Re: Christian Unschooling
Karen Matlock
>>Nancy wrote: (Something that's puzzled me for awhile ishow some Christians can take Genesis literally, but not John 6.)<<
Feeding of the 5000? Everyone I know takes it literally.
What's tough for me (I have a conservative family and dh, who take the
entire Bible literally) is that 10 yo ds is now asking the obvious
questions: Who did Cain marry? How did people live so long? Are fossils
real? I give him the answer I grew up with and then I give him a couple of
other answers so that he can see there are many sides out there. (Last
week, after pondering Islam, was: How do we know which is the true religion?
Sometimes I don't have answers!)
Karen
P.S. But I gave him one anyway: I said you use the brain God gave you to see
what makes sense. You see if it fits the Bible, if you believe in the Bible.
But eventually, you take a leap of faith. It always boils down to that
anyway, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever.
>>Nancy wrote: (Something that's puzzled me for awhile ishow some Christians can take Genesis literally, but not John 6.)<<
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/19/01 7:05:51 AM, kbmatlock@... writes:
<< You see if it fits the Bible, if you believe in the Bible.
But eventually, you take a leap of faith. It always boils down to that
anyway, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever. >>
I disagree about that "leap of faith" claim.
It's a comfort to Christians to say "everyone depends on faith."
I'ver read that argument in the dismissal of belief in dinosaurs and
evolution--"faith in science."
Where else is it applicable?
To tell a child to use the brain God gave him but if something doesn't fit
the Bible to reject it seems to me on the surface to go against unschooling.
Am I wrong? What's underneath the surface?
When I don't know something I say "I don't know."
When I think nobody really knows, I have no problem saying "Nobody really
knows, but lots of people have theories."
Literalists say all answers are in the Bible. And so some kids start off
early believing that. Holly was told a few months ago that the Bible said
Christians couldn't go see the Harry Potter movie. I'm thinking the child
who told her that really believes that the Bible is dispensing movie reviews
and current dictates.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and so I know how preachers use the
Bible to tell you whether to buy a foreign or domestic automobile and who to
vote for and all that.
Sandra
<< You see if it fits the Bible, if you believe in the Bible.
But eventually, you take a leap of faith. It always boils down to that
anyway, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever. >>
I disagree about that "leap of faith" claim.
It's a comfort to Christians to say "everyone depends on faith."
I'ver read that argument in the dismissal of belief in dinosaurs and
evolution--"faith in science."
Where else is it applicable?
To tell a child to use the brain God gave him but if something doesn't fit
the Bible to reject it seems to me on the surface to go against unschooling.
Am I wrong? What's underneath the surface?
When I don't know something I say "I don't know."
When I think nobody really knows, I have no problem saying "Nobody really
knows, but lots of people have theories."
Literalists say all answers are in the Bible. And so some kids start off
early believing that. Holly was told a few months ago that the Bible said
Christians couldn't go see the Harry Potter movie. I'm thinking the child
who told her that really believes that the Bible is dispensing movie reviews
and current dictates.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and so I know how preachers use the
Bible to tell you whether to buy a foreign or domestic automobile and who to
vote for and all that.
Sandra
Karen Matlock
Christianity is the least comfortable situation I could be in. It would be a
relief to be atheist and rely only on my own brain, but God's thumped me in
the head too many times to do that. I was thinking of faith in science (or
more to the point, scientists), yes, but also faith in other thinkers, faith
in yourself, faith in the natural world. To me, "faith" has much more than a
religious meaning. It's the decision to leap into the unknown with whatever
you want to live with, even if it's nothing.
Whoa there, I said if something fits the Bible *if you believe in the
Bible*. That's up to him whether he does or not. But in Bible believers, it
seems to matter :)
I say "I don't know" and "there are different theories" all the time. I'm a
little rabid on the point of not raising him the way I was raised. I'll see
your Southern Baptist and raise you a Church of Christ (omg, not literally!)
