This one is going to be blunt because you are forcing me.
You may not give a flying rat's backside about any of this, but in the off chance that you do, you should consider familiarizing yourself with Dan Reehil. He had the worst imaginable experience with Roman Catholicism when he was a boy. I might have missed it somewhere, where he actually said it himself, but my impression, is that the only reason he returned to the Church is because of his FAITH. It wasn't, iow, his forgiveness.
No, I never believed I was a cannibal. Today you'll be happy to learn it is denied me 0.o The Catholics started with a fantasy idea of what Christ was doing at the last supper. I'm going to hit your church hard in a minute and you will not recover.
No harder than Dan Reehil could have hit her.
Very simple: You are Catholic simply because you want to be, not because it is the best relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Well that's just untrue and I don't understand how you substantiate it.
And you shouldn't either and it is going to hurt in a minute.
Again Dan Reehil's got enough against the Roman Catholic Church as anybody could possibly have; he is a top tier victim, 100%. 'Every right to stay away from and trash talk the Church forever.
No. You are appealing to tradition, 'this is the way we always did it' and miss the real meaning of communion in favor of 'the beauty of not understanding.'
That's not true.
No I am not. As I said, I have to hold no punches in a moment. Don't leave Christianity for it but do take the cue.
I'm familiar with Dan Reehil.
Of course it was enough. Here it is:
Matthew 7:15-20 You cannot have 'real presence' nor have life in a bad tree. It's apples are all wormy and their is no possible way a child molester homosexual can minister real presence to you because it is bad fruit that invades the whole church. You'll next say 'not my Father' yet he remained and you remained when it all came out and how very very many swept it all under the rug and used church tithes to do so. You cannot have real presence with that. If I was still Catholic today, I'd have been gone immediately and would never dream of telling another of real presence when my priests were the devils delivering it. During Nazi Germany's reign,
many in the Catholic Church supported. The ones that didn't were vocal and there was a split.
Ex Opere Operato, and Dan Reehil.
Well again, the Eucharist doesn't "[remove] you from intimacy", nor does the Eucharist "[interrupt] what is Christ's alone" since the confected Eucharist IS Christ, and so ofc the confected Eucharist is Christ's. So again, you're only restating yet another way, that you don't, and you never did, believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Which we all already know.
No I do not! You cannot have a holy encounter with God delivered by a devil. "By their fruit you will know them" is your wake up call! I would never stay in a church where the pastor abused women or children. I'd double-down if the whole denomination tried to cover it up with the body's tithes. It is wholly inappropriate to use those funds meant for caring for those little ones, to go toward the ones who did it. A little leaven spoils the WHOLE dough. You've listened to spins instead of your Christ. It means you love one and not the other, Matthew 6:24. It was literally this verse that forced the issue with me.
Dan Reehil, and Ex Opere Operato.
They did not, but they did misunderstand a lot of instructions, so much so that they began to offer their children into the hands of Molech.
I mean obv we can't really judge a philosophy or organization or society based on what its criminals do. If the philosophy, organization or society approves of the crime, that'd be completely different.
When your priests are bad, it is time to return to the Lord and leave the wake behind you. There are still homosexual priests in the RC (and molesters btw).
And Dan Reehil.
Of course He is, just as He indwells any who call on His name and "where two or more are gathered." The RC is special pleading, with very very bad fruit, and you've bought in. I don't see how you could as a protestant first, the fruit was already there for all to see.
Because I believe the Bible. Plain and simple. That's the short answer.
Yes you did! You did in this very post! You said the Pope over-rid what you had to say!
What? If the Pope overrides me in anything dogmatic, that's just the same as the Bible overriding me. It just means there's an infallibility operating. And I am not infallible.
I didn't say pray to your pastor. You pray to Mary, Peter, James, John. None of these you know personally. It is like writing in to the TV evangelist and asking him to pray for you. You don't know him either. That is incredibly less than real presence.
You're conflating two completely different things here. Even if an anonymous person, but a righteous man, prays for you, interceding for you, is that man's prayer nonetheless powerful? Wouldn't Scripture say Yes?
And the Real Presence applies to sacraments only, not to asking the Saints in Heaven to pray for us.
Yes. It is. Did you read Hebrews yet? Make sure to put "Catholic Church" in place of "Hebrews" and see how much sticks to the wall. You are that guy.
