The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[JHavard]

But I can only say that in the Lord's Supper's I have witnessed, the Baptists exhibit a dry formalism rather than the enthusiasm that one can see in so many Catholc parishes during communion.

The times I attended a Catholic Church Mass, I would describe the communion more like an assembly line, rather then exuding any form of enthusiasm.

I specifically remember chuckling to my self as every one filed past on their way back to their seats, and how the way they held their hands, seemed to tell me what they were saying to those still sitting and observing.

One would have his or her hands in a definite prayer position.(I'm a strong believer) One would have their fingers folded and on there stomach,(I'm glad that's over with) and some with two fingers touching,(I hope no one from work is watching me) and some with one hand on their stomach (I hope I can still get a tee off time today) and some with their hands simply hanging limp at the wrist, ( real men don't walke around like this) and I doubt if there were any two alike.

This wasn't meant to be derogatory, only a funny observation from an NC. Lol

I have always kept it as a solemn occasion, and tried not to show any emotions, but thought as to what it represented, so I don't understand the statement that many were enthused, how do you look solemn and enthused at the same time? What do you mean by enthused?

(^g^) JH

[SoothingDave]

I don't of course accept even the notion of God being incarnated in a man. But the notion that God is really present in the consecrated bread and wine in such a way as to make an inanimate object worthy of latria is antipathetic to me. God is both immanent and transcendant. He is omnipresent. He is, therefore, present in the large oak tree in the park. I do not, however, worship the tree.

I understand. You have said it all yourself. Accepting God as bread when you do not accept God as man is just not going to happen.

but He is not limited to just one location.

Do you really think He ever was?

No. But it seems like the Israelites in the desert had a special kind of physical presence of God, in the cloud and fire. This didn't make God not omnipresent, but it did give Him a physical Presence on earth.

In the same way, God's physical presence in the Eucharist in no way removes his omnipresence.

SD

[The_Reader_David]

I am pleased that you bring up the example of the preaching of the Holy Apostle Paul. He preached at a time when the Holy Gospels had not been set down in writing, and yet he preached the Gospel: the Gospel as fact and tradition predates the Gospels as written documents. It is precisely his behavior which the Church has continued emulating, and which you are objecting to by insisting on using a diminished canon of the Holy Scriptures as an axiom system.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Of course He was. And those that found it "hard" left Him. Those who stuck around didn't understand at the moment either, but knew of no other place to turn. Only when the Last Supper occured to Jesus' command become clear. "Oh, this is how we are to eat His flesh and drink His blood!" Like in the story of Abraham and Isaac, God provides the sacrifice.

Baloney. It said "many" of his disciples didn't understand. It didn't say "all" of his disciples. Even if "none" understood, (which wasn't the case) that doesn't mean following or believing on Him wasn't available yet.

[SoothingDave]

Even if "none" understood, (which wasn't the case) that doesn't mean following or believing on Him wasn't available yet.

I didn't say "following" or "beleiving on" Him wasn't available. What wasn't available was eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

SD

[IMRight]

Let me teach you something. If ya don't know your own definition of Sola Scripture don't throw it my face as if you do.

That's not "teaching". I asked a simple question. What precisely is your understand of "my" definition of Sola Scriptura? I have previously said that my understanding of it is "the written Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith for God's people" and had NCs here tell me I got it right. It does not mean that everything True is in the Bible, but that everything in the Bible is True. And that it contains everything we need for our salvation.

So I ask again. What is "my" definition of Sola Scriptura, and what about "your" definition allows the argument that something is true unless it can be disproven by scripture?

[DouglasKC]

Christ dwells within all believers, but you do not cease to be. If anything you and Christ are cohabitating within you.
We do cease to be. Not physically, but the goal is to bury the "old" man and become converted to a new man.
The goal, yes. Is it actually accomplished in each beleiver? Here we run into the sanctification issue. We beleive it is a process that may take an entire life (or even longer).

