Protestants, how can this be possible?

[luke1_28]

I am sorry because it seems that I have hijacked this thread with my understanding of the Holy Eucharist. However, I think it’s pertinent to the thread and every thread because it really IS the Source and Summit of our Faith. Who is like God?

Can it not be seen that the protestant reformation was like a domino effect? They lost their faith in the Church that Christ founded. The Eucharist naturally is the next thing to be if not negotiated then completely doctrined out of their faith. They lost Apostolic Succession with their revolt, so therefore they lost the priesthood and thus, the True Worship God the Father requires from His children that we OWE Him because of how His Only Begotten Son died for us.

When those who are invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, when Christ marries His Bride, what Feast will the protestants partake of?

As God the Father took a rib from Adam so that his bride, Eve, might have life, so too does God the Son give of HIS OWN Body, so that His Bride, the Church, might have Life. “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life.”

Who are those protestants to say that we Catholics attach too much importance to the Holy Eucharist, when Christ Himself says something as serious as that?

In 500 short years, their understanding of it has been so diminished and darkened, that when the Wedding Feast of the Lamb takes place which seems like very soon - they just might show up at the wrong party. May God have mercy.

God bless us all,
luke1_28

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Who are those protestants to say that we Catholics attach too much importance to the Holy Eucharist, when Christ Himself says something as serious as that?

Your passion for Christ’s Holy Eucharist is both remarkable and commendable. However, it also is so great that you continue to hear things that Protestant aren’t really saying – or at least very few are. The vast majority of us have no contention with how important it is for you or even for us. Our disagreement is merely over different undestandings of what is actually occuring during it.

Yes, that very disagreement is something that is important to you, and you want us to believe the same as you do.

Thank-you for caring for us so much. It is a blessing to be so loved. But if you do, then you must also respect that we have our own views. They are different than yours. But they do not diminish the importance of the sacrament, notice (with one notable exception in the Quakers) we retained it as a sacrament even as though we rejected many other things that are considered sacraments within the Catholic church are not sacraments to us. So, we do value the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, Holy Communion, the Eucharist as being sublimely important. Most of us even acknowledge the real presence of Christ in the midst of it – though I suppose you may not like our understanding of that either – and think it the highpoint of Christian worship.

So, though I know you wish to debate the details and differences, this is why I ask you to first, especially in this thread where we have been asked to explain where we Protestants have been asked to explain where we are coming from, first take the time to listen to us. When you don’t, you end up hearing things different than what we are actually saying.

 

[PJM]

=Grace Seeker-James and PJM, I know you aren’t arguing in the sense of trying to stir up trouble. You are just being prepared to present a defense for the faith that is in you. I respect that. However, I would also ask that if you are sincere in seeking to understand how it is that Protestants think on these things and where we come from, that you respect that this is how we (or at least one) Protestants arrive at it. You said that you were seeking to understand, not enter into a debate nor correct our errors. Normally I would be glad to actually dialog on these points, but I’ve learned that on CAF it isn’t genuine dialong, it isn’t even debate because there is very little listening done. That’s why I so seldom bother to post on, or even read, CAF anymore. I find very little point in being part of such one-sided “conversations.” Now, if there is something that remains confusing, please, share that with me and I’ll do my best to better explain where I am coming from.

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words.

I’m not trying to be argumenative, nor do I think [others may not agree] that I don’t listen.

I am as God made be very pragmatic. Logically I see the wisdom pf John Paul II, and Benedict XVI on the issue of truth. Every issue, at it’s root can only have a single truth.

If this is true and I believe that it is, it raises some very difficult questions about the origin, reason and authority of the entire Protestant movement.

We are nearing 800 post on this string, and not one of them has replied directly to the OPQ that I asked; this dispite reasking that question three times. [Now four.]

Certainly I wish to dialog; to hear you’re side of the story, but what ever WE DO, should be sincerely trying to discover that single truth. Right:shrug:

It seems to me that there is more than I am able to comprehend from a historical perspective? What was the motive, the reason and the justification for seperating from the Catholic Church? And similarly, what is the justification in light of 2 Tim. 3:16, which in the King James Bible say’s the same as the Catholic Bible.

