Wouldn't you want to be blessed by Jesus Himself?

I am curious about your meaning when you ask if God cannot be with His people thru a priest. Do you not believe that Christ sent the Holy Ghost to be with each believer? Am I misunderstanding your meaning? if so please explain exactly what you meant.

Concerning your view on a foretaste of glory I strongly dissagree for when we reach heaven there will not be a man standing between me and God just as there is no man between He and I today
Murph

 

Now sarcasm does run rampant on the BB but I wanted to look at this post and explain why I don't feel it is over the line. The origonal post stated their belief that it was not the priests hands but the Lord's himself. It is my undertstanding ( i invite correction) that catholics do believe they are ingesting Christ so in my opinion what Singer said here is a natural progression of previously stated material. As I said I am ready to be corrected. I would also like to add that while sarcasm is healthy at times we should all strive to act in a christian manner on the baptist board.
Murph

 

The origonal post stated their belief that it was not the priests hands
but the Lord's himself. It is my undertstanding ( i invite correction) that
catholics do believe they are ingesting Christ so in my opinion what
Singer said here is a natural progression of previously stated material.

The point was pounded and pounded at us, cross referenced and enforced
in recent threads; that it is the ACTUAL Body of Christ that is being eaten.
When I contested that, the approach was changed to SUPERNATURAL and
then to ACCIDENTAL. With all that insistence, still noone could answer as
to why the apostles did not eat Christ's body at the last supper, but rather
drank the wine and bread as offered "in remembrance of me".

It seems the belief and practice as the Catholics promote today came about
some time later (maybe 400 years). It definitely was not preached or
practiced when Christ was here.

Many issues are that way in Catholicism. When cornered on an issue, there is
alot of backstepping, adding more explanations that only cloud it more,
claims that the Catholic sources cited by the contender (yes..Catholic) are not
reliable or did not have authority and even total denial of the claim.

It's always the "Poor Me'' attitude. "Why is everybody always beating on Catholics"?

Take that bread and wine issue.........
Would it ever be possible to explain such a scenario to a class of 6-8 yr old
children and expect them to form a reasonable understanding of how bread
and wine are the Actual body and blood; yet Christ could have offered
his body and blood but did not....only offered bread and wine...?

It just doesn't add up. It's a promotion of the bible in a way that is foreign to
common sense.

[ May 30, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Indeed, this is what we believe.

Umm, please quote where we CHANGED our stance. Number one, because something is supernatural does not also mean that it is not participating IN nature. The Eucharist is Christ's physical body and blood, soul and divinity, shared with us by supernatural means. As far as the "accidents," this refers to the seeming appearance of bread and wine that remains, not to Christ's body and blood.

The Apostles DID eat Christ's Body and Blood, for Christ said, "This is My Body ... This is My Blood." Any other interpretation is forced into the text.

First off, Christ instituted it the night before he was betrayed, and then he was only on earth another 40 days before He ascended. He wasn't "here" very long, in the sense with which you speak. However, Saint Paul tell us about this, and it is testified by early Church writers like St. Justin Martyr. To hold your view, you need to show early writings that state that it is purely symbolic; otherwise, you are arguing a negative stance, which simply does not work.

No, when tangential arguments and other spurious attacks are thrown in the midst of single discussions, it is hard to stay on track. Our explanations are clear; but when they are rejected, or said to not be understood, we try to present them in more understandable ways for you.

Only if the source truly is contrary to Catholic teaching! I have nothing to hide about my faith.

So you, above, attack the Catholics on the board. C'mon now.

Is it easy to understand that the infinite God was fully contained in the MAN, Jesus Christ? No, that defies logic. But Jesus said we should have the faith of a little child. So, to answer, yes. It is very possible.

Thank you for your opinion.

God bless,

Grant

 

</font>[/QUOTE]An explanation of what you intended by this verse would be very helpful. Thanks in advance! God bless,

Grant

 

Once again, Ed, Protestants and Catholic talk past each other over the definition of terms.
Maybe you better tell me just what you mean by the term "blessing". I'm sure Protestants and Catholics would come up with different meanings.
What advantage does a Catholic have over a Protestant, as far as Heaven is concerned, by receiving the "blessing' of a priest, a nun, or the pope himself for that matter.
A blessing to me would be an answer to prayer, or seeing a loved one come to Christ, or getting some new light from God's Word.
Once when I was trying to explain the gospel to a Catholic, I asked him if he knew for sure that he was on his way to heaven. Do you know what his answer was? He told me that he had an uncle that was a priest. I just dont understand that type of mentality. I'm sorry.
So, define what you mean by "blessing"

 

(Brother Ed)

"The beauty of our God is that He is ever mysterious to us,...........................

(Grant)

"Is it easy to understand that the infinite God was fully contained in the MAN,
Jesus Christ? No, that defies logic. But Jesus said we should have the faith
of a little child. So, to answer, yes. It is very possible"

Grant, you can recall the Accidental Supernatural Actual comments from last
week well enough without my digging up the archives.

