In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[RnMomof7]

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ

[kosta50]

*Well, you obviously don't understand ________, because if you did you would most certainly agree with us.*

There is nothing specifically "Catholic" about that argument. Everybody uses it. I have been told many times by Protestants: "if you only had the eyes and the ears you'd understand." Talk about not seeing the longs in your own eyes but noticing specks in your neighbor's!

Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it.

At least we agree, then, that people believe whatever they want to believe. I have bene saying that all along.

Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong.

What do you mean by "violate" other scriptural passages? In what sense are they "violated?" If he can rise from the dead and float up in into the clouds, then surely he can make bread and wine attain the properties of his body and blood.

What do you think John 6:55 means when he says "For my flesh is real *(or true) food and my blood is real* (or true) drink"? And when  says n Matthew 26:26  "Jesus took the bread...saying this is my body..."?

*ἀληθῶς = truly, really

[The Theophilus]

This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture

I thought that everyone agrees here that teaching of the Scripture, clear, or otherwise is nice, but not necessary for Rome.

All of the arguments you have provided are good, particularly those concerning the consumption of blood. The clean/unclean struggle that Peter "Kill and Eat" had was icing on the cake. Since Scriptures and doctrine don't matter to those enslaved to Rome, will reason work?

When Luther challenged Rome and Rome blinked, thus began the Protestant Reformation. If the Reformation was about taking people away from Christ as the sycophant cultists of Rome sincerely believe, then why did Luther keep the critical doctrines like Christ's divinity, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection and the forgiveness of sins? One would think that those would all have been perverted from the start in the same manner as all cultists and alternative religions do.

Without going through all permutations of the doctrines surrounding the Eucharist, from Rome's to the Evangelical's Zwinglian, we have the common elements, we recite the same Scripture, we observe the same LORD and same Last Supper, we largely retain the same exhortations given by Paul in how that sacrament is taken. So what is the practical difference from the standpoint of the casual observer?

The Roman version requires Rome. IOW, Rome acts as if they copyrighted and trademarked the Eucharist as if it was some movie or song, and they jealously protect their property rights with the same ferocity as ASCAP. When the Eucharist is performed anywhere outside their approved venue where they can receive their proper royalties, then the "crime" is similar to illegally downloading and burning your own copy. Once you understand their position using this template, it because quite easy to comprehend their lunacy on the topic.

To nearly everyone concerned, its crackers and fruit of the vine, this transubstantiation mumbo-jumbo is the mental gyrations that one goes through in order to brand the Eucharist into an exclusive Roman product. You can't conjure up Christ like some modern witch of Endor and make Him enter into the elements, neither can anyone who is not underneath the royalty obligations with Rome. You want a genuine, holographed and legal Eucharist, you must buy it from Rome.

Everyone understand what it really is all about now?

[BelegStrongbow]

Here's hopefully helpful note to your point: If you read through Lumen Gentium you will find an interesting dogmatic statement to the effect that the fact of an authentic Eucharist derives from the institution of the clergy, headed by the Pope and not valid unless in communion with the Pope. What is interesting about this is that it is precisely the opposite understanding from the original. As propounded by Ignatius (c. 95 AD), the fact of a valid Eucharist was the starting point and the clergy derived their validity and necessity because their office was granted the sole authority to celebrate the giving of gifts by Christ Himself. Thus, it is not the fact of the office, but the purpose for which the office was instituted that authorizes the entire enterprise.

What ends up is therefore a division in the Church between those who hold th Eucharist supreme and venerate the bishop as being God's chosen vessel for providing it and those who hold the bishop supreme and define the Eucharist as being valid when a function of his office. The latter conception also permanently and completely empowers the clergy vis a vis the laity, who are reduced to passive participants (they get to chant some of the prayers, but don't even get a voice in deliberating as to which ones might be appropriate) while the former retains the whole Church as a unity from bishop to youngest lay person, each and all having a proper liturgy and all directed toward Christ.

All this is cf. Bp John Zizioulas.

[metmom]

If the Reformation was about taking people away from Christ as the sycophant cultists of Rome sincerely believe, then why did Luther keep the critical doctrines like Christ's divinity, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection and the forgiveness of sins? One would think that those would all have been perverted from the start in the same manner as all cultists and alternative religions do.

You're exactly right. That's what all cults do, attack who Christ is in essence.

