The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[Havoc]

This is partially true. While Paul quotes the Old Testament and even some of the Gospels in his writings, what he taught was not always in agreement with what the twelve Apostles and Jesus taught. They were addressing different audiences and different programs, so the messages are different. In Galatians 2:6, which is about the council at Jerusalem, Paul says the Jewish leadership at the conference "added nothing to me."

The Jewish leadership added nothing that he had not already been taught. That doesn't mean they had nothing of worth to say. It means they were in agreement. Paul was able to shed light on things they didn't understand fully. That doesn't mean they didn't teach the same things. It just means some understood better than others in certain things and they challenged each other to go to God in these things. You aren't illustrating a misalignment of teaching. You are illustrating a differential of spiritual awaredness and understanding. It reached a height in Paul that we should all attempt to attain and transcend - not by following his example; but by following the example of The One who chose him.

Again, if it don't line up with what they taught and what God's word already said, it's bunk! If you're being led to believe something that falls in the bunk category, you'd best be examining what you believe and takin it to God, cause God don't sow confusion.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Quite the contrary, it makes me even more certain that I made the right decision.

Them bad old catholics, come to us angelo, your getting sleepy, come to us angelo....sleepy....come to us....slee......come to........

BigMack

[IMRight]

by the way, have you ever attended mass in Pittsburgh?

I think so. Certainly Champion,PA more than once (close, right?).

[JHavard]

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

Lol, no chance of that, since you seem to have developed a one cracker fits all doctrine.

Please give me a single scripture that justifies doing away with the wine, since 30 years later Paul still recognized it as part of the service.

JH

[SoothingDave]

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?

The entire Lord's Supper is re-enacted. We do what Jesus did. He picked up the bread at hand and it is "this bread." When a priest today picks up the bread at hand it becomes "this bread."

What it comes down to is that you deny that Jesus intended his followers to actually do what he did, only to play act what he did.

And exactly like?

More or less. The elements (bread and wine) are there. The words Jesus used then are there. And Jesus is there saying the words.

Do anybody but priests drink the wine in the catholic church?

Yep.

Did Jesus have little wafers?

He had unleavened bread. We have unleavened bread.

Were they kept in a special place?

Unconsecrated hosts are not kept in any special place.

Did the apostles line up and kneel down to eat the bread?

They were at a table. Having a table large enough for an entire Catholic assembly is not practical.

SD

[SoothingDave]

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

On the contrary. The Faith was first. It is only persistant heretics that forced further definition.

SD

[JHavard]

I think so. Certainly Champion,PA more than once (close, right?).

No wonder you were getting your car keys out on the way past, that's a long run to the parking lot in Champion Pa. Lol

(^g^) JH

[SoothingDave]

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

One of my priests has taken to embarrasing the "grab Communion and head straight out the door" folks by loudly announcing "We're not done yet!"

SD

[IMRight]

Please give me a single scripture that justifies doing away with the wine, since 30 years later Paul still recognized it as part of the service.

But you were the one who said that we didn't believe in receiving His blood anymore. I merely told you what we believe. Am I to take it that you accept His real presense in communion and take it under both forms? Good for you.

[SoothingDave]

by the way, have you ever attended mass in Pittsburgh?

I think so. Certainly Champion,PA more than once (close, right?).

You're only off by two Dioceses. ;-)

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I can't remember using any definition outside of orthodoxy on the subject.>

Thank you for confirming what I thought your definition was. Now go play your disengenuous words games with someone else.

[SoothingDave]

Please give me a single scripture that justifies doing away with the wine, since 30 years later Paul still recognized it as part of the service.

It is a part of the service. It is an essential element, without which a Mass simply can not be held.

And you know the Scripture and reasons we give for believing that either element contains the fullness of Christ.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

But you were the one who said that we didn't believe in receiving His blood anymore.

Have a drink?

BigMack

[OLD REGGIE]

What part of "Do this in remembrance of me" is difficult to understand? We do this "this" just like He did "this." Exactly like.

EXACTLY LIKE?????????????

Do you do this?

Luke 22:
19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Do you break bread and give it to "them"?

John 6:54
he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

Do you suppose those of you who don't "drink His blood" will not be raised up?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your exactly is not very exact. "Modified by man to suit his own particular purposes" is more like it.

[SoothingDave]

Do you break bread and give it to "them"?

I am not a priest. So no. The priest does say those exact words and break bread and distribute it.

Do you suppose those of you who don't "drink His blood" will not be raised up?

Yep.

Your exactly is not very exact. "Modified by man to suit his own particular purposes" is more like it.

The essential elements are the same. Like I already explained. We don't use the same caterer that Jesus did. We dont' all sit at one big table. We don't wear sandals and robes.

But we do repeat His words and use the same elements of bread and wine.

SD

[JHavard]

But you were the one who said that we didn't believe in receiving His blood anymore. I merely told you what we believe. Am I to take it that you accept His real presense in communion and take it under both forms? Good for you.

But, but, but, the question wasn't about what I believe, it was about what you believe, if you want to know mine, I'll tell you after you show me the scripture I asked for.

Reggie, may I borrow your spinning tiger? (^g^) JH

[IMRight]

Thank you for confirming what I thought your definition was.

Orthodoxy in this case refers to traditional NC understanding, not the Orthodox church.

Now go play your disengenuous words games with someone else.

Boy, you do get insulting when your legs get out from under you, don't you?. You said that scripture did not contradict your opinion on something. I pointed out that I found it odd that you could say that and believe "sola scriptura". You said that it wasn't your understanding of sola scriptura and I propted that your definition must therefore be "Whatever Steven says is true unless directly contradicted by Scripture". You have yet to dispute this, only dodge the question and insult.

You have only to say "I was mistaken, Scripture does support my position" or "Yes, I believe that you must prove me wrong with scripture even when there is no scripture to support me" or maybe "oops, I was in such a hurry to respond negatively to you that I missed that my post didn't even fit my own theology".

[JHavard]

And you know the Scripture and reasons we give for believing that either element contains the fullness of Christ.

I remember some of the reasons, but can't for the life of me remember the scripture, please help me out.

JH

[OLD REGGIE]

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?

No one can speak for all NC's which is the case with RC's (HAH!) but, I'd be willing to accept the definition of the Authority of Scripture by Augustine. Would You?

[IMRight]

Thank you for confirming what I thought your definition was.

Could you enlighten me as to what your definition is? Wouldn't that solve the whole puzzle? I think that Mack and Jim have previously said that I got it right, where's my "error"?