| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/25/2015 3:29:26 PM PST by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 02/20/2015 12:33:03 PM PST by RnMomof7
You’re right and I have NO idea.
Some people seem to be hellbent on proving their invincible ignorance.
Well I finally know what I believe in. I’m a catholic and I believe in CONsubstantiation. His SPIRITUAL presence in the eucharist. It doesn’t change the reverence one should have for it nor does it change its impact.
I am always suspicious of the motives of people who come out of the woodwork to try to weaken the faith of others during the most powerful attacks against all of us by atheists, Muslims and their sponsor, the devil.
Did you miss reading Luke 22:14?
Shame on you. I can only pray for your redemption.
What a load of empty, theologically illiterate bilge.
So a handful of Fathers of the Church used LESS PRECISE language than Trent? I’m shocked. SHOCKED!
They lived more than a thousand years before Trent.
Jesus called his blood “wine” because it HAD BEEN wine, and because it still looked like wine, and was drunk like wine, and was being drunk in the Seder, in which there are four cups of blessing drunk. The liturgical prayers still in use today also call the Eucharist “this bread” and “this cup”—immediately after the consecration. Why? Because the bread and wine that are offered DO symbolize flesh and blood. They symbolize flesh and blood BEFORE the consecration, and they continue to symbolize flesh and blood AFTER the consecration—because they still look and taste like bread and wine.
The Eucharistic species ARE the flesh and blood of Jesus, and SIMULTANEOUSLY function as symbols of flesh and blood.
This whole article is based on abject ignorance of Catholic theological terminology, liturgical language, the difference between second-century language and Scholastic language, etc., etc. It ignorantly asserts that because sometimes the Church uses less precise, more Scriptural terminology (as in the liturgy), it must be DENYING all its statements made in the tighter, more precise language of Scholasticism, which was the language of Trent and other councils.
There is nothing in any of the ancient Fathers’ quotations that contradicts the dogma taught by Trent.
“(Jesus has risen from the dead!!! It has already happened”
Only for you - not for Christ.
It has happened for you - NOT for Christ who lives in the eternal present.
For Christ, His sacrifice is happening NOW because to Him ther is no past, no future - only His eternal NOW!
AMDG
Interestingly, this is what I think when I read anything that supports the Roman Catholic Cult. Empty, theologically illiterate bilge describes Rome to a T.
Hoss
Scriptural proof for this??
Hoss
Scriptural proof????
So you honestly believe that God exists within the confines of human, earthly time???
My only question would be: Daylight Savings or Central Standard?
Seriouly, google “God and Time” and see what pops up.
AMDG
We seem to have an Ian Paisley wing of FReeRepublic now.
Well, the interpretation is man’s interpretation. I think its obvious Jesus was speaking metaphorically. So no, we don’t eat the body or drink the blood of Christ, and it doesn’t miraculously change when we consume them either.
When we take the Eucharist we are commemorating Jesus’s last meal before being crucified for our sins. It’s a formal commemoration performed with blessed bread and wine, to convert them into the Eucharist sacraments.
I posted the same thing days ago.
My question as well. I believe that all of us who receive our salvation from Jesus should focus on what unites us, not what divides us. I figure that it is Jesus and His Father who makes the ultimate decision on whether our earthly squabbling is more important over accepting Him as our Lord and Master.
And can we ignore and pray that those Christians who are being martyred for their faith, just because they don’t belong to our local congregation or are from another ‘room’ of our Father’s mansion (hotel) of obedience to him?
First, I am not a Roman Catholic, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Roman Catholic Faith, Church and members.
If the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Catholic or the Coptic are not the “true church” authorized to represent Jesus Christ on the earth then there isn’t any other, or if there is another it could be anyone who makes the claim. There is one other church that makes a similar claim, the Latter Day Saints but believing their authority takes an even larger leap of faith.
Protestant churches claim to pick up the mantle of the Roman Catholic Church, in other words they say they are the remnant of the “true Roman Catholic Church”. They, the Protestants have taken the church which was killed by the Popes and resurrected it in truth through Martin Luther. Martin Luther and those that followed him kept what they thought good from the Roman Catholic Church and discarded what they thought bad and the Sacrament of The Lords Supper was one of the things Luther thought wrong with the Church. The change made by Luther was at first very subtle sounding and eventually became that the “presence” of Christ was in the bread and wine but that the bread and wine were not literally the flesh and blood of Christ. While this difference may not sound earth shattering it is. Like in Catholic theology only the priest has the power to properly administer the Eucharist except in rare circumstances. This is where we run into problems.
In the Lutheran Church it is obvious where the priesthood authority comes from, it is traced back to Luther who traces his linage of priesthood back to Peter. Evangelical churches and other Protestant churches say they don’t need this priesthood linage to have authority to Baptize or offer the Eucharist, they get authority from the Holy Bible and from the Holy Spirit.
Don’t misunderstand my argument here, I’m not saying that the Catholics are the only ones authorized, I’m not making that argument for anyone, but if they are not then how is anyone? Do the Catholics not have the Holy Bible? Do the Catholics not have access to the Holy Ghost? Certainly they have these things as much as any believing Protestant.
If therefore the Protestant/Evangelicals have any authority to administer the Sacraments of The Church then so too do the Catholics, it would be absurd to think otherwise.
That brings us to another problem. If the Catholics, either the Roman or the Eastern or even the Coptic’s for that matter have the authority passed down from Peter that was apparently required to offer Mass for 1500 years, where did it go, do they not still have it?
If the Catholic Churches lost the authority of Peter then they are just one of many church preaching their own brand of Christianity, no better but surely no worse than any of the others. If the Catholics lost authority to offer the Eucharist then who has it? Can no one offer it with authority? If you believe that the Catholics lost it then you must believe that the Mormons claim to have had it restored must have some value for if that authority is required to offer up the sacrament of the Lords Supper or Eucharist then if the Holy Catholic Church doesn’t have it because that authority died in that church then certainly no church derived from the dead church would have it either.
So, do not quickly invalidate the authority of the Holy Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox or Coptic churches unless you are prepared to invalidated your own church, or validate the claims of the LDS.
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.