A
Angela77
Guest
[SIGN]Literal[/SIGN]
- Status
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Howdy sally b. Have not forgotten , nor have I left the One whom with we commune. I remember very well being all dressed up on that sunny day of first communion. We were all lining up back in the sacristy when all of a sudden I was struck with horror. I just remembered that earlier that morning while I was zipping thru the kitchen, buttoning my shirt, I became distracted with all the food that was prepared for the big family bash that was to follow Mass/First Communion. All the aunts and uncles and grandparents and cousins would be there.But I would be disgraced for I had eaten something right there and then, sneaking it off the warm skillet. My fast had been broken. And not just by any food , but by meat ,and that, a tasty sausage link ! What to do , for no one had seen me eat it. .We were all minutes away from starting the procession . I must tell the priest but where is he ? Finally he hurriedly entered the room to get somewhere else. He was stopped by a little boy who had to confess. “Father, I broke the fast .I ate a piece of sausage”, I said in a low , almost sobbing voice as he leaned down toward me. Apparently the offense was not so big or insurmountable for he quickly absolved me and continued on his way. And so did I with my first communion.
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Hi karaleigh.found this interesting but had to read several times and am not quite sure what you are saying. It looks like you put mysticism in a bad light cause it may interfere with truth /knowledge. Isn’t Catholic communion more “mystical” than say protestant communion,and yet I think you aspire to literal , Catholic communion.Not sure what your point is,but very interesting .Thanks. Blessings
S
sallybutler
Guest
I think I had read too many stories about saints’ first communion. I was afraid I might faint and people would get the wrong idea. I didn’t faint but I was thrilled beyond words.
But it was, and still is, amazing to me what Communion means.
K
karaleigh
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by communion as being mystical. In what way? As for me communion is the Roman Catholic term for sacrament. Communion is also an extent of the Mosaic law as with trinkets(verse 4-12), that is, to serve as a reminder of the faith of the Lord Jesus. As well, sacrament serves also the same purpose…a reminder to be faithful. While removing one’s self from despotism, that is alcohol, drugs, and vices, it’s necessary to have figurative examples of positive behavior i.e. communion for wine and host, while the sacraments, wine and bread, are example of praise and thanks. Where is the mystical in this thought? You have lost me with the mystical inference.
Thanks for returning. It’s also good to have someone who can pose questions that require concentration and study. And, blessing to you. :christmastree1:
D
david_ruiz
Guest
I guess I am taking it from this thread as to the host being literally Jesus or "figurative/spiritual Jesus. I find transubstantiation (real bodily presence after consecration) by definition “mystical”- that is, not apparent to the senses or natural intelligence. I find in your answer above not mystical but as you say, both figurative and spiritual (praise and thanks) to which I would say, Amen. P.S. Sorry about Oklahoma State not playing LSU, though 'Bama rules
B
benedictus2
Guest
Blessings Benedictus.Are you sure it doesn’t fit ?.I think it could .Even you say it must be tied to the first Rock(Peter).Well ,what did Peter just experience ?
What Peter just experienced is what made him Rock. What he experienced is not the rock.
Because the sentence structure does not allow for it.
If Jesus had said to Simon, I tell you solemnly what you confessed is Rock, and upon this rock I will builed my Church then “this rock” could definitely mean the confession.
But Christ did not say that. Instead He said to simon YOU are Rock, and upon this rock. The first and second rock are the same.
Which has got nothing to do with the verse in question.
That is true, but Simon alone was made Rock. Simon alone was given the keys. Jesus picked the twelve himself but pick one in particular to be first.
Impossible considering that there is nothing in the text that indicates this. That would be pure fabrication. If you are going to make an exegesis you have to base it on the text.
Not probably. He did. That is why Simon was called Cephas. Which according to John is the same as Petros.
Jesus said You are kepha and upon this kepha. The first and second kepha refer to the same entity.
David, Just read what other protestants have written. I put them there for you so that you will understand that even they have had to admit that Peter is indeed the Rock.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Christ speaks to his disciples and the Jews and explains you have to eat my flesh to live. Of course they thought He was crazy and the moans and groans occur, and Jews and many of Christs disciples leave Him.
