Question about history of Eucharist views

And through their misunderstanding ... mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”

And a non-Christian would say, in turn, that through their misunderstanding, Christians have for centuries worshipped a mere man ("mere" meaning "not God incarnate") as God.

 

I am very happy to say that IF Christianity is wrong - and Christ is not God - then we are guilty of worshipping a false God.

I am also content that the RCC is correct in saying that IF non-Catholics are correct - then the RCC is practicing idolatry by worshipping that which is nothing more than a piece of bread.

Indeed - they have a point there.

(See I do sometimes agree with Catholic sources).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why would an eternal being have a "last will and testament"? Such a condition cannot exist! There can never be a last will or last testament for an eternal being.

 

Bob,

That is not what the "CC" has published. That is a Catholic writer, but not the Catholic Church. He seems to be the only person you quote, and he is not the Catholic Church. Please stop equating him as some sort of teaching authority.

God bless,

Grant

 

Bob, Please stop quoting Catholic sources that show too much about RC teaching.

Fro example when you quote the "Faith Explained" a document WITH the Papal impramature, a document USED in Catholic teaching institutions for decades as a commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post vatican II - a document asserted to be "a STANDARD reference book for every Catholic home and library" - AND it says things that are "too revealing" - we would prefer that you simply not post them - so that opinions and views on this board by some RC members may be accepted "AS IF" they were correct.

I think "I get it".

Thanks.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The problem is not when Roman Catholics elevate the host before reception. The problem is when Roman Catholics parade the host about with no intent to receive the blessed Sacrament. The Body and Blood of Christ is present according to His Word not our command.

 

Yes, Perhaps the Christ is present, but in the same form that your faith is present. Just as your faith has no form or dimension, the presence of the Christ has no form or dimension. That kind of makes it a spiritual matter now doesn't it? There is no physical body or blood of Christ Present.

 

Then it would not be an issue over which thousands of disciples would turn back leave his side would it? (speculating)

 

When Jesus tells me "This is my Body that was broken for you," I believe Him. When Jesus tells me, "This is my Blood that was shed for you," I believe Him.

Catholics have the Body and Blood but they don't know what it's for. Protestants know what it's for but they don't have it.

 

Yes, become a Reformed Catholic, a Lutheran! Keep your belief that we are justified by faith alone, totally redeemed by the Blood of Christ alone, not because of our own merits or the merits of others. But also believe that Christ gives us His true Body and Blood, that we receive by faith, for the remission of sins.

[ July 01, 2003, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

What does Catholic doctrine to with these scriptures that clearly speak of Jesus impending physical absence from the earth?

BODILY DEPARTED from the Earth! There is nothing of the Christ's physical body left upon the earth for us lowly human's to consume in remembrance of Him. That is why Jesus declared that bread and wine are suitable substitutes in declaring remembrance of him.

 

It seems to me that if someone you respected started telling you to eat his flesh and drink his blood, that you would be repelled by his words too!

 

You will not find "epistle of straw" in any of the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church (Actually, the Church of the Augsburg Confession). The Lutheran Church is defined by her confessions not by Luther's writings which are often contradictory.

The Lutheran Confessions have not changed since 1580. So *Modern* Lutherans deal with this passage in James exactly the way the *Ancient* Lutherans did.

James does not contradict Paul. When James says that works justify, he is saying that good works are the necessary fruits that must follow faith or faith is dead and not really faith. This doctrine is repeated in many other passages of scripture and in the Athanasian Creed. For a more detailed discussion, go to Defense of the Augsburg Confession, Of Love and the Fulfilling of the Law, para. 123. and Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, The Righteousness of Faith, para. 42. Follow the link to ( Book of Concord).

[ July 01, 2003, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]

 

Found on the web, a Quote extracted from the web page.

 

The Key Words you used are "I believe Him". Believing is a matter of spirit and is usually evidence of lack of knowledge, for if you have knowledge, you no longer need to believe.

For example, before I made my first journey to New York City, I believed that the Statue of Liberty existed there. But sinse I have been to New York City, and actually climbed to the observation deck of that beautiful lady, I no longer believe she is there, I testify that I know she is there.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I find it strange for you to be quoting from Dave Armstrongs's web site, a quote from Luther which immediately has me to wonder, by what authority does he, Luther, rank the scriptures as he does?

Am I to presume by your message here that you would take the New Testament books, as given by the only church who had the authority to compile and canonize them, in the face of the total foolishness you see of Luther's attempt to do so?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

[ July 07, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: WPutnam ]