Ad
Page 1 2 3 4 5 

Moderators: Phil
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Jesus in the Eucharist Login/Join 
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel Jaffe:
Shasha, repeating the "bear with me" thing again, I hope I haven't felt rude to you...
I don't know what you mean here, Ariel. I read through your posts and don't see anything that I would think that you would think was rude. I guess it means I just don't know you or I'm kinda dense (my kids would probably agree with that one Smiler)
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Shasha---

I myself didn't feel I said anything rude...I didn't know how I might be coming across on the internet, though.
 
Posts: 578 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 20 July 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Good day, Ariel.

No, I didn't feel you were "coming across" as rude. I felt you were curious, questioning, open. When you and Pop-pop get 'going,' it's mostly Uber-funny. It's hard over the internet, as you know, to pick up on funny vs. subtle jabs sometimes, so one has to be careful. Words so easily do hurt people even if they're surrounded by Smiler Wink

So you know, I posted the piece from Phil's last note because I wanted to re-affirm that, whatever ELSE one can say about Jesus in the Eucharist in terms of transsub., different Christian denominations, personal neurotic biases, etc., that Jesus IS in the Eucharist, that He literally feeds us Himself. This is remarkable! Not something to dismiss or minimize for a serious Christ-follower.

It was an awakening/ revelation to me when I discovered that to be true. For some, the RP of Jesus in the Eucharist is just received by faith, trusting the teaching of the Church, or by FAITH--the direct mystical knowledge, and/or by experiencing the more direct, often subtle, reality of Jesus' Life in your very body/soul as He mingles and transforms us. Pop-pop described this latter direct encounter with Jesus in Eucharist Adoration. I think it's wonderful! I thank God for that!

My sharing on this thread is a kind of invitation to others to the Table, so to speak. Sometimes these types of issues can come from the nana-boo-boo thing, but at SP, I see our exchanges as truly wanting to share and invite friends to deeper Christian Love. At the same time, it's not rude or insensitive for anyone to question our conclusions based on subjective/mystical encounters, or the Church doctrine, or whatever.

I'm glad for the differences among us. And questions help me to be a better thinker, communicator.
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shasha:
Good day, Ariel.

No, I didn't feel you were "coming across" as rude. I felt you were curious, questioning, open.


Hi Shasha---I hear you on your reason for this thread--to invite others to the Table, and that is how I understood you.

Yes, to what I quoted from your post; that is where I'm coming from on this: open, but having problems. I'm not having difficulties with believing Jesus, but rather in discerning what He wants me to believe about the Eucharist. I do hear His command to "Do this in remembrance of Me" and I love that He said that: I love hearing those words, and I haven't nearly exhausted the depths of what they call me to. So though I believe He's really present to meet us in the breaking of the bread, in some ways the specific transubstantiation doctrine seems more a distraction from following His command to remembrance for me than a help...at this point.
 
Posts: 578 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 20 July 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi Ariel,

Yes, that's a good summary of where you're at. I respect your caution. There are deep, emotional implications to the prospect of leaving one's church for another. I recall feeling a painful sense of betrayal of Vineyard Church when it was clear I had to split. Vineyard was my home for many years. Such great love and learning took place there! It took a long time to see both the neurotic as well as the legitimate, healthy strings of attachment. All sorts of 'issues' underlying what church loyalties unconsciously represent, identifications with parents, etc.

Anyway, off to swim, garden, write reports,... or do I write my reports, *then* garden and then swim? Ah, shucks! I just wanna have fun, but my conscience is telling me to work first. Mad
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Hi there Shasha---

Hope you had a good day on Saturday. I would have welcomed a swim here in PA's muggy weather. I used to swim in my pond...until I spotted a HUGE, prehistoric-looking snapper turtle there. Cool to see, but swimming companion?--not so much.

Now that I sound like a complete hick for swimming in a pond...

I just wanted to acknowledge I read your last post on this topic. Thanks for sharing in brief some of the things you felt.

I don't see myself being troubled by church loyalty issues or identifying with my parents. I had said something to my parents at least a year ago about visiting both Catholic and Orthodox churches, and they were utterly cool with that---it wouldn't bother them if I converted. We, as a family, and I myself, have always had Catholic friends---Catholics, in person, didn't seem "other" or "them" to me. It's been other things that I've learned more recently that have really thrown me; I haven't talked at all about them, but I guess I should, on another thread, because I think my silence in that regard has left you folks filling in as to where I'm coming from.

