Posted on 05/31/2013 2:44:05 PM PDT by NYer
Do our Catholic children and most adults know what these images teach?
All of us know one of the elephants in the room of the Catholic Church. Our religious education programs are not handing on the essence of our Catholic Faith, our parents are befuddled about their role in handing on the faith and the materials we use are vapid or if good do not make an impression on young minds. We are afraid of asking for memorization and thus most don't remember anything they've learned about God and Church other than some niceties and feel good emotions.
I teach each class of our grades 1-6 (we don't have 7th or 8th) each Thursday, rotating classes from week to week. For the last two years I have used Baltimore Catechism #1 as my text book. It is wonderful to use with children and it is so simple yet has so much content. If Catholics, all Catholics, simply studied Baltimore Catechism #1, we would have very knowledgeable Catholics.
These past two years I've used Baltimore Catechism #2 with our adult religious program which we call Coffee and Conversation following our 9:30 AM Sunday Mass, which coincides with our CCD program which we call PREP (Parish Religious Education Program).
This #2 book has more content and is for middle school, but upper elementary school children must have been more capable of more serious content back when this book was formulated and used through the mid 1960's because it is a great book to use with adults and not childish at all. We all use this same book as a supplemental book for the RCIA because it is so clear, nobly simple and chocked full of content!
Yes, there are some adjustments that need to be made to some chapters, but not that many, in light of Vatican II and the new emphasis we have on certain aspects of Church that are not present in the Baltimore Catechism. But these are really minor.
What is more important though is that when the Baltimore Catechism was used through the mid 1960's it was basically the only book that was used for children in elementary and junior high school. It was used across the board in the USA thus uniting all Catholics in learning the same content. There was not, in other words, a cottage industry of competing publishing houses selling new books and different content each year.
The same thing has occurred with liturgical music, a cottage industry of big bucks has developed around the sale of new hymnals, missalettes and new music put on the open market for parishes to purchase. It is a money making scheme.
Why do our bishop allow this to happen in both liturgical music and parish catechesis? The business of selling stuff to parishes and making mega bucks off of it is a scandal that has not be addressed.
In the meantime, our liturgies suffer and become fragmented because every parish uses a different resource for liturgical music and the same is true of religious formation, everyone uses something different of differing quality or no quality at all.
Isn't it time to wake up and move forward with tried and true practices that were tossed out in favor of a consumerist's approach to our faith that has weakened our liturgies, our parishes and our individual Catholics?
Note:(I’m pinging Iscool since this will also answer his question - later on- of what the bread and the wine is the figure of in Augustine’s work.)
FourtySeven writes: “IOW, we Catholics interpret that sentence to say, “This is what HAPPENS when we eat the meat...”
A ridiculous conclusion! If this is what happens “when” we eat the meat, it does not follow that the meat is eaten “already” by believing, against those who prepare teeth and stomach:
“This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. (Augustine, Tractate 25)”
If this is what “happens when” you eat the meat, you would have prepared your teeth and stomach, and presumably it would only happen on a Sunday and not “already” through faith (though Augustine celebrated the Lord’s Supper, apparently, every single day). Also look at the line even previous to that. We’re talking about faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Eucharist:
“’What shall we do?’ they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.’” (Augustine, Tractate 25)
The line you quoted begins right after these, so it is clear that Augustine isn’t just kidding when he asserts that we eat by believing.
It’s just utterly strange that we must sit here and explain something so simple that should be figured out by reading the whole text. This is why it’s important to read these quotes in their entire context, so you don’t wrest a single line out of Augustine the way they [Catholicism] so often do with the scripture.
Here’s another instance of this “believe, and thou hast eaten already” in Tractate 26:
“Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err.” (Augustine, Tractate 26)
You continue:
“But this is why I’ve said before that the historical framework in which this (and other Augustinian works) have been written cannot and should not be ignored, to whit, the man’s own personal history AND the Church (even at that time) Tradition to which he converted.”
I think just as important as understanding the historical framework is reading a text in context! But as to historical framework of the “church’ tradition: This presupposes one monolithic tradition that everyone believed in. Reading through the early church “Fathers,” I cannot come to the conclusion that they all agreed with each other or were under threat from one monolithic authority in Rome that they had to agree with. In fact, the Bishop in Rome didn’t even understand himself as the sole successor of Peter and supreme head over the entire church until a long time after. On the other hand, we have others reading John 6 in exactly the same way Augustine does. For example, Tertullian:
“He says, it is true, that the flesh profits nothing; John 6:63 but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing,— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. John 5:24 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: ‘The flesh profits nothing.’” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chpt. 37)
And keep in mind, it is upon the authority of the Roman interpretation of John 6 that the breaking of bread done “in remembrance of me” is transformed into “a ritual for eternal life.”