The comments above attest to a mysterious feature of ingesting Christ's Body and
Blood. Understanding the mysteries of God could hardly be compared with
understanding an assumed mystery of the Eucharist. It isn't a mystery at all to a
Protestant.....Christ explained it very well as "in remembrance of me". If He had
attempted to offer the suggestion that we today are to consume his actual body,
wouldn't he have offered it to the disciples at the time ? Why would he tell them
one thing and imply a different meaning for us today ?

The Eucharist is Christ's physical body and blood, soul and divinity, shared
with us by supernatural means. As far as the "accidents," this refers to the seeming
appearance of bread and wine that remains, not to Christ's body and blood.

If the diciples were eating his body and blood as he handed out the bread and wine,
then why did Christ still have a body when they got done...? In Nebraska we call
this " having your cake and eating it too" !!

The Apostles DID eat Christ's Body and Blood, for Christ said, "This is My Body ...
This is My Blood." Any other interpretation is forced into the text.

No they didn't eat His body........ He was still there and intact, not bleeding,
not missing an arm when they got done eating the very thing that you contend
was his body. Am I missing the description of the word ''Actual" or what ?

To hold your view, you need to show early writings that state
that it is purely symbolic; otherwise, you are arguing a negative stance, which simply does not work.

To prove YOUR views, you need to show how they ate his body when his
body was still there....uneaten .

You're insulting the intelligence of mankind by that kind of preaching.

"No, when tangential arguments and other spurious attacks are thrown in
the midst of single discussions, it is hard to stay on track. Our explanations
are clear; but when they are rejected, or said to not be understood, we try to
present them in more understandable ways for you."

Well it ain't workin for a few million non-Catholics, Brother.
Besides, there IS no "more understandable" way for me to believe that
they ate his body and blood when they didn't actually eat his body and
blood. No manner of unsolved mysteries will ever cover for that one.
Now if you want to attempt to resolve the issue by saying that the bread
and wine are "replacements'' (if you don't like the word 'symbols') of His
body and blood, then I could swallow that.

Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them,
saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

 

This, I believe is a total slap in the face to God almighty, who's sun shines on the good and the bad, blessing them every day of their lives. (matt 5:45). The good recognize this. That is the difference. We need his blessing every day. We need his grace every day. And we need to be fed by him every day.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Could you please explain for me a bit dear, what you are thinking here. We don't sacrifice goats and bulls in Catholic Churches last I checked. We do re-present the one finished sacrifice of the Cross performed by our savior Jesus Christ so that the grace of that once for all sacrifice may be applied to our lives today.

Blessings

 

(Quote Thes)

This, I believe is a total slap in the face to God almighty

Well I agree with Mozier, so it's two against one and majority rules !!

 

No, I don't remember it, and even if I did, that would not explain your lack of coherence in describing it, or the Catholic belief.

Why not? Because you said so? What other evidence for one being "easier" to understand than the other? I don't see any, except your little personal testament. God is infinite and eternal. Man is finite and mortal. Jesus Christ was God Himself, and yet also man himself. If you think you have your mind all the way around that, congratulations. I guess you're not really a human, cause don't know of a human brain that can fully comprehend it. Last I checked, the Incarnation was a matter of FAITH, not scientific reasoning, since it defies our concepts of scientific fact.

In the same way, it is an element of FAITH that we believe that the same infinite, omnipresent God can manifest Himself in the Eucharist. Neither is easier or harder to accept in the other, if one trusts the Word of God. The only thing hendering you from believing is yourself, and your personal faith. Nothing more.

Oh, He spoke English? The actual, historical meaning of the words Christ chose carried sacrificial overtones. And, I agree, we certainly REMEMBER that one perfect sacrifice when it is re-presented in our very presence. You have not debunked anything there.

You're putting your personal belief into Christ's words, which is not present in the text. "This is My Body," not "This represents My Body." "IS" not "REPRESENTS, TYPES, SIGNIFIES, STANDS FOR," or any other similar word. You read into the text. I read the text. In the words of St. Augustine, Christ held Himself in His own hands.

Quite simple. He didn't.

First off, you fail to realize that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere. You cannot diminish Christ. Christ is TRUE GOD and TRUE MAN, and His two natures are permanently united. Thus, God the Son is omnipresent. Now, taking this into account, and reading the story of the multiplication of loaves (John 6), just before Christ commands that we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, it all makes quite a bit of sense. There were only so many loaves, but suddenly, from that limited number, a virtually infinite number arose (considering had there been infinite people, the bread would still have satisfied them all).

Again, you force an interpretation that does not exist in the text. And you doubt the very being of God, that He is omnipotent, and can do anything and everything, which includes re-presenting His very Self to His disciples at the table, even while He was standing in their presence.

