|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 17, 2009 8:13:03 GMT -7
Web, thanks for your questions...they help me exercise my faith... In the liturgy of the Eucharist (liturgy is a Greek rooted word meaning "the work of the people"), the Mass being said connects back over time to the last supper and the sacrifice of Christ. Now it's been a misunderstood belief that we "sacrifice Christ all over again", but that is not true. The Mass ties back to the original sacrifice that was made... catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htmwww.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/euchb1a.htmthecatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/the-eucharist/The third one is a discussion of the different beliefs of us Christian folk...but in doing so, he brings up some important points... In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Paul never uses the words "image" or "example"...he uses the words "body" and "blood" when speaking of the taking of the bread and wine at the Eucharist (as an aside the word eucharist is derived from the Greek for "thanksgiving"). If Christ was not truly present in the species of bread and wine, why would Paul say body and blood, instead of examples of, and symbols of? Now, does this mean that all of my Protestant friends are gonna burn in Hell? MOST ASSUREDLY NOT! As we can see by the study of scripture, living our lives in Christ and as Christians are not, and should not be, a "drive by" thing. There are many people who never partake of the eucharistic feast that God has a mansion for in heaven...simply because He recognizes Jesus in them...and there are many who line up to receive communion who are receiving it unworthily...but it is up to them to look in their hearts. That is why I am loathe to support priests and bishops who want to involve the Eucharist and Communion in political,and politician dealings. As Catholics, as Christians, we have the responsibility to look into our hearts...our ordained clergy have the responsibility to be merciful...though some have fallen into the human temptation of being judgemental.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 17, 2009 8:32:54 GMT -7
I'm just a novice here, but Badly, that Paul didn't say "examples of", "symbols of" doesn't preclude that it could be interpreted that way
or that it could have been transcribed that way
there are certainly other examples we can point to where metaphor, example and symbol are used
sorry for the interruption, please continue.....
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 17, 2009 9:08:04 GMT -7
Rosa, this is not an exclusive conversation at all. You're not interrupting anything. Badly, I need to read your links and I'll get back to answering your questions.
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 17, 2009 10:04:28 GMT -7
true rosa...but most of them, especially when Christ wanted us to understand that he was speaking metaphorically, or as web said, in parables, are identified as such. This is one of those things that, even in His time, caused an uproar. "Eat flesh, drink blood?" many asked in John 6. Many left because of this...yet, He gave us the way to do this, still very much Him, true presence, in the institution of the eucharist at the Last Supper. The words in and of themselves, are powerful...and the words of Paul in Corinthians are powerful as well...showing that in continuing to celebrate the original banquet, they considered it the body and blood.
This begs a question...can you offend bread and wine? Or can you only offend someone?
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 17, 2009 19:52:28 GMT -7
they considered it body and blood, and sacred but why would it offend if others cannot, because they are unable to-for whatever reason? in doing this, are they less "Christian"? most of them but not all....it would have been easier if the bible were much more consistent but even then, there are how many religious denominations in this world? Babel.........
