If I remember correctly, he was raised in a Christian Home. He shares a lot about his pre Catholic Life, the ministries he was involved in, the seminary he attended (Gordon Conwell College)
Yes , I did hear some of his stuff but again still need to hear of conversion experience,irregardless of how raised, ministries, seminary . These can all be done without really "knowing "Him .
Just what do you think that Christ meant by those words? And he didn’t say he would no longer drink, he said " I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Well, aren’t you clever! Obviously Catholic exegetes have missed this little tidbit over the centuries. Thanks for pointing it out. Now what are we going to do?
Your splitting hairs…you should be able to see that in his testimony. Of course no testimony, not even yours, can definitively show a heart of conversion.
Just that many here say transubstantiation eucharist is very biblical and understood with both old and new testament. That is, the Passover is a type of making “present”, much like your CC Eucharist, but it is just not there in OT as I see it .
Of course i did not finish the scripture but did put in … to show the verse continues.Not sure how you got I Inferred he would not drink again. My point was how He referred to what was in the cup after consecration.
Yes, I think Jesus may have meant that in terms of literally eating the Son of Man, like don’t go there but eat by rightly by believing in just whom this Son of Man is. The ancients did not miss this .
I know I would seem to be stubborn in splitting hairs , but still feel it is proper and right to do so, for as a man thinketh in his heart,and out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. So it is very important what a man says about his conversion, apart from his works of righteousness. Agree, a testimony is not perfect or "definitive’’ but you at least have to have it as one of the starting points when discussing the Pilgrim’s path.
And one must wonder “why?” These terms were coined at the Reformation, as part of stripping the Apostolic understanding of the Sacraments. They represent ideas that are such a serious departure as to be “a different gospel” than the one we received.
I noticed you left “physically” out of your picture. During the Passover, ,a real lamb was slain and eaten. During the Lord’s supper, He calls the bread “my body” and the wine “My Blood”. So basically you are calling Jesus a liar? Or that He mispoke Himself? Do you realize that Christians for 1500 years believed that He meant exactly what He said?
No, and to Eastern Christians it does not either, but all Churches founded by the Apostles are in unity on “what present must mean”.
Yes, this is consistent with the Apostolic faith, but it is a much deeper mystery than just a “token” and an “ordinance”. The Eucharist brings us physically present to the foot of the cross.
Yes, and it may be a subtle difference, but extremely critical. The loss of the concept of the passover Lamb as a true and real sacrifice compromises many essential elements of the One Faith. It fails to capture the reality that Jesus Himself is the Lamb who was sacrificed, and that He held Himself in His own Hands at the Passover meal.
This is not the case, benhur. The ordinances were followed exactly. No one ever claimed it was the “same lamb” that was eaten! The point is that the ordinances for the selection and preparation of the lamb are the same, and the ritual consumption of the Lamb, with the telling of the story that is meant to be remembered. Where are you getting this “physically connected to the original”? Is this the angle you are using to deny that the communion elements physically connect us to Christ?
Yes, I have seen many non-catholic services, and I realize there is a physical participation, but it does not reflect what happened in the Upper Room because the whole sense of sacrifice is lost. The meaning of Jesus using the elements to indicate that His Body and Blood were being given to pay for our sins has been disconnected.
At least for me, it isn’t the Spirit’s guidance that’s an issue. there is no doubt that the Spirit is guiding His Church - in Rome, in Antioch, in Wittenburg, etc. The issue is how well we follow that guidance, and human beings being what we are, we sometimes misunderstand. the “we” includes popes and bishops, cardinals and laity.
Are you aware of the vast evidence we have that the earliest Church referred to the Mass as a “sacrifice”?
“Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; therefore, let us keep the feast”
If so, it would have been by the Anabaptists, at least as a primary way of talking about them. The mainstream Reformers used the word “sacrament.” I believe that “ordinance” became popular in relatively modern times, with the explosion of Baptists and Baptist-related forms of Protestantism.
I think this lack of understanding of the nature and meaning of the Eucharist is a reflection of a deficient understanding of Passover. Unfortunately it is very common among most Christians who have little background in Judaism. As Jesus noted;
20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Luke 22:20–21
Yes, we certainly inculcate Christ by “eating” His Word, but the ancients also did not miss that Jesus was speaking literally of His own Body and Blood that He shed on the cross for us. This is why the Church believed nothing else until the Reformation 1500 years after the Apostles. At that point, people returned to the early heresies that were defeated by the Church, that the Eucharist was not “really” His Body and Blood.
Very well. Please let us know how you have judged the man’s heart.
Honestly, without an understanding of pre-Christian Judaism, Christianity doesn’t really make much sense. That’s actually the main reason why the Church decided to keep the Hebrew Scriptures as part of the canon in the first place. The apostles, especially Paul and John, referred constantly to the Old Testament writings to prove the messiahship of Jesus. Matthew considered the Torah to be so important that part of his depiction of Jesus (to the Jewish people) was as the giver of the “new law” - he has Jesus give five long discourses, one for each book of the Torah.