“Given THAT context, his words carry a clear meaning which I have described before which is, that the Eucharist is literally Christ’s body, understood in the spiritual SENSE, not the PHYSICAL sense, but still LITERALLY His Body nonetheless.”
I would have been less offended by such a definition if not for the “literally His body.” Since we can say that Christ is present in the mind of the believer with the Eucharist, but not that He is literally present there. Augustine could not have held such a view, especially since his focus is never on the power of the Eucharist in and of itself to do anything, but what must be spiritually understood from the experience.
“What you can see passes away, but the invisible reality signified does not pass away, but remains. Look, it’s received, it’s eaten, it’s consumed. Is the body of Christ consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ consumed? Perish the thought! Here they are being purified, there they will be crowned with the victor’s laurels. So what is signified will remain eternally, although the thing that signifies it seems to pass away. So receive the sacrament in such a way that you think about yourselves, that you retain unity in your hearts, that you always fix your hearts up above. Don’t let your hope be placed on earth, but in heaven. Let your faith be firm in God, let it be acceptable to God. Because what you don’t see now, but believe, you are going to see there, where you will have joy without end.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
Notice that if the bread and wine were literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ, as if His spirit dwelled there, there would be no need for it to ‘signify’ that invisible reality of Christ’s spirit. It would spiritually “be” Christ, and it would spiritually be eaten. Your view also ignores the central meaning of the Eucharist in Augustine’s mind to begin with.
In both sermon 227 and 272, Augustine asserts that what is placed on the table is not just the body of Christ... it is ALSO us. The bread and wine represents the entire body of Christ.
“So if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27). So if it’s you that are the body of Christ and its members, it’s the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord’s table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.” (Augustine, Sermon 272)
It’s a little bit more clear how his metaphor works in sermon 227:
“If you receive them well, you are yourselves what you receive. You see, the apostle says, We, being many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). That’s how he explained the sacrament of the Lord’s table; one loaf, one body, is what we all are, many though we be. In this loaf of bread you are given clearly to understand how much you should love unity. I mean, was that loaf made from one grain? Weren’t there many grains of wheat? But before they came into the loaf they were all separate; they were joined together by means of water after a certain amount of pounding and crushing. Unless wheat is ground, after all, and moistened with water, it can’t possibly get into this shape which is called bread. In the same way you too were being ground and pounded, as it were, by the humiliation of fasting and the sacrament of exorcism. Then came baptism, and you were, in a manner of speaking, moistened with water in order to be shaped into bread. But it’s not yet bread without fire to bake it. So what does fire represent? That’s the chrism, the anointing. Oil, the fire-feeder, you see, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
(Note the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit” as well. He did not think the oil was really the Holy Spirit. It simply symbolized the Holy Spirit.)
So we cannot say that we also are spiritually present in the Eucharist, though this eating of the bread and wine was how one visibly signified their membership in the church:
“And in another place he says about this eucharist itself, We, though many, are one loaf, one body (1 Cor 10:17). So you are beginning to receive what you have also begun to be, provided you do not receive unworthily; else you would be eating and drinking judgment upon yourselves.” (Augustine, Sermon 228B)
However, it is through spiritual “understanding” that this is really accomplished, which all sacraments were designed to bring to mind:
“Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.” (Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 99)
Besides the “sacrament of the Holy Spirit,” note also the sacrament of the Kiss of Peace:
” After that comes Peace be with you; a great sacrament, the kiss of peace. So kiss in such a way as really meaning that you love. Don’t be Judas; Judas the traitor kissed Christ with his mouth, while setting a trap for him in his heart. But perhaps somebody has unfriendly feelings toward you, and you are unable to win him round, to show him he’s wrong; you’re obliged to tolerate him. Don’t pay him back evil for evil in your heart. He hates; just you love, and you can kiss him without anxiety.” (Augustine, Sermon 227)
In this way we can begin to understand how Augustine employed Sacraments in the church, not as rituals that give some kind of saving grace or transubstantiated what they represented, but which are physical and visible pictures to understand spiritual truths that are far beyond the mere physical celebration.