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 18, 2009 1:05:31 GMT -7
Web, thanks for your questions...they help me exercise my faith... The same is true for me, Badly. In the liturgy of the Eucharist (liturgy is a Greek rooted word meaning "the work of the people"), the Mass being said connects back over time to the last supper and the sacrifice of Christ. Connects how? Are you saying that Mass (and all that goes with it) as conducted today is the same as the meetings of those early Christians? Because my understanding of the early church was that those meetings were conducted secretly in people’s homes. There was very little ritual. "For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." Matthew 18:20 Believe me, I get the importance of His sacrifice for us, I don’t mean to downplay that at all, but there's so much more to His story. That God Himself would sacrifice Himself for us is a beautiful miracle but so is the miracle is that He was resurrected, lives today and is coming back. Now it's been a misunderstood belief that we "sacrifice Christ all over again", but that is not true. The Mass ties back to the original sacrifice that was made... catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htmwww.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/euchb1a.htmthecatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/15/the-eucharist/The third one is a discussion of the different beliefs of us Christian folk...but in doing so, he brings up some important points... In 1 Corinthians 11:27-29, Paul never uses the words "image" or "example"...he uses the words "body" and "blood" when speaking of the taking of the bread and wine at the Eucharist (as an aside the word eucharist is derived from the Greek for "thanksgiving"). If Christ was not truly present in the species of bread and wine, why would Paul say body and blood, instead of examples of, and symbols of? I’m not disagreeing with you that Christ is present, but I’m saying He’s present in a literal spiritual sense, not the literal, physical sense. Keep in mind though, that to me, the spiritual is every bit as real as this physical world we now inhabit. Now, does this mean that all of my Protestant friends are gonna burn in Hell? MOST ASSUREDLY NOT! Goodness, I hope not. As we can see by the study of scripture, living our lives in Christ and as Christians are not, and should not be, a "drive by" thing. There are many people who never partake of the eucharistic feast that God has a mansion for in heaven...simply because He recognizes Jesus in them...and there are many who line up to receive communion who are receiving it unworthily...but it is up to them to look in their hearts. I agree, but isn’t there a danger that once a person is Catechized, they’ll believe they’re always “good to go” (so to speak, sorry, it’s late) when it comes to taking communion and might just skip that whole searching themselves thing? That is why I am loathe to support priests and bishops who want to involve the Eucharist and Communion in political,and politician dealings. As Catholics, as Christians, we have the responsibility to look into our hearts...our ordained clergy have the responsibility to be merciful...though some have fallen into the human temptation of being judgemental. Well, that failing is not something the Catholic Church has any kind of monopoly on. What is the "role" of the Bible in Catholicism (I know it's a broad question, that's intentional)?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Apr 18, 2009 5:07:47 GMT -7
Web I can't answer all your questions, particularly as a "fallen" Catholic, but I will give my thought on this one:
"Connects how? Are you saying that Mass (and all that goes with it) as conducted today is the same as the meetings of those early Christians? Because my understanding of the early church was that those meetings were conducted secretly in people’s homes. There was very little ritual. "
The Eucharist is a memorial of / reenactment of The Last Supper. The players of that last gathering before Christ's arrest and Crucificationn were Christ and his Apostles. In the modern Eucharistic Ceremony, Christ is present in the Host and the Congregation is a gathering of his disciples (followers), the Priest and Deacons are the modern Apostles.
It is not really a remembrance of the gatherings of early Christians (some of which in certain places and at different times) took place in secret.), but of that original event.
The organization of the entire Mass (IMHO) recounts the whole life of Christ. The procession is his entry into our world, the readings are a reminder of the Christ being foretold in the old testament, and the new testament provides his teachings while he was with us, The Gospel is his words to us, and the sermon is the explaining of his words in current context (think of the Letters of the Apostles spreading the word), the offerings represent how his life was an offering for us to God the Father, the Eucharist remembers his fulfillment of that promise through his death, and the recessional (a joyful song usually) represents his Resurrection. There is a continuity to the entire ritual.
Well thats my understanding anyway. Lest we forget what it means to be a Christian, the Catholic Church has a weekly ritual (the Mass) that forever recounts its beginnings and connects that to today. A continuity of faith is established.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 18, 2009 8:25:48 GMT -7
The organization of the entire Mass (IMHO) recounts the whole life of Christ. The procession is his entry into our world, the readings are a reminder of the Christ being foretold in the old testament, and the new testament provides his teachings while he was with us, The Gospel is his words to us, and the sermon is the explaining of his words in current context (think of the Letters of the Apostles spreading the word), the offerings represent how his life was an offering for us to God the Father, the Eucharist remembers his fulfillment of that promise through his death, and the recessional (a joyful song usually) represents his Resurrection. There is a continuity to the entire ritual. that was pretty Snil. You sound like Badly.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 18, 2009 8:29:16 GMT -7
about the: He was resurrected and He's coming back ("...to judge the living and the dead"... , so everybody look busy when He comes) I'm sorry...levity, levity. Don't get mad, Web. My point is: He's with us now-always. I think that, anyway-we can't see Him in the conventional sense, but no one can "prove" to me that He isn't and hasn't been "here" all along
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 18, 2009 8:42:10 GMT -7
the point about offending...was related to Paul's caution in Corinthians about taking the Eucharist "unworthily"...and anout it being an offense to CHrist's Body. You can't offend a symbol, you can't offend something that is representative. You can only offend a someone. That being the case, if it isn't Christ truly present, if it isn't Christ really there in the species of bread and wine, then how can we offend the body?