And, true to form, I'm not sure when I'll start that other thread..hopefully tomorrow I'll have time, and I'll try to mull over how to organize and clarify my thoughts meanwhile.
 
Posts: 578 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 20 July 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
There was a time several years ago when I was a daily communicant and it did seem to enable a closeness to Christ. My schedule has changed since then so that I can go to Mass only 2-3 times a week, and I miss it when I go less. There is a palpable, physical desire for the Eucharist, even though I do know, through faith, that Jesus is with me.

For me, the Real Presence is just something I have accepted in faith since I was a little boy. I have studied the theology of the Church's teaching since, but am left with the promise of Jesus as conveyed by the Church. That's all we have, really.
 
Posts: 3948 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
It's neat that you believed in the RP as a little boy, Phil. I was taught it but never really took it seriously, maybe because I didn't have the right 'soil' in my spirit or because my parents were too preoccupied and did not seem to take it seriously at all.

So along those lines...Today, I hung out with my two boys and my brother's children, Noah and Gjulia (ages 13 to 8). I showed them clips from the movie, "The Gospel of John." I selected two healing miracles and the scene in John 6. In particular, today, I wanted these children to watch the scene in John 6 so they get a mental picture of this piece of scripture and to discuss it. Well, discussion was punctuated with a lot of goofiness and horse-play, much to my irritation! Drives me NUTZ.

Following that 10 minute catechism, we headed directly to noon Mass at Christ the King. All these children have received their F. H. Communion.

Just about one minute before we were about to go up for Communion, Noah suddenly grabbed me in a panic, his face white, and he says he must leave urgently because he is sick! He says, "I am getting hot and then cold and then hot! I don’t know what’s going on!" He takes my hand assuming that I will hurriedly whisk him out of the church. I am in mild shock and suspect something dark is afoot. How can this happen just now, of all times!? It seemed very much like an enemy attack, and I was NOT going to miss the Eucharist.

So I instinctively laid my hands on him, pressed my mouth into his head, and prayed in tongues. Boom, some power went through me, and he recovered in the nick of time! Thank you, Lord!!

We talked about it afterwards. My nephew, who is 10 years old, remarked how strange it was that this weird sickness would assail him just after hearing a teaching on Jesus in the Eucharist and just seconds before he's about to take the Eucharist. He had showed no signs of illness before or after that moment, and I spent nearly all day with him until just a few hours ago. Noah thought it was a miracle. Anyway, I think Noah's faith in the Eucharist and in prayers might have been strengthened a bit today.

I think satan really hates the Eucharist.
Wouldn't he love to divert us from partaking?
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Great testimony Shasha, thanks for sharing it.
 
Posts: 716 | Location: South Africa | Registered: 12 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have studied the theology of the Church's teaching since, but am left with the promise of Jesus as conveyed by the Church. That's all we have, really.


I really like how you put this Phil.
 
Posts: 716 | Location: South Africa | Registered: 12 August 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Thanks, Jacques. And good for you, Shasha, to try to teach those young ones to reverence the Eucharist more. I am sure the devil wants to keep us away from the Eucharist, and from prayer as well. Be very suspicious, brothers and sisters, of the excuses that come to mind to neglect these ways of growing closer to God.
 
Posts: 3948 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Phil:
...Be very suspicious, brothers and sisters, of the excuses that come to mind to neglect these ways of growing closer to God.
Yes, well put...Watch out for ole Screwtape!
 
Posts: 1091 | Registered: 05 April 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
All,

Interestingly, (don't know if any of you caught sight of it) but this afternoon (2 Oct 11)on a major TV News show (Fox News, I think it was) in the API news line that runs along the bottom of the screen there was a mention that a miracle was being proclaimed in Poland. Evidently a host that had fallen to the floor in 2008 and when picked up had a dark colored spot formed in its center has been examined by two doctors. The darkened area in the host was determined by the examining doctors to be human heart tissue!

Interesting that national media had even mentioned this. I believe that something like this had been evidenced earlier in history as well -- that's my recollection from earlier years anyway.

FYI. Perhaps it will transubstantiate the beliefs that some hold regarding the Eucharist.

pop-pop
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
Interesting news about that Eucharistic phenomena in Poland, Pop. I hadn't heard of that one.
- http://www.fox11online.com/dpp...munion-wafer_3956055

Of course, skeptics can always wonder about the actual source of that red spot/tissue. It should be examined more intensely, especially before an Archbishop give the whole affair credibility.

There are several web sites that publicize Eucharistic miracles.
- see http://www.therealpresence.org...rst/mir/engl_mir.htm for a good one.

Very interesting!
 
Posts: 3948 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Ariel,

Since you had sincerely asked (via the post below) I am going to cast my net (this time onto the starboard side) in an attempt at explanation (NOT at conversion).

From the Jesus in Eucharist Thread: Page 2, (5 July 11 @ 9:22):

“Pop-pop, dear feisty Pop-pop --

Okay, how about giving a commentary, either from you or a respected Catholic teacher, on the parts of John 6 under discussion? No gauntlets are being thrown down, I'm just sincerely asking.”

***********************************************************************

You had previously posted the following:

Jesus in Eucharist Page 2 -- 5 July 11 @ 5:31

“I'm meaning to say that if we interpret Jesus as speaking literally about eating His flesh in the first part of John 6:53, and it seems He confirms in verse 54 that the life He's talking about is eternal, then what does He say follows if we don't literally eat His flesh in the Eucharist? ..."you have no life in you".

I don't believe non-Catholics, who don't partake of His literal body and blood, have no life in them...so it makes more sense to me to interpret "eating the flesh of the Son of Man" as something all Christians, even non-Christians, can partake of. I'm not ruling out Real Presence as some sort of reality, I'm just saying John 6 makes more sense to me if I don't look to it to support RP.”

************************************************************************

AND, you had noted that: ‘My Protestant commentary says "This absolute statement of verse 53 precludes this being a reference to Holy Communion, because nowhere else does Jesus say partaking of Communion is a requirement for eternal life"’.

*******************************************************************************

Okay, realizing that I am but a man-on-the-street RC … here's the commentary you asked of me. This is how I would respond (do respond) to your comments: first some initial statements, then some follow-on explanatory expansion that I hope will salve your understanding.

1. Your Protestant commentary is correct in stating that Jesus did not state that partaking of Communion is a requirement for eternal life.

2. Your Protestant commentary is incorrect in stating ‘verse 53 precludes this being a reference to Holy Communion’.

3. You are correct that Jesus is speaking literally about eating His flesh in the first part of verse 53.

4. You are correct in your stating I don't believe non-Catholics, who don't partake of His literal body and blood, have no life in them. (but some qualifying needs to be introduced – which will follow).

5. Re "eating the flesh of the Son of Man" as something all Christians, even non-Christians, can partake of.” I would say, in deference to scripture, that non-Christians and some Christians should not partake of the eating the flesh of the Son of Man.

Explaining now:

Verse 53 speaks of life. Verse 54 speaks of eternal life.

In verse 53, Christ is definitely stating that we will not have life in us if we don’t eat His flesh and drink His blood. (In verse 51 He had already told us He was the living bread, flesh for the life of the world). Christ definitely wants us to partake of his flesh and blood. At the last supper He commanded we do that in remembrance of Him and linked his blood with his new covenant. He came indeed that we might have this sacramental advantage, this new covenanted advantage. (The opportunity for which He makes available to all who will agree to Baptism into His vine, His mystical Body, His new covenant life. One agrees to partaking in that advantage by their assent to the covenant relationship -- by soliciting baptism and assenting to remaining in the vine via obedient fulfillment of our end of the covenant agreement.) So yes, we do not have that life in us, that advantage, that sacramental gifting if we don’t eat his flesh and drink His blood -- if we don’t partake. If we don’t partake as he has desired and commanded we partake – since He wants us maximally advantaged. He wants us maximally advantaged because He loves us so.

Verse 53 speaks of life. Verse 54 speaks of eternal life.
Verse 53 speaks of a supernatural vitality. Verse 54 speaks of salvation.

Verse 54 says he who eats has eternal life; it does not say he who doesn’t doesn’t.

In this verse (54) the subject matter is salvation. In the previous verse the subject matter is a vitality that comes via Christ's gifting. (super-duper gifting).

The CoCC as Phil had linked you to quite often over various posts and which you can search online, certainly says salvation (eternal life) is available outside the church (although due to Christ’s redemptive act). So, statement 1 above is true.

Statement 2 above indicates your commentary is incorrect, for in fact, Holy Communion is indeed what is being addressed; it is addressing the gifting of vitality – a supernatural gifting that provides advantage for Christians – one that does not exist for non-Christians. (This is in keeping, if you think about it, with what Jesus meant when he said that the least born into the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist).

