Question:
I only read the Anglican list. It’s called "alt.religion.christian.episcopal".
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Would you gents mind terribly if this thread on children’s communion was no longer cross-posted to the Anglican list? Anglicans will give communion to tiny babies if the parents do not object, and I find the mention of "unworthiness" etc in connection with children very distressing. mucho thanko It isn’t posted to an Anglican list, it is posted to Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian lists. All of these Churches have some level of debate going on about this topic, so I think you are out of line. RG The rest of us were doing just fine in our lives, until you spammed this "subject(?)"across several boards, then blamed the terrorism of 911 on all those who Personally, I like Raul, Arco, Dana and especially Amy and hope the best for them. But this topic, though it has devolved into a "food fight" (as Raul like to put it) was a target rich environment for Smackdown which I thought Daniel’s contribution was enormously funny and timely. I am delighted that you weighed in, and just coming back from a splendid week of reinvigorating the Durango, Colorado economy (I am THE snow magnet) finding your well articulated comments a joy. But someone here needs to feed the trolls and while I have been directing much of my writing efforts towards my book, it has been a gas to shift gears a bit and poke at the usual list of suspects who all through a similar personality defect oddly hang out in this den of foolishness. hold differing views; having then to resort to weaseling to get out of such an outrageous claim, making your own declarations out to be a joke, thereby leaving your sole defender hanging in the wind of her serious desire to go along with you. Oh come on, I had a great belly laugh at the WTC comment. The visual imagery of OBL and his gang plotting a plane crash into a financial icon because word snuck in that various presbyterians were adopting a paedocommunion revolution was excellent, and should have delighted Ben H. who has reported an acute case of boredom from the lack of stimulating/provocative dialogue. Many here have been in rare form!
Response:
I hear you, but I have several highly educated Catholic friends, who dispute your description. They say the RCC teaches that it ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY is changed into the blood and body. Yes, and not only is the actual, physical, flesh and blood of Christ changed into the elements by the officiating Priest and then ingested, but first the Lord is again crucified in every Mass.
We can actually clear this up very quickly by letting the "horse’s mouth" speak: –begin quote– Council of Trent Thirteenth Session DECREE CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html CHAPTER I. On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ. –end quote– Note what is being said here: 1. Christ is *substantially contained* in the species of bread and wine. That is, the accidents (the physical properties) of bread and wine remain, while the "essence" of them are gone and replaced with Christ. (see http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407505.htm) 2. Christ’s presence is clearly stated as being sacramental, not physical. 3. Christ is said to always sit at the right hand of the Father as His natural mode of existing dictates, but his presence in the Eucharist is 100% sacramental and substantial. As Christ, being God, is omnipresent, it is hardly beyond logic to believe that he would be present sacramentally in the bread and wine. As further proof, Aquinas denies that Christ is present locally in the Eucharist here: –begin quote– Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica III.76.5 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407605.htm Whether Christ’s body is in this sacrament as in a place? As stated above (1, ad 3; 3), Christ’s body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ’s body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ’s body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ’s body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ’s body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ’s body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ’s body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body. Hence in no way is Christ’s body locally in this sacrament. –end quote– In other words, since Christ’s local body (always in heaven at the right hand of the Father) cannot conform to the spatial dimensions of bread and wine, he is not present locally (or physically), but substantially, and in the end, spiritually. Aquinas also says here