Hey, youze twos. I'm still wondering what the disagreements or questions are about. Any interest in discussing?

Phil---

I do have a couple of questions, so I'll come back to this topic after Christmas.

Phil,

Gently put. Thank you. My apologies. And in true repentance, I will delete my past few posts. This will put us back on track in the public domain.

All,

So, continuing on…

It seems to me that perhaps a slight shift in our discussion of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist might prove to be of some value. So, let’s for a few posts perhaps, not focus so much on theory and concepts – scriptural interpretation, exegesis, the opinions and commentary of the various ists and isms, memes and worldviews that influence Christendom in our time.

Let’s shift our consideration of the mystery of RP to: practice – to the lived mystery of RP that has evolved and exists today within Christendom. I had endeavored to touch on this in what I had written in the NYC Subway System post on another thread. Maybe some more intense focus here will be beneficial. (Lol; though maybe not).

It seems to me that if one truly believes in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist, one would deeply believe in the RP. I say this, because of the emphasis Christ Himself placed on it (which we have already been discussing in our thoughts on Jn 6). And if one reflects on this concept, this mystery, His teaching, it’s hard not to get there – hard not to embrace it, hard to take it lightly or to dismiss it. Token belief as regards RP is in essence (imo, of course) no belief really – just another meringue to lose ourselves in debating about. ‘Blessed is he who hears the word of God and acts on it’. How does one act on belief in the RP, hmmn, -- certainly by more than engaging in conceptual argument.

It seems to me that if one deeply believes in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist, one would be maximizing their reception of this sacramental RP, this sacramental gifting. This maximizing would certainly involve frequency of reception. It would involve too, imo, one’s preparation for reception and the post-reception recollected absorption of this mystery. (Does this make sense?)

If I as a disciple of Christ desire ever increasing intimacy with Him and He has given me Jn 6 conceptually in His teaching and on top of that makes available the sacrament itself for my reception as frequently as I care to partake of it, then I would be frequently doing so. If I am in prayer with Him frequently, why would I not (if at all possible by me) be maximizing my reception of RP and all Christ has spoken to us about it?

As an aside, I see that a new site called Philothea has been established with primary focus on the devotional life and living the Shema, the first great commandment. All this fits quite vitally into the application of that (imo, of course).

Now, in earlier posts, we had touched upon the beliefs of Protestants and Catholics (here encompassing Roman and Orthodox and the Rites). We tried to get at whether we did or didn’t all have the same understanding (belief) regarding this mystery. And we tried not to throw stones. How far we got in all that is in each of our own heads.

I see in Catholicism that services (Mass), wherein reception of the sacramental RP is made available to the faithful, are conducted daily. The Church enables daily reception – enables frequency – because of its understanding of the mystery of RP. Because it deeply believes that frequent reception maximizes the divine life within the recipients. Because it believes that, it affords that – enables that. Again, I am speaking of practice – orthopraxy of mystery one could say – as some of you have educated me on this word orthopraxy. Orthopraxy-wise the CC evidences a deep belief in RP.

As for the non-CC portion of Christendom, and without opening ourselves to fighting over the precise number of denominations, and without my or anyone having adequate precise data on sacramental vs non-sacramental denoms, and teachings, and grape juice versus wine, and the frequency of communion services available within the number of denoms, I believe one must come to the conclusion that we all do not – across Christendom – have the same understanding (nor practice based on understanding) of what the mystery of RP entails. Though of course, we do all have the same NT to avail ourselves of.

I see in Catholicism that the church is concerned about preparedness for Eucharistic reception. She teaches on this. Her teachings address not only the conditions of reception for the Catholic faithful but also of the non-Catholic (yes, not permitted). These teachings evidence her belief in the RP and attest as well to the 1 Cor. 11 scripture.

Without arguing about all that, I make this point: that the Church does what she does (whether you accept what she does and how she does it / did it) because of her deep belief in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist. There is no laissez-faire nonchalance in play because of the nature of its understanding of this mystery. And the exclusion of non-Catholics is not based on contumely for other denominations; its center is based upon the mystery of RP – its sacredness.

