Posted on 01/28/2015 1:23:00 PM PST by RnMomof7
The consecrated wine is often referred to as “wine” even in the Catholic Mass. The consecrated Host is referred to as “bread.” This usage is similar to that employed by Jesus at the Last Supper. He wasn’t giving a technical, philosophical, metaphysical discourse on the Eucharistic Presence.
There are two reasons that the use of the terms “bread” and “wine” are legitimate:
One: they still look like bread and wine. They WERE bread and wine.
Two: Even after the consecration, at which they BECOME Christ’s body and blood, they still FUNCTION AS SYMBOLS of flesh and blood.
That’s why they are fitting matter for the sacrament: They CAN become Christ’s body and blood because they are fitting NATURAL symbols of flesh and blood. One could argue that because a block of wood cannot be eaten, and a lump of coal cannot be drunk, Jesus COULD NOT make those into the sacrament of his body and blood. The bread and wine CAN be changed into Christ’s body and blood because they NATURALLY symbolize flesh and blood.
You imply that those uses of the words “bread” and “wine” utterly vitiate any belief in the Real Presence. But those uses of the words are not categorical, technical, global, univocal statements of Catholic belief about the Eucharist. They are convenient and qualified terminology.
The Church has always been unequivocal that the Eucharistic Species are to be worshiped with exactly the same worship that is due to Jesus Christ. It is preposterous to say that the use of the words “bread” and “wine” in certain contexts signifies that the Church does not believe in the Real Presence, set beside the constant insistence of the Church that the Eucharistic Species are to be WORSHIPED.
We don’t know whether or not Mary died.
She was preserved from sin by the merits of Christ. So she DID have a savior—Jesus Christ.
Mary, being sinless, very possibly did not die.
On the other hand, it seems probable that she would WANT to experience death out of a desire for SOLIDARITY with her Son, and with the rest of the human race.
Hi Mom,
Do you remember this humongous thread years ago?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1318819/posts
It raised many of the same debate and topics.
True. Jesus spoke in proverbs, metaphors, parables.
And immediately after speaking so to the crowds, he would explain the meaning of his parables to the disciples. Those explanations are also recorded in the gospels.
So, according to the Scriptures, Jesus did not speak ONLY in metaphors and parables.
When it comes to the Eucharist, we are NOT told that Jesus explained to the disciples privately that he was speaking in metaphor only, when he said we must gnaw and chew his body, and drink his blood.
“Day of the Lord” is no good as a synonym for “Sunday”?
How about “the Lord’s day,” then?
So the dormition of Mary wasn't really the dormition of Mary right? And that whole story about the apostles being transported to her bedside at her death was just a fake? A fable? What was that?
I think if it weren't for double speak Catholics wouldn't have much to say.
Ah, you see that's what happens when you don't read the whole chapter. If you did, you would see that Jesus was not talking about foods that were declared clean and unclean under the Law. That whole discussion was concerning the fact that the disciples were not following the Jewish tradition (not Law) of ceremonially washing their hands before they ate. The Pharisees were offended by the fact that the disciples didn't follow the tradition. Never once in that chapter did the topic of whether the foods were "clean" or "unclean" according to the Law come into the discussion - as a matter of fact, the food they were eating was bread.
With regard to the "Real Presence", I am not well versed in Catholic terminology, so I assume you are referring to Christ being physically present in the bread and the wine. Seems like a strange theology, and one that doesn't make much sense. It also seems superfluous - since I have Jesus present in me at ALL times, why would He need to be in the bread and the wine? I don't take Jesus into my body through my mouth - He is in my heart through His Spirit at all times.
And the fact that you worship any man-made item, whether that be a statue, a piece of bread or a cup of wine, clearly puts you unto the category of idolatry. We are not to worship the creation, we are to Worship the Creator only.
Since you can provide no Scriptural basis for this statement, just you man-made tradition, this statement has no more validity that your other statements based on Church tradition. And like your other statements, it is in direct opposition to the actual Scripture, which says "all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." And also, "it is appointed unto man once to die; and after this, the judgment."
(By the way, if you want to argue about Enoch and Elijah, just who do you think will be the two witnesses that are killed in Revelation?)
Amen
That’s true what you say but two things:
One, the fact that He was speaking of a ceremonial law being abolished (the washing of hands before eating) actually only compliments the argument(s) made on Catholic.com regarding the alleged prohibition of drinking blood still in effect today. For indeed the author of that piece made the same point to whit: since Jesus said that it is no longer “unclean” to eat before ceremonially washing one’s hands it’s indeed the dirt of one’s hands that is the subject of His edict there. So even if one doesn’t agree that blood is food, then in Mark 7:18-19 we can still see Jesus lifting the “uncleanliness” of not ceremonially washing one’s hands, which isn’t due to food per se but rather dirt. (Read the article). So if accidentally consuming dirt with one’s meal no longer makes a man unclean, then surely it can’t be said that purposefully consuming the blood of Jesus is unclean, since that contains His life.
