Christian Forums

Do you know where I got this information from?

Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Quote[51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

[26] Jesus answered them, and said: Amen, amen I say to you, you seek me, not because you have seen miracles, but because you did eat of the loaves, and were filled. [27] Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting, which the Son of man will give you. For him hath God, the Father, sealed. [28] They said therefore unto him: What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered, and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent. [30] They said therefore to him: What sign therefore dost thou shew, that we may see, and may believe thee? What dost thou work?
[31] Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. [32] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. [34] They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. [35] And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.
[36] But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. [37] All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. [38] Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. [39] Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. [40] And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
[41] The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [42] And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? [43] Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. [44] No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. [45] It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
[44] Draw him: Not by compulsion, nor by laying the free will under any necessity, but by the strong and sweet motions of his heavenly grace.
[46] Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. [47] Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. [48] I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. [50] This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[54] Eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood: To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated in this text; which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both body and blood, which cannot be separated from each other. Hence, life eternal is here promised to the worthy receiving, though but in one kind. Ver. 52. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh for the life of the world. Ver. 58. He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. Ver. 59. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
[61] Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? [62] But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? [63] If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? [64] It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. [65] But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
[63] If then you shall see: Christ by mentioning his ascension, by this instance of his power and divinity, would confirm the truth of what he had before asserted; and at the same time correct their gross apprehension of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, in a vulgar and carnal manner, by letting them know he should take his whole body living with him to heaven; and consequently not suffer it to be as they supposed, divided, mangled, and consumed upon earth.
[64] The flesh profiteth nothing: Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us.
[64] Are spirit and life: By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain.
[66] And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
[71] Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil? [72] Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve.

1 Cor
...23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."...

Do this in REMEBERENCE of me, Jesus said. He was there in person and yet He said that the bread was His body. Its a symbol of His body.

What is your point? All you have done is quote Scripture...

Quote from: SwordMaster on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 00:00:54
What is your point? All you have done is quote Scripture...

I am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 05:54:22

Quote from: SwordMaster on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 00:00:54
What is your point? All you have done is quote Scripture...

I am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

oh goodness...

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 05:54:22

Quote from: SwordMaster on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 00:00:54
What is your point? All you have done is quote Scripture...

I am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

We don't take communion to save our souls, we do it because Jesus said to do it to remember what He has done for us(which DID save our souls)

QuoteI am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

I literally used to worship this sacrament when I first came to Christ, but I read the bible and I changed my views a little. so I used to call it a mystery, then God showed me that it is symbolic.   

Catholics who say such a thing need to know Jesus before it is too late. If what you say is true then yes I'll probably be a Catholic or go back to my previous church, but this is not true. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone and those who do not trust Jesus alone are going hell because they believe in works salvation.

Here is a question for you Catholics that you will NOT answer:

The Eucharist is NOT literally Christ's blood.

Jesus instituted the supper Levitical Law and this Law was still in effect since the death of Christ had not yet occurred and the New Covenant was NOT instituted yet....

Hebrews 9:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

the disciples were under OT Law when Christ instituted the Supper. How was Jesus not telling his disciples to violate the command in Leviticus 17:14 ?

Leviticus 17:14
New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

Acts 15:19-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[a] from things strangled, and from blood.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 13:24:44

QuoteI am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

I literally used to worship this sacrament when I first came to Christ, but I read the bible and I changed my views a little. so I used to call it a mystery, then God showed me that it is symbolic.   

Catholics who say such a thing need to know Jesus before it is too late. If what you say is true then yes I'll probably be a Catholic or go back to my previous church, but this is not true. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone and those who do not trust Jesus alone are going hell because they believe in works salvation.

Here is a question for you Catholics that you will NOT answer:

The Eucharist is NOT literally Christ's blood.

Jesus instituted the supper Levitical Law and this Law was still in effect since the death of Christ had not yet occurred and the New Covenant was NOT instituted yet....

Hebrews 9:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

the disciples were under OT Law when Christ instituted the Supper. How was Jesus not telling his disciples to violate the command in Leviticus 17:14 ?

Leviticus 17:14
New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

You shouldn't go back to the Anglican Church, they don't have valid holy orders, and their priest don't actually have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.  It's a sad reality, but we pray for unity with Anglicans, and in fact many Anglican parishes have come in union with the Catholic Church through the newly established Anglican rite.

