Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Catholic Biblical Apologetics: Opportunities of Grace: The Eucharist: The Lord's Supper
CatholicApologetics.org ^ | 1985-1997 | Dr. Robert Schihl and Paul Flanagan

Posted on 04/22/2010 9:55:26 PM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-207 next last
To: Salvation

Congratulations! Your post, though terse, was a post. I have noticed you completely ignoring several substantive posts regarding the topics you brought up in the first place, so this is progress. Keep up the good work!


41 posted on 04/24/2010 12:00:36 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.

If we wanted to be Catholics (or learn about Catholicism), we could go to Catholic churches/seminaries/websites, etc.

If we want to discuss something with a Catholic, that he or she brings up, we respond to the content of their post, and should expect the courtesy of a reply, though it is evident that many have been burned by the “dump and run” tactics I have seen repeatedly in just the past few weeks, and don’t really expect a reply.

Sad. (Not LOL as you seem to think.)


42 posted on 04/24/2010 12:14:06 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
 The Eucharist is celebrated more frequently because it is the communion with our Lord and God whose Body and Blood we are commanded to eat and drink.
 
Jesus was speaking to a group of JEWS who had gathered to celebrate a YEARLY ritual of rememberence.
 
 
I find no 'command' to do ANYTHING any differently.
 
 
 
First Corinthians 11:26
 
 
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.

43 posted on 04/24/2010 5:00:54 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I cna raed wrdos thta rea spleld wrogn.


44 posted on 04/24/2010 5:01:58 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
It’s about transubstantiation.

No it isn't.

Why would Catholics not take this seriously when that particular narrative talks about many of Jesus’ followers leaving?

Because the very idea that HE, Jesus, was the One to which the LAMB pointed was offensive!

NOT the 'eating of his flesh'.

They JUST - DIDN'T - GET - IT!

When Thomas finally said, "My Lord and my God!" he didn't try to lick the blood from Jesus' hand!

On the road to emmaus the disciples had to have EXPLANATION of what the Scriptures had said about Him.

HE ate with them and NO mention of a eucharistic ritual took place.

45 posted on 04/24/2010 5:11:11 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
As far as I know all the Catholics I am acquainted with take all those words at their face meaning.

Does that mean that you are in complete agreement with what I brought out from the Bible? If so, the the whole structure of the Latin Church is suspect of being a super cult led by an influential leader who represents Christ on earth. In doing so, it has created a vast bureaucracy to control its membership, which they call the laity.

There are no special castes of "priests" to perform ritualistic exercises such as was found in Judahism in contrast to what is found in the Bible - that is the misuse and misunderstanding to the term "presbuteros", which the RCC redefined to mean a "priest".

But it’s because Catholics ARE reading and studying the Bible now!

Yes, and many of them are coming out of the RCC to join a real Biblical Christian church.

Remember, I said you could always come back.

Yes, I remember, but why should I deny what I've found out and return to error?

All in all, are you afraid or ashamed to respond to what I said in my previous messages? Or is it that you are faced with the truth and wish to ignore it? Which is it?

46 posted on 04/24/2010 7:25:16 AM PDT by Ken4TA (The truth hurts those who don't like truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: srweaver
The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.

I suppose an alternate explanation is that the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of "ha’almah" by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

And this, considering the quote above, underlines the central question: what is the payoff for deliberately choosing the one meaning of the word that most completely obliterates the significance of what the gospel author and many others claimed if it were read as they and others of their time understood it in its context?

What this person does with his or her treatment of "virgin" is typical of the "it's only" approach to minimization. If true, the target of minimization would be too psychologically, emotionally, or spiritually disruptive to maintain sanity or a claim of honesty in dealing with the purported facts. So it usually comes down to something like this, "If what the gospel writers are saying is true, then anyone who rejects their claims is in deep crap. I don't want to be in deep crap; therefore, what they are claiming cannot possibly be true because "it's only" this or that due to their dishonesty or their ignorance of the real world and I'm off the hook for any moral claims against my life and I can do what I like because I must only to my own self be true."

Something similar is seen in all the cults that have spun off of Judaism and Christianity. Look at Islam, for instance. If everything of a Christian or Jewish origin were removed from Islam, there would be little left. The general content of the lives of the patriarchs and prophets and Mary and Jesus is retained to provide the religious and historical context without which Islam's claims would be meaningless. But everything having to do with what both the Jews and the Christians assert to be the central meaning of their stories is ignored, excised, or explained away. This is done because if what the writers of the Bible say the relationship of God to the Jewish people means for those living in that region and what the deity and resurrection of Jesus means for the world is true, then what Islam is claiming for itself cannot possibly be true.
47 posted on 04/24/2010 8:06:28 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA; Salvation

“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.

“Literal” means “in the sense directly meant and understood by the writer and contemporaneous reader”. For example, “this is my body” literally means the physical body. The opposite of that is allegorical, for example, “this is my body” really refers to my friends or relatives. The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context. For example, “I am the door through which sheep enter the pen” cannot be taken literally because the context is an allegory of the Church being like a pen of sheep.


48 posted on 04/24/2010 10:02:35 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Jesus was speaking to a group of JEWS who had gathered to celebrate a YEARLY ritual of rememberence.

If you put the instruction of eating His body and drinking His blood (remember that the Jews recoiled in abhorrence at the idea of cannibalism), along with the Last Supper (which replaced Passover for Christianity), and the writing of Paul (as often as you do this), and go to the early Church's practices - they started to celebrate the Mass as often as possible. Which in the Church is daily.

Beyond this and other Scriptural support, we have the early Church documents - the Didache, Ignatius and Justin Martyr expanding upon the Gospel and Pauline verses regarding the Eucharist.

49 posted on 04/24/2010 10:05:43 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: blasater1960
G-d would never have an affair with a human woman? Take a mans wife. Have a hybrid god-man child out of wedlock. Take this hybrid child and offer him as a human sacrