Posted on 07/12/2008 7:29:56 AM PDT by kellynla
Popman says:Perhaps one more learned than I can patiently explain the Biblical basis for the Holy Eucharist?Nothing in the Greek text that translates into bread actually turning into the Body of Christ I find no support for it in the Bible based on the actual Greek words
Always Right says:Again, perhaps those in the Catholic Caucus with patience and charity can correct the errors here?Much of Catholic teachings are only loosely based on scripture and rely heavily on opinions of Popes.
Then there is the horrific story to comment on.
What a pathetic little man. Why does the UofM keep him around?
> Perhaps one more learned than I can patiently explain the Biblical basis for the Holy Eucharist?
Funny you should mention that — I was wondering about that, myself. I hope this isn’t a stupid question: it isn’t meant to be...
Is it so, that the Host turns into the actual flesh (ie raw meat) of Jesus when it is consumed at Mass? And the wine turns into actual blood? That’s what my Protestant friends say that Catholics teach. Except they’re a bit more rude, calling it “cannibalism”.
If true, I must confess it takes some getting used to that idea. How does that work? Why is it so?
Can someone please set me right on this?
What a lost soul this professor is at this point.
As a Catholic I respect most religions, and would never even think of scandalizing another's beliefs. Yet we are considered "scumbags" when we take offense to things we hold sacred.
I don't get it?
The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus.
Hummmmm....years: 1079, 1139, 1188,1200 A thousand years after the example Jesus set in the beginning
Bear in mind I deeply respect the RCC, they are the only institute in the world that stands for life and stand strong against secularism.
I just don't buy into the extra Biblical theology the RCC asks me to believe. I know that makes me apostate in your eyes, since I don't belong to the Universal Church and reject their hierarchy of belief.
The big difference between you and me is I believe Catholics are saved even though they believe theology outside of Scriptures where as far as I can tell you think I'm on the way to hell since I an a protestant
Is the University of Minnesota-Morris really necessary? Or is it a minor league junion college? One created by the education estalishment to give recent Social Science dorks post-graduate training in Marxist thought?
“I again reject the theology behind them?”
Well, then that’s your problem now isn’t it.
“where as far as I can tell you think I’m on the way to hell since I an a protestant”
Where you are headed is up to you and God.
From Wiki:
“A self-avowed “godless liberal”[4] and outspoken atheist, he is a vocal skeptic of all forms of religion, superstition, spirituality and pseudoscience. He is quoted as having “nothing but contempt for ID” arguing that it is “fundamentally dishonest.”[2]”
And typical cowardly lib. . .when caught he retreats:
“Myers explained the blog entry to the Star Tribune as “satire and protest” more than any actual threat. Myers also reported he too had received death threats regarding the incident but was not taking them too seriously[13]”
I am waiting for his satire and protest of the moon religion.
I don't see it as a problem rejecting man made theology
So will you see me in heaven or not?
It wasn’t until I converted to Roman Catholicism around mid-life that I experienced real joy in my communion with Christ. The Rock, St. Peter, upon whom Christ handed his keys to his church on earth, coupled with Apostolic succession and the ‘laying on hands’ knowing full well the unbroken chain from our Saviour rested upon me, changed my life. Unlike the Protestant denominations I’d attended before, the one holy and catholic and apostolic church became real with one doctrine worldwide. Before conversion, the void was always present after attending Protestant services. Rest assured, I have never heard a Priest speaking from anything but kindness and love towards fellow Christians.
Yes, really.
My private interpretations are straight from the Greek text.
Most likely a corrupted text and not a faithful copy of the original. However, your problem could lie with your poor ability to discern rather than a corrupted text. Some things never change as that was a problem that Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul had to contend with in the 1st century as well.
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St, Luke, St. John, St. Paul and St. Jerome along with many of the Church Fathers aren't ambiguous at all regarding what you foolishly claim is merely a symbol.
"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins." Matthew 26:26-28
Ver. 26."This is my body. He does not say This is the figure of my body - but This is my body. (2 Council of Nice, Act. 6). Neither does He say In this, or With this is my body; but absolutely This is my body: which plainly implies transubstantiation." St. Jerome commentary on Matthew 26:26, 4th Century AD.
"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many." Mark 14:22-24
"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you." Luke 22:19-20
Chap. 22, Ver. 19 "Do this for a commemoration of me." This Sacrifice and Sacrament is to be continued in the Church, to the end of the world, to shew forth the death of Christ, until he cometh. But this commemoration, or remembrance, is by no means inconsistent with the real presence of his body and blood, under these sacramental veils which represent his death; on the contrary, it is the manner that he himself had commanded of commemorating and celebrating his death, by offering in sacrifice and receiving in the Sacrament, that body and blood by which we were redeemed." St. Jerome commentary on Luke 22:19, 4th century AD.
"I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 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. 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. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 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. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 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. 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." John 6:48-59
Ver. 54,"Except you eat. To receive the body and blood of Christ, is a divine precept, insinuated inthis text, which the faithful fulfil, though they receive but in one kind; because in one kind they receive both the 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." St. Jerome commentary on John 6:54, 4th century AD.
"Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 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. And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God." John 6:61-70
"Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:27
Ver. 27, "Or drink. Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original, {Greek text}) instead of or drink. - Guilty of the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemnedfor not discerning the Lord's body." St. Jerome commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27, 29, 4th century AD.
"For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:29
Ignatius 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]).
Justin Martyr
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
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).
Clement of Alexandria
"’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
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]).
Hippolytus
"‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ’s] honored and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]" (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
Origen
"Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:55]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord" (The Lapsed 15–16 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Nicaea I
"It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]" (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Aphraahat the Persian Sage
"After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink" (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Ambrose of Milan
"Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ" (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
"When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Augustine
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (ibid., 272).
Council of Ephesus
"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius [A.D. 431]).
You may believe that the moon is made of cheese but you would be incorrect about that as well. Catholics do not believe that everything a Pope says or writes is Divinely inspired; prudential statements for example.
I still see nothing wrong with what I said,
Where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise.
There are many good Catholic's who truly understand salvation and are Christians. I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I found that many of the church's teaching's deviate from what I read in the Bible. Transubstantiation and Papal infallibility are but 2 of a myriad of doctrine that just doesn't line up with scripture. I am not bashing Catholic's when I say that many have never compared the Church's teaching to what the Bible actually teaches.
The history of the inquisitions which the church actually denied for centuries is a perfect example of how the truth of the Gospel was exchanged for man made doctrine.
Excellent post!
That should keep the non-Catholic “experts” occupied...
well at least until the next Catholic thread is posted. LOL
Good day and again, good work!
Kelly
Thanks for the PING. However reading some of the comments posted I don't feel too patient nor chartable right now.
Plus, you can't fix stupid.
Welcome aboard!
What they don't line up with is your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
True, let's see if the professor has the balls to rail against Islam?
Crackers are good with sausage or soup.
They get obscenely and viciously crumbled into the soup.
Because they are crackers.
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.