Regarding post-reception recollected absorption, this is addressed by the Church in its teaching as well, though I believe (imo again, here) that this issue does not receive the emphasis it should have. (Ha, I am emphasizing to you now). A number of the saints, (and I have not personally read all that many saints) and we don’t have autobiographies and teachings of most of them anyway, have attested to the benefits of remaining in recollected prayer after receiving Eucharist for more than the time available during the typical Sunday mass. Having read those saintly mentions by several of them I have acted upon that,and I can attest that such periods are rich in benefit. It is, imo, somehow related time-wise to the physical absorption and subsequent circulation by the host throughout our body. You are of course, free to doubt my conclusions. In the mass, there is prayer concerning reception of the Eucharist: that it might ‘bring us health in mind and body’.

This praxis regarding reception of the RP, regarding participation in this mystery – by partaking not just discussing – has been ongoing for two millennia. The testimony of its efficacy is supported by a good number of saints and non-canonized persons. Eucharistic adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is a further dimension of this mystery that has been formed over the centuries as well.

It seems to me anyway, that non-Catholic Christendom – in the main – and through no doctrinal interference from the CC, does not have the same depth of understanding and belief in this mystery based upon the praxis therein observable.

In any event, one can truly say that participation in mystery, participation in the life of the Spirit is quite literally a learn-by-doing phenomenon.

Realization of the mystery of RP then ….. is a learn-by-receiving phenomenon!

Wish you were here. The Spirit and the Bride say: Come!

Pop-pop
Blue-meme clan.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pop-pop,

Dear Pop-pop--

The Advent season is my very favorite time of the year, and for many years I've made a priority of savoring every day of it. I make a few presents---this year it's my fledgling silversmithing skills with Argentium that I'm putting to use---and I have some sculpture commissions to complete. My farm work is just about wrapped up.


But I don't spend one second of the precious Advent days hurrying to buy gifts or getting distracted over anything else...and that includes, for me, getting involved in internet threads in anything beyond a casual, messing-around manner. While I don't think you wrote your post primarily to me, of course, but to "All", I wanted to explain why I'm not responding for awhile.

You said, kindly, "I wish you were here" to me a number of times, and I appreciate the friendly thought. Can you accept the idea that maybe I'm already where I'm supposed to be, by God's reckoning?

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
...
In any event, one can truly say that participation in mystery, participation in the life of the Spirit is quite literally a learn-by-doing phenomenon.

Realization of the mystery of RP then ….. is a learn-by-receiving phenomenon!
..

You mean something like 'how can one know what one does not know'?

Lots of good points in your last post, Pop-pop.

It is impossible to live in God's Holiness, fully...isn't it?

Who can stand the Holiness of Christ Jesus?

I wonder how much some might actually (unconsciously) avoid the honest consideration of Jesus' real Presence in the Eucharist? How many might avoid frequent reception of Him in the Eucharist not because they are busy, but because they are not ready for more? Some possible sources of unconscious resistance are fear for what they would have to give up or endure or how they might be transformed.

You know how the more you pray, the more you come in contact with your need for prayer? And sometimes this makes us uncomfortable because we resist the changes we intuit must occur in order for us to be faithful to such a deep call. Maybe it's the same way with receiving Holy Communion? How much more the RP of Jesus would seriously threaten our track of spirituality if we let ourselves be called to deeper union with God?

I dunno, just wondering out loud.

Thanks for sharing with us on this Pop-pop. And please feel free to share what has moved you about the Saints' experiences with the Eucharist.

All,

In scripture we read numerous statements and cautions concerning false shepherds and false teachers and millstones even. We find these in both the Gospels and the Epistles of the New Testament. Jesus Himself says “Truly, I assure you: Whoever does not enter the sheepfold through the gate, but climbs in some other way is a thief and a marauder.” (Jn 10:1) and later in verse 10, “The thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy”.

Currently there is serious concern among the RC bishops, priests and faithful in China today, and at the Vatican, regarding the Chinese government’s establishment of a state –appointed (state-ordained) clergy of bishops and priests installed and presiding over large numbers of parishes throughout China. The government, previously hard-line communists, now recognizes religion and the Catholic Church (which btw had grown despite the presence of communism) but has installed its own hierarchy. This new hierarchy clearly has not ‘entered the sheepfold through the gate’. Churchgoers are intimidated and in most instances have little choice in it all. Their parishes are being quietly taken over.

