|
Post by LauraJean on Aug 30, 2004 10:56:03 GMT -5
If all armed forces personel wore the same clothing with the same insignia, then nobody would be able to tell who the officers are, unless they are told. Similar to the transubstantiation argument. You can't tell that the bread and wine have been converted into flesh and blood unless you are told. An excellent point, which is why, before each time we go to Holy Communion, the pastor speaks the words in the Gospels retelling the account of the first Lord's Supper, (the Words of Institutuion), and before I receive the bread and wine the person distributing it tells me, "This is the body of Christ." "This is the blood of Christ." Hoch est.Blessings! LJ **Just a reminder, I don't subscribe to Transubstantiation, but to Real Presence.** What's the difference? From the WELS site: Lutherans do not teach consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is the false view that the bread and the body form a new substance in the sacrament or that the body and blood, like the bread and the wine are received in a natural manner. Lutherans teach the "Real Presence." "Real Presence" has become a technical term in Lutheran theology. It means that together with the bread and the wine the true body and blood of our Savior are distributed and received in the Lord's Supper by virtue of the sacramental union.
We do not deny that Roman Catholics teach a real or actual presence of Christ's body and blood. Nevertheless we reject the teaching of transubstantiation because this teaching claims that the bread and wine are no longer present, but only Christ's body and blood are present.
We teach that the bread and the wine are still present, distributed, and received because that is what the Bible teaches. As Paul writes concerning the Lord's Supper, "Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16) Later in this same epistle the apostle warns, "Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Corinthians 11:27-29). These pkmtyolpages indicate that in the sacrament we receive both bread and wine, body and blood. [/i]
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 30, 2004 11:27:45 GMT -5
LOL, now it sounds like splitting hairs because I have to respond... The person DOES have more authority than he did before. He IS of a higher rank. He is not symbolic of authority, he HAS authority --and the responsibility that goes with it. Blessings, LJ the analogy of a officer being promoted to the rank (or rating for you "squids") of Captain isn't quite accurate. The person isn't changed by the promotion ceremony. The person doesn't generate his or her own authority. The "bpkmtyolr" he wears are the insignia (signs, symbols) of the authority he represents. He bears the delegated authority of his rank per the promotion order.
Others are sworn to obey the promotion order. The order comes from officers "higher up." Their authority comes in turn from even higher up until ultimately you get to the President of the US. He gets his authority from (1) being elected to office by the people of the US, and (2) the US Constitution.
In the case of the officer, those in authority (the people through elected officials) have agreed to a procedure (the US Constitution through the Laws which govern the US Military) as to how that officer gets promoted. When he gets promoted, there is evidence (the orders, the change in the outward appearance of his uniform, and the change in his behavior and the behavior of those around him towards him). He now can and will be held responsible for a new set of duties.
In the case of transubstantiation, the authority (God) has not set out a proceedure or even described it His Word. In supposed cases of it (the pkmtyolm), there is no evidence that it even occured.
TB
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Aug 30, 2004 15:39:33 GMT -5
the analogy of a officer being promoted to the rank (or rating for you "squids").... Hey, pal (or is that "Jarhead"?). You got a problem with squids? ;D
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Aug 30, 2004 20:10:18 GMT -5
Hey, pal (or is that "Jarhead"?). You got a problem with squids? ;D If I gave offense to those who've served in the US Navy, I apologize. I honor those who've served and are serving in every branch of the US Military.
For the record, I'm not a "jarhead." I was enlisted in the US Army as a draftsman, 1980-1982, enlisted in the US Air Force as an illustrator, 1982-1985, and a Special Ops Engineering Officer in the US Air Force, 1985-1988. I was medically discharged in August of 1988 when at the age of 26, I developed insulin dependant diabetes due to an accident while on duty.
My father was a US Air Force Lt Col when he retired. His brother was a US Navy Commander. My mother's 2 brothers were in the US Army as were her 3 brother-in-laws. My wife's father was enlisted in the US Navy. Her youngest brother was in the US Air Force. My best friend (besides my wife) was a US Marine Corps avionics technician. I think all the services are great! ;D
TB
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 30, 2004 21:12:28 GMT -5
Don't forget to mention that your beloved son is staying as far away from the US armed services as possible.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 30, 2004 21:26:45 GMT -5
If I gave offense to those who've served in the US Navy, I apologize. I honor those who've served and are serving in every branch of the US Military.
