The Holy eucharist (Jesus, ritual, rejecting, Creator, Earth)

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Baerly

One thing yall must undersand is when the so called holy traditon contradicts the plain new testament will of God we (the church of CHRIST) will side with the New Testament every time instead of your holy traditons. The reason is because your holy traditions are contrary to the New Testament teachings of God (1Tim.1:3) (Gal.1:6-9).

The reason you do not agree with what the article teaches is because it is totally base upon the word of God (the bible) and not any traditions at all outside of the bible.

The bible says (it) is going to be what judges us on judgment day (John 12:48). I will stick with the word of God (the bible). in love Baerly

"Your" Holy Tradition. Very telling. We who have sought the unity of all Christians are summarily dismissed by those who would cause division. Holy Tradition is neither "mine" nor "yours," nor anyone else's. Holy Tradition belongs to Christ through the Church. Just because your congregation does not choose to embrace much of the Tradition does not mean that the Tradition does not exist, or is not important to the Body of Christ. Neither does your rejection in any way diminish the place of Holy Tradition in Christian expression. Holy Tradition is contrary to the NT only in terms of how the NT is interpreted. Once again, you have succeeded in mistaking your interpretations as the direct message of God.

The reason I don't agree with the article is because it approaches the sacraments from a narrow, completely Protestant interpretation of scripture, one which I do not happen to share.

You do not seem to agree that the Holy Tradition is as much the "word of God" as is scripture. Which is a classic Protestant stance. Therein lies the problem.

[sojourner]

The Augustinian cleric, Hugo of St. Victor (1096-1141) characterized the “sacraments” as “outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace...”

This paved the way for the false notion that these rites, in and of themselves, bestowed “grace”—quite apart of from a faith-motivated, personal submission to the will of God (as in the case of infant baptism).

Here the article contradicts itself. If baptism is an outward sign of grace already present, how can it be seen to "bestow grace, inand of itself" in the cadidate??? Baptism is part and parcel of a journey we take toward God. Obviously, the writer has a skewed notion of how others view baptism.

Baptism is not a magical rite (administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon the candidate’s head) that bestows the grace of pardon (or the removal of “original sin”), as alleged in Roman theology

The Roman Catholic Church does not view baptism as a "magical rite." RC's administer baptism under both forms -- sprinkling and immersion. The grace does not come from the rite itself, nor does it come from the water itself, but from the HS. Again, a gross misunderstanding of Catholic thought.

During the Eucharist ceremony, Christ is “sacrificed” again for sin (hence, the “sacrifice of the mass,” and, according to the dictum handed down by the Council of Trent, this sacrifice is “identical” with type of sacrifice that Jesus suffered on the cross. These ideas are contradictory to the plain teaching of the New Testament

Christ is not "'sacrificed' again" in the Holy Eucharist. Rather, the one sacrifice of Christ is brought forward to the present time in anamnesis -- a concept stubbornly misunderstood by so many Protestants. The sacrifice is "identical," not to the type of sacrifice that Jesus suffered, but identical with the sacrifice that Jesus suffered. The ideas are not contradictory to NT teaching, because the concept of anamnesis is clearly present in the NT.

The article bases its arguments on unproper assumptions and then condemns the Roman Church with the erroneous conclusions. Additionally, the article fails to take into consideration the Anglican and Orthodox teachings about the sacraments, which are similar to, but also different from, RC teaching. For example, Orthodox treat baptism as a sacrament (although they use Greek and not Latin to describe it), yet the Orthodox do not usually sprinkle -- they immerse. Anglicans treat the Eucharist as a sacrament, but yet they do not believe in transubstantiation.

This article is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine Tradition that has been held by the Church since her early days.