The Baptists were way more liberal than we were (in the pathetic little town
I went to high school in), only the Assembly of God were stricter. I still
feel a little decadent when I wear shorts.
Karen, where change is the only constant
In a message dated 12/19/01 7:05:51 AM, kbmatlock@... writes:
<< You see if it fits the Bible, if you believe in the Bible.
But eventually, you take a leap of faith. It always boils down to that
anyway, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever. >> me
<<I disagree about that "leap of faith" claim.
It's a comfort to Christians to say "everyone depends on faith."
I'ver read that argument in the dismissal of belief in dinosaurs and
evolution--"faith in science."
Where else is it applicable?
To tell a child to use the brain God gave him but if something doesn't fit
the Bible to reject it seems to me on the surface to go against unschooling.
Am I wrong? What's underneath the surface?
When I don't know something I say "I don't know."
When I think nobody really knows, I have no problem saying "Nobody really
knows, but lots of people have theories."
Sandra>>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
relief to be atheist and rely only on my own brain, but God's thumped me in
the head too many times to do that. I was thinking of faith in science (or
more to the point, scientists), yes, but also faith in other thinkers, faith
in yourself, faith in the natural world. To me, "faith" has much more than a
religious meaning. It's the decision to leap into the unknown with whatever
you want to live with, even if it's nothing.
Whoa there, I said if something fits the Bible *if you believe in the
Bible*. That's up to him whether he does or not. But in Bible believers, it
seems to matter :)
I say "I don't know" and "there are different theories" all the time. I'm a
little rabid on the point of not raising him the way I was raised. I'll see
your Southern Baptist and raise you a Church of Christ (omg, not literally!)
The Baptists were way more liberal than we were (in the pathetic little town
I went to high school in), only the Assembly of God were stricter. I still
feel a little decadent when I wear shorts.
Karen, where change is the only constant
In a message dated 12/19/01 7:05:51 AM, kbmatlock@... writes:
<< You see if it fits the Bible, if you believe in the Bible.
But eventually, you take a leap of faith. It always boils down to that
anyway, whether Christian, atheist, or whatever. >> me
<<I disagree about that "leap of faith" claim.
It's a comfort to Christians to say "everyone depends on faith."
I'ver read that argument in the dismissal of belief in dinosaurs and
evolution--"faith in science."
Where else is it applicable?
To tell a child to use the brain God gave him but if something doesn't fit
the Bible to reject it seems to me on the surface to go against unschooling.
Am I wrong? What's underneath the surface?
When I don't know something I say "I don't know."
When I think nobody really knows, I have no problem saying "Nobody really
knows, but lots of people have theories."
Sandra>>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/19/01 9:23:23 AM, kbmatlock@... writes:
<< I was thinking of faith in science (or
more to the point, scientists), yes, but also faith in other thinkers, faith
in yourself, faith in the natural world. To me, "faith" has much more than a
religious meaning. It's the decision to leap into the unknown with whatever
you want to live with, even if it's nothing.
It was the kind of explanation that turned and bit itself in the tail and I
got lost.
Sandra
<< I was thinking of faith in science (or
more to the point, scientists), yes, but also faith in other thinkers, faith
in yourself, faith in the natural world. To me, "faith" has much more than a
religious meaning. It's the decision to leap into the unknown with whatever
you want to live with, even if it's nothing.
>>So then you have no faith in yourself? Or you do?
It was the kind of explanation that turned and bit itself in the tail and I
got lost.
Sandra
Nancy Wooton
on 12/19/01 6:04 AM, Karen Matlock at kbmatlock@... wrote:
6:35-69. Verses 53-59 in particular.
OK, so you don't have to look it up... <g> It's where Jesus tells the
disciples and the others hanging around Capernaum the next day after the
Lunch miracle that they'll have to resort to cannibalism if they want
eternal life. "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
blood, you have no life in you..." Nobody takes it literally, though the
reaction of the people he said it to indicates *they* did. A monk I heard
speak on this topic said of the verse "many of his disciples drew back and
no longer went about with him," "Of course they didn't! They were all
throwing up on the side of the road!"