So what does Christ do? He not only confirms what he first said but deepens the language to include you must Gnaw on the flesh, which is the correct interpretation in Greek.
So then He looks at the twelve and asks them; And will you abandon me also? And St Peter states; “And to whom shall we go Lord?” Huh, there was no-one else to go to!!!
Yes I’m talking (John 6:51-53) and (John 6:53-54).
The Zwingli view is an utter heresy and falacy, which use’s St Paul to resolve what Jesus Christ stated. Whos God here, St Paul or Christ???
You see the problem with this assumption is not only the sermon but Biblical context/content of OT/NT which clearly describes the liturgy of the Mass, and how sins are forgiven in the Mass, Which is through the Church by the Ordained Priest. Such as Leviticus 5 and John 20 and so on, thus OT to NT!!! When did the idea of the Real Presence as symbolic arrive? Umm, what 1500 years later?
Fact is no-where in Scripture does Christ make the statement just believe in me and your sins are forgiven.
The premise of the arguement becomes thus this by Protestants.
1] First, what eating His flesh and drinking His Blood does not mean.
Here none Trump what Christ actually states:shrug: All are out of Biblcal context/content.
2} Second, what eating His flesh and drinking His Blood does mean. which is conflict with over 1100 years of Oral and Written tradition, let alone from then to today.
The problem with all these heresys is that is simply doesn’t resolve the Priesthood and forgiveness of sins through the Priest/Church OT/NT
Not only does this novel incorrect thinking place little depth in Biblical understanding, it ignores what Luther clearly stated, suggesting he simply took “the middle road” in the debate. Thats not historically true or a fact. For had Luther not “believed” exactly what he stated, then as arrogant as he was, I’m postive he would have clarified the subject. If fact he stated exactly what he mean’t.
Thus not only was Luther and the Baptists incorrect. But geez at least Luther was somewhere in the ballpark, be it the bleachers. The further thinking isn’t even the stadium.
1] Ignores Apostolic tradition, and the authority to lose and bind which only the Apostolic Churchs holds from day one foward. So the johnny come lately theory is utterly false.
2] Ignores Jewish/Christian covenant as to how in fact sins are forgiven, from the time of Mose’s to Christ. Which Christ turns from animal sacrifice to himself.
3] Ignores over 1500 years of historic evidence, before the heresy even arrives.
Didache also has the Eucharist meal in the following of only those Baptised. Thus we see the sacrements already formed by Oral Tradition to written. Let alone the inscriptions in the Catacombs of the Eucharist from the 1st century.
110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.”
Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4
“Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7
“From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.”
Belief in the Literal/Real Presence is a universal and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, that is to say, she has taught it everywhere and always, from her birth from the pierce side of our Lord down to the present day. No Christian denied it in the first millennium. Only in the eleventh century did anyone at all deny it. The Church immediately responded by reaffirming the perennial teaching by defending what she had received from the Lord. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation fifteen centuries after Christ’s death that rejection of the Real Presence gained a following of any significance. The Holy Spirit has protected the majority of the world’s believers (Catholics and Orthodox) from error in this matter. (It is also worthwhile noting that not all Protestants deny the Real Presence.) And it would be worthwhile to note with good reason its probly exactly why the CC was so reluctant to even give the Bible to the mass to comtemplate in heretical terms.
Perhaps should one find transubstantiation mystical, may well be for many reasons. Ah one can only assume there.
Peace
So what does Christ do? He not only confirms what he first said but deepens the language to include you must Gnaw on the flesh, which is the correct interpretation in Greek.
So then He looks at the twelve and asks them; And will you abandon me also? And St Peter states; “And to whom shall we go Lord?” Huh, there was no-one else to go to!!!
Yes I’m talking (John 6:51-53) and (John 6:53-54).
The Zwingli view is an utter heresy and falacy, which use’s St Paul to resolve what Jesus Christ stated. Whos God here, St Paul or Christ???
