Two men are reading the same bible...

[Marvin Knox]

I was not threatening. Far from it. I simply said:

I know perfectly well what you said. I took it as a threat to report me and I believe that is the way you meant it to be taken when you said it.

But now that the air is clear that I did not question your salvation but rather assumed you were saved (as I clearly said) we can let it go.

Why?

Because He's fully God and fully man. He was resurrected and has been glorified in His new body once for all time and eternity.

He is the archetypical glorified man and He no more has parts of His body carried about by some false earthly priest than we will when we are glorified.

First of all, I did not say that Christ is being crucified again. I realize that this was the attitude of some Roman Catholics before Vatican II, but it has never been the truth. Rather, as I mentioned in a different post, we are mystically taken back to the Last Supper, where we hear Jesus saying, "This is my BODY, this is my BLOOD." Then we share in that meal.

We are all taken back to the Last Supper, where we hear Jesus saying "This is my BODY, this is my BLOOD."

It not only isn't true, but rather offensive, to say that the elements "become" the body and blood. We can well be taken back simply by the "remembrance" of what He did and not necessarily by making it something which, in effect, denies the physical resurrection and glorification of the eternally inhabited body of Jesus Christ - which is now seated at the right hand in glory.

Again, we do not re-sacrifice the Living Lord. Even as we are mystically at the Last Supper, we are also standing at the foot of the Cross hearing Jesus cry out, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" We also hear the, "It is finished."

Saying that special word "mystically" doesn't change the fact that you believe either, as you say, we are transported back in time and or that the elements become the blood and body of the Lord.

If you simply mean by "mystically" that you are really, really, really thinking very hard and reverently about those things and taking them to heart, as it were - I would have no problem with that. But you and I both know you mean something much more than that "Protestant" celebration of the Last Supper and consideration of His sacrifice at Calvary.

Whether you say that the elements are changed right there on the alter by the priest by his saying certain words etc. or whether you say that they are changed in some special way we can't see but assume "spiritually ---- any literal change of earthly elements into Christ or any parts thereof, in effect denies the once for all death, burial, resurrection, and glorification of the God/man Jesus. It is then found highly offensive and even heretical by true Bible believers everywhere.

WHO, besides Jack Chick, actually says that when we offer up the bread and wine, that we are offering it up to the sun? That is a loathsome comment, and it is offensive to me, and to any other Catholic, and probably to some Orthodox as well.

Even the RCC itself agrees and states that the Monstrance or Ostensorium is an image of the sun.

BTW, "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" means "This is my body." and "Hic est enim calix sanguinus mei" means "this is the chalice of my blood."

I know full well what the words mean. I was the one who first quoted them here.

That is what come from believing Jack Chick!

I'm not sure what you mean by "comes from". But I do not read Jack Chick.

Their own documents and tracts are enough to confirm that the symbols and ceremonies use in Catholicism are offensive to the simple gospel message.

Getting back to the question posed by the OP - the person reading his bible only probably has a better grasp of proper worship and the meaning of the gospel than one attending one of your "high" services.

That was the question asked and that is my well considered answer.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I know perfectly well what you said. I took it as a threat to report me and I believe that is the way you meant it to be taken when you said it.

But now that the air is clear that I did not question your salvation but rather assumed you were saved (as I clearly said) we can let it go.

Because He's fully God and fully man. He was resurrected and has been glorified in His new body once for all time and eternity.

He is the archetypical glorified man and He no more has parts of His body carried about by some false earthly priest than we will when we are glorified.

We are all taken back to the Last Supper, where we hear Jesus saying "This is my BODY, this is my BLOOD."

It not only isn't true, but rather offensive, to say that the elements "become" the body and blood. We can well be taken back simply by the "remembrance" of what He did and not necessarily by making it something which, in effect, denies the physical resurrection and glorification of the eternally inhabited body of Jesus Christ - which is now seated at the right hand in glory.

Saying that special word "mystically" doesn't change the fact that you believe either, as you say, we are transported back in time and or that the elements become the blood and body of the Lord.

If you simply mean by "mystically" that you are really, really, really thinking very hard and reverently about those things and taking them to heart, as it were - I would have no problem with that. But you and I both know you mean something much more than that "Protestant" celebration of the Last Supper and consideration of His sacrifice at Calvary.

Whether you say that the elements are changed right there on the alter by the priest by his saying certain words etc. or whether you say that they are changed in some special way we can't see but assume "spiritually ---- any literal change of earthly elements into Christ or any parts thereof, in effect denies the once for all death, burial, resurrection, and glorification of the God/man Jesus. It is then found highly offensive and even heretical by true Bible believers everywhere.

