I'm not sure I would agree completely with this interpretation. I see Jesus' instruction in John 6 as referring specifically to the spiritual application that the Passover sacrifice represented. The Jews knew that it was not a memorial of the Exodus but a ceremony in remembrance for the sacrifice God provided for the protection of His people Israel. In short the passover is a memorial to the atonement model.
That is why many were repulsed (John 6:60) when Jesus said that His body must be eaten and his blood indeed drink. They didn't see the connection between Jesus and the passover lamb. Jesus said His flesh was meat (John 6:55) and that his blood was drink and that by "ingesting" this food the Lord dwells in us and we in Him.
Bible Gateway:
"The reference to the Passover (6:4) alerts us to another developing motif in this Gospel. At a previous Passover feast (2:13) Jesus made reference to his coming death (2:19-22; 3:14-15), and the opponents sought to kill him (5:18). Here, again in the context of Passover, he provides one of the most profound discussions of his coming death, which is to occur at a later Passover. The exodus of this new Moses is accomplished in his own sacrificial death as the Passover lamb, whose flesh and blood give life to the world (6:51-58). "The multitude, by coming to Jesus instead of going to Jerusalem, finds in him the true meaning of Passover" (Talbert 1992:131-32)."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia By Geoffrey W. Bromiley
Paul was explicit in stating that Christ is our paschal lamb, and that this is the lamb sacrificed on the day of Passover (1 Corinthians 5:7). When the festival was instituted in Exodus 12 the lamb and the blood of played a significant role in serving as a covering for the people of God (Exodus 12:13) and their sins. The blood of the lamb would be present on the doorposts of the home, which is where sin can be found (Gen. 4:7), and that was the sign to the angel of destruction to pass over that home. In the same way, Christ’s blood covers our sin by faith in the sacrifice that God provides (Gen. 22:8) and it cleanses us from all sin and reconciles us to God (1 John 1:7; Ephesians 2:13).
Other than that I have to agree with Steve's general assessment.
The Lord's Eucharist Meal
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860
You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary
You Are Israel
Sabbath Truth
Heavenly Sanctuary
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
I am not a Protestant, correct...but I was a Protestant until my formal education in Kione Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and the Christian Fathers and Apologists. There was no other understanding of the Eucharist until Gnostics developed such a notion.....rejecting natural readings of the texts in the Gospel and Paul's letters. It was the Eastern Bogomils and their Western Cathar bretheren who developed this belief and later Reformed and Anabaptists who took up this way of interpreting the Latin Texts.....then also the Greek. Wycliff, Huss, Luther and Tyndale all denounced and rejected this adoption of gnostic doctrine and it's imposotion on the Scripture. No Apostolic Father (Greek, Syriac, Latin or Aramaic) espoused this gnostic way of interpreting the Texts.
Paul is very clear in his Letter to Corinth's Christians.....The Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He held it to be a desecrating sacriledge to come before the LORD's Table in "an unworthy state." Reformed Cristianity and Anabaptists have changed this to in "an unworthy manner" or with "improper method." Status not Method is the subject. God's curse was upon anyone who came to the Sacred Meal without discerning the nature of the Body of Christ, and turned it into a drunken orgy and not a love Feast...it is a Holy Gift for a Holy People. Many such unworthy participants of Corinth were chastized by illness and death from the Lord for such unpreparedness and worldly views of the Church Meal and their own state before God. Thus Paul's remedy was to have all participants to recognize the true nature of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and their status before God prior to participating in and partaking of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ.
As was the Bread of the Divine Presence endowed with the "Real Presence" of YHVH because of being dedicated to and being placed before His Face in the Tabernacle and Temple...so too is the Bread and Wine endowed with the same "Real Presence" of the LORD in the Eucharist. It was and remains a Sacred Gift for His Sacred People....we are the Royal Priesthood. Christ is David giving us at His Meal what is reserved for God's Priests alone....His Flesh and Blood...The Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation. Paul knew this Sacred Mystery of the Divine Presence and thus demanded Christ's People to be held to the same standards of holiness as were the Priests of the Old Covenant. We are saved by His redeeming Grace through Faithfulness to His New Covenant and our Love of God...and Love is the observance of His Law. If you Love Me You will observe My commandments.....thus we fulfill the Law and not invalidating it...God Forbid!
