Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
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.
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.Originally posted by Singer:
(quote)
"I am blessed to think that it is not the priest's hands really, but the Lord's"
IF I were a priest, I wouldn't want any part of my body close to a Catholic
worshipper. Thinking as they do, they might just decide to have me for lunch.
*Just being rational.
Well, one thing I did explain is the way which we as human beings are made. We are made to be loved. Part of that love is human touch. When I made the original post that started this thread, the subject matter was how I felt it must have been wonderful to have been touched by our Lord's hands in blessing. Human beings are made to express love through touching.
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.
</font>[/QUOTE]An explanation of what you intended by this verse would be very helpful. Thanks in advance! God bless,
That's your problem. Where do you find anywhere in the Bible that is says that God's ways are for man to totally understand?
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.
Originally posted by Singer:
(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.
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.
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.
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.