M
mojob
Guest
No, it doesn’t, but the priest says the words to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ by the power Jesus gave the apostles when he made made them priests.
- Status
T
Teflon93
Guest
The Catechism:
T
Teflon93
Guest
The Catechism, cont:
M
mojob
Guest
WOW THAT IS SOME STATEMENT. AGREE, AGREE, AGREE!!!
T
Teflon93
Guest
It’s long but boy, does the Catechism pack a wallop!WOW THAT IS SOME STATEMENT. AGREE, AGREE, AGREE!!!
When we join together with the Lord and the saints in Mass, we are for that glorious period at the Last Supper and simultaneously at every Mass held everywhere from that day until this.
It is both memorial and the event itself and is the mechanism by which those of us born too late to have been an apostle may still join the faithful in Christ’s presence on that fateful day.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
“do this in memory of me” is one of the worst translations of this line and leaves it very incomplete.
Anamnesis is much more than just a memorial.
G
grannymh
Guest
click Meet Bishop Doran and then click ']Bishop Doran’s pastoral letter on the Eucharist - 1997
Or go to www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop and then click the pastoral letter.
or try www.rockforddiocese.org I’m having trouble with getting the address in this post. Sorry for my senior moments.
Those of you who worship Christ through other religions than Catholic will find answers to some of your questions in this pastoral letter. For example: It would answer a question a Lutheran, Missouri Synod friend asked me about why the Priest says during Holy Mass: “Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.”
Regarding re-enact:
The correct word is re-presentation. At Holy Mass we are present for the unbloody re-presentation of Jesus’ saving sacrifice on the cross. This is why the correct vocabulary is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Through Transubstantiation, The Body and Blood of Christ become substantially present under the appearances or accidents of bread and wine. Because it is the substance which is changed into Christ, Catholics continue to worship the validly consecrated host outside of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. "“The Lord’s presence [the consecrated Hosts] in the tabernacle should make a profound impression on us.” quote from Bishop Doran’s letter.
“Catholics believe that the bread and wine,once consecrated, do not cease to be the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus until the appearances of bread and wine are gone.” quote from Bishop Doran’s letter.
Bishop Doran also writes about the value of Eucharistic Adoration outside the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Catholics especially should read this section.
In our 24/7 Eucharistic Chapel, non-Catholics, who reverently respect the Catholic belief of Christ’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament, do join us in the peace of the sacred place.
The Bishop’s references range from the Hebrew Scriptures to the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To conclude: Here’s a Bishop Doran quote taken out of context.
The offering of sacrifice goes against the grain of a secular, materialistic and individualistic society. … In times when people thought of God as the Supreme Being Who created all things, and as the One for Whose glory we were all made, it seemed so “natural” to offer Him a gift, that is, a sacrifice.
May all of us continue to focus on Christ.
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear Teflon93 and others,
I respectfully ask you to reread paragraph 1382 of the Catholic Catechism (see above posts) because it states where we are
at that glorious period you mentioned above – and it is NOT at the Last Supper.
At the Consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Priest prays the words of Christ at the Last Supper:“Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is My Body which will be given up for you.” These same words are repeated in all Four Eucharistic Prayers. (source: the Magnificat monthly magazine)
“Will be given up for you.” is future tense and points to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. At Holy Mass, “the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated” read paragraph 1382. The Last Supper is not what is being perpetuated.
Please continue to read paragraph 1382. “But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the intimate union of the faithful with Christ through Communion. To receive communion is to receive Christ Himself Who has offered Himself for us.”
And where did Christ offer Himself unto death in reparation for our sins?
The sacred banquet of communion with the Lord’s Body and Blood becomes possible because of Christ’s death on the cross which He, Himself, foretold at the Last Supper with His own words which are repeated by the Priest at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. My English teacher would frown at the preceeding sentence – hope you can follow it.
Let’s stay focussed on Christ on the cross.
Do look up Bishop Doran’s pastoral letter on the Most Holy Eucharist mentioned in my previous post. go to www.rockforddiocese.org click on Meet Bishop Doran and then click his pastoral letter.
Or try
www.rockforddiocese.org/bishop
Blessings,
grannymh
G
GemmaRose
Guest
I’ve read through this thread and would like to post some thoughts for reflection by the non-Catholic Christians who have contributed here.
Thus, there was basically one faith for approximately 1,500 years.
This faith, which would now be referred to as Catholic, was based on Scripture and Apostolic teaching and Tradition. Heresies which arose along the way were dealt with by the teachings of various Church fathers.
