Does God call people to be separate from Catholic Eucharist

[mcq72]

The problem lies in what you gather from Sacred Scriptures–where you see a symbol I see a real Command.

No , i have elements because I have a command…we just eat Him differently, though by same command.

 

[jcrichton]

“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf,” 2 Corinthians 5:21

Sin must be upon Him, just as the hand of the sinner lays his hand on the about to be sacrificed animal in OT.

So how do you suppose this took place?

Jesus was a walking sin magnet pulling all the sins of those around Him unto Himself; once corrupt He would be corrupt, right–so how to reconcile:

15 For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin. (Hebrews 4)

So did Jesus remain without sin or are Sacred Scriptures wrong?

We must consider what is being conveyed. When Jesus reprimands Cephas and calls him a devil, is Jesus saying that Peter serves Satan or is He saying that he is acting anti-Christ, anti-Ministry?

So it is with Jesus taking on the sin of the world; He does not become corrupted by the piling up of the sins; Jesus suffers, as Isaiah’s Suffering Servant, the punishment for the world’s sin.

So He died for three days just did not see decomposition by miracle, unlike lazarus?

I would not infer that save that He did not see “corruption”, and that thru quick resurrection

In your first statement you place into question God’s Omnipotence since you imply that such thing is beyond God’s abilities (‘miracle’).

In your second statement you are claiming to know that one or two things occurred: 1) Jesus resurrected right after being placed in the tomb, or 2) Jesus had several resurrections. Either way you contradict Scriptures.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

You, as well as anyone else, can believe in anything you want.

yes we can…called free will, freedom in religion, conscience even.

What I present to you is what is found in Scriptures.

No what you present is just one of the traditional understandings of said scriptures

Jesus references Moses’ Brazen Serpent as a mirror to Believers; St. Paul states that the Cross is a curse to the Jews and nothingness to the Greeks (Pagans) and that to Him it is Salvation: the Instrument that God Uses to confound man’s intellect (wisdom); further he stresses that he Preaches Christ, and Him Crucified.

yes and ?..we both believe this, just that we were talking about communion understandings.

think that you are confusing the term vocabulary with what it expresses.

no, the term is the how, which is what separates , yet you claim not to care about the how, but only to do, to obey, to eat, to remember.

you can construct any understanding about the Lord’s Supper;

yes, we both have , and there are one or two more understandings in practice.

So if you feel I am forcing anything upon you, I apologize; my intent is to offer what I understand from Scriptures and Church Teaching.

not you but what you teach as Catholic doctrine, which is quite clear that all other understandings are wrong, even unlawful, invalid, and that since the beginning…so while I appreciate your calm explanations of Catholic belief , I only cite that because it is part of our history, and should add both sidestdl to it, some more than others.

PS yes perhaps I should not say “you” when indeed i am addressing CC stated point of view/positions/teachings…sometimes i say "I’ when i mean a "protestant’’ position.

 

[mcq72]

So how do you suppose this took place?

should have put "unblemished"animal to help understanding. The animal about to be sacrificed was unblemished, until the sinful hand was placed upon it just before slaying sacrificially, in place of the sinner.

Will change it now

 

[mcq72]

In your first statement you place into question God’s Omnipotence since you imply that such thing is beyond God’s abilities (‘miracle’).

no, on the contrary, else why would I ask if it were indeed not one of the possibilities ?

In your second statement you are claiming to know that one or two things occurred: 1) Jesus resurrected right after being placed in the tomb, or 2) Jesus had several resurrections. Either way you contradict Scriptures.

Ummm no…just said “quick resurrection” I think that from Friday afternoon to sometime Sunday morning is pretty quick, in fact real quick compared to all other resurrections waiting thousands of years. That to me could qualify as a comparative “not seeing corruption”

I guess one must say His body was preserved beginning at His last breath, if one takes the term “not seeing corruption/decay” to legalistic understanding.

The point is that His sacrifice was acceptable and pleasing to the Father, as evidenced by His Resurrection 3 days later, not seeing corruption .

 

[rcwitness]

If you are inferring that I went to the extreme, I am quite open to hearing your perspective.

I find this post very offensive to Billy Graham and all Christians either Catholic or non-Catholic. If he had wanted a real money tree he would have at least capitalized on it by joining the CC so that he could write books and travel around giving seminars like some others have done. This kind of garbage is breaking the commandment about giving false witness. To a Catholic I believe that is a mortal sin.

 

[Agathon]

It’s conclusion from faulty evidence.

Faulty?

