Understanding Catholicism/ Dialogue with other

[athanasius]

Again I am debating no one here and I do not wish to engage anyone in debate. But, here is more food for thought. I got this from Catholic answers.

It was written by one of their apologist named Kenneth J. Howell. It is a biblical discussion about the Greek word anamnesis. This article clearly shows that anamnesis means much more than mere remembrance as the protestants think. Here are a few samples:

CATHOLIC: In Greek culture, anamnesis was a term used to denote the movement of an abstract idea into this material world. Plato, for example, used it as one of his key ideas. For him, knowledge was an act of anamnesis, or "remembering," whereby the realities of the world of forms (ideas) came to people in this world. So, anamnesis meant more of a process in which something in another world came to be embodied in this physical world........

..............The Corinthians lived in a Greek culture and it would have been natural for them to understand anamnesis as describing this transfer from the heavenly world to the material world. Even more importantly, if Jesus used Hebrew or Aramaic at the Last Supper, Paul (or whoever first translated the words of consecration into Greek) chose the term anamnesis. By doing so, he was allowing that anamnesis could have the meaning that Greek-speaking people associated with that term, namely, a transfer from the heavenly world to this earthly, material world............

........ Remember that Paul was a Jewish Pharisee (cf. Phil. 3:5), and very possibly a rabbi (cf. Acts 22:2) before his conversion. All this means that when he used anamnesis, he may have used it with a Hebrew meaning as well as a Greek one. The Hebrew word for "memorial" is zikaron and it has a similar connotation to anamnesis in Greek culture. It is more than mental recollection. The celebration of the Passover was believed to involve a participation in the original exodus from Egypt.

The purpose of this being an annual and perpetual event for the children of Israel was that every generation could experience the liberation from slavery that the first generation in Egypt had experienced. Thus, zikaron connotes a participation in an event of the past rather than simply a mental recollection of that event.



............ Whether you approach this question from the Greek or Hebrew side, the result supports the notion of the Real Presence. When Paul quotes Jesus as saying eis ten emen anamnesin, he understands the meaning both in Greek and Hebrew senses. When Jesus said, "do this eis ten emen anamensin," he was not saying to simply remember him. He was telling his twelve apostles to perform the same actions that he did in order to bring the reality of him back to this world. Some will object and say it is mere remberence.


.............. That is becuase they are still reading the Bible through its English meanings rather than delving into the language and culture in which it was originally written. Another text in 1 Corinthians 10:16–17 points to the Real Presence: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

Now ask yourself: What must the cup and the bread be to make possible this participation in the blood and body of Christ? The most obvious and logical answer is that the bread and cup of wine must really be the body and blood of Christ.

read the full article : http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402sbs.asp 


 

[sojourner]

What faithful?

Christ's faithful -- the people that make up the Church. The people we're talking about in this thread.

[outside religion, the religious camp]

Actually, outside the bounds of Jewish worship.

As to your question: religion duz alot of funny things

And are you not part of the "religion," as you put it? Or are the members of the one Body of Christ that practice and interpret differently from you ostracized and judged by you? Are the "religious" those who are not part of the "Church" as you see it?

Thank you for dismissing something that is very, very important to many devout and faithful people as a "funny thing." Have a little respect, man!!!

Celebrate what sacrament?

The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which Holy Tradition tells us is a mystery. Your position here appears to be classic sola scriptura -- a minority viewpoint not shared by most members of the Church.

It's a sign.

It certainly is. A sacrament, as used in this particular context is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." BCP 1979

It's not a recreation of God. God is uncreated. God cannot be created.

No one said that it's a recreation of God. You said we said that.

Christ has only one physical body.

That's right. And that Body is the Church, of which the one common Meal is a mysterious sign...or...sacrament.

And it's not a dead, lifeless, speechless, sightless, motionless, insensate, nonresponsive, idol on a table. Nor is Christ so lifeless as to become an idol

That's right. That's why Christ is present in the Bread and Wine. Christ takes those lifeless creatures and makes them alive, just as he does for us lifeless creatures. The anamnesis, you see, takes the signs and symbols of the Eucharist and, because Christ is present in them, makes them real for us. As we take into our bodies that which is real and alive, we are made more real and alive.

proper Supper meeting

More sanctimonious hubris

If u mean something more than this: there's no such thing in the NT or apostles' teaching.

Do you mean apostles' teaching, as in the teaching of those who are in the apostolic succession?