Okay. Now consider what your response would be to the following:

1. Should the Vatican be concerned – in your opinion?
2. Should China’s original, non state-ordained clergy (one might use the term ‘authentic’) and its faithful be concerned – in your opinion?

How would you see this? Does it matter? Does this constitute what Christ was driving at in the scripture I have presented above? What posture should the original (authentic – if I might be so bold) clergy in China take? What would you think the Vatican’s posture should be?

What might the consequence be if passivity and nonresistance is the recommended stance? How many generations of Christians might be falsely formed by false teaching, or would you think that there would be no false teaching?

Ready? ……..

Okay, back on topic (aha!) – SO… will the Chinese people attending masses at these state-staffed parish churches … be receiving RP?

May the Holy Spirit guide and inform your thoughts.

Ball in your court for response posts.

Pop-pop

It seems sad to me Pop Pop and yet Christ is bigger than the Chinese Government, the state ordained bishops and even bigger than the entire authentic Catholic Church.

People should be aware of the situation, the authentic bishops and priests should continue to minister in whatever capacity the Holy Spirit leads them to do and the people...

...well, the people will continue to receive whatever their faith allows them to receive. Christ is ready with a willing hand and heart to give us good gifts through the Holy Spirit, not even communist governments or false prophets can stand in His way. Do you believe that the RP is available to you through the Eucharist...then RP you will receive!

Hi, Jacques.

Certainly that is an answer.

Thanks for responding. I had anticipated that you might be a likely candidate for generating some feedback. Thanks for participating. If you hadn’t taken up the cause, I might have had to wait till after Christmas to see if your tag team partner and cheerleader would be playing in our theater.

When I was a youngster I often wondered if Southern Hemisphereans saw things upside down, hanging off the globe and all, as you do. Lol. In time of course, as I aged a bit and grew in understanding … I realized the gravity of the situation. (LOL. Terrible. Ugh! Pop-pop?)

Certainly your post provides an answer, Jacques. Certainly too, God is bigger than the Chinese government and bigger even than the ‘entire authentic Catholic Church’ as you point out.

Your answer though, (methinks) slights the divine revelation God has given us of Himself and how He acts (revelation regarding how He has chosen to act).

Essentially you are saying the recipient is his /her own priest – you say if one believes one receives (RP). If I accept your answer, then priesthood becomes (is) an unnecessary role / office. The recipient generates Eucharistic RP.

Your answer implies that God doesn’t honor his own anointing. It’s all a pretense somehow. God doesn’t honor his own will.

Sure, God is ‘bigger than the authentic Catholic Church’ and God ‘is ready with a helping hand and heart’ to gift us. God can do anything he wants. But his divine revelation has informed us of both what he wants and also the way in which he wants -- the way in which He has decided He wants – to work out salvation history.

While He didn’t have to, He has decided that we would experience the trials of suffering and persecution so as to share in His saving work and participate with Him in its unfolding and so share in His glory one day. Certainly He could have decided upon other means of doing things. He has decided too, for mystery (lest we be bored). He has decided to effect the salvation of others through our evangelizing – and not to bypass us. He decided how angels and fallen angels would play in it all and how the Mystical Body would be comprised and would function, etc etc. Could He have opted to work in other ways? Certainly; but He didn’t – hasn’t. Will He be fickle and inconsistent in His decisions? No. God is constant and unchanging. So we need to be attentive in our consideration of divine revelation, not merely to what and why, but to how as well.

His revelation shows us that He has chosen to work through the means of anointing and through priesthood. We read throughout the OT of the concept of anointing and of priesthood. The prophets anointed kings and prophets in His name -- under His directive and authority. Prophets, and priests as well, anointed kings. Samuel anointed Saul and later David per God’s instruction. The priest Zadok and prophet Nathan anointed Solomon. Elijah anointed Elisha. The spirit of he Lord ‘rushed’ upon David subsequent to his anointing. Anointing means something.