Read it for yourself:

On this account John tells us by anticipation that it was buried with much myrrh, which glues linen to the body not less firmly than lead; in order that when thou hearest that the napkins lay apart, thou mayest not endure those who say that He was stolen. For a thief would not have been so foolish as to spend so much trouble on a superfluous matter. For why should he undo the clothes? and how could he have escaped detection if he had done so? since he would probably have spent much time in so doing, and be found out by delaying and loitering. But why do the clothes lie apart, while the napkin was wrapped together by itself? That thou mayest learn that it was not the action of men in confusion or haste, the placing some in one place, some in another, and the wrapping them together. From this they believed in the Resurrection. On this account Christ afterwards appeared to them, when they were convinced by what they had seen. Observe too here again the absence of boastfulness in the Evangelist, how he witnesses to the exactness of Peter’s search. For he himself having gotten before Peter, and having seen the linen clothes, enquired not farther, but withdrew; but that fervent one passing farther in, looked at everything carefully, and saw somewhat more, and then the other too was summoned to the sight. [2515] For he entering after Peter, saw the grave-clothes lying, and separate. Now to separate, and to place one thing by itself, and another, after rolling it up, by itself, was the act of some one doing things carefully, and not in a chance way, as if disturbed.

 

[jcrichton]

No what you present is just one of the traditional understandings of said scriptures

Jesus states it and the Apostles lived it and I follow it, it is not one of many understandings.

yes and ?..we both believe this, just that we were talking about communion understandings

Check your previous engagement on this matter.

no, the term is the how, which is what separates , yet you claim not to care about the how, but only to do, to obey, to eat, to remember

Correctly stated. It is how Christ Commands. So I do not hesitate to Obey, to Eat, to Commemorate as He Commands.

I do not rely on man’s interpretations. You who are so kin of Scriptures must accept that man’s opinion is not Scriptures; yet, you choose to instruct your heart with intellect (knowledge) defined by interpretation, even when Jesus states:

57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. (St. John 6)

It is inseparable: the Mystery of Christ and the Church–Jesus demands that His Church take Divine Nourishment: His Body and Blood.

yes, we both have , and there are one or two more understandings in practice.

Again, accepting Jesus at His Word is not a construct; creating a construct means taking what is given and redefining it, as those who espouse Jesus with teaching symbolism.

not you but what you teach as Catholic doctrine, which is quite clear that all other understandings are wrong, even unlawful, invalid, and that since the beginning…so while I appreciate your calm explanations of Catholic belief , I only cite that because it is part of our history, and should add both sidestdl to it, some more than others.

If you have free will, there’s no place for law or validity; it is man’s freewill to reject Scriptures; it is also man’s freewill to interpret Scriptures outside of the Word.

There’s only one side, Christ’s:

59 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. (St. John 6)

Neither I nor the Church chose Jesus birth place, the House of Bread/Flesh; I (nor the Church) do not force anyone to see Jesus’ as He Revealed Himself:

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. (St. John 6)
26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. (St. Matthew 26)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

should have put "unblemished"animal to help understanding. The animal about to be sacrificed was unblemished, until the sinful hand was placed upon it just before slaying sacrificially, in place of the sinner.

Will change it now

So you believe that sins were actually passed from the Hebrew/Israel to the sacrificed animal?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

no, on the contrary, else why would I ask if it were indeed not one of the possibilities ?

I apologize; I misunderstood the “miracle” term to be dismissive of the event.

Ummm no…just said “quick resurrection” I think that from Friday afternoon to sometime Sunday morning is pretty quick, in fact real quick compared to all other resurrections waiting thousands of years. That to me could qualify as a comparative “not seeing corruption”

Yet, corruption (decomposition of the organic matter) starts immediately after death–not some days later but hours, if not minutes–the cells begin to deteriorate and the parasites, facing no natural opposition, proliferate exponentially.

I guess one must say His body was preserved beginning at His last breath, if one takes the term “not seeing corruption/decay” to legalistic understanding.

What other way can this be taken; a dead person cannot sin so there’s no contamination of the dead by the sin of the living; hence, the term can only be directed at the human condition: organic matter decays at death.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

You have misunderstood the intent.

It is not that there’s no evidence of Christ’s Resurrection (I would be a poor and inept Believer if I were to believe that He is not Risen); the faulty evidence is to the statement that St. John (because of his realization that the Lord had indeed Risen) was the first Believer (the first person to Believe that Christ was the Messiah, the Immanuel, the Lord).