I love Hebrews. And it says nothing about the Eucharist. How is it "Judaized" to believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? That's the question I'm asking you, because you go to lengths to accuse us of being "Judaized" in the context of the Eucharist.
Not hung up on this particularly. I have the books in one of my bibles.
Good.
Yes! We pass out yearly bible reading plans and encourage everyone 'to know the Lord from the least to the greatest.'
So? There's a three year cycle in Roman Catholicism, such that if you were wealthy enough to attend all holiday Masses plus all daily, supererogatory Masses, you'd have near 90% of the New Testament read to you, plus a fair chunk of the Old Testament too, and you'd hear near every word of all four Gospels. Plus we're all encouraged officially and formally to read the Bible as a devotion on our own anyway.
Tithes? You'll never find the word in any N.T. letters.
I haven't heard the word uttered at Mass like ever. Is it just the word? Because I heard the word tithe way more in Evangelical churches than at Mass. Surely you can't mean it's "Judaized" to receive supererogatory offerings from parishioners, when even Paul mentions the practice in his epistles?
An inbetween you and God? You have to go to confessional (Hebrews warns against this, only one (forget high for a moment) Priest: the Lord Jesus Christ.
You only have to go if you're found guilty of mortal sin in your own examination of conscience. But if you're habitually committing grave sin (even when you're found not-guilty of MORTAL sin), it's a good idea to visit the confessional because you're probably under diabolic attack and need deliverance, and Confession (Real Presence of Christ also in Confession) is exorcistic. (The Eucharist is not exorcistic. Baptism is. I think Holy Orders is. I'm quite unsure of others.)
I don't need a Pope to tell me right from wrong, moreover, as Hebrews says, he has failings and so we must go directly to God.
And by "go directly to God", you mean basically interpret the Bible for yourself?
Forget 'high' in that sentence and you'll have it right: He is our Only. Btw, gentiles don't have priests, we have a Savior (another way Catholics fell back to Judaistic ideas).
Gentiles were as familiar with priests as Jews were. Everybody had priests, everybody was offering sacrifices to deity, in temples, on altars; and priests were the ones doing the deeds.
Yes we do, and below I'm going to leave the words you made bold, and I'm going to emphasize some of the words you did NOT make bold, for contrast.
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supping, saying, "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me."
1Co 11:26 For "as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you show" the Lord's death until He shall come.
1Co 11:27 So that whoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, he will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
Clearly the idea that we actually eat Jesus in Communion was not made up from whole cloth by the Roman Catholic Church. You might find it to have low initial plausibility that we should take the Lord's words here "wooden literally", but that's quite different from acting like the idea comes from out of nowhere. It comes right from the Bible!
Realize they didn't just come up to the front of the pulpit back then. They came to a house and fellowshipped and 'broke bread together' very differently than churches do today. Churches today have 'mystified' what was supposed to be straightforward and messed it all up and made it into a ritual ceremony.
Do you have any source or citation for this? I've read a lot of the especially very early patristics. It all sounds Roman Catholic to me, and eerily so, coming out of this Evangelical Protestant fog, rewriting history to portray the One Church of antiquity as merely the first of many future Protestant denominations. That's completely made up, historical fiction. The earliest Church met in houses, yes, agreed, one of them was actually Peter's house in Capernaum. But also there were ministerial priests which are called variously elders, bishops, and overseers in the New Testament—Timothy and Titus were even Gentile bishops. So while Mass was celebrated in homes, it was also presided over by ministerial priests. It wasn't just a Quaker meeting or an Evangelical Bible study Lon.
Of course I don't! You should REALLY question why you do! You'll find it nowhere in scripture which means, necessarily, it is unique to the Catholic Churches. Ask yourself why.
It isn't even true. Here are the branches that I am personally aware of who believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, besides Roman Catholicism.
Eastern Orthodox Churches
Coptic Church
Assyrian Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
(There might be other ancient branches, and I might have misnamed one or two of these as well, but there are definitely at least four distinct branches from antiquity.)
Lutherans
Anglicans
Methodists
Numerically, far more than half the World's Christians believe in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Then ask yourself if you are duped by 'authority/tradition.'
I am not. Christ says His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. You? There is no yoke and there is no burden. You should really question why the difference. (If that's the game we're playing.)
I do not doubt there are Christians in the Catholic Church. I doubt any of you have a deep relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ on a daily basis.
