Zone1 Question for Christians.

[Meriweather]

I gave you the chance

No, you did not. You've made it extremely clear you will not listen to a word from scripture/tradition. One who is not listening and does not want to learn is not giving anyone a "chance".

 

[Meriweather]

I think you would be surprised at what I understand about Scripture

You are clear on what you understand about scripture. It's also clear on what you do not understand.

 

[hadit]

Again the contempt and patronizing. Again, I pass.

I've already explained several times that for those who step forward to receive the Eucharist--the body, blood, and divinity of Jesus Christ--without belief are acting out a lie and a deception. You may not mind putting yourself and/or your wife is such a position, but the Church is not going to assist anyone in proclaiming and acting out a lie and a deception that they do believe they are receiving the body and blood of Christ when they hold no such belief. Why believe it is important that the Catholic Church allow non-believers act out this lie/deception?

Okay, you think they're living a lie. Would you like to discuss that from Scripture without referencing church tradition?

 

[hadit]

No, you did not. You've made it extremely clear you will not listen to a word from scripture/tradition. One who is not listening and does not want to learn is not giving anyone a "chance".

Oh, I'm listening. I have not yet heard anything more substantial then, "Because I said so, and church tradition says so". You do realize, don't you, that transubstantiation wasn't an official thing until 1215? It took that long to become church dogma.

 

[hadit]

You are clear on what you understand about scripture. It's also clear on what you do not understand.

So give me the Scripture and let's discuss it. I haven't seen a reference from you on this yet.

 

[Meriweather]

If you cannot explain your position on transubstantiation without referencing Catholic traditions, how can you maintain it is a Biblically blessed viewpoint? If your position is, "You're not going to understand it because you're not Catholic", how can you maintain it is something that Jesus taught and wants us to draw lines in the sand about?

Catholic traditions? Why didn't you say, Biblical traditions?

My position is not you're not going to understand because you are not Catholic. My position is you are not interested the Catholic/Biblical position. Your interest lies in insisting your feelings and your conclusions are primary over anything else.

You haven't a clue as to why it is so easy to ignore your feelings because the Bible points in an entirely different direction.

 

[Meriweather]

I have not yet heard anything more substantial then, "Because I said so, and church tradition says so".

I have said neither. Find the post where I said, "Because I said so." What I said is that to explain Transubstantiation, one must understand scripture and tradition. This is not about "I said so." I offered to explain the Church's position on Transubstantiation and how it came to be. Instead, you invited me down your own rabbit holes.

 

[hadit]

Catholic traditions? Why didn't you say, Biblical traditions?

Because they are not necessarily one and the same. Your position appears to be if the Catholic church does it or believes it, then it has to be Gospel truth.

My position is not you're not going to understand because you are not Catholic. My position is you are not interested the Catholic/Biblical position. Your interest lies in insisting your feelings and your conclusions are primary over anything else.

I have questions that it appears you're not willing to even consider. If it were so easy to dispel them from Scripture, why haven't you done it?

You haven't a clue as to why it is so easy to ignore your feelings because the Bible points in an entirely different direction.

So, let's talk about the Bible and what it means.

 

[hadit]

I have said neither. Find the post where I said, "Because I said so." What I said is that to explain Transubstantiation, one must understand scripture and tradition. This is not about "I said so." I offered to explain the Church's position on Transubstantiation and how it came to be. Instead, you invited me down your own rabbit holes.

Okay, the floor is yours. Lay it out however you want to.

 

[Meriweather]

Because they are not necessarily one and the same. Your position appears to be if the Catholic church does it or believes it, then it has to be Gospel truth.

That's putting it backwards. My position is that I go to the Church that upholds Biblical truths.

I have questions that it appears you're not willing to even consider. If it were so easy to dispel them from Scripture, why haven't you done it?

I said it before. You are more interested in what you think and what is down your own rabbit holes.

So, let's talk about the Bible and what it means.

All I want is for you to listen. I have no interest in changing your mind. If you are truly interested in understanding the Catholic faith and perspective about the Eucharist, without changing or reversing your own understanding, I'm willing to present that.

 

[hadit]

That's putting it backwards. My position is that I go to the Church that upholds Biblical truths.

I said it before. You are more interested in what you think and what is down your own rabbit holes.

All I want is for you to listen. I have no interest in changing your mind. If you are truly interested in understanding the Catholic faith and perspective about the Eucharist, without changing or reversing your own understanding, I'm willing to present that.

At the risk of repeating myself,

"Okay, the floor is yours. Lay it out however you want to."

 

[JohnDB]

No one can deny that Christian leaders have taken a larger role in politics over the last several years

40+ years

Started AGAIN with Reagan.
Took a small break with JFK and Nixon....and a twisted break with Carter....

But it's always been a significant voting block.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay, the floor is yours. Lay it out however you want to.