Just to throw in a bit of argumentation: the Virgin was told that the Holy Spirit (Whom she would have known about since she did not query about Him) would come upon her and she would Conceive the Son of the Living God; Joseph was told, in a dream, not to doubt the Virgin’s Conception as Originating in God; John the Baptist, filled with the Holy Spirit, got the news as soon as the Virgin’s voice hit his home; Elizabeth, prompted by the Holy Spirit, was in awe that the mother of her Lord would visit her; then we have Simeon who called to God that he was at last ready to die since he Witnessed God’s Salvation and finally Anna who was (it hurts me to say since I do not know the mind of God) only second to John the Baptist in sounding the Word of Salvation to Israel. There is much more evidence that these Believed even before Lord had Risen that Jesus was indeed the Lord of lords!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Agathon]

It is not that there’s no evidence of Christ’s Resurrection (I would be a poor and inept Believer if I were to believe that He is not Risen); the faulty evidence is to the statement that St. John (because of his realization that the Lord had indeed Risen) was the first Believer (the first person to Believe that Christ was the Messiah, the Immanuel, the Lord).

It seems you misunderstand more than me. Almost no one who claims John was the first to realize Christ was risen thinks he was the first to believe Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Agathon]

But only ONE way is right.

 

[jcrichton]

No. I am not questioning your intelligence or ability to comprehend.

I often site that I’m quite pedestrian–I am but a lowly fellow in the world’s scheme so I do not presume to be wiser than anyone.

The misunderstanding is in my intent to express the above.

…fyi; I’ve heard it even from at least one Catholic Priest and others (both Catholics and non-Catholics); yet, I do not claim that it is a general understanding or a view held by thousands.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[mcq72]

Again, accepting Jesus at His Word is not a construct; creating a construct means taking what is given and redefining it, as those who espouse Jesus with teaching symbolism.

So you believe that sins were actually passed from the Hebrew/Israel to the sacrificed animal?

Then in same literal fashion (construct of eating Him) you agree that “He was made sin” on the cross?

 

[mcq72]

If you have free will, there’s no place for law or validity;

??? Totally predestined then???

 

[guanophore]

there is your problem…you think the solution is in a "group of people’’, namely your church the CC

I think the problem is also the redefinition of “church”. Many of our siblings in Christ define it as “the body of believers on earth”. While the Apostolic definition does include believers on earth, it is much broader than this "group of people’. The Head of this Body is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. The Church founded by Christ is incarnational - like Jesus, having both a divine and a human nature.

It is authorative, visible, and hierarchical. All these aspects are beyond “a group of people”.

Rather there is One faith

Of course this is what the Apostles taught, but we can see that there are irreconcilable “doctrinal distinctives” that prevent this.

But when anyone teaches against Christ’s Teachings, that person is indeed preaching a different Gospel.

This is the crux, is it not? The Reformers developed doctrines in some cases opposite of what we received from the Apostles to the extent that we see the changes as a “different gospel”. Modern evangelicals are convinced that it is Catholic who have a “different gospel”. It boils down to each persons’ perceptions.

when you trade in the Word of God for the word of man

But this is exactly why the Reformers developed their different gospels! They believed the CC had traded in the word of God for the word of man.

"Looking ", “receiving”, “remembering” is not enough anymore, but only transubstantiation…and poof , there goes your unity , in what came also to signify unity , the one loaf.

It never was “enough” from the beginning. And you are right, unity was lost long before the term transubstantiation was coined. Unity was lost over the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday rather than Sabbath, the date for Easter, and a number of other issues.

Unity is a result of adherence to the Truth. To the extent we all embrace the Truth, we have unity.

 

[mcq72]

Unity was lost over the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, celebrating the Lord’s Day on Sunday rather than Sabbath, the date for Easter, and a number of other issues.

Unity is a result of adherence to the Truth. To the extent we all embrace the Truth, we have unity.

Yes over some Truth, but unfortunately over some truth derived from tradition.

Did the apostles teach dogmatically assembling on Sunday only, Easter celebration on one specific date, 73vs 66 books, IC and Assumption of Mary and mediatrix of ALL graces?

Of couse not.

We have come a long way from the simplicity of unity on major doctrine, as decreed at Nicene, to Trent, even Vatican councils…with more yet to come!

 

[mcq72]

It never was “enough” from the beginning

True but not for all, yet they communed in unity, not affording the luxury of such “deep” theology dogmatizing…not yet at least.

 

[guanophore]

Yes over some Truth, but unfortunately over some truth derived from tradition.

Strictly speaking, the whole of the Christian faith is based on Sacred Tradition. The doctrine of Christ was whole and entire when it was committed to the Church. The Church was not without any Truth for the first two decades when the books we now call the NT began to appear.

Isaiah 55:11
11 so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

God is able to preserve His word where He has placed it. He placed it in the Church, and it is preserved there.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

This is the paradosis, the handing down of God’s Word. It is He who preserves it as immutable, not the people in which the Word dwells.