Holy Meal Vs. Holy Meal

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Deb' post='1511902' date='Apr 27 2008, 05:38 PM']Of course you don't use the word saint as anyone else in the entire universe does. Kind of hard to have a debate unless we kind of start with the same groundrules, like common meaning of words. I doubt if Christ would refer to everyone on these boards as a saint. I know I am not one.

See, you skipped over the entire passage from those writings because you say that is what the Catechism says. That is not from the catechism. It is not from the bible. It is not from the Catholic Church. This is a historical document from a man who lived at that time before there was even a bible. He ended up being a Saint. He discussed the Gospels, the good news that was proclaimed by the very men who were the disciples and apostles of Christ, that he sent out to bring all to him.

So, you don't want to believe or trust anything that hints of Catholic church. Well, there are intact documents out there, one by a man who was a spy for Rome. He spied on the "gatherings" of these christians and described exactly what is also written above by St. Justin. He was a pagan. He had no idea even what they were doing but, he described it to a T, including the Eucharistic celebration. This was around the year 70 a.d.

On your other question regarding Priests who sin and the Eucharist. If the priest has the intent and completes the required things for transubstantiation, Jesus Christ will make it his body and blood. He would not withhold such a life saving grace from his children because the Priest has fallen to sin. Priests are human. Priests sin and repent all the time, just like the saints did.

Now, do you want to debate or just evade the information that gets put out to you? Can you dispute that Christ gave his teachings to his apostles and disciples to create his church in the manner in which it is celebrated today by Catholics? If you can't. Debate over. Stop weaseling around without actually responding with some type of fact rather than, oh, I don't believe that. You can't show why you believe anything.[/quote]

Funny, I learned the word saint from a Pentecostal church that I use to belong too. Everybody considered everybody saints in that religion, because were all believed we were God's children.

Since Pentecostalism reps about 100 million people, I guess you are wrong.

Some things in different religions are right, and one of those right things is anybody who serves God is a saint. You don't have to perform notable miracles. Everybody who believes is a saint!

[Adrestia]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1511932' date='Apr 27 2008, 06:10 PM']Funny, I learned the word saint from a Pentecostal church that I use to belong too. Everybody considered everybody saints in that religion, because were all believed we were God's children.

Since Pentecostalism reps about 100 million people, I guess you are wrong.

Some things in different religions are right, and one of those right things is anybody who serves God is a saint. You don't have to perform notable miracles. Everybody who believes is a saint![/quote]
Why are you wasting time quibbling over semantics? Do you want answers to your questions or do you want to pick fights? FYI, right now it looks like you just want to pick fights.

[dairygirl4u2c]

-John 6:50-70 ish

-John 6 and "do this in remembrance of me" from each of the other gospels are separate in the bible. but in the early church, these passages are put together as if it's a natural thing. this doesn't mean the literal is true, but it does help enforce it.

--1 Corinthians 10: this one alludes to partaking in blood etc. literally would mean literal blood. one could construe the langauge to mean he was talking against all that,,,, ie "i'm speaking to sensible men" "not of demons" etc and figurative, but it's hard to say.

-1corinthisans 11:18 he does mention body and blood, but it could it figurative, hard to say. he does allude to how people are sick and dying for eating of the bread unworthily.... which makes the literal translation more sense bc it'd be more sacred, but not necessarily. the catholic church does teach that when you do something mortally wrong like kill someone,,,, you shouldn't be participating until you've gotten your act together.

Acts 2:42 would seem to suggest more of a "unity" meal that Jesus commanded us to do when he said to "do this in remembrance of me" but this is the

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1511920' date='Apr 27 2008, 05:56 PM']yeah... I anticipated this would be an issue... like explaining calculus to algebra students.

JIMSH: If you actually want to understand what the Church teaches it would probably be a good idea to start with the basics.[/quote]
Good idea.

I've got it under control though.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1511949' date='Apr 27 2008, 06:37 PM']-John 6:50-70 ish

-John 6 and "do this in remembrance of me" from each of the other gospels are separate in the bible. but in the early church, these passages are put together as if it's a natural thing. this doesn't mean the literal is true, but it does help enforce it.

--1 Corinthians 10: this one alludes to partaking in blood etc. literally would mean literal blood. one could construe the langauge to mean he was talking against all that,,,, ie "i'm speaking to sensible men" "not of demons" etc and figurative, but it's hard to say.