So, what you just admitted is that your view, like mine, is unprovable, and based only on our faith in God's Holy Word. Which makes you no more correct than anyone else, especially since the Word of God is not subject to individual interpretation.

Yes, that's what they said to Jesus when they told Him that He didn't have the power to forgive sins. And that He was not really the Son of God, since He was CLEARLY the son of Mary. I didn't realize that faith in God and His ways depended on our level of intelligence and understanding. Why don't you go read God's rebuke of Job for presuming to understand better than God.

I see. Since millions don't believe, that means we are wrong. Too bad for you that Christ predicted that would happen, when He told the Jews that they must eat His flesh, and they said, and told Him that this was a hard saying...who can accept it? And then they walked away. Man, that is starting to ring some bells in modern times...

Number one, the issue was resolved when Christ spoke the words of consecration over the bread and wine at the table and transubstantiated the earthly elements into Himself, and entrusted this Sacrament to his Apostles that they might share this intimate relation with Christ to the whole world. Your believing or disbelieving does not change the Truth. Nor will I back down from my position to appease your desire for "rationalizing" God's Word.

God bless,

Grant

 

That is pretty funny, considering that as Catholics, we do not believe that, but in non-Sacramental Churches, the belief is just that, that the bread only represents Christ, and thus, is very much so only "standing in" for Him.

God bless,

Grant

 

how do you re-present the sacrifice that Jesus made? i was not aware that Jesus work needed to be re-applied before it could be applied to our lives today? did your priest tell you that?

 

how do you re-present the sacrifice that Jesus made? i was not aware that Jesus work needed to be re-applied before it could be applied to our lives today? did your priest tell you that? </font>[/QUOTE]To those who do not believe no explanation is good enough.

Blessings Rak

 

Topic was....Understanding the mystery of the Eucharist:

Why not? Because you said so? What other evidence for one being
"easier" to understand than the other? I don't see any, except your little
personal testament. God is infinite and eternal. Man is finite and mortal.
Jesus Christ was God Himself, and yet also man himself. If you think you have
your mind all the way around that, congratulations. I guess you're not
really a human, cause don't know of a human brain that can fully comprehend it.
Last I checked, the Incarnation was a matter of FAITH, not scientific reasoning,
since it defies our concepts of scientific fact.

In the same way, it is an element of FAITH that we believe that the
same infinite, omnipresent God can manifest Himself in the Eucharist. Neither
is easier or harder to accept in the other, if one trusts the Word of God.
The only thing hendering you from believing is yourself, and your personal
faith. Nothing more

Grant, I'm glad you said all that, because that is exactly what salvation is based
on. (Faith) and to quote you...."Nothing more"

That should be the beginning and end of the line concerning our salvation. (Faith in the
fact that Jesus Christ rose from the dead). The alternative would be that Jesus
DID NOT raise from the dead. The alternative is NOT ...how we grasp the
eucharist, how we confess our sins, whether we attend mass, how we see
the Catholic Church's involvement in history etc.

The Biggie Question from Jesus is....."Who do ye say that I am".?
Not.................."What do you consider the bread and wine to be"?
Not.................."Did I start a Church on earth"
Not.................."Is Peter the rock or am I"
Not.................."Who is the Bride of Christ.

You and I can flunk out completely in the courses on the Eucharist, Mass, Rock,
Transubstantiation, Catholicism and Bride of Christ and still get an A+ in
Salvation. There is an insignificant emphasis on the former when the prize is
salvation.

Your concept of who Jesus was is important, Grant.
My concept of blood and wine, rocks and popes is Not.

 

Originally posted by Singer:
It isn't a mystery at all to a Protestant.....Christ explained it very well as
"in remembrance of me".

Oh, He spoke English? The actual, historical meaning of the words Christ
chose carried sacrificial overtones. And, I agree, we certainly REMEMBER
that one perfect sacrifice when it is re-presented in our very presence.
You have not debunked anything there.

Denouncing the English language does not surprise me considering how you
denounce the KVJ Bible itself. Don't you think God is bigger than Catholicism
and has the ability to appeal his plan of salvation to some of us modern day English
speaking sinners ?

You're putting your personal belief into Christ's words, which is not
present in the text. "This is My Body," not "This represents My Body." "IS"
not "REPRESENTS, TYPES, SIGNIFIES, STANDS FOR," or any other similar word.
You read into the text. I read the text.
In the words of St. Augustine, Christ held Himself in His own hands.

"Christ held himself in his own hands"......now that's a new one, Grant .
Augustine's terminology only proves that Catholics have been constructing
phrases to work their cram-down theology on an otherwise intelligent race
of humans for 1900 years or so (And it's not working). Even my young
grandchildren could understand that what Jesus offered for ingestion was NOT
his body.

What the heck do you call that thing that housed the person the apostles
identified as Jesus then ?