The monk's point was that Jesus really blew it, if he was trying to gather
followers. The Greek platonists in the crowd believed the flesh was
contemptible, and the Jewish culture and faith embodied thousands of years
of prohibition against the consumption of blood. Jesus instantly weeded out
those who weren't serious about following him. This is where Jesus asks the
remaining 12 if they'll also go away, and Peter replies with
uncharacteristic theological fluency, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have
the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that
you are the Holy One of God."
John's an interesting book. It was written much later than the other
gospels, later than Paul's epistles, and a lot of church dogma was either
established as such or evident in practice. In hindsight, John could see
that Jesus' exposition about his flesh and blood was extremely important and
needed to be recorded, since eating flesh/bread and drinking blood/wine was
now the central act of Christian worship.
Protestants tend to downplay the second half of John 6. When I weeded out
my theology books a few years ago, I used the book's treatment of John 6 as
a litmus test. Some of them skipped it altogether, others gave the "he
didn't really mean it, it's just a memorial meal" answer.
Nancy
> Feeding of the 5000? Everyone I know takes it literally.That's in the first half of John 6; I mean the second half, from around Jn.
6:35-69. Verses 53-59 in particular.
OK, so you don't have to look it up... <g> It's where Jesus tells the
disciples and the others hanging around Capernaum the next day after the
Lunch miracle that they'll have to resort to cannibalism if they want
eternal life. "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
blood, you have no life in you..." Nobody takes it literally, though the
reaction of the people he said it to indicates *they* did. A monk I heard
speak on this topic said of the verse "many of his disciples drew back and
no longer went about with him," "Of course they didn't! They were all
throwing up on the side of the road!"
The monk's point was that Jesus really blew it, if he was trying to gather
followers. The Greek platonists in the crowd believed the flesh was
contemptible, and the Jewish culture and faith embodied thousands of years
of prohibition against the consumption of blood. Jesus instantly weeded out
those who weren't serious about following him. This is where Jesus asks the
remaining 12 if they'll also go away, and Peter replies with
uncharacteristic theological fluency, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have
the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that
you are the Holy One of God."
John's an interesting book. It was written much later than the other
gospels, later than Paul's epistles, and a lot of church dogma was either
established as such or evident in practice. In hindsight, John could see
that Jesus' exposition about his flesh and blood was extremely important and
needed to be recorded, since eating flesh/bread and drinking blood/wine was
now the central act of Christian worship.
Protestants tend to downplay the second half of John 6. When I weeded out
my theology books a few years ago, I used the book's treatment of John 6 as
a litmus test. Some of them skipped it altogether, others gave the "he
didn't really mean it, it's just a memorial meal" answer.
Nancy
Joseph Fuerst
> Feeding of the 5000? Everyone I know takes it literally.The take I've heard on it which makes the most sense (to me) is that someone
>
in the crowd offered his or her five loaves and fishes to share. The
miracle is that this began a domino effect (similar to the "pass it forward"
concept) ...and everyone began sharing what they had, so that not there was
abundance beyond everyone's need when all were willing to be open and share.
In the days Jesus preached, many people would likely have had the
forethought to carry some food with them as they wandered, travelled by
foot.
S
Joseph Fuerst
Nancy,
Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass one
actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
This is one of the monumantal schisms between Catholics and Protestants.
Along with the concetpts held by Protestants that one is 'saved' by Jesus
alone, and behavior doesn't decide salvation; also, that the Bible is the
sole authority for one's beliefs, Catholic tradition encourages seeking
truth and beauty in all of creation.
S
Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass one
actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
This is one of the monumantal schisms between Catholics and Protestants.