It seems to my limited intellegence, an obvious contradiction, and I’d really like to better understand that “why’s?” I do tend to be a “more black and white”, than shades of grey in my understanding. But I’m here to listen, and we are talking all around the topic, but not addressing the opening question.

Thanks, and love and prayers,

 

[Grace_Seeker]

PJM, I’m sorry that it came across that I was saying that you don’t listen. I do find that to experience to be generally true on most forums and CAF even more than most. But I can’t say that it is true of you personally. I accepted that you were sincere in your question. And I have tried to be sincere in my response. You say that no one has yet to reply directly to your opening post’s question. I’m sorry you feel that way. I did at least try. I’m sorry I failed. I must not yet understand the nature of your question.

Maybe if we (all of us who are participating in this thread, Catholic and Protestant alike) could focus on your central question more and on the attractive, perhaps even related, but endless rabbit trails less we would have a better result? To that end if, as a way of refocusing us, you could restate your question at its barest essence it would help me and maybe some of the rest who care to respond.

 

[PJM]

=luke1_28;5761642]I am sorry because it seems that I have hijacked this thread with my understanding of the Holy Eucharist. However, I think it’s pertinent to the thread and every thread because it really IS the Source and Summit of our Faith. Who is like God?

Can it not be seen that the protestant reformation was like a domino effect? They lost their faith in the Church that Christ founded. The Eucharist naturally is the next thing to be if not negotiated then completely doctrined out of their faith. They lost Apostolic Succession with their revolt, so therefore they lost the priesthood and thus, the True Worship God the Father requires from His children that we OWE Him because of how His Only Begotten Son died for us.

When those who are invited to the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, when Christ marries His Bride, what Feast will the protestants partake of?

As God the Father took a rib from Adam so that his bride, Eve, might have life, so too does God the Son give of HIS OWN Body, so that His Bride, the Church, might have Life. “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life.”

Who are those protestants to say that we Catholics attach too much importance to the Holy Eucharist, when Christ Himself says something as serious as that?

In 500 short years, their understanding of it has been so diminished and darkened, that when the Wedding Feast of the Lamb takes place which seems like very soon - they just might show up at the wrong party. May God have mercy.

God bless us all,
luke1_28

Hi luke1_28,

I think it is fair to say that we Catholics have at least as difficult time understanding Protestants as they do us.

I also believe that the problem with Protestants stems from a lack of understanding just “Who and What” God actually is. If one is unable to gain even a limited understanding of God’s Perfect and unchangeable Nature, one simply will never be able to comprehend what the Bible actually says and means.

They seem impervious to the very logical FACT, that “lack of understanding the Bible is lack of understanding God,” and that the crux of the problem lies in self- interpretation, which is a recent [late 1500’s] development, with obviously disastrous results.

They seem to take the fact that the many hundreds of different churches this practice has spawned is somehow to be expected, and is quite acceptable. Yet the term “One Church” appears 37 times in the New Testament.

Add to this the inability to comprehend Bible passages that any fourth or fifth grader could explain what is actually written, such as John 6:40-66, Mt. 16:15-19, John 20:21-23 and Mt. 19:16, and it is actually mind -boggling! Our God is an Awesome God. Granting grace and understanding to whom it pleases Him!

As to the Eucharist, there are numerous typology statements in the Old Testament such as “manna” and “give us flesh to eat.” [Exodus] But no matter how much evidence is presented God’s desire to not grant them understanding is clearly evident. Thus, we are to remain charitable, and keep trying, knowing that ONLY GOD can give Faith, Wisdom and Understanding.

Love and prayers my friend,

 

[luke1_28]

Graceseeker,

I am not asking you to believe like I believe. Believe like you believe because YOU are created in the image and likeness of God. There is only one of you. However, if you believe something - don’t believe man-made teachings. Read and believe the WHOLE Bible and those teachings you cleave to ‘should’ through logic, be proven inadequate.

I am going to stand out on a limb here together with many that have stood on before - and say that for ALL who claim the title of Christians - the Holy Eucharist is the Source and Summit of your faith too…whether you know it yet or not. You have to take your blinders off…your resentments and discriminations - and read just Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. Then, to see the continuity, and if you are brave enough - read Catholic books on the subject. This teaching of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Fathers plan of salvation must be re-evaluated by the protestants in the light of history and Scripture. If, for 1500 years, we got it right, why do we now have it wrong? Especially when the evidence, dare I say Truth of it, is that we have it right?