Secondly about the lifting of all food restrictions: if accidentally consuming dirt is now ok, then surely it can’t be said purposefully consuming any food is “unclean” as St Paul later goes on to teach again. In other words St Paul wasn’t just making up what he taught about clean/unclean foods, he was just repeating what was taught by Jesus in Mark 7:18-19.
As I said before I will now say again: I won’t respond any more unless all the points in that article are addressed and I’ll say this now too: in one post. I’m not going to chase down a myriad of posts to get a cohesive reply to all those points (in the linked article above).
So even if you disagree with what I’ve said here that doesn’t change my mind since you haven’t addressed all the points there.
Actually, no. Your logic is fallacious, because you are comparing two different things as if they were the same. The prohibition against consuming blood was given by God Himself; the tradition of washing hands was developed by the priests and Pharisees. There is a WORLD of difference between overturning a man-made tradition and overturning a Law given by God.
With regard to Paul, if you read the Scripture in context, he is clearly addressing the issue of the Jewish Christians trying to make the Gentile Christians live under the Mosaic law. Paul's point is that after the Cross, we are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law because it was completely fulfilled by the life and death of Christ. Rather, the Church is governed by the grace of God. The moral laws of God are written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, not on tablets of stone. But once again, that was AFTER and as a RESULT OF the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not before.
And as I told Arthur, I am not trying to change your mind - just allow others to see the flaws in your argument and tradition.
You may think you are doing that but you aren't. As anyone who wishes can read the article on catholic.com and see for themselves that you still haven't shown how what is said THERE, is wrong.
Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?
For those who wish to see for themselves how your reply lacks.
that was the last Passover Arthur ..Jesus was explaining to them the fulfillment of the the "type "(passover ) and now they were to remember Him as the fulfillment
He was the bread of life ...with out leaven (sin)
The four cups of wine at the passover correspond to the four expressions of redemption in the Torah: "I took you out...I rescued you...I liberated you...I took you to Me for a people."
It seems that Jesus offered the 3rd cup (I liberated you ) ..."..He was fulfilling the passover..eliminating it and replacing it with Himself
They understood his metaphor ..not one apostle questioned Him about this BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTOOD
You just can not understand Arthur
Mat 13:15FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.' 16"But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
No, unless you can show once from scripture that Sunday or the first day of the week is referred to as the "day of the Lord" or "the Lord's day". The only instance in all of history that I can find "the lord's day" referring to Sunday is in paganism referring to the day dedicated to the sun god.
BTW The Greek wording for Revelation 1:10 would be "in, on, or among" the Lord's day. That would be consistent with the rest of scripture when "the day of the Lord" or "the Lord's day" refers to a time period.
>>How about “the Lord’s day,” then?<<
Shoe where it is ever in reference to Sunday or any other specific identifiable day.
And immediately after speaking so to the crowds, he would explain the meaning of his parables to the disciples. Those explanations are also recorded in the gospels.
So let's make sure we make your position clear for the readers at home.
Jesus has His Last Supper with His disciples, during which He establishes the practice of Communion (or the Eucharist, if you prefer). In this, He says "this is my Body, this is my Blood", etc.
RIGHT AFTER the meal and BEFORE leaving the room, Jesus is speaking to His disciples and tells them "I have spoken to you in proverbs..."
And YOUR argument is that Jesus was talking about things He had said to them at other times, but specifically NOT about what He had been telling them just before making that statement, even though a literal interpretation of those statements would have indicated a command from Jesus to violate a Law of God that had been in effect for thousands of years.
Now THAT is a feat of logical gymnastics that would get a 10.0 even from the East German judge!
Jesus spoke in proverbs and analogies very often, which He clearly stated. So to argue that He COULDN'T have been speaking of the blood and body in a metaphorical usage is clearly wrong. And since a literal interpretation of that command would have resulted in a violation God's Law against consuming blood, the symbolic or metaphorical usage is the one that is in harmony with the rest of the Scripture.
You've not MADE a point yet.
The church at Rome has taught it's members that certain verses are Literal and certain ones are Virtual: symbolic if you will.
There has been NO evidence produced by her as how she determines which as which.
BECAUSE WE SAY SO does not impress Protestants at all.
I fail to see how her members; if they think logically at all; can fall for it.
No Arthur ..that is not what the scriptures say ..Arthur you really need a good bible study
Gal 3:23But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Galatians 2:16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.
You are correct that the law continues in effect.. but only for those that seek to be justified by it.. ( an impossibility ..because only Christ can keep it perfectly)
Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes.
Arthur you continue kick against the goad ... come to Christ ..let Him carry your burden for you
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.