Doesn't it make sense that the Christians of the 100 AD time frame were merely following what they had been taught by Paul and the rest of the Apostles? Where is the outcry from all of those "real" Christians who said "hey, those Catholics got it all wrong" Where are the "reformed" Christians???
Why would Christ want to keep offering His life over and over? Wasn't once enough? To me it just diminishes the accomplishment. BTW, is this the thought behind the crucifix, vs. the empty cross that we use?
First of all, Jesus is in eternity, the eternal NOW. Thus, His human act is united with His divine self and brought into the eternal NOW. Thus, we of the 21st century can have access to this one-time sacrifice, offering ourselves united with Christ to the Father. Christ continues to intercede for us, says the Scriptures. As to the corpus, Western Tradition sees the death of Christ as the ultimate act of love for mankind.
I agree, and we don't. In addition, we view all scripture as equally inspired and true.
Most of your Scripture quotes come from Paul. I see you don't have much to say about James or John or Peter or the Gospels. Why is that?
It is diminished because one must go THROUGH a man.
I always thought that that was PRECISELY HOW GOD REVEALED HIMSELF! Through the Word made flesh. God took on flesh, thus uniting Himself TO man...
Regards
Doesn't it make sense that the Christians of the 100 AD time frame were merely following what they had been taught by Paul and the rest of the Apostles?
Some did and some did not.
Where is the outcry from all of those "real" Christians who said "hey, those Catholics got it all wrong"
Historical fallacy, Roman Catholicism does NOT follow what the first and second century Church taught and practiced. Most of Roman Catholicism developed after the 6th century.
Where are the "reformed" Christians???
We've been here all along, as The Church.
Yes, it "would" make sense, but we know that isn't what happened. Weren't most of Paul's letters to the churches meant to correct mistakes in what he had very recently taught them? Isn't it true that different churches got it "right" to very differing degrees? And this is after personal teaching by Paul himself. If all that is true, then it would be no stretch to think that some churches practiced the Eucharist as you do and some didn't. For some reason Paul chose not to write about it at all, as currently practiced. That's a big red flag for me. I somehow doubt that all the churches had the Eucharist right, but they were otherwise all messed up on a myriad of other issues, including the identity of Christ Himself. Paul devoted a lot of ink to that issue.
Where is the outcry from all of those "real" Christians who said "hey, those Catholics got it all wrong".
I suppose we can't know for sure the extent of any such outcry. However, if there was one, it doesn't surprise me at all that it wasn't preserved. As I understand it, it is fairly disputed when the current administration of the Eucharist, with the theology behind it as it is performed today, even came into existence. I just know that it is extremely odd that it is not in the Bible if something this central to your faith is true.
Where are the "reformed" Christians???
I figure they must have been around, since Augustine must have learned from somewhere. :)
First of all, Jesus is in eternity, the eternal NOW. Thus, His human act is united with His divine self and brought into the eternal NOW. Thus, we of the 21st century can have access to this one-time sacrifice, offering ourselves united with Christ to the Father.
I don't understand where the "Thus" comes from. Without scriptural support you are mixing God's timelessness with man's real time, and if I remember my Back to Future movies correctly, this sort of thing really should destroy the universe. :)
But seriously, which of Christ's human acts WERE NOT united with His divine self? I know you are not going to tell me that the cross was the only time when His two natures were united. Therefore, I don't see how it is logical that you single out this one event in this respect. By what I perceive as your reasoning, I would think that the real presence should appear at baptism, all prayer, and every other human act we share with Him in commission for that matter. Yet, we only have "access" at the Eucharist. And you can't tell me that there is something magic about sacrifice and timelessness. Jesus sacrificed throughout His life, yet only one sacrifice appears to matter WITH REGARD TO time, in terms of "crossing over". How is that? IOW, by the conditions you set, the Eucharist is not at all unique for the singular and exclusive phenomenon you suggest.
Most of your Scripture quotes come from Paul. I see you don't have much to say about James or John or Peter or the Gospels. Why is that?
Maybe it's because Paul wrote most of the NT? :) And, you of all people should know better than to say I shy away from any Biblical writer because in all of our conversations, I have quoted MANY TIMES from James, John, and Peter, and any other writer who is relevant to the topic. I think you are being unfair. How many topics have we discussed? Hundreds. I've quoted from EVERYWHERE and I've done it more than once!
I can understand the stereotype of why you wouldn't think I would want to quote from James, but why in the world would you think I have anything against John? He is my favorite Gospel writer. One of the only things I do in my life "liberally" is quote from John. :) YOU HAVE SEEN IT!
PLUS, folks on my side quote from a variety of OT authors 5 times more than the Catholics do! :) ALL scripture is equally inspired and inerrant.
FK: "[The intimacy shared between God and man] is diminished [in Catholicism] because one must go THROUGH a man."
I always thought that that was PRECISELY HOW GOD REVEALED HIMSELF! Through the Word made flesh. God took on flesh, thus uniting Himself TO man...
You are doing all my work for me. :) Of course my context was going through a clergyman in Catholicism to get to God. Yes, Christ came in the flesh, and what did He do? Did He hole-up as a monk, sending third-party emissaries to do His preaching for Him? Did He put a firm buffer between Himself and the common man, such that He was inaccessible directly? Did He turn away honest seekers and tell them to plead their problems with their deceased fathers? Of course He did none of those things. Christ STRESSED a personal one-on-one relationship with people. There are tons of stories. It's what He did. THAT is the Biblical model that has been changed in the Roman Catholic faith. God still wants that one-on-one relationship, but some faiths find it threatening and discourage it.