Graceseeker, you frame me as someone who hasn’t studied anything outside of the Church. I was baptized Catholic but never raised as one. My religion was born of the world and not out of a church. My “communion” with my friends at one time were sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I grew up a little and studied lots of religions because I was running on empty and could feel the calling to something more. Nothing felt complete. I pittled around with Hinduism (too Golden Calf-like), Buddhism (too Humanistic), and various bents of protestantism. It was only in the Church that I was baptized in and the meticulous dissection and study of its beginning, history, and teachings, and from the Bible it gave to the world, that I had found completeness and Truth. I am no pushover. I am one who seeks out the details in everything…not just religion. I study, study, and study some more…football, baseball, computers, networks…its who I am…so this was not some blind leap of faith I made. Logic, more than any other character trait of me, was used to make such a decision, and is what made me pursue being more fully what I already was…Catholic.

In not addressing deep, deep, deep, (did I say deep?) issues, I lapsed back into the lifestyle of the not so rich and famous. I became an alcoholic and rather than go through the long story of that self realization - read my other posts. Due to my spiritual illness that alcoholism and disregard for the Church that I had, I fasted for 10 years from the Holy Eucharist…and can tell you that when you have partaken of God so intimately before, and take it for granted, this leads to a darkness that I could write a novel on and may just do sometime if God wills it. The darkness was so prevalent, that if I didn’t begin studying again, and if it weren’t for the grace of God - I would have left His Church.

So to summarize, I know your points. I didn’t learn them from this forum or Karl Keatings books. I read the same books you do…the same Bible you do…and studied.

What brought me to my knees was this logic that I continue to repeat because if anything a disunited (is that a word?) Christianity grieves the Father over - it is the importance of the Holy Eucharist in the life of His adopted children through Christ:

For thousands of years, there was one religion established by God the Father in the Old Testament. The ‘details’ of that religion is replete throughout the Old Testament.

Then there was the New Testament - and being the fulfilled Jews we are - the ‘details’ were perfected.

Then, for 1500 years - there was one understanding of the Holy Eucharist - the Body and Blood of the Lord that gives Life. ONE. That understanding - ‘the details’ - hinge on this very plain saying “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life.” The ‘details’ of the Holy Eucharist can be gleaned from Christ Himself and any writing of the Early Church Fathers. This is one of the most basic elements of Truth that in the Church hasn’t changed since Christ uttered His words, “Take this and eat. This is My Body which will be given up for you…Take this and drink, this is My Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant which shall be shed for the forgiveness of sins.”

You cannot argue with the Scriptural evidence that backs it. Christians weren’t confused for those 1500 years trying to determine True Worship because any Church calling itself just Christian had the altar, a priesthood, and the Holy Sacrifice. They knew what the central point was that marked the True Church.

I pray you will one day realize that you belong to a church that does not offer the Body and Blood of Christ fully as God the Father intended. That is one detail you might want to reconsider because the error of this began with the founder of your church - this error you are not responsible for…but you add to the error with your carrying of the tradition of YOUR church teaching which ironically is very unscriptural. This error is the one point - where if we can learn it together as taught by God the Father in the Old Testament and perfected by Christ in the New Testament, handed on to the Apostles which is celebrated today, if we can understand this teaching - it will bring us finally to the Oneness called for in John 17. We can use scripture alone and the ancient teachings if you prefer…and we will not introduce any Catechism into the dialogue. Because what the protestants have if not ousted from their midst, then redefined to suit their sect, is one of the most clearest and THE ESSENTIAL teaching in the Old and New Testament.

Personal relationship with Christ? Nothing gets more personal…

God bless,
luke1_28

 

[Dettingen]

I think that it is easier to break away and create new sects once the first big break is made. One crack appears, then others, then the edifice crumbles.

So the Roman Catholic Church was the ‘only game in town’ for a long time, but then cracks began to appear–the Eastern Orthodox crack, then the Protestant crack, and so on.