Those who accuse Catholics of thinking of themselves as “right” should take note that we do so because, well, we are. The Catholic faith is the one that originated in Jesus and the teachings of His apostles.
Non-Catholic Christians can trace their roots back to Martin Luther about 500 years ago, or maybe just to “Pastor Joe” in 1985.
They ask Him in Verse 28 "…‘What must we do if we are to carry out God’s work?’ " Jesus answers in Verse 29: "Jesus gave them this answer, ‘This is carrying out God’s work: you must believe in the one he has sent.’ "
The people obviously understood this to mean that He, Jesus, was claiming to be the "one [God] has sent, because they reply in Verses 30-31: "So they said, ‘What sign will you yourself do, the sight of which will make us believe in you? What work will you do? 31 Our fathers ate manna in the desert; as scripture says: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ "
To clarify, Jesus knew that they were challenging Him whether or not He was greater than Moses, to whom they were referring when they said that “He gave them bread from heaven to eat,” because Jesus’ response in Verses 32-33 was "… ‘In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread; 33 for the bread of God is the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ "
When the crowd asked for the bread that Jesus referred to, He answered in Verse 35: "… ‘I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever hunger; no one who believes in me will ever thirst.’ "
Jesus continued speaking, however (Verses 41-42), "Meanwhile the Jews were complaining to each other about him, because he had said, ‘I am the bread that has come down from heaven.’ 42 They were saying, 'Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?” ’ "
In Verses 48-60, Jesus makes abundantly clear that He is speaking of His own Flesh and Blood – not just any old bread:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; 50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ 52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. 59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. 60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ "
If there is any dispute about whether or not John was speaking in metaphorical or symbolic language, the verb “eat” used in the above Verses 54-58 is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may have been a way of John’s emphasizing the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
In the controversial Verse 63 ('It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.), Jesus is not saying that the actual Bread/Flesh and Blood is spirit, but to contrast the natural and the divine (see John 3:6 - “what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit.” ), that all which He had just said about His being the Bread of Life is through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, not some merely human boast.
RIGHT[/RIGHT]
- First, many seem to forget that there was only one Church until 1054 A.D. when the East and West split. To overly simplify, let’s just call this a split over Church politics rather than doctrine.
Thus, there was basically one faith for approximately 1,500 years.
This faith, which would now be referred to as Catholic, was based on Scripture and Apostolic teaching and Tradition. Heresies which arose along the way were dealt with by the teachings of various Church fathers.
Those who accuse Catholics of thinking of themselves as “right” should take note that we do so because, well, we are. The Catholic faith is the one that originated in Jesus and the teachings of His apostles.
Non-Catholic Christians can trace their roots back to Martin Luther about 500 years ago, or maybe just to “Pastor Joe” in 1985.
- If we are going to play dueling Bible interpretations, I will use an approved Catholic version since the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ, has been the sole, legitimate, guardian and interpreter of Scripture since the beginnings of Christianity. Therefore…
They ask Him in Verse 28 "…‘What must we do if we are to carry out God’s work?’ " Jesus answers in Verse 29: "Jesus gave them this answer, ‘This is carrying out God’s work: you must believe in the one he has sent.’ "
The people obviously understood this to mean that He, Jesus, was claiming to be the "one [God] has sent, because they reply in Verses 30-31: "So they said, ‘What sign will you yourself do, the sight of which will make us believe in you? What work will you do? 31 Our fathers ate manna in the desert; as scripture says: He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ "
To clarify, Jesus knew that they were challenging Him whether or not He was greater than Moses, to whom they were referring when they said that “He gave them bread from heaven to eat,” because Jesus’ response in Verses 32-33 was "… ‘In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread; 33 for the bread of God is the bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ "
When the crowd asked for the bread that Jesus referred to, He answered in Verse 35: "… ‘I am the bread of life. No one who comes to me will ever hunger; no one who believes in me will ever thirst.’ "
Jesus continued speaking, however (Verses 41-42), "Meanwhile the Jews were complaining to each other about him, because he had said, ‘I am the bread that has come down from heaven.’ 42 They were saying, 'Surely this is Jesus son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know. How can he now say, “I have come down from heaven?” ’ "
In Verses 48-60, Jesus makes abundantly clear that He is speaking of His own Flesh and Blood – not just any old bread:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate manna in the desert and they are dead; 50 but this is the bread which comes down from heaven, so that a person may eat it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.’ 52 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person. 57 As the living Father sent me and I draw life from the Father, so whoever eats me will also draw life from me. 58 This is the bread which has come down from heaven; it is not like the bread our ancestors ate: they are dead, but anyone who eats this bread will live for ever. 59 This is what he taught at Capernaum in the synagogue. 60 After hearing it, many of his followers said, ‘This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?’ "
If there is any dispute about whether or not John was speaking in metaphorical or symbolic language, the verb “eat” used in the above Verses 54-58 is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: “munch,” “gnaw.” This may have been a way of John’s emphasizing the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus.