[writer]

21 Holy Tradition is neither "mine" nor "yours," nor anyone else's. Holy Tradition belongs to Christ through the Church.
What tradition? At least w/ the Bible one can specify actual statements, chapter and verse

Holy Tradition is contrary to the NT only in terms of how the NT is interpreted.
To the contrary: the NT's plain-spoken and straightforward

[sojourner]

What tradition? At least w/ the Bible one can specify actual statements, chapter and verse

The Bible is part of the Tradition. Following the Bible is, in, part, following the Tradition. But, there is also an extra-Biblical aspect of the Tradition, which is just as authentic as the Bible. This aspect handles the unwritten lore, culture, beliefs, practices, etc. of the Church. It's this unwritten part of the Tradition that you reject. But you have to understand that the majority of the Church does not reject it. The majority of the Church places as much emphasis on the unwritten Tradition as they do on the written.

For over a thousand years, we didn't have the printing technology that made writing easy and widely available. Nor was humanity widely literate. That's why we find so many historical beliefs and practices that are no written in the Bible. An "oral" Tradition developed out of an "oral" society.

To the contrary: the NT's plain-spoken and straightforward

No, it isn't.

[writer]

No, it isn't.
To the contrary: 'tis. And the GodMan even spoke in very simple, small, plain, and earthy words and parables. Of course to comprehend His words requires Him. In faith

there is also an extra-Biblical aspect of the Tradition, which is just as authentic as the Bible.
Mebbe jus not as specific. Any tradition's value's easy enough to measure by comparin it w/ the Bible, the apostles' (and prophets', and Lord's) teachin

This aspect handles the unwritten lore, culture, beliefs, practices, etc. of the Church.
It's this unwritten part of the Tradition that you reject.
2 the contrary: i wait 2 hear any specific thin b4 i accept or reject it

But you have to understand that the majority of the Church does not reject it.
The church is not a "Tradition" nor system nor hierarchy nor religion. She's the Body o' her Lord, His members (cf 1 Cor 6:17; etc)

An "oral" Tradition developed out of an "oral" society.
I'm not sure what that means, since writin wuzn't developed yesterday; nor did God not have Scriptures until His apostles o' His church wrote 'em.
As what the written record o' what Jesus said in John 5:39 reads:
"The Scriptures [Writings]...testify concerning Me."
And as His chief apostle wrote as Scripture, concerning Writings, at the end of his writin to the church in Rome:
"My good news, that's the proclamation o' Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery...through the prophetic writings, 'cordin to the command o' the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for obedience o' faith."
Thanks

[sojourner]

And the GodMan even spoke in very simple, small, plain, and earthy words and parables.

Therein lies the misunderstanding. Our culture does not either speak or learn in parable. Parable is a device of a largely illeiterate and oral culture. Very often, we seek to understand the parables of Jesus from our own standpoint, instead of the standpoint of those to whom Jesus would have been speaking. That sort of understanding would only obfuscate the message. What would have been "plain language" for the illiterate and largely pastoral audience of Jesus, becomes somewhat convoluted and not-so-plain when we encounter it.

Additionally, in Luke 10, Jesus says that his message is deliberately confusing, being kept from the understanding of the privileged. How do you reconcile that statement with your own?

The church is not a "Tradition" nor system nor hierarchy nor religion. She's the Body o' her Lord, His members (cf 1 Cor 6:17; etc)

But the Church has Tradition -- the Church's vehicle of acting in the world and of being understood is the Tradition. Most of "His members" subscribe to the Tradition, as set forth by the apostles and continued by the bishops.

I'm not sure what that means, since writin wuzn't developed yesterday; nor did God not have Scriptures until His apostles o' His church wrote 'em.
As what the written record o' what Jesus said in John 5:39 reads:
"The Scriptures [Writings]...testify concerning Me."
And as His chief apostle wrote as Scripture, concerning Writings, at the end of his writin to the church in Rome:
"My good news, that's the proclamation o' Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery...through the prophetic writings, 'cordin to the command o' the eternal God,'s been made known to all the Gentiles for obedience o' faith."

