Do you feel that Gods expectations are unrealistic?

Paul warning about discerning the Body of Christ and eating condemnation upon oneself has often been used as a defense of the Real Presence (if it is just a symbol, why is it dangerous?).

It is not merely through his death that we can realise the Beatific Vision, but Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. Paul also states that if christ were not truly raised, then our faith is in vain.

Can you quote me the verse in which Paul says that we become physically ill and weak and physically die if we partake of the Eucharistic species unworthily? I contend Paul speaks of spiritual illness and death.

 

Tortured logic and superstitious belief? Once again you prove that your mind has been blinded by your good spirit buddy. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

 

1 corinth 11;30., weak, ill, (died, or fallen asleep.) Well it would be more consistent to contend that he means spiritually dead, but weak, ill, and sometimes dead, seem like statements of physical condition to me. Regardless it still comes out you're eating it wrong. We have the example of the terminology fallen asleep as representing someone physically dead in the case of Lazarus.

I don't know what defense of the Real Presence, means. If the word real and presence are capitalized, do I guess that the terms are place keepers for a theological scaffold? God's presence is powerful presence, it needs no defending.

I don't think anything real can be threatened. Our illusions however, are subject to disruption. As far as these constructions being dangerous, nothing in reality is inherently dangerous, that is nothing going in, can defile you, but only what comes out. It is what you do with the information that matters.

Perhaps endowing bread with magical powers is a distraction from moving in god with power. There is a real propensity for ritual to be the only sign of presence, that is, for many there is little thought of god outside of the church gathering. I suppose even that tenuous connection has the potential to grow, but we are not generally inclined to let god out of his assigned box.
So I think that ritual has an equal tendency to encourage separation as it does to encourage education.

For some people, the sense of the promise of future reward suffices to comfort them in the present. For others there is the realization that you do not get to the future without being up to the present. It is not my experience of christ, that he and everyone else is in some state of limbo awaiting resolution at some indeterminate time. From those who have much, much is expected. Then again for those who have little even that will be taken away.

 

No, it proves no such thing, rather it proves that you regard me as in error.
I am not an unbeliever. I do not believe as you do.

 

Real Presence refers to Christis literal (not symbolic) presence in the Eucharistic species once consecrated. They cease to be bread and wine and become for us the body and blood of Christ.

Jesus himself uses physical language to describe a spiritual condition when he says that physicians do not come to heal the healthy, but the ill. It is us who are ill with sin and need healing.

 

Ahh. Somewhat problematic. Christ says as often as you do this remember me.
It is the internal state of awareness that remembers or reconstitutes the sonship. What you are describing here is a magic food, a blessed bread, when
eaten, having redeeming effects. It is simply a contradiction of the premise that the truth of us comes from within as opposed to external devices.

I know this is no challenge for you Ukr-Cdn but it seems to me we had turned a metaphor for life into an esoterically apprehended ritual involving the eating of flesh. You have to be somewhat educated to understand such
esoteric ideas and it doesn't remind me of something a babe could comprehend but it does represent job security for those who are so trained.
That is it's complexity requires a clergy to interpret and transmit.

I was for a while in my youth, enamored with the idea of catholic monastic life. However I could not overcome the obvious. The obvious to me being the fathers of the church are not infallible. The pope has apologized for failures of the past. Currently a huge issue with the priesthood and the way they exercise their civic responsibilities. I guess not all men can abide by those precepts.

The whole idea of a proxy administering divinity between a child of god and the holy spirit is antithetical to the teaching of having salt in ourselves. Further I am reminded of the exchange between peter and jesus when jesus asks the disciples who do men say that I am,... and then but who do you say that I am. He goes on blessed are you peter because flesh and blood did not teach you this, but my father who is in heaven. It is certainly stated that peter is singled out for attention but I think being able to discern the voice of the spirit is the point. That is where we look and listen to find the truth.

Yes he does, and in addition the well have no need of a physician, which raises the possibility that some are well without him. And we also see the use of the word sleep as a synonym to death.

A few profound things have happened in my life to demonstrate the authorities don't always get it right. I don't mean to suggest that I always get it right but I have noticed that my dexterity for harmonizing with the spirit has greatly improved over time with sincere seeking. I am strongly convinced that the hour of coming is encouraged by invitation. Love does not seek its' own.