Well that's really uncharitable. (And here I am KNOWING that none of you CAN EVEN have as deep a relationship as Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox, etc. can have with Him, as we receive Him in the validly confected Eucharist.
)
Not as you are applying it. They did go to separate churches, so much so Paul opposed Peter to his face. That should inform your theology.
It does. But also every single Apostle except James (who was put to death in Palestine) was put to death outside Palestine, and that should inform YOUR theology. Every single one of them.
There are multiple ancient branches of Christian tradition. One of the traditions from antiquity must be the O.G. You just offhandedly presupposed it's Eastern Orthodoxy, and I responded.
Exactly. Look, communion in the early church was a potlatch. When they broke the bread it was 'in remembrance' of the last supper.
No. It was in remembrance of Jesus, and of His death. Not a remembrance of the Last Supper.
I don't know of any church that does it that way any more. We've all ceremonialized it into less meaningful and mystified it all at the same time.
You all Evangelicals—yes. The ancient Church and the ancient branches of the Church—no.
What? You're saying Paul drawing a parallel between Gentiles offering sacrifices to the diabolic on altars, and the Church offering the sacrifice of the Eucharist on altars, is absurd? I'm not sure how to take that comment.
I disagree. You can't do it yourself, for instance, you have to go up to the priest. You just don't realize how much of your entire service is wrought placing the veil back between you and the Lord Jesus Christ.
The only veil I care about is the one between the eternal (Heaven) and the temporal (Earth). It is pierced during the Eucharist, we enter into the Holy of Holies, meaning, into the Real Presence of the crucifixion—iow His death.
Interesting. I've seen the Ten Commandments, for instance on a few Catholic walls. Have you overstepped yourself in trying to defend?
I doubt it. Didn't Paul even teach the Ten Commandments in his epistles? Yes he did.
You have a mouse in your pocket?
We who are reading your content on TOL.
Different 'we'. We Roman Catholics simpliciter in this instance.
I know you 'believe it'...
And I know you don't, because you've told me in so many different restatements that you don't.
You realize you appealed to 'mystery' in this very post, no?
Sure, the mystery of HOW the Eucharist is confected, and not THAT the Eucharist is confected, nor how to regard the Eucharist from the words of consecration to the tabernacle being locked and the residue being consumed.
I've provided plenty of room here for you to rethink even the possibility.
I didn't believe in the Real Presence for the whole first half of my life, even more than that. I've LIVED 'rethinking' it.
You'll find 'real presence' nowhere in scripture, nowhere even intimated.
That's just bald assertion, and bluster.
A simple get-together to remember and celebrate the Lord Jesus Christ and His work became this complex traditionalized 'holy of holies.' Yes you aren't supposed to eat in an unworthy manner. No, it doesn't mean anything other than 'a remembrance and encouragement for one another in Him. They met in homes, not cathedrals.
And yet the words of consecration are quoted in four different places in the New Testament, and you here ignore them, as if they aren't at the heart of this dispute and controversy. Proof that Christ uttered, "[Bread] is My body" *exists*.
It is a nicety, a ceremony.
The Eucharist is the Holy of Holies; no mere nicety, no mere ceremony.
Where is the throne now? Can we see it, detect it with science? Or is it only visible with the eyes of faith?
No. You don't know. If you understood Protestantism you'd never be 'able' to be a Catholic. That you went that direction? Especially in light of bad fruit? I've problems with you.
No true Scotsman fallacy. I was a real Evangelical Protestant for decades, reared one. Bible thumper. In fact it was my extreme faith in God's Word that cleared away the fog which is what you call "bad fruit". The bad fruit is a diabolic red herring.
This very thread:
You have a go-between.
In the context of me saying I am not appealing to my own authority as a Roman Catholic, in contrast to yourself, who are implying that you ARE an authority on Roman Catholicism, because you used to be one (nominally). That doesn't mean "go-between". That's in fact a extremely odd accusation to make of me, given this context.
The sad thing is that you believe this. You can't do it in your home like I can 0.o
You "can't do it in your home" either, because you're not a ministerial priest in the order of Melchizedek following the rubrics.
(I tried it your way for a while, fwiw. I still converted.:
https://theologyonline.com/threads/flesh-and-blood.30235/
All ritual, but giving cheerfully to an abuse cover-up? If the fruit is bad, the whole tree is bad.
Dan Reehil.
Glad we can agree!
www.biblegateway.com