In the controversial Verse 63 ('It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.), Jesus is not saying that the actual Bread/Flesh and Blood is spirit, but to contrast the natural and the divine (see John 3:6 - “what is born of human nature is human; what is born of the Spirit is spirit.” ), that all which He had just said about His being the Bread of Life is through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, not some merely human boast.
RIGHT[/RIGHT]
G
GemmaRose
Guest
(cont.)
Notice in Verse 51, Jesus says, “…the bread that I shall give…” which obviously means that He had not given it yet, but will in the future. So when did He give this bread/His flesh, His Blood?
Let’s turn to Luke 22:19-20: "Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ 20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.’ "
First He said, “THIS is my body,” and afterward He said, “do THIS in remembrance of me.”
Do what?
Do “THIS.”
What is “THIS” ?
“THIS” is His “body.” (“He did the same with the cup…:” )
So, did Jesus mean the Eucharist to be a nice little love feast meal? NO! He meant it to be His BODY and BLOOD, which it becomes through His legitimate successors (i.e., validly ordained Catholic clergy).
) Back when the anthrax scare was top in the news, if someone opened an envelope which contained an unidentified white powder, it was a cause for a “red alert.” Now, if one was baking and opened a new box of powdered sugar, one was not afraid of the sugar even though it is a white powder. Likewise, if one sprinkled some baby powder on themselves, one was not afraid of the powder, even though it was white and powdery. No, people were only afraid of the real thing (or something unidentified which could be the real thing).
Which had to be destroyed? The baby powder? The powdered sugar? No! Only the anthrax-riddled powder.
Using this analogy: When devil worshippers want to perform abominations with a consecrated Host, where do they break into? A Pentecostal church? A Lutheran church? A faith-filled, Bible-thumping church? Presbyterian? Methodist? Evangelical? Assembly of God? Etc. etc. etc. ???
NO! They break into a Catholic Church because even the demons in hell know that what Catholics keep reserved in the Tabernacle is the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ Our Lord, because, as He promised in Matthew 28:20 - "…‘I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.’ "
And He keeps His promise to this day in the Tabernacles and on the Altars of His Holy Catholic Church, and within His faithful followers who can receive His Body and Blood every day.
Notice in Verse 51, Jesus says, “…the bread that I shall give…” which obviously means that He had not given it yet, but will in the future. So when did He give this bread/His flesh, His Blood?
Let’s turn to Luke 22:19-20: "Then he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ 20 He did the same with the cup after supper, and said, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood poured out for you.’ "
First He said, “THIS is my body,” and afterward He said, “do THIS in remembrance of me.”
Do what?
Do “THIS.”
What is “THIS” ?
“THIS” is His “body.” (“He did the same with the cup…:” )
So, did Jesus mean the Eucharist to be a nice little love feast meal? NO! He meant it to be His BODY and BLOOD, which it becomes through His legitimate successors (i.e., validly ordained Catholic clergy).
- As to which Christians do it the “correct” way, let’s look at it logically.
) Back when the anthrax scare was top in the news, if someone opened an envelope which contained an unidentified white powder, it was a cause for a “red alert.” Now, if one was baking and opened a new box of powdered sugar, one was not afraid of the sugar even though it is a white powder. Likewise, if one sprinkled some baby powder on themselves, one was not afraid of the powder, even though it was white and powdery. No, people were only afraid of the real thing (or something unidentified which could be the real thing).Which had to be destroyed? The baby powder? The powdered sugar? No! Only the anthrax-riddled powder.
Using this analogy: When devil worshippers want to perform abominations with a consecrated Host, where do they break into? A Pentecostal church? A Lutheran church? A faith-filled, Bible-thumping church? Presbyterian? Methodist? Evangelical? Assembly of God? Etc. etc. etc. ???
NO! They break into a Catholic Church because even the demons in hell know that what Catholics keep reserved in the Tabernacle is the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of Jesus Christ Our Lord, because, as He promised in Matthew 28:20 - "…‘I am with you always; yes, to the end of time.’ "
And He keeps His promise to this day in the Tabernacles and on the Altars of His Holy Catholic Church, and within His faithful followers who can receive His Body and Blood every day.