I agree with this to a certain extent. Developing Godly character is a life long effort. But sanctification happens fairly early in the process. Biblically it seems that those who succeed in developing the most Godly character are given larger roles in the kingdom of heaven (the talents parable in matthew 25).

If you think about it, it is a wonderful argument for venerating saints.

If by veneration you mean honoring and remembering, sure.

In this way the Presence is more profound and worthy of adoration.
Let's suppose that your position is true. Biblically, why would any other bread or wine besides the bread or wine that Christ actually had in his hand at the time turn into his flesh and blood?

I think IMRight hit upon the main Biblical arguments. I would simply reiterate that Christ told us to do what He just did. If we are merely performing a shadow of what He did, then we are not following His command.

If we do what he did and commanded then we are following his command. If we add to what he did then we are adding to what he did.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I didn't say "following" or "beleiving on" Him wasn't available. What wasn't available was eating His flesh and drinking His blood.

He told them about eating his flesh and drinking his blood so obviously it was.

[DouglasKC]

Jesus indicated that what we call communion, or the eucharist, is to be a "remembrance." He did not say it was to be a rite, ceremony, sacrament, or any other religious term. Remembrance has special meaning to Jews in that in remembering they identify with the event. A remembrance of what Christ did for us on the cross by His body and blood and what that affected for us is what we're to celebrate and remember. Unfortunately religion has turned this remembrance into something far different than what Christ intended.

I agree completely with your thoughts.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

That's not "teaching". I asked a simple question. What precisely is your understand of "my" definition of Sola Scriptura? I have previously said that my understanding of it is "the written Word of God is the only infallible rule of faith for God's people" and had NCs here tell me I got it right. It does not mean that everything True is in the Bible, but that everything in the Bible is True. And that it contains everything we need for our salvation.

So which is it. Do you know your definition or don't you? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth and then perhaps we can have a semi-intelligent conversation.

[JHavard]

As has already been stated (I think). The prohibition of drinking blood was precisely because the blood contained the life of the animal. Interesting that Christ said that if you don't drink His blood "you have no life within you"? Kinda gives "receiving Christ" new meaning huh?

I'll never understand why you RC's come unglued over the blood, wine, grape juice and etc., when most of you don't even take wine with the communion, why do you defend it like it's part of the RC doctrine when it is a local thing?

A few weeks ago, we debated this with one of you for hours, then when I realized most of you don’t even believe in it anymore, the one I was debating with dropped out of sight and some others took up the discussion.

Please explain to me why you defend the “blood” part of the communion so strongly when it’s mot a commanded observance, you really have me confused. JH

[IMRight]

One would have his or her hands in a definite prayer position.(I'm a strong believer) One would have their fingers folded and on there stomach,(I'm glad that's over with) and some with two fingers touching,(I hope no one from work is watching me) and some with one hand on their stomach (I hope I can still get a tee off time today) and some with their hands simply hanging limp at the wrist, ( real men don't walke around like this) and I doubt if there were any two alike.

lol. What about the hands in the pockets (I hope I can get to my car before the exit gets clogged up)?

[OLD REGGIE]

Regarding the quote I posted over the weekend of Martin Luther. As promised, here is the source : The Reformation : A History of European Civilization from Wycliff to Calvin. 1300 - 1564, By W. Durant.

Thanks for the information. I searched for the book and the quote(s) on the web and could find nothing. Do you have an internet source or is it that you have the hard copy?

I did find considerable biographical data on Will Durant though. Here is one source.