Bread and wine in a proper Supper meeting are given to be used for His Supper ("consecrated?") the second they're set out. Christ Himself made Himself present the second He rose from His grave. And by faith the moment(s) His believers believe into Him. He's present in, and as, His Body. He has no other reincarnation nor "3rd" body. Nor is He limited to His Table or Table meeting

Quite right. There is specific bread and wine reserved for use at the Table. Their intention is abundantly clear from the time they are set out for that use. Christ's presence is recognized at the prayer of consecration (a very, very ancient practice), just as the resurrected Christ was only recognized when he said, "Peace be with you," or when he spoke Mary's name. The Eucharistic Meal is an outward sign of the Body, as I said before. But more than a sign -- it's a real part of the Body.

Since "we [who believe]'ve been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,"...

All of this theological/scriptural posturing is fine, but none of it refutes my statement:

Christ has given us this gift, wherein the common things that sustain our bodies, through Christ's real presence, become the sacred things that also sustain our souls.

God makes God's self and God's sacrifice available to whosoever wills and believes in God's Spirit. Anytime, everytime, everywhere. Which's what "Eucharistic meal" represents 'n portrays.

No one's saying that Christ is only available in the Eucharist. What we're saying is that Christ is uniquely available to us in the Eucharist. This is something (as an earlier post shows) that was understood very early on.

 

[athanasius]

excellent Points Sojourner!! Very well Put!


Athanasius

 

[writer]

62 Christ's faithful -- the people that make up the Church. The people we're talking about in this thread.
If u say that everyone who participates in religion necessarily has personal faith into Christ, you're mistaken

Actually, outside the bounds of Jewish worship.
That's the point: by emphasizing or returning to ceremonialism and a legal priesthood, Catholicism, like much of Christendom, Judaizes

And are you not part of the "religion," as you put it?
Pray not. Since Jesus Christ is a person. Not a religion

Or are the members of the one Body of Christ that practice and interpret differently from you ostracized and judged by you?
Practice and interpret diffferently what? I'm not the one here who called nonTransubstantiation, or Transubstantiation, heresy. 51, 45, 55

Are the "religious" those who are not part of the "Church" as you see it?
To be spirituallly member of Christ requires only Christ. Inside. Then growing.
As Paul sees it

Thank you for dismissing something that is very, very important to many devout and faithful people as a "funny thing." Have a little respect, man!!!
People respect alot o' funny things

The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which Holy Tradition tells us is a mystery. Your position here appears to be classic sola scriptura
Colossians 2:2-6 "That their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, Christt, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. This I say that no one may delude you with persuasive speech...As therefore you've received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him"

-- a minority viewpoint not shared by most members of the Church.
Let's therefore go forth unto Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach, Heb 13:13.
And: what "Church"?

A sacrament, as used in this particular context is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."...the one common Meal is a mysterious sign...or...sacrament.
"Sacrament," in the Biblical context is a "mystery." Not at all directly a sign. It's the Latin translation of the NT Greek word "musterion," mystery, as in Colossians 2:2.
In the Biblical context, in the apostles' context, and in Christ's context: there's no such thing as "a sacrament" in your sentence above

No one said that it's a recreation of God. You said we said that.
To the contrary: Catholicism teaches that Christ, body blood soul and DIVINITY is "confected" in their magic mystery show

that Body is the Church,
To the contrary: Christ's personal physical lower case "b" body is His personal physical body. Christ's mystical body (although composed of us physical human beings, at least in spirit) is the church. He doesn't have a third bread body. The bread on His Table's only a sign. Symbolic


Christ is present in the Bread and Wine. Christ takes those lifeless creatures and makes them alive, just as he does for us lifeless creatures...As we take into our bodies that which is real and alive, we are made more real and alive.
To the contrary: Life, eternal life,'s only in Christ; and is Christ (Jn 11:25; 1:4).
And only His Spirit gives life (1 Cor 15:45; Jn 6:63, 68; 2 Cor 3:6). The flesh "profits nothing"

The anamnesis, you see, takes the signs and symbols of the Eucharist and, because Christ is present in them, makes them real for us.
Christ's "made real," substantiated, by faith (Heb 11:1). Neither by sight, now, nor by ex opere operato.
The visible, concrete, symbols of bread and wine symbolize and demonstrate Him and His death. "Anamnesis," Biblically and apostolically, simply means "remembrance"

More sanctimonious hubris
To the contrary: the "Lord's Supper" isn't the Lord's Supper in division. Such as in Catholicism's and denomination's stance based on a oneness less than the Body of Christ's. It's a misrepresentation. "When therefore you come together in the same place, it's not to eat the Lord's Supper; for in your eating, each one takes his own supper first, and..." 1 Cor 11:17-29; 1:10-17; 10:17; Eph 4:4

Do you mean apostles' teaching, as in the teaching of those who are in the apostolic succession?
The "apostolic succession" is Christ's Body. Not a religion. And whoever takes the apostles' teaching: the NT