For the record, I'm not a "jarhead." I was enlisted in the US Army as a draftsman, 1980-1982, enlisted in the US Air Force as an illustrator, 1982-1985, and a Special Ops Engineering Officer in the US Air Force, 1985-1988. I was medically discharged in August of 1988 when at the age of 26, I developed insulin dependant diabetes due to an accident while on duty.
My father was a US Air Force Lt Col when he retired. His brother was a US Navy Commander. My mother's 2 brothers were in the US Army as were her 3 brother-in-laws. My wife's father was enlisted in the US Navy. Her youngest brother was in the US Air Force. My best friend (besides my wife) was a US Marine Corps avionics technician. I think all the services are great! ;D
TB TB... Knowing you from these Boards, I can't imagine anyone taking offense. Besides, anyone who's been in the service knows quite well the good natured kidding that goes on with inter-service rivalries. To illustrate, I'll relate a quick story: In early July, I brought my 83 year old father to see the WWII Memorial in Washington DC (he spent 4 years in the South Pacific in the US Army). The day we went was fantastic, but that's another story. What happened toward the end of our day was absolutely amazing. I left my Mom and Dad for a moment, but when I returned, I saw my Dad standing up (although mobile, we brought a wheelchair to make it easier for him)talking to another older gentleman where a Marine Corp ballcap. As it turned out, it was a boyhood friend of my father who he had not seen in more than 50 years. The man had recognized the cap my Dad was wearing with the name of their old VFW post stitched on it. Of course this man spent his 4 years in the South Pacific too. Well, they spent hours reminiscing about their war time and old times. After a time they parted. Howver, as we were leaving, we noticed that we were going in the same direction, toward the Korean War Memorial. I could feel my father straining in the wheelchair to catch up to his old friend walking slowly ahead with a cane. As we got closer, my Dad finally said as we approached from behind; "Hey, Marine! Why not get on my lap. Afterall the Army carried you guys for 4 years in the War!" PS: The old Marine declined, and my Dad got out of the chair and walked the rest of the way on the arm of his old friend. We're not quite sure who was supporting who, and neither would admit to it anyway
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 30, 2004 21:31:22 GMT -5
the analogy of a officer being promoted to the rank (or rating for you "squids") of Captain isn't quite accurate. The person isn't changed by the promotion ceremony. The person doesn't generate his or her own authority. The "bpkmtyolr" he wears are the insignia (signs, symbols) of the authority he represents. He bears the delegated authority of his rank per the promotion order.
Others are sworn to obey the promotion order. The order comes from officers "higher up." Their authority comes in turn from even higher up until ultimately you get to the President of the US. He gets his authority from (1) being elected to office by the people of the US, and (2) the US Constitution.
In the case of the officer, those in authority (the people through elected officials) have agreed to a procedure (the US Constitution through the Laws which govern the US Military) as to how that officer gets promoted. When he gets promoted, there is evidence (the orders, the change in the outward appearance of his uniform, and the change in his behavior and the behavior of those around him towards him). He now can and will be held responsible for a new set of duties.
In the case of transubstantiation, the authority (God) has not set out a proceedure or even described it His Word. In supposed cases of it (the pkmtyolm), there is no evidence that it even occured.
TB I think you guys are missing the point of the analogy. If someone can change the role of individual simply by speaking the words, why would Our Lord be required to "do" something more to effect a change?
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 31, 2004 13:50:20 GMT -5
In transubstantiation the role of the bread isn't changing. The bread/wine supposedly changes its physical nature to that of Jesus' body/blood without appearing to do so.
In the armed services the people remain people, both in body and spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Aug 31, 2004 16:44:31 GMT -5
In transubstantiation the role of the bread isn't changing. The bread/wine supposedly changes its physical nature to that of Jesus' body/blood without appearing to do so. In the armed services the people remain people, both in body and spirit. No, the bread and wine do not change their physical nature at all. That remains the same. They change thier essential nature. The physical is only accidental to the essential. Really though, it is a matter of faith.
|
|
|
Post by RealistState on Aug 31, 2004 18:38:06 GMT -5
In transubstantiation the role of the bread isn't changing. The bread/wine supposedly changes its physical nature to that of Jesus' body/blood without appearing to do so. In the armed services the people remain people, both in body and spirit. And what is the role of the bread/wine? Some say it is merely symbolic of Christ's Body and Blood. Some say it is a metaphor of things to come. Yet it is recorded in our sacred Scritpture that Our Lord did say "...this is My Body.....this is My Blood...". I see no ambiguity or symbolism in those words. BTW, I'd like to drop the military analogy as it isn't working the way I thought it would.