What I mean is that the written word was not widely available for at least a thousand years. Most Christians were illiterate. They communicated and carried on business by word-of-mouth, not by the printed word. Therefore, the Bible would have been less important to the average "pre-print Christian" than the stories, the "rules," the faith as acted out in worship. Notice that it was not until Martin Luther came along, and the Bible was widely available to the average Christian, and the world became more literate, that the idea of sola scriptura was developed.

The only belief and doctrine the Church had to go on were the traditions and stories of the Table, as they were carried on and passed down by those who could read -- who were the clergy.

[writer]

Our culture does not either speak or learn in parable.
Au contraire, jus like Aesop's can, i do. Az may anyone who reads the NT

Parable is a device of a largely illeiterate and oral culture.
That mus be why Jesus' parables're written down

Very often, we seek to understand the parables of Jesus from our own standpoint, instead of the standpoint of those to whom Jesus would have been speaking.
Jesus, being the timeless, resurrected, really-present enfleshment of the Creator, I Am,'s speakin 2 u, 'n me, in 2006, in His Word among other places

"plain language" for the illiterate and largely pastoral audience of Jesus, becomes somewhat convoluted and not-so-plain when we encounter it.
Since i dispute that entirely, i invite u, if u want, to try to provide an example or specify, anytime. Thanks

Additionally, in Luke 10, Jesus says that his message is deliberately confusing, being kept from the understanding of the privileged. How do you reconcile that statement with your own?
my own's the 1st para o' pos 25, abuv: to comprehend His words requires Him (and's about Him). In faith. Meanin i gotta be like a little child 2 receive

the written word was not widely available for at least a thousand years.
au contraire, the NT IS letters to the churches in the 1st cent.
Thanx

[sojourner]

Au contraire, jus like Aesop's can, i do. Az may anyone who reads the NT

A fable is a completely different form of literature from a parable.

That mus be why Jesus' parables're written down

Now you're blowing smoke. Because they were written down does not mean that they are not a device of a largely oral culture, used and understood in a certain way and from a certain point of view. Jesus did not write his parables down in a textbook and then tell his disciples, "Read this. Learn it. Know it. Be it." He told them stories and parables.

Jesus, being the timeless, resurrected, really-present enfleshment of the Creator, I Am,'s speakin 2 u, 'n me, in 2006, in His Word among other places

That really doesn't refute the fact that Jesus spoke to his disciples orally, and that they, in turn, finally wrote his words down, and that those written words have been transmitted to us who live in a completely different culture and time. Yes, the concepts that Jesus taught are Truth and they are timeless. But we have to wade our way through the human transmission of that Truth. Jesus' words are not immortalized on the written page -- they're recorded -- by humans -- on the written page.

Since i dispute that entirely, i invite u, if u want, to try to provide an example or specify, anytime. Thanks

Very well. Read Luke 13:18-21. Tell me what these two parables mean.

au contraire, the NT IS letters to the churches in the 1st cent.

First of all, the letters were not written as scripture. They were written as letters. They were later ascribed scriptural status.

Second, those letters were not widely available until 1) people became widely literate, and 2) they were reprinted and distributed to the masses.

All of which presses the issue of the importance of the Tradition in preserving and passing down the Table ritual in the Christian community.

[writer]

28 A fable is a completely different form of literature from a parable.
To the contrary, one's blatantly fiction, the other's a story, both providing morals or points. In addition, both're in literature, writing

Now you're blowing smoke.
is that a parable?

Because they were written down does not mean that they are not a device of a largely oral culture,
Becuz they're writtend down, means that that culture's as written as ours; just as we're as oral as theirs; given our relative differences in technology

used and understood in a certain way and from a certain point of view.
Both of which are more than understandable, plain, and clear; especially since they're Author's alive

Jesus did not write his parables down in a textbook and then tell his disciples, "Read this. Learn it. Know it. Be it." He told them stories and parables.
If you're sayin the Lord didn't know how to read, mebbe you're the one who's illiterate

26 But the Church has Tradition --
i don't understand your capital "T<