Here is the answer to your question:

1 Cor. 11 (NKJV)
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

The cup IS the new covenant in Jesus' blood.  The Last Supper was the beginning of the sacrifice which was completed on Calvary.  Jesus told Judas to do what he was to do at that supper.  At that point, he laid down his life.  He alone had the authority to lay it down, and he had the authority to take it up.  Until that point, when he initiated his passion, no one could have crucified him or killed him in any way.  He had to lay it down himself.

Matthew 26 (NKJV)
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

QuoteActs 15:19-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15 was a pastoral decision made by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the practices of the gentiles.  As a foundational principle, however, we know in the New Covenant that all foods have been made clean. (Mark 7:19).

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Sep 02, 2013 - 23:27:13
1 Cor
...23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."...

Do this in REMEBERENCE of me, Jesus said. He was there in person and yet He said that the bread was His body. Its a symbol of His body.

"Remembrance" comes from the Greek word "anamnesis" which is a concept derived from the Hebrew "zikkaron", which is what was practiced during the Passover.  Zikkaron is more than just a remembering, but rather a "making truly present as if it were happening right now".

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p39.htm

In that same way, the last supper was a command to perform that same act of offering the bread and wine, which Jesus said are his body and blood, as an anamnesis (zikkaron), that is, to make his sacrifice on calvary present again.  That is, not to sacrifice him again, nor to simply recall the sacrifice, but to anamnesis, make that same sacrifice present to us in the here and now.

In this way, through the words of the Word made flesh, and at His command and by His authority, we offer those same elements on our altars (bread and wine) and as anamnesis become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus, and Calvary also becomes present.

Luke 24
30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

Folks I am thinking you have missed the message from the text of the opening post. I do not believe that in context that the scriptures given are speaking as much on the Lords supper but more on salvation and abiding in the word. In giving of the spirit of truth.




Just sayin could be wrong but please keep it in context as to what was given to work from.

Quote from: Catholica on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 13:44:52

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 13:24:44

QuoteI am showing necessity of the Sacrament of Communion for Salvation of a persons soul.

I literally used to worship this sacrament when I first came to Christ, but I read the bible and I changed my views a little. so I used to call it a mystery, then God showed me that it is symbolic.   

Catholics who say such a thing need to know Jesus before it is too late. If what you say is true then yes I'll probably be a Catholic or go back to my previous church, but this is not true. We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone and those who do not trust Jesus alone are going hell because they believe in works salvation.

Here is a question for you Catholics that you will NOT answer:

The Eucharist is NOT literally Christ's blood.

Jesus instituted the supper Levitical Law and this Law was still in effect since the death of Christ had not yet occurred and the New Covenant was NOT instituted yet....

Hebrews 9:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

the disciples were under OT Law when Christ instituted the Supper. How was Jesus not telling his disciples to violate the command in Leviticus 17:14 ?

Leviticus 17:14
New King James Version (NKJV)
14 for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.'

You shouldn't go back to the Anglican Church, they don't have valid holy orders, and their priest don't actually have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.  It's a sad reality, but we pray for unity with Anglicans, and in fact many Anglican parishes have come in union with the Catholic Church through the newly established Anglican rite.

Here is the answer to your question:

1 Cor. 11 (NKJV)
25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

The cup IS the new covenant in Jesus' blood.  The Last Supper was the beginning of the sacrifice which was completed on Calvary.  Jesus told Judas to do what he was to do at that supper.  At that point, he laid down his life.  He alone had the authority to lay it down, and he had the authority to take it up.  Until that point, when he initiated his passion, no one could have crucified him or killed him in any way.  He had to lay it down himself.

Matthew 26 (NKJV)
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

QuoteActs 15:19-20
New King James Version (NKJV)
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

Acts 15 was a pastoral decision made by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the practices of the gentiles.  As a foundational principle, however, we know in the New Covenant that all foods have been made clean. (Mark 7:19).

Anyone can lead and take communion and not just Roman Catholic priests, You dont even need to be a church leader. We sometimes take communion in our small local midweek fellowship group, remembering what Jesus has done for us, as He told us to do.

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 16:47:10
Anyone can lead and take communion and not just Roman Catholic priests, You dont even need to be a church leader. We sometimes take communion in our small local midweek fellowship group, remembering what Jesus has done for us, as He told us to do.