While non-Christians are not excluded from eternal life, they are simply not advantaged by the blessing that baptismal life and sacramental life and entrance into the vine affords one. They lack the advantage of being supplied the supernatural gift that Holy Communion is and the grace (vitality) it supplies for our spiritual lives. Of course, God will provide them that advantage if they accept baptism, if they become Christians.

God being just, of course, means more is expected of we who are being so blessed.
(And he has told us that).

Statement 3 has been addressed. You are correct.

Statement 4 pertains to non-Catholics having no life in them. Certainly non-Catholic Christians, as Christians, indeed partake of life in the vine, a sacramental life via their baptism, and share in the new covenant relationship with Christ. They have substantial advantage over non-Christians and based on orthopraxis can readily be holier than Catholics. Catholics believe though, that lacking apostolic priesthood and faith in real presence, that non-Catholic Christians do not receive the advantage of the gifting that Eucharist provides. They believe that to be the case because the last supper and its commission by Christ to ‘Do this in remembrance of Me’ was an apostolic celebration. The apostles were the participants at the supper; not the disciples. The apostles received the commission, and pass on the commission. (That’s our belief – as I best can explain it as a lay man-on–the-street).

I realize that that likely offends you. It’s not a case of contumely or arrogance on our part; it’s a case of our beliefs. Similar to the belief that all Christians hold that Christianity is the fullness of Divine Revelation, and that non-Christian beliefs lack the advantage provided by Christ. I wish I could do something about all that, but the only thing I could do is say please join-in with me -- wish you were here. (The Spirit and the Bride say: Come!). But I have already said this post was aimed at explanation and not conversion.

In fact, Christians can similarly only say to non-Christians: please join in with us, wish you were here. (The Spirit and the Bride say: Come!). And we are commissioned to do just that – to preach this Good News.

The rest (the follow-on consequence to our preaching and inviting) we must leave to the same Holy Spirit that you gave absolute permission to engage you, since you were decidedly open to truth.

Going back to verse 53 and the supernatural gifting -- to that ‘life’, that vitality that Christ says we will only have if we eat His flesh and drink His blood: you might consider that what He was speaking of -- is analogous to spiritual steroids. If you eat and drink you get the advantage of this supernatural steroid that benefits your spiritual life like nothing else can (the benefit of sanctifying grace). He really really wants us on these steroids so that our life in Him is maximized to the very fullest. It is no insignificant gifting. It is so very significant.

That may be my clumsy analogy, but best I can do. One would interpret verse 53 as saying that without eating of the flesh of the Son of man and drinking of His blood you will have no life (vitality that the supernatural steroids in you will afford). And verse 54 then says having said spiritual steroids (said vitality) you maximize your potential for running the race and attaining victory regarding eternal life – not that eternal life cannot otherwise be had (as previously addressed). If you have that vitality it stands to reason that you will succeed in attaining eternal life (unless one
sins seriously and separates themself from vine-life).

Statement 5. Partaking of communion improperly, results in harm (1 Cor 11:29).

Non-Christians should not partake because they are not truly in communion with the body of believers; they are not members of the Mystical Body. It would be dishonest on their part to presume or pretend they are in communion. Christians in serious sin should not partake as they commit sacrilege by so doing. They defile the sacred. Non-Catholics are really not in true communion with the Catholic Church and so are not expected to in truth pretend they are (a false solidarity) or to dismiss our wishes in this regard and thereby express a lack of courtesy.

So ends my take at commentary on John 6.
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
As a note to others, I asked Pop-pop to post the above on this thread, moving it from a PM exchange between us so the rest of the forum might share in responding, if desired. Thanks, Pop-pop.

As another note, I'm still having problems with the charging port on my table being tempermental, so if I seem to disappear for the few days, that's why. But for now my tablet is charged.

For a final preliminary note, yes, I am sincerely asking, and I am decidedly open to the Holy Spirit on this matter. I've said this earlier on this thread, I believe, but it does carry alot of weight with me that it is, and has been, the belief of the greater part of Christendom, that in Holy Communion the bread and wine are changed into the literal flesh and blood of Christ.

