Paganism??

[trying2understand]

3AM, Jesus broke the bread which He consecrated and gave it to the Apostles with the instruction to eat of it.

The "breaking" of the bread was done by Jesus, not the Apostles. Jesus blessed and broke the bread. The Apostles partook of it by eating.

In Mass, the priest blesses and breaks the bread and we partake of it by eating.

This is absolutely in line with what our Lord instructed.

Jesus did not say, "Take and break the bread."

You seem to be either adding to Scripture or are being legalistic.

 

[GraceSaves]

Mom,

Your view of the Lord's Supper is that Jesus is not physically present. Am I not correct? If so, it is pure observance and remembrance. Am I not correct? Therefore, if the bread is broken or not broke, it is purely a symbolic act, so there is not the matter of validity. Something that doesn't accomplish anything other than remembrance doesn't have the same necessity of validity as an act in which something is actually produced.

And yet, you are applying this necessity of complete validity on our practice of the Eucharist, WHICH YOU ALREADY REJECT. You do not believe that Christ is physically present in our Eucharist. Therefore, even if we broke the bread to your particular liking, you would still say that our Lord's Supper is invalid because what we believe happens doesn't really happen. Am I not correct?

Therefore, since the function of the Lord's Supper between our two faiths is monumentally different, you cannot place the same objections on it when speaking of matters of validity. This is as ridiculous as saying that baptism by immersion is necessary when Baptism is merely a symbolic act that in no way has anything to do with salvation.

Now, as Catholic, the actual "breaking" of the bread is not necessary for the physical presence of Christ to replace the elements of bread and wine. A host that is in a monstrance is just as much Jesus Body as one that is broken and shared.

But, again, I stress, that you reject our Eucharist as invalid for an entirely different reason, so attacking this angle does not even make sense. If we performed it just like you would like us to, but still believed that Jesus was physically present, you'd be just as upset with us.

Get the point?

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Mom,

Have I ever made a blanket statement about SDAs? Have others on this board? Please quote them, and I'll help you get on to them, as blanket statements our counter productive.

If not, then don't drag your outside personal ideas about Catholics into this board with Catholics who most likely will not treat you like that.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Johnv]

Wow, I'm so glad we were able to discuss labyrinths

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Wow, I'm so glad we were able to discuss labyrinths

Well stated.

God bless,

Grant

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Mom,

Have I ever made a blanket statement about SDAs? Have others on this board? Please quote them, and I'll help you get on to them, as blanket statements our counter productive.

God bless,

Grant

Born Again Catholic posted:

"Gracesaves

You probably already know this but in case you don't.

I read that SDA theology teaches that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast and that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, and the pope is the anti-christ. They perceive any attempt to defend the Church as an attack on their theology. They literalily cannot be SDA unless they continue to be strongly anti-Catholic."

NOW, you said you would get on to them......

And since your last statement was IF there aren't, I can ignore it, because there ARE.

However, you are right that I don't need to make blanket statements. Not every Catholic out there is like that.

I didn't say that Catholics were stupid or anything. I was just pointing out that it is usually hard for me (thus the phrase 'in my experience') to get a Catholic to think for themselves.

My challenge still stands though. Prove me wrong. Suprise my pants off!

God Bless

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
3AM, Jesus broke the bread which He consecrated and gave it to the Apostles with the instruction to eat of it.

The "breaking" of the bread was done by Jesus, not the Apostles. Jesus blessed and broke the bread. The Apostles partook of it by eating.

In Mass, the priest blesses and breaks the bread and we partake of it by eating.

This is absolutely in line with what our Lord instructed.

Jesus did not say, "Take and break the bread."

You seem to be either adding to Scripture or are being legalistic.

I never said Jesus said "Take and break the bread".

I wouldn't EVER add to Scripture. I believe in it too much.

I am not being legalistic.

The bread at Mass is broken?

Every piece?

Not in my experience. IF your assembly is breaking every piece, then they are in line with scripture, and we don't have an argument!

It is those who DO NOT break the bread that I have an argument with.

God Bless

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
I didn't say that Catholics were stupid or anything. I was just pointing out that it is usually hard for me (thus the phrase 'in my experience') to get a Catholic to think for themselves.

My challenge still stands though. Prove me wrong. Suprise my pants off!

Here is a thought that I just had all by myself.

It seems that you equate disagreement with the teachings of the Church with thinking for myself.

Since you no doubt "think for yourself", you must be in disagreement with your church.

What doctrinal disagreement do you have with your church?

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
I never said Jesus said "Take and break the bread".