Your post misses the point of the thread completely.  That part of my post was directed at Lily in particular.

I don't know if that means you have no response to my on-topic response to you, but that is what it looks like.

Quote from: Catholica on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 17:10:24

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 16:47:10
Anyone can lead and take communion and not just Roman Catholic priests, You dont even need to be a church leader. We sometimes take communion in our small local midweek fellowship group, remembering what Jesus has done for us, as He told us to do.

Your post misses the point of the thread completely.  That part of my post was directed at Lily in particular.

I don't know if that means you have no response to my on-topic response to you, but that is what it looks like.

She is right. Anyone can lead and take communion.

QuoteYou shouldn't go back to the Anglican Church, they don't have valid holy orders, and their priest don't actually have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.  It's a sad reality, but we pray for unity with Anglicans, and in fact many Anglican parishes have come in union with the Catholic Church through the newly established Anglican rite.

What sad reality? The service in the Anglican Church is exactly like a Catholic Mass. I think the RCC recognizes it to be valid but maybe they will not allow you to receive it in the REC wing. I do not understand why you claim the ministers or as you said "Priests" do not have the authority. And, there are some Catholics who join in the Anglican High mass and some of them become Ex-Catholics, especially women.

Quote"The cup IS the new covenant in Jesus' blood.  The Last Supper was the beginning of the sacrifice which was completed on Calvary.  Jesus told Judas to do what he was to do at that supper.  At that point, he laid down his life.  He alone had the authority to lay it down, and he had the authority to take it up.  Until that point, when he initiated his passion, no one could have crucified him or killed him in any way.  He had to lay it down himself."

You did not really answer me. As I said, you can NOT answer that. So Jesus told them to break the OT law. You are committing a mortal sin knowing that it is a SIN to drink blood yet you do it anyway. You Roman Catholics need to repent.

Both OT and NT say you're not to drink blood and at the same time your church says it is a real sacrifice at Last Supper. So it is HIS blood and body and he was still THERE with them huh? 

.....AND The new covenant was not established yet:

Hebrews 9:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

....so you actually believe Jesus violated the OT law.

Matthew 26:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

It says it is fruit of the vine... Nothing changed.

I believe that within the topic under discussion, "this is my flesh..." is clearly metaphorical. Further, "eat my flesh" is parallel to the OT references to "eat this book" which simply means to incarnate the message of God. It is in this latter sense that Paul can tell us that the Supper is a proclamation of our faith.


Despite what most Christians are taught, the host and chalice do not contain the flesh and blood of Christ even in substance hidden by accidents. The entire rite is symbolic (maybe even with a capital S) and this fact obviates the need for a priest's incantation.


Thus there is no need for a priest, and there is no basis on which to assert that the Supper contributes to one's salvation directly.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12

Quote from: Catholica on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 17:10:24

Quote from: chosenone on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 16:47:10
Anyone can lead and take communion and not just Roman Catholic priests, You dont even need to be a church leader. We sometimes take communion in our small local midweek fellowship group, remembering what Jesus has done for us, as He told us to do.

Your post misses the point of the thread completely.  That part of my post was directed at Lily in particular.

I don't know if that means you have no response to my on-topic response to you, but that is what it looks like.

She is right. Anyone can lead and take communion.

Sure, any anyone can dress up like a cop and tell someone that they are under arrest. But just wearing the uniform and saying the words doesn't effect a change upon that person. No matter how much the actor desires it or believes it to be true, that person is not actually arrested.  Anyone can perform a communion service, but like the pretend police officer, their communion doesn't actually change into the body and blood unless the one offering it has been granted the authority to make it so.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12

QuoteYou shouldn't go back to the Anglican Church, they don't have valid holy orders, and their priest don't actually have the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.  It's a sad reality, but we pray for unity with Anglicans, and in fact many Anglican parishes have come in union with the Catholic Church through the newly established Anglican rite.

What sad reality? The service in the Anglican Church is exactly like a Catholic Mass. I think the RCC recognizes it to be valid but maybe they will not allow you to receive it in the REC wing. I do not understand why you claim the ministers or as you said "Priests" do not have the authority. And, there are some Catholics who join in the Anglican High mass and some of them become Ex-Catholics, especially women.