A few excerpts:

First, however, Durant was destined for holy orders. Born in North Adams, Massachusetts, in 1885, he studied in Catholic parochial schools there and in Kearny, New Jersey. His teachers were nuns, and he practiced his religion so fervently that no one doubted that he would become a priest. In 1900 he entered St. Peter's Academy and College in Jersey City, where his teachers were Jesuits, and, one of these, Father McLaughlin, urged him to enter the Jesuit Order following his graduation in 1907.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is a fascinating but difficult subject, for almost every word that one may write about it can be disputed or give offense. I have tried to be impartial, though I know that a man's past always colors his views, and that nothing else is so irritating as impartiality. The reader should be warned that I was brought up a fervent Catholic, and that I retain grateful memories of the devoted secular priests, and learned Jesuits, and kindly nuns, who bore so patiently with my brash youth. But he should note, too, that I derived much of my education from lecturing for 13 years in a Presbyterian Church under the tolerant auspices of sterling Protestants like Jonathan C. Day, William Adams Brown, Henry Sloane Coffin and Edmund Chaffee, and that many of my most faithful auditors in that Presbyterian Church were Jews, whose search for education and understanding gave me a new insight into their people. Less than any other man have I excuse for prejudice, and I feel for all faiths the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest urchin in the streets."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, Luther was/is an extremely controversial figure. More has been written about him than any other Christian figure with the exception of Jesus. If you have the hard copy can you show a citation of the particular quote by the author?

Quote(s) in question:

" I was the first whom God entrusted with this matter. I was the one whom He first revealed how His word should be preached to you. Therefore, you have done wrong is starting such a piece of work without FIRST CONSULTING ME."

Frankly, I don't even remember the particular point you were making in the first place except to "prove" we all base our beliefs on our own particular "tradition". Of course, we all have a "tradition". One may have a "tradition" of "truth" and another may have a tradition of "invention". Your argument is worth, on a scale of 1 cent to $1, about 3 cents.

[IMRight]

So which is it. Do you know your definition or don't you? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth and then perhaps we can have a semi-intelligent conversation.

I was merely pointing out that you said you don't accept "my" definition of Sola Scriptura even though I can't remember using any definition outside of orthodoxy on the subject. I will presume in this case that "semi-intelligient" means that only one of us is making sense?

[DouglasKC]

Well yeah, but my point was that if you want to take it literally instead of symbolically then it would seem like you would have to take it literally all the way through. Jesus said "this is my body". He didn't didn't say "All bread that you have in the future is my body". "This", meaning this specific bread that I'm giving you.
What part of "Do this in remembrance of me" is difficult to understand? We do this "this" just like He did "this." Exactly like.

Yeah but it still doesn't answer my concern. He said THIS bread. How can you remember him with any other bread but the specific bread he said turns into his body?

And exactly like? Do anybody but priests drink the wine in the catholic church? Did Jesus have little wafers? Were they kept in a special place? Did the apostles line up and kneel down to eat the bread?

[SoothingDave]

I agree with this to a certain extent. Developing Godly character is a life long effort. But sanctification happens fairly early in the process.

To me "sanctification" would be being completely holy. It is not compatible with lacking a "Godly character."

If we do what he did and commanded then we are following his command. If we add to what he did then we are adding to what he did.

Well, I can't argue with that. ;-)

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

I don't find the philosophical categories of "substance" and "accident" particularly useful.

Ah Ha! Logic, faith, reasoning, Philosophical Constructs!!! Yah! That's it. Now we can work backwards and call it Faith.

[IMRight]

Please explain to me why you defend the “blood” part of the communion so strongly when it’s mot a commanded observance,

I'm not sure I understand the question. Does it boil down to not receiving wine with every communion? Has nobody said that it is our belief that both elements contain the body and blood of Christ?

you really have me confused

Thank goodness. If I start to make sense please warn me.

[malakhi]

But I can only say that in the Lord's Supper's I have witnessed, the Baptists exhibit a dry formalism rather than the enthusiasm that one can see in so many Catholc parishes during communion.

I can't say that I agree with you here. In my experience, I've seen very little "enthusiasm" about receiving eucharist. At best it is worshipful and solemn. At worst it is "dry formalism".

[JHavard]

lol. What about the hands in the pockets (I hope I can get to my car before the exit gets clogged up)?

Lol, yeh, he was there too, by the way, have you ever attended mass in Pittsburgh? hahaha JH