But also I think the very nature of Protestantism lends itself to the creation of many, many new faith groups. Very generally, Protestants believe in the ‘priesthood of all believers.’ That means every Christian is fully able to interpret matters of theology him/herself. No one has greater authority than another. Well, you know how many disagreements there can be among people on less significant issues. Faith being far more consequential than the preferred method for making potato salad, there are then more faith groups (sects, denominations, whatever.)

If you’re Catholic, you’re probably very comfortable with the idea that your priest, bishop, or pope knows more than you. I come from a Protestant tradition, and so I’m very comfortable switching congregations or even denominations. That comfort is probably just as baffling to you as your acceptance of someone else’s authority is to me.

I hope this helps.

Pax,

Dettingen

 

[NotTooSmart]

Add to this the inability to comprehend Bible passages that any fourth or fifth grader could explain what is actually written, such as John 6:40-66, Mt. 16:15-19, John 20:21-23 and Mt. 19:16, and it is actually mind -boggling! Our God is an Awesome God. Granting grace and understanding to whom it pleases Him!

This statement sort of caught my eye.

Particularly the point that any fifth grader can get the Catholic meaning of these verses.

Maybe I will start another thread.

For simplicity I might limit it to Matthew 16:15-19.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Since you didn’t actually answer my question, I’m going to have to presume that you as a rational creature would agree that no reasonable person can hold “I believe X” and “I believe not-X” at the same time…but you just don’t want to acknowledge it.

Let us use X as a place holder for Deuteronoy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

Then not-X would be anything that denies the oneness of God. Some would even suggest that to say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God would be a form of not-X.

So, to translate your forumlaic question into one that has actually been dealt with as a part of the developing theology of the Church it would read as follows:

Question: Would I as a rational creature agree that no reasonable person can hold “I believe that the Lord our God, the Lord is one” and “The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God” at the same time?

Answer: No, I would not agree with that conclusion. But I would agree that it requires new wineskins to understand how both could be true at the same time.

 

[PJM]

=luke1_28;5761983]Graceseeker,

I am not asking you to believe like I believe. Believe like you believe because YOU are created in the image and likeness of God. There is only one of you. However, if you believe something - don’t believe man-made teachings. Read and believe the WHOLE Bible and those teachings you cleave to ‘should’ through logic, be proven inadequate.

I am going to stand out on a limb here together with many that have stood on before - and say that for ALL who claim the title of Christians - the Holy Eucharist is the Source and Summit of your faith too…whether you know it yet or not. You have to take your blinders off…your resentments and discriminations - and read just Scripture and the Early Church Fathers. Then, to see the continuity, and if you are brave enough - read Catholic books on the subject. This teaching of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Fathers plan of salvation must be re-evaluated by the protestants in the light of history and Scripture. If, for 1500 years, we got it right, why do we now have it wrong? Especially when the evidence, dare I say Truth of it, is that we have it right?

Graceseeker, you frame me as someone who hasn’t studied anything outside of the Church. I was baptized Catholic but never raised as one. My religion was born of the world and not out of a church. My “communion” with my friends at one time were sex, drugs, and rock and roll. I grew up a little and studied lots of religions because I was running on empty and could feel the calling to something more. Nothing felt complete. I pittled around with Hinduism (too Golden Calf-like), Buddhism (too Humanistic), and various bents of protestantism. It was only in the Church that I was baptized in and the meticulous dissection and study of its beginning, history, and teachings, and from the Bible it gave to the world, that I had found completeness and Truth. I am no pushover. I am one who seeks out the details in everything…not just religion. I study, study, and study some more…football, baseball, computers, networks…its who I am…so this was not some blind leap of faith I made. Logic, more than any other character trait of me, was used to make such a decision, and is what made me pursue being more fully what I already was…Catholic.

In not addressing deep, deep, deep, (did I say deep?) issues, I lapsed back into the lifestyle of the not so rich and famous. I became an alcoholic and rather than go through the long story of that self realization - read my other posts. Due to my spiritual illness that alcoholism and disregard for the Church that I had, I fasted for 10 years from the Holy Eucharist…and can tell you that when you have partaken of God so intimately before, and take it for granted, this leads to a darkness that I could write a novel on and may just do sometime if God wills it. The darkness was so prevalent, that if I didn’t begin studying again, and if it weren’t for the grace of God - I would have left His Church.