The sad reality is that the Anglican Church doesn't have valid holy orders. No matter how much they imitate the Catholic mass, their bread doesn't become the body and blood of Jesus.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12

Quote"The cup IS the new covenant in Jesus' blood.  The Last Supper was the beginning of the sacrifice which was completed on Calvary.  Jesus told Judas to do what he was to do at that supper.  At that point, he laid down his life.  He alone had the authority to lay it down, and he had the authority to take it up.  Until that point, when he initiated his passion, no one could have crucified him or killed him in any way.  He had to lay it down himself."

You did not really answer me. As I said, you can NOT answer that. So Jesus told them to break the OT law. You are committing a mortal sin knowing that it is a SIN to drink blood yet you do it anyway. You Roman Catholics need to repent.

When did my quote from Mark occur that said "Jesus made all foods clean."?  Jesus made all foods clean, not the New Covenant.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12
Both OT and NT say you're not to drink blood and at the same time your church says it is a real sacrifice at Last Supper. So it is HIS blood and body and he was still THERE with them huh? 

Yes, present sacramentally. Jesus made all foods clean. Jesus is eternal. He offered his own body and blood at the last supper. That is what he said.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12
.....AND The new covenant was not established yet:

Hebrews 9:15-16
New King James Version (NKJV)
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

....so you actually believe Jesus violated the OT law.

Jesus made all foods clean. He was the living Law. And the cup IS the New Covenant.  I answered your question, you just don't agree.

Quote from: .:Lily:. on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 19:18:12
Matthew 26:29
King James Version (KJV)
29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

It says it is fruit of the vine... Nothing changed.

The cup appears as fruit of the vine. In the context of the four cups of the last supper, this makes sense. The third cup he proclaimed his blood. The Paschal sacrifice didn't come to completion until Jesus received the fourth cup on the cross as the hissop dipped in wine.

The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

AVZ, I understand what you are saying.  But the same could be said about Jesus' insistence that He is the Way, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.  For those who don't wish to accept Jesus, this seems like an attempt to entrap them.  But for those who are open to accepting Jesus, this seems and is the greatest gift.

So too the Eucharist.  Jesus gave us this gift and told us that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.  The Catholic Church didn't make this up, it has been this way since the beginning.  Read this passage from Justin Martyr, which is just one example.

From his First Apology (ca 155-157 AD)

Quote
Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

The Church doesn't rule that if you leave, you are condemned.  Only God condemns.  But the Church does teach, according to the words of Jesus, that receiving this Eucharist was taught by Jesus that it is objectively necessary for salvation.  This is not to enslave people but to give them bread for the journey, a supersubstantial "daily" bread (epiousios, Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3)  http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/2009/Sermon-447-bread-of-life-18th-sunday-ordinary-time.aspx 

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 08:11:14

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

AVZ, I understand what you are saying.  But the same could be said about Jesus' insistence that He is the Way, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.  For those who don't wish to accept Jesus, this seems like an attempt to entrap them.  But for those who are open to accepting Jesus, this seems and is the greatest gift.

So too the Eucharist.  Jesus gave us this gift and told us that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.  The Catholic Church didn't make this up, it has been this way since the beginning.  Read this passage from Justin Martyr, which is just one example.

From his First Apology (ca 155-157 AD)

Quote
Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

The Church doesn't rule that if you leave, you are condemned.  Only God condemns.  But the Church does teach, according to the words of Jesus, that receiving this Eucharist was taught by Jesus that it is objectively necessary for salvation.  This is not to enslave people but to give them bread for the journey, a supersubstantial "daily" bread (epiousios, Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3)  http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/2009/Sermon-447-bread-of-life-18th-sunday-ordinary-time.aspx 

Suggest you check out what Justin Martyr said a few verses before that what you quoted.
Also please check what Clement of Alexandria and Origen said about transubstantiation.

By the way do you know that the Catholic Encyclopedia conveniently omits the teachings of Clement and Origen on this matter?
They are being edited out, censored.

How about Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus?
What did they say?

Hints:

Quote
"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body.  But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'"
(Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

Quote
"But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified..."
(Clement of Alexandria)

Quote
"But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?... Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."
(Clement of Alexandria)

Quote
"And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions."
(Justin Martyr)

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 08:11:14

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

AVZ, I understand what you are saying.  But the same could be said about Jesus' insistence that He is the Way, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.  For those who don't wish to accept Jesus, this seems like an attempt to entrap them.  But for those who are open to accepting Jesus, this seems and is the greatest gift.

So too the Eucharist.  Jesus gave us this gift and told us that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.  The Catholic Church didn't make this up, it has been this way since the beginning.  Read this passage from Justin Martyr, which is just one example.

From his First Apology (ca 155-157 AD)

QuoteChapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

The Church doesn't rule that if you leave, you are condemned.  Only God condemns.  But the Church does teach, according to the words of Jesus, that receiving this Eucharist was taught by Jesus that it is objectively necessary for salvation.  This is not to enslave people but to give them bread for the journey, a supersubstantial "daily" bread (epiousios, Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3)  http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/2009/Sermon-447-bread-of-life-18th-sunday-ordinary-time.aspx 

Suggest you check out what Justin Martyr said a few verses before that what you quoted.

I assume that this is the passage that you meant, since it is quoted.  It is forty chapters before what I quoted, not just a few verses.  At first I couldn't understand why a chapter on Jupiter had anything to do with this discussion.

Quote"And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions."
(Justin Martyr)

This chapter is referring is consuming actual pieces of human flesh, which is different than receiving Eucharist, which is the spiritual body of our Lord Jesus Christ, present sacramentally.  The Eucharist is not a circular shaped piece of flesh disguised as a wafer.  It is Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity sacramentally present, whole and entire, so much that we can say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37
Also please check what Clement of Alexandria and Origen said about transubstantiation.

By the way do you know that the Catholic Encyclopedia conveniently omits the teachings of Clement and Origen on this matter?
They are being edited out, censored.

I assume these are the teachings to which you refer, since you quoted them.

Quote"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body.  But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'"
(Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

I have read the context of this quote carefully.  This is my take away from it.  Origen is speaking about whether the Eucharist gives it's benefits to all, even those who partake in it unworthily.  By unworthily he means those who don't believe or who have a stained conscience because of sin.  His answer is "no" because it is not by the physical elements which the bread gives life, as in naturally, but rather by the spiritual reality behind it in which the person must be disposed to receive it.  In the same passage you can see Origen affirming the following:

* And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread.
* But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, (John 1:14) and true meat of which he that eats shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that "every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever."
* it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eats, for "he that doubts is condemned if he eat, because he eats not of faith," (Romans 14:23) and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep."(1 Corinthians 11:30)

There is real advantage to he who receives the "true meat" of the Lord worthily.  The bread is "true meat" and it has real spiritual benefit.  This is Catholic doctrine, not Protestant, symbolic doctrine.  If it was *only* a symbol, there would be no spiritual benefit to either he who receives it worthily or unworthily.  And it would not be called "true meat".

The "typical and symbolical body" of which Origen refers is also true of the Eucharist in Catholic thought.  Something can be both symbolic AND "true meat".  A symbol reminds us of something else, which is part of what the Eucharist does.  But not all.

Quote"But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified..."
(Clement of Alexandria)

Quote"But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?... Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."
(Clement of Alexandria)

A couple of things that must be understood.  First is that, in Catholic Bible interpretation, there are essentially two senses: the literal and the spiritual.  The spiritual sense can be broken down into three parts: the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical.  In short what this means is that, in addition to the literal interpretation (what the author originally intended to mean), there are also symbolic interpretations of nearly every passage of scripture.

The Alexandrian school of thought, which both Clement and Origen were teachers, had their primary goal to interpret the Bible allegorically.  This is not in opposition to the literal sense, but rather in addition to that sense. 

This writing of Clements is riffing on the allegorical interpretation of scripture.  Elsewhere in this same document we find he says the following:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word." (The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4], Clement)

The Catholic Church is not hiding these teachings of Clement.  The documents of Clement of Alexandria are freely available from Catholic sources.  Rather, the Church has sought to expound the literal sense more commonly of this teaching, since it is a difficult teaching for many.  But the words of Clement are not necessarily false, they are simply an interpretation in the allegorical sense, which is valid for all scripture in Catholic thought.

From the Catechism:

QuoteThe senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37
How about Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus?
What did they say?

QuoteIgnatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:25:20

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 08:11:14

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

AVZ, I understand what you are saying.  But the same could be said about Jesus' insistence that He is the Way, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him.  For those who don't wish to accept Jesus, this seems like an attempt to entrap them.  But for those who are open to accepting Jesus, this seems and is the greatest gift.

