![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - July 17 2003 : 4:53:40 PM
|
| Bill, may I use your words for a devotional? |
Theresa |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 17 2003 : 5:36:42 PM
|
You certainly may. I'm flattered. Very much so. My mother's death was like an epiphany for me, of sorts. God does not take people from us, through car crashes, cancer, disasters, pianos falling out of windows etc because "it is their time". God would not inflict such pain on folks. What God DOES is provide us a place to return home to, and a means to do so - his Son. He gives us life. He gives us the capacity to love, and to do as we will - with the hopes that by doing so we will love Him, do His will. The evil that happens in this world is not his doing, accidents don't happen because he "calls" somebody home. My mother died with dignity and with hope here in Wisconsin, instead of on her bathroom floor alone and scared after her stroke. He had a hand in THAT, perhaps. But it is the nature of things that we die, it is the choices we make that result in accidents and evil and wars. He didn't TAKE my mother - he welcomed her when she passed on as a loving daughter returned home.
Betty was amazed that through all our pain and heartache over my mother's unexpected death I never once blamed God or asked him Why he took her from us. So I explained it to her. I grieve, I miss her terribly, but I know I will see her again. And she IS with us still while with God, watching over us and waiting for us to join her. So I believe. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 17 2003 : 8:46:48 PM
|
| Bill, those words are so comforting to me even now after losing Mrs. Williams in the tornado over five years ago. You have given me a different way of seeing things....rather than taking her, He welcomed her. Thank you. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 18 2003 : 03:35:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill R
God does NOT close His gates to his children who carry Him in their hearts simply because they did not perform a certain ritual. He judges us by our hearts, not by whether we say Hail Mary's or Allah Akbar or which "Our Father" we say. That I do not believe.
Most enjoyable post Bill and great response as always Lainey! My feelings on religion are pretty similar to Bill's. My religion is intensely personal to me, and I have never really felt the need to defend it to anyone, explain it to anyone, or try and convert anyone to it, because ultimately, it is between me and Him. I think humans all have different needs, some need the formality and discipline of an organised religion, some need to have a scientific basis for living, some need a more 'organic' view of God, some need an uplifting method of worship, some need a more meditative way.....we are all different, as God intended, so I find it hard to believe that there can only be one 'right' way of worship.
As Bill said so eloquently, we will be judged by what is in our hearts. It is how we conduct our lives and how we try and overcome our very human weaknesses that matters most.
HM |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 18 2003 : 11:34:16 AM
|
"Open rebuke is better than hidden love. Better are the wounds of a friend, than the deceitful kisses of an enemy." - Prov.
"It is better to be rebuked by a wise man, than to be deceived by the flattery of fools." - Eccles.
We are all different, but God is not. God is not a dim mirror of ourselves, nor is He indifferent to our differences. Religion is a quest for God so each man's particular needs are irrelevant unless he is seeking not God, but himself as a god. Sentimentalism has nothing to do with revelation & everything to do with God made in our own image.
Is God to be molded according to each of our weaknesses or limitations, limited by our lack of willingness to know, to see, to hear Him in spirit and in truth? Is God's nature to be suspended and remade according to the pleasures of every personal whim? Can the created reprove and recreate the Creator?
Natural religion is the discovery of God outside of Revelation. It can grasp, however imperfectly, the existence of God. It does not hear Scripture and turns away from Revelation, leaving the soul groping in darkness as it seeks its eternity amidst the unknown, struggling to find order within chaos. The nature of a soul compels it to desire order and, therefore, even in natural religions, are found the rudiments or complexities of rituals & practices that are human endeavours to discover the soul's end purpose. There is no such thing as non-organized religion, personal or otherwise. Either there is religion or there is not. Either there is fidelity to belief, or there is not. Either we live what we believe, or we believe only in what we live.
If I call myself a Marxist I must live accordingly. I will know the Manifesto I embrace and I will labor in the fields of communal equity, not for my own ends, but for the common good. I will not slip away in the dark to enjoy the liberty of free trade, nor will I secretly desire the joys of individualism, liberation, or a spiritual life. For if I do, I will betray myself & discover I can no longer call myself a Marxist.
If I call myself a Christian I must live accordingly. I will know the Gospel I embrace and I will labor in the fields of the Lord, not only for my own ends, but for the good of all. I will not slip away in the dark to curse the liturgy of Christ, nor will I willingly deny the joys of ritualism, celebration, or the spiritual life. For if I do, I will betray myself & discover I may not know to call myself Christian.
