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
Wouldn't you want to be blessed by Jesus Himself?
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by CatholicConvert, May 29, 2003.
Page 2 of 6
-
-
Murph -
Hello Murph --
Do not think I have had the pleasure.
But now that He is not with us, that touch is missing, except that it is available in a kind of a way in the hands of a validly ordained priest in the Catholic and Orthodox Faiths.
As for the Holy Spirit, I think it important to remember that He is a different person than our Lord Jesus Christ. He has a different function in the Blessed Trinity and does not have a physical body as our Lord Jesus does. Therefore, the extension of Christ's physicallity in the priest is a very logical extension of the union between Christ and His people.
The example of this we have from Scripture is the "one flesh" relationship of the husband to the wife. In like manner, we are also "one flesh" with Him, and therefore, I feel this can easily extend to the priesthood. The Sacrament of Orders confers upon the man recieving it a special relationship to the Lord in which the man bears the power of the Lord, and in certain Sacramental situations, is no longer present. We may see the priest confecting the Eucharist, but it is really Christ, the unseen Host Who is doing that which He did at the table of the Last Supper.
As for you Bob, once again you demonstrate a magnificent misunderstanding of the Bible. The priesthood being discussed in Hebrews is the HIGH PRIESTHOOD. Did you EVER hear of CONTEXT?
Heb 8:1 ΒΆ Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
If you wish, I'll git the crayons out and draw a picture of this for ya. Seems you cannot seem to differentiate between the high priesthood and the regular priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. No wonder you are one confused puppy.
If you are going to try to pass yourself off as a Biblical scholar, try to at least do your exegesis within the context of the chapter, okay? -
-
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 ] -
God bless,
Grant -
Grant -
The Muslims could say the same thing regarding the idea of God being existent in the Blessed Trinity. It doesn't compute in their minds, so it must be false.
The beauty of our God is that He is ever mysterious to us, ever above and beyond us and our comprehension, EVEN IN HEAVEN. That is what Heaven is all about, an eternity learning about Him and never exhausting the mystery of Him and His universe.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed -
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. -
-
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 !! ;) -
-
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.
God bless,
Grant -
God bless,
Grant -
-
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 ?
Page 2 of 6