So too the Eucharist.  Jesus gave us this gift and told us that we need to eat his flesh and drink his blood.  The Catholic Church didn't make this up, it has been this way since the beginning.  Read this passage from Justin Martyr, which is just one example.

From his First Apology (ca 155-157 AD)

QuoteChapter 65. Administration of the sacraments

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

The Church doesn't rule that if you leave, you are condemned.  Only God condemns.  But the Church does teach, according to the words of Jesus, that receiving this Eucharist was taught by Jesus that it is objectively necessary for salvation.  This is not to enslave people but to give them bread for the journey, a supersubstantial "daily" bread (epiousios, Matthew 6:11, Luke 11:3)  http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-Radio/Sermons/2009/Sermon-447-bread-of-life-18th-sunday-ordinary-time.aspx 

Suggest you check out what Justin Martyr said a few verses before that what you quoted.

I assume that this is the passage that you meant, since it is quoted.  It is forty chapters before what I quoted, not just a few verses.  At first I couldn't understand why a chapter on Jupiter had anything to do with this discussion.

Quote"And whether they perpetrate those fabulous and shameful deeds–the upsetting of the lamp, and promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh–we know not; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least on account of their opinions."
(Justin Martyr)

This chapter is referring is consuming actual pieces of human flesh, which is different than receiving Eucharist, which is the spiritual body of our Lord Jesus Christ, present sacramentally.  The Eucharist is not a circular shaped piece of flesh disguised as a wafer.  It is Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity sacramentally present, whole and entire, so much that we can say it is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37
Also please check what Clement of Alexandria and Origen said about transubstantiation.

By the way do you know that the Catholic Encyclopedia conveniently omits the teachings of Clement and Origen on this matter?
They are being edited out, censored.

I assume these are the teachings to which you refer, since you quoted them.

Quote"Now, if 'everything that entereth into the mouth goes into the belly and is cast out into the drought,' even the meat which has been sanctified through the word of God and prayer, in accordance with the fact that it is material, goes into the belly and is cast out into the draught, but in respect of the prayer which comes upon it, according to the proportion of the faith, becomes a benefit and is a means of clear vision to the mind which looks to that which is beneficial, and it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body.  But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, and true meat of which he that eateth shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh. who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that 'every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever.'"
(Origen, Commentary on Mathew 11:14)

I have read the context of this quote carefully.  This is my take away from it.  Origen is speaking about whether the Eucharist gives it's benefits to all, even those who partake in it unworthily.  By unworthily he means those who don't believe or who have a stained conscience because of sin.  His answer is "no" because it is not by the physical elements which the bread gives life, as in naturally, but rather by the spiritual reality behind it in which the person must be disposed to receive it.  In the same passage you can see Origen affirming the following:

* And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread.
* But many things might be said about the Word Himself who became flesh, (John 1:14) and true meat of which he that eats shall assuredly live for ever, no worthless person being able to eat it; for if it were possible for one who continues worthless to eat of Him who became flesh, who was the Word and the living bread, it would not have been written, that "every one who eats of this bread shall live for ever."
* it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eats, for "he that doubts is condemned if he eat, because he eats not of faith," (Romans 14:23) and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, "For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep."(1 Corinthians 11:30)

There is real advantage to he who receives the "true meat" of the Lord worthily.  The bread is "true meat" and it has real spiritual benefit.  This is Catholic doctrine, not Protestant, symbolic doctrine.  If it was *only* a symbol, there would be no spiritual benefit to either he who receives it worthily or unworthily.  And it would not be called "true meat".

The "typical and symbolical body" of which Origen refers is also true of the Eucharist in Catholic thought.  Something can be both symbolic AND "true meat".  A symbol reminds us of something else, which is part of what the Eucharist does.  But not all.

Quote"But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified..."
(Clement of Alexandria)

Quote"But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?... Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; " describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle."
(Clement of Alexandria)

A couple of things that must be understood.  First is that, in Catholic Bible interpretation, there are essentially two senses: the literal and the spiritual.  The spiritual sense can be broken down into three parts: the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical.  In short what this means is that, in addition to the literal interpretation (what the author originally intended to mean), there are also symbolic interpretations of nearly every passage of scripture.

The Alexandrian school of thought, which both Clement and Origen were teachers, had their primary goal to interpret the Bible allegorically.  This is not in opposition to the literal sense, but rather in addition to that sense. 