St. Augustine, speaking of his own delays and refusals to embrace fully what he already knew to be true, Christianity, said:
"Lord, I want to love you, but not yet ..."
The greatest moral program for man is found in the Beatitudes. This will never be improved upon, never surpassed. And yet, within the Sermon on the Mount, we also hear the admonishing, harsh words of Christ that are not at all gentle. He is merciful, but He is just. He requires things that go well beyond the heart. He is clear in His doctrines, clear in His mission, clear in His intentions. We don't need to speculate - we need to hear.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven."
"Everyone therefore who hears these my words and acts upon them, shall be likened to a wise man who built his house on rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not fall, because it was founded on rock. And everyone who hears these my words and does not act upon them, shall be likened to a foolish man who built his house on sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and it was utterly ruined."
"Do not think I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall be lost from the L |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 18 2003 : 1:33:16 PM
|
Let me not deceive you ... I am nowhere near being the religious man that I wish I were. Not even close, so don't take this as a preaching post, for surely it is not. I can't even pretend to fully comprehend where anyone truly stands on matters of religion, despite what you've said here, because, other than with Lainey - and a bit with Jim, years ago - I've really never discussed the topic with any of you. So, certainly this is not meant as judgment, or directed at anyone in particular.
In fact, as many do, I've groped through the darkness on this subject for my whole life. Born & raised a Catholic, I denounced that faith in my younger days & searched everywhere for a suitable replacement for many years after. I can hear, coming from my own mouth, the words, "God knows what is in my heart. As long as I do good in this life, it is ok." I've considered myself practically everything, short of atheist, at one time or another.
Just a couple of things ...
To me, it makes no sense for Christ to manifest on Earth to go through what he did simply to make it known there was a God. That was never the issue. It had to be far more than that. It was to teach a WAY ... a very difficult WAY, and the road map was very precisely laid out.
It was all - Christ's life here on Earth, that is - so brutal & violent in the end ... why would it need to be so? That's what ought to be considered.
"Organized" religion ... that is the crux of things. Again, I can hear myself. But really, if you believe Christ is God, you have no choice.
Too, all "organized" religions, that I know of anyway, require a difficult road. Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or Muslims ... the path is not easy. Take the Plains Indians ... as a part of your faith could you endure a Sun Dance? It seems that the religions of mankind have always required a difficult road.
Christ took a difficult road to teach us that ... to teach us the correct choice among those difficult roads.
The only way is his way ... and that is written.
I say all this after taking a reasoned approach to the subject, not from a religious bent. Unfortunately for me, I have yet to properly embark on that path. Lainey, bless her, has tried.
I said in the Sophia thread, months ago, that I believe part of her particular mission was to bring me closer to God. The fact that I was able to write this convinces me all the more.
That's all I want to say on this. I appreciate reading your views.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 18 2003 : 2:43:22 PM
|
Hey Rich, how ya doin?
You and I probably are very close in our thinking AND our journey trying to come to terms with the religious aspect of our lives. Right down to the belief that your wife was put in your path to bring you closer to God. I have often thought the same about Betty.
Weirder yet, Betty is also Catholic. And I admit, I often enjoy the ritual and richness of the Catholic services more than the looseness of many Protestant services.
Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see any major contradictions in what has been said on this page between the various viewpoints. Christ's path is difficult NOT for the ritual, but in the DOING what he asked of us. There is nothing harder than loving and forgiving an enemy - particularly in light of 9-11 - yet that is one of the major paths he directs us to take. He does proscribe rituals for us - the Lord's Prayer, the Sacrements as his "new covenant" which he directs us to do in remembrance of him.
I agree. He did not come on earth as man to suffer as he did to merely show us there is a God. The people he was preaching to already KNEW that. He came to show us a new face of God.
And make a new covenant with us. As he said. Nor would it make sense to believe He came to earth to say to us "no, no no! You're doing it all wrong! HERE is how I want you to do the rituals". He was keeping the faith while rebelling against the accretion OF ritual, while trying to bring us back to a one on one relationship with Him. Even more, I believe, he was not trying to throw out the rituals and tenets observed by the Israelites, He was trying to institute that one on one, closer personal relationship between God and Man, while respecting and supporting the existing rituals and beliefs in Judaism. It was not the rituals he objected to. Nor do I. I think he was trying to de-emphasize ritual (not abolish it) while trying to emphasize that relationship. And frankly, give us new rituals which represented that relationship - rituals which he instructed US to do - where did he say "do this in remembrance of me IN CHURCH, performed by a PRIEST"? How many of us celebrate that "remembrance of him" in our own homes? Likely NONE. Yet, I don't believe he would object - maybe even meant for us to do that.