I wouldn't EVER add to Scripture. I believe in it too much.

I am not being legalistic.

The bread at Mass is broken?

Every piece?

Not in my experience. IF your assembly is breaking every piece, then they are in line with scripture, and we don't have an argument!

It is those who DO NOT break the bread that I have an argument with.

Could you give me the chapter and verse that says that there was only one piece of bread at the Last Supper?

Or perhaps you can provide the chapter and verse that says that Jesus broke every piece of bread?

Or perhaps you are reading into the Scripture with your belief that there was either only one piece of bread or that Jesus broke every piece.

BTW, will you give me the benefit of the doubt that my questions come from "thinking for myself", or do you believe that I called Rome for them?

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Mom,

Your view of the Lord's Supper is that Jesus is not physically present. Am I not correct?

What I think of it doesn't matter. When you do it He isn't either, not unless you break the bread!

If so, it is pure observance and remembrance. Am I not correct?

The Bible says it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but a priest blessing it, doesn't make it so, Jesus' Words make it so. (those one's that say THIS is my Body which was BROKEN for you)

Therefore, if the bread is broken or not broke, it is purely a symbolic act, so there is not the matter of validity.

Wrong, even when carrying out symbols, it should be done the way the example was given. Like with the Jewish sacrificial system. They were doing the 'symbol' of Jesus, before He was sacrificed, and they did it EXACTLY the way they were shown.

Something that doesn't accomplish anything other than remembrance doesn't have the same necessity of validity as an act in which something is actually produced.

huh? What is produced? You take bread and put it in a gold thing, and then a guy blesses it, and then you eat it. That NOT ONLY is not producing anything, but it ALSO is not fulfilling the example we are given. Jesus didn't do that! He TOOK bread (like in His hands) and blessed it (with His voice) and BROKE IT (with His hands) and gave it to the people (who ate it). If you skip any of that, you didn't do it right.

And yet, you are applying this necessity of complete validity on our practice of the Eucharist, WHICH YOU ALREADY REJECT.

And we are discussing why I reject it right now!

You do not believe that Christ is physically present in our Eucharist.

NOPE. You didn't break it.

Therefore, even if we broke the bread to your particular liking, you would still say that our Lord's Supper is invalid because what we believe happens doesn't really happen. Am I not correct?

NOPE, wrong again. If you broke it, you would be doing it right. Then I would have no qualms with what you 'think' happened to the bread. As long as you did what Jesus did TO the bread, you are doing what He said to do, until He returns.

Therefore, since the function of the Lord's Supper between our two faiths is monumentally different, you cannot place the same objections on it when speaking of matters of validity.

Are they really so different? The one difference I see is that we do what the Bible said (through Jesus) to do, and you do what you want to do. Is that correct?

This is as ridiculous as saying that baptism by immersion is necessary when Baptism is merely a symbolic act that in no way has anything to do with salvation.

But then that would only work if I actually thought that Baptism was only symbolic huh?

Now, as Catholic, the actual "breaking" of the bread is not necessary for the physical presence of Christ to replace the elements of bread and wine.

Actually, it is, and THAT is why Jesus is NOT present in the Eucharist that is not broken.

A host that is in a monstrance is just as much Jesus Body as one that is broken and shared.

If I am getting what you were saying before, the host in the monstrance is the ONLY one that is broken and shared. Is this correct or not?

But, again, I stress, that you reject our Eucharist as invalid for an entirely different reason,

And what reason would that be?

so attacking this angle does not even make sense.

Doesn't it? I am not attacking you, I am simply pointing out that the Bible says to do something. You are not doing it. Therefore, it is NOT the Body of Christ! He said "This is my Body that is BROKEN for you". Broken.

If we performed it just like you would like us to,

Not like I would like, but the way the Bible says. Keep those 2 things straight. I would like for people to never whistle, but that isn't in the Bible. This is.

but still believed that Jesus was physically present, you'd be just as upset with us.

As stated above, what you think about the wafer doesn't make the way you carry out the Communion wrong. It is that you don't break it.

Get the point?

Yeah, but uh, you still need to break the bread, like Jesus did.

You know, when He said THIS is my Body that was broken for you. THIS. The BROKEN Bread.

God Bless

 

[neal4christ]

When I wrote, "That would seem to be a necessary attribute of Protestantism," I was responding to Tom's comment, "I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree."

I knew exactly what you were talking about, Carson, but thanks for the explanation anyway.

I still feel that this 'unification' of all 'real' Catholics to be more of an imagination or ideal than a reality.