The Eucharistic Meal is an outward sign of the Body, as I said before. But more than a sign -- it's a real part of the Body.
To the contrary of your second sentence: Christ's mystical Body is His Bride. And His personal body is His body

the resurrected Christ was only recognized when he said, "Peace be with you," or when he spoke Mary's name.
His personal body is His body. Not something that doesn't audibalize

No one's saying that Christ is only available in the Eucharist. What we're saying is that Christ is uniquely available to us in the Eucharist. This is something (as an earlier post shows) that was understood very early on.
Christ's "uniquely available" whenever and wherever He wants to be, including His Supper. Not because He reincarnates or's recreated. But because He's the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17; 1 Cor 15:45; Jn 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; 1 Jn 13; etc). He's risen. This was something understood very early on. That is, in the NT.
Thanks Sojourner

 

[writer]

we need You

 

[sojourner]

62 Christ's faithful -- the people that make up the Church. The people we're talking about in this thread.
If u say that everyone who participates in religion necessarily has personal faith into Christ, you're mistaken

You're obfuscating the issue. The faithful are those who comprise the Church -- in whatever form it takes.

Actually, outside the bounds of Jewish worship.
That's the point: by emphasizing or returning to ceremonialism and a legal priesthood, Catholicism, like much of Christendom, Judaizes

No, it doesn't. The issues of ceremonialism and authority were products of the Protestant Reformation. The refutation in Hebrews isn't about either ceremonialism or authority. It's about the issue of sacrifice. In order for the Church to "Judaize" (at least, in the viewpoint of the scripture you use), it would have to return to the sacrificial practices and beliefs of Temple Judaism.

And are you not part of the "religion," as you put it?
Pray not. Since Jesus Christ is a person. Not a religion

Sooo...you're separating yourself from the rest of the faithful, because you happen to not like "the religion." Do you not know that the religious don't worship the religion, as it appears you think they do, but rather see religion as the vehicle by which Christ is made present to them? (There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. Even Christ worshiped in the Temple.)

Are the "religious" those who are not part of the "Church" as you see it?
To be spirituallly member of Christ requires only Christ. Inside. Then growing.
As Paul sees it

Yet, you seem to make a distinction that Paul doesn't make.

Thank you for dismissing something that is very, very important to many devout and faithful people as a "funny thing." Have a little respect, man!!!
People respect alot o' funny things. Man

Meaning???

The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, which Holy Tradition tells us is a mystery. Your position here appears to be classic sola scriptura
Colossians 2:2-6 "That their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, Christt, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. This I say that no one may delude you with persuasive speech...As therefore you've received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him"

What does this scripture have to do with the mystery of Christ that is the Eucharist???

-- a minority viewpoint not shared by most members of the Church.
Let's therefore go forth unto Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach, Heb 13:13.
And: what "Church"?

So, in other words, you're using this bit of scripture to villify the Body of which you are part??? Or are you separating yourself from the Body (a very Protestant activity)? Or are you saying that Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans, etc. are not truly part of the Body of Christ (also a very Protestant activity)? Do you not know that the Church is one? Why do you seek to divide what cannot be divided?

A sacrament, as used in this particular context is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace."...the one common Meal is a mysterious sign...or...sacrament.
"Sacrament," in the Biblical context is a "mystery." Not at all directly a sign. It's the Latin translation of the NT Greek word "musterion," mystery, as in Colossians 2:2.
In the Biblical context, in the apostles' context, and in Christ's context: there's no such thing as "a sacrament" in your sentence above

"sacrament (Gr. mysterion, 'mystery'; Lat. sacramentum, 'oath') An outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward or spiritual grace." McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. The Church (which is the Body of Christ)... (whether you agree with it or not) declares it to be a sign.

No one said that it's a recreation of God. You said we said that.
To the contrary: Catholicism teaches that Christ, body blood soul and DIVINITY is "confected" in their magic mystery show

Now you're twisting things. That's not what the statement means.

that Body is the Church,
To the contrary: Christ's personal physical lower case "b" body is His personal physical body. Christ's mystical body (although composed of us physical human beings, at least in spirit) is the church. He doesn't have a third bread body. The bread on His Table's only a sign. Symbolic

Quite right! Symbolic of that mystical Body and a sign of Christ within that Body. Therefore, the sign and symbol are part and parcel of that body. (But I wouldn't add the word "only." The sign and symbol are tangibly part of the Body, hence, part of Christ among us.

Christ is present in the Bread and Wine. Christ takes those lifeless creatures and makes them alive, just as he does for us lifeless creatures...As we take into our bodies that which is real and alive, we are made more real and alive.
To the contrary: Life, eternal life,'s only in Christ; and is Christ (Jn 11:25; 1:4).
And only His Spirit gives life (1 Cor 15:45; Jn 6:63, 68; 2 Cor 3:6). The flesh "profits nothing"

A misunderstanding. Since the Spirit is in the elements (being tangible signs and, hence, real parts of the Body that contains Christ), those elements are alive, even as the Spirit is in us and we are alive.