God would not Give what is Holy to Dogs...nor are we to receive what is Holy and very Real Presence in a state of canine carnality. Thus we are to search ourselves to see if we remain IN HIM....Worthy. Now Reformed and Anabaptists minded people will find my statement radical, but the Church all the way to Wycliff, Huss, Luther and William Tyndale knew this to be the natural and a correct reading of Scripture. And I believe Orthodox Evangelicals (Lutherans) and Orthodox Anglicans are PROTESTANT. Reformed and Anabaptist churches are not perpetuating historic Christian exegetics and doctrine on this matter. Jan Huss continued to hold to Orthodoxy concerning the eucharist...all the way up to his Martyrdom. The Protestant Movement was not established on the basis of the meaning and status of the Eucharist....but Papal errors concerning it being witheld in both kinds from the people and other habits and doctrinal innovations and errors. It was others in southern France and Switzewrland who were militants who sought a complete separation from Church history, practices and established community establishment who separated from Protestantism to establish their own Reformed or Anabaptist movements. I have no issue with Lutherans or Anglicans who continue in the Historic Faith....I fellowship with the Local Confessional Lutherans here in McMinnville (St. John's). I am given and receive Holy communion there also...as they recognize Me and My family as fellow Evangelicals and Orthodox "Sola Scriptura, Soli Fide et Sola Gracia" Christians.
As for Reformed scholars of Greek descent and education....it is Swiss Reformers who speak through them....not historic exegitcs from the Church Fathers and Wycliff, Huss, Luther and Tyndale. The Bogomils and Cathari had their linguists too....and authorities.....nothing new.
Now Eastern, Old Catholic and Evangelical Orthodoxy rejects the Romanist notion of Transubstanciation. We hold it to be a Mystery and thus not explicible by human explanation....just like the Virgin conception, incarnaation and birth of Christ. Luther tried to give a simile concerning the Real presence in the Eucharist...He said it was similar to an iron rod hold in the furnace until white hot from the Fire. The Iron remains Iron but it has changed and retains the Fire's heat within it and glows...that is similar to the Divine Presence within the consecrated Bread and Wine. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this for being a poor and theoretic notion....but as an Orthodox Old catholic I like it myself. You are what you partake of...the Body of Christ...ready to take up the Cross and follow after Him even to the pooring out of our own Blood. We are the Iron which has the Heat and Glow of his Presence in us...as Moses did when He came down from Sinai.
If we accept Angels, the Virgin Birth, demons, possession, the Charismatic gifts and indwelling of God's Holy Spirit as a mystery and a reality....then why reject the Eucharist as the Divinely established means of receiving Christ's real presence and dynamic grace in our daily walk as His Royal Priesthood and Visible Body of Christ to the world ? We are walking a real spiritual journey of redemption and transformation into the Image of God's Son...and the Eucharist is part and parcel of this divine work of regeneration inwardly and outwardly in our Lives here on earth. This is the proper discerning of the Body of Christ and the Holy Meal of His Body and Blood during the celebration of the Eucharistic Feast of Love. It is not only implicit in Paul's own teaching it is explitic in this very careful usages and phraseology in the Kone Greek. And this has been understood from his day all they way until now, in an unbroken transmission of the Sacred Tradition he and the Apostles passed on through their words and letters. Paul refers to this faithful transmition of the Tradition in His own words which I cite. the only other tradtion was developed outside of the Church among the gnostics. Their arguments and textual destortions are still used......check the history of the "symbolic or non sacramental" understanding of the Lord's Supper. reformed Churchianity and Anaba\tist beliefs are but resurrections of older views held by those outside the Faith.