Many rituals of Judaism ARE done in the home. By the head of household NOT by a Priest. They still come together as a community also, in synagogue, and celebrate other rituals. Where is it said that the sacrements must be celebrated only in church, but the Lord's Prayer can be said by anybody, anywhere?
It's those kinds of ponderings I have. Don't make them right. I admit that. But one does have to ponder them. At least I do.
Bottom line - His path IS hard. NOT because it's a pain to go to Church or do it the Catholic way or the Protestant way.. It's hard because of what he DID ask us to do. Love one another. Live His way EVERY DAY, not just Friday at confession or Sunday at Mass/services. It's the living His word every day that is HARD.
I don't take offense at the various positions/beliefs nor even if somebody thinks one sect has it right and some other does not. Only God knows the answer to that one. I will NEVER believe that if one loves God, believes in Christ, and tries to live His Word every day he will be rejected from the Gates of Heaven for NOT being a Catholic or for omitting some ritual. I just don't believe that.
That's the kind of thing MEN impose on one another. Not God or Christ. At least I don't believe so. And it IS all about belief.
As someone once said, belief is NOT about knowing or proof. It is BELIEF. Acceptance of a thing being so without proof. My belief is that God and Christ sometimes weep at what Man deems to call Their Will, or Their Cause or Their Way.
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 18 2003 : 4:25:50 PM
|
| I'm a kind of guy who had many,many dark nights of the soul (and still do).My quest has taken many years.I studied every kind of religion there is.Being raised Catholic,I rejected everything that religion had to offer.Matter of fact,I rejected basically everything and questioned the existence of God.But I wasn't that totally stupid in rejecting God,just looking around to see how he revealed himself.Man,was that a long road!I think the real kicker was the Shroud of Turin.I have done a real deep study on that relic but found out that my brain is too small to actually comprehend all the details.I finally accepted Jesus as the true way and I love him very much.Now I have some hope for the future.When the day comes for me to check out of here,I'll just fly away(just like the song).Everyone on this site is great and I am enjoying myself greatly. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Ilse
The Dutch Trader
Netherlands
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - July 18 2003 : 9:49:02 PM
|
I, too, am enjoying this thread, with the recent posts from all of you. You know... there is definitely a theme going on here. And it is an age-old theme: "Should I believe, deeply and without question, or should I reject and despise?"
My religious journey echoes that of Rich and Jim, except that I was and am Protestant. I grew up attending church regularly and professed my belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and my Savior. I even carried a New Testament to high school with me, in my purse. (Back in the days when you wouldn't get hung out to dry for doing so.) When I married my first husband, I "fell away" from my beliefs and doubted the Truth that I had been taught. In short, I was not living within the will of God. Those were, indeed, dark days for me in many ways.
A divorce, single parenthood for 4 years, struggling to support my children, living below the poverty level... it all ended when a new man came into my life, who was and is a Believer. It has been a very long journey back into the Light, but I have made it. I have been forgiven and blessed. And I am so very glad! Now I am neither a "Bible Thumper" or someone who thinks I am "Holier Than Thou." I am simply "one who believes."
Everyone has said some amazing things here that have really spoken to me. To me, it doesn't matter whether we are Protestant or Catholic. We do, after all, believe in and worship and love the same God... in three Persons! As long as we believe, with all of our hearts and beings, that Christ is the Son of God and that He paid the price, in full, for our sin... we are saved by His grace. And along with that, as Lainey, Rich and Bill have said, we are to strive to live our lives as Jesus told us, using Him as the perfect example.
And now, the theme I see is that we all love the Lord with all of our hearts! And that is just the greatest thing of all. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 19 2003 : 12:10:22 PM
|
quote:
It's those kinds of ponderings I have. Don't make them right. I admit that. But one does have to ponder them. At least I do.
Yes, that's right, Bill! We ALL need to ponder these things. Recognizing that & then doing it is evidence of something pretty neat - it's called grace.
You brought up several things I want to reply to. Hopefully, I'll find the time tonight. Meanwhile, Pax Christi ...
Ilse, isn't 'controversy' refreshing?!!  |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 20 2003 : 04:27:53 AM
|
quote:
My religion is intensely personal to me, and I have never really felt the need to defend it to anyone, explain it to anyone, or try and convert anyone to it,
Fair enough, Adele. But why do you not "feel the need"? As you've described it, your religion is a personal relationship between you & God based upon behavioral modification [virtues?] that has no definite structure or defined belief beyond being good [generally] & overcoming weaknesses [generally]. That pretty much rules out defending, explaining, or converting since it's;
a.) personal & therefore not for sharing
b.) universally undisputed - no one will argue against goodness or combatting weaknesses.
