Catholic Q & A

pat · April 26, 2011, 2:15am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< No where in here does it say, those who do not practice the ritual of baptism are automatically damned to hell…Got anything else? I want the specific passage or passages that say, no baptism, automatic trip to hell.
Show me, please. This ^ does not say any such thing, at all, in anyway.[/quote]I didn’t even mention baptism. You did. I have no burden in this exchange regarding baptism for that reason. I said mankind is universally damned and none are saved minus a self conscious commitment to the risen Christ. Go on about baptism all ya want. That’s not what I was talkin about.
[/quote]<<< Fair enough what are you talking about and how do you get undead from sin?[/quote]A man is raised from death to life when born again into the resurrection of Christ. Dead means DEAD. Dead men do nothing until raised. A dead person in whom the saving grace of God is moving WILL believe and confess Jesus as Lord, WILL be baptized, WILL repent of their sin AND sins, WILL begin a life of consecration and sanctification wherein they learn to love what God loves and hate what God hates. They will do it freely, willingly and joyously.

I do not know the precise divine mechanisms by which this series of events takes place. Don’t care. Just know that it is, because the living Word of God in my heart testifies to the written Word of God in my hands that it is so. The entire system of faith and thought that emerges? To me simply IS. The same way the laws of logic and rationality just were and are to Aristotle and yourself? The all governing, all defining, comprehensively sovereign and victorious most high God of all JUST IS to me. Everything else follows from Him. If this is not so then God is contingent upon man and cannot act in a saving way until man gives Him permission.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:<<< Did Elijah have a self conscious awareness of the Risen Christ? If not, where’s he (by your logic). If he did, then your definition of a self conscious awareness sounds a lot more like “a spritual intuition” which is sort of the opposite of conscious awareness.[/quote]Very short version.
1 Cor.10:1-4 [quote]Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant,
how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink:
for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed them:
and that Rock was Christ.[/quote]Everybody in all ages is saved by faith in the blood and resurrection of the Christ. The O.T. patriarchs by believing in the promise of His future advent and those born post Pentecost (Acts 2) by believing in that work now accomplished. Like I say, the entire book of Hebrews majestically proclaims that very thing. Actually the entire New Testament majestically proclaims that very thing. I could write a several hundred page tome detailing all the ways that is unmistakably evident (other men have). Typology is mind bogglingly cool.

Now, in the age of covenant fulfillment and grace, any person not self consciously and deliberately confessing Jesus the Christ as Lord and savior, and His blood and life alone as their salvation is justly and most deservedly left in their state of sin and death to be eternally adjudicated guilty and damned by the perfect holy judge of all. This is so clearly stated in scripture that only someone willfully refusing to bow before the mind of almighty God could convince himself he’s escaped it. I wish I had time for more now as this is one of my very favorite theological pursuits. The comprehensive Christocentricity of every last syllable of holy scripture. The Father loves His Son and everything, and I do mean EVERYTHING is absolutely about Him. Every if and and but.

In the mind of the Father the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world before ever sin was because it was certainly coming. The eternal covenant wherein from a creation decreed to fall was given to the Son those whom the Father would promise. They would be bought by the Son Himself, the spotless lamb and He would be their lord, savior, prophet, priest, king, brother and bridegroom. Anyone who at this point has to ask why is beyond any explanation I’m capable of. Oh praise and honor be to His holy name. How I long to see that magnificent glorious face. I can hardly contain myself typing this post. Me, a man deserving a thousand horrible deaths for crimes committed against His holy throne is brought freely into the family of the very God I’ve offended and by His choice and sacrifice. And people ask “How can this be a God of love?”. There simply aren’t words.
[/quote]

This is very, very vague. I do believe everyone here participating in this conversation confesses unreservedly that Christ is Lord. We all acknowledge Christ’s sacrifice as our saving grace.
What you fail to explain is how we’re so evil and you are so good by the differences in our faith. What makes us wrong an you right, back it up with scripture, please. Be direct and concise, please.

mertdawg · April 26, 2011, 2:19am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t think the law has passed the way you think I think it has. Just keep on gnawin there Chris. I have confidence that you will one day see that the people who left Him over His body and blood were just as wrong as you are. Believing it is now a symbol (though not MERELY a symbol, baptism either) comports EXACTLY with the authentic spiritual Jewishness absolutely everywhere proclaimed in the new testament. We had communion yesterday, good Friday. There is real efficacious grace dispensed thereby, but believing it is the fullness of actual Christ worthy of full open latria and to be literally eaten, gnawed upon, is plain rank christianized voodoo superstition that could not be further from anything Jewish (or Christian) if God himself designed it to be, which we will probably one day find out He did in fact do.

EDIT: Oh yeah, this wasn’t the only or maybe even the primary area I’m still going to comment on when I get a chance.[/quote]

Hmmm, so Paul practiced voodoo?