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Aug 31, 2004 22:40:06 GMT -5
I AM the grapevine. I AM the door. Do you symbolism in these words? I would assume so. This is a simile. It directly states a comparison between two different objects.
The Lord's supper was to be done in rememberence of Jesus' sacrifice. It wasn't done as a special endowment of grace by "eating" Jesus. Everything other than rememberence isn't scriptural, but based on tradition.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 1, 2004 7:57:34 GMT -5
I AM the grapevine. I AM the door. Do you symbolism in these words? I would assume so. This is a simile. It directly states a comparison between two different objects. The Lord's supper was to be done in rememberence of Jesus' sacrifice. It wasn't done as a special endowment of grace by "eating" Jesus. Everything other than rememberence isn't scriptural, but based on tradition. My beloved son ... these are NOT "similes." As you, an Advanced Placement English student, should know, these are metaphors. It's quite easy to remember the difference ... had he said, "I am like a door," or "I am similar to a door," that would would be a simile. See? similar-simile? But he said, "I am a door," as if he'd changed into a door. Metaphor comes from the Greek "metaphe’rô" meaning "to change what is carried." See? change-change? ;D
For those new to the Board, K is indeed my beloved son, my descendent, my offspring, my seed, the fruit of my wife's womb. And I am very proud of him! I praise him for his work in school and for his Christain behavior. I thank our Lord for him.
TB
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Sept 2, 2004 7:05:51 GMT -5
lol TB, I was going to say something too him as well, but I figured... eh... they are both symbolic language, he got his point across. But looks like daddy won't let him get away with it!
;D
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 2, 2004 8:17:24 GMT -5
This is totally not Catholic teaching on the subject but Let's consider it anyway. That is the power of the mind. We are all familiar with the placebo affect, right? Where it is the power of one's belief regardlress of the objective reality of the object that induces change. In other words, if a person believes strongly enpough that a pill, for example, will clear up an infection, even thugh that pill has no antibiotic properties and is totally useless, the infection will clear up, not because of the pill but because of the person's belief in the pill. I say this is not the Catholic position because there it isnot the individual's belief that makes it the Real Presence but the power of the Holy Spirit. Still, even if you don't believe any such transubstantiation (or whatever) takes place you might have to concede that if a one truly believes that it is the body of Christ being consumed and not "a symbol", then for that person it is as good as the real thing. Imagine the power of that.
|
|
|
Post by TarueBeliever on Sept 2, 2004 9:35:20 GMT -5
The Catholic Church teaches ...1324 The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life." "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."Catechism of the Catholic Church, John Paul II, 1992 However, when faced with temptation, Christ Jesus quoted from these words ...waye'an·nekha way·yare'ibekha way·y'akhilekha 'et-ham·man 'asher lo'-yada'et·ta welo' yade'un 'aboteykha lema'an howdiy'akha kiy lo' 'al-hal·lechem lebadow yicheyeh ha'adam -- kiy 'al-kal-mowtza' phiy-yhwh yicheyeh ha'adamDeuteronomy 8:3 transliterated from the Masoretic Text [1]Translated into English, they are ...and-he-humbled-you and-he-caused-hunger-you and-he-fed-you the-manna that not-you-knew and-not knew-they fathers-{of}-you toward the end that know-you that not on–the-bread only-it he-lives the-man -- that on-all-goes-out {of} mouth-{of}–the-Lord he-lives the-man Put into regular English word order ...And He humbled you and He caused you to hunger and He fed you the manna that you did not know and your fathers did not know toward the end that you would know that man lives not only on the bread – that man lives on all that goes out of the mouth of the Lord.We do not "live" either eternally nor more abundantly while on earth by the consumption of "heavenly" bread in a ceremony. Jesus himself said man "lives" on the Word of God -- the Scriptures.
TB [1] www.mechon-mamre.org/
|
|