In all honesty; only YOU control how YOU react.
(But thanks for not posting things that you KNOW would cause a rational thinker to go ballistic.)
Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
In all honesty; only YOU control how YOU react.
(But thanks for not posting things that you KNOW would cause a rational thinker to go ballistic.)
Just that every Protestant follows an adores a heretic expelled from the Catholic Church.
Well, I admired your passion...
Oh NO!
You're channeling MRS_Elsie now!
Now then...
...that wasn't so hard to say; was it!?
Elsie:
That is correct, only I can control how I react.
Congratulations on the longest sentence (so far) in this thread.
I sorry that you do not feel a need to question that what you have been taught is correct.
You'd make a poor Berean.
Details.
Catholics do NOT need to believe this stuff...
Or do they???
Elsie:
I have never stated everything in Protestantism is wrong and that you all don’t hold to a significant amount of orthodox Apostolic Tradition, and among Protestantism, some hold to more than others.
And channeling Mrs. Elsie!!! them is fighting words!!!!
If I where in a court of law, I'd examine the EVIDENCE as well as weighing the words of witnesses.
Elsie:
Well I am not a Berean, a Catholic, not the best one, but one none the less. And thanks for the congrats, I do have the ability to string some long words together don’t I? Sister Mary always told me I talked to much in class so I guess intrinsically I took those skills to paper and pen.
Elsie:
Come on man, I have lots of disagreements with you but what was being posted is Mormonism. Really if that is where this thread is going, or that is where you 2 want to go with it, I am done with it.
Elsie:
Well this is not a court of law, but I have examined the evidence, and it sides with the Catholic Tradition, along with the Eastern Orthodox as well.
I don't want this tidbit to get away, because in speaking of origin, I think the Communion itself is the distilled blessing from the greater Agape feast, and that the feast should be brought forward to bear here. The function is not meant to be a stylized rite, but rather, the dinner table itself... The family of YHWH gathered around the dinner table.
There can hardly be a more fitting place for a family to gather together than around the table, and the evidence of that is shown around the world every single evening. The solemnity of the Communion blessing is as out-of-place without that table as 'saying grace' in the shower. And quite a bit (off the cuff, I would rather say 'all') of the governance concerning Communion reflects the table, not the blessing: Don't be a drunkard, don't be a pig, sit and participate worthily... These same conditions are at my own dinner table in my own house! People are excused and sent away for disrupting the peace of that table, that place of unity, joy, and love. I allow no argument there. No acting out. It is a place for family to remember that they ARE family!
This purpose has been lost - The function of Communion has become very personalized (which indeed, it should be). But much of it's meaning has been buried in rite. While it should be personal, when the blessing is over and one raises one's head and opens one's eyes, one should be able to look at the many, many brothers and sisters up and down the table, and know one has a seat there among the smiling faces of kith and kin. This is done better at the potluck after the service (as it began), rather than in the service itself - Then it's purpose would remain clear.
As in personally thinking of Christ's death, and (for Caths) the nature of the wafer nor how you are showing that toward other members of the body of Christ, which the Lord's supper is supposed to show.
Exactly right (not exactly rite :) )
The blessing said at that first table can be determined, because it is a blessing said by Hebrews from time immemorial (even they don't remember where it came from, though strangely enough, it is attributed to Melchizedek). There are two prayers. One for the bread and one for the wine. These were said, if not at every meal, then at least at meals of importance:
~Blessed are you, oh YHWH, Creator of heaven and earth, who brings forth bread from the Earth.~
"This is my body, broken for you..."
~Blessed are you oh YHWH, Creator of heaven and earth, who brings forth fruit from the vine.~
"This is the covenant in my blood..."
Can you see what He is saying?
That’s interesting, the prayer at the start of the Liturgy of the Eucharist is:
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this bread to offer,
which earth has given and human hands have made.
It will become for us
the bread of life.
People: Blessed be God for ever.
The priest lifts up the chalice, or cup, of wine and prays:
Priest: Blessed are you, Lord,
God of all creation.
Through your goodness we have
this wine to offer,
fruit of the vine and work
of human hands.
It will become our spiritual drink.
People: Blessed be God for ever.
Then again, either be consistent and always follow the judgment of the stewards of Scripture and historical magisterium, or be as the noble Bereans and others who judged Truth on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
Indeed, but as a faithful RC you cannot objectively examine Scripture to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, and allow that Rome could be wrong, but i can and do. So until you can act according to the basis for determining Truth that the NT church began under, further exchange is a meaningful as dealing with a cultist.
Your views of Baptism and the Catholic view are incorrect. Nothing about infused holiness coming from the person. It is God’s Grace infused into the human person. <
/p> Wrong. Though i should have been clearer in my brevity, I did not say it came from the person. I said Rome imagines souls become formally justified by their own "infused" holiness, meaning an infused "inherent holiness" via baptism, in opposition to imputed holiness. In baptism the soul is said to be "infused" with "sanctifying grace, which makes the subject holy," "which it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God."
The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), with an "inherent holiness." Catholic Encyclopedia >Sanctifying Grace; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
This is set in opposition to that "God "justifies the UnGodly" as "his faith is counted for righteousness," "unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Rm. 4:5,7) by declaring the contrite believing soul righteousness on Christ's expense and credit, "purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9) as Peter taught in the case of Gentiles being born again before baptism, saved by grace, "washed, sanctified and justified." (1Cor. 6:11) Which is all one event, so that the souls is both declared justified, as the penitent publican was in Lk. 18 though not regenerated, as well as Abraham, but is also regenerated after Pentecost.
And you challenge the Church Fathers interpretation of Scriptures and then give your commentary on them. Now, if you were me, who do believe I should take as more credible, the Church Fathers or You?
Either be consistent and always follow the judgment of the stewards of Scripture and historical magisterium, or be as the noble Bereans and others who judged Truth on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
roamer_1:
Well I commend you for at least recognizing the importance of Communion. So there is at least some basic agreement that the text referring to Breaking of the bread, Lord’s supper, etc are in reference to a Eucharistic celebration. Where we disagree I think it that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is, from the Catholic understanding [Orthodox would say as well] is the form of worship that came out of the Jewish Tradition into the Christian one and the one that developed organically from Christ thru the Apostles thru the early Apostolic Fathers of the Church. Early writings in the Apostolic Father period point to a centralized and Liturgical style of Worship with respect to the Eucharist. Any objective reading of the Didache, Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr will indicate that. What you are suggesting is that getting so caught up in the “Rite” and doing it a certain way might cause those participating in that Rite to forget the underlying meaning of it. One should leave the Eucharist closer to God and his fellow members of the Church and should take the Agape aspect of the Eucharist out into the world. I don’t disagree with that notion. the classic ending of the Roman Rite of the Mass is et Missa est, which means the Mass is sent, which when analyzed theologically, Catholics should and are called to take the Love of Christ which was experienced in the Eucharist out into the world and lives. Of course, many of us don’t always do that [me included] but thank God he is patient and his Grace, which I believe he constantly provides via same said sacraments will sustain me on the journey.
And I must add, your post was written not as a polemic, but as personal theological reflection on communion that doesn’t start out with, you darn Catholics are idiots and foolish, etc, etc, etc. Well written post.
daniel1212:
I agree that the Catholic position is infused Grace, the Protestant is not infused but more like a covering of Grace.
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.