What do you think then Paul meant in 1 Cor 11:17-26? Especially 1 Cor 11:26 which states: 26 “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death zuntil he comes.” (ESV)

No where in scripture does this state this is a symbolic presence. No where. I challenge you to find in the divine scripture where this is stated as symbolic. [/quote]

I don’t mean to be picky, but nowhere in scripture does it indicate that the days of creation were in fact long lengths of time, yet you believe that.

Jesus did say that “this is my body…and this is my blood”, but then he finished by saying “for as often as you eat this BREAD and drink this CUP” not “for as often as you eat my FLESH and drink my BLOOD”[/quote]

Christ’s body IS the only real bread! All other bread is a symbol. Boy, who’s being Aristotean? Both the Protetants and Roman Catholics apparently.

I AM the true bread that came down from heaven.
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…
My flesh is truly meat…

[/quote]

Further, “So Jesus said to them, Ã??Ã?Â¢??Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
(John 6:53 ESV)
[/quote]

John 6:55 For My Flesh is true food and My Blood is true drink. The word for true being “verite” I think meaning “in every way shape and form”

If anyone has a Greek text on hand I’d be interested in knowing if the term used is Sarx or Soma for “body/flesh” in this.

Anyway, in either case, the Johannine tradition was emphatically “true flesh and blood” and Ignatius was John’s #1 pupil.

Brother_Chris · April 26, 2011, 2:51am

Time to spit some game:

Gen. 14:18 - Mal, first priest…High priest and King offers bread and wine sacrifice.
Psalm 76:2 - Mal, king of Salem, which will be Jer-Salem where Jesus will establish kingdom where he will offer Eucharist sacrifice (thanksgiving Sacrifice) under the appearance of bread an wine.
Psalm 110:4 - Proph of Jesus, which is the eternal priest and king, like Mal. Prophesy has us look for eternal bread and wine sacrifice.
Malachi 1:11 - Sacrifice with the sun up and down, in many places. This isn’t multiple sacrifices but one sacrifice in many places.
Exodus 12:14,17,24; 24:8 - paschal sacrifice is eternal, but hadn’t been established.
Exodus 29:38-39 - G-d demands sacrifice ‘offer.’ Offer being the same word Jesus uses to institute the Eucharist.

John 6:4,11-14: Jesus multiplies loaves of bread foreshadows the infinite Heavenly bread which is Him.
Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 these point to the Eucharist as well
Matt. 16:12 - Jesus explains his metaphoric term of bread.
John 6:4 - Jesus is where they gather the sheep to be slaughtered for passover, see what he says.
John 6:35,41,48,51 - ‘I AM the bread from heaven.’ four times.
John 6:27,31,49 - parallel to the manna in the desert in the bread of life
John 6:51-52 - Jesus tells us that the bread he is referring to is his flesh.
John 6:53 - 58 - instead of clearing up the metaphor Jesus swears an oath and being even more literal. If your protestant you’ll say symbol.
John 6:23-53 - proves you wrong because the word ‘phago’ means literally or to eat. 9 times Jesus says to eat my. Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?
John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - uses an even more literal word ‘trogo’ which means gnaw.
Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word ‘trogo’ is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While ‘phago’ might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word ‘trogo’ when they said ‘How can this man give us His flesh to eat?’ (John 6:52).
John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.”
John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.
Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples
John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means ‘destroying an enemy,’ not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.” This, of course, is absurd.

Tiribulus · April 26, 2011, 3:26am

You didn’t study any of this on your own did ya Chris?

mertdawg · April 26, 2011, 4:36am

What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.

Tiribulus · April 26, 2011, 12:26pm

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.

BIG_ORANGE1 · April 26, 2011, 1:04pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.
[/quote]

So true and my whole family was raised Catholic!!! Catholicism is a farce it’s more about Religion than relationship with Christ… I got nothing from Priests sermon’s ever!!! When you get on your hands and knees and ask Christ to be your lord and Savior, then you shall find him for real!!! Even as a kid I realized confessing your Sins to a man was INSANE!!!

pat · April 26, 2011, 1:47pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.
[/quote]

So, let us examine this charge of yours. It took the Jesus the Son of the living God to fulfill the old covenant and begin the new…
Now, by what you just said about this New Covenant, it must have been fulfilled in order to be transsitioned to the new, new covenant of which you describe.

So are you say then that John Calvin was the new Messiah? That he was divine?
Show the scripture that backs this horse-pucky up…

Keep in mind, this was YOUR analogy. If you didn’t mean to say it, then you shouldn’t have. But comparing the protestant reformation to the fulfillment of the old covenant through Jesus Christ is what you just did…

mertdawg · April 26, 2011, 1:56pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.
[/quote]

You ignore posts that you don’t want to deal with. You respond to Brother Chris’ posts by pointing out that he copied them from another source, but why does that matter? Is that reason to dismiss them?

Do me one favor. Read this one again. Then I will be done with the issue of the Eucharist.

You say that you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is different from what I believe when I receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not think the word “transubstantiation” is a bad word, but we never used it until we had to discuss these issues with the Roman Catholics. We held that Christs true presence in the Eucharist was an “indescribable mystery”. In fact while we have come to use the word sacrament, the “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church were historically and are more properly called “indescribable mysteries”. Words CAN not describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and we felt that the Church was not supposed to try to describe an indescribable mystery.

But I think that perhaps some misunderstanding is had because of a failure to realize that it is Christ’s risen, glorified flesh and blood. It is not “dead meat”. What is the nature of glorified flesh and blood? We cannot understand. Now this is personal and if someone could give me reason I would believe otherwise, but I do not feel that the flesh and blood are “hidden” by an illusion of bread and wine. In the Eucharist, fallen bread and wine matter are utterly consumed in the glorified matter of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Do bread and wine become Glorified flesh and blood? Does glorified flesh and blood become bread and wine? Bread and wine, and the Glorified flesh and blood of Christ become one thing. Christ is the “true bread”. There is no truer bread and wine than the flesh and blood of Christ.

Christ says he is the true bread. His glorified body is more breadlike than any earthly bread. His body is the archetype of all bread, food, flesh, body, all of it.

pat · April 26, 2011, 1:58pm

[quote]BIG ORANGE wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.
[/quote]

So true and my whole family was raised Catholic!!! Catholicism is a farce it’s more about Religion than relationship with Christ… I got nothing from Priests sermon’s ever!!! When you get on your hands and knees and ask Christ to be your lord and Savior, then you shall find him for real!!! Even as a kid I realized confessing your Sins to a man was INSANE!!! [/quote]

Where in the scriptures does it say, confess your sins directly to God? Back in the good old days, if you were seen dragging a ram with out blemish to make a sin offering, it was quite a public admission of guilt…

As you can see we can go toe to toe with anybody. I only request that you respect our faith as we respect yours. If you found a good relationship with the Almighty through protestantism, I am very happy for you. I would rather not have another fellow christian hate us because we’re Catholics. How it must look when supposed people of God hate each other. Remember what Jesus said about how people will know your a follower of Jesus?

I therefore extend an olive branch to you now. We can discuss faith, we can discuss our differences, but let’s be Christian about it.

Tirib, unfortunately chosen the path of hatred and malice, and we will defend ourselves in public. Let’s not add to the fire and be ultimately one in Christ…

Deal?

pat · April 26, 2011, 2:06pm

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What is evident to me is that the Protestants are actively and combatively anti-scripture when they are embarrassed by it.[/quote]If this is truly what’s evident to you then I’ve been giving you way too much credit. I stated going on 5 years ago now when I first came to this site that religion and politics are impossible to do on an internet forum, at least for me, and I think I had a grand total of 2 posts in PWI for the first 2 and a half years and they had nothing to do with PWI (long story). I haven’t been sorry I let myself get lured into these discussions, but I stand by my initial statement. Unless I could type 125 words a minute and had 12 hours a day to devote to this I will always appear vulnerable to charges like yours which I regret.

Even though I was raised Catholic it never once occurred to me in my prayer and studies that John 6 had Jesus telling anybody they should literally, as in true presence, eat His flesh and drink His blood. I needed Catholic commentary to see that there. Still do. My comment was that my dear friend Chris has surrendered his mind on the altar of an institution without so much as considering a personal systematic study of ANYTHING himself. That is dangerous and unwise. When Paul came to Berea the Bereans were called more noble because they listened to Paul and searched the scriptures daily to see if what he was saying was there. I do the same. With anybody or any church or any group.

God used the Jews to give us the old testament and look at them today. The promises are still theirs, but their authority and stewardship of the Word of God are gone. Rome may have been used to give us the new covenant scriptures, but her lampstand has long long long looooong since been removed and she stands as a loud waddling bloated monument to what man does when he refuses to bind himself within the confines of the divine mind. It is a comprehensive world view utterly divorced (if followed closely) from the very scriptures she so ironically was used to canonize.
[/quote]

You ignore posts that you don’t want to deal with. You respond to Brother Chris’ posts by pointing out that he copied them from another source, but why does that matter? Is that reason to dismiss them?

Do me one favor. Read this one again. Then I will be done with the issue of the Eucharist.