There's no conversion or defense needed. Who will be hotly against you on this? What controversy could be raised that would compel you to a spirited defense?
Does your lack of need assume something questionable or faulty about defending, explaining, or converting?
I don't have a need, either - but I do have a desire & obligation to defend & explain what I believe, when circumstance arises, because it's worth explaining & people are worth hearing it. It's not MY way, or MY religion, but God's. I didn't make it or define it, I believed it & embraced it. Because it's God's I made it mine. I don't go knocking on doors or handing out devil-finder tracts but I'd share what I love in a heartbeat; shout it from the rooftops if need be. Is this wrong?
If a man discovered something great & wonderful - a treasure of gold, or a path to some incredible utopia, and had a dear friend he claimed to love, wouldn't the friend expect him to share the good news? If, instead, he kept it to himself, hiding it from view, would the friend feel betrayed? Would he question the first man's fidelity & sincerity? Would he ever trust him to be a friend?
Why is it different with religion? I love God. I love Christ. I love the Church. If I call you a friend & claim to love you (which I do) - why would I want to hold back & keep hidden these things I hold & cherish, especially when questions arise?
Many outside the Church claim it's a prohibitive, judgmental institutional prison that exacts man-made penalties & burdens its sons & daughters with unnecessary do's & don'ts, restrictions, regulations, oppressions - in short, forces its unhappy members to jump hoops & practice self-mortification. I am in the Church - fully - & I adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. I believe what the Church teaches & fully assent to her rituals and sacraments, doctrines & dogmas. I see her timelessness - experience her timelessness. I could write sonnets on the richness & beauty of the Church's language, & her apostolic pulse that seems never to miss a beat. Christ always near, never gone. The Eucharist - the canticle of canticles, the song of songs for those who've encountered God. I don't feel the least bit bound, shackled, tethered, restricted, or oppressed. I don't feel the gloomy misery I hear I am to feel. I find more inspiration, more life, more joy, more love every day, in every day, because of the Church. I love Christ more every day because of the Church. If I feel this, believe this - do you blame me for wanting this for you?
Bill, Christ chose twelve apostles because He was building a New Israel. The twelve represent the twelve tribes of Israel - & they understood this. One of the very first actions taken by Peter & the others was to select a replacement for Judas so they would continue what Christ was making anew. The twelve spoke & preached with ONE voice. There was never contradiction or variance in what they preached - they preached with total unity the Gospel of Christ. Christ chose twelve humble, ordinary men to build a new Israel, the Church, & He chose one among |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Adele
The Huggy Merchant
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 20 2003 : 07:26:33 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lainey
[quote]Fair enough, Adele. But why do you not "feel the need"? As you've described it, your religion is a personal relationship between you & God based upon behavioral modification [virtues?] that has no definite structure or defined belief beyond being good [generally] & overcoming weaknesses [generally]. That pretty much rules out defending, explaining, or converting since it's;
a.) personal & therefore not for sharing
b.) universally undisputed - no one will argue against goodness or combatting weaknesses.
There's no conversion or defense needed. Who will be hotly against you on this? What controversy could be raised that would compel you to a spirited defense?
Does your lack of need assume something questionable or faulty about defending, explaining, or converting?
I don't have a need, either - but I do have a desire & obligation to defend & explain what I believe, when circumstance arises, because it's worth explaining & people are worth hearing it. It's not MY way, or MY religion, but God's. I didn't make it or define it, I believed it & embraced it. Because it's God's I made it mine. I don't go knocking on doors or handing out devil-finder tracts but I'd share what I love in a heartbeat; shout it from the rooftops if need be. Is this wrong?
If a man discovered something great & wonderful - a treasure of gold, or a path to some incredible utopia, and had a dear friend he claimed to love, wouldn't the friend expect him to share the good news? If, instead, he kept it to himself, hiding it from view, would the friend feel betrayed? Would he question the first man's fidelity & sincerity? Would he ever trust him to be a friend?
Why is it different with religion? I love God. I love Christ. I love the Church. If I call you a friend & claim to love you (which I do) - why would I want to hold back & keep hidden these things I hold & cherish, especially when questions arise?