In the NT, Jesus (Lk 4:18) declares that he had been anointed to preach the Gospel.

Priesthood is an anointed office having functions, duty and authority. In Ex 40:13 God tells Moses, “Clothe Aaron with the sacred vestments and anoint him, thus consecrating him as my priest.” Priests alone, not every and any Israelite, were ordained to offer up the sacrifices. Priests consecrated for the people, the people didn’t consecrate for themselves. Priesthood means something.

God has shown us that He works through priesthood. That is how He wants to act and has decided to act.

Jesus told the apostles to await the anointing of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and indeed the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon them and descended in fire upon them and 3000 were converted to Christ. ‘Through the hands of the apostles, many signs and wonders occurred among the people’. Priesthood was not merely an OT phenomenon. God clearly continued His activity in the history of salvation via His priesthood. The NT gives witness to that. The laying on of anointed hands transfers that anointing.

Your considerations cannot dismiss revealed realities and still remain valid.

The wish fulfillment of men does not a divine precept make. None of us non–anointed are capable of grabbing some saltines and wine (or some grape juice) and praying up some Real Presence in the comfort of our home or amongst a group of believers. God does not honor such practice despite the wishes of those praying. He would contradict himself if He did. He would be participating in our dismissal of His revealed decisions regarding the ordering of supernatural realities and His will regarding how they will and do operate.

Sincerely,
Pop-pop

Shasha,

Milady, you wrote:

* Thanks for sharing with us on this Pop-pop. And please feel free to share what has moved you about the Saints' experiences with the Eucharist.*

Here is one such mention of post-Communion graces. This is from The AutoBiography of St. Teresa of Avila , Chapter XXVIII.

“And He shows me that He is both man and God -- not as He was in the sepulchre, but as He was when He left it after rising from the dead. Sometimes He comes with such majesty that no one can doubt it is the Lord Himself; this is especially so right after Communion, for we know that He is there, since the Faith tells us so. He reveals Himself so completely as the Lord of that inn, the soul, that it feels as though it were wholly dissolved and consumed in Christ. O my Jesus, if one could describe the majesty with which Thou dost reveal Thyself! How completely Thou art Lord of the whole world and of the heavens, and of a thousand other worlds, and of countless worlds and heavens that Thou hast created!”

I will endeavor to find other references to this issue. I forget where I had seen all of them. Whatever I find I will post.

Pop-pop

Ah Pop Pop,

Here is some more southern-hemispherean, down-side-up, up-side-down theology...

Does not your own RCC contradict some of your concern regarding the Chinese hierarchy - since while they may be in sin (by ignoring or going against the wishes of the papacy) they still have valid ordination since they have been ordained, perhaps under duress, by legitimate bishops...hence their office, while held in sin, may still confer the RP through the recitation of the liturgical prayers and the faith of the recipient.

Now on to my Protestant theology which unfortunately contradicts your RCC theology on a number of issues...

You have made a big deal about the Anointedness of the Priest...I agree this is important. But the anointing in the old testament was the external expression of the internal reality that the person was anointed with the Holy Spirit...

The difference between the old and new testament is that now the Holy Spirit has been poured out on All flesh and we are ALL Anointed. We are a kingdom of priests and kings and none of us are un-anointed.

I agree that in the church the elder, presbyter, pastor, priest or whatever you want to call the ordained leader, is still an important function, but I don't see them as being the key player in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist...

So unlike you, I do think that both the formal and informal gatherings, with wafer, bread, wine or grape juice, with ordained clergy, or simply Anointed ones outside the leadership structure, of Christians who share the Eucharist/Communion sacrament, that Jesus is there for those who have the faith to receive Him.

I'm sorry for the short reply, I wished to say more but am rushing to work...

Much Love in the Lord Jesus,

Jacques

Jacques, the RC church does permit bishops to ordain worthy candidates during periods of duress, even if they have not been through proper seminary training. There's nothing unsavory about this, especially since the bishops are doing the ordaining. The point here is that the faithful have a right to the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, but this is not an opening the door to just anyone being able to preside.

quote:

The difference between the old and new testament is that now the Holy Spirit has been poured out on All flesh and we are ALL Anointed. We are a kingdom of priests and kings and none of us are un-anointed.

