W
wmscott
Guest
I agree, as I too am imperfect, as is all men.
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
Not mad for several reasons one of which I do the say with what you and your church believes. Wrong opinions are dangerous. Thinking one’s truth isn’t opinon is potentially dangerous too. Thinking one can’t possibly be in error is dangerous too.
W
wmscott
Guest
If you care to, this SITE has some good explanations on the Body and Blood of Christ. I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Enjoyed your site thank you; It proves that the Eucharist is soaked in sacred scripture, and God is ever presence in his Word.
I hope you don’t mind me saving your site to my favorites, it lends to a good quick reference for scripture study and search.
Iam scratching my head here, trying to decipher what becomes “Faith believed” and what is “Opinioin?” Can one place ones salvation on an opinion or ones faith?
To be continued.
C
ConfusedTim
Guest
Dokimas whats your view? Do you think the first Christians (those in say the first and second century AD) belived in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or did they think it was a symbol? If so what evidence can you provide to support your view?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Dokimas,
This is the issue I have with our non-Catholic brethren, is that they appear to be ‘divorced’ from our early church history…
The Church of Jerusalem was noted for its oneness of heart and mind…a foundational testament to the Christian brotherhood and unity Christ desires for us.
Through Baptism, we are all part of the Body of Christ…our ''family of Christ" does not go back a few generations, but all the way back to Christ, His mother, His guardian St. Joseph, their parents, all the way back in the lineage of Jesus…
and then looking forward…all baptized members of our Christian family in the past 2,000.
We are family, we are part of the Body of Christ…it is sin that separates, and why Christ died to remove this bondage of sin and separation. Christ has forgiven past members, no matter how bad the ecclesial sins…He has forgiven us!!
I really appreciate the erudite tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas and others who expound on the use of reasoning and metaphysics. Good can only come when we are free. And we need the use of reason to guide us, as our emotions and biases, experiences can alter or affect our perceptions of objective reality. Metaphysics can explain reality from two sources, that with God and that without.
Catholic education greatly stresses the use of reason in our faith formation, history, anthropology because these studies bring us into the experiences of other people, our neighbor…we all contribute and learn from one another with shared experiences…so here we can be a bit subjective…but it all works for the greater objectivity of a life lived with faith…and it is so enriching to learn and find out we all come to Christ with the same baseline of Who He is and the fruits He bears within our hearts and souls.
Thus Catholicism is not just Scripture, but Tradition – the Holy Spirit working through the Church, the Pentecost continues but requires more faith as it is subtle and is calling us out of ourselves to be more for others…
This is the issue I have with our non-Catholic brethren, is that they appear to be ‘divorced’ from our early church history…
The Church of Jerusalem was noted for its oneness of heart and mind…a foundational testament to the Christian brotherhood and unity Christ desires for us.
Through Baptism, we are all part of the Body of Christ…our ''family of Christ" does not go back a few generations, but all the way back to Christ, His mother, His guardian St. Joseph, their parents, all the way back in the lineage of Jesus…
and then looking forward…all baptized members of our Christian family in the past 2,000.
We are family, we are part of the Body of Christ…it is sin that separates, and why Christ died to remove this bondage of sin and separation. Christ has forgiven past members, no matter how bad the ecclesial sins…He has forgiven us!!
I really appreciate the erudite tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas and others who expound on the use of reasoning and metaphysics. Good can only come when we are free. And we need the use of reason to guide us, as our emotions and biases, experiences can alter or affect our perceptions of objective reality. Metaphysics can explain reality from two sources, that with God and that without.
Catholic education greatly stresses the use of reason in our faith formation, history, anthropology because these studies bring us into the experiences of other people, our neighbor…we all contribute and learn from one another with shared experiences…so here we can be a bit subjective…but it all works for the greater objectivity of a life lived with faith…and it is so enriching to learn and find out we all come to Christ with the same baseline of Who He is and the fruits He bears within our hearts and souls.
Thus Catholicism is not just Scripture, but Tradition – the Holy Spirit working through the Church, the Pentecost continues but requires more faith as it is subtle and is calling us out of ourselves to be more for others…
W
wmscott
Guest
Thanks Gabriel, but it is not my site. It is in my favorites also. a good resource to pull from.
You may want to check this **SITE **out also.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Dokimas:
Sorry for butting in here, but I am unclear on one point.
Is it your contention that the Bible definitely teaches that communion is symbolic only, and that any belief in the real presence is a belief in something that is Biblically false?
Yes or No will do here.
If yes, can you Scripturally prove your case since you are the one making the assertion? If no, then just what are you saying.
I hate to pick on you, but I have not yet encountered a Scriptural reasoning to back up the contention that it is Scripturally false that is convincing. But who knows, maybe you will be the first.
W
wmscott
Guest
Hi Dokimas, did you get a chance to read the material at the site I suggested?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I have not had a chance. Sorry. I don’t mind it you keep asking.
W
wmscott
Guest
Oh I would not keep bugging you about it. I was just curious as to what your thoughts would be after going over it. I hope you do but it’s your prerogative if you choose not to. However, I think it would give you some understanding as to why Catholics believe the way we do. Here is the LINK once again just in case.Peace.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
So let me get this straight. You believe the real presence is Scripturally false because Jesus said to take the bread and wine in remembrance of me.
In order for this Scripture to be a prooftext for the falseness of this doctrine, the two have to be mutually exclusive.
