Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: metmom; kosta50; stfassisi; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee
"I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics."

I think you will find that most Catholics of the Orthodox persuasion understand where you are coming from fully. We're odd that way. We are not, as you have seen here, very "evangelical". You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe. "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us." as we chant in the Liturgy. If anyone wants what we have they can have it. If not, that's OK...have another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava!

"Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it."

Kosta and I do. "That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong." The belief that the bread and wine on the altar table, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become in some way we do not understand the true Body and Blood of Christ is among the most verifiably ancient beliefs of The Church. Mere antiquity, of course, guarantees nothing. It does mean, however, that the bishops who determined the canon of the NT in the 4th century actually believed it. Why do you suppose they would have canonized scripture which, it appears to you and millions of others, clearly contradicts that fundamental belief? BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.

5,099 posted on 12/10/2010 6:26:53 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5088 | View Replies ]


To: metmom; kosta50; stfassisi; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee
My apologies for my bad formatting in 5099 which casued some confusion!

"I know what Catholics believe about communion and I disagree with it anyway, which I realize is beyond the comprehension of most Catholics."

I think you will find that most Catholics of the Orthodox persuasion understand where you are coming from fully. We're odd that way. We are not, as you have seen here, very "evangelical". You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe. "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us." as we chant in the Liturgy. If anyone wants what we have they can have it. If not, that's OK...have another cup of cafe and perhaps a piece of baklava!

"Some people just don't get that I can understand what they're saying and choose not to believe it." Kosta and I do.

"That said, I find plenty of Scriptural support for the conclusion that the elements in communion are and remain simply bread and wine and are representative of Christ, just as they were in the Passover meal. Having them become the LITERAL flesh and blood of Christ violates too many other passages of Scripture and since Scripture doesn't contradict itself, that means that the literal flesh and blood interpretation is wrong."

The belief that the bread and wine on the altar table, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become in some way we do not understand the true Body and Blood of Christ is among the most verifiably ancient beliefs of The Church. Mere antiquity, of course, guarantees nothing. It does mean, however, that the bishops who determined the canon of the NT in the 4th century actually believed it. Why do you suppose they would have canonized scripture which, it appears to you and millions of others, clearly contradicts that fundamental belief? BTW, I can understand questioning the Latin explanations of what happens at the consecration. You know, mysteries are just that, mysteries. And perhaps the less speculation the better about the nature of Divine Mysteries lest in doing so we misunderstand and fall into error.

5,150 posted on 12/11/2010 9:17:28 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5099 | View Replies ]

To: Kolokotronis; metmom; kosta50; stfassisi; MarkBsnr; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; ...
You believe what you believe. We believe what we believe

Indeed, any of the explanations and corrections of heresy do not in themselves convert anyone; it is especially unlikely to convert an active poster who made it a habit of displaying public anti-Catholicism. God converts. My purpose is simply to provide essential knowledge for the reader, -- not necessarily the poster, -- who can do his own thinking.

As one Freeper of anti-Catholic persuasion once admitted to me, -- OK, in the hermeneutical system of Catholicism you do have a complete and consistent view of the scripture. That admission is all I hope to achieve. If after that you turn around and worship Buddha or Luther, that is your business.

5,413 posted on 12/15/2010 5:48:39 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5099 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson