ChristiansUnite Forums

I think it's somewhere in Hezekiah...

It is not a matter of doctrine it is a matter of discipline so it falls under the following verse:

Heb 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Not eating meat on Friday is a way of remembering that Christ gave up His flesh for us on Good Friday.

But then I don't think you really care - you were just having some sport at the expense of us Catholics - at least some of you were I am sure intending this to be good natured.  So no harm done and if you learned something so much the better.

 ;D

The early pagan Romans also did not understand this nor some of the Jews as is evidenced even in the scriptures themselves (John 6:66).  But the early Christians were quite clear in their own minds that the bread and wine were indeed miraculously converted into His body and blood just as he said in the scriptures.  We know this because these early Christians wen to their death accused of cannibalism by the Roman state rather then deny His true presence in the consecrated bread and wine.

The basis for their belief was of course the teaching of the Church as the canon of the scriptures was as yet undetermined but what we see in the scriptures to support this idea is the following.

Jesus identifies the bread and wine as His body and blood.

Mar 14:22  And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Mar 14:23  And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
Mar 14:24  And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

The Greek term used for "is" is the word estee meaning "truly is" or "literally is" NOT just "symbolic represents" as some would have you believe.

Jesus claims that whoever eats His body and drinks His blood will have eternal life.
 
Joh 6:54  Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55  For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56  He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Paul makes it clear that Jesus is not being symbolic when he points out that one is in danger of damnation if one treats the bread and wine unworthily (something that amounts to idolatry if the bread and wine are mere symbols) by not recognizing the Lord's body.

1 Cor 11:27  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Finally the Lord tells us to repeat this sacrament.

Luk 22:19  And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

This is not just a reminding ourselves of the last supper.  The Greek word used here for remembrance is anamnesis, which is used only 4 times in the New Testament always in context of the Eucharist or in referring to the calling to God's mind of a sacrifice previously offered.  Similarly this term appears only in the Septuigant (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) in the seame sense.  Other rememberings of other events used in the New Testaments use other Greek words to describe that other form of reminding ourselves.

So this may not work as a proof for you who do not accept the scriptures as the word of God, but to the early Christians this was plain enough that they should participate in the Eucharist as He told us to and consume His true presence in the consecrated bread and wine.

Modern philosophical terms such as transubstantiation address the issue of the substance and accidents of the bread and wine and His body and blood, thus explaining why the outward appearance does not reflect the inward reality, but I doubt you are interested in those technical discussions.

I hope that helped you understand.

Wow  Judge  your so smart  ;D

I lost something in the translation here - must be because I deleted the post to which you refer because I decided it was too close to judging someone's heart rather than his motive???   :)


But, Reba - I know what you're are talking about (and it's not about me being anything close to "smart").

 ;D  ;D

If  you know what i am talking about that makes one of us.  :P

I'm not a cannibal. My mom is still alive and well, trust me.

That is not true anymore.  I receive the cup at my parish.  Christ it truly fully present in both forms.  At one time in Church history some people only took the cup.  When it was held back it was mainly for health issues, in an era when the understanding of disease and plague was not as good as it is today.



That is where you error by not understanding the nation of priests, that the Church is.  True, we are all priests as Christians, but only in the same way as all Israelites were all priests even though they had a sacrificial priesthood.

Exo 19:6  And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

The Church is similar in that we are all priests but there is a liturgical priesthood of Apostles/Bishops and presbyters/priests
and deacons.


It started in the 13th century.  But there are records of the early Christian martyrs (in the 2nd century) taking the Eucharist into the arena with them (only in the form of bread) to celebrate the Eucharist one last time before they were killed.


It only seems to be to those who do not recognize the true presence is full present in both forms.  Do you think someone who could only take liquids were in some way disobedient to Christ because they did not eat the consecrated bread?  no of course not - so He is truly and equally present in both forms.

What do you mean the chicken is too stupid or something to sense other peoples' feelings? They aren't THAT dumb, though they ARE pretty thick.

If you'd TRY and answer my ACTUAL question:

Why is eating someone showing your appreciation? I wouldn't like to be eaten by the people I love, would you?

Oh and just saying "He's a special case" doesn't answer my question. I know He's almighty and Jesus-y and the martyr and all that but that would be like saying that you love a celebrity and you want to eat THEM. Please don't just give me a threadbare excuse and tell me to work it out for myself, I came here for answers to my questions, not a pat on the head.