You see the problem with this assumption is not only the sermon but Biblical context/content of OT/NT which clearly describes the liturgy of the Mass, and how sins are forgiven in the Mass, Which is through the Church by the Ordained Priest. Such as Leviticus 5 and John 20 and so on, thus OT to NT!!! When did the idea of the Real Presence as symbolic arrive? Umm, what 1500 years later?
Fact is no-where in Scripture does Christ make the statement just believe in me and your sins are forgiven.
The premise of the arguement becomes thus this by Protestants.
1] First, what eating His flesh and drinking His Blood does not mean.
Here none Trump what Christ actually states:shrug: All are out of Biblcal context/content.
2} Second, what eating His flesh and drinking His Blood does mean. which is conflict with over 1100 years of Oral and Written tradition, let alone from then to today.
The problem with all these heresys is that is simply doesn’t resolve the Priesthood and forgiveness of sins through the Priest/Church OT/NT
Not only does this novel incorrect thinking place little depth in Biblical understanding, it ignores what Luther clearly stated, suggesting he simply took “the middle road” in the debate. Thats not historically true or a fact. For had Luther not “believed” exactly what he stated, then as arrogant as he was, I’m postive he would have clarified the subject. If fact he stated exactly what he mean’t.
Thus not only was Luther and the Baptists incorrect. But geez at least Luther was somewhere in the ballpark, be it the bleachers. The further thinking isn’t even the stadium.
1] Ignores Apostolic tradition, and the authority to lose and bind which only the Apostolic Churchs holds from day one foward. So the johnny come lately theory is utterly false.
2] Ignores Jewish/Christian covenant as to how in fact sins are forgiven, from the time of Mose’s to Christ. Which Christ turns from animal sacrifice to himself.
3] Ignores over 1500 years of historic evidence, before the heresy even arrives.
Didache also has the Eucharist meal in the following of only those Baptised. Thus we see the sacrements already formed by Oral Tradition to written. Let alone the inscriptions in the Catacombs of the Eucharist from the 1st century.
110 A.D.: St. Ignatius of Antioch
Letter to the Romans 7,3
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible.”
Letter to the Philadephians 3,3 - 4
“Do not err, my brethren,: if anyone follow a schismatic he will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care then to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 7
“From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection. It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.”
Belief in the Literal/Real Presence is a universal and perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, that is to say, she has taught it everywhere and always, from her birth from the pierce side of our Lord down to the present day. No Christian denied it in the first millennium. Only in the eleventh century did anyone at all deny it. The Church immediately responded by reaffirming the perennial teaching by defending what she had received from the Lord. It wasn’t until the Protestant Reformation fifteen centuries after Christ’s death that rejection of the Real Presence gained a following of any significance. The Holy Spirit has protected the majority of the world’s believers (Catholics and Orthodox) from error in this matter. (It is also worthwhile noting that not all Protestants deny the Real Presence.) And it would be worthwhile to note with good reason its probly exactly why the CC was so reluctant to even give the Bible to the mass to comtemplate in heretical terms.
Perhaps should one find transubstantiation mystical, may well be for many reasons. Ah one can only assume there.
Peace
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The Bible can’t prove anything, really. I see people here literally defy a literal piece of Scripture and make it something else.
You have to go back to original practices of believers…and the Eucharist was indeed looked upon as sacred, and the means to enter into the divine life.
We call these original practices under the title of Tradition.
It all goes back to the grace of faith, a gift freely given.
My former pastor said we should consider it a real privilege that we believe in the Eucharist, because we are not worthy of such faith…the Lord gave us this faith.
And it is why I am very limited in going tit for tat with Bible quotes…St. Paul warned us not to do that…you say so much and place the questioning soul in God’s hands.
You have to go back to original practices of believers…and the Eucharist was indeed looked upon as sacred, and the means to enter into the divine life.
We call these original practices under the title of Tradition.
It all goes back to the grace of faith, a gift freely given.
My former pastor said we should consider it a real privilege that we believe in the Eucharist, because we are not worthy of such faith…the Lord gave us this faith.
And it is why I am very limited in going tit for tat with Bible quotes…St. Paul warned us not to do that…you say so much and place the questioning soul in God’s hands.
E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
1000 post limit.
Great post to end the thread on.
Thanks to all for participating.
- Status