrous to expect me to. You cannot prove your assertion but can only say that your Church says so. Well, do you think that each Sunday this happens?
We are discussing this because you said that your beliefs about the Eucharist are the same as Catholics. A few posters here have pointed out your error on that. I don’t say that you have to agree with me. For God knows how many posts now I’ve been pointing out that we disagree on this point. Sheesh!
“Dear congregation, its now time to confect the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus, our Lord. Of course, we understand that I cannot do that since the RCC has decreed that I am not a valid priest by their definition, and thus my efforts to do so are a waste of your and my time.” So I’m going to say these words, although they won’t work, and then you can come up and pretend you are receiving the Eucharist, although you know it not to be true. Then we can go through other useless motions and rituals, and then we can leave. But be sure to come back next Sunday when we pretend again."
If you held a Catholic belief in the Eucharist you might think something like you stated above (you would just say that this is not the real pressence). But again, what you stated above is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that Communion in non-Catholic churches is a waste of time or that the people there are pretending. As I said above, I’ve been saying that you don’t hold Catholic beliefs about the Eucharist, though you originally said otherwise. I’m glad that you’re finally understanding what a few of us have told you.
No, it doesn’t happen. We conduct a sacred service and the priest confects the bread and wine and we partake of the Lord’s supper, taking into our bodies his blood and body under the form of bread and wine. We consider this a deeply important and inspiring experience. We take all our rituals and practices seriously. We confess our sins, we ask for absolution. We bless ourselves, we are blessed, we hear the scriptures and we ponder them in our hearts. We leave enriched spiritually and many of us return during the week to various ministries designed to help our communities.
Do you realize that no one here has said otherwise? No one has been disrespectful of your Communion or your church services. We’ve been discussing the difference between what Catholics believe about the Eucharist and what you believe. It seems that you’ve taken that very personally, as if a Catholic’s stating his beliefs about the Eucharist are an affront to your beliefs. As if a Catholic’s saying that he believes that to have the body and blood of christ in the Eucharist it has to be validly consecrated is a personal insult to your faith.
I am not angry, but I am tired of playing this game of “you are wasting your time in worthless exercises, because my church said so.” It is frustrating to waste time on such nonsense when we can learn from each other as Pixie dust has been helping me understand a deeper meaning of the word “remembrance.”
And again, you are playing to straw man game. No one said “you are wasting your time” . No one has implied it. And again you don’t know what the CC teaches.
I consider this section of the discussion at an end for me. Blessings to you, for we do, as Episcopalians do not deny the value of Eucharist to you as Roman Catholics nor to any faith tradition who finds it sacred. God works his wonders in ways we as mere humans are not necessarily aware. I for one don’t assume to define where he works or how.
The Catholic Church does not teach that it contains the truth to the exclusion of others. What it does teach is that it contains the fullness of truth. There’s a difference.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.
They can, and yet, there are. Thousands, in fact.
See my previous post. Of course non-Catholics interpret parts of the Bible differently… that’s why they’re non-Catholics.
Think about it… why is there a Church of England (and, by extension, an Episcopal Church) in the first place?
1. The real presence. As far as I know, all Christians who observe communion (Salvation Army, Quakers and a few other Protestants don't, if I remember correctly) believe in the real presence. Why? All Christians believe that Christ is present everywhere, certainly with us a worship. The question arises: does the host and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ? That is quite a different thing. That is where Protestants and Catholics disagree, even though polls show that most Catholics no longer believe it, either.
2. One true church. My own view, which will be unpopular with most posters, is that the true church has nothing to do with church affiliation. God looks at our hearts and not our labels. In his Sermon on the Mount, the core of Christian teaching from my perspective, Jesus doesn't mention creeds, doctrine, church, etc. His concern was love of God and love of one another, and how we live by those two commandments in our daily lives. When we get to heaven, my expectation is that there will be plenty of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians and other varieties of Christians. Lots of Arians and Modalists and Albigensians and other 'heretics'. too. And I will look forward to interesting discussions with Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, adherents of Native American faiths and all kinds of believers (and non-believers). We should have a great time comparing notes and exchanging experiences while in this world.
Christ must weep at this whole spiritual pride business that so many Christians of all varieties demonstrate. More humility would do us all some good. Let's face it: when it comes to the mysteries of life and death, we're all quite ignorant. I believe it was Harry Emerson Fosdick who said decades ago: "I could only believe in a God whom I cannot understand." I live in awe before this mammoth, marvelous, and majestic universe, where there may be a billion stars bigger than our sun, or even a billion solar systems! And yet we quibble and even rant about religious trivia.Actually, there are quite a lot of Protestants (specifically Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists) who would answer in the affirmative, just like we Catholics would.
I’m not conversing on this any longer. It’s too hard since you continue to write within the quote box which makes it too hard to answer. You continue to claim I don’t know Catholic teachings yet never point out what it does teach, just that what I said is wrong. I have had a copy of the CCC since within a few days of its publishing in 1994. Mine is a well worn copy since I’ve read it cover to cover and used it repeatedly in classes and in research.I think you should pick up a copy of the CCC. You are up in arms about Catholic teaching, but you don’t know that CC teaching really is. You’re upset that the CC teaches A, when it really doesn’t teach A. The truth will set you free.Well, at least it will ease your mind about these things that you think the Church teaches
you are buying into Kalt’s faulty claims. I know the church teaches no such thing. It hasn’t officially taught that since Vatican II, but there are many here on this forum who deny Vatican II and claim that there is no salvation outside the RCC. I was alluding to them, and their self-serving claims. They argue that the RCC is the sole definer of who can define truth, and it is them. Ipso facto as they say.
I haven’t a clue what this is included for.
This is highly debated. Many exegetes, in fact most would argue that Jesus made no such statement of starting a church, but that in reality he led a faction intending to reform the faith of his people, Judaism. All of the gospels were written after the “church” was in place, started I might add by Paul and Peter and James and others. These fledgling house churches were in high disagreement on many things, as Paul’s legitimate letters attest. I see nothing that establishes a papacy and it seems clear from history that Rome did not arise to the fore until some centuries later. In any case, I again fail to see what this has to do with Eucharist.
The RCC arose some centuries later as power was finally consolidated in Rome. It did not last long of course, within a few more hundred years, the Orthodox split occured. Again, you are doing nothing but asserting that Rome’s interpretation of scripture give Rome sole power to determine truth, albeit that they admit that some of the rest of us, by I guess mere happenstance happen to stumble upon a bit of it here and there.
I’ve yet to see anyone come forth with any, other than “because my church said so.”
I agree for the most part. As to: