Sentences with phrase «if eucharist»

As she said, «If the Eucharist is just a symbol than to hell with it.»

If the Eucharist is seen as a memorial, a means to encourage recollection of Christ's sacrifice, then a virtual memorial may do.

If the Eucharist is spiritual nourishment for life, how much more is it food for the final movement into the life to come?

If the Eucharist can not be shared between the episcopacy, then the authority of the episcopacy is not truly functioning and conciliarity is not possible.

Not exact matches

Especially if the Risen Lord comes to us in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

I said, «I hope if President Bush came over here from the White House and wanted you to share the Eucharist with him, you wouldn't commune with him.»

Perhaps if he were to follow through on the thought patterns of John Calvin and Herbert McCabe, he might more freely acknowledge that transubstantiation can not do justice to the absence or» since I think the term absence is unfortunate» the provisional nature of Christ's presence in the Eucharist.

«If we acquire this perception we shall see that the One who created the world and the One who was born in a grotto in Bethlehem and who continues to dwell among us in the Eucharist, is the same living God who calls us, who loves us and who wants to lead us to eternal life.»

Even if this fills us with a holy fear, we must recognise that together with the Eucharist, the mystery of this redeeming love is, in a sense in our hands.

If the contributions of the Eucharist were better understood they might dispel the tendency to conceive of it magically and the total rejection so often exhibited.

Yet, in St Thomas Aquinas's exploration of the doctrine of the Eucharist, the two worlds come together with such exquisite harmony that it appears as if they were made for each other.

In this debate, the «traditionalists» were in favor of truth (you can't receive Communion if you are in a state of sin; if you intend to have relations outside a valid marriage, you are in a state of sin; ergo, etc.), while the «progressives» were in favor of mercy (shouldn't those who have had a conversion after a divorce and civil remarriage be able to approach the Eucharist?).

If they are true believers and not riding some particular hobby horse they must surely say that everything has remained the same that is really necessary for life as well as for death: the crucified and risen Christ, his grace, baptism, the true body and blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, the forgiveness of sins, the expectation of eternal life, the ancient dogma binding on all, the one commandment of the love of God and our neighbour.

They show that the Old Testament can, and must, be read as a Christian book, prophetic of Jesus; that the paradox that the Messiah should suffer death can be understood in the light of the scriptures; and that the risen Lord's presence, even if it is not recognized at other times, is to be discerned when he encounters his people in the breaking of bread (the Church's Eucharist).

In our discussion we shall ask first what theological statements can be made on the subject of private prayer, examining afterwards if liturgical prayer (as distinct from the Eucharist and the administration of the sacraments with which we are not here concerned) can be preferred to it at all, and if so, what such a preference means for the practice of the Christian life.

What if Paul's point is that church members are taking the Eucharist unworthily if they fail to discern the absence of those who ought to be present but can not — for example, the poor, the sick, those without transportation, and the disabled who can not make it to church?

I recently was asked to give a talk on «the social meaning of the Eucharist,» and the first thing I said was, «You have to promise that if I tell you what the social meaning of the Eucharist is, you won't stop going to mass.»

If one really believes in justification by faith alone, differences over other matters — the real presence in the Eucharist, apostolic ministry, the indissolubility of marriage, the ordination of women, and on and on — make no difference.

With Morning and Evening Prayer, and the Eucharist, if done properly, you get an awful lot of Bible flowing through your system.

If and when Christians rethink and transform the eucharistic communities to participate in the ongoing human search for a more just and peaceful world, the Eucharist will be one of the greatest sources and agencies of human liberation.

If the Corinthians suppose that they are somehow (magically) protected from sin and its consequences because they have been baptized into Christ and partake of Christ in the Eucharist, remember, says Paul, that the Israelites had their sacraments, too.

None the less, there is much truth in the saying that if we wish to tell the non-Christian what the Christian enterprise is about, the best thing that we can do is to persuade that person to attend a Sunday celebration of the Eucharist in which there is also and of necessity a proclamation of Christ.

It must also mean that the Eternal Sacrifice of her Cross and Eucharist, and the Episcope, the «pastoral care» of her divine magisterium, dominates all human history in vocation if not in actual fact.

Even if one does grant the validity of both reasons for thinking that the Eucharist is nonessential to Christian existence, one need not grant the conclusion.

If you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, why do you care about anything the Church does or says?

If «making the whole world a Eucharist» is too vague a commission, the place to start is by washing feet.

Our Lord foreshadowed the institution of the Eucharist by the miracle of the loaves, then he preached at length to the crowd who followed him to the synagogue in Capernaum, telling them that he was the true Bread from heaven and that this Bread was his flesh which they must eat if they wished to inherit eternal life.

And in the partaking of the Eucharist we do come to understand its implications in a manner that would otherwise not be possible if we just said, «Well, I'm not going to do it until I have totally wrestled with all of its implications.»

The logical anomaly contained in the doctrine of transubstantiation disappears if it is our Lord's risen body that is really present in the Eucharist, for the risen body will have different attributes from the body in its mortal state.

If we admit that in some matters the Reformers were greatly mistaken, we are more free to recognize other areas where they may still be ahead of us: Calvin's insistence on a weekly Eucharist for the whole community or John Knox's stress on gathering the congregation about the Lord's table.

Read the early Christian witnesses who write of the Eucharist (or the Mass if you prefer).

What if, instead of dodging anything too specific — Israel, Christ, Eucharist — the service concentrated on what makes the faith demanding and interesting?

For instance, if priests were permitted to decide that some divorced and remarried Catholics could partake of the Eucharist, many knew well that this would lead Catholics to conclude that marriage is not a pledge to life - time fidelity, is not indissoluble.

As early as AD 140, Aristides of Athens wrote, «If one of the faithful dies, obtain salvation for him by celebrating the Eucharist and by praying next to his remains.»

If with this we associate the usual «catholic» view that a priest is especially assigned the responsibility of administering the sacraments of the Church and in particular the celebration of the Eucharist, we have a proper setting or context for the labor of proclamation.

It is — if you are sufficiently mystic — a sort of Eucharist whose physical properties issue in something quite transcending time and place.

So if you are asked to not receive the Holy Eucharist because you are not Catholic it is out of love of Christ and for your soul's sake... if you eat or drink without discerning the body you would do judgment on yourself.

I suspect this is why Wright makes an effort in this address to find some common ground with Calvin, asserting, «if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist.»

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, and so we can only come together and receive Communion if we truly are in communion with one another, and that means being in full communion with the Catholic Church, led by the bishop of Rome.

The Eucharist does not effect change in us as if by magic.

If the office of the covenant of marriage mirrors the covenant of Christ and mankind in the Church, then it would seem that there must be a similar special relationship between Matrimony and the Eucharist.

I believe that the Christian contribution to a «secular» concept of humanity as essentially a Community of Persons can be best made if we maintain the message of the gospel that God became incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ to overcome the alienation of humanity from God and to create a Koinonia in Christ around the Eucharist, a Community of divine forgiveness and mutual forgiveness acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, transcending all religious cultural and ideological divisions with a mission to build a wider Secular Koinonia of mutual forgiveness and justice among the peoples of the world, as witness to the ultimate goal of creation, namely the Kingdom of God.

Less so if at every parish gathering there are people questioning the nature of God or challenging the understanding of the Eucharist.

If a minister is ordained to a ministry of word and sacrament, why does he need to go through what looks like re-ordination every time he leads the Eucharist?

The discourses of Jesus, for example, upon Baptism (3) and upon the Eucharist (6) reflect the same fundamental conception of the significance and necessity of these two rites; that this conception was that of the evangelist is plain, e.g. from 3:16 - 21, where Jesus» words have passed insensibly into the evangelist's reflection upon them; if the evangelist was the son of Zebedee, it would be natural to accept his accounts as substantially correct records of incidents and discourses from Jesus» ministry, but, if he was not, a comparison with the synoptic gospels and with the teaching of Paul and others on the sacraments would suggest doubts as to the historical value of both discourses.

For how can we be in true communion in the Eucharist if we disagree on the most basic issues of charity, the moral life, and the state of grace?

This second passage helps O'Connor's case only if we assume the point at issue, that when St Thomas says the Eucharist contains Christ who has suffered, he means the Real Presence contains Jesus in a wounded condition.

Second, if properly prepared by thoughtful pastors and liturgists, the re-orientation of the Liturgy of the Eucharist would help Catholics deepen our appreciation of the Kingdom dimension of the Mass..

They ask for marital status (important because Catholics can not marry after divorce, only annulment), if you accept the Church's teachings on the Eucharist and other doctrinal points, and how often you attend mass.

Maybe something of the Eucharist survives in its drawings by Barney, titled «Subliming Vessel,» as if they contained a god's blood.