The anamnesis, you see, takes the signs and symbols of the Eucharist and, because Christ is present in them, makes them real for us.
Christ's "made real," substantiated, by faith (Heb 11:1). Neither by sight, now, nor by ex opere operato.
The visible, concrete, symbols of bread and wine symbolize and demonstrate Him and His death. "Anamnesis," Biblically and apostolically, simply means "remembrance"

Wrong. Anamnesis has a special meaning that goes beyond simple remembering. It more closely means "to make present." The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of wine "make present" the one sacrifice of Christ to us.

More sanctimonious hubris
To the contrary: the "Lord's Supper" isn't the Lord's Supper in division. Such as in Catholicism's and denomination's stance based on a oneness less than the Body of Christ's. It's a misrepresentation. "When therefore you come together in the same place, it's not to eat the Lord's Supper; for in your eating, each one takes his own supper first, and..." 1 Cor 11:17-29; 1:10-17; 10:17; Eph 4:4

The catholic Church has always seen the Eucharist as a real sign of unity. There is only one Eucharist. However, since some (in the catholic view) have chosen to separate themselves from the Body, they do not participate in the one Eucharist of that Body. Personally, I tend to agree with you. I feel that the Roman and Orthodox (and even some Protestant bodies!) need to take a broader stance on what constitutes "Church" and, thus, what constitutes one Eucharistic meal. The door also swings the other way. There also needs to be more acceptance on the part of Protestants of all Christians.

Do you mean apostles' teaching, as in the teaching of those who are in the apostolic succession?
The "apostolic succession" is Christ's Body. Not a religion. And whoever takes the apostles' teaching: the NT

The Apostolic succession consists of those upon whom the apostles (and their rightful descendents) have conferred their authority. This can be understood in a number of ways, but it's clear that a definitive lineage of authority was intended from the beginning.

the resurrected Christ was only recognized when he said, "Peace be with you," or when he spoke Mary's name.
His personal body is His body. Not something that doesn't audibalize

The Bread does speak. Perhaps some are not listening...

No one's saying that Christ is only available in the Eucharist. What we're saying is that Christ is uniquely available to us in the Eucharist. This is something (as an earlier post shows) that was understood very early on.
Christ's "uniquely available" whenever and wherever He wants to be, including His Supper. Not because He reincarnates or's recreated. But because He's the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17; 1 Cor 15:45; Jn 7:37-39; 14:16-18; 20:22; 1 Jn 13; etc). He's risen. This was something understood very early on. That is, in the NT.

You just said the same thing I did...

 

[writer]

66 The faithful are those who comprise the Church -- in whatever form it takes.
To the contrary: the NT church isn't unregenerate folk

The issues of ceremonialism and authority were products of the Protestant Reformation.
To the contrary: legal priesthoods are no authority in God's new covenant; and God Himself, incarnate, as the Spirit,'s the fulfillment of all the OT ceremonies

The refutation in Hebrews isn't about either ceremonialism or authority. It's about the issue of sacrifice.
To the contrary: Heb 10 states that God's sacrifice of His Son replaces the many ceremonial sacrifices "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of the things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, perfect those who draw near...sacrifice and offering You didn't desire, but a body You have prepared Me...He takes away the first that He may establish the second."
And "having therefore a great High Priest who has passed through the heaven, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession...For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God...to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all; first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace...consider how great this one was, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the choice spoils. And they of the sons of Levi...so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also, he who receives tithes, has been made to pay tithes...the word of the oath, which was after the law, establishes the Son, perfected forever" (Heb 4; 7; c also 8:5)

In order for the Church to "Judaize" (at least, in the viewpoint of the scripture you use), it would have to return to the sacrificial practices and beliefs of Temple Judaism.
To the contrary: Judaism, from which the Son delivers, is broadly representative of all legalisms, including man's self-made ones and Greek and Samaritan. From which only the Son can set us free

you're separating yourself from the rest of the faithful, because you happen to not like "the religion."
To be faithful in a religion's one thing. To have faith in the Son's another

Do you not know that the religious don't worship the religion, as it appears you think they do, but rather see religion as the vehicle by which Christ is made present to them?
Christ Himself, and His Spirit, is God's vehicle. The Word was God, the Word became flesh. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, in resurrection (1 Cor 15:45)

(There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. Even Christ worshiped in the Temple.)
"His disciples came to show Him the buildings of the temple. But He answered 'Don't you see all these things? Truly there shall by no means be left here a stone upon a stone," Mt 24. He replaced it by His death. Not merely by His incarnation. "In My Father's house are many abodes..." Jn 14

you seem to make a distinction that Paul doesn't make.
To the contrary: Paul made the distinction in his letter to the Romans 2:28-29
"he isn't a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which's outward in the flesh. But he's a Jew who's one inwardly; and circumcision's of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God." Much like his Lord did in John 4 "Woman, believe Me, an hour's coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...But an hour's coming, and it's now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truthfulness...God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness"