Many outside the Church claim it's a prohibitive, judgmental institutional prison that exacts man-made penalties & burdens its sons & daughters with unnecessary do's & don'ts, restrictions, regulations, oppressions - in short, forces its unhappy members to jump hoops & practice self-mortification. I am in the Church - fully - & I adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. I believe what the Church teaches & fully assent to her rituals and sacraments, doctrines & dogmas. I see her timelessness - experience her timelessness. I could write sonnets on the richness & beauty of the Church's language, & her apostolic pulse that seems never to miss a beat. Christ always near, never gone. The Eucharist - the canticle of canticles, the song of songs for those who've encountered God. I don't feel the least bit bound, shackled, tethered, restricted, or oppressed. I don't feel the gloomy misery I hear I am to feel. I find more inspiration, more life, more joy, more love every day, in every day, because of the Church. I love Christ more every day because of the Church. If I feel this, believe this - do you blame me for wanting this for you?
Gee thanks Lainey, I don't have a hope in hell of going back to finish my cleaning until I have answered this one! 
Ok...either you have made a few assumptions, or I have not expressed myself very well. Actually, it's both. Congratulations! You just made me feel the need to defend my religion!!
My religion is not based as you put it on 'behavioural modification' - not at all. That is just one aspect, the same as all religion. I know that if you truly seek God, you will find Him - and I also know that He is not always to be found in the same place. You have found God in the Catholic church, and my |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 20 2003 : 10:21:18 AM
|
Lainey,
I will never be able to express myself as well as you, nor am I as well read, nor do I have the ability to reference specific texts, learned works, scripture even to support my views or beliefs. And that's okay. They are MY beliefs. I'm not out to convert, persuade, bend anybody to my beliefs. I merely explain WHAT I believe, and why, because it helps ME to put it in perspective for MYSELF, and helps me get through a really hard time re: my mother's passing to think about these things.
quote:
"Many outside the Church claim it's a prohibitive, judgmental institutional prison that exacts man-made penalties & burdens its sons & daughters with unnecessary do's & don'ts, restrictions, regulations, oppressions - in short, forces its unhappy members to jump hoops & practice self-mortification."
That's true. Many DO feel that way, both IN and OUT of the Catholic church to one degree or another. I myself attend (and in fact today we are going to St. Mary's for services rather than some other) but will never be able to join, as I can never be reconciled to some of the things about the Catholic church that bother me and I do NOT believe in. That does not take away from my enjoyment of the richness of the services though. St. Mary's is led by a Bishop whom I particularly enjoy listening to. But join? Can't. Not with those things about the Catholic church unresolved and at odds with what I believe deeply. The fact that I and others ARE bothered by some of the things mentioned in quote above takes nothing away from the Church itself. For those, like you, who accept and believe it all unreservedly it IS the path for you. Not for me. Nor others.
quote:
I am in the Church - fully - & I adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. I believe what the Church teaches & fully assent to her rituals and sacraments, doctrines & dogmas. I see her timelessness - experience her timelessness. I could write sonnets on the richness & beauty of the Church's language, & her apostolic pulse that seems never to miss a beat. Christ always near, never gone. The Eucharist - the canticle of canticles, the song of songs for those who've encountered God. I don't feel the least bit bound, shackled, tethered, restricted, or oppressed. I don't feel the gloomy misery I hear I am to feel. I find more inspiration, more life, more joy, more love every day, in every day, because of the Church. I love Christ more every day because of the Church. If I feel this, believe this - do you blame me for wanting this for you?"
That's great Elaine. I am truly happy for you. I am. It is GOOD that you have that fulfillment in your church and your life. And no, I certainly cannot blame you for wanting to share that fulfillment and happiness and richness with those you care about and those who seek fulfillment. Moreover, it is what your church INSTRUCTS you to do. Share the good news, bring folks to the church so they can share in it. However, once you have shared that news with a particular person and they have their own beliefs and their own fulfillment which they are happy with, and decide to keep on THEIR path, doesn't it become nagging or haranging to continue to "share" that news? Just a thought. I believe, and Adele and others believe, that they will see God (and Jesus) just as you will. That is OUR belief. Put it another way, I BELIEVE - without being Catholic - those who have spoken in this forum about their strong beliefs and who have publicly stated their love of God and Jesus - ALL of us will one day meet in Heaven to continue this discussion - but we won't have to continue it, as since ALL of us are THERE, everybody's point has been proven and we can all just bask in the light and love of God and his Son, celebrate joyfully with our loved ones who have gone before us, and take joy in the "Last and Final for Good and All Great Mohican Gathering to end all Gatherings". So I believe.
quote:
"The twelve spoke & preached with |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 20 2003 : 5:06:41 PM
|
| I'm learning a lot here that I didn't know. I have a question...and please know that I'm asking because I'm ignorant of the Catholic practice. Can I, as a Protestant, partake in Holy Communion in the Catholic Church? |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Bill R
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 03 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 20 2003 : 6:33:46 PM
|
| I'll definitely let Lainey answer THAT one! I am probably wrong about many of my suppositions re: the Catholic church - most of which are probably a product of one particular Priest giving my catechism (attended with idea of converting) as an Army private back in 1965. I don't know for sure.......think I do, but like I say.....besides, SHE is probably the BEST person to answer such things. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 21 2003 : 12:30:17 AM
|
[Step aside, people ... I'm going to kick Bill's ass - spiritually speaking, of course.]