http://www.newadvent.org/summa/407606.htm that since Christ’s body is in heaven, it cannot be "moved around" when the host or chalice are moved. Ergo, if He can’t be moved, he can’t be there locally or physically, which would make him "movable" in the host and chalice. Christ’s presence is substantial, not physical, and anyone who has told you otherwise is mistaken. As for the mistaken idea that Christ is continually "re-sacrificed" in the Mass, allow me to let the ancient bishop of Constantinople, John Chrysostom, instruct us: –begin quote- St. John Chrysostom Patriarch of Contantinople, lived 347-407 Homilies on the Epistles to the Hebrews, #17 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240217.htm "He hath appeared by the sacrifice of Himself" (he says), that is, "He hath appeared," unto God, and drawn near [unto Him]. For do not [think] because the High Priest was wont to do this oftentimes in the year . . . So that henceforward this is done in vain, although it is done; for what need is there of medicines where there are no wounds? On this account He ordained offerings "continually," because of their want of power, and that a remembrance of sins might be made. What then? do not we offer every day? We offer indeed, but making a remembrance of His death, and this [remembrance] is one and not many. How is it one, and not many? Inasmuch as that [Sacrifice] was once for all offered, [and] carried into the Holy of Holies. This is a figure of that [sacrifice] and this remembrance of that. For we always offer the same, not one sheep now and tomorrow another, but always the same thing: so that the sacrifice is one. And yet by this reasoning, since the offering is made in many places, are there many Christs? but Christ is one everywhere, being complete here and complete there also, one Body. As then while offered in many places, He is one body and not many bodies; so also [He is] one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered the sacrifice that cleanses us. That we offer now also, which was then offered, which cannot be exhausted. This is done in remembrance of what was then done. For (saith He) "do this in remembrance of Me." (Luke xxii. 19.) It is not another sacrifice, as the High Priest, but we offer always the same, or rather we perform a remembrance of a Sacrifice. –end quote– There are not multiple sacrifices, or re-sacrifices of Christ, but a re-presentation of the one Sacrifice of the Cross. Dan — Daniel S. Vieira |"Quid enim est stultius quam Professor of Sociology | incerta pro certis habere, http://www.danielvieira.com | falsa pro veris?" — Cicero
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or let’s examine the process of stuffing crackers and grape juice in your face and the transmogrification of these things into Jesus McNuggets. How many times must Christ die and become a sacrifice before you are finally saved? At what point in the manufacturing process does the cracker turn into Jesus? Before or after the ovens? (this sounds so Auschwitz-like). When does the Welch’s Grape Juice carry Jesus’s blood and what type is it O, A, B, or AB? Or like the marriage in Capernaum, does it not only go from junk wine to good wine, but also picks up some DNA? Does these elements get processed in a Kosher fashion and if not who goes to Hell for serving unclean foods? LOL! This is funny stuff, man! I almost had a stroke due to laughing so hard! In reality, I’d just like to point out that no denomination believes that Christ is *physically* eaten in the Supper. Catholics believe the bread and wine ares *substantially* changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but remain physically bread and wine, and Christ *physically* remains in heaven. Lutherans believe that Christ is substantially present *with* the bread and wine, but not physically present. The "classic" Presbyterian view is that while the communicant eats bread and wine, the Holy Spirit feeds the person spirutally on the Body and Blood of Christ. (Many current Presbyterian churches in the USA have gone to the Baptist viewpoint). The Baptist view (shared by most Evangelical churches) is that the bread and wine are symbols only of the Body and Blood of Christ sacrificed on the Cross. In any case, no one believes that Christ is *physically* present in the Supper, so your "Jesus McNuggets" statement is a bit off, yet rather funny. Dan
Dear Dan, I’ve never heard from you around here before, but I hope you’ll post more often. Your credential as a "Professor of Sociology" is BADLY needed in this ng. Someone should do a dissertation on: "The Emotional Gratification of Trolls: Dogma and Personality Dysfunction In An Internet News Group". Can YOU explain what’s going on around here…and why???