We all do share in the priesthood of Christ, but that does not equivocate to all receiving Holy Orders. You are confusing spiritual gifts and ministries with consecrated ministries or offices The latter have been recognized since the earliest days of Christianity and set aside to minister to the community, with qualifications and ministry roles clearly designated. It has never been the case that just anyone is considered an acceptable presider of the liturgy simply by virtue of baptism.
- http://www.ad2000.com.au/artic...feb2010p12_3220.html

As for the manner of Jesus' presence, we do know that he has promised to be among us wherever we gather in his name. It doesn't follow that this promise is a guarantee of his Sacramental presence to us in illicit eucharistic celebrations.

Shasha,

Here again, are some extracts from St. Teresa of Avila’s instruction concerning post-communion benefits. I will keep looking for what I have seen from other saints. STA though is considered a Doctor of the Church, so her thoughts are assuredly quite valuable.

Extracted from The Way of Perfection, ch 34 and beginning of ch 35: (note: all of ch 34 addresses post-reception of the Blessed Sacrament. In the interest of brevity of post, I am bouncing around with extractions to give the flavor of it. But if you can get her book, try reading the whole of both chapters).
34.

“In no matter how many ways the soul may desire to eat, it will find delight in the most Blessed Sacrament” ….. “There is no need or trial or persecution that is not easy to suffer if we begin to enjoy the delight and consolation of this sacred bread”…. “Do you think that this heavenly food fails to find sustenance even for these bodies, that it is not a great medicine even for bodily ills? I know that it is. I know a person with serious illnesses, who often experiences great pain, who through this bread had them taken away as by the gesture of the hand and was made completely well. This is a common experience..” …. “Now then, if when He went about in the world the mere touch of His robes cured the sick, why doubt, if we have faith, that miracles will be worked while He is within us and that He will give what we ask of Him, since He is in our house? His Majesty is not accustomed to paying poorly for His lodging if the hospitality is good.” …… “Be with Him willingly; don’t lose so good an occasion for conversing with Him as is the hour after having received Communion.” ….... “… after having received the Lord, since you have the Person Himself present, strive to close the eyes of the body and open those of the soul and look into your own heart. For I tell you, and tell you again, and would like to tell you many times that you should acquire the habit of doing this every time you receive Communion…” …... “He doesn’t want to show Himself openly, communicate His grandeurs, and give His treasures except to those who He knows desire Him greatly.”

35.

“If we prepare ourselves to receive Him, He never fails to give in many ways we do not understand.” ..…… “It is like approaching a fire…If the soul is disposed (if it wants to get warm) and if it remains there for a while, it will stay warm for many hours.” … “…the devil will make you think you find more devotion in other things and less in this recollection after Communion. Do not abandon this practice; the Lord will see in it how much you love Him.”

Pop-pop

Jacques,

I had been alluding to illegitimate bishops appointed by the state then illegitimately ordaining priests. The legitimate church and its bishops are enduring the stress of persecution and have been holding fast and remaining isolated from the state recognized church. I heard such a bishop speak on an EWTN show a few months back. He was great.

Anyway, we remain obviously with different beliefs and that's that.

Peace
Pop-pop

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
...Be with Him willingly; don’t lose so good an occasion for conversing with Him as is the hour after having received Communion.” ….... “… after having received the Lord, since you have the Person Himself present, strive to close the eyes of the body and open those of the soul and look into your own heart. For I tell you, and tell you again, and would like to tell you many times that you should acquire the habit of doing this every time you receive Communion…” …... “He doesn’t want to show Himself openly, communicate His grandeurs, and give His treasures except to those who He knows desire Him greatly.”

35.

“If we prepare ourselves to receive Him, He never fails to give in many ways we do not understand.”

Wow!! Love these passages!! All that you've shared by our St. T.

My Carmelite formation class is reading through the Way of P. right now. I'll have to jump ahead and devour those sections.

Thank you for taking the time to write them out here for all to see!!

Thank you St. Teresa!

Thank you Pop-pop.

