Skip to comments.Did Venezuela's Chavez nudge Christ to pick South American pope? (Hugo Helped Christ Pick The Pope!)
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:53:08 PM PDT by Dallas59
click here to read article
Intercessory prayer to God is directed to God...Prayer TO Mary and Saints is not intercessory...
No, that isn't so. That's not what I believe, not what I said, and not what the Church teaches. You seem to be ignoring what St. Paul said about "eating and drinking to your own condemnation" and becoming "guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord" if you receive unworthily.
Why would Paul say "Body and Blood" if it were not the Body and Blood?
Actually, that is part of the Eucharistic Rite at every Mass, and always has been: the breaking of bread is begun after the sign of peace, and is accompanied by the recitation or the singing of the Agnus Dei.
At every Mass. Every day.
By the way, where do you get your information?
(If a person actually doesn't know what we Catholics do, nor what we believe, it would be more becoming, I think, to ask questions than to make statements about us.)
Of course it is! Whatever are yout thinking of? Let's say I ask (pray) you to pray for me, is that not intercessory prayer?
Am I not supposed to let you know that I'd like you to pray for me?
Yes it is...But when Catholics do not ask Mary or the Saints to pray for them but instead pray to them to ask them to provide grace, salvation, lost keys and the myriad of other things that these former live in the flesh people are attributed to have power over, it is not intercessory prayer...
As near as I can tell, a pray thee or a pray you is a request, but a pray to is worship...
I've been to a Mass twice and watched it numerous times on the tv...There was no breaking of bread that I witnessed...And when you receive the cracker, it is not a portion of broken bread...
Why would Paul say "Body and Blood" if it were not the Body and Blood?
'Guilty of the body and blood' is pretty meaningless unless you can grab some nuggets with context and other scripture to define it...
So what do you figure 'guilty of the body and blood' is???
That's an interesting distinction you're making there, Iscool --- and I like people who can and will think "under the surface" enough to make distinctions, so thank you.
I would say that ordinarily "part" of to "pray to" is worship, because ordinarily we "pray to" AND worship God. (Yes, even Catholics!)
However, that is only "part". As you know, there are general categories for prayer. One can be expressing
If you will review the list above, you will see that all those aspects of prayer can legitimately be expressed to another human being. Me to you, or you to me, for instance. I could express contrition for having treated you badly, thanksgiving that you had done something kind for me, complaint that you had neglected me, or whatever. That is, every one of them is a proper part of our relationship with fellow creatures, except adoration, properly so called.
By "adoration," I mean offering the whole of oneself in homage, as to a Supreme King, giving one's willng and total subjection as to one's Creator and Master, giving the highest, total and unreserved worship as to the Supreme Being.
It is forbidden to give adoration to any creature, whether animal or human or angel.
Nor can one even give those other things (Contrition, Thanksgiving, Request, etc.) to a creature in a total or supreme sense. I can thank YOU for giving me something good, but not without realizing that GOD is the source of ALL good -- in the ultimate sense.
Thus "pray to" is not synonymous with "adoration"; keeping that in mind will prevent many a misunderstanding.
Prayer means worship when it expresses our ucomplete subjection to the Lord of All; it is wrong to offer adoration to any creature.
For Biblical examples of properly addressing angels --- please see also this post: (LINK)
Thank you, Iscool.
First, please watch what the priest is doing after the handshake thingie, when "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God") is said or sung. I guarantee it's the breaking of the bread.
Second, do not call the host a "cracker." The word "host" is neutral and does not in itself indicate consecration or divinity, so you can use it in good conscience. "Host" is accurate; "cracker" is offensive.
Third, I have often --- but not always --- received a portion of broken bread, when the priest breaks up the large host for consumption. Ordinarily people are given the small hosts because there is no problem of crumbs. The symbolism is better, I grant you, when one receives portions of the large host.
This issue doesn't come up with Eastern Catholics, who receive both consecrated elements together, which the priest gives to the faithful with a spoon.
Meaningless? It's not meaningless at all; and its real meaning is plain from the immediate context:
According to the Bible, one who receives the Eucharist unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; not guilty of careless mishandling of a mere symbol. St. Paul says that a person eats and drinks damnation by receiving the Eucharist without the proper discernment. If the Eucharist is just a piece of bread and some wine, taken in memory of Christ, how could one who receives it improperly be found guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord?
1 Corinthians 11:26-29
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 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.
"But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
One could not be held to such blood-guilt for the mishandling of an inferior token.
You maintain --- unless I am misunderstanding you --- that a true Christian takes Communion ONLY AS A SYMBOL. This statement is to be found nowhere in the Bible and as such is a violation of the supposed doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
And secondly, Jesus never referred to Communion as symbol. What you call a symbol, Jesus calls true food and drink; My body is true food and my blood is true drink (Jn 6:55).
What you call Symbol, the Apostle Paul calls the Body and Blood of the Lord. Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor 11: 27-28).
Look, please, at the Old Testament types. Jesus makes reference to the manna in the desert (a foreshadoing of the far greater miracle that would come in the NT), and then says that His flesh is the true manna from Heaven.
The New Testament fulfillment MUST be greater than the Old Testament type or token. If, as you say, the Eucharist is just ordinary bread, then it would be inferior to the manna in the desert, which appeared miraculously. It would be weaker than the original foreshadowing.
Exodus 16:15- And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another: Manhu! which signifieth: What is this! for they knew not what it was. And Moses said to them: This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat.
Would God give a series of "types" leading up to a wonderful fullfillment with the coming of the Messiah, and then the "wonderful fulfillment" turns out to be ---TA-DAAH! --- just another symbol?? And one much less impressive than the one in the Old Testament? It's inconceivable.
Another OT type was the Passover lamb, sacrificed and eaten by the Hebrews before their exodus from Egypt. Once again, they were actually to eat the flesh of this lamb. Then so many centuries later, comes Christ, the true Lamb of God, and we are not to eat His flesh? How is He the Lamb, if our Communion turns out to be not Communion in Him at all: ordinary, not miraculous?
The purpose of this Communion is actual union with the Lord our God. Jesus is not just a symbol, and does not give us just tokens, but the real fulfillment of all the tokens. He gives us Himself as the true Lamb of God.
Thus it is unworthy --- leading to condemnation, damnable --- to receive this Communion "without discerning the Lord's Body."
When Jesus says "This is My Body" is it wrong to say "Amen"?
I highly doubt that.
Chavez is a Catholic so is highly regarded by many Catholics across the world and is probably seen as being in heaven if he was baptized as a baby. That pulls you through to Catholic heaven.
"We have had some morally skeevy popes. Seven or eight of them by my count, when I did some intensive reading on it as a teenager. (I wanted to grit my teeth and get all the $#@$#@$# news at once.) I'll tell ya, after the Borgias, most of 'em looked pretty good."I am not fimilar with the Borgias, but they must have been pretty bad to make all the "skeevy popes" look "pretty good."
Did the Borgias get pleasure when they could hear the screams of their "enemies" being tortured as one pope did?
Did any of them get shot by a jealous husband while commiting adultry with his wife?
We've had a good run of popes recently, by which I mean for a good 350 years. For this I am grateful.
Communion is the remembrance...The remembrance of Jesus on the cross...His death for us...And why he died...
The bread and wine are the symbol that brings the remembrance close to home...The torn bread reminds us of Jesus' torn body...The wine reminds us of his shed blood...
If we participate in communion and these things do not come to mind, then we likely are not followers of Jesus which of course leads to condemnation...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.