Along with the concetpts held by Protestants that one is 'saved' by Jesus
alone, and behavior doesn't decide salvation; also, that the Bible is the
sole authority for one's beliefs, Catholic tradition encourages seeking
truth and beauty in all of creation.
S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Wooton" <Felicitas@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: Christian Unschooling
> on 12/19/01 6:04 AM, Karen Matlock at kbmatlock@... wrote:
>
> > Feeding of the 5000? Everyone I know takes it literally.
>
> That's in the first half of John 6; I mean the second half, from around
Jn.
> 6:35-69. Verses 53-59 in particular.
>
> OK, so you don't have to look it up... <g> It's where Jesus tells the
> disciples and the others hanging around Capernaum the next day after the
> Lunch miracle that they'll have to resort to cannibalism if they want
> eternal life. "...unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink
His
> blood, you have no life in you..." Nobody takes it literally, though the
> reaction of the people he said it to indicates *they* did. A monk I heard
> speak on this topic said of the verse "many of his disciples drew back and
> no longer went about with him," "Of course they didn't! They were all
> throwing up on the side of the road!"
>
> The monk's point was that Jesus really blew it, if he was trying to gather
> followers. The Greek platonists in the crowd believed the flesh was
> contemptible, and the Jewish culture and faith embodied thousands of years
> of prohibition against the consumption of blood. Jesus instantly weeded
out
> those who weren't serious about following him. This is where Jesus asks
the
> remaining 12 if they'll also go away, and Peter replies with
> uncharacteristic theological fluency, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You
have
> the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know,
that
> you are the Holy One of God."
>
> John's an interesting book. It was written much later than the other
> gospels, later than Paul's epistles, and a lot of church dogma was either
> established as such or evident in practice. In hindsight, John could see
> that Jesus' exposition about his flesh and blood was extremely important
and
> needed to be recorded, since eating flesh/bread and drinking blood/wine
was
> now the central act of Christian worship.
>
> Protestants tend to downplay the second half of John 6. When I weeded out
> my theology books a few years ago, I used the book's treatment of John 6
as
> a litmus test. Some of them skipped it altogether, others gave the "he
> didn't really mean it, it's just a memorial meal" answer.
>
> Nancy
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Nancy Wooton
on 12/19/01 1:29 PM, Joseph Fuerst at fuerst@... wrote:
he was talking to should literally carve him up as he stood there and devour
him.
Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican/Episcopalian theology all teach the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Nancy
> Nancy,I know, I worded it badly. I meant no one believes *Jesus* meant the people
> Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass one
> actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
> This is one of the monumantal schisms between Catholics and Protestants.
> Along with the concetpts held by Protestants that one is 'saved' by Jesus
> alone, and behavior doesn't decide salvation; also, that the Bible is the
> sole authority for one's beliefs, Catholic tradition encourages seeking
> truth and beauty in all of creation.
he was talking to should literally carve him up as he stood there and devour
him.
Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican/Episcopalian theology all teach the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Nancy
kayb85
I'm not the one you were asking, but my answer is that it's a part of
our human sin nature to have faith in ourselves so everyone at some
point or other does, but our goal as Christians should be to have
faith *only* in God. To have faith in yourself means that you have to
rely on the understanding of a human mind that can't possibly fathom
all that God knows. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean
not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and
He will direct your paths".
Sheila
our human sin nature to have faith in ourselves so everyone at some
point or other does, but our goal as Christians should be to have
faith *only* in God. To have faith in yourself means that you have to
rely on the understanding of a human mind that can't possibly fathom
all that God knows. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean
not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and
He will direct your paths".
Sheila
> So then you have no faith in yourself? Or you do?
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/19/2001 1:12:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fuerst@... writes:
with loaves of bread sticking out of them. My middle eastern relatives
regularly stop on the way to the train station or airport - to pick up some
nice bread.
--pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fuerst@... writes:
>In that part of the world you STILL see people traveling around carrying bags
> In the days Jesus preached, many people would likely have had the
> forethought to carry some food with them as they wandered, travelled by
> foot.
with loaves of bread sticking out of them. My middle eastern relatives
regularly stop on the way to the train station or airport - to pick up some
nice bread.
--pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/19/2001 1:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fuerst@... writes:
someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ??
--pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fuerst@... writes:
> Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass oneI've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
> actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ??
--pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
KT
I think it changes when the little bell rings...at the time the priest
raises the wafer and cup to heaven. It's still changed even if you
don't partake. It all has to be consumed one way or another or because
it would be a sin to desecrate the host by throwing it away or something
like that. That's why you'll see the Eucharistic ministers drinking up
the wine in the chalices after everyone has had communion. The wafers
go in a (dang if I can't remember the name of it) container near the
altar and that's why Catholics genuflect or cross themselves when they
pass it, because they believe the actual body of Christ is there. I
seem to recall that there is a special place where the wafers go when
they're not used anymore--like they're burned and buried in a special
place under the building or something. I'm sure a real Catholic will
know more.
Tuck
PSoroosh@... wrote:
raises the wafer and cup to heaven. It's still changed even if you
don't partake. It all has to be consumed one way or another or because
it would be a sin to desecrate the host by throwing it away or something
like that. That's why you'll see the Eucharistic ministers drinking up
the wine in the chalices after everyone has had communion. The wafers
go in a (dang if I can't remember the name of it) container near the
altar and that's why Catholics genuflect or cross themselves when they
pass it, because they believe the actual body of Christ is there. I
seem to recall that there is a special place where the wafers go when
they're not used anymore--like they're burned and buried in a special
place under the building or something. I'm sure a real Catholic will
know more.
Tuck
PSoroosh@... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/19/2001 1:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> fuerst@... writes:
>
>
> > Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during
> Mass one
> > actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of
> Christ).
>
> I've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
> someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it
> then be
> blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ??
>
> --pam
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705542111:HM/A=879171/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
zenmomma *
>>It all has to be consumed one way or another or becauseAhh, this conjurs up an amusing picture in my mind. The last half of
>it would be a sin to desecrate the host by throwing it away or something
>like that. That's why you'll see the Eucharistic ministers drinking up
>the wine in the chalices after everyone has had communion.<<
services must have a much happier tone. :o)
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Dan Vilter
>> Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass oneIf I remember my catechism from years ago correctly, the priest gets God to
>> actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
>
> I've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
> someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
> blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ??
>
> --pam
make the change during mass. It happens as the priest raises the challis
holding filled with bread and wine. So it doesn't matter what the
parishioner does later during their communion, swallow or not. It is still
the body and blood. Leftovers are put in the tabernacle on the alter.
-Dan Vilter
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/19/01 11:50:07 PM, PSoroosh@... writes:
<< I've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ?? >>
There's a moment when it's blessed. At the church I went to most, altar
boys would ring a set of little bells (like four fastened together/cast
together) at the moment of the elevation of the host.
Once it's blessed/activated, it has to be treated really specially. The
priest finishes any crumbs. There's a kind of ceremony if a piece is
dropped. There are some procedures for "host to go" (like bedridden folk
might get home delivery).
Sandra
<< I've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ?? >>
There's a moment when it's blessed. At the church I went to most, altar
boys would ring a set of little bells (like four fastened together/cast
together) at the moment of the elevation of the host.
Once it's blessed/activated, it has to be treated really specially. The
priest finishes any crumbs. There's a kind of ceremony if a piece is
dropped. There are some procedures for "host to go" (like bedridden folk
might get home delivery).
Sandra
Sharon Rudd
I thought ALL parents carried food around with them!!
I do. Sandwiches, cookies, fruit, water........
Sharon of the Swamp
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
I do. Sandwiches, cookies, fruit, water........
Sharon of the Swamp
> > In the days Jesus preached, many people would__________________________________________________
> likely have had the
> > forethought to carry some food with them as they
> wandered, travelled by
> > foot.