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just for the record here, the audience should understand that "Reuben Hick" rejects covenant/infant Baptism… Because I am not dense enough to confuse genetic descendants of Abraham with adopted sons/daughters. IOW, I don’t subscribe to religious rituals centered on unregenerated infants for the amusement and appeasement of adults and their demand for formulatic rituals not too distant from the doctrines supporting pagan infant sacrifice. and last I heard, argued that the Lord’s Supper was just a fellowship meal, something akin to getting together with the guys to order a pizza. (sigh) I never said it was "akin to getting together with the guys to order a pizza" – it was assembling the herd and collecting an order in the McDonald’s drive thru. Clearly you missed the fact that "whenever you do this" along with fact that common food items were used, and from inferences made through Paul’s sharp rebukes directed at the abusers in Corinth, that whenever believers gather to eat, rememberance of what Christ did should be present. Then I went and gave examples and support for such reasoning. If his view has changed I’m sure it is at ~best~ Zwinglian. Let’s see, from the decidedly Zwinglian "The Sincere Confession of the Ministers of the Church of Zurich" (circa 1545): "…Christ’s flesh has done its work on earth, having been offered for our salvation; now it no longer benefits on earth and is no longer here." And you "reject" the Zwinglian view, so it leaves me with the questions: Do you believe Christ’s work is not done and that he lied when he said "It is Finished"? Do you believe that Christ’s flesh is socked away somewhere on Earth because it is still needed? Or let’s examine the process of stuffing crackers and grape juice in your face and the transmogrification of these things into Jesus McNuggets. How many times must Christ die and become a sacrifice before you are finally saved? At what point in the manufacturing process does the cracker turn into Jesus? Before or after the ovens? (this sounds so Auschwitz-like). When does the Welch’s Grape Juice carry Jesus’s blood and what type is it O, A, B, or AB? Or like the marriage in Capernaum, does it not only go from junk wine to good wine, but also picks up some DNA? Does these elements get processed in a Kosher fashion and if not who goes to Hell for serving unclean foods? So is Christ’s flesh and blood stored in some dark cabinet at the church until its convenient for you folks to eat Him, or do you leave Jesus on the shelf until the last moment at the grocery store? Ok, maybe you don’t go with the actual flesh and blood at consumption time – maybe you are into the dynamic change the instant you eat. Do you get some perverted jollies from the thought that hours later you are going to flush Jesus down the commode? Or does Jesus leave your body at some point in the digestive process? What happens if you cough or regurgitate? Do you have to mop Jesus off the back of the pew or someone’s sweater? Do you think that you are instantly more holy the moment you have the Eucharist? If so, then why not do it 24/7 and you may actually be as Holy as God Himself. Just explain your weight gain and drunkeness (assuming real wine here) as a spiritual condition. A DUI for Jesus. "Look officer, I am this close…" (holding fingers a half inch apart) "… from being more holy than the Pope" (hiccup). "that’s not an open container, that’s Jesus’s home back there, care for a swig?" Otherwise, try explaining why the Zwinglian view is so worthy of your rejection.
Rueben, How do you justify standing on the outside of a tradition and throwing stones? This NG is Episcopalian. Obviously, you have little if any understanding of this tradition. The above post is simply rude, and robs anything you say of any legitimacy, at least as I read it. In case you didn’t understand, I disagree with everything you have said. And I don’t have the patience to walk you through an entire course in understanding Anglicanism. Read up on the topic, and then come back. Maybe then we can dialogue, instead of debate. Terry
Response:
<many words of disrespect snipped – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – wine here) as a spiritual condition. A DUI for Jesus. "Look officer, I am this close…" (holding fingers a half inch apart) "… from being more holy than the Pope" (hiccup). "that’s not an open container, that’s Jesus’s home back there, care for a swig?" Otherwise, try explaining why the Zwinglian view is so worthy of your rejection. Rueben, How do you justify standing on the outside of a tradition and throwing stones? This NG is Episcopalian. Obviously, you have little if any understanding of this tradition. The above post is simply rude, and robs anything you say of any legitimacy, at least as I read it. In case you didn’t understand, I disagree with everything you have said. And I don’t have the patience to walk you through an entire course in understanding Anglicanism. Read up on the topic, and then come back. Maybe then we can dialogue, instead of debate. Terry
Terry, although I am conservative Presbyterian, and my denomination does not practice paedocommunion per se, my family and I do, as do some others in our congregation. Rueben’s words above remind me of Dr. Jack Hyles, when, in a sermon quite a few years ago now, he likened Jesus’ body on the cross to a Big Mac, and Christ’s precious blood to the special sauce. It’s appalling and heart-wrenching. Amy
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Or let’s examine the process of stuffing crackers and grape juice in your face and the transmogrification of these things into Jesus McNuggets. How many times must Christ die and become a sacrifice before you are finally saved? At what point in the manufacturing process does the cracker turn into Jesus? Before or after the ovens? (this sounds so Auschwitz-like). When does the Welch’s Grape Juice carry Jesus’s blood and what type is it O, A, B, or AB? Or like the marriage in Capernaum, does it not only go from junk wine to good wine, but also picks up some DNA? Does these elements get processed in a Kosher fashion and if not who goes to Hell for serving unclean foods? LOL! This is funny stuff, man! I almost had a stroke due to laughing so hard! In reality, I’d just like to point out that no denomination believes that Christ is *physically* eaten in the Supper. Catholics believe the bread and wine ares *substantially* changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but remain physically bread and wine, and Christ *physically* remains in heaven. I hear you, but I have several highly educated Catholic friends, who dispute your description. They say the RCC teaches that it ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY is changed into the blood and body. .