This writing of Clements is riffing on the allegorical interpretation of scripture.  Elsewhere in this same document we find he says the following:

"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word." (The Instructor of the Children". [2,2,19,4], Clement)

The Catholic Church is not hiding these teachings of Clement.  The documents of Clement of Alexandria are freely available from Catholic sources.  Rather, the Church has sought to expound the literal sense more commonly of this teaching, since it is a difficult teaching for many.  But the words of Clement are not necessarily false, they are simply an interpretation in the allegorical sense, which is valid for all scripture in Catholic thought.

From the Catechism:

QuoteThe senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 09:35:37
How about Ignatius, Tertullian, Irenaeus?
What did they say?

QuoteIgnatius of Antioch

"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Tertullian

"[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God" (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).

Irenaeus

"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

And there we go again...typical RCC excuse.
"don't look at it from human perspective...you must look at it from spiritual, allegorical, mystical view"
"lets not publish it because it is much to difficult for normal souls to understand"

See, the early church fathers were not Catholics with a second agenda. They simply wrote down what they meant, in plain language.
You want over complicate things...be my guest.

The rest of us will take it as it is.

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Jesus founded HIS church, of which all believers are members.

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:12:36
And there we go again...typical RCC excuse.
"don't look at it from human perspective...you must look at it from spiritual, allegorical, mystical view"
"lets not publish it because it is much to difficult for normal souls to understand"

See, the early church fathers were not Catholics with a second agenda. They simply wrote down what they meant, in plain language.
You want over complicate things...be my guest.

The rest of us will take it as it is.

You can read the rest of my quotes from the Church fathers in their plain language.  The Church fathers were unanimous about the Eucharist, and their written interpretations were by and large the simple literal interpretations, which is exactly how one would take John 6 in the language it is written.  Read all the Church fathers that I quoted and what they wrote.  They are proclaiming the truth to you in plain language.

You didn't responded to my points, and that is too bad, but noted.

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:20:55

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Our C is bigger than your c.      

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:39:30

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:20:55

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Our C is bigger than your c.      

Don't you think that this is all rather childish with this whole 'competition' thing, always trying to prove that your faith is better and is the only one with the truth?. If you are at peace with the RC church, then why the need to constantly prove it, and to try desperately to trick others into somehow agreeing with you?

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 14:29:23

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:39:30

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:20:55

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Our C is bigger than your c.      

Don't you think that this is all rather childish with this whole 'competition' thing, always trying to prove that your faith is better and is the only one with the truth?. If you are at peace with the RC church, then why the need to constantly prove it, and to try desperately to trick others into somehow agreeing with you?

Who is trying to trick anyone?  Is using reason, historical sources, logical arguments and the Bible trickery?

If anyone is trying to "prove" the Catholic faith, it is because they authentically believe that the Catholic faith was given to us by Christ for our salvation, and they want people reading it to be able to see that.

I think most Catholics could go their whole life and be happy and never try to prove the faith to anyone.  But woe to us if we fail to share the gospel.

Do you guys really not know what bread is???
This is so sad people. Bread is the bible... the inerrant word of God.

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Mon Sep 02, 2013 - 21:21:35
Do you know where I got this information from?

From here: Douay-Rheims Bible + Challoner Notes (http://www.drbo.org/chapter/50006.htm).

It is a huge mistake to think that the words of Christ in John 6 point to the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Jesus was referring to us consuming Him in the Spiritual sense -- us receiving unto ourselves His sacrifice of Himself as sufficient to cover our sins. His body was broken for us, and His blood was spilt for us. Unless we allow His sacrifice to sustain us spiritually, we will not see life on the other side of death.

When we take the Lord's Supper, the wine and the bread remind us of Jesus and His sacrifice. The elements are not mystically transformed into His body or His blood, and taking them into our bodies does not give us eternal life. That is a bunch of hooey (a technical term for baloney). Anyone who believes that has lost the point of John 6.  Jesus was using the physical to point to the spiritual, and you guys have taken the spiritual and made it physical again. Why have you done that?

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 14:52:00

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 14:29:23

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:39:30

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:20:55

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Our C is bigger than your c.      

Don't you think that this is all rather childish with this whole 'competition' thing, always trying to prove that your faith is better and is the only one with the truth?. If you are at peace with the RC church, then why the need to constantly prove it, and to try desperately to trick others into somehow agreeing with you?