>
> In that part of the world you STILL see people
> traveling around carrying bags
> with loaves of bread sticking out of them. My middle
> eastern relatives
> regularly stop on the way to the train station or
> airport - to pick up some
> nice bread.
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
[email protected]
In a message dated 12/20/01 9:35:37 AM, bearspawprint@... writes:
<< I thought ALL parents carried food around with them!!
I do. Sandwiches, cookies, fruit, water........ >>
Jesus at the La Leche League convention--the miracle of the cheerios and the
carrot sticks.
<< I thought ALL parents carried food around with them!!
I do. Sandwiches, cookies, fruit, water........ >>
Jesus at the La Leche League convention--the miracle of the cheerios and the
carrot sticks.
Joseph Fuerst
>the
> In a message dated 12/20/01 9:35:37 AM, bearspawprint@... writes:
>
> << I thought ALL parents carried food around with them!!
> I do. Sandwiches, cookies, fruit, water........ >>
>
> Jesus at the La Leche League convention--the miracle of the cheerios and
> carrot sticks.I wonder if men carry around food the way women do...in general, I mean -
>
I'd venture it wouldn't take a SAHD or very involved dad to quickly learn
this one.
Nancy Wooton
on 12/19/01 10:47 PM, PSoroosh@... at PSoroosh@... wrote:
Greek word is "mystery," not "sacrament." The Greeks simply never asked the
question of "when"; it would never have occured to them. I think the issue
of Transubstantiation arose in Catholicism's scholastic period, which the
East never experienced. The closest thing to an answer I've heard was when
a priest was reminding people to show up on time, that the entire liturgy --
the "common work" of the people -- is necessary; you can't just show up
right before the Anaphora (consecration) like it was take-out you ordered
ahead.
The Greek word "mysterion" means something made present, not something
hidden. The Body and Blood are made present in the bread and wine, but I
don't think anyone imagines the bread and wine transform into actual human
flesh and blood. (I speak as an Orthodox, though, with no personal
experience of Catholicism; I could certainly be wrong.) The manner in which
communion is prepared and distributed is different between the Orthodox
liturgy and the Catholic mass, too. We use loaves of bread, baked at home
by a member of the congregation each week, rather than wafers. It would
take too long to explain all the details: suffice to say, each person is
served a combination of bread, wine and water on a spoon, from a common
chalice. Only a priest or deacon can serve; we have no Eucharistic
ministers.
The consecrated Host is handled carefully, of course; cloth napkins are held
beneath the communicant's chin to catch spills. Anything left in the cup is
consumed by the deacon. Five or more loaves are brought each week, with one
selected for communion. The rest are sliced up into small pieces, and then
distributed as you receive communion. This bread, called "antidoran" in
Greek, is blessed but not consecrated, so you can take it home, and
non-Orthodox may receive it. The crumbs are scattered for the birds.
There are similarities between a liturgy and a mass, but some differences:
There is only one liturgy in a 24-hour period; you don't get to pick which
Mass to go to. A priest never "does" a liturgy if there are no people
present, and he faces the altar with his back to the people, since everyone
is thought of as serving, not just him. If the church is correctly
appointed, it will have no pews or seats; everyone stands, and those Russian
services can get long! If there are seats in the way, you can't move with
the processions, you just spin around in one place. It does help keep the
kids from taking off, though :-) Oh, that's another difference: infants are
baptised and immediately chrismated; they don't wait for their first
communion at an older age.
(I was going to answer the question with a line from The Prisoner:
"That would be telling." After that tome, you probably wish I had!)
Nancy
>That's one of the differences between Latin and Greek Christianity. The
>> Catholic theology does teach in transubstantiation (i.e., during Mass one
>> actually the bread and wine actually become the blood and body of Christ).
>
> I've always wondered exactly WHEN does this switch happen? I mean - if
> someone stopped just short of swallowing the bread and wine, would it then be
> blood and flesh? Or does it change after it is swallowed? Or ??
