<:)))><

[ollie]

You know I never got how there was that whole meat rule, yet catholics every Sunday pretend to be eating Jesus' flesh and drinking his blood. Someone please enlighten me I'm dying to know how this makes sense. Respect Jesus... But let's eat him! Yum!

Ugh.

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

"Finally the Lord tells us to repeat this sacrament"

But lay catholics only take the bread. The priest gets the cup and bread. How do you repeat it if only taking half of it?

Christ did not divide it up that way.

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.

No lay folk here, but all the members of the Corinthian church are priests, according to Peter. Priests definitely were involved here, but not a seperate priesthood, but all the faithful at Corinth.

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.

When did this horrendous decision to change, adulterate and divide the Eucharist into bread for the lay and both bread and cup only for "priests" occur?

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 seems a definitive contradiction of the very book catholics credit themselves with compiling.

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.

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

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?


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

Thanks for replying to my questions. but it is hard to corrolate much that you say with the Bible. Too much contradicting and not in agreement with the Bible.

I observe on national television and local television many lay catholics still only taking the bread. I have not been to a catholic mass in a while so can not say from that point of view.

Ollie

[ollie]

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.

Chickens probably rank right up there with cows for intelligence. They have lots of chicken instincts, however.

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?

Luke 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.
 20.  Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for 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.

1 Corinthians 11:23.  For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
 24.  And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
 25.  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
 26.  For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


 

[BUTCHA]

What do you mean the chicken is too stupid or something to sense other peoples' feelings?

No.  Try again.

, this thread has me laughing,im sorry for saying dont be stupid.

[JudgeNot]

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.

Calm down FC - people get a little 'frisky' hereabouts – please forgive all of us.  You actually do have a fairly valid question.

It is not about actually "eating" Jesus.  (Whoa!  I don't even want a mental image of that!!!)  It is about remembering Him.  

During the last supper, Jesus took bread, broke it and passed it around and said "This is my body, eat this in remembrance of Me."  Then He took a ‘glass’ of wine, sipped it and passed it around and said “This is my blood, drink it in remembrance of Me.”
For Protestants, it means just what Jesus said – remembrance.  It is a very Holy rite, but it is only in remembrance of the fact that He gave his body for us and bled for us.  For Catholics, (help me out and correct me here Catholic brothers and sisters – you know I’m not Catholic) it is still about remembrance just as Jesus asked – but it also about more personally receiving the spirit as dictated by their chosen congregation, through communion.  
Jesus lives within every Christian in spirit.  When we take communion it is a form of praise, remembrance, love and worship.  We are accepting the sacrifice of His flesh and blood in return for our sins.

Does that help any?
 

[Reba]

I do hate chicken guts

[Reba]

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.
 

I guess the DNA of Jesus is in the tummys of the believers.   John said he was the Lamb  

[ollie]

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.

The Bible is not opinion, but God's word to man.
It is God's word to follow not our own opinions.

Anyhow I do have an opinion here since the thread dwelves into things not of God.

Forget the chicken, go get a fish and eat it. Today is Sunday.
Fish is good for the brain.

[JudgeNot]

Yum I like fish

[JudgeNot]

michael_legna,
You are absolutely tireless.  (And, no - I don't mean a car without wheels!)
However, I think I know where you get your 'fuel'.  

In Jesus,
JN

[ollie]

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

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.

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.
 

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

Is it inspired of God?


 

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),

True.

 

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

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

(just as Aarons priesthood was)

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..


,

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

 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.

 

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

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.


 

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

Whats the point?

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.

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

Ollie

[michael_legna]

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

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.

I am missing your point apparently because I do not see any contradiction in any of those verse with the idea that Baptism is the fulfillment of the circumcision of the Old Testament, as long as you understand Baptsim to be more than a mere symbol and physical act.  Baptism is a spiritual act it is the spiritual circumcision.

Perhaps if you offered an interpretation of the scriptures you quoted showing me where you think this idea contradicts them I would be able to respond.

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

Is it inspired of God?

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.

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),

True.

So we are in agreement that there is a liturgical priesthood, separate from the common priesthood fo all Christians.

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

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

Yes, through the sacrament of Confirmation.  The gifts of the Holy Spirit (or at least the emphasis of them) has changed to more of teacher and administrator then tongues and miracles - though those still do occur.

(just as Aarons priesthood was)

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..

I don't see your point.  Are you asking me to disprove my own thesis?  It is not up to me to prove that it does not contradict every last scripture, it is up to you to prove that it contradicts even one.  So far you have offered none.

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

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.

Again what is your point these two verses don't seem to have anything to do with the authority to forgive sins.

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

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.

This is exactly what the priesthood in the Old Testament did.  Note the verse doesn't say call just any old Christian is says call an elder.  This was a special act that not every member of the Church should perform.  If your thesis was correct then the verse would have said to call a brother to do this, but it does not.  Clearly there is a distinction between the liturgical priesthood and the priesthood of all believers, just as there was in the Old Testament.

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

Whats the point?

The point is that we do not let just anyone perform marriages.  You can't have just another Christian marry you (at least not in most mainline Christian Churches) it is reserved for the Priests.  If your thesis was correct then the standard practice would be to have any Christian brother to do this, but it is not.

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.

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

My point exactly with regard to marriages.  The Bible is silent and we have a liturgical priesthood perform this sacrament and it is not contradicting scripture, even though you contend that a liturgical priesthood contradicts scripture.

But my point was broader than that too.  I have yet to see anyone show me anything the Catholic Church does that contradicts scripture, once scripture is properly interpreted.

[Reba]

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.

Michael, The Catholic church has errored. And errored often. As all churches have. Churches are  filled with people, people mess up.

Do you believe the RCC has not errored?

[Reba]

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

Can you please share your scrtipture quote, for the above.



Michael,  

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.

Have any of the liturgical priesthood errored?

[Reba]

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.

[BUTCHA]

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.