So, this morning, I was out on the Ponderosa early … earlier than usual. And let me tell you, it was BRISK. But, Jesus Akbar, I had my electric saddle heater to take the edge off. (Got the new wireless model. Works really great. Makes a big difference I’ll tell ya -- not havin’ to pull that buckboard full of extension cord spool around anymore).

Anyway, I dunno -- I’m loping along and maybe twenty minutes or so into the prayer of quiet and all of a sudden it dawns on me. (Musta been a low flyin’ angel or somethin’). But, of a sudden, I realize: Hey, this is not a Southern Hemispherean issue at all! Heck, I got a pal in Pennsy -- thinks the same way!

Hmmn…………hmmmn…

Well, I had my medicinal flask of Christian Brothers Whiteye with me so I stopped to fortify my prayer. (Didn’t want to spill any of that stuff; it’d burn a hole right through my horse – virtually).

My arms go straight out to my sides and I’m in the zone. (‘Rupture’ I think the mystics call it).

After a few minutes I dismount, fall to my knees and cry out: “Father, I know you know all things and are omniscient; and you must have a big BIG CAN of foreknowledge up there with you somewhere. Surely, you fourgnu that I’d be out here in the third millennium, on the internet and all, dealing with this issue of anointing, priesthood and RP.”

Well………………….silence………… more silence (same ole, same ole). [God! -- is God into mystery!]

“Father. Father, what was that all about?”

“Why’d the whole Trinity show up and do that anointing thing over the River Jordan -- with the Dove and you speaking about Jesus below in the river. Was that supposed to be significant or something? Or were you guys clownin’ around? I see St. Peter in Acts 10:38 thought it was significant (and I guess Luke who wrote Acts did as well – and maybe even the Dove had some input in inspiring both apostles to think back on it) since Peter points out that *beginning from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how He went about doing good and healing all..*”

“Were you still meaning to show that anointing means something – and would continue to mean something even throughout NT times? That it meant and means something to you and so you did it – indeed all of you Divine Persons were in on it?”

“Are you standing behind that concept? Does that express your will, your endorsement and how you intend that your power and authority be known and channeled?”

“You know, I take it, that if you hadn’t done that, and if Peter and Luke hadn’t recalled that and brought it up and all, it sure would have made for less discussion nowadays. None of your Christian folk would be arguing about whether everyone is anointed; whether everyone has your authority and endorsement and whether anointing gets transferred in a clear and distinct manner – and cannot be usurped since it is sourced in you.”

“I mean, to me anyway, anointing by its very nature doesn’t seem to be a universal type thing. It seems to be more of a ‘singling out’ kind of thing. That’s how the OT presents the concept and you are constant and all, so it would appear you considered it as a singling out applicable in NT times.”

“I mean, all OT Israelites were your ‘chosen people’, yet only some were singled out and anointed as priests or prophets. All NT Christians are your ‘royal priesthood’ yet it seems only some were singled out and anointed as apostles and priests. I see this as analogous, Father.”

“Father, if there is no distinction, no singling out, and if all Christians have equality of your authority and gifts and power without distinction, then what’s with the laying on of hands; what’s with the praying for which Christian disciple would replace Judas and become apostle; why did there have to be a choice between Matthias and Barsabbas anyway – both (per Acts 1:21) ‘have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us’. Why couldn’t both have been considered apostles? Couldn’t there have been 37 apostles? Acts 1:24 shows they prayed ‘Lord, you know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship.’ The words you have chosen implies (to me anyway) a ‘singling out’ from universality. And why, Father, is your NT book not called the Acts of the Disciples -- or the Acts of the Royal Priesthood?”

“Father, hey, you foreknew. I know that. So, what’s the story? …. You know if we didn’t have all this apostle stuff we wouldn’t be having all this ‘authenticity’ argument stuff. Who would care? … Aiyee, who does care? Only the Catholics – perhaps only the uber Catholics. But many argue: can that many Protestant denominations be wrong about this priesthood issue?”

“Father, here’s what I don’t understand. You had active prophets operative within the early church – I read in Acts of Agabus, Judas and Silas and in the Church at Antioch others through whom your H.S. acted (Acts 13) to announce that you wanted Saul and Barnabas set apart for the work you had for them. Why did you not speak through any of those prophets to guide the early church and to make it known that all Christians are a royal priesthood and therefore all this laying on of hands and anointing and ministry of apostles was unnecessary? Right from the start you could have gotten the church off on the right foot.”