What does [Colossians 2:2-6 "That their hearts may be comforted, they being knit together in love and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, Christt, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. This I say that no one may delude you with persuasive speech...As therefore you've received Christ Jesus the Lord, walk in Him"] have to do with the mystery of Christ that is the Eucharist?
Christ's a mystery. No Eucharist is. Never was, never will b

you're using this bit of scripture to villify the Body of which you are part?
The Body of Christ's not a camp of religion

Or are you separating yourself from the Body (a very Protestant activity)?
R u callin me "Protestant"?
Was it a "very Protestant activity" to excommunicate Martin Luther? Or did someone else do that?
Roman Catholicism is not the Body of Christ. Never has been, never will be

Or are you saying that Catholics and Orthodox and Anglicans, etc. are not truly part of the Body of Christ (also a very Protestant activity)?
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism have, by definition, "separated" themselves from Christ's Body, and are not His Body; although they include many members of It. The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ

Do you not know that the Church is one? Why do you seek to divide what cannot be divided?
The church's neither institutions nor sectarian institutions. Concerning them: one need not divide divisions. One need only request, like Christ: "Come out of her, My people," Rev 18:4

"sacrament (Gr. mysterion, 'mystery'; Lat. sacramentum, 'oath') An outward sign instituted by God to convey an inward or spiritual grace." McKim, Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. The Church (which is the Body of Christ)... (whether you agree with it or not) declares it to be a sign.
To the contrary: the church isn't a religion. She's Christ's members and Bride. Bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh.
In any case, also the the contrary of your above: the apostles and Scriptures use the word "mystery" to mean mystery

Now you're twisting things. That's not what the statement means.
To the contrary: "confection" mean confection. And "divinity" means divinity

Anamnesis has a special meaning that goes beyond simple remembering.
To the contrary: "remembrance (anamnesis)" means remembrance

It more closely means "to make present." The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of wine "make present" the one sacrifice of Christ to us.
"To remember" is "to make present."
As far as actual presence: He's risen. Which faith substantiates (Mt 28:20; Hebrews 11:1, 6; 2 Tim 2:8). Thanks

 

[sojourner]

66 The faithful are those who comprise the Church -- in whatever form it takes.
To the contrary: the NT church isn't unregenerate folk

All members of the Church are regenerate. What point are you making here? The faithful are regenerate.

The refutation in Hebrews isn't about either ceremonialism or authority. It's about the issue of sacrifice.
To the contrary: Heb 10 states that God's sacrifice of His Son replaces the many ceremonial sacrifices "For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of the things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, perfect those who draw near...sacrifice and offering You didn't desire, but a body You have prepared Me...He takes away the first that He may establish the second."
And "having therefore a great High Priest who has passed through the heaven, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast the confession...For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God...to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all; first being interpreted king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace...consider how great this one was, to whom the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the choice spoils. And they of the sons of Levi...so to speak, through Abraham, Levi also, he who receives tithes, has been made to pay tithes...the word of the oath, which was after the law, establishes the Son, perfected forever" (Heb 4; 7; c also 8:5)

Case in point.

In order for the Church to "Judaize" (at least, in the viewpoint of the scripture you use), it would have to return to the sacrificial practices and beliefs of Temple Judaism.
To the contrary: Judaism, from which the Son delivers, is broadly representative of all legalisms, including man's self-made ones and Greek and Samaritan. From which only the Son can set us free

Jesus didn't "deliver [us] from" Judaism. Jesus was a Jew! He said that he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. The New Covenant builds upon the foundation of the Old -- it doesn't destroy and replace it.

you're separating yourself from the rest of the faithful, because you happen to not like "the religion."
To be faithful in a religion's one thing. To have faith in the Son's another

The faithful who follow "the religion" follow "the religion" because they have faith in Jesus. Again, what's your point here?

Do you not know that the religious don't worship the religion, as it appears you think they do, but rather see religion as the vehicle by which Christ is made present to them?
Christ Himself, and His Spirit, is God's vehicle. The Word was God, the Word became flesh. The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit, in resurrection (1 Cor 15:45)

But how do you worship God? By meeting together with the other faithful and performing acts of worship. How do you serve God? By coming together with others and doing ministry together. Those are both vehicles for worship and ministry. Since we live in the physical realm, we also act within the physical realm. When Jesus healed people, he actually physically healed them. When the faithful come together, their actions and words are physical signs to them of Christ's presence in and through them.

