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

[Kolokotronis]

"I haven't forgotten my “eis” when it should’ve read “estin” "

:)

Here, my friend, "εις", insofar as you were quoting +Luke, would have been just fine, as in "...εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν". It means "in". "Εστι", or "εστιν", means "is". But you are doing good. Keep it up. If, by the grace of God, you gain a working knowledge of Greek, it will open a whole world of scriptural understanding for you, which, aside from the spiritual benefits, will allow you to astonish your friends and confound your enemies!

[count-your-change]

“Let’s not be snippy about snippets! After-all your own reply was snippet-like.
Your posting was a snippet of the Catechism, much like many Protestant justifications for theology from Scriptures, and just about as valid. I posted enough of the surrounding Catechism to put it into context. Remember that it is possible justify all first millennium heresies from Scripture (although not the Calvinist heresies and the resulting derivatives).

Such is not taught in the Scriptures.

Many things are not taught in the Scriptures but the Protestant pantheon variously will believe in them - such as the Trinity, transubstantiation, the mission of St. Thomas the Unbeliever to India, and also various falsehoods such as the existence of full siblings of Jesus, the journeys of Jesus and Joseph of Arimathea to Britain, and so on”

I can’t do it as well as the original but I’ll try:

Welll EXCUUUUUSSSSEEEE ME!!!!!

I will continue to get my theology from the Scriptures, it being ‘sharper than two edged sword’ and what others do is their affair.

I’m beginning to like this word, “snippets” so I’ll use it more with you. SNIPPETS YES!

[caww]

asking forgiveness of the sins of others as well.

We cannot be their Savior...only Christ can forgive them. We can pray their hearts and minds be receptive to the promptings of His Spirits convictions...but He will not forgive their sins from our voice to His...it must be their own voice who speaks to Him.

[count-your-change]

Would that we were all Hebrew and Greek scholars, we could argue on a more elevated level, but I truly do not have the time available to do a study justice and no interest in being another dilettante scribbler.

So in lieu of that I’ll rely on the Gray Beards of Greek (like yourself) to correct my errors.

[OLD REGGIE]

"A significant number of (Roman) Catholics believe any "Catholic" Bible written since the Douay Rheims is the work of the Devil."

Well that's odd, but there are all sorts of odd religious ideas floating around these days.

Ask annalex.

"Regarding Catholics reading NIV, I agree it's a shame. What is worse, NAB is read in the Liturgy, that is an outright scandal."
Post #4,735

Further, many Catholics believe Vatican II was the work of the Devil.

[OLD REGGIE]

".... Even the Latins admit these are fakes. But the letter to the Smyrneans, which I referenced, is pretty generally accepted as being authentic."

But which one? The Short, the Mid, or the Long Recension?

They can't all be authentic can they?

[metmom]

Paul also wrote concerning the Real Presence: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”

“Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself”

The Real Presence, the Holy Eucharist, is Christian worship from the beginning of the Church, from Christ’s command “This is my body which is for you. Do this..

Are you telling us then that Jesus and His Disciples ate his real actual flesh and blood at the Last Supper, BEFORE He was crucified?

[metmom]

Your posting was a snippet of the Catechism, much like many Protestant justifications for theology from Scriptures, and just about as valid. I posted enough of the surrounding Catechism to put it into context. Remember that it is possible justify all first millennium heresies from Scripture (although not the Calvinist heresies and the resulting derivatives).

Just like the Catholic church takes snippets from Scripture to justify ITS doctrine. A snippet here from John 6, and a snippet there from Matthew 1.

The amusing thing is, the Catholic snippets of Scripture are not only snippets out of context with the passage, but even snippets of one verse or sentence.

Catholicism is the master of snippeting.

[OLD REGGIE]

What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?

How many times do you believe the words of Jesus were misunderstood, even by the Apostles?

[caww]

Are you telling us then that Jesus and His Disciples ate his real actual flesh and blood at the Last Supper, BEFORE He was crucified?

It would certainly appear that they are. But of course that could not be possible...nor would Christ have endulged in this....He would have been breaking the law.

[metmom]

Catholics keep missing the point that Jesus is our great high priest. That’s his role now. He is no longer the sacrifice. That was done once and is over with.

But of course, if HE’S our high priest and not the ongoing sacrifice, they’d have no need for their own priesthood which they have set up. They’d be shooting themselves in the foot if they actually taught what Scripture teaches about the priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of the believer.

Their whole hierarchy would come crumbling down and the Catholic church would lose its grip on millions of people worldwide because people would realize that it’s not needed any more to access God.

All those priests would be obsolete and have to get a real job and work to earn a living.

[OLD REGGIE]

Annalex: Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

Old Reggie cites Matthew 26:26-28

I don't understand what is supposed to follow from Matthew 26:26-28 that is contrary to what I said. The species contain body and blood of Jesus and since He is resurrected in the body, blood and flesh are united in Him again. The Apostle ate the consecrated bread and consecrated wine and the two united in their mouths to form the Whole Risen Christ. The two species, by the way, are united also during the Consecration as a part of the consecrated host is dropped into the consecrated wine.

The bread remained bread and the wine remained wine. There is no Scriptural reference whatsoever which even hints that either/or is acceptable. What is so hard to understand about that?

Stick with your man made interpretations. You'll not find it in Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

Annalex: You were there? [at the times of Mary]

Old Reggie: Maybe.

No you were not, but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example.

Luke was a Jew.

[Mr. Lucky]

If you'll forgive my sticking my nose in, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist host is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you question that the Disciples could have consumed the true body and blood of Christ before His cruciifixtion because He couldn't exist in more than one form at one time?

[Kolokotronis]

I’d stay away from the Long Recensions were I you.

[metmom]

Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

So, when Jesus took the bread and said, *This is my body* and when he took the cup and said *This is my blood* He didn't really mean that the bread was ONLY His flesh and the cup was ONLY His blood?

And this from Catholics who demand that every other part of that passage be taken literally so that the cup become the blood and the bread becomes the flesh and that we have to really literally eat it?

How did the church arrive at this conclusion that partaking of either element was adequate when Jesus Himself said to partake of both?

What gives them the right to usurp the teachings of Jesus?

The snippets are being snippefied.

[kosta50]

We cannot be their Savior...only Christ can forgive them

"And forge us our trespasses as we have forgiven those who trespassed against us" [Mt. 6:12]

"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." "[Jn. 20:23]

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God" [Mt. 22;29] :)

[D-fendr]

Are you telling us then..

That the Last Supper was the first Eucharist. From the beginning of Christ's Church until today. As a former Catholic, maybe you remember hearing Christ's words during Holy Communion in the Church.

But of course that could not be possible...nor would Christ have endulged in this....He would have been breaking the law.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

"Will you also go away?"

[metmom]

Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

1 Corinthians 11

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Jesus gave BOTH the cup and the bread at the Last Supper and said we were to partake of both.

Paul states that we eat the bread AND drink the cup.

There's simply no where in Scripture that says that partaking of only one element of communion is acceptable or shows the Lord's death. It's BOTH elements.

So, why have the Catholic church for all these centuries taught otherwise? And why does it still do so?

Is tradition trumping Scripture?

Again?

[Kolokotronis]

"But of course that could not be possible...nor would Christ have endulged in this....He would have been breaking the law."

And of course, as we have been taught by that great theologian Zwingli, God couldn't be in two places at once so that really should put an end to it. It's remarkable that it took Christians 1500 years to figure that out!