My first thought in all of this is a question. How is it that I am interpreted as saying you must be Catholic to enter eternal life (which I did not say), yet I - a Catholic - also appear to be the only one who doesn't presume my own salvation?
My second thought is also a question. How is it that honest answers to freely raised questions, or replies to freely raised criticisms and incorrect statements on Catholicism, Scripture, Revelation, Religion, God, etc. are politely called 'nagging' while all other 'speculative thoughts' are happily called 'sharing'? [Is it just not the right or desired answer?]
Third thought, third question [I've got a trinity thing, I guess]. Which is easier, to openly rebuke or wound a friend, or to kiss with deception?
Okay ... on to Theresa's question, Bill's opposition, & Adele's defense. Seems I've got a bit of nagging to do.
|
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 21 2003 : 02:54:14 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Theresa
I'm learning a lot here that I didn't know. I have a question...and please know that I'm asking because I'm ignorant of the Catholic practice. Can I, as a Protestant, partake in Holy Communion in the Catholic Church?
Theresa, the short answer is no, and yes. Officially it is written that those outside the Roman Catholic Church are not supposed to partake in communion. Which is something I find incredibly offensive and arrogant, (Evangicals do not bar any Christian from communion). But for all practical purposes, this is not enforced. If you go to mass, the priest has no way of knowing whether you are a Protestant or Catholic. So technically you could. But, are you supposed to? No.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 21 2003 : 08:14:53 AM
|
quote:
Theresa, the short answer is no, and yes. Officially it is written that those outside the Roman Catholic Church are not supposed to partake in communion. Which is something I find incredibly offensive and arrogant, (Evangicals do not bar any Christian from communion). But for all practical purposes, this is not enforced. If you go to mass, the priest has no way of knowing whether you are a Protestant or Catholic. So technically you could. But, are you supposed to? No.
CT, did you mean to say that those not of the Roman Catholic Church cannot receive Holy Communion in the church? |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 21 2003 : 10:53:58 AM
|
Theresa, I'm sorry I didn't post a reply last night. I had a lengthy reply on the Eucharist, Purgatory, Salvation, Apostolicity, Deuterocanonical Scripture, etc. but was called away for other 'obligations' ...
CT, thank you for your take. Evangelicals don't bar because they have only a symbolic communion to offer. It is not a no & yes - it is a no. Non-Catholics, children under the age of reason, ex-communicated Catholics, & Catholics in mortal sin are all prohibited from receiving the Holy Eucharist until they are no longer non-Catholics who do not believe in the Real Presence, no longer children who can not comprehend the mystery of the Eucharist they are to receive, no longer Catholics outside the spiritual Body of Christ, or Catholics no longer in mortal sin. It is not arrogant, it is necessary according to Christ, according to Scripture, according to Tradition.
CT & Theresa, do either of you believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
In the most "plain" & "perspicuous" passages of Scripture we read;
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
And the Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying; How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said to them; Amen, amen, I say to you; Except you eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him.
As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
This the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum."
"I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you."
"And while they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke; and gave to his disciples, and said; Take ye, and eat. This is my body.
And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."
"And while they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said; Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for all."
And so forth ....
"For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink this chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come."
"The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the lord?
For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one body."
"You cannot drink the chalice of the Lord, and the chalice of devils; you cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord, and of the table of devils."
"Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatheth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord."
And there is why the Church CAN NOT permit non-Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist. Unless you believe what Christ made incredibly clear, that is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is the True Presence, the True & Actual Flesh & Blood of Christ, you would be eating & drinking "unworthily" & "shall be guilty of the body & the blo |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Wilderness Woman
Watcher of the Wood
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 27 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - July 21 2003 : 12:46:27 PM
|
Lainey, I would just like to make one comment/correction on something you said in your last post. You stated that "Evangelicals don't bar...[people from taking communion]."