Yes, and not only is the actual, physical, flesh and blood of Christ changed into the elements by the officiating Priest and then ingested, but first the Lord is again crucified in every Mass. At least that is what we have always been told and read about the Roman Catholic practices. J&R — GoldRush For Scriptures and Christian Studies, visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Response:
<snipped You see how we are now turning the Supper into dividing the body of Christ, which is just the sin Paul is writing against, which is in fact what it means to eat unworthily. (1 Cor. 11)
What we see, is that ~you~ have caused division amongst believers by pretending you want to discuss a practice, when you really desire to sell it. You are the one first to take sides and get all defensive. The rest of us were doing just fine in our lives, until you spammed this "subject(?)"across several boards, then blamed the terrorism of 911 on all those who hold differing views; having then to resort to weaseling to get out of such an outrageous claim, making your own declarations out to be a joke, thereby leaving your sole defender hanging in the wind of her serious desire to go along with you. Raul, you are a real beaut . . . J&R — GoldRush For Scriptures and Christian Studies, visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Response:
How about an older person with a little hardening of the arteries, your mother and the strong pain medication she takes, the slow boy, the retarded girl, etc. etc. You see how we are now turning the Supper into dividing the body of Christ, which is just the sin Paul is writing against, which is in fact what it means to eat unworthily. (1 Cor. 11) Sin against the body is what makes one unworthy to partake of comm-UNION, not if you have your MENSA card.
Let’s not forget reprobates and plants and animals too – maybe even get SETI involved and link up with Area 51 so that alien life, it it exists, can join in. Let’s all join together and in one great harmonious universal loving body and loudly reject clear God inspired scripture because OUR ideal of perfect UNION prevails over any meaning of the eucharist! Face it, you have thrown yourself over the edge, this wasn’t a casual misstep on the slippery slope, this was a running jump into an Olympic class swan dive with a half twist into the chasm of biblical deconstructionalism. When you deliberately ignore the introspection, deliberately delete remembrance, pooh-pooh any conscience acknowledgement of what is taking place, you have perverted the Eucharist into a mindless pagan ritual that embodies some magic and burning sacrifices to the gods in order to earn their fickle favor. Why else would you two fall over each other in a race to find a way to mock God’s institution for the sake of a mental retard who otherwise you would curse if they stood in your way? (I think I am going over the top here… time to go read a book or something.)
Response:
May God have mercy on your soul.
I thank you for your concern, and He already has. Praise God! (Seriously, are you getting a little wound up on this topic?)
Response:
Since when? Paedocommunion is a ten cent word that means communion for infants and toddlers. If you have some child prodigy that can stand up and defend the faith against all attackers, then why must you negotiate an age with someone whose kid is a half-witted dunce with severe attention disorders? As if it matters to you anyway. That is why I think Raul is rather obsessive here on the topic. Which is OK, because a bunch of us have crawled out of the woodwork to "punish" him for advocating this topic. Sort of a dysfunctional usenet family reunion. But it seems that Raul is perseverating on matters that really don’t concern him.
For the record now, even my youngest is of the age where he can master complex video games, and none of my Children have taken Communion. I have always had a higher standard with re: to age than even the Session at the Church I attend. However, I do respect the case the paedocommunionists have put forth. Studying issues like this is fun for me, and when someone can actually make me question what my understanding is they have accomplished something. The paedocommunionists have succeeded. I will continue to study and cogitate. Raul Goulden — Augustine (354-430): Let no one say to me, What hath Donatus said, what hath Parmenian said, or Pontius, or any of them. For we must not allow even Catholic bishops, if at any time, perchance, they are in error, to hold any opinion contrary to the Canonical Scriptures of God (De Unitate Ecclesiae, Caput XI,
Posted in Roman Catholic Mass | 
No Comments » |
— mailbox. Visit http://home.earthlink.net/~honus1/ A collection of so-called religious miracles including (but not limited to) Jesus in burnt tortillas, the Virgin Mary in the barks of trees, and the name Allah in various vegetables. All with appropriate (or inappropriate) commentary. 
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free! 