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

[gracebeliever]

You wouldn't highlight that word if you knew the full meaning of the underlying Greek word.

Hi SD!

You could at least enlighten me with the Greek. As we both know, there are several Greek words used for remembrance. The one used in the subject passages has the meaning of recollection, remind, recall and bring to mind. My point is that historically the Jews place a different meaning that goes deeper than a simple recollection, it is actually an identification with what happened. Hence the significance of the remembrance of the Jewish holocaust, because in their view, they were actually there participating in that horror.

[IMRight]

I don't have a clue about what Dave is saying here, anybody out there make any thing of this, someone tell me what Dave is talking about here, I got a $1.00 bill here if anyone can tell me what Dave is talking about :)

He's being facetious. I think the full quote goes "I'm so shocked, you could knock me over with a feather". So Dave is saying "wow. like. I'm really surprised that you think the RCC is wrong".

As for the buck... let it ride... I'll take double or nothing on the next thing from Dave that you don't understand.

[al_c]

Good afternoon, everyone!

----------

Tuesday, April 30, 2002
Easter Tuesday

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Acts 14:19-28 Psalms 145:10-13, 21 John 14:27-31 O Jesus, if I but considered attentively your immense solicitude for me, how greatly should I not excel in every virtue? Pardon me, O Jesus, so much carelessness, pardon such great ignorance. My God, Jesus my Love, Increated Goodness, what would have become of me if you had not drawn me to yourself? Open your heart to me, open to me your sacramental breast; I open mine to you.  -- St Gemma Galgani

In words which we repeat at every Mass, Jesus promised his disciples the gift of peace: "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you" (John 14:27). What is this peace? In the world around us, it often means avoiding trouble and refusing to face unpleasant things. But Jesus' peace is quite different. It's a positive force that meets our fears and anxieties head-on and conquers them. His peace includes everything that makes for our highest good.

Pope John Paul II, who speaks often and eloquently about peace, points to its source: "Christ's work of peacemaking is achieved through the Holy Spirit who was sent to fulfill the Savior's mission ... When the Holy Spirit reigns in hearts, he stirs up the desire to use every effort to establish peace in relationships with others on every level: family, civic, social, political, ethnic, national and international" (General Audience, May 29, 1991). Without the Spirit's help, says the pope, peace is too fragile for conflicted human beings to maintain: "Peace: the fruit of justice. Peace: the fruit of love. How easily this peace is broken! How often people are divided among themselves, even though they are physically close, even in the same family! May Christ give us the ability to remain at peace with others" (Homily given in Japan, February 24, 1981).

Despite the obstacles, though, we can know true peace if we follow Jesus along the humble path he has marked out. "The example of Christ makes us certain that the many impediments to communication and dialogue between people can indeed be torn down," Pope John Paul II explains. "Gazing upon the Crucified One we are filled with confidence that forgiveness and reconciliation can become the normal practice of everyday life and of every culture, and thus a real opportunity for building humanity's peace and future" (Homily on World Day of Peace, January 1, 2001).

How can we promote true peace? Pray, says the pope. "Peace is first of all a gift from God and therefore it must always be implored from divine mercy, with ceaseless and confident, universal and unanimous prayer" (Homily, January 1, 1982). Prayer for peace is not an option but an imperative. Let's implore God's mercy and seek this gift for all families, peoples, and nations.

"Jesus, by your Spirit, give us your peace, that we may live in harmony with all."

----------

God bless!

AC

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Late again, your going to have to stop drinking so much during the week. :)

BigMack

[al_c]

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!"

Kuddos to your priest!

[al_c]

Late again, your going to have to stop drinking so much during the week. :)

It's all this darn work, man! I can't seem to get my boss to understand!!! ;o)

[Ard Ri]

Well, at least we`ve made a bit or progress then, Reggie. At least your now open to the 'possibility' that by forming our own opinions regarding Scripture and the Church, that our own bias`s can enter into the mix. (Up until this point, I had the notion that you thought only Catholics did that, and that only Protestants were 'clear headed'.) It also stands to reason that those who hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura wouldn`t want much to do with the Historical Church. Why? Because all historical roads going backwards LEAD to the Historical Church, i.e. the Catholic Church. Actually, the point I was making, near as I can remember, was in response to the notion that the Catholic Church , over the centuries, has 'made it up' to suit themselves. I picked Luther to counter that point for 2 reasons: 1. He was the one of the first and best known of those who made a break with the Church. 2. He most assuredly did the very same thing that some accuse the Catholics of doing! He bent Scripture to suit himself and his immediate and political needs. But, I could have just as well used Calvin, Zwingli, or others as they did the same thing as well. In fact, thats why we have over 250 Protestant denominations today. Each decided to take it upon themselves and interprete Scripture to suit themselves. But, I don`t believe that is how the Apostles structured things. I believe they structured it so that we would have the successors of the Apostles to do that for the Church, mindful in the knowledge that Christ said the He would be with us until the end of the earth, and that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church until His return.

[SoothingDave]

Hi SD!

Hi yourself!