Even the RCC itself agrees and states that the Monstrance or Ostensorium is an image of the sun.

I know full well what the words mean. I was the one who first quoted them here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "comes from". But I do not read Jack Chick.

Their own documents and tracts are enough to confirm that the symbols and ceremonies use in Catholicism are offensive to the simple gospel message.

Getting back to the question posed by the OP - the person reading his bible only probably has a better grasp of proper worship and the meaning of the gospel than one attending one of your "high" services.

That was the question asked and that is my well considered answer.

That refreshing honesty.

Forgive me...

 

[Noxot]

Who are you talking to?

was answering op question

 

[Mountainmike]

The word translated as "pastor" in some versions means only "proclaimer of good news" used in ephesians. It is not the same as priest.

Abundant first generations christian writings show Bishops were indeed appointed by the apostles and they were taught the faith to hand down "paradosis" the word now translated as tradition - and that only those bishops were appointed to perform a valid eucharist. To deny that, is to declare such as John the apostle apostate. Polycarp and ignatius are traceable as his disciples.

That is the problem. Losing early church teachings is throwing out the meaning of the bible but keeping the words, and in doing that loses the word of God - because the words have only one true meaning.

So my question is to such christians, that don't celebrate the eucharist as the real flesh and blood of Jesus, and therefore conducted by bishop in succession . WHy do you do things differently from the first generations of the church, since it was clearly what was handed down.

That was the problem that set me on a journey that led back to Rome

Most pastors don't know what the bible says or what it means.

And the bible has nothing good to say about pastors.

As far as reading something other than the bible.

Ecclesiastes chapter 12 verse 12
Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

 

[Marvin Knox]

was answering op question

Thank you.

 

[disciple1]

The word translated as "pastor" in some versions means only "proclaimer of good news" used in ephesians. It is not the same as priest.

Abundant first generations christian writings show Bishops were indeed appointed by the apostles and they were taught the faith to hand down "paradosis" the word now translated as tradition - and that only those bishops were appointed to perform a valid eucharist. To deny that, is to declare such as John the apostle apostate. Polycarp and ignatius are traceable as his disciples.

That is the problem. Losing early church teachings is throwing out the meaning of the bible but keeping the words, and in doing that loses the word of God - because the words have only one true meaning.

So my question is to such christians, that don't celebrate the eucharist as the real flesh and blood of Jesus, and therefore conducted by bishop in succession . WHy do you do things differently from the first generations of the church, since it was clearly what was handed down.

That was the problem that set me on a journey that led back to Rome

John chapter 8 verse 31
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

Hosea chapter 4


6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

“Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also reject you as my priests;
because you have ignored the law of your God,
I also will ignore your children.

 

[Mountainmike]

Which proves little except proof texting , indeed sola scriptura is a #fail - since it is uncontestable that th early church revolved around succession bishops who alone ( or their appointees, IE priests) were empowered to perform a valid Eucharist of real presence.
This recorded for the first generation after the apostles, taught by them.
That is true Christianity, and nobody contested it for over a millenium!

Till reformationists threw the baby out with the bathwater.

John chapter 8 verse 31
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.

Hosea chapter 4


6 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

“Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also reject you as my priests;
because you have ignored the law of your God,
I also will ignore your children.

 

[disciple1]

Which proves little except proof texting , indeed sola scriptura is a #fail - since it is uncontestable that th early church revolved around succession bishops who alone ( or their appointees, IE priests) were empowered to perform a valid Eucharist of real presence.
This recorded for the first generation after the apostles, taught by them.
That is true Christianity, and nobody contested it for over a millenium!

Till reformationists threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Are you saying the bible is false?
Jeremiah chapter 17 verse 5
This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hey Marvin,

1 Corinthians 14:16
“Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?”

I see a service going on in this statement where everyone is supposed to say Amen after a certain prayer. To me, there is only one service that fits that mold. It’s the Anaphora prayers from The Divine Liturgy and Christ Jesus taught it to St. Paul.

I would love for you to come and see this service.

Forgive me...

 

[Mountainmike]

Which has no connection to the points of my post.... perhaps you would like to address those?

Are you saying the bible is false?
Jeremiah chapter 17 verse 5
This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

 

[W2L]

Are you saying the bible is false?
Jeremiah chapter 17 verse 5
This is what the LORD says: "Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the LORD.