I feel pretty safe in saying that most Evangelical churches do ask that non-believers refrain from partaking of communion. In other words, if a person attending a church service has not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, expressing "belief", they are asked not to participate in communion. This includes children who are too young to have accepted Christ, as well as adults.
Otherwise, communion is open to all who believe, regardless of their particular church background. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Theresa
Bumppo's Tavern Proprietress
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 21 2003 : 12:48:24 PM
|
Woo, Lainey, I have to say that my mind had a hard time staying with your response...not because it was boring (quite the contrary) or that I agreed or diagreed. Let's just chalk it up to a severe case of adult ADD. 
You asked if I believe in the Real Presense of the Eucharist. If by that do you mean do I believe that as I am receiving Holy Communion our Lord is present...yes, I do. I know that when I see our pastor stand before us, break the bread, and repeat the scripture I am consumed by a mighty power and I have the same overwhelming sense when he raises the chalice and repeats the scripture. I don't know if that means, according to Catholic teachings, that I believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist or not. I only know what it means for me and how I feel when I have the priveledge of receiving Holy Communion at the Lord's table....and I believe that is who the table belongs to...the Lord. I also think that the Lord's table can be in places other than the structural church building.
I know it sounds like I'm rambling and probably am not making much sense at all and I think that's ok with God. He knows what I mean.
On a lighter note about this subject. The first time our daughter received Holy Communion, she leaned over and asked me, "Can I have seconds?" Out of the mouths of babes. |
Theresa |
| report to moderator |
|
|
CT•Ranger
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
October 14 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - July 21 2003 : 5:05:32 PM
|
"Why would Christ even speak in such a way symbolically? To the Jews, such a thing as eating & drinking of the flesh & blood of a man was a repugnant thought. It had NO symbolic value whatsoever. It was & is the most PERSPICUOUS & PLAIN doctrine to be found in Scripture. Yet, those who claim plain & perspicuous reading on private judgment do not & can not see it? They reject what is a "hard saying to hear" & then CHANGE Our Lord's teaching. Nowhere, nowhere, nowhere is there even an "iota or tittle" to suggest a symbolic interpretation. Now, that would be repugnant."
To fully understand the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion, one must firmly grasp the symbolism of God's covenant with Abraham, which the Jews symbolically repeated for thousands of years until Y'shua of Nazareth, the Annointed One, instituted a new covenant. In Genesis 15 we read "So He said to him, 'Bring me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.' Then he brought all of these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds." Note that when Abram collected the animals as he was instructed, he did not ask God what to do next, he knew exactly what to do. What the Scriptures describe here is a very common practice of sealing agreements between two parties in ancient mesopotamia. There are many tablets which exist today which describe very similar practices. Now in this period when two parties wanted to make a covenant, treaty, etc. they would cut a number of animals in half, a lay the pieces so that the blood would run between them in a channel, or blood path. Then starting with the greater party or king, they would walk barefoot down the blood path. By doing this they were saying 'You may do this to me, if I don't keep up my side of the covenant, you make cut me in two and walk in my blood if I don't do what I say I'll do.' This was a symbolic act. This is what God did with Abram, only God didn't make Abram walk the blood path. God walked it for him. And for thousands of years afterwards the Jews practiced animal sacrifice to remind God of this event and His promise. Now when Jesus was crucified, sealing the new covenant, His body and blood took the place of the animals. We partake in communion to remind ourselves and God of His new promise, the new covenant. The symbolism goes directly back, thousands of years to God and Abram.
|
YMHS,
Connecticut•Ranger
Thomas Thacher
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 22 2003 : 03:19:17 AM
|
quote:
Lainey, I would just like to make one comment/correction on something you said in your last post. You stated that "Evangelicals don't bar...[people from taking communion]."
I feel pretty safe in saying that most Evangelical churches do ask that non-believers refrain from partaking of communion. In other words, if a person attending a church service has not accepted Jesus Christ as Savior, expressing "belief", they are asked not to participate in communion. This includes children who are too young to have accepted Christ, as well as adults.
Otherwise, communion is open to all who believe, regardless of their particular church background.
Thank you, WW, for that correction. That's raised questions for me now ... Children & non-believers are not invited to partake in the communion service then, but all professing Christians are otherwise invited? Why is that? I assume the request to refrain is not for this reason; "For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed." If it's a spiritual commemoration or remembrance only, why are any not invited? Do Evangelicals elevate the communion service over and above Scripture - which is offered to all, or does Scripture not have supremacy but is subordinate to ritual? This seems to contradict everything previously said regarding the supremacy of Scripture over Tradition, etc. as Evangelicals believe? This is the Lord's Supper without the meat, so to speak, so what is prohibitive about the celebration of communion? Might some find this prohibition unnecessarily "arrogant & offensive"?
quote:
Woo, Lainey, I have to say that my mind had a hard time staying with your response...not because it was boring (quite the contrary) or that I agreed or diagreed. Let's just chalk it up to a severe case of adult ADD.