-1corinthisans 11:18 he does mention body and blood, but it could it figurative, hard to say. he does allude to how people are sick and dying for eating of the bread unworthily.... which makes the literal translation more sense bc it'd be more sacred, but not necessarily. the catholic church does teach that when you do something mortally wrong like kill someone,,,, you shouldn't be participating until you've gotten your act together.

Acts 2:42 would seem to suggest more of a "unity" meal that Jesus commanded us to do when he said to "do this in remembrance of me" but this is the[/quote]

The way I think of it is that it was a feast of bread and wine, like the pass over. The Bread is definitely unleavened, but is was a real meal.

That way, there is true fellowship between the believers.

Now, at that time, there was a true movement of God in the believers. The ones who were trying to infiltrate at the time were meeting God's justice. Those who were plotting against God's people were being destroyed by God himself for taking holy communion.

Now, if that was the case, why didn't pedophile priests start to die when there were taking the Eucrist? Why didn't these infiltrators not get what God justice.

Whens the last time the Pope say, you have sinned against the holy spirit, and someone dies and gives up the Ghost, proving they were infiltrators in the faith?

Why has God's power left the CC if it is the true church?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1511952' date='Apr 27 2008, 06:39 PM']Good idea.

I've got it under control though.[/quote]Exactly what have you got under control?

[Deb]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1511932' date='Apr 27 2008, 07:10 PM']Funny, I learned the word saint from a Pentecostal church that I use to belong too. Everybody considered everybody saints in that religion, because were all believed we were God's children.

Since Pentecostalism reps about 100 million people, I guess you are wrong.

Some things in different religions are right, and one of those right things is anybody who serves God is a saint. You don't have to perform notable miracles. Everybody who believes is a saint![/quote]

I am not surprised you couldn't respond. You pick out one little thing and ignored the entire remainder of the discussion. Toss out the definition of Saint. Now, respond to my last two posts. Address each item I discussed. That is what a debate is.

For example, in your brief comment above, you stated that Pentecostalism represents about 100 million people. WRONG. It is more like 2.5 million, WORLDWIDE. There are 177 separate denominations of Pentecostalism. Each one created by whomever decided they didn't like someone or some rule or some interpretation of the last group they were in. Pentecostalism has been around about 100 years and is really based, not on the bible or the word of God even.
So, which denomination did you get your info from? Was it the ones that refuse to baptize anyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (ya know, like Christ demanded?) or the ones who do not believe you are really baptized unless you can speak in tongues? Talk about Satan wanting to divide people. He did alright.
Now, compare that to Catholicism, 1.2 billion (minimum) active and 2000 years of history based on the directions of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Hmmmm. I am just glad I am still with the church Satan is set on destroying and never will. Christ said his church would survive the gates of Hades. It has and it will.


Everybody who believes is a Saint? So anyone I would know who believes in Jesus Christ but, engages in fornication, homosexual activities in airport restrooms, adultery, lying etc is a Saint. That isn't even make sense much less something one could debate. All those pro-choice religious people out there who BELIEVE in JESUS are saints? I suppose you think that anyone who believes is also automatically saved and going to heaven. That is another funny one.

C'mon lightweight. Give me something interesting to debate or at least something with some degree of difficulty. Give me something sound and intelligient in response to my statements. You can't. You have nothing. Your bag is empty. Cry uncle now.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1511960' date='Apr 27 2008, 07:01 PM']Exactly what have you got under control?[/quote]
Hopefully, someone to go through the Catchism with me.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Deb' post='1512075' date='Apr 27 2008, 08:07 PM']I am not surprised you couldn't respond. You pick out one little thing and ignored the entire remainder of the discussion. Toss out the definition of Saint. Now, respond to my last two posts. Address each item I discussed. That is what a debate is.