Neal

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Mom,

Have I ever made a blanket statement about SDAs? Have others on this board? Please quote them, and I'll help you get on to them, as blanket statements our counter productive.

God bless,

Grant

Born Again Catholic posted:

"Gracesaves

You probably already know this but in case you don't.

I read that SDA theology teaches that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast and that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, and the pope is the anti-christ. They perceive any attempt to defend the Church as an attack on their theology. They literalily cannot be SDA unless they continue to be strongly anti-Catholic."

NOW, you said you would get on to them......

And since your last statement was IF there aren't, I can ignore it, because there ARE.

However, you are right that I don't need to make blanket statements. Not every Catholic out there is like that.

I didn't say that Catholics were stupid or anything. I was just pointing out that it is usually hard for me (thus the phrase 'in my experience') to get a Catholic to think for themselves.

My challenge still stands though. Prove me wrong. Suprise my pants off!

God Bless </font>[/QUOTE]Mom,

After he made that statement, I replied:

Heya,

Most denominations have something like this in their core beliefs, though some of them don't actively promote it (LCMS Lutherans, for instance). I figure its more up to the individual, but okay.

God bless,

Grant

I already stated that I don't like that blanket statement, because individuals vary in how they want to take it. Further, you clarified what the actual belief was, so I thought that this was settled.

God bless,

Grant

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
I didn't say that Catholics were stupid or anything. I was just pointing out that it is usually hard for me (thus the phrase 'in my experience') to get a Catholic to think for themselves.

My challenge still stands though. Prove me wrong. Suprise my pants off!

Here is a thought that I just had all by myself.

It seems that you equate disagreement with the teachings of the Church with thinking for myself.

Since you no doubt "think for yourself", you must be in disagreement with your church.

What doctrinal disagreement do you have with your church? </font>[/QUOTE]If thinking for yourself produces thoughts like that, you should stick with the written stuff!



I would hope that your perception of my statement would have been to think for yourself about what the BIBLE says, instead of letting someone else interpret it for you.

I don't have any disagreements that I can think of with my church's doctrine because before I joined I tried it all against the unfailing rule of the Word of God.

Then while I thought for myself, the Holy Spirit led me into all truth.

He can do the same for you!

Although you must step 'outside' of the box. It is a little scary out here.

God Bless

 

[GraceSaves]

Mom,

I'd be interested to see your reply by Thess about the breaking of the bread. Was there one piece of bread, or many? We don't know. If there was, it doesn't say Jesus broke all of them. If it was one, we don't know how many times he broke it (once, or into twelve pieces?). Did the disciples break a piece off and pass it around?

These kinds of things are recorded. The bread IS broken (the large host used by the priest). And before being consumed, the end result of all this, the host used in a monstrance will be broken.

Again, please address Thess's questions, because I think they refutre your argument.

God bless,

Grant

 

[3AngelsMom]

Grant,

That actually was exactly what I was getting at.

You saw the blanket statment, AND responded to it, but them proclaimed "no Catholic does that!!!"

You see, they do, and they have.



It gets really old after a while to have to explain that you are not like what the slam sites make us all out to be.

You see the correlation?

I know you understand.

God Bless

 

[GraceSaves]

I said "no Catholic does that?" I said "they don't do that here, or if they do, I will get on to them." Something to that effect. You found an instance. I showed you that I had already responded against the blanket statement.

Please do not reword my words for me.

God bless,

Grant

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
I don't have any disagreements that I can think of with my church's doctrine because before I joined I tried it all against the unfailing rule of the Word of God.

Then while I thought for myself, the Holy Spirit led me into all truth.

And this is different from me joining the Catholic Church.......how?

God bless,

Grant

 

[3AngelsMom]

Grant.

Get a grip.

Move past this.

Where do you see THessalonian asking me questions in this thread?

I don't see it.

 

[3AngelsMom]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 3AngelsMom:
I don't have any disagreements that I can think of with my church's doctrine because before I joined I tried it all against the unfailing rule of the Word of God.

Then while I thought for myself, the Holy Spirit led me into all truth.

And this is different from me joining the Catholic Church.......how?

God bless,

Grant </font>[/QUOTE]Are you serious?

Do you really want me to address that?

 

[GraceSaves]

Sorry, I meant "Trying" instead of "Thess."

And yes, why don't you laughingly tell us all (since you apparently know all the details) about how my examining the Catholic faith, from a Protestant, Sola Scriptura background, is different than your own joining the Church.

I can't wait to hear the fiction you come up with.

God bless,

Grant