G
grannymh
Guest
Help Someone!
What subforum are we in???
I landed in this thread through a search. I get back to it through e-mail alerts.
How do I find this thread from just turning on the computer?
It seems that this topic was in a thread but I have no clue where because these old eyes can’t find an identifying heading.
And the headings change !!!
Today, I see Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Appologetics > then title of thread
My guess is that > means “go to” but which topic do I go to in
Apologetics? I tried Philosophy but didn’t see this thread.
Also, a reply to me had numbers after my name. What are those? Where did they come from? How are they used?
What I need is an idiot’s guide to this web site!
Last night when I was on this thread, I was feeling great because I was getting along really well. This morning, I had ideas to share and then poof, I’m back to square one. Wish I could find square one in some sort of a guide…
Give me another hour being awake and I won’t be so crabby.
Today, focus on Christ,
Blessings,
grannymh
What subforum are we in???
I landed in this thread through a search. I get back to it through e-mail alerts.
How do I find this thread from just turning on the computer?
It seems that this topic was in a thread but I have no clue where because these old eyes can’t find an identifying heading.
And the headings change !!!
Today, I see Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Appologetics > then title of thread
My guess is that > means “go to” but which topic do I go to in
Apologetics? I tried Philosophy but didn’t see this thread.
Also, a reply to me had numbers after my name. What are those? Where did they come from? How are they used?
What I need is an idiot’s guide to this web site!
Last night when I was on this thread, I was feeling great because I was getting along really well. This morning, I had ideas to share and then poof, I’m back to square one. Wish I could find square one in some sort of a guide…
Give me another hour being awake and I won’t be so crabby.
Today, focus on Christ,
Blessings,
grannymh
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I have spent about 10 years thinking about converting and just recently decided to convert. Just recently as in a week or two ago. I am doing one on one classes w/ the parish priest and will be accepted in the church at easter.
One of the strongest, at least in my opinions, arguements the church has is for the eucharist or maybe more precisely, the real presence. In fact, I suppose that is the primary reason I decided to convert.
One of the strongest, at least in my opinions, arguements the church has is for the eucharist or maybe more precisely, the real presence. In fact, I suppose that is the primary reason I decided to convert.
G
grannymh
Guest
P.S. Eureka!
I just discovered why the heading above Post 1 changes.
One has to click “reply” in order to get the thread’s name in the heading box.
I’m really crabby because I had promised someone on this thread to get back with questions…
Now everything has to be delayed until I get clued in on how not to lose this thread entirely by accidentally deleting the link in my e-mail.
Sorry, friend. I did have an insight but really needed to know a little more how a Fundamentalist approaches the Bible.
Is context considered?
Is the geography or location of places mentioned considered in relationship to the history?
Does a Fundamentalist connect the dots? What I mean – is there a back and forth between the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels and epistles? (Since I’m older than dirt, I still use “epistles”. What do you call Acts, Paul etc.?)
Another example is that Christ often quotes Isaih. Is why He chose that particular book considered?
The connected dots which refer to the topic of this thread is the relationship between Exodus and John, Chapter 6 as well as the description of the Last Supper in the other three Gospels.
Once we get back to what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really pertains to – then we have to look at Passover in Exodus.
One of the prayers following Consecration of the bread and wine is the Agnus Dei which is Latin for Lamb of God.
This prayer begins “Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.” Lamb of God is both a reality and a “symbol or reference” to the Passover meal in Exodus.
While there are many ways to look at John Chapter 6, one also needs to look at it as Jesus making sure that the Jews realized that He is the [new] Lamb which will be sacrificed to free everyone from their sins, i.e., salvation. Just as the Lamb was part of the process to free the Jews from Egypt.
What I would like to know is if Fundamentalists use connections like the above? Granted this use of symbols is a little different than what has been debated in this thread. But I do think it is valid to broaden the meaning of symbolic.
Have to go…
grannymh
I just discovered why the heading above Post 1 changes.
One has to click “reply” in order to get the thread’s name in the heading box.
I’m really crabby because I had promised someone on this thread to get back with questions…
Now everything has to be delayed until I get clued in on how not to lose this thread entirely by accidentally deleting the link in my e-mail.
Sorry, friend. I did have an insight but really needed to know a little more how a Fundamentalist approaches the Bible.
Is context considered?
Is the geography or location of places mentioned considered in relationship to the history?
Does a Fundamentalist connect the dots? What I mean – is there a back and forth between the Hebrew Scriptures and the gospels and epistles? (Since I’m older than dirt, I still use “epistles”. What do you call Acts, Paul etc.?)