 

Not at all. It is your good spirit buddy that is error, you just happen to believe him.

You are not an unbeliever, You just don't believe much that's true.

Of course not, like I said, you don't believe much that's true.

 

I believe that loving god with all your strength and loving your brother as yourself guarantees abundant and everlasting life. I believe the practice of forgiveness in its' truest sense and exercising mercy helps to accomplish and reinforce those things. I believe the tenor of our experience is generated by our evaluation of it, i.e. the measure you give is the measure you receive.

I believe the only thing that can be absent any situation is what we have not given and always, that amounts to our appreciation, our blessing, our mercy.
I believe we name the animals and we are justified or condemned by our own descriptions. I believe that the invited habitation of the holy spirit corrects our perceptions to extent that we let him decide for us and shows us the direction of justice and true regard. I believe that jesus taught these things for the love of god.

Problem there?

 

If a belief could be verified as true, it wouldn't be a belief.

 

You've been talking to the Dope again, haven't you?

 

No, I just own a dictionary.

 

It is my contention that some measures of belief are symbols chosen to represent, unknown variables, belief is necessary as example is absent.

 

Ahh, the limitations of English.

As I have shown before, the Greek "in memory/in remembrance" signifies a a literal re-presentation of some event or thing. It is not our personal and cognitive memories, but a metaphysical concept by which Christ's singular death becomes present to work throughout eternity.

I think from the earliest days of the Church you will find a literal understanding of Christ's declaration that the consecrated species are his true self; body, blood, soul, divinity. Christ told us this, and allowed people to leave when they could not accept the hard teaching that it was.

The clergy is not neccessarily required to interpret, but we have been given the Magisterium, in which the clergy plays an important part in uoholding and proclaiming. The Holy Father, currently Benedict XVI, has a special place as the head and servent of all the clergy and faithful to protect and proclaim the Gospel.

 

I guess if you want to be persnickety about it, you are probably right but in common everyday language, people talk about believing things that are verified as true.

 

Yes, and if it could be verified as true then it would be science and not religion.

 

Belief can be an acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty, but, the mind can accept as true, things that are not in fact true. While it may be common to use the word belief to express certainty, belief itself is no guarantee of truth, and there are some who cannot distinguish the difference.

 

There are some also who cannot get satisfied until they have a guarantee for Life. Then they fail to understand that their beliefs are taught after conviction; they want to be set free more than understand the Truth for that.

 

Now is it literal or is it metaphysical concept. Minds join, bodies only touch.
Let the mind be in you that is in christ jesus.

We have it recorded the event of the last supper was at the end of his corporal ministry. I don't know when jesus would have the opportunity to excuse anybody from this hard teaching. I thought jesus made a point of saying that If his disciples did not allow him to demonstrate they had no part in him.

To protect and proclaim? Nothing real can be threatened. What is in need of protection is the caste of "special persons", not the truth. The truth sets free, it does not confine neither is it confined. In talking about what was present in the early church it seems perhaps the information flow was more dynamic with members with prophecy or speaking a tongue, or interpretation.

In the Catholic Church the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. This authority is understood to be embodied in the episcopacy, which is the aggregation of the current bishops of the Church in union with the Pope, led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope), who has authority over the bishops, individually and as a body, as well as over each and every Catholic directly. According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so either non-infallibly or infallibly.

I feel an affinity toward you because of your devotion and when I speak of these things I am not rejecting your path. I describe my own inability to accept certain precepts. I appreciate your patience with me.

 

Come on, just for the appropriate essence of value in the evolutionary comparing of philosophic as opposed to scientific observation between the two of you, how is it possible for the agreement of probable truth or truism? Are the precepts to decide that you evolve or just follow their judgment?

 

I am not sure I understand the question. I am acknowledging the fact that Ukr-Cdn has not made it a point to call me unworthy. I acknowledge greater experience among my brothers. I am a lay person with no formal training so there are many things of catholic philosophy that I simply haven't been exposed to. Beyond that, I am as devoted to anyone's good to the extent that they are devoted to their own.