No.  Try again.

Why is eating someone showing your appreciation? I wouldn't like to be eaten by the people I love, would you?

OK please don't say "Try again" Friggin tell me! I don't want to play a guessing game I'll just ask someone else. Though I have a feeling it would not be a very valid reason in my eyes.

Catholics believe that Holy Communion is the actual Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, because that is what He said it was. (Mt 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, Mark 14:22-24) "This is my body.... This is my blood". In Jn 6:35-71 The Eucharist is promised. ".....except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you...."(Jn 6:48-52; 54-56)
    "Therefore  whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning of the Lord."(1 Cor 11:27-29)
  Also see Ex 12:8,46, Jn 1:29, 1 Cor 5:7, 1 Cor 10:16

Hope this helps a bit.
 

Oh and no offense I don't understand Bible-ese that well, especially with all that old english it's hard to process when you finish the sentence you forget what the start of it was about. I would understand it more if you spoke plainly without quotes, please. What is YOUR opinion, not the Bible's. :D

Yum I like fish

Where is it written that there should be a liturgical priesthood seperate from all the "garden variety" of priests known as Christians?

I only understand the true priesthood of Christians with Christ as high priest as revealed in the Bible. The "old" with Israel was a type of this true. The "old" also had a high priest that went into the holy place and the other priests remained in the outer area. Christ as High Priest has gone into the Holy Place, not made with Hands.

God in the Bible authorized elder men, who meet certain requirements, and have the desire, to oversee the church as bishops.

He also authorized men, who meet certain requirements, and have the desire, to serve the physical needs of the church as deacons.

Jesus Christ chose His apostles and that is what they are, "apostles". However it can be known that they are also priests since they are Christians, but not a special "liturgical priest".

Ephesians 4:11. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
 12.  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
 13.  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Where are the liturgical priests?

The Church is the fulfillment of the type of the nation of Israel, just as Baptism is the fulfillment of the Circumcision.

The liturigal aspect comes from several aspects of the Church and the sacraments.

The Apostles were special as noted in the fact they shoul dnot be called away from serving the word of God (in a special way) and be called away to wait tables.  They were Bishops (as we can see by picking another to take Judas bishopric),

the office was to be handed on through laying on of hands

(just as Aarons priesthood was)

they were told to serve the Church by participating in the forgiveness of sins (John 20:23) just as the Old Testament priesthood did),

the elders were to participate in the anointing of the sick just as the Old Testament priesthood did.

They were the ones who performed marriages in the earlier Church though it is not recorded in the scriptures.

It is very difficult to understand the contrdictions, of scripture, that come out of the church at Rome.

There is not one thing here that contradicts scripture (just because something is not in scripture - like the marriage issue I point out - does not mean that it contradicts scripture) so I do not know what you mean.

Where in the Bible is the above statement not contradicted.

Colossians 2:8.  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
 9.  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
 10.  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
 11.  In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
 12.  Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Romans 2:28.  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
 29.  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 Galatians 6:6.  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Galatians 6:15.  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

Philippians 3:1. Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.
 2.  Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
 3.  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Is it inspired of God?

True.

Can the "office" today perform the other miracles that came from laying on of hands? Like giving the Holy Ghost?

Where is the scripture that does not contradict this statement?
 
Where is the scripture that ties the physical priesthood of Aaron to Christ's "chosen" twelve. Especially when the Bible teaches that the High Priest today is Christ and the members of His body are the priesthood including the chosen twelve..

Acts 6:2.........It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Acts 6:4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

Those that are sick are to call for the elders. How does this annointing tie in with the old? The old physical levitical priesthood has been done away and the new spiritual priesthood is Christ and His ecclessia.

James 5:14.  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: This does not authorize liturgical priests just because it is the true of the shadow that was.

The bible is silent on Christian marriage ceremonies. How could anything contradict silence?

Is what inspired of God?  The Sacraments?  Yes since Jesus instituted them.  The liturgical priesthood?  Yes, since it performs the sacraments.  The Church?  Yes since it was promised protection from error by Jesus.

Yes people error but the Church was told by Christ that it would not error in matters of doctrine.

Is what inspired of God?  The Sacraments?  Yes since Jesus instituted them.  The liturgical priesthood?  Yes, since it performs the sacraments.  The Church?  Yes since it was promised protection from error by Jesus.