Another example is that Christ often quotes Isaih. Is why He chose that particular book considered?
The connected dots which refer to the topic of this thread is the relationship between Exodus and John, Chapter 6 as well as the description of the Last Supper in the other three Gospels.
Once we get back to what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass really pertains to – then we have to look at Passover in Exodus.
One of the prayers following Consecration of the bread and wine is the Agnus Dei which is Latin for Lamb of God.
This prayer begins “Lamb of God, You take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.” Lamb of God is both a reality and a “symbol or reference” to the Passover meal in Exodus.
While there are many ways to look at John Chapter 6, one also needs to look at it as Jesus making sure that the Jews realized that He is the [new] Lamb which will be sacrificed to free everyone from their sins, i.e., salvation. Just as the Lamb was part of the process to free the Jews from Egypt.
What I would like to know is if Fundamentalists use connections like the above? Granted this use of symbols is a little different than what has been debated in this thread. But I do think it is valid to broaden the meaning of symbolic.
Have to go…
grannymh
T
Teflon93
Guest
Grannymh-
Once you respond to a thread, you are subscribed to it and will receive e-mails with its updates. If you continue to open these e-mails and click the link taking you to the thread, you will remain subscribed and continue to receive update e-mails.
You can control which threads you are subscribed and not subscribed to by clicking on your name on any of your posts and going to your profile.
On to substance:
The sacrifice was not completed until his death on the Cross, but it began in that room, with Christ and the Apostles.
When we take part in the Mass, we are in that room, just as we are at the foot of the Cross.
Once you respond to a thread, you are subscribed to it and will receive e-mails with its updates. If you continue to open these e-mails and click the link taking you to the thread, you will remain subscribed and continue to receive update e-mails.
You can control which threads you are subscribed and not subscribed to by clicking on your name on any of your posts and going to your profile.
On to substance:
You would not argue surely that the sacrifice being prepared at the Last Supper was Christ’s.
The sacrifice was not completed until his death on the Cross, but it began in that room, with Christ and the Apostles.
When we take part in the Mass, we are in that room, just as we are at the foot of the Cross.
T
Teflon93
Guest
There have been many threads on why this is so necessary given the tradition which was handed to the Jews, but this passage of Scripture may provide sufficient evidence without having to wade though the enormous number of “sacrifice of the Mass” threads:
Exodus 12:
Exodus 12:
The Mass allows us to take part in the Passover celebration that was the Last Supper.
G
grannymh
Guest
T
Teflon93
Guest
G
grannymh
Guest
(cont.)
Good morning GemmaRose,
My apology, but I’ve misplaced my Idiot’s Guide to this website.
Logic tells me that if you just now read this thread all the way to here, you could tell me what subforum this thread is in. Earlier this AM I could not find it under philosophy. Maybe it is now listed. ??? I never cease to be amazed by the complexities of modern technology!
Your post was very good. And I will copy it on real paper for my source file which can be accessed without turning on any computer.
Am so glad you gave credit to the teachings of the early Church Fathers because a lot of Catholics don’t even know they exist. Not everyone subscribes to This Rock.
All of us need to keep our focus on Christ.
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
[/quote]quote=GemmaRose;4464619
Hey GemmaRose,
I’m so excited! I just found my Idiot’s Guide to this website:thumbsup:
Apparently, when I clicked on Appolgetics and the box with the subforums popped up, I took it for granted that all the topics for this forum were divided into the ones listed. Silly me!
Now if Rightlydivide will get on this thread, I will be able to ask him my questions.
Added note: Another reason I liked your mentioning the church fathers is that as a kind of history nut, I have a fondness for heresies in the Catholic Church. I loved following the first church councils (in addition to the one in Acts) as these great men sorted out the truth under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit sure had his hands full during the first 500 centuries or so. However, He can’t complain because Jesus did promise to send Him to our aid.
I feel so much better now that I have my Idiot’s Guide back.
Hope everyone else is enjoying this day.
Blessings,
grannymh
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear Pwrlftr,
You are on target.
The Eucharist is why I remain a Catholic even though I have had some serious crisis of faith–including a recent one that brought me close to denying the very existence of God.
Please find chapel or church that has Eucharistic Adoration. Knowing Jesus as you do, there’s no need to explain why sitting before Our Merciful and Loving Lord is like being in heaven.
Actually, some have poetically described being at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is like being in heaven and heaven is continued when the Eucharist is adored outside of Holy Mass.
Keep your focus on Christ because He is longing to be with you in Holy Communion.
Blessings,
grannymh
- Status