Amen.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Even the RCC itself agrees and states that the Monstrance or Ostensorium is an image of the sun.

Wrong! In case you haven't noticed, the Monstrance is simply an ornate setting for the Pearl of Great Price that is the Body of Jesus. It is Jesus Himself sitting on a gold throne. The reason that it is round is that the Host is round in most RC Churches. As a matter of fact, in most Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Host is square, leavened bread

 

[Marvin Knox]

Wrong! In case you haven't noticed, the Monstrance is simply an ornate setting for the Pearl of Great Price that is the Body of Jesus. It is Jesus Himself sitting on a gold throne. The reason that it is round is that the Host is round in most RC Churches. As a matter of fact, in most Orthodox Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches, the Host is square, leavened bread

Wrong! In the RC, the Monstrance is not Jesus Himself sitting on a gold throne.

I can't speak to Orthodox and Eastern churches. But in RC churches a Monstrance is simply a vessel used to display any relic or other sacred item. My posts have always been directed toward the Roman cult and I bow to you expertise on all things Eastern.

In earlier times a Monstrance was often quite large - even the size of a small building.

Since the 15th century or so - Monstrances have usually been associated with the display of the "host" (the consecrated and changed bread which has become the body of Christ by virtue of the activities of a priest so ordained with that power by Rome).

In the last 4 centuries or more the "host" has been carried about by the priest after the supposed change and is literally bowed down to and "worshiped" (their terminology) by both the priest and the people.

The official Catholic literature states that the most appropriate form for the Monstrance used to display the piece of bread to be worshiped is an image of the sun with it's sun bursts. Virtually all Monstrances are so constructed.

I have never made the charge that the image of the sun itself is worshiped but that the piece of bread held within it is worshiped- which supposedly changed into God when the so called priest proclaimed the words "hoc est Corpus meum" (from which we get the term "hocus pocus").

The idea that an organization has the right and ability to change the elements into the body and the blood of Christ before they are taken by the laity is not only not scriptural but blasphemous.

The RC even goes so far as to not let the people partake of the supposed blood at all but only the supposed priest lest some be spilled. In a similar vein, the supposed body is placed on the tongue by the priest (who supposedly represents Christ Himself) lest it be defiled.

In the scripture accounts the bread and wine were handled and partaken of by the people themselves. Not so in the Roman cult.

In the RC the little people are required to fast before receiving the host - lest the supposed body of Christ be defiled by mixing it with mundane food. Yet the ceremony at the last supper was done immediately following the meal.

In the scriptures (in Corinthians) the elements of the communal ceremony are said to still be bread and wine when the people partake of both of them just as they were at the last supper.

I do not believe that the scriptures allow for the literal change of the elements even after eating them. To me that violates the concept of the bodily resurrection and glorification of the Lord who is now seated in Heaven on our behalf. Even so – I have no particular problem with those people who believe in their faith that it is somehow so.

The problem I have is with a cult like RC claiming the right to do so on this earth and then doling out the salvation contained therein to the laity.

It is usurping the rights and powers which can only be vested in God Himself.

The Eucharist as practiced in RC is nothing less than blasphemous as I see it.

In fact the entire enterprise of Roman Catholicism is a blasphemous usurping of the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the people of God.

Again – I can’t speak to Eastern teaching and practice.

I know this is more than you asked for in your post. But I just want to show where I'm coming from regarding the practices of the Roman cult.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is alone, the other is in a high Church service.

Both men's eyes happen to alight on the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:26, which reads, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up."

Both men ponder in their hearts, reasoning, 'Hmm, I wonder why my church never does that?'

The one in the high Church services, returns his attention to the liturgy. The one who is alone gets on the phone, calls a few close friends, and invites them over saying, "Hey, let's try doing this today at my home!"

Later that night, which one is apt to feel he has rediscovered a powerful Apostolic way to have church services?

 

[gordonhooker]

Two men are reading the same bible, one is alone, the other is in a high Church service.

Both men's eyes happen to alight on the verse in 1 Corinthians 14:26, which reads, "What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up."

Both men ponder in their hearts, reasoning, 'Hmm, I wonder why my church never does that?'

The one in the high Church services, returns his attention to the liturgy. The one who is alone gets on the phone, calls a few close friends, and invites them over saying, "Hey, let's try doing this today at my home!"

Later that night, which one is apt to feel he has rediscovered a powerful Apostolic way to have church services?

I don’t know about what others get from high church liturgy but I am built up from communion with my brothers and sisters attending the service.