You could at least enlighten me with the Greek. As we both know, there are several Greek words used for remembrance. The one used in the subject passages has the meaning of recollection, remind, recall and bring to mind. My point is that historically the Jews place a different meaning that goes deeper than a simple recollection, it is actually an identification with what happened. Hence the significance of the remembrance of the Jewish holocaust, because in their view, they were actually there participating in that horror.

Please see Fury's 7242.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Remember the verse where the KJV differs from the others? From 1 Cor, I believe. Whoever eats OR drinks unworthily is guilty of the Body AND Blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.

How in the world do you interpret this to justify your claim for the sufficiency of communion in one kind?

Doesn't it say if you eat or drink in an unworthy manner you are guilty of both? Are you this to say if you do either in a "worthy" manner it satisfies the "both" requirement? Is it possible you are saying you cut your chances of screwing up in half if you only partake of one?

[SoothingDave]

One more time. Please explain "exactly". Not the dictionary definition. The SD definition.

LOL. OK, you caught me this time. I mean, of course, that the required elements are exactly the same, and the intention is exactly the same. Other details can, and do, vary.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Kuddos to your priest!

Unfortunately, he's also had to, what with our temporary parking facilities and limited access, had to remind people that flipping off other drivers in the parking lot is not exactly good Christian behavior.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Why do you think that one has to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession for the consecration of the bread and wine to "take"?

To whom did Jesus give the command to "do this in memeory of me"? To the Apostles. It was not a generic call given to all Christians.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

You seem to be saying that there is, but that there is no support for taking only one element at communion. Is the argument merely that we are inconsistent?

I can't speak for the other old geezer, but that would be my argument.

[SoothingDave]

How in the world do you interpret this to justify your claim for the sufficiency of communion in one kind?

It shows that, as far as profanity goes, there is no difference between the two kinds. The obvious logical conclusion is that the Body and Blood are contained in either kind.

We believe the eucharist is Jesus's Body, but not His earthly body, rather his glorified resurrected body. He is no longer seperated Body from Blood. Therefore his Body and Blood are not seperate.

SD

[Havoc]

I know this has all been stated before, but Jesus' statements that "this is my body" and "this is the new testament in my blood" are clearly metaphors just as is the statement that He is the Lamb of God. The men sitting there saw that He gave them bread and wine and understood them for what they were. If anything supernatural had happened to the bread or wine, it would have been recorded. Furthermore, even though Jesus said the wine was "the new testament (covenant) in my blood," He never said the wine was His blood. If this were so, He would have caused them to commit a grievous sacrilege. Leviticus 3:17, 7:26,27 and Acts 15:20 state that they are to stay away from "eating any manner of blood" and that anyone so doing would be "cut off from his people." Since the prohibition of drinking blood was still in effect in Acts 15, well after Christ made these statements, then it is obvious the wine cannot be turned into blood, either Christ's or any others.

Christ in the Gospel of John is the Word of life, another metaphor. "Eat" is used euphemistically throughout Scripture. Eat can refer to devouring the Word of God. A good example is the little scroll Ezekial ate in Ezek. 2:8 and 3:1ff. What Isaiah speaks of eating that which is good in Isa. 55:2 is the Word of God. Eating of the Bread of Life is getting into the Word of God in Christ. An instructive verse that is usually overlooked in the midst of the passage where Jesus describes Himself as the Bread from heaven is John 6:45, which states "every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." That's how a person ate and came to Christ, by the Word of God. That's also just like Romans 10:17, "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."

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.

Amen! Amen! Amen!!! Those so constantly looking to carnal reason do not understand the spiritual truth even when it is plain obvious. And that is intentional. It is why Jesus spoke in parables and why God chose the low things to confound the mighty and 'foolish' things to confound the so called 'wise'.

[IMRight]

Doesn't it say if you eat or drink in an unworthy manner you are guilty of both? Are you (spinning Hobbes) this to say if you do either in a "worthy" manner it satisfies the "both" requirement?

Doesn't that logically follow?

Pop quiz : If "notA or notB = notA and notB" is a true statement (and it is if that's what Paul said) than:
is "A or B = A and B" a true statement?

[OLD REGGIE]

Huh? I thought you said "We don't teach that a physical change happens." If no physical change happens, then how can God be physically present there?

[malakhi]

you gots one of those freepmails.

Check here and here.

[trad_anglican]

You could at least enlighten me with the Greek. As we both know, there are several Greek words used for remembrance.

The word that Paul uses is anamnesis. This translates to the single English word remembrance, but the single English word does not capture the full meaning of the Greek. Anamnesis means to make present again with full force and effect. When Jesus says do this for the anamnesis of me, it means do this to make me and the unity of my incarnation, atonement, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession with the Father present with you.

[OLD REGGIE]

Is it your opinion that it contradicts the RC understanding of the role of Scripture? I tend to doubt it.

Oh yes it does! The RC understanding is that Scripture is equal to Tradition (Even "hidden" tradition which may be "revealed" at some later time) and the Magisterium.

The NC perspective on this is that Scripture is ignored or modified by "Tradition" and/or the "Magisterium" when it is deemed expedient.