You say that you partake of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of holy communion. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is different from what I believe when I receive the Eucharist. The Orthodox do not think the word “transubstantiation” is a bad word, but we never used it until we had to discuss these issues with the Roman Catholics. We held that Christs true presence in the Eucharist was an “indescribable mystery”. In fact while we have come to use the word sacrament, the “sacraments” in the Orthodox Church were historically and are more properly called “indescribable mysteries”. Words CAN not describe the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and we felt that the Church was not supposed to try to describe an indescribable mystery.

But I think that perhaps some misunderstanding is had because of a failure to realize that it is Christ’s risen, glorified flesh and blood. It is not “dead meat”. What is the nature of glorified flesh and blood? We cannot understand. Now this is personal and if someone could give me reason I would believe otherwise, but I do not feel that the flesh and blood are “hidden” by an illusion of bread and wine. In the Eucharist, fallen bread and wine matter are utterly consumed in the glorified matter of the flesh and blood of Jesus. Do bread and wine become Glorified flesh and blood? Does glorified flesh and blood become bread and wine? Bread and wine, and the Glorified flesh and blood of Christ become one thing. Christ is the “true bread”. There is no truer bread and wine than the flesh and blood of Christ.

Christ says he is the true bread. His glorified body is more breadlike than any earthly bread. His body is the archetype of all bread, food, flesh, body, all of it. [/quote]

Transubstantiation refers to the moment or acquiring the presence of Christ. After that, they bread and wine are referred to as ‘Hosts’ and ‘Consecrated’. But like you said it doesn’t matter the fancy words you use.

BIG_ORANGE1 · April 26, 2011, 6:25pm

Not trying to be rude sorry!! Just explain to me confessing your Sins to a man who took of oath or celeb-icy, and that somehow makes him special?? Also telling you to say so many Hail Mary’s and our Father’s and your forgiven is absolutely hilarious to me!!! I have seen all those Prayer books my older Sister had Praying to certain Saints Ludicrous!!! Don’t understand Holy Rosary either

Tiribulus · April 26, 2011, 6:56pm

Mertdawg, there are only so many hours in a day man. what do you want from me? I have said that it is not possible for me to keep up with all this. Now, what exactly are asking me with this post? I saw it last time. Seriously, what is it you are asking me? There are fine lines all over here. You cross them. I don’t. Really and actually partaking of the glorified flesh and blood and hence the resurrection life of the eternally living and victorious Christ, has nothing to do with physical flesh and blood. Mine or His.

The idea of ingesting (gnawing on) the risen Christ literally into my digestive system is a monstrous misapprehension at the most basic level of what the new covenant is all about. If that’s what Ignatius was saying then he was wrong. Either accidentally or deliberately, but that is not what the scripture reports. THAT IS my conundrum. And it is one. How does the ancient church canonize a bunch of divinely inspired literature that everywhere refutes what she herself teaches, but there it is.

pat · April 26, 2011, 7:17pm

[quote]BIG ORANGE wrote:
Not trying to be rude sorry!! Just explain to me confessing your Sins to a man who took of oath or celeb-icy, and that somehow makes him special?? Also telling you to say so many Hail Mary’s and our Father’s and your forgiven is absolutely hilarious to me!!! I have seen all those Prayer books my older Sister had Praying to certain Saints Ludicrous!!! Don’t understand Holy Rosary either [/quote]

Confession is a sacrament, you cannot avoid that one, but the rest are tools of faith, not required.
However, once your done laughing, if you care for an explanation for something just ask…Easier if it’s one thing at a time…I can provide scriptural references too.
Purgatory is at the begining of this thread though…I’d encourage you look there first for that.

pat · April 26, 2011, 7:28pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Mertdawg, there are only so many hours in a day man. what do you want from me? [/quote]

Don’t run away from questions…That’d be nice for a start…

mertdawg · April 26, 2011, 10:31pm

[quote]BIG ORANGE wrote:
Not trying to be rude sorry!! Just explain to me confessing your Sins to a man who took of oath or celeb-icy, and that somehow makes him special?? Also telling you to say so many Hail Mary’s and our Father’s and your forgiven is absolutely hilarious to me!!! I have seen all those Prayer books my older Sister had Praying to certain Saints Ludicrous!!! Don’t understand Holy Rosary either [/quote]

As far as the Eastern Orthodox side of these issues, the VAST majority of our priests are married. The Canons of the first ecumenical council, and other sources say that a priest should have only 1 wife in his lifetime though, and may not marry after becomming a priest (if any) and we have monk priests, and our Bishops are all monks today.

And as for penance, the Orthodox view is that penance is not required for forgiveness. Penance of some sort is prescribed occasionally for habitual obsessive sins and the purpose is to help you defeat the obsession so you will be able to stop sinning. Prayer is not prescribed as penance either, and “penance” is not punishment, but basically “training”. Some are banned from communion for sometimes up to a year as a way of aiding their focus in defeating a particular obsession.

mertdawg · April 26, 2011, 10:49pm