Who is trying to trick anyone?  Is using reason, historical sources, logical arguments and the Bible trickery?

If anyone is trying to "prove" the Catholic faith, it is because they authentically believe that the Catholic faith was given to us by Christ for our salvation, and they want people reading it to be able to see that.

I think most Catholics could go their whole life and be happy and never try to prove the faith to anyone.  But woe to us if we fail to share the gospel.

There is no point in trying to share the gospel with those who are already saved. The OP is not trying to share the gospel, he is trying to show by often offhand and very childish means, that His faith is the only one that is valid. I am sure that you can see what he does on his threads, or least I HOPE you can.

Jesus said,

John 6:50  "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

Some seem to believe that what He was speaking about was a piece of bread that miraculously turns into actual flesh and is consumed physically through the digestive process?  I think that was not the case at all.

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 22:27:49

Quote from: Catholica on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 14:52:00

Quote from: chosenone on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 14:29:23

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:39:30

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:20:55

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:09:29

Quote from: AVZ on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 13:03:28

Quote from: To Know is to Serve on Wed Sep 04, 2013 - 12:23:23

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Sep 03, 2013 - 22:31:54
The way I see it...(herewith immediately my apologies to those who may feel insulted)

This whole real flesh and blood thing is just another attempt by the RCC to force people into the church.
Like: We are the only ones who do the "real" thing, so if you leave you are condemned.

It falls into the same category as "salvation only in the RCC".
The tactic is to rule by fear.

If I show you historical evidence showing Jesus founded the Catholic Church, will you become Catholic to love Jesus? You don't love Jesus if you refuse to be united with him in the Church he founded. You know the eternal fate for those who do not love Jesus.
You seem to fear. You know Jesus founded the Catholic Church.

Not at all 2x

TKITS,

Jesus founded the catholic church (underscore "c") and not the Catholic Church (meaning RCC).

With all due respect, that has been tried by many and this topic has been stoned to death here.
I will never become a Catholic as long as you worship Mary & saints and throw yourselves at the feet of a Pope.

But by all means, take a number and try your luck.

Our C is bigger than your c.      

Don't you think that this is all rather childish with this whole 'competition' thing, always trying to prove that your faith is better and is the only one with the truth?. If you are at peace with the RC church, then why the need to constantly prove it, and to try desperately to trick others into somehow agreeing with you?

Who is trying to trick anyone?  Is using reason, historical sources, logical arguments and the Bible trickery?

If anyone is trying to "prove" the Catholic faith, it is because they authentically believe that the Catholic faith was given to us by Christ for our salvation, and they want people reading it to be able to see that.

I think most Catholics could go their whole life and be happy and never try to prove the faith to anyone.  But woe to us if we fail to share the gospel.

There is no point in trying to share the gospel with those who are already saved. The OP is not trying to share the gospel, he is trying to show by often offhand and very childish means, that His faith is the only one that is valid. I am sure that you can see what he does on his threads, or least I HOPE you can.

You asked a question.  Regardless of how TKITS behaves, I answered your question.

The gospel is not simply a transaction toward salvation; it is also a guide to being truly alive.  I don't know if people on this board are saved or not; only God knows.  All I know is that, in my belief, most people on forums such as this believe a "gospel" which is a mixture of truth and error.  And the error that one believes can draw a person away from God.

The teaching on the Eucharist is one that most people on the board don't believe.  And Jesus emphasizes how if you do not eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life within you.  I believe that your communion is not Jesus' flesh and blood that he is talking about.  And I want you to have this gift that Jesus gave us.  Thus I respond to posts on forums to help expound this beautiful gift so that some might come to believe unto life.

Quote from: Jimmy on Thu Sep 05, 2013 - 07:36:11
Jesus said,

John 6:50  "This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

Some seem to believe that what He was speaking about was a piece of bread that miraculously turns into actual flesh and is consumed physically through the digestive process?  I think that was not the case at all.

That is exactly what the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church, all ancient churches, believe.  The turning into actual flesh is not perceptible by any sensory means, at least not usually.  It still appears to be a piece of bread by all measures.  We believe in this change by faith.

If you read the accounts of the last supper, Jesus is saying "this is my body" and "this is my blood".  If you read the Church fathers, they ALL understand this literally.