Do I think those who take the Eucharist as merely a memorial ritual with no divine presence and mediation of that divine presence to partakers as heretics outside of Christ? No. But i do believe they lack much in their spiriutality and lives...but God redeems us dispite our frailties. But Like Luther I denounce their position in a hope to correct them....but God alone is the judge of His People...not I. I know and Love many Reformed Churchmen and Anabaptists, whom I received an Education. But I do not recognize or participate in their communion meals nor do I offer the Eucharist to them, for their own sakes.
In Christ,
Rev. Ken
Paul is very clear in his Letter to Corinth's Christians.....The Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He held it to be a desecrating sacriledge to come before the LORD's Table in "an unworthy state." Reformed Cristianity and Anabaptists have changed this to in "an unworthy manner" or with "improper method." Status not Method is the subject. God's curse was upon anyone who came to the Sacred Meal without discerning the nature of the Body of Christ, and turned it into a drunken orgy and not a love Feast...it is a Holy Gift for a Holy People. Many such unworthy participants of Corinth were chastized by illness and death from the Lord for such unpreparedness and worldly views of the Church Meal and their own state before God. Thus Paul's remedy was to have all participants to recognize the true nature of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and their status before God prior to participating in and partaking of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ.
As was the Bread of the Divine Presence endowed with the "Real Presence" of YHVH because of being dedicated to and being placed before His Face in the Tabernacle and Temple...so too is the Bread and Wine endowed with the same "Real Presence" of the LORD in the Eucharist. It was and remains a Sacred Gift for His Sacred People....we are the Royal Priesthood. Christ is David giving us at His Meal what is reserved for God's Priests alone....His Flesh and Blood...The Bread of Life and the Cup of Salvation. Paul knew this Sacred Mystery of the Divine Presence and thus demanded Christ's People to be held to the same standards of holiness as were the Priests of the Old Covenant. We are saved by His redeeming Grace through Faithfulness to His New Covenant and our Love of God...and Love is the observance of His Law. If you Love Me You will observe My commandments.....thus we fulfill the Law and not invalidating it...God Forbid!
God would not Give what is Holy to Dogs...nor are we to receive what is Holy and very Real Presence in a state of canine carnality. Thus we are to search ourselves to see if we remain IN HIM....Worthy. Now Reformed and Anabaptists minded people will find my statement radical, but the Church all the way to Wycliff, Huss, Luther and William Tyndale knew this to be the natural and a correct reading of Scripture. And I believe Orthodox Evangelicals (Lutherans) and Orthodox Anglicans are PROTESTANT. Reformed and Anabaptist churches are not perpetuating historic Christian exegetics and doctrine on this matter. Jan Huss continued to hold to Orthodoxy concerning the eucharist...all the way up to his Martyrdom. The Protestant Movement was not established on the basis of the meaning and status of the Eucharist....but Papal errors concerning it being witheld in both kinds from the people and other habits and doctrinal innovations and errors. It was others in southern France and Switzewrland who were militants who sought a complete separation from Church history, practices and established community establishment who separated from Protestantism to establish their own Reformed or Anabaptist movements. I have no issue with Lutherans or Anglicans who continue in the Historic Faith....I fellowship with the Local Confessional Lutherans here in McMinnville (St. John's). I am given and receive Holy communion there also...as they recognize Me and My family as fellow Evangelicals and Orthodox "Sola Scriptura, Soli Fide et Sola Gracia" Christians.
As for Reformed scholars of Greek descent and education....it is Swiss Reformers who speak through them....not historic exegitcs from the Church Fathers and Wycliff, Huss, Luther and Tyndale. The Bogomils and Cathari had their linguists too....and authorities.....nothing new.
Now Eastern, Old Catholic and Evangelical Orthodoxy rejects the Romanist notion of Transubstanciation. We hold it to be a Mystery and thus not explicible by human explanation....just like the Virgin conception, incarnaation and birth of Christ. Luther tried to give a simile concerning the Real presence in the Eucharist...He said it was similar to an iron rod hold in the furnace until white hot from the Fire. The Iron remains Iron but it has changed and retains the Fire's heat within it and glows...that is similar to the Divine Presence within the consecrated Bread and Wine. Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this for being a poor and theoretic notion....but as an Orthodox Old catholic I like it myself. You are what you partake of...the Body of Christ...ready to take up the Cross and follow after Him even to the pooring out of our own Blood. We are the Iron which has the Heat and Glow of his Presence in us...as Moses did when He came down from Sinai.