For example, in your brief comment above, you stated that Pentecostalism represents about 100 million people. WRONG. It is more like 2.5 million, WORLDWIDE. There are 177 separate denominations of Pentecostalism. Each one created by whomever decided they didn't like someone or some rule or some interpretation of the last group they were in. Pentecostalism has been around about 100 years and is really based, not on the bible or the word of God even.
So, which denomination did you get your info from? Was it the ones that refuse to baptize anyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? (ya know, like Christ demanded?) or the ones who do not believe you are really baptized unless you can speak in tongues? Talk about Satan wanting to divide people. He did alright.
Now, compare that to Catholicism, 1.2 billion (minimum) active and 2000 years of history based on the directions of Christ through the Holy Spirit? Hmmmm. I am just glad I am still with the church Satan is set on destroying and never will. Christ said his church would survive the gates of Hades. It has and it will.
Everybody who believes is a Saint? So anyone I would know who believes in Jesus Christ but, engages in fornication, homosexual activities in airport restrooms, adultery, lying etc is a Saint. That isn't even make sense much less something one could debate. All those pro-choice religious people out there who BELIEVE in JESUS are saints? I suppose you think that anyone who believes is also automatically saved and going to heaven. That is another funny one.

C'mon lightweight. Give me something interesting to debate or at least something with some degree of difficulty. Give me something sound and intelligient in response to my statements. You can't. You have nothing. Your bag is empty. Cry uncle now.[/quote]

This thread is about Eucrist.

I will ask you to stay on topic, and not try a side diversion again.

[Deb]

Don't bother. I don't think you could understand it.

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Deb' post='1512082' date='Apr 27 2008, 08:10 PM']Don't bother. I don't think you could understand it.[/quote]

Wow, that sounds pretty arrogant. . .

Are you a Christian.

What's Jesus going to say about you?

When I said someone was going to help me with the teachings you hold dear, you insulted me.

You do know where that is from, right?

Deb, if I were you, I would be repenting right now for that evil remark, because that is not Christ like. You are pretty evil in my eyes, because of statements like that.

[Deb]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1512081' date='Apr 27 2008, 09:10 PM']This thread is about Eucrist.

I will ask you to stay on topic, and not try a side diversion again.[/quote]


I think I am truly in the twilight zone. Seems to me you diverted the original debate I put out on the Eucharist with your saint comment.
I am starting to feel like I am on an acid trip and someone is purposely messing with my head. That was never allowed back in the day.
I don't know whether to burst out laughing or just bang my head against the wall. or both.

[Deb]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1512087' date='Apr 27 2008, 09:14 PM']Wow, that sounds pretty arrogant. . .

Are you a Christian.

What's Jesus going to say about you?

When I said someone was going to help me with the teachings you hold dear, you insulted me.

You do know where that is from, right?

Deb, if I were you, I would be repenting right now for that evil remark, because that is not Christ like. You are pretty evil in my eyes, because of statements like that.[/quote]

Maybe, I am not really Deb. Maybe I am true, pure evil. Maybe, I can see you right now and know exactly where you are. Maybe I am going to respond with really bizarre things just to test you. Muuuaahahhahahhaahahhhhahahahhh

Talk about arrogant? Deb, repent. Deb you are evil. Deb, what would Jesus say? Eat the platitudes and debate the Eucharist. These side diversions are getting tedious and boring.

Well, not boring. Kind of funny actually.

Is anyone going to stop me before the thread gets shut down?

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='Deb' post='1512096' date='Apr 27 2008, 08:31 PM']Maybe, I am not really Deb. Maybe I am true, pure evil. Maybe, I can see you right now and know exactly where you are. Maybe I am going to respond with really bizarre things just to test you. Muuuaahahhahahhaahahhhhahahahhh

Talk about arrogant? Deb, repent. Deb you are evil. Deb, what would Jesus say? Eat the platitudes and debate the Eucharist. These side diversions are getting tedious and boring.

Well, not boring. Kind of funny actually.

Is anyone going to stop me before the thread gets shut down?[/quote]

I think you need to read the rules again.

Post like this again, and I will report you.

1. The Rule of Charity: “Charity is primary.”
This has to be the place to start whenever we disagree with one another: with love. St. Paul said: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1). No matter how wise my insights or astute my plans, they count for nothing if I do not offer them with love.

Now, that charity is the first and fundamental requirement for all authentic Christian speech does not mean that such speaking can only be weak, but it does mean that whatever is said ought always to be offered respectfully and for the genuine service of others, especially my hearers. In fact, all of St. Paul’s sage advice in the “Hymn to Charity” in 1 Cor. 13 spells out eloquently this “Rule.”

[Laudate_Dominum]

Dang.. This thread is getting very heated and all that.

I hope this thread doesn't get closed for going off the deep end, it is otherwise a cool discussion.