(There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. Even Christ worshiped in the Temple.)
"His disciples came to show Him the buildings of the temple. But He answered 'Don't you see all these things? Truly there shall by no means be left here a stone upon a stone," Mt 24. He replaced it by His death. Not merely by His incarnation. "In My Father's house are many abodes..." Jn 14

So? When Jesus threw out the money changers, he called the Temple his Father's House.

you seem to make a distinction that Paul doesn't make.
To the contrary: Paul made the distinction in his letter to the Romans 2:28-29
"he isn't a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which's outward in the flesh. But he's a Jew who's one inwardly; and circumcision's of the heart, in spirit, not in letter, whose praise is not from men, but from God." Much like his Lord did in John 4 "Woman, believe Me, an hour's coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father...But an hour's coming, and it's now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truthfulness...God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truthfulness"

Your contention here seems to be that the ceremonies of the Church mean nothing. That's true -- in and of themselves, they have no meaning without the presence of Christ and without the participants' spirit being "in the right place." No one would disagree with you on this point. However, you appear to assume that, in the hearts of the "religious," ceremony has replaced spirit. That's just not true, in most cases.

Christ's a mystery. No Eucharist is. Never was, never will b

In your opinion. That's why you're not catholic. However, to the catholic, since Christ is present in the Eucharist, as Christ is present in his Church, both the Church and the Eucharist are mystery, just as Christ is mystery.

The Body of Christ's not a camp of religion

We're not saying that it is...you're saying that it is...

R u callin me "Protestant"?
Was it a "very Protestant activity" to excommunicate Martin Luther? Or did someone else do that?
Roman Catholicism is not the Body of Christ. Never has been, never will be

I didn't call you "Protestant." I said that your activities and viewpoints are Protestant in nature.

No. It was not a Protestant activity to excommicate Martin Luther. It was a catholic activity.

What, may I ask, defines "the Body of Christ?" What defines one as a member of it? What defines one as not a member?

Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism have, by definition, "separated" themselves from Christ's Body, and are not His Body; although they include many members of It. The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ

By what definition have these people separated themselves from the Body of Christ? You seem to have a very queer idea of what constitutes these groups. The structures are established and maintained by followers of Jesus. Are you saying that it's the very presence of structure, authority, and organization that separates a particular group from the Body? What are you getting at here?

The church's neither institutions nor sectarian institutions. Concerning them: one need not divide divisions. One need only request, like Christ: "Come out of her, My people," Rev 18:4

That's not the way its perceived. The Church is the Body of Christ -- the assembly of the faithful. The Church truly isn't the institution. No one claims that it is. But the Church includes these institutions as vehicles for carrying out Christ's ministry.

To the contrary: the church isn't a religion. She's Christ's members and Bride. Bone of His bone, flesh of His flesh.
In any case, also the the contrary of your above: the apostles and Scriptures use the word "mystery" to mean mystery

No one's arguing that it is, as I made clear above.

Why is your interpretation of the apostles' use of mysterion clearer than that of Holy Tradition? Why is your interpretation of the scriptural use of mysterion better than that of many other scholastically-inclined believers?

To the contrary: "remembrance (anamnesis)" means remembrance --"To remember" is "to make present."

As you're so fond of saying, "People respect a lot of funny things..."
A term doesn't mean what you say it means, just because you want it to mean that. A term means what it means, as defined by linguistic parameters. There just is much more implied by anamnesis than simple recalling to mind -- whether you like it or not.

 

[writer]

All members of the Church are regenerate. What point are you making here? The faithful are regenerate.
That not all faithful to religion are born of God

Case in point.
That OT sacrifices r ceremonies?

Jesus didn't "deliver [us] from" Judaism. Jesus was a Jew!
One Jew can, did, and duz deliver from Judaism. Into Himself. "He who enters through the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out...And I have other sheep, which aren't of this fold; I must lead them also and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd," Jn 10:2-3, 16.
"For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ," 1:17

He said that he didn't come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
He fulfilled and fulfills it by replacing it.
The law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ.
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to everyone who believes, Rm 10:4.
Abolishing in His flesh the law of the commandments in ordinances, that He might create the two [Jew and Gentile] in Himself into one new man, so making peace, Eph 2:15

The New Covenant builds upon the foundation of the Old -- it doesn't destroy and replace it.
To the contrary: it effectively does both.
Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I'll make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, NOT like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was their Husband, declares Jehovah, Jeremiah 31:31-32.
He takes away the first that He may establish the second, Heb 10:9.
In saying A new covenant, He's made the first old. But that which's becoming old and growing decrepit's near to disappearing, 8:13.
Who has also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant, ministers not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life...For if that which was being done away with was through glory, much more that which remains is in glory, 2 Cor 3:6-11

The faithful who follow "the religion" follow "the religion" because they have faith in Jesus. Again, what's your point here?
That Jesus's a person. And His salvation's His Person. Not a religion. Thanks

 

[Scott1]

That Jesus's a person. And His salvation's His Person. Not a religion. Thanks

... don't mean to jump into the middle of your conversation.... but your distinction confuses me.