I got it Michael thank you.  What you have posted reads to me like a serious case of justification. I will not contiune in this line of thought because  i read you as double talk and i am sure double talk is not what you believe you are posting.

reba i wish you would go on , and not stop their, so i might see what your thinking. for michael has me sold , you think hes wrong why? you always seem to have good thoughts.

I already did in paraphrased form but I will be glad to quote it directly.

Mat 16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

and again in the following to all of the Apostles

Mat 18:18  Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The Apostles as leaders of the Church on earth were given the authority to make binding decisions on earth that would be upheld in heaven (actually the tense of the Greek in the verse is that these bindings and loosing were already made in heaven).  The only way this could be so is if someone protected them from making a mistake on these issues, the only someone that can do that is God.


Yes most definitely, that is no protected from error by the promise as it is not a doctrinal issue taught by the authority of the Church.  Liturgical priests are humans and will error even on issues of doctrine, only the Church or one speaking with authority for the Church is protected from error (and then only in matters of doctrine).  Even the Popes errors (probably every day).  The only time he is protected from error is when he speaks ex cathedra and makes a doctrinal pronouncement for the Church.  That has only happened three times in the past 200 years.

i ate fish all weekend, went to maine for the 4th.  was a beach bum, makeing sand castle fool. 8)

That was based on the scriptural instruction to pass on the presbytery through laying on of hands and the example of the Council of Jerusalem making a doctrinal decision for the entire Church.  For both the Pope and the Councils have this authority.  It also come from a logical review of all of scripture.  For the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth someone within it must have the power to speak authoritatively on what this truth is.

There are two instances in scripture where the authority to bind and loose were given.  One was to Peter alone and the other was to the Apostles as a group.  This is significant to show that not all Bishops received the authority on their own (but only as group) while Peter (with his primacy) recieved it alone.  The other significance in this comparison is that Peter was also given the keys to the kingdom of heaven while the others were not.  These two difference make it clear that Peter was given special authorities and together with the instruction to pass on the priesthood through laying on of hands gives these special authorities to his successor.  That is why throughout the history of the Church the Bishop of Rome was seen as having a primacy.

I didn't think you ate fish.  Not that you have ever said so, it is just that fish is brain food and I have seen your posts so naturally I assumed...   ;D

Well, I've officially eaten 10 pounds of fish since this article was first posted, and I'm not any smarter then I was before.

Fish is not a miracle worker you know.  ;D

I don't know - can we even discuss eating fish anymore?

This shows how little you actually understand.   First off Catholics don't fast from meat every friday, Just in Lent.  (Many protestants do it then too you know)

However, The Orthodox do fast nearly every friday.  Wedensday too.  And our Monastics on Moday as well.  However we are not able to eat fish on those days either.  We absatin from the food of animals who were once alive, since the diet in Eden was a vegan diet.  We basically eat like Vegans on wedensday and friday, and in many other fast periods during the year, such as Lent, The Apostles fast (Which we just got out of) andthe fast of the Dormission of ofthe Theotokos.  We abstain from food to overcome our passions.  The easiest to overcome is the passion for easting.

Now trhat you kind of know something about fasting, you will stop making idiotic comments on it.    

I don't know - can we even discuss eating fish anymore?

yea I like fish: fried,boiled, baked--although sometimes I
find fish to be a little flakey

Now why would you hate pork, it's one of the best meats ever invented, pork chops, bacon, ham, pork sausage,...................mmmm makes my mouth water just thinking about it.

For the Record, I like Pork in moderation, it's too salty for me. I do believe God made Pork hard on our bodies to digest, please correct me if I am wrong..


Blessings,  \o/

That depends on where you are on this earth.   :P

What a clever fish, brother love!


           
             [/size]                                                                              



           [/size]


    ;)

What a clever fish, brother love!


           
             [/size]                                                                              



           [/size]


    ;)

I do believe Symphony has had enough fish for one day!  ::)


 ;D

'Makes a pretty nice 'quarium, don'cha think, sincereheart?

I think you're thinking of M&M Chocolate Candies, sinc - 'melt in your mouth, not in your hands'.


     ;D

If I had to eat fish every friday, I'd probably starve as I don't like fish.

Your Thursday WARNING Buy your "FISH" TODAY ;D




<:)))><

But friday, is my day of fasting.