“I fear to ask this, but I know I should not fear you, since you are love itself. So I am going to be bold and ask: were you sleeping at the switch?”

Well I waited, of course. But ………………….silence…………and more ……… silence (same ole, same ole). No lightning bolts though – so that was good!

Bye and bye I got back in the saddle and ambled homeward …. ponderin’ all the way.

My conclusion: seems to me, what with there being all that evidence that the Lord sustains anointing and priesthood, it must mean that He means it. ‘Royal priesthood’ seems akin to ‘chosen people’ – a generic and universal reality addressing covenanted folk as advantaged over non-covenanted; but anointing and priesthood with its priestly powers reflects a setting apart beyond the collectively advantaged; and priestly powers reflect powers not given the whole of God’s flock. Transformation of bread and wine into Eucharistic RP is the greatest of all the priestly powers not availed by those outside of priesthood. It is in fact the very epitome of priestly power, the epitome of distinction.

My pals in the super-deep south and in the Pennsyed north are of another mind, I realize. Aiyee.

Meantime and always – God be with us, with us all.

Pop-pop

Pop-pop----

Aquila's buddy, my mare Serenada, is lame from reinjuring an old ligament tear, and I'm taking an Advent sabbatical from religious squabbles, so you won't be running into me out there on the Ponderosa. FWIW, though, I don't have difficulty with most (but of course not all) of what you're saying.

Perhaps a discussion of the why and how of apostolic succession can be added to our list of 2012 topics.

Kristi,

Thanks for the stroke! I appreciate it. Nice knowing I'm not merely ticking folk off.

Shasha,

Thanks as well! Hope your formation teachings bear wonderful fruit.

Ariel,

Hope your mare mends nicely. I can accept a break from rasslin' until the new year. Hey, I never had me one of dem sabbatical things. Are there any holiday sales wherein I could pick one up cheap? I took an Advent Wreath once. Kept goin' round and round on it. Dizzying. Aiyee!

Hey Pop-pop---

Thanks for the well wishes for my mare.

I've never seen a sabbatical for sale, but I'd be happy to share some of mine with you.

Pop Pop,

I very much enjoy discussing these issues and I myself have spent time praying for God to give me insight and knowledge regarding these realities...I too have been answered with silence...hmmmm!

Just to add that I also think anointing is important and the laying on of hands significant. It was through the laying on of hands that I myself received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit / Baptism in the Spirit (sometimes I wonder if the two are slightly different realities).

I believe the laying on of hands is often the means of transferring healing, miracle and Spirit, but that sometimes healing, miracle and Spirit is also transferred in other ways.

Just so you know, I really am open to being shown that only Priests, even only RCC/Eastern Orthodox Priests, are the ones able to enact/enable RP in the Eucharist...I understand that that is what RCC theology teaches you...I just wonder if you are able to show how this is true from the Bible...since it seems to me that in the Bible there is no clear indication that ONLY Priests served the Eucharist meal. Perhaps sometimes deacons served it, perhaps sometimes, prophets or teachers, perhaps sometimes others...I don't know.

I do agree however that the lowering of the sacredness of the Eucharist in some Protestant churches is tantamount to blasphemy and I would argue for the raising of the standards in those quarters of the church.

quote:

.I just wonder if you are able to show how this is true from the Bible...since it seems to me that in the Bible there is no clear indication that ONLY Priests served the Eucharist meal. Perhaps sometimes deacons served it, perhaps sometimes, prophets or teachers, perhaps sometimes others...I don't know.

Jacques, neither is there in the Bible any indication that just any baptized Christian was recognized as presider of the Eucharist. Works both ways, you see. Nor does the Bible tell us what prayers they prayed, how they prepared themselves, etc. This info comes from that body of writings we call Tradition. It's part of our understanding of how the Spirit leads the Church -- i.e., the Bible isn't necessarily the last or even the only word on many matters. . . unless you're a particular kind of Protestant, of course.

quote:

I very much enjoy discussing these issues and I myself have spent time praying for God to give me insight and knowledge regarding these realities...I too have been answered with silence...hmmmm!