I’ll also add one final thing. If the bread and wine is both substantially what it is, while also spiritually the “literal” body of Christ due to Christ’s spirit dwelling there, then it can still be said that we hold Christ in our hands every time we partake in communion. However, according to Augustine, we have never actually held Christ with our hands:
“Let them come to the church and hear where Christ is, and take Him. They may hear it from us, they may hear it from the gospel. He was slain by their forefathers, He was buried, He rose again, He was recognized by the disciples, He ascended before their eyes into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and He who was judged is yet to come as Judge of all: let them hear, and hold fast. Do they reply, How shall I take hold of the absent? how shall I stretch up my hand into heaven, and take hold of one who is sitting there? Stretch up thy faith, and thou hast got hold. Thy forefathers held by the flesh, hold thou with the heart; for the absent Christ is also present. But for His presence, we ourselves were unable to hold Him.” (Augustine, Tractate 50)
And if Christ really is “literally” in our hands, then when Augustine says “The Lord is risen!” on Easter, he means that Christ is literally risen that day, since it’s the same type of “spiritual” language. But he does not:
“You know that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, Tomorrow or the day after is the Lord’s Passion, although He suffered so many years ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter Sunday, we say, This day the Lord rose from the dead, although so many years have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As, therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ’s body is Christ’s body, and the sacrament of Christ’s blood is Christ’s blood.” (Augustine, Letters 98)
Augustine’s connection here between his manner of speaking regarding Easter with his “certain manner” of speaking with the Eucharist, as well as the statements of its “resemblance” to what they signify, further damages the idea that Augustine believed in the local presence of Christ within the Eucharist.
Let us know if you get an answer on that one.
Pinging daniel as he will find the information useful
I don’t get how a modern Catholic could convince himself/herself that Augustine believed in or taught the bodily presence of Jesus in the Eucharist after reading what Augustine wrote...
It’s clear as crystal that Augustine never ate Jesus with his teeth, but his heart, only...
For reason of my repeating a sort of terminology which NL used twice, and was deleted by moderator, my own comment too (since I threw the same phrase right back at him) was deleted also. So all this has been much like battling some tag-team whom won't confess to the slightest terminology if it be potentially troubling -- but which terms themselves have been used by their very own church! Meaning; the persistence in not directly admitting that the communion wafer, in it's physical properties shall we say, does not change, for as stated at Trent, as is noted by Liam G. Walsh in Sacraments of Initiation: A Theology of Rite, Word, and Life © 2011 Archdiocese of Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 3949 South Racine Avenue, Chicago IL 60609 from pg.326;
"Using the language of Medieval sacramental theology, Chapter 1 states that in the Eucharist after the consecration Christ is "truly, really, and substantially...contained" under the appearance (species) of bread and wine." [ellipses his own]
The "species" or "accident" (the physical appearance or reality on this plane or realm of existence we generally abide in) does not change, in that it retains it's appearance, or as otherwise said, the transformation of the bread and wine into being the body and blood of Christ is "under the species of those sensible things".
As I said, that to which you originally replied to, which was addressed to NL;
Please remember again, the "accident" of the form DOES NOT change (even though some here other than yourself seem to be arguing for the accident or "species" be changed also).to which I added;
which for some reason you chose to quote, then attempted to correct?
Now you say;
Excuse me? In any way? This is precisely what I've been driving at, and excuse me further, for the author of this confusion is not myself, for these interplays of wording, language, and definition derived from Aristotelian/Greek philosophy influenced word definitions & meanings existed long before any of us alive today were subjected to them.
You still didn't answer the question directly, but instead jumped to the next step (of explaining by faith). In doing so, resulted in affirming my suspicion --- in that regarding the change of "substance" you take 'substance' to mean as is commonly defined and understood today, not 'substance' as the Greek philosophy defined the word? This is the crux of the matter. The definition of "substance" which is being transformed is important, and is precisely where both contention and some confusion enters in. Substance_theory Substantial form Accident (philosophy) which word "accident" Thomas Aquinas used in his own transformation of the bread explanations, but was shifted to "species" in later centuries writing and declaratory. Also take a peek at Essential properties; please study or refresh understanding of those, taking particular note of how in today's common usage "The idea of substantial forms has been abandoned for a mechanical, or “bottom-up” theory of organization." then it can be understood that to impose modern idea of "substance" be in error in regards to official RCC proclamation from Trent concerning transubstantiation, which there leave the underlying article, the accident or "species" as it were unchanged (in one sense the wine still wine, the bread still bread) but it be otherwise essentially changed --- to be understood in the realm of Spirit, and of faith(?), for as Trent said (to repeat) the transubstantiation took place "under the species of those sensible things".
What you continued with beyond which I quoted, highlighted in brown above would have been fine --- IF you had directly answered the question. I already understand the next step, and I do already understand what it is that is believed.
Yet I knew too, that something along the lines of "I don't appreciate the sarky nature of your post" would be tossed on the table (much as Mormons get all huffy when challenged) along with expanded description of what is believed, leaving the pointed question unanswered.