Greek word is "mystery," not "sacrament." The Greeks simply never asked the
question of "when"; it would never have occured to them. I think the issue
of Transubstantiation arose in Catholicism's scholastic period, which the
East never experienced. The closest thing to an answer I've heard was when
a priest was reminding people to show up on time, that the entire liturgy --
the "common work" of the people -- is necessary; you can't just show up
right before the Anaphora (consecration) like it was take-out you ordered
ahead.
The Greek word "mysterion" means something made present, not something
hidden. The Body and Blood are made present in the bread and wine, but I
don't think anyone imagines the bread and wine transform into actual human
flesh and blood. (I speak as an Orthodox, though, with no personal
experience of Catholicism; I could certainly be wrong.) The manner in which
communion is prepared and distributed is different between the Orthodox
liturgy and the Catholic mass, too. We use loaves of bread, baked at home
by a member of the congregation each week, rather than wafers. It would
take too long to explain all the details: suffice to say, each person is
served a combination of bread, wine and water on a spoon, from a common
chalice. Only a priest or deacon can serve; we have no Eucharistic
ministers.
The consecrated Host is handled carefully, of course; cloth napkins are held
beneath the communicant's chin to catch spills. Anything left in the cup is
consumed by the deacon. Five or more loaves are brought each week, with one
selected for communion. The rest are sliced up into small pieces, and then
distributed as you receive communion. This bread, called "antidoran" in
Greek, is blessed but not consecrated, so you can take it home, and
non-Orthodox may receive it. The crumbs are scattered for the birds.
There are similarities between a liturgy and a mass, but some differences:
There is only one liturgy in a 24-hour period; you don't get to pick which
Mass to go to. A priest never "does" a liturgy if there are no people
present, and he faces the altar with his back to the people, since everyone
is thought of as serving, not just him. If the church is correctly
appointed, it will have no pews or seats; everyone stands, and those Russian
services can get long! If there are seats in the way, you can't move with
the processions, you just spin around in one place. It does help keep the
kids from taking off, though :-) Oh, that's another difference: infants are
baptised and immediately chrismated; they don't wait for their first
communion at an older age.
(I was going to answer the question with a line from The Prisoner:
"That would be telling." After that tome, you probably wish I had!)
Nancy
Joylyn
Joseph Fuerst wrote:
packing a snack bag, better than I. He even
usually remembers napkins!
he's a SAHD.
btw, Hi, I'm Joylyn, mom to Lexie and Janene
(6 & 3), Mark is my dh, and I just joined the
list.
Joylyn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Yes, they do. My husband is VERY good at
> I wonder if men carry around food the way
> women do...in general, I mean -
> I'd venture it wouldn't take a SAHD or very
> involved dad to quickly learn
> this one.
>
packing a snack bag, better than I. He even
usually remembers napkins!
he's a SAHD.
btw, Hi, I'm Joylyn, mom to Lexie and Janene
(6 & 3), Mark is my dh, and I just joined the
list.
Joylyn
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
meghan anderson
<<<<The Romans were barbaric and inhumane by our
standards but then so were many Christian nations well
into the Renaissance.
--
Cindy Ferguson>>>>
Ahh yes, the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, among
others.
Meghan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
standards but then so were many Christian nations well
into the Renaissance.
--
Cindy Ferguson>>>>
Ahh yes, the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, among
others.
Meghan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Nancy Wooton
on 12/20/01 11:49 PM, meghan anderson at moonmeghan@... wrote:
(Yeah, like I'd let that one go by...)
Nancy
> Ahh yes, the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, amongPoke her with the soft cushions!
> others.
(Yeah, like I'd let that one go by...)
Nancy
zenmomma *
> > Ahh yes, the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, amongNobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! ;-)
> > others.
> >
> >
>
>Oh! I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition!
~Mary
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.