You asked if I believe in the Real Presense of the Eucharist. If by that do you mean do I believe that as I am receiving Holy Communion our Lord is present...yes, I do. I know that when I see our pastor stand before us, break the bread, and repeat the scripture I am consumed by a mighty power and I have the same overwhelming sense when he raises the chalice and repeats the scripture. I don't know if that means, according to Catholic teachings, that I believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist or not. I only know what it means for me and how I feel when I have the priveledge of receiving Holy Communion at the Lord's table....and I believe that is who the table belongs to...the Lord. I also think that the Lord's table can be in places other than the structural church building.
I know it sounds like I'm rambling and probably am not making much sense at all and I think that's ok with God. He knows what I mean.
On a lighter note about this subject. The first time our daughter received Holy Communion, she leaned over and asked me, "Can I have seconds?" Out of the mouths of babes.
Theresa, it doesn't sound rambling at all. Thanks for answering the question (an important one) so clearly. You've mentioned something WW also mentioned ... a restriction upon children until some point, or age. Why is that? Why would a child need to be of a particular maturity (I assume) before sharing at the Lord's Table? What is missing before the time they are permitted? Has it anything to do with bread & wine, or discernment?
Regarding the Real Presence; if I understand your answer, you believe Christ is spiritually present at communion, but not actually, physically present in the bread & wine? Not an actual Flesh & Blood sacrifice?
Not literally as i |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lainey
TGAT
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 18 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - July 22 2003 : 04:50:33 AM
|
quote:
To fully understand the Lord's Supper/Eucharist/Holy Communion, one must firmly grasp the symbolism of God's covenant with Abraham, which the Jews symbolically repeated for thousands of years until Y'shua of Nazareth, the Annointed One, instituted a new covenant. In Genesis 15 we read "So He said to him, 'Bring me a three year old heifer, and a three year old female goat, and a three year old ram, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.' Then he brought all of these to Him and cut them in two, and laid each half opposite the other; but he did not cut the birds." Note that when Abram collected the animals as he was instructed, he did not ask God what to do next, he knew exactly what to do. What the Scriptures describe here is a very common practice of sealing agreements between two parties in ancient mesopotamia. There are many tablets which exist today which describe very similar practices. Now in this period when two parties wanted to make a covenant, treaty, etc. they would cut a number of animals in half, a lay the pieces so that the blood would run between them in a channel, or blood path. Then starting with the greater party or king, they would walk barefoot down the blood path. By doing this they were saying 'You may do this to me, if I don't keep up my side of the covenant, you make cut me in two and walk in my blood if I don't do what I say I'll do.' This was a symbolic act. This is what God did with Abram, only God didn't make Abram walk the blood path. God walked it for him. And for thousands of years afterwards the Jews practiced animal sacrifice to remind God of this event and His promise. Now when Jesus was crucified, sealing the new covenant, His body and blood took the place of the animals. We partake in communion to remind ourselves and God of His new promise, the new covenant. The symbolism goes directly back, thousands of years to God and Abram.
"And Jesus answered and said to them, 'Is not this why you err - because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. But as to the dead rising, have you not read in the book of Moses about the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore entirely wrong.'"
As the Sadducees did not believe in the actual Resurrection, you do not believe in the actual Eucharist. Rather than answer; do you believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist? - you seek out a passage of reference to Abram's contractual agreement anticipating the sign of the Covenant to be made, but not the covenant itself. The covenant made afterward was the promise of Chanaan. Another 25 years passed before God made another covenant with Abraham - the flesh covenant, the Covenant of Circumcision & the promise that Abraham would be "the father of a multitude of nations." The only connection regarding this & the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist is the altars of sacrifice were made both for the Old Covenant & for the New. The Jews offered an imperfect sacrifice of animals until the perfect sacrifice of Christ could be offered. It does not explain the Real Presence of Christ, Flesh & Blood as He said ... nor does this justify Christ's divine precept to "eat my flesh" to be interpreted as a symbolic partaking. There is no eating of flesh or drinking of blood to be found in the Old Covenant.
"For my flesh is meat indeed; and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me."
The new & everlasting |
"Fides et Ratio" |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.41 seconds |
 |
|
The Decline of Controversy ... Part 1