So to summarize, I know your points. I didn’t learn them from this forum or Karl Keatings books. I read the same books you do…the same Bible you do…and studied.

What brought me to my knees was this logic that I continue to repeat because if anything a disunited (is that a word?) Christianity grieves the Father over - it is the importance of the Holy Eucharist in the life of His adopted children through Christ:

For thousands of years, there was one religion established by God the Father in the Old Testament. The ‘details’ of that religion is replete throughout the Old Testament.

Then there was the New Testament - and being the fulfilled Jews we are - the ‘details’ were perfected.

Then, for 1500 years - there was one understanding of the Holy Eucharist - the Body and Blood of the Lord that gives Life. ONE. That understanding - ‘the details’ - hinge on this very plain saying “Unless you eat My Body and drink My Blood, you cannot have My Life.” The ‘details’ of the Holy Eucharist can be gleaned from Christ Himself and any writing of the Early Church Fathers. This is one of the most basic elements of Truth that in the Church hasn’t changed since Christ uttered His words, “Take this and eat. This is My Body which will be given up for you…Take this and drink, this is My Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant which shall be shed for the forgiveness of sins.”

You cannot argue with the Scriptural evidence that backs it. Christians weren’t confused for those 1500 years trying to determine True Worship because any Church calling itself just Christian had the altar, a priesthood, and the Holy Sacrifice. They knew what the central point was that marked the True Church.

I pray you will one day realize that you belong to a church that does not offer the Body and Blood of Christ fully as God the Father intended. That is one detail you might want to reconsider because the error of this began with the founder of your church - this error you are not responsible for…but you add to the error with your carrying of the tradition of YOUR church teaching which ironically is very unscriptural. This error is the one point - where if we can learn it together as taught by God the Father in the Old Testament and perfected by Christ in the New Testament, handed on to the Apostles which is celebrated today, if we can understand this teaching - it will bring us finally to the Oneness called for in John 17. We can use scripture alone and the ancient teachings if you prefer…and we will not introduce any Catechism into the dialogue. Because what the protestants have if not ousted from their midst, then redefined to suit their sect, is one of the most clearest and THE ESSENTIAL teaching in the Old and New Testament.

Personal relationship with Christ? Nothing gets more personal…

God bless,
luke1_28

Wow! What a testimony:thumbsup: Thanks like1_28

Grace there is only one way to know the truth of Jesus True and very Real Presense in Catholic Euharist. One must be able to comprehend how very much God loves and and what extremes God will go to have a most intimate and personal relationshop with us!

That friend Grace, is the point I’d like to carefully and very prayerfully consider. PLEASE!

Love and prayers to you both!

 

[NotTooSmart]

This statement sort of caught my eye.

Particularly the point that any fifth grader can get the Catholic meaning of these verses.

Maybe I will start another thread.

For simplicity I might limit it to Matthew 16:15-19.

And it is done.

 

[PRmerger]

Let us use X as a place holder for Deuteronoy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

Then not-X would be anything that denies the oneness of God. Some would even suggest that to say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God would be a form of not-X.

So, to translate your forumlaic question into one that has actually been dealt with as a part of the developing theology of the Church it would read as follows:

Question: Would I as a rational creature agree that no reasonable person can hold “I believe that the Lord our God, the Lord is one” and “The Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God” at the same time?

Answer: No, I would not agree with that conclusion. But I would agree that it requires new wineskins to understand how both could be true at the same time.

If X is “the Lord is One”, then Not-X is “the Lord is NOT one”. And, yes, a reasonable person would reject that statement.

However, the CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God, 3 persons. If you are proferring that God is NOT one, then you are not a member of the Christian faith, Grace Seeker.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Wow! What a testimony:thumbsup: Thanks like1_28

Grace there is only one way to know the truth of Jesus True and very Real Presense in Catholic Euharist. One must be able to comprehend how very much God loves and and what extremes God will go to have a most intimate and personal relationshop with us!

That friend Grace, is the point I’d like to carefully and very prayerfully consider. PLEASE!

Love and prayers to you both!