You do realize that the information you sent my way (after the link) contains much of the precise scripture I touched upon already? I'm supposed to read it now and come away with some other framework, just because you don't appreciate my (alleged) snarkiness?
Forget it. This is not a conversation. I asked for one thing and one thing only --- after establishment of which we could both proceed. That answer sought for was fully along the lines of that which you otherwise on this thread approached agreeing with, but I did seek explicit clarification, which is STILL being avoided, but curiously avoided, like it was some poisonous thing; even as the very article can be found among Roman Catholic descriptive terminology in regards to their own understanding and presentation of this sacrament.
Is it for reason such [above link] came from a co-religionist (another Roman Catholic) that you found something to agree with there, yet won't touch it (and say "amen" to = not physical but spiritual reality, thus is) with a ten-foot pole when it comes to myself?
What now? More bashing of me over the head with proclamations in capital letters "it's the body!" or some other official word-smithing which studiously avoids confession that the "species" as Trent put it, remain unchanged? Perhaps not for agreement sake (not asking for your agreement) at least TRY to understand this line of questioning from perspective other than that which you now hold. Try to understand what I'm actually saying. If one cannot or will not do such (a touch of acknowledgement along those lines could go long way) then what earthly good is discussion which you offer? What's the plan? Is it to just keep repeating it over and over until all others can be brow-beaten into submission? Is there resentment that I'm not easily lectured to, but do not hesitate myself to return the favor? To hit me with reams of copy/paste sort of thing, in response to my own self taking great pains to reason, and write in my own voice, providing support for my own assertions as I go along is supposed to sway me? Or -- what?
The "snark" you think you see is more in your own defensive imagination, though I do confess to being very straightforward and unapologetic in that which I convey, and not pulling many punches, even aiming a few ---directly at; issues, issues of avoidance; debate techniques I find not on the level; personality clashes I'm expected to grin and bear ---even as that which I'm pressing for discussion is ignored or else rudely and in unsubstantiated manner rhetorically swept off the table. Let's just say there are enough other FRomans who live in nasty-slathering criticism-land I find it difficult to be too overly solicitous regarding all others' pride, self-esteem, or "feelings", if I need sacrifice clarity of thought as to issues I am addressing. If you or others have not the patience to set aside your own "feelings" enough to read and fully understand plain meaning, preferring even to take offense(?) even as hoping to lecture or "instruct", others yourselves, then what kind of deal is that but this attempted conversation be held hostage to "feelings"? And at the price of truth, also. That's too costly.
You do realize that getting all "hurt" when the going get's tough is one of the first-order Mormon debating techniques, don't you? Why, oh why follow that example? This forum is not for the thin-skinned.
The Mormons say it was not Christ dying on the cross, but his great stress in the garden of Gethsemane where he sweated blood. Yet stress on our part, on Christ's part, or bleeding an animal slightly then releasing that animal (that was to be a sacrifice, is not sufficient under the law of the Hebrews. Sacrificing blood, not a few drops, but all of it; for the life is in the blood Leviticus 17:11 and as Paul speaking of the Law explains Hebrews 9:11 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission is rough stuff. Brutal even. There is no way to feminize it. Thus much part of reason for the priesthood be men.
Not that God be bloodthirsty, but that He is Holy, and the law itself though not His chosen invention as something he thought up, but instead be an immutable part of His very nature & essence. That view makes it different, does it not? The Holy Book is true, and it can show us what the nature of our God, the one true God, Creator of Heaven and earth is in "essence". Yet to only read about Him and never encounter Him, never be touched by or encounter the terrifying reality of His capital "H" Holiness, that at the mercy seat [kaporet, hilasterion] He be both the demand for blood sacrifice and Him the propitiation, the body & blood sacrifice too, at the same time, is to not know Him. Or in the least not know as the Israelite priests whom entered into the Holy of Holies once a year encountered Him, and then learned & knew. This I understand beyond mere "textual" level of understanding, though it be difficult to put in words.
Why it must be so, that there be no remission of sin without shedding of blood (and here we speak of Israelite Temple sacrifice, and the laws pertaining to such) I have touched upon. If it were up to me...I would not have chosen that way...yet the Lord our God did not either, but that death be wage of sin is completely unavoidable, and He does declare that workmen be paid their just due. Hence another facet of the preciousness of Christ's own blood, and body broken for us.