If we accept Angels, the Virgin Birth, demons, possession, the Charismatic gifts and indwelling of God's Holy Spirit as a mystery and a reality....then why reject the Eucharist as the Divinely established means of receiving Christ's real presence and dynamic grace in our daily walk as His Royal Priesthood and Visible Body of Christ to the world ? We are walking a real spiritual journey of redemption and transformation into the Image of God's Son...and the Eucharist is part and parcel of this divine work of regeneration inwardly and outwardly in our Lives here on earth. This is the proper discerning of the Body of Christ and the Holy Meal of His Body and Blood during the celebration of the Eucharistic Feast of Love. It is not only implicit in Paul's own teaching it is explitic in this very careful usages and phraseology in the Kone Greek. And this has been understood from his day all they way until now, in an unbroken transmission of the Sacred Tradition he and the Apostles passed on through their words and letters. Paul refers to this faithful transmition of the Tradition in His own words which I cite. the only other tradtion was developed outside of the Church among the gnostics. Their arguments and textual destortions are still used......check the history of the "symbolic or non sacramental" understanding of the Lord's Supper. reformed Churchianity and Anaba\tist beliefs are but resurrections of older views held by those outside the Faith.
Do I think those who take the Eucharist as merely a memorial ritual with no divine presence and mediation of that divine presence to partakers as heretics outside of Christ? No. But i do believe they lack much in their spiriutality and lives...but God redeems us dispite our frailties. But Like Luther I denounce their position in a hope to correct them....but God alone is the judge of His People...not I. I know and Love many Reformed Churchmen and Anabaptists, whom I received an Education. But I do not recognize or participate in their communion meals nor do I offer the Eucharist to them, for their own sakes.
In Christ,
Rev. Ken
-
darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
We accept those things as mysteries that are clearly and plainly taught but not understood. Those things which are susceptible of plain non-mysterious meanings, we aren't so quick to ascribe to mystery.
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
Priestly1,
You wrote:
The variety of conflicting opinions among competent Greek scholars testifies to the ability for a scholar to read his presuppositions right into the Greek grammar. Perhaps that is what I am doing. Perhaps it is what you are doing. All I can say about this is that, in the only statements made in this thread about the Greek grammar (i.e., in your opening post), I happened to be right, and you were wrong. Is it possible that commitment to a superstition may not only be read into the Greek, but may also cause some entirely to overlook or misrepresent the Greek? If you can do this, may not many others before you have done the same?
You wrote:
This sounds like an unworthy manner to me. Your saying "Status not Method is the subject," is not the truer for your having declared it. There is no evidence that Paul is addressing the state of the participants. I can only find a criticism of their behavior. What, may I ask, do you think Paul would identify as an "unworthy state," and where does he make reference or allusion to such in his epistles? Your post implies that what it takes to be "in a worthy state," means to be "in Christ." I have no problem with that, but since Paul never intimates that his readers are NOT in Christ (in fact, in this one epistle, he refers to his readers as being "in Christ" at least six times—1:2, 30; 3:1; 4:10, 15; 16:24), any unworthiness of their "state" would have to lie in some other particular.Paul is very clear in his Letter to Corinth's Christians.....The Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He held it to be a desecrating sacriledge to come before the LORD's Table in "an unworthy state." Reformed Cristianity and Anabaptists have changed this to in "an unworthy manner" or with "improper method." Status not Method is the subject. God's curse was upon anyone who came to the Sacred Meal without discerning the nature of the Body of Christ, and turned it into a drunken orgy and not a love Feast...it is a Holy Gift for a Holy People.
