Interesting, a good Jesuit wrote, “that if Luther had remained a Catholic, he would have been one of her greatest saints”… I understand, CC is The Church and perfect in dogma. Hence, “once right always right”, as proclaimed by Her scriptural interpretation.
Thank-you
“We must not, however, because He is able to do all things, suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it…It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do”, on dealing with heresies of his day:Tertullian, Against Praxeas ch.10,11.
Now if we only had music, a song, like, “We are the champions”. You know the famous pop song ? Reminds me of one of my son’s hockey championships game .His teammate goalie was overly cocky and actually played that song in the locker room BEFORE the game. After all, we had beaten the opposing team easily twice earlier during the season. And they had two girls on their team… My son’s team lost.The girls played brilliantly …It ain’t over till it’s over , till the fat lady sings…etc, etc.NIcely done. Game set and match.
I toned it down. I usually say 50,000. Actually wait, some here ( CA ) have said we have millions and more, for we each individually are a church unto ourselves. I really was being humble with only 30,000.
Even if it were 100 it would be wrong, but 30,000 is an obscenity.
Absolutely agree. My spice comment was tongue in cheek or sarcastic.Bottom line is we are all sinners. Catholics are sinners in unity, protestants are sinners in diversity /division. It is not just cliche or scriptural, but applicable, “let all men be liars ,but only God be true”.
So you are saying that Christ’s church is nothing more than different restaurants?
Sorry but that set was so brilliantly played by Lyrikal. It was like in tennis when one player hits the ball so that it lands close to the net, hoping that the opponent would not be quick enough to catch it. But the other player was quick and agile and allowed for this so when the ball came he just very lightly tapped it over the net.
Variety may be the spice of life but it certainly is not when it comes to theology. Otherwise you will be affirming that every other religion are just as good as Christianity. After all, it all just amounts to variety.
Well no. Unless I misunderstood Radical, he is going to really 3 different churches as attested by the fact that they have different ways of celebrating the Lord’s supper. Maybe one is Baptist another, Methodist, etc, etc.
On the train this evening, I was reading up on the council of Nicea and how they hammered out that the Son is of the same “Substance” - “consubstantial” with the Father when a thought occurred to me.
Well then you misunderstand my point. There is a connection but not quite the connection that cooterhein is trying to make. He is saying that the 3rd cup symbolizes the blood of the lamb that was dashed at the doorposts. So I asked, did the Jews equate the 3rd cup with the blood of the lamb? I am still waiting for him to come back to me on that.
Correct. But we did not say that the bread equated with the Lamb. Rather we say that Jesus is both bread and Lamb so in Him this two come together. But when Jesus refers to the bread as His body, He was not trying to say that whatever symbolism the Matzo holds is how the bread (which He now says is His body) is to be understood.
.
Exactly!
Actually you are quite wrong about the lamb in the Last Supper. There was never any mention of the lamb at all. That is why some scholars believe that Last Supper was a not a legal passover - not a Seder as such.
You are making this up.
You are assuming this one.
No symbolism is not needed because there still is a sacrifice. Hebrews say that we have a high priest in heaven in Chris. What does a High Priest do? In heaven, Christ continues in His Priestly role of offering sacrifice.
And in the OT the bread is not symbolic of the lamb and the wine is not symbolic of the blood. You are confusing things here.
Which He has given to His apostles in the form of bread and wine according to Christ Himself. One thing that you fail to understand is that every time you reason the way you do, you are going against what Christ said.
If that is what He meant, He would have said but He didn’t
You are grasping at straws on this one. The kind of tangent you are taking here you will not find in any of the Gospels nor in the Epistles.
What did Christ say? I will be with you always, yes till the end of time.
That is what anamnesis means. It only loosely translates to remembrance. We don’t have quite the correct word that completely captures what anamnesis conveys. Anamnesis means to make present.
Melanchthon wrote the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Your final comment here, again, I suspect is the reason for growing convergence on the Eucharist between Lutheran and Catholics. Did you see any of the threads about Pope Benedict’s visit with the Lutherans in Germany? He talks about how, now, our agreements are so much more obvious than they were at the time of the Reformation.
I qualify that. We are not regenerated through faith alone.
You will when God is done with you. He alone sees your heart and He will give you grace necessary for eternal life. Part of that grace is the fact that you are here in this forum so that you will learn what He wants you to hear about the Church that He established here on earth.
It was Christ who said it.
You bet. Christ does not do or say unimportant things. Remember He told us to be truthful, to say yes when we mean yes and no when we mean no.
If you died after baptism yes, you do. But like everyone knows, we fail all the time. We corrupt ourselves. So we need Him always to strengthen us. He is he bread of the strong who will transform us to make us part of Him.