Maybe that's because God has already made His will known to the Church long ago and has no need to re-confirm this with individuals. What chaos if every individual had to determine such matters through prayer and reflection!

Hey Jacques and others,

I don't know if you're interested, but this 34 minute audio clip from Taylor Marshall is a good summary of how the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence is based largely on Paul's teachings.


http://pauliscatholic.com/2009...page-1/#comment-6265

There's so much I didn't know about this profound issue.

Anyway, thanks again Jacques for bringing my attention to Taylor Marshall's work. Excellent teacher. Pure heart.

You're welcome Shasha. I'm enjoying him as well

All,

Well, we’ve had a good number of discussion posts on this subject of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Ariel-X’s (lol) recent post regarding the distinctions in contrition that RCs deal with (that she raised on the other forum thread pertaining to churchs and doctrines) triggered the following thoughts which I decided to post here because of their relevance to RP:

Ariel mentioned: “but I don't find the perfect/imperfect contrition distinction very useful in real life.”

I can see that not being an RC she might well not find the distinction useful for her religious life. Her non-relevant use for the contrition distinction though, points out a real difference between how I as an RC use the distinction. It is an attendant relevant distinction that is companion to the belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I would like to explain why the contrition distinction has real usefulness in real life to my religious practice. So, here goes.

In a very real way the Eucharist is the sacramental ‘pearl of great price’ for RCs; and this is based on the belief in Christ’s Real Presence (His transubstantiated presence) in the Eucharist. The centrality of Eucharist to RC liturgy and our faith and the import of Christ’s RP in the host makes its reception a matter of interfacing with the being of God almighty.

Therefore, sacrilege is a consequence of improper reception of the Eucharist. (1 Cor 11: 26-29 scripturally substantiates this). Reception of Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin is a sacrilege. And sacrilege is an even more significant mortal sin. It is a sin against God. It is a sin against the second commandment because more than taking the Lord’s name in vain, it takes His very presence (His RP) in vain.

That being the RC understanding of what RP entails, the distinction between whether or not one is in the state of grace versus in the state of mortal sin becomes quite pertinent to RCs. Thence comes the usefulness and importance of awareness of whether ones sins have been venial or mortal and whether or not the sacrament of confession is necessary and whether or not one’s contrition is perfect or imperfect.

In practice, in real life, in the real life of RCs (blue-meme clan anyway, as opposed perhaps to some Catholic politicians) the distinctions in both contrition (perfect/imperfect) and in gravity of sin (mortal/venial) are very germane.

The reality of RC belief in the RP in the Eucharist is central and has far reaching ramifications into many of our doctrines. The categories of contrition and the types of sin are (or should be) of significant practical use. And such use is not merely when examining one’s readiness for Eucharistic reception, but at all moments, whether when confronting temptations in daily living or when endeavoring to serve God more perfectly in daily living.

fwiw.

Pop-pop

Pop-pop---I understand what you're saying. I have a further, related question for you, but it's late. FWIW, when I wrote what you quoted from the other thread, the context was that I don't find the imperfect/perfect contrition distinction of much use because I am almost always a mixture of motives in repentance. While I agree that some types of contrition are more truly borne of love for God than others, if I had to untangle and classify my motives in repentance in order to know I was forgiven, I'd really have a problem.

I agree with you, Pop, only I'm not so sure there's a lot of mortal sin out there.

Here are the requirements for one to commit a mortal sin:
1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

Even then, one must qualify the act even more. E.g., I have deliberately missed Mass on Sunday before . . . because I was sick. I met all 3 requirements for Mortal Sin in doing so, but circumstance mitigated against the seriousness of the act. Indeed, one must always consider the circumstance in which the act is situated as this reflects on the intent. E.g., killing a fetus is wrong; killing in self-defense is not.

Perfect contrition is held out as a corollary to full knowledge and full consent of the will. I don't know that human beings do too many things with full knowledge and full consent of the will.

But . . . if one thinks that one has deliberately chosen to do something that was offensive to God, then, yes, don't go to Communion until you go to Confession.