So what do you think. Do you think it is impossible to take the elements in remembrance of Christ while at the same time some version of the Real Presence is true?
As for me, I see no reason why the two can not coexist.
Good question.
I approach the elements as though they are the body and blood of Christ. I leave whatever happens or does not happen up to the Lord.
I don’t think you can Scripturally disprove the real presence. At the same time I do not think it can be Scripturally proven either.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Another good argument in the need for a Teaching Authority on such a simple belief clearly evident in scripture. Remembrance is used in a very different way here. He tells us to remember him as we receive Him, body, blood, soul and divinity. He tells us to do it in re sacrificial offering. remembrance…resacrifie…God is not trapped in time as we experience. He paid to price for our sins in the ULTIMATE!!! Sacrifice that transcends time and space.
There are far too many scripture passages that speak clearly in support of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The pagans were known for accusing the early Christians of human sacrifice and cannibalism. Having been a Protestant for most of my life and participating in the Lord’s Supper weekly in our previous faith, the amount of time and energy spent on just bread and wine made absolutely no sense at all until I began to realize that Jesus really did mean His real Body and His real Blood. John 6 drives the meaning of His words home. Why then did he not stop his disciples from walking away then? Please spend some time with your bible and read all the occurences in the bible that mention the eucharist/Lord’s Supper. And then pray about it as you study it.
W
wmscott
Guest
Hi Gabriel, that is the beautiful aspect of the Catholic Church; it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. There is that straight line from the time Christ handed the keys to St. Peter until today. I am a convert to and I have been guilty of persecuting the Catholic Church back in the days of my blissful ignorance. I believed and spread the anti-Catholic falsehoods believing them to be true with no factual evidence to back it up. That is a sin I have confessed and Christ has forgiven me for, however, it is harder to forgive myself whenever I think about those days.
Now I, as do my Catholic brothers and sisters, have the awesome privilege to touch Christ and have Christ touch us in one of the most intimate ways as when receiving the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist. Many Protestants espouse the “Personal Relationship” with Christ philosophy, which is all good, however, how much more of a “Personal Relationship” can there be than to receive Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity each time we celebrate the Mass.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I am keeping this post for my daughter who left the Church because of scandal…in prayers she will return…went into Evangelism…
C
Cursilista
Guest
Dokimas,
I guess these guys all got it wrong. They all believe in the presence of our lord in the Eucharist. They were the apostles and that is what they taught their churches to believe.
A List of the churches founded by the Apostle ( list is not complete. there are more churches than are on this list that the apostles founded)
Rome: Sts Peter and Paul
Constantinople: St. Andrew
Antioch: St. Peter
Alexandria: St. Mark
Jerusalem: St. James
Moscow: St. Andrew (claimed through Constantinople)
Georgia: St. Andrew
Ethiopia: St. Mark
East Antioch: Saint Thomas
Armenian: Bartholemew and Thaddeus.
West Syriac: St. Peter
India: St. Thomas
Spain: St. James
Ukrainian: St. Andrew
I guess these guys all got it wrong. They all believe in the presence of our lord in the Eucharist. They were the apostles and that is what they taught their churches to believe.
A List of the churches founded by the Apostle ( list is not complete. there are more churches than are on this list that the apostles founded)
Rome: Sts Peter and Paul
Constantinople: St. Andrew
Antioch: St. Peter
Alexandria: St. Mark
Jerusalem: St. James
Moscow: St. Andrew (claimed through Constantinople)
Georgia: St. Andrew
Ethiopia: St. Mark
East Antioch: Saint Thomas
Armenian: Bartholemew and Thaddeus.
West Syriac: St. Peter
India: St. Thomas
Spain: St. James
Ukrainian: St. Andrew
C
cruisin
Guest
Sorry to butt in I have to ask some questions. normally I read and don’t post.
to start with on the idea of the actual presence and the word Rememberance. From what I recall,since I do not have anything in front of me except my memory, the word Remembrance is translated from a Greek word that means, to call up into memory.
Now, The only places this used in the context of the meal is by Mark and by Paul.
Why would Mark ( a converted Greek) writing to a converted Greek, use this word and not the other gospel writers ?
Why would Paul use the same verbage in his letter to the Corinthians ( I think. could be wrong) ?
Again what is the prupose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?
Thanks
to start with on the idea of the actual presence and the word Rememberance. From what I recall,since I do not have anything in front of me except my memory, the word Remembrance is translated from a Greek word that means, to call up into memory.
Now, The only places this used in the context of the meal is by Mark and by Paul.
Why would Mark ( a converted Greek) writing to a converted Greek, use this word and not the other gospel writers ?
Why would Paul use the same verbage in his letter to the Corinthians ( I think. could be wrong) ?
Again what is the prupose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?
Thanks
W
wmscott
Guest
In post 92 I provided a link, in the NT section it discusses some of the Greek translations of a few words there. It may or may not answer your question.Sorry to butt in I have to ask some questions. normally I read and don’t post.
to start with on the idea of the actual presence and the word Rememberance. From what I recall,since I do not have anything in front of me except my memory, the word Remembrance is translated from a Greek word that means, to call up into memory.
Now, The only places this used in the context of the meal is by Mark and by Paul.
Why would Mark ( a converted Greek) writing to a converted Greek, use this word and not the other gospel writers ?
Why would Paul use the same verbage in his letter to the Corinthians ( I think. could be wrong) ?
Again what is the prupose of the writer for using this particular word that is translated, memory?
Thanks
- Status