Superstition does not cease to be superstition after a certain number of people have signed-on to it (e.g., the secular belief in spontaneous generation) nor by virtue of its holding sway over the masses for a certain length of time (witchcraft is older than any existing religion today).the Church all the way to Wycliff, Huss, Luther and William Tyndale knew this to be the natural and a correct reading of Scripture.
The variety of conflicting opinions among competent Greek scholars testifies to the ability for a scholar to read his presuppositions right into the Greek grammar. Perhaps that is what I am doing. Perhaps it is what you are doing. All I can say about this is that, in the only statements made in this thread about the Greek grammar (i.e., in your opening post), I happened to be right, and you were wrong. Is it possible that commitment to a superstition may not only be read into the Greek, but may also cause some entirely to overlook or misrepresent the Greek? If you can do this, may not many others before you have done the same?
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
Well the gnostics also introduced icons and images
Last edited by Apollos on Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
I once believed this way also. Yes it is a rememberance and thanksgiving meal, but I changed my views. I won't use the scripture in John nor the 1 Corinthians 11. I changed my view because chpter 11 actually beings in chapter 10. In Chapter 10 were the Jews were feed spiritual food, the mana from heaven, which was very real.Jill wrote:The breaking of the bread and the wine, as I read it, is to be in rememberence of Him (Jesus Christ), to witness unto The Father that we are willing to take His name upon us, and keep His commandments, that we may have His Spirit always to remain with us. And the blessing on the bread and then the water is then concluded with "in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen."
(Like that...)
The bread and the wine is among the already repentant and baptized members of His body.
He goes on to 1Co 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
Koinonia is a very interesting word.
koinōnia
koy-nohn-ee'-ah
From G2844; partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution, fellowship.
Notice the (literally) participation. lets put that into what we read in the verse in place of communion. It should not change our understanding since what is inserted has the same meaning.
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the (literally) participation of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the (literally) participation of the body of Christ?
See the connection in the verse is the cup and the blood of Christ, or the bread and the Body of Christ. Paul brings the two together into one. The cup we bless is the literal participation of the blood of Christ. The bread we break is the literal participation of the body of Christ.
How do we go about to define what exactly is the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus. Don't know, the RC tried and failed. Luther tried. Ultimately it is a mystery, something we cannot define, is what it is, the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus.
Just for fun I would like to point out Justin Marytrs interesting view of the blood of Christ.
That the Scripture mentions the blood of the grape has been evidently designed, because Christ derives blood not from the seed of man, but from the power of God. For as God, and not man, has produced the blood of the vine, so also [the Scripture] has predicted that the blood of Christ would be not of the seed of man, but of the power of God. But this prophecy, sirs, which I repeated, proves that Christ is not man of men, begotten in the ordinary course of humanity.”
Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
Priestly1 wrote:
Mark 2:15-17 (New King James Version)
15. Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. 16. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17. When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
When we feel the buden of sin we ought to run to the table. He invites us not because we are worthy, but because He is gracious, forgiving, and reconciling. The table testifies to the grace of the gospel. It proclaims the death of Jesus as good news, and we can, through faith, find forgiveness and peace.
I am reminded of the words to the hymn "I Will Arise and Go To Jesus":
"All the fitness He requireth is to feel a need of Him".
The communion table is the Lord's Table. He is the host. He is present, as He promised "where two or three are gathered in my name". Who would He invite to His table? Could it be the self righteous, or the person conscious of their failings? The Pharisee or the tax collector, Luke 18:9-14? The people He sat down and ate with while here on earth?Paul is very clear in his Letter to Corinth's Christians.....The Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He held it to be a desecrating sacriledge to come before the LORD's Table in "an unworthy state." Reformed Cristianity and Anabaptists have changed this to in "an unworthy manner" or with "improper method." Status not Method is the subject. God's curse was upon anyone who came to the Sacred Meal without discerning the nature of the Body of Christ, and turned it into a drunken orgy and not a love Feast...it is a Holy Gift for a Holy People. Many such unworthy participants of Corinth were chastized by illness and death from the Lord for such unpreparedness and worldly views of the Church Meal and their own state before God. Thus Paul's remedy was to have all participants to recognize the true nature of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and their status before God prior to participating in and partaking of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ.