It's not our faith that saves us; everyone has faith in something. That's a given. It's who or what our faith is in. If Satan can have it put in something other that THE CHRIST of the Bible, his job is easy.

If we have faith the size of a mustard seed...... the faith works, not because our faith is great but because the God we put our faith in is great.

[count-your-change]

“The divine presence leaves whent he host is dissolved inside the body”

Ah...now this is very interesting! A definitive statement that can be examined.

I assume that you are referring to the wafer which is said to become the actual flesh of Christ upon being blessed. So what shall be said of the wine? At what point does “the divine presence” leave the wine?
And if this be so then is the participant ingesting bread and wine or flesh and blood? Does “the divine presence” leave at different points of ingestion for different persons? Say in the mouth, the stomach, the intestinal tract? Or is it a matter of time? After so minutes say?

But most importantly, How would anyone know this leaving of “the divine presence” had or had not occurred? Is there some teaching in the Catholic Catechism or of Catholic theologians? If so where?

I am most interested in learning how all this occurs!

[editor-surveyor]

> “God preserved the Bible intact in spite of the Catholic church, not because of it.”

.
This is the truth that every catholic must grasp in order to be saved!

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

[metmom]

The word the the Catholic church downplays.

[the_conscience]

lol

[count-your-change]

Says k50, "What do you think John 6:55 means when he says "For my flesh is real *(or true) food and my blood is real* (or true) drink"? And when says n Matthew 26:26 "Jesus took the bread...saying this is my body..."? *ἀληθῶς = truly, really" I ask what does John 15:1 mean when Jesus says, "I am the vine the true (true, really), and the Father of me the farmer is"?

[metmom]

We can just stay in John 6....

35Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

Here, taking this literally, Jesus is saying He's made out of dough.....

*************************************************************************

And John 6 after people leave for taking offense at the thought of eating His literal flesh and blood, He says this....

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

The flesh is no help at all. It bears repeating. Eating His actual flesh and blood does nothing, by His own words.

[xone]

ph

[count-your-change]

I noted John 15:1 because here is the same Greek term from “alethos”, true.

[metmom]

Good point.....

So, was he green and leafy?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

This is the truth that every catholic must grasp in order to be saved!

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

AMEN! For those given ears to hear.

[count-your-change]

I better leaf that one alone!

[kosta50]

I ask what does John 15:1 mean when Jesus says, "I am the vine the true (true, really), and the Father of me the farmer is"?

That he is exaggerating.

[OLD REGGIE]

First, Protestants don't even believe that. When the Word says "you are not saved by faith alone" (James 2, I slightly paraphrase) or "This is my body" (Luke 22), you don't believe that.

"..."This is my body" (Luke 22), you don't believe that."

And you also take this literally? JOHN 10:7 So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.

Truly, truly, Jesus is a door.

[OLD REGGIE]

duh!!!!

Tell that to Mr. Reggie.

Pay attention:

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus entered Peter's house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever;

Matthew 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother;

Matthew 14:
28 And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
29 He said, "Come." So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus;

Matthew 15:15 But Peter said to him, "Explain the parable to us."

Tell what to Mr. Reggie? Was he or was he not called "Peter" before your magic ROCK event?

[OLD REGGIE]

Annalex: is your argument that the name Peter was chosen without connection to the foundation of the Chruch that Christ said He will build in Matthew 16

Old Reggie: Yes

And the fact that "thou art Peter" and "on this rock I will build my Church" are what, random reminder who Jesus was talking to in case St. Peter forgot what his given name was?

Why is it that some people seem to enjoy inane analogies? Did Jesus forget Peter's name when He called him "Simon, son of John" the last time recorded in Scripture? (John 21:15-18)

I suggest you read the Catechism to find the Church Teaching on the relationship between Peter and the Rock upon which the Church was built.

Hint: "This rock" is not Peter.

[OLD REGGIE]

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans

CSomeone here not recently ventured to say that the Church Fathers were Protestant. Well, read the above and disabuse yourselves.

Letters of Ignatius as proof of anything is problematic. In addition to the known forgeries, the existence of short, mid, and long rescensions of ones which may contain some truth leaves one to guess just what to believe.

"... Of later collections of Ignatian letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension". This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport to be from Ignatius."

Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignatius

Do you care to venture a guess when "catholic" - adjective became "Catholic" - proper noun?