Emphasis mine. For Jesus it is being His Body. Jesus broke the bread He said " this is my Body" and taught that eating His flesh is real food. That eternal life depended on it. That must be the object of faith in the Eucharist. I find it difficult to put that second to an interpretation based on etymology.
Believe it or not I do have an understanding of your position. I have worked closely with Catholics and Protestants of all stripes. For the Catholic, the church building is all important because that is where one is appropriately religious. That is where you constantly receive your salvation through ritual and liturgy. It is important to be religious in church. Like one priest explained, "the church hall is where we do our sinning, our drinking and smoking, our dancing and gambling. The Church is where we have our religious life, where we say prayers.Wannano:
No, not visible unless there is a singular reality that one can point to and say " there is THE
Church" For around 1500 years that was common. Then the idea that the Church isn’t founded on rock was introduced and the Church became less visible and fewer people could point it out. Now this is the common mindset about the visibility of the Church “It’s over there a little a bit more over there, couldn’t tellya where the most church is” It’s kinda misty now.
He has always had a plan for His people.Wannano:
It does seem to be true that the Church is more pure when she is persecuted, but I am sure that God had a plan when He allowed Christianity to be decriminalized.
Does a worthy manner to you mean believing in Transubstantiation?
Yes, of course believing in Transubstantiation is the right thing for a Catholic to believe in order to receive in a worthy manner!
Receiving the Catholc Eucharist cleanses the recipient of his sins?Wannano:
Yes, of course believing in Transubstantiation is the right thing for a Catholic to believe in order to receive in a worthy manner!
When a Catholic comes to the altar, they are coming to the table Jesus prepared with His sacrifice which brought life to the world. He was the holy, unblemished Lamb which atoned for our sins and merited the resurrection of all flesh, and unto life for those who do His will, and are cleansed and nourished by Him.
We should not be receiving Communion while in serious sins. Yet receiving His sacrifice in a worthy manner means we are being forgiven, yes.
Are you saying here that one should not be receiving Communion while in serious sin but if he does receive anyway he is forgiven and cleansed of his sins because he received in a worthy manner which in turn means he believes in Transubstantiation?Wannano:
We should not be receiving Communion while in serious sins. Yet receiving His sacrifice in a worthy manner means we are being forgiven, yes.
Not sure how study of the Word is second to anything, and from whence you also get your understanding.
Whoa… not at all. Receiving Communion without receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation about serious sins first is the opposite of receiving in a worthy manner.
Again, we each have our own etymology of just how we eat, even gnaw at (Jesus’s word). Find it difficult to eat human flesh to be saved, but by faith we eat bread representing His flesh. Eating sacrificial flesh (animals) ended at Calvary, even Last Supper. The Lord chose to take away lamb eating at Passover replacing it with something already in Passover, unleavened bread , representing His purity, yes in flesh and spirit, and now ours, fullfilling/ ending any flesh eating, something He brings to the table , something HE offers to us. We only offer back praise and thanksgiving, which in Greek they coined Eucharist.
I see, I had been understanding that Catholics see eating in a worthy manner to mean they believe in the Real Presence/Transubstantiation.Wannano:
Whoa… not at all. Receiving Communion without receiving the Sacrament of Reconciliation about serious sins first is the opposite of receiving in a worthy manner.
Thats just one Teaching that we should acknowledge and be glad for! Generally, receiving in a worthy manner means accepting everything Jesus Teaches, while repenting all sins against God, our neighbor, and ourselves.
It is the nature of the spiritual battle being played out amongst flesh…if it wasn’t misty we wouldn’t have to seek, to knock, even die to blind selves, so that we may have new life and see. That is what the “onlooker” must be told if they seek life or Christ, or even the ecclesia.
Not to end it, but to fulfill it. Christ is a priest of a different order than the Levitical priesthood. Those who serve as priests today are caught up into His one priesthood.
No, the NT priesthood is not a heirus preisthood. It is of the line of Melchizedech. But yes, we are to lay our whole lives on the altar in sacrifice to Him:
This is a good point. The Apostles taught that we should give our utmost for His highest. We bring all that we are, and that we can do and be, to give the most thanks for His sacrifice.
How sad!
I think that depends upon the state of the persons heart/soul. If one comes in a worthy manner, they can be joined with the bread and wine.
Asking forgiveness and receiving Grace cleanses of sins. This is in the first part of the liturgy. Unless, of course, the sin is mortal.
No. One must not receive when one is not in a state of grace.
It seems like you don’t accept the scriptures that call us to offer our bodies and ourselves as spiritual sacrifices. It sounds like you are calling this act of worship some kind of “heirus priesthood”. This makes no sense, since the heirus priesthood offered sacrifices on behalf of others. He did not offer himself on their behalf. It is like trying to smash a square peg into a round hole.
It seems that you have a very shallow view of Eucharist/Passover. Jesus did not replace the Lamb with Bread - on the contrary, He BECAME the Lamb that was sacrificed for our deliverance from slavery to sin.
It is sacriligious to receive without accepting that the words Jesus said are true. But it is also sacriligious to receive when one is conscious of grave sin.
If this is true and genuine, which im not able to say with absolute certainty of the communications between them, then I believe the Pope would be abusing his duties.
is that church teaching of the Mass ? I understand what you are saying, but it seems it is an addition to what was done at last supper…I thought eucharist was strictly about Christ and what He did for us , and our praise and thanksgiving.
well that may mute the reason for the remembrance, for it (Calvary and remembrance) took place in the first place because what we are, what we bring to the table, is totally insufficient, like fig leaves covering our “nakedness”… not worth offering up, to be tossed aside, to take on His covering., remembering that with praise and thanksgiving.