Mark 2:15-17 (New King James Version)
15. Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. 16. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17. When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
When we feel the buden of sin we ought to run to the table. He invites us not because we are worthy, but because He is gracious, forgiving, and reconciling. The table testifies to the grace of the gospel. It proclaims the death of Jesus as good news, and we can, through faith, find forgiveness and peace.
I am reminded of the words to the hymn "I Will Arise and Go To Jesus":
"All the fitness He requireth is to feel a need of Him".
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
It seems to me that the Lords supper is the last act of the OT sacrifice. Let me explain, after the slayin of the lamb (the lamb is the sacrifice) in the temple was always followed by the Priest eating the lamb, in doing so they were conscencrated, made Holy, cleaned (Lev 6 a permenant ordinance). In the NT, we give thanks, remember, etc. but like the OT Priest the NT Priesthood of believers also end worship by partaking of the sacrifice (Christ Jesus). In the Eucharist, the whole Church past, present, and future all come together through space and time is present at the offering of the sacrifice that is Christ Himself. In Christ Jesus offering, God the Father gives us, the Priesthood of Believers, the Body and Blood of Christ.Homer wrote:Priestly1 wrote:
The communion table is the Lord's Table. He is the host. He is present, as He promised "where two or three are gathered in my name". Who would He invite to His table? Could it be the self righteous, or the person conscious of their failings? The Pharisee or the tax collector, Luke 18:9-14? The people He sat down and ate with while here on earth?Paul is very clear in his Letter to Corinth's Christians.....The Holy Eucharist IS the Body and Blood of Christ. He held it to be a desecrating sacriledge to come before the LORD's Table in "an unworthy state." Reformed Cristianity and Anabaptists have changed this to in "an unworthy manner" or with "improper method." Status not Method is the subject. God's curse was upon anyone who came to the Sacred Meal without discerning the nature of the Body of Christ, and turned it into a drunken orgy and not a love Feast...it is a Holy Gift for a Holy People. Many such unworthy participants of Corinth were chastized by illness and death from the Lord for such unpreparedness and worldly views of the Church Meal and their own state before God. Thus Paul's remedy was to have all participants to recognize the true nature of the Church, the Holy Eucharist and their status before God prior to participating in and partaking of the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ.
Mark 2:15-17 (New King James Version)
15. Now it happened, as He was dining in Levi’s house, that many tax collectors and sinners also sat together with Jesus and His disciples; for there were many, and they followed Him. 16. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” 17. When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
When we feel the buden of sin we ought to run to the table. He invites us not because we are worthy, but because He is gracious, forgiving, and reconciling. The table testifies to the grace of the gospel. It proclaims the death of Jesus as good news, and we can, through faith, find forgiveness and peace.
I am reminded of the words to the hymn "I Will Arise and Go To Jesus":
"All the fitness He requireth is to feel a need of Him".
Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.
Re: The Lord's Eucharist Meal
Priestly,
I was quite disappointed about how much you wrote but how little you said. Steve addressed many specific points, but you mostly just repeated yourself, apparently ignoring that he had said anything at all. Steve again addressed some specific points, but your reply, though somewhat responsive, was largely vague.
I am writing this just to try to hold up a mirror of sorts, and to let you know that to people who don't share your Catholic presuppositions, you're hurting your own cause.
I would like to hear less cherished Tradition and more good reason.
I was quite disappointed about how much you wrote but how little you said. Steve addressed many specific points, but you mostly just repeated yourself, apparently ignoring that he had said anything at all. Steve again addressed some specific points, but your reply, though somewhat responsive, was largely vague.
I am writing this just to try to hold up a mirror of sorts, and to let you know that to people who don't share your Catholic presuppositions, you're hurting your own cause.
I would like to hear less cherished Tradition and more good reason.
- In the service of the Emperor of the Universe -