I asked this question in another thread, but didn’t get an asnwer. It was pointed out to me that the disciples walking to Emmaus knew Jesus in the breaking of the bread and that this was proof to substatiate the view that Jesus’ Real Presence is known in the breaking of the bread at a Catholic Eucharist.

My question then and still is, does this mean that Jesus was not bodily present except in the bread, but not in his person? Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same? Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread?

In sum, what do you mean by Real Presence? For, you see, I too believe in Jesus’ real presence, but I don’t think that I mean it in the same way you do.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If X is “the Lord is One”, then Not-X is “the Lord is NOT one”. And, yes, a reasonable person would reject that statement.

However, the CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God, 3 persons. If you are proferring that God is NOT one, then you are not a member of the Christian faith, Grace Seeker.

Did I profer that God is NOT one? No, I did not. Rather, I showed when questioning about how two apparently contradictory statements can be made and held at the same time, we in the Church have been pretty good about that. Another example: Jesus is 100% human AND at the same time 100% God. Usually 100 +100 = 200, but not in this case. Point being that no mathematician would accept that as true. Yet the Church teaches it. Why? Because in Jesus’ case it is in fact true. Yet these are contradictory truths. Can both truths be true at the same time? Well, it appears they can. And as religion and science can have two different truths, so too can any other grouping of people. I’m not saying that all truths are to be accepted as true regardless. But I think we have to allow for the reality that just because someone else’s truth isn’t identical with our truth doesn’t mean that it isn’t necessarily true at all. If we were to step outside of the box we have reserved for ourselves from which to observe truth, we might find that some other things that did not appear to be true from our perspective can indeed be held to be true form another perspective. Then the question that must be asked is, are both perspectives equally valid?

Well, I noticed one other thing in your quesitoing of me. I see you are suggesting that the Catholic church is comfortable adding to the scripture. For, you said, “CC teaches that the Lord is ONE God.” And yet, Deuteronomy 6:4 says NOT that the Lord is one God, but that the Lord is One. Can the scriptural perspective and the perspective that comes from the point of view of the Catholic church both be equally valid?

I have no problem with this particular Catholic interpretation, but what the Catholic church teaches is not exactly scripture, it is an interpretation of scripture. And I even get that. We all must interpret scripture. While I agree with you on this particular passage, there are others where I disagree with the Catholic Church. The Catholic church seems to hold that it has sole authority to interpret scripture; it is this view of itself that I protest and believe all who are guided by the Holy Spirit have equal authority. We may not all be equally correct, but we do all have equal authority.

And then the difference between your interpretation and my interpretation (your understanding of the true and my understanding of what is true) is arbitrated not by one of the two parties, but by Christ, and by Christ himself, not his vicar.

 

[PJM]

=NotTooSmart;5762595]And it is done.

Hi friends,

Could you be so kind as to advise us of the Forum and name of the string, so we can participate?

I choose my words with prayerful and careful consideration, and would be grateful for the opportunity to further address the issue of understanding and the lack there of.

Love and prayers.

Pat

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Pat, NotTooSmart created a link for it. All you had to do was click on the word “done” above. The name of the thread is “Are you smarter than a fifth grader?”, click here.

 

[PJM]

=Grace Seeker;5761784]PJM, I’m sorry that it came across that I was saying that you don’t listen. I do find that to experience to be generally true on most forums and CAF even more than most. But I can’t say that it is true of you personally. I accepted that you were sincere in your question. And I have tried to be sincere in my response. You say that no one has yet to reply directly to your opening post’s question. I’m sorry you feel that way. I did at least try. I’m sorry I failed. I must not yet understand the nature of your question.

Maybe if we (all of us who are participating in this thread, Catholic and Protestant alike) could focus on your central question more and on the attractive, perhaps even related, but endless rabbit trails less we would have a better result? To that end if, as a way of refocusing us, you could restate your question at its barest essence it would help me and maybe some of the rest who care to respond.

Grace, thank you so very much:thumbsup:

The simple point that either has not been addressed ot dummy me didn’t get is that the Bible. both the King James and the Catholic Bible quote 2 Tim. 3: 16 and proclaiming the single truth that the Bible is Divenely Inspired. Correct?