I don't say that it carries alot of weight with me out of a need to conform with the pack, but because I recognize that very often other people know better than I do. Having said that, however, when, as in this case, I question a belief, it is much less due to obnoxiousness on my part than due to a desire to let even those in authority be mistaken sometimes. In other words, my intention is questioning authority is to let those authorities be human, which means they can be mistaken sometimes while still carrying significant value as authorities
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Okay, Pop-pop, now to get down to the discussion at hand. I read your post carefully several times yesterday and today and considered your commentary in an open manner. I still have say something I said before on this thread: Jesus says, in John 6:53, that "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat my flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you." He doesn't say "you have reduced, unadvantaged, non-steroidal, life in you." He says "no life". That "no life", and the "unless you...", and Christ's earnest Listen Up in repeating "truly, truly I say to you" are why my commentary calls this an absolute statement.

I also don't see any basis for saying that John 6:53 is talking about extra vitality while John 6:54 and the rest of the discourse are clearly talking about eternal life.

I don't mean this in an argumentative way. Can we go over this carefully, with me discussing my problems with seeing this John 6 discourse as advocating a belief in transubstantiation?
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Ariel,

“Reduced” is not what I am saying; since reduced implies mankind had something in the first place, whereas, prior to the inception of the Eucharist no one had this sacramental grace, this sacramental life, the opportunity for receiving this sacramental vitality that we are discussing. Reduce is a wrong choice of words, imo. One reduces from something. The dictionary says reduce means: ‘to bring to a lower condition; to diminish; to make less in size, amount, number etc.

You bold the word no life’ and discount what I say ‘life’ means in verse 53 as opposed to ‘eternal life’ in verse 54. You say they HAVE to be the same. ‘Life’ in verse 53 HAS to mean ‘eternal life’. So … that’s your interpretation. I had already explained a Catholic’s interpretation (this RC as a minimum).

You want me to prove my interpretation is true based on the words on your page (screen), as opposed to explain my interpretation. And if I cannot, based on the words before us, prove tha, to your satisfaction, then you feel you must hold fast.

Let me endeavor to come up with an analogy that’s fresh and personally meaningful.

So… I could write the following as an example: (see between the lines)

****************************************************************
Ariel,

You write:

“ … due to a desire to let even those in authority be mistaken ..”

AH! So this is why you asked that I move this post to the Public Forum, then. AIYEE!

Silly Pop-pop … having mistaken a girl with a gouge for mon amie – a girl from the FRIENDS state.

AIYEE!

Save me, O Lord and rescue me.

O Lord, how many are my adversaries!
Many rise up against me!
Many are saying of me,
“There is no salvation for him in God”

AIYEE!

aiyee.

***************************************************************

I could interpret your words, those on the page, as stating that your desire is to show me to be mistaken and to do so -- on a Public Forum. (For certainly we might have had this discussion via PM – where btw it was).

You would respond (explain) that that was not your intent at all.

I could then hold fast to my position based on the words on the screen. I could say prove it. Prove it to my satisfaction. I could say you wrote that you wanted this put on a Public Forum. I could show your words state that. I could bold font those words. Then I could say elsewhere (kinda like having a verse 54) the words also say your desire in all this wasn’t really to get at the truth, but your aim in all this was “ due to a desire to let even those in authority be mistaken ..”.

So. Let it be written that we are still friends and I can still in truth call you mon amie.

That said, can you see that this analogy may have some merit; … that this is the predicament we are in? That someone writing a commentary based on your written words might not believe based on the wording of your posts that you could be mon amie?

In the end, I can’t prove to you what ‘life’ in verse 53 means to every reader. I can only explain what it means to me (an RC). And I can only explain that to me it does not mean ‘eternal life’ just because the added word (eternal) is in verse 54. Actually, one could argue that if life in both verses HAS to mean the same thing, then there was no need to introduce the word ‘eternal’ into the text of the following verse. And in fact thereby, since it is there, then it must be that a distinction is being made between the verses.

Whatever. Stuff like this can go back and forth forever. And too, if one believes the other party is trying to put one down (or raise themself to smughood) – then it is even more difficult to get through to each other.

Anyway, I don’t want to pee in your direction. (winds coming from the west and all).
You asked me for commentary. I gave you some. You will be who you will be.
The Holy Spirit will …..?

Peace.
Pop-pop

You gave me Aquilla virtually, but I gave you Snappy in the real world.
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Pop-pop---

I'm going to have to think over how to reply to your post, and re-read it, too.