snil, "fallen away" my eye...lol. You have more understanding of the faith than many who attend Mass and look around to see what people are wearing. Mere attendance means little...you have to participate in the life of Christ in this present time to make any belief worth it. I see it in you, rosa, and web...
Web, I think you will find very few Catholics who presume to have a free ride to Heaven...if they do, they suffer from sinful pride...
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Apr 18, 2009 8:51:58 GMT -7
the point about offending...was related to Paul's caution in Corinthians about taking the Eucharist "unworthily"...and anout it being an offense to CHrist's Body. You can't offend a symbol, you can't offend something that is representative. You can only offend a someone. That being the case, if it isn't Christ truly present, if it isn't Christ really there in the species of bread and wine, then how can we offend the body?
you can't "offend" something that is representative, but you can behave in ways that are offensive toward it. I would rather not do that by accepting it in the first place, if it means the difference between putting on a show for the sake of others, and doing what is in the heart, which God knows all about in the first place
this isn't a place that I have much trouble with actually. I can understand a metaphysical, miraculous transformation taking place. Where I used to have trouble was in believing that a "corrupt" priest could be the vehicle for this transformation. I was challenged on this for a long time by a lot of people, and over time I've learned that God can use whoever He wants.
I've seen some pretty awesome things in my life, so I don't have that much trouble with it anymore. I can't say that about other areas in the religion, but at least I can say that.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 18, 2009 9:54:30 GMT -7
Rosa, Snil or Badly, perhaps I missed it but where is the use of the word "offend" coming from in relation to this discussion?
Snil, I also liked what you said very much.
Badly, you can't offend a symbol? I'm not sure I agree with that. Ever see a Maplethorpe exhibit or watched someone burn an American flag?
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 18, 2009 10:22:27 GMT -7
True on the exhibits, but here is the key point...the misuse of the symbols were meant to offend US, using the symbols to offend...the symbols in and of themselves did not take offense..we did because of their misuse...
My apologies...I transcribed the word offend in understanding how one can be "guilty"...
Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy man so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” (1. Cor. 11:27-29)
|
|
|
Post by badlygiven on Apr 18, 2009 11:28:44 GMT -7
As to the question of Scripture in Catholic teaching...
It is one of the central pillars of out faith...the other one being "tradition". To truly understand the way we look at that word, it's not meant as "we've been doing it this way for years", but rather, in looking at practice, we look first to Scripture, and then to the way the apostles did things, followed by the Church corporate.
Tradition does not trump scripture, rather, tradition is the "lenses" through which we look at scripture. One of my priests explained it to me like this...
If someone comes into your home, and picks up a photo album of your family, they can tell you about what they see and experience by looking at the pictures. But they haven't "expereienced" the people in the picture as you have, as your family has experienced you. In the same way, tradition is our experience as Christians, and is our way of understanding Scripture and God.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Apr 18, 2009 13:26:59 GMT -7
Really though, isn't the Bible more like a journal than a photo album? When I read it, I feel I get a pretty clear picture of things. Badly, the reason I ask is I went to Mass with some friends some months back, and the Priest (a verrrry nice and sincere guy, by the way) said something about how, while Catholics may not read the Bible (and made a little joke about dusting off that Bible on the coffee table), when it's read to "them" (Catholics) during Mass, it "plants seeds" (of faith? of understanding? I'm not sure). Shouldn't Bible study be more central than that? In other types of churches I've been to, the whole service, besides the praise and worship, is reading and studying Bible passages, what they mean and how they apply now. And yes, I know, Scripture can be subject to our own interpretations (hopefully with a little Devine guidance ), but isn't that the way it should be?
|
|