If you research the root of the word "religion", you'll see that it has it's foundation in the word "relationship".

Properly, Christianity is no more than a relationship with Jesus Christ..... religion IS relationship to the divine person Jesus Christ.

Hope that helps, my friend.
Scott

 

[writer]

70 don't mean to jump into the middle of your conversation
i don't mind

If you research the root of the word "religion", you'll see that it has it's foundation in the word "relationship".
Very interesting. Thank you

Properly, Christianity is no more than a relationship with Jesus Christ.
amen

religion IS relationship to the divine person Jesus Christ.
Although words' roots may be something; their current or later connotation may be something different. Which's my usage or impression of the word "religion."
And also the context of OT to N. Maybe the phrase "direct relationship" iz better

Hope that helps, my friend.
It duz

To be a Christian means to love our brothers as Christ has loved them
amen

68 how do you worship God?
in spirit and truthfulness (Jn 4:24)

By meeting together with the other faithful and performing acts of worship.
Like Scott implies, acts of worship are simply acts of relation, such as speaking

How do you serve God?
in my spirit in the good news o' His Son, Rm 1:9

By coming together with others and doing ministry together.
such as speaking, caring

Those are both vehicles for worship and ministry.
speaking. Which is what the Son in Spirit duz, Heb 1:2; Rv 2:7; 1 Cor 12:3, 7-11

Since we live in the physical realm, we also act within the physical realm. When Jesus healed people, he actually physically healed them. When the faithful come together, their actions and words are physical signs to them of Christ's presence in and through them.
They're Christ's Incarnation, so to speak. But bread on the Table isn't

When Jesus threw out the money changers, he called the Temple his Father's House.
That's merely a figure or foreshadow. Of His body, Jn 2:21

Your contention here seems to be that the ceremonies of the Church mean nothing. That's true -- in and of themselves, they have no meaning without the presence of Christ and without the participants' spirit being "in the right place."
Per the NT, our human spirit is the right place, Jn 4:24; Eph 2:22

No one would disagree with you on this point. However, you appear to assume that, in the hearts of the "religious," ceremony has replaced spirit. That's just not true, in most cases.
My impression differs

...you're saying that it is...
To the contrary, "The Body of Christ's not a camp of religion" means the Christ's Body's not a camp of religion

What, may I ask, defines "the Body of Christ?"
Christ. Since she's the Body of Christ, Eph 5

What defines one as a member of it?
Christ. Being member of Christ. That is, having Christ thru being born of Him, Jn 3; Heb 2:13

What defines one as not a member?
Absence of Christ, not possessin Him

By what definition have these people separated themselves from the Body of Christ?
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism i wouldn't call "people" firstly. I mean them as teachings. Institutions

 

[writer]

Praise the Lord God sent His Son
Hallelujah
And salvation's work was done
Glory to God
One grain fell into the earth
Many grains to bring to birth
That's why i call on Him
I give my all to Him

 

[sojourner]

What defines one as not a member?
Absence of Christ, not possessin Him

Upon what do you make the determination that a person is not possessed by Christ?

By what definition have these people separated themselves from the Body of Christ?
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism, and Protestantism i wouldn't call "people" firstly. I mean them as teachings. Institutions

But the teachings are extensions of the people -- they have no power or existence in and of themselves. Therefore, one cannot treat them as self-actualizing entities without considering the people that comprise them. To not consider these groups as people is to dehumanize the groups -- which is what you're doing -- which is what I take issue with. These people are (for the most part) as spiritual and as much "in Christ" as you or I. Because they happen ot organize themselves under a certain name and a certain polity does not villify them, nor does it separate them from the Body of Christ.

 

[writer]

But the teachings are extensions of the people -- they have no power or existence in and of themselves.
To the contrary: altho teachings exist because of people, teachings aren't people

Therefore, one cannot treat them as self-actualizing entities without considering the people that comprise them.
To the contrary: teachings aren't people

To not consider these groups as people is to dehumanize the groups -- which is what you're doing
To the contrary: to point out that Catholicism isn't the Body of Christ, but that (hopefully) many people within Catholicism are, is to point out that one may be within a group at the same time unbornagain

These people are (for the most part) as spiritual and as much "in Christ" as you or I.
Correct. Or more so. People are one thing; teachings, systems, or institutions are another

Because they happen ot organize themselves under a certain name and a certain polity does not villify them...Who, beside u, said "villify them"? Pleze, if u don't mind: don't "villify" me by putting your words in my mouth

...nor does it separate them from the Body of Christ.
Faith or unfaith duz.
In any case, people are one thing; teachings, systems, or institutions are another

Upon what do you make the determination that a person is not possessed by Christ?
Upon Christ, and upon that person. Requiring intimate contact with them, and with Christ. Thanks

 

[Quiddity]

Writer, be very mindful of the title of this thread. It is you who should seek to understand us Catholics. Even if you disagree with us. You think you can do this?

