Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
ping
With each of these postings the rcc becomes more and more cultish IMHO.
Through about half-way, I was about to praise you for finally posting a critique of what Catholics ACTUALLY believe, rather than silly accusations of what we supposedly believe, which is what 99% of all attacks on Catholicism on FR actually do.
But then you most grieviously injured Augustine. When he asserts that Jesus does not want them to eat the flesh that the disciples see, he is not telling them not to consume the eucharist, but only that they are not to eat the flesh off his bones, nor the blood spilled by his crucifiers. “Spiritually,” to Augustine does not mean that something is not real. In fact, that is the resolution of the riddle he poses with “worshipping the footstool:” That what was of the Earth has now become that which can be adored (latria).
IN the same work you cite, Augustine says,: And he was carried in his own hands.” But, brethren, how is it possible for a man to do this? Who can understand it? Who is it that is carried in his own hands? A man can be carried in the hands of another; but no one can be carried in his own hands. How this should be understood literally of David, we cannot discover; but we can discover how it is meant of Christ. For Christ was carried in His own hands, when, referring to His own Body, He said: “This is My Body.” For He carried that Body in His hands.
Acts 17:29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.
***snort***
This is a little off the main subject, but the verses you posted brought it to mind. Due largely to the ministry of Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest who was saved, I am increasingly convicted over idolatry and representations of God, including Christ Jesus.
Richard’s website is www.bereanbeacon.org. He has several articles on idolatry and I have linked one below.
Idolatry in the Evangelical Camp
Pictures of “Christ” or the Glory of God?
By J. Virgil Dunbar & Richard Bennett
And here is a link to Richard speaking on the topic:
Images of Christ and the Gospel
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61007142450
Actually the RCC isn't changing, you are just seeing the big picture. People in the dark can't see. "Light is that which makes manifest"
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light , that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[
**In Vain Do They Worship Me**
I’m surprised that you would even post this. From your Catholic upbringing you should be very aware of Eucharistic miracles.
Such as Lanciano.........go ahead.....look it up.
Such a wit. The answer is “no,” but you’ll still be a jerk.
Jesus said “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood.” I have the faith to believe what he said. It is sad that there are some who call themselves Christians that do not and must turn to human rationalizations to deny the words of our Lord. So much for their claim to be “Bible believing” Christians.
Thank you for posting that link.
“So, the Reformed Churches are quite right to confess that the Mass is both an attack on the gospel, by attacking the perfect work of Christ for us and an accursed idolatry by conflating the Creator with the creature (bread and wine) and adoring the creature or the Creator improperly through the bread and wine (which Rome says are no longer present). Everything the catechism says about Rome’s doctrine and practice is perfectly true and we should be ashamed neither of the holy gospel nor of the holy law of God. They need no footnotes, brackets, nor embarrassment.”
Amen, Dr. Scott! Amen!
Every argument against the Real Presence is equally an argument against the Incarnation.
Muslims heartily endorse this opinion.
Yeah, well, Rome seems to be saying a lot of things these days.
Which is harder to believe: (a) God became a smelly, dirty Galilean carpenter; or (b) the God who became a smelly, dirty Galilean carpenter can change a piece of bread into himself?
Jesus said “this is my Body” and “this is my Blood.” I have the faith to believe what he said.
Do you have the faith to believe he was a literal door, shepherd, or vine? Christ likened himself to those as well.
Metaphors, FRiend.
I can and do believe in the real presence, but also that the elements still exist as bread and wine. As the Lutheran catechism states, the Body and Blood are present in with and under the bread and wine. And to worship or adore a wafer is blasphemous. We worship Christ alone, not the physical vehicle He comes to us in.
I do not understand the mystery of communion, but if one says it is merely symbolic, I think one misses the depth Christ intended. I do not understand in human fashion much of what God does. However, again, I do not think it is proper to worship the elements in the Supper, only the Lord who chooses to come to us in this manner.
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.