During World War II (if I am recalling the correct war), the Nazi's broke in during Mass scattering both the people and the consecrated Eucharist and both ended up outside, the people fleeing, the Eucharist ending up on the ground outside the church. Soldiers were stationed around the church to kill anyone who dared return.

This was still during the time that the priest placed the Eucharist directly on the tongue. The Eucharist is only to be received once a day. Parishioners did not dare return to church property...except on little girl, who felt she was small enough to sneak through at night. She did this, picking up a single host with her tongue, and then departing. She continued this practice several days until she was seen and shot.

Catholics--including young Catholics--feel that strongly about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Contemplate: Would one risk one's life over left-over bread that had been broken in memory of Jesus. (No response needed; it's merely a reflection point)

I'll continue in the next post.

 

[hadit]

During World War II (if I am recalling the correct war), the Nazi's broke in during Mass scattering both the people and the consecrated Eucharist and both ended up outside, the people fleeing, the Eucharist ending up on the ground outside the church. Soldiers were stationed around the church to kill anyone who dared return.

This was still during the time that the priest placed the Eucharist directly on the tongue. The Eucharist is only to be received once a day. Parishioners did not dare return to church property...except on little girl, who felt she was small enough to sneak through at night. She did this, picking up a single host with her tongue, and then departing. She continued this practice several days until she was seen and shot.

Catholics--including young Catholics--feel that strongly about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Contemplate: Would one risk one's life over left-over bread that had been broken in memory of Jesus. (No response needed; it's merely a reflection point)

I'll continue in the next post.

I have absolutely no problem accepting that Catholics hold very strongly to their beliefs about communion. And yes, holding that strongly is a compelling point.

 

[ding]

I've believed so all my life and I KNOW I have the life of Christ in me.

I've asked you before and you refused to answer. When did you become aware that the priest was offering you blood to drink? Can you do better than, "I don't want to go down a rabbit hole"? Why does God disguise the flesh and blood if He wants us to consume it?

Maybe argue with Christ about it.

 

[hadit]

Maybe argue with Christ about it.

I'm asking you what you believe.

 

[ding]

I'm asking you what you believe.

Maybe read what Christ said. You are big on scripture, right?

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus said he was the bread that came down from heaven. (John 6:51) This takes us back to Exodus and the traditions that began at that time. Manna, from God, came down from heaven. This is not the only place in Exodus where bread is mentioned. We also have the Bread of the Presence (face bread) that was baked and placed in the Tabernacle (later the Temple) in the Presence of the Lord. Each week the Bread of the Presence was consumed by the priests because that bread had been surrounded by (absorbed) the Presence of God.

God became man. He said he was the bread that came down from heaven. He taught us that his body was true food; his blood true drink. Those who believed and ate/gnawed his body and drank his blood would have his life within them.

Humans are made up of body, mind, and soul/spirit. Until Christ, God was only Spirit and His spirit in both manna and in the Bread of the Presence came down from heaven and was consumed by men. With Jesus, God now had both Body and Spirit. This is the new bread that came down from heaven and is God still feeding his people--body, blood, and divinity.

And thus to this day we consume bread (body, blood, and divinity) from heaven. Early Christians understood this, and as mentioned before, were accused of cannibalism. Their belief in God's bread from heaven that strong. This is my body...this is my blood. God in the midst of His people.

Jesus explained his presence in bread and wine to the people of his own time. Some said, We cannot accept this. They no longer followed him. Jesus did not try to call them back, did not send his Apostles to go running after them to explain he was only speaking metaphorically. He simply asked his Apostles, Will you go, too? Peter answered, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life."

What you seem to be asserting, hadit , is that while you may believe Jesus had the power to perform miracles--even raising Lazarus from the dead--Jesus did not, and does not, have the power to send his whole presence--body, blood, and divinity--into bread and wine. You want a sign he can do this. You want to taste actual flesh. You want to taste actual blood. (Send me a sign! But no sign would/will be given except the sign of Jonah. You believe Jesus had the power to rise from the dead, but that's his limit?)

On the road to Emmaus, we are told that Jesus pointed to all scriptures that referred to him. And then, when in Emmaus, his disciples recognized him in the breaking of the bread.

The Apostles, being Jews, were well aware of the Bread of the Presence eaten by priests. But Jesus...he was to be eaten by all who believe. You have no belief/faith to offer when it comes to this. However, you do have remembrance, and you are assuring us this remembrance is all that is needed.

You want those who come to Mass in the Catholic Church to just offer remembrance so all can come together. The only way I see this happening is if the Catholic Church has a separate line of bread and wine--that has not been consecrated--for non-believing Christians to receive.

 

[Unkotare]

No one can deny that Christian leaders have taken a larger role in politics over the last several years. ...

Why do liberals love to preface their declarations with "no one can deny" all the time?

 

[BULLDOG]

Why do liberals love to preface their declarations with "no one can deny" all the time?

Do you deny that Christian leaders have taken a larger role in politics over the last several years?