 

[writer]

Thank u 4 askin. I'm thinkin you're probably human jus like i am. And that if we're fellow-believers in the same Messiah, it's wonderful.
The 1st poster, altho he appears to be gone, wrote in his post
"I would enjoy getting into debates bout whether the Church is right or wrong on an issue."
To me, debate's much less the real issue than loving our common Savior.
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

But the teachings are extensions of the people -- they have no power or existence in and of themselves.
To the contrary: altho teachings exist because of people, teachings aren't people

Therefore, one cannot treat them as self-actualizing entities without considering the people that comprise them.
To the contrary: teachings aren't people

To not consider these groups as people is to dehumanize the groups -- which is what you're doing
To the contrary: to point out that Catholicism isn't the Body of Christ, but that (hopefully) many people within Catholicism are, is to point out that one may be within a group at the same time unbornagain

These people are (for the most part) as spiritual and as much "in Christ" as you or I.
Correct. Or more so. People are one thing; teachings, systems, or institutions are another

Because they happen ot organize themselves under a certain name and a certain polity does not villify them...Who, beside u, said "villify them"? Pleze, if u don't mind: don't "villify" me by putting your words in my mouth

...nor does it separate them from the Body of Christ.
Faith or unfaith duz.
In any case, people are one thing; teachings, systems, or institutions are another

Upon what do you make the determination that a person is not possessed by Christ?
Upon Christ, and upon that person. Requiring intimate contact with them, and with Christ. Thanks

People are obviously more important to you than "systems." Why then, do you appear to be spending more energy condemning the "system" than in celebrating that lost ones have been found by the Shepherd? Why should it be of any concern to you how (most) of these found ones choose to organize themselves and express themselves in Christ?

Paul tells us that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ. John chapter 12 tells us that Jesus does not judge those who hear and do not heed. In any case, why are you so quick to condemn those whom you don't intimately know (as you said in your last sentence)?

 

[writer]

People are obviously more important to you than "systems." Why then, do you appear to be spending more energy condemning the "system" than in celebrating that lost ones have been found by the Shepherd?
Which lost ones?

Why should it be of any concern to you how (most) of these found ones choose to organize themselves and express themselves in Christ?
Cuz i'm a found one. And plus cause the person who initiated this thread invited others to concern themselves with him or his group.
Did u read the 1st post?

why are you so quick to condemn those whom you don't intimately know (as you said in your last sentence)?
Do u say "condemn" cuz the Lord said it in Jn 3?
What do u mean quick?
If my last sentence said knowing someone requires getting to know them, then that's the Opposite of "quick."
Wouldn't u think?
Thanks

 

[sojourner]

People are obviously more important to you than "systems." Why then, do you appear to be spending more energy condemning the "system" than in celebrating that lost ones have been found by the Shepherd?
Which lost ones?

Why should it be of any concern to you how (most) of these found ones choose to organize themselves and express themselves in Christ?
Cuz i'm a found one. And plus cause the person who initiated this thread invited others to concern themselves with him or his group.
Did u read the 1st post?

why are you so quick to condemn those whom you don't intimately know (as you said in your last sentence)?
Do u say "condemn" cuz the Lord said it in Jn 3?
What do u mean quick?
If my last sentence said knowing someone requires getting to know them, then that's the Opposite of "quick."
Wouldn't u think?
Thanks

1) Any that were lost and have been found. Why does it matter?
2) Because someone initiated a thread -- that's why you're concerned so much with how most of us worship?
3) You've come to this thread with preconceived notions of some people, in that they are "wrong" for worshiping and expressing their faith as they feel called. I'd call that a quick condemnation.

 

[writer]

Any that were lost and have been found.
To the contrary: as many as receive Christ, to them He gives authority to become children of God, as many as believe into His name

Because someone initiated a thread -- that's why you're concerned so much with how most of us worship?
God said tell His good news to all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
So i need no excuse to be concerned.
In any case, if you're offended by debating Catholicism dear sir, then by all means don't

You've come to this thread with preconceived notions of some people, in that they are "wrong" for worshiping and expressing their faith as they feel called.
To the contrary: whether it's right or wrong, you judge. I was pointing out how certain things claimed to be Biblical, or godly, aren't

I'd call that a quick condemnation.
Then i'd have to call your comments the same.
Thanks