While God works through His sacraments and this is the way that He instituted, it does not mean that He is bound by the sacraments. He can act outside of it - after all He is Lord. But the fact remains that it was He who said it. If you have a problem with that, then David, it is Christ you have a problem with. It is the Gospel of John you have a problem with. Not the Church. The Church is only doing what Christ told her to do.
Not once a year, as often as possible. Daily is better.
Let us say that John 6 summarizes how Christ saves us. But unless we read all the Gospels, John 6 will not make sense.
No. Their lives are not over yet. As you said, the fat lady has yet to sing.
Yes, you do have spiritual lives and those lives need sustaining and you are missing out on the most important Sustenance of all.
Some not so perfectly
And the splintering mess that is protestantism is the testament to the lack of sustenance. The Body of Christ is supposed to be united not fragmented into 33000 pieces.
Actually there are Christian brothers outside of the Church but they are imperfectly united to Christ. Communion is the closest you will ever get to Christ this side of eternity.
Not according to Christ Himself. What could be deeper that to eat His Body and drink His Blood.
Yes, indeed. Labour for the Eucharist. Labour to be always in communion with Christ.
Yes, and to believe in Him whom the Father has sent is to believe EVERY WORD that He said. Not just the words that one wants to believe. Every Word. And some of these words were reiterated so many times. In fact, I think this is the only time that Jesus repeated Himself over and over again. If that doesn’t tell you how important this is for Him then nothing will.
Wrong, David. You will not find that in ANY text in the Bible. Believing is not figurative for eating.
Yes, that too. But only someone so blind and who willfully persist in being blind can miss the rather long reiteration of eat my flesh, drink my blood.
Exactly they did not believe enough in Him so they left because what He is saying is too hard. But even then, He never changed His tune. He never said: No don’t go you misunderstood me. These people - these are His disciples. They are not just passing onlookers. They have been with Him following him. They have seen His miracles, have heard Him teach. But still they did not believe enough in Him so they left.
As I said before, Anamnesis is not exactly captured by the word remembrance.
Yes, yes, yes. A new covenant. And for this New Covenant you need to drink His Blood which is the blood of the New Covenant.
Exactly. It was all about His Words. Words which have the power to transform a simple bread into the Body and Blood of the Lord.
No David. You and millions of Protestants miss the point. Miss a very humongous, important Point. His Words. They are His Words. You either take Him as His Words or you don’t. Obviously, you prefer the latter.
But whether the participants wilfully decide to work agains the grace even does not negate the reality that the bread is Christ.
As I said above, because God will not coerce. But the fact remains that is it is indded Christ because He said so.
Well, let me put it this way. You believe in symbolic communion right? Then how come some Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims are probably better persons than you? Can you say truthfully and without a doubt that having received Christ symbolically, and because of your faith in Christ, you are a much better person than every other non-Christian?
You really have no idea, do you? Protestants have different Churches and so (in your mind) they must all be in conflict. That isn’t the case…we are united in Christ. Each of the three Churches that I attend fully regognize the other two as part of the body of Christ…no qualifications whatsoever. They are all part of Christ’s Church…the one Christ established and the one that he keeps united in him.
a Church is determined by its practice wrt the Lord’s Supper? Man have you got your priorites mixed up. It is about Christ and not whether leavened or unleavened bread is used. It is Christ’s Church and not the “Church of a Certain Eucharistic Practice”. What never fails to amaze me is how blindly selective you are in what you follow. Your Eucharist is nothing like the Last Supper, but you entirely ignore the differences. The Last Supper was a full blown passover meal…no Latin (which your Church seemed to think essential for some time), no altar, a full fellowship meal (not a bit of wafer and a drop or two of wine…wasn’t it common to deny wine for a while in your Church?), no seperation from the person breaking the bread, actual bread that pieces are broken from (not some little wafers that aren’t broken off from one another). Further, the practice at your Catholic Church is different from the practice of Catholic Churches centuries earlier, but you wouldn’t suggest that means that you lack continuity with the earlier Catholic Churches. Your Eucharistic practices don’t come remotely close to what Christ did with his disciples at the Last Supper, so by your reasoning the Church present at the Last Supper would not be yours.
united in Christ…have you heard of the concept? Christ is the source of unity, not Eucharistic practice. Your emphasis is on form and not substance and that is exactly what plagued the Pharisees. I have no idea what you think was so decisive about my confirmation that the Lord’s Supper is the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. I have never met a Christian who thought otherwise…it is a given. The Lord’s Supper is entirely about looking to the cross…is it that you have focused so much on the details of practice or that you have added so much other meaning to the sacrament that you have lost sight of the Cross?
who’s shopping? I attend different Churches to fellowship at Church with my friends and family…I think that important
I thought it was more like the fellow doing a very vigorous “end zone” dance w/o realizing that he has just run the wrong way (and just scored on himself)
Oh well, GO TEAM benedictus2!