You know, you are not going to win any friends by calling people names.
I’m sorry, wabrams, I don’t see it that way. St. Justin spoke of the mass in 150AD. The Eucharist has always been and remains communion with Jesus and with the church.
So it is either Jesus and the Catholic Church or nothing?
So I’m mocking communion because I don’t believe Jesus is literally in the bread and wine?
Obviously you share the same opinion as the Church. I don’t feel as though I have excluded myself.
I respect the teachings of the Church, though I don’t agree with some of them. But to each his own.
When the Priest holds up the consecrated Host and says: “The Body of Christ,” we respond “Amen.” Our Amen encompasses all of the ramifications of the sacrifice of the Cross, which means we accept that Jesus Christ gave us the Church. When you accept the Blessed Sacrament in a Catholic Church, do you say “Amen” to the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you say “Amen” to the transmission of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles for the forgiveness of sin? Do you say “Amen” to the Church’s stance on openness to life? Our Amen is for the whole counsel of God in the plenitude of the mystery. When your “Amen” is for *all *of that, c’mon home. We’re keepin’ the light on for ya.
Not “nothing.” “Less.”
In the Methodist Church, you are mocking nothing because Methodists do not even attempt to consecrate the Eucharist in the way Catholics understand it.
“Feeling” is what gets people into trouble with issues like this. What does “feeling” have to do with any of this? It is about what Christ has done for us, what Christ has given us, and about Communion with Him in and through His Church.
To respect them is to observe them. To disagree or question is fair. Besides, you’re not even Catholic! You are not obliged to agree. But receiving our Sacraments is kind of pointless (I’m using the mildest word I can think of here), if you don’t even believe in them, isn’t it?
When I go to mass with my fiance, I don’t take communion b/c of the Church’s stance.
It’s this attitude of “my communion and church is the right one, yours isn’t” is one of the things that holds me back from converting. I can’t stand that attitude. So much for us being brother’s and sister’s in Christ, huh?
Repect as many different meanings. Again, I don’t recieve the sacraments.
I know the Catholic Church’s view is that the church Christ established is maintained through the successor of Peter. I am not saying that I disagree, I am asking you where the historical documentation is for that?
You asked for a Protestant assessment and evidence that backs up that assessment. My idea of evidence and your idea of evidence are two different things. This is a commentary of historical documentation, not verifiable referencing. If this is what you are looking for, that is fine. Glad you got what you wanted.
What kind of evidence would you like? References to the CCC, or quotations of the Early Church Fathers? Just name it and I will give it to you.
I was a history major in college and have a B.A. So, when I am looking at Christian history of any kind, I am looking at it in various ways. There is the one that is accepted by historians as fact and that is the use of primary sources of information used to come to a conclusion about historical events. In other words, proof that something happened and where the information exists that proves the existence. There is another approach and that is the use of tradition and ancient writings that are not often verifiable through documented avenues. This often includes much of religious tradition and claims by religion. Another way of presenting history (used on these boards) is historical commentary. This is discussing historical events through past personal experience in reading and research. A last way of presenting history (used on these boards) are links and references to other works or commentaries as a way to discuss points for the poster presenting the links. I personally think historical commentary is the most realistic for boards such as these with a little primary documentation here and there when asked for back-up. I find links and references to other works and commentary a demonstration of a lack of personal investment in the topic and a need to depend on someone else’s point of view to support your point or think for you. If you (not you personally) feel as if you know the topic from personal investment in research, you should be able to present the points yourself. Religion involves strong feelings of right and wrong and to really know truth you must investigate for yourself.
So, are you saying you would like me to write you a paper and provide the sources I used in it?
I am asking you for historical evidence that demonstrates that the Catholic Church was indeed the only Christian approach during the first 200 years after Christ. What I mean by “only Christian approach” is that I want you to show me that the church was in existence from the beginning and that there were no alternate opinions in that first 200 years. I am not asking you for the church’s point of view on itself through quotes of church views or early church fathers Why? Because those fathers are a part of the Catholic Church. What else are they going to say? The Catholic point of view! So, what historical evidence can you produce by the historian community outside of the church that has shown that the Catholic Church was the original church and that there were no dissenting groups? What does the community of academic historians say about this? Thanks!
As I mentioned in an earlier post, ther is no need for an academic approach to posting on this. Historical commentary (interpretation as you put it) with some referencing (sources as you put it) is the most realistic and feasible way on a board like this. Feel free to answer my question this way in the question I posted just before this or one or two past it.
So, you want me to use modern historians that are not Catholic to show that the Catholic Church was the only option? I cannot use Catholic sources or early Church Fathers, correct?
I want you to use information amongst historians (outside of the Catholic community) to demonstrate that evidence exists for your point of view. I am not debunking a Catholic point of view. I am just asking for information outside of that to gain insight into the community of historians who are examining history apart from theological truths. Historical events and not theological beliefs.
Why not use primary sources? It would seem to me that they would be the most reliable. I too am a history B.A. and was taught primary sources were always the most reliable.
As I stated earlier, primary sources are the best. By all means use them. Use any information that is accepted in the community of historians. Again, I am not talking about Catholic theology or a church account of events. I am talking about verifiable and documented information accepted as actual history by historians. The floor is yours!
Unless you suffer from a severe reading comprehension I strongly suggest that you and the remaining Catholics/Protestants here take note that Jesus addresses two types of Christians before you congratulate yourselves and each other on your worldly education.I will even accentuate where the difference exists.