Yet still, death for our sins, that we be separated eternally from Life which He is, be not His own heart's desire towards us, for it is He that teaches us also that obedience is better than sacrifice; and in Christ being obedient to the Father, His own direct Father whom is Creator, took upon Himself (even bodily) our infirmities, and inequities. [Isaiah 53:5-7] [1 Corinthians 15-3]
The sun was darkened that day for the horror of the sin put upon Christ, so much poured upon him, Christ becoming sin itself [last verse 2 Corinthians 5]. Slayed outside the Temple, even as he was the Lamb of God, he was made scapegoat by the Sanhedrin, "better one man to die, than an entire nation" Caiaphas prophesying perhaps without knowing it. Yet I can bear direct witness, that if Caiaphas had the gift of the Spirit such as is available to us now, available since Jesus ascended back unto his Father and the Spirit then enabled to be sent to us, then I say he would have known irrefutably within himself that he had prophesied when he did so (particularly for that particular prophesy, having that reach, power and magnitude) for it would be as a fire within himself as he spoke the words.
I don't know for certain about others, but when I partake of the Lord's Supper (as Paul termed it) I know what I consume, and know that I do not deserve it, cannot earn it, but must accept both His life, and the sacrifice of His life given to us "my body, broken for you" accepting forgiveness from God within myself that I in no way deserve. Done in such manner, I have encountered Him there, found the "presence" which is spoken of.
Do you understand now, from this last sentence [above], how it is I said to you that we may be able to come to some agreement? But first things first, the most important the foremost, for otherwise what is this which we eat (and call Christ)? Is He...a production of the church, a ritual He be fully captive of, of is He son of God who died (and rose again, hallelujah!) so that we may be free of the curse, so that we may live?
There is a lot of stored up anger and fierce hostility towards Luther (especially coming from one who had claimed to be a former Lutheran) so this explains why, no matter what the subject of the thread or the direction of the dialog, this ONE (of but a few other favorites) rant is tossed out like a hand grenade - intended to score a victory, but which only proves to be a dud. Anyone who cares about the truth can see through the steam.
Then I'm with Luther since I'm sure getting a chuckle over it. One man who spoke The Truth that Rome didn't agree with - and Rome passed down their REVENGE of him for hundreds of years! And that revenge is still alive with their subjects. One reason I don't read anything 'considered' a Luther quote from them.
And like you said, he's no one's leader. He's a man who fulfilled God's assignment for his life. Everyone has an assignment for their life, this was his. Moses had his, Abraham had his, Joseph had his, Esther had her's, Mary had her's, Timothy had his, Stephan had his and Paul had his, etc., etc. - ALL DIFFERENT but all for the glory of God, not themselves.
Meanwhile the idea that Luther was a maverick in rejecting some books as part of the canon proper has abundantly been refuted here many times, by God's grace, and here , as questioning and dissent from the canon which Trent would ratify extended down thru history and right into Trent.
And which has been show* to Rashputin, and the basis for rejection of the apocryphal books, though he/she refused to look at links that provide more substantiation.
*http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2916060/posts?page=85#85
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=35#35
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=52#52
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=111#111
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=207#207
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2964191/posts?page=236#236
It is only perceived as a Christ's flesh to those with Faith in the church's teaching.
bttt
i.e. doing it in remembrance....
Limited education? So it's all about 'the brilliance of some scholar' and the philosophy of some? The HOLY SPIRIT trumps 'man' EVERY TIME.
If I accepted the lie that the Eucharist was only a cracker then I too would call it nonsense and reject it.
Are you using reason or limited education? We call it communion where God's Own gather together in union to remember our Savior, The RISEN CHRIST.
conform ourselves to the Truth. means HEAR and OBEY. Remembrance means remembrance. A child knows what remembrance means. The bread is a symbol of His Body and the wine/grape juice is a symbol of His Blood.
Everyone who wants to be offended will find ample reasons to be so. I have stated many times in these forums we are not saved by how much we know, but upon how we live what we know.
I will again remind you that when asked Jesus said there were TWO greatest commandments. No matter how zealously you profess to adhere to the First, your posts and demeanor suggest you are doing a miserable job on the Second.
Peace be with you
Agreed! And the lesson of this thread: What You Get Is What You See
And to a MORMON; the ONLY cause of a 'burning busom' is the Holy Spirit.
My goodness!
Did YOU just type that??
To: Natural LawWish I had more time to post on this thread, but just couldn't help notice the Heavy Metal, IRONY!No matter how zealously you profess to adhere to the First, your posts and demeanor suggest you are doing a miserable job on the Second.My goodness!
Did YOU just type that??
It's amazing, the hubris.
Which makes it a works based salvation.
Reality is, we are saved by the grace of God, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works so that no man can boast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.