I can say this to give you some assurance---that wanting to be smug or publically try to prove you to be mistaken didn't play an ounce of a role in asking you to post your PM publically. You trusted me to have good motives in my request; I trusted you to assume positive intentions towards you in my request and in my subsequent reply, since I thought we'd been getting along nicely in PM's.
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Mon amie,

Hey! Be cool. I took no affront. No need to think otherwise. I was only kibbitzing and thought it a good example regarding interpretations one can draw regarding the written word.

Sleep in peace, mon amie.
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Picture of Phil
posted Hide Post
quote:
In other words, my intention is questioning authority is to let those authorities be human, which means they can be mistaken sometimes while still carrying significant value as authorities


Ariel, I'm still not sure what your question is.

Imo, the Johannine teaching on Eucharist could be construed as congruent with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but not exclusively so. Jesus and his followers surely did NOT have in mind Aristotle's teaching on substance and accident, which is the philosophical basis for transubstantiation (the substance of Christ's body and blood are present in the accidents of bread and wine). He did mean real presence, however, and that his life (supernatural life of the divine) was conveyed through the Eucharist, and that it is such life that saves, and nothing else. It doesn't mean to say that receiving the Eucharist is the only way to receive this life, however, but he does make it clear that he does communicate to us through such means. Can we all (including Pop, here) say "Amen" to at least this much?
 
Posts: 3948 | Location: Wichita, KS | Registered: 27 December 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Phil / Ariel / All,

Pop here.

* It doesn't mean to say that receiving the Eucharist is the only way to receive this life, however, but he does make it clear that he does communicate to us through such means. Can we all (including Pop, here) say "Amen" to at least this much?*

I can say ‘Amen’ to that. Yes.

My belief, in truth of course, encompasses this tad as well: I believe it (Eucharist) to be the most vibrant, the most unique, the most potent (and most importantly—the most accessible) means to receive that life (for those who believe enough to pursue its accessible potency).

Pop

p.s. I can also say that I would never want to be a cause of distress for Ariel, and apologize if I have unwittingly been so. Aiyee.
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Ariel,

TRULY, I do and DID realize that your words were meaning to express your warm regard for me in advance of whatever might be my response to this difficult question; that whether or not I could do a good job in responding it would make no difference in the respect you have for me.

I regret my using those as an example of how interpretation of written words can be difficult and how different understandings can come forth from written words, and that thereby commentaries can be misconstrued. The reader of the words brings something to their understanding that can misguide their understanding. I thought it a good example.

Let this not come between us – I much prefer snowballs to silence. I guess some of Snappy’s ugliness rubbed off on me the last time I changed his batteries.

Let’s be pals! TRULY.

Pop-pop
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
I'm thinking (certainly perhaps my thinking is incorrect though) that your disdain for the infallibility claims of the RC Church clouds your openness in assessing this issue -- the openness you believe to be a wide openness.

Your disdain long held by many Protestants not just you, centers on what you see as the RC's disdain for Protestants. When in fact, the RC position on infallibility was not written to slap down Protestants but was and is based on the RC Church's belief in the efficiency and effectiveness of the guidance it must give it if it (the H.S.) cares for the Church.

Now, you are free to disbelieve its conclusion on infallibility, but not to disbelieve its motivation.
 
Posts: 465 | Registered: 20 October 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
posted Hide Post
Good evening Pop-pop---

No worries; my silence yesterday was due to having a long and busy day. As we were talking about via PM, beside my experimenting with silversmithing, this is an especially busy time of year for me with my regular artwork + getting the farm ready for winter. And, don't be shocked, but Snappy has a new caretaker----I sold my pond and 16 acres to my neighbor, leaving me with 27 acres of pasture, cropland and a bit of woods and creek. I'm mourning the loss of my beech tree woods, but Snappy is admired by my neighbors, and they won't cut down the beautiful old beeches, the "Lady of the forest".

Anyway, Pop-pop----Nope, your last post about my purported "disdain" is off.

I'm sorry, in general to everyone, for not explaining where I'm coming from better. You, Pop-pop, were talking about Myers-Briggs types with Jacques on another thread recently; I'm pretty strongly an ISFP, with some INFP tendencies, but anyway, regarding the ISFP predilection to not be a verbal communicator, I'm especially tongue-tied when I'm happily working on some absorbing art project as I am right now---I simply can't seem to get into talking mode. I didn't think you were going to post your PM here right away, and I should have been clearer about that earlier. Although I do have some things I'd like to ask about this topic, I could have been clearer about not having the focus to do it justice at this time.

That probably makes no sense, I guess...
 
Posts: 82 | Location: east coast, US | Registered: 05 October 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5