If the bible is IN FACT Divinely inspired, and IF both Catholics and Protestants grasp this reality; then on what basis did Protestantism began:shrug:

Your bible has fewer books, and numerious changes were made to the text of the Catholic bible.

What possible justification and esplaination can there be for this? Either the then 1100 year old Catholic Bible is true and inspired or its not? it can’t be both?

Love and prayers, and thanks for you’re patience with me

 

[luke1_28]

I asked this question in another thread, but didn’t get an asnwer. It was pointed out to me that the disciples walking to Emmaus knew Jesus in the breaking of the bread and that this was proof to substatiate the view that Jesus’ Real Presence is known in the breaking of the bread at a Catholic Eucharist.

My question then and still is, does this mean that Jesus was not bodily present except in the bread, but not in his person? Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same? Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread?

In sum, what do you mean by Real Presence? For, you see, I too believe in Jesus’ real presence, but I don’t think that I mean it in the same way you do.

The term ‘breaking of the bread’ wasn’t popular yet. In the author’s mind though, it is clear what the term is and means. It is used to signify the celebration of the Holy Eucharist and can mean nothing other. Christ to these men was still dead - and they were discouraged. However, what they did realize was that this man was Jesus and was RISEN! Because when Jesus took the bread into His hands, broke it and consecrated it saying, “This is My body.” no one EVER in the history of Judaism has ever done that nor could claim to do that.

Only Christ could do so (EDIT: UNTIL THAT TIME - CHRIST COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO DO SO BUT THIS WASN’T YET TAKING PLACE WHICH EVEN MORE CONVICTED THE DISCIPLES THIS WAS CHRIST) - and do so most perfectly. The spotless Sacrifice. The Lamb of God was now present…and these road trippers never allowed their minds to think ANY differently after that occurred. This is why St. Paul mentions we must be of One Mind that all disciples in good standing of that time were of. The Holy Eucharist is commUNION in Christ. Perfectly - fulfilled - Communion.

Now I am not sure from the preaching of John 6 until the narrative of the disciples on their way to Emmaus - exactly how much time had passed between the two stories…but if they were still recognized as ‘disciples’, then they were catechised fully and convicted in what they believe enough to stick around that long. They were taught by Christ Himself and those Jews and even Gentiles knew that Christ meant clearly that it was His Body and Blood - and that they couldn’t have His Life unless they ate it. As well, Jews and Gentiles were familiar with Jewish customs and beliefs enough to understand that the sacrifice wasn’t complete unless you ate the sacrifice. The Christians of that time knew only one Church had the power to celebrate such a Sacrifice.

Grace, there should be no confusion about this. You stated in another post that I have my beliefs - you have yours…BUT…There isn’t the way YOU believe or even the way I believe. There is one way the Bible tells it - and there can be no other way. Anything else is man-made and therefore this is where your confusion lies.

You have to understand the Old Testament fully and God’s requirements of His Chosen People to understand the New Testament fully and Christ’s requirements of not only God’s Chosen People but the rest of the world. Christ said what He said and He meant what He said. He offered no apologies.

God bless you,
luke1_28

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Thank-you for a thoughtful exposition. Now, if I may, I’ll repeat my questions. You may have thought you were answering them, but I am unable to identify what of the above comments address the questions I actually asked.

The first three are Yes/No questions and I would appreciate a Yes or No answer to them, if you would please (Matthew 5:37). The last question gives you chance to expound to your hearts content on a subject I know is and respect as very dear to you.

1. Was Jesus bodily present in the bread (at Emmaus), but NOT in his person?
2. Was Jesus Really Present in both his manifested physical body AND in the bread that was broken at the same?
3. Is there a difference between Jesus’ Real Presence before the eyes of these disciples and in the bread?
4. What do you mean by Real Presence?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi friends,

Could you be so kind as to advise us of the Forum and name of the string, so we can participate?

I choose my words with prayerful and careful consideration, and would be grateful for the opportunity to further address the issue of understanding and the lack there of.

Love and prayers.

Pat

Pat: see link in quote.

The thread is right here in Non Catholic Religions: Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader.

Will be awaiting your response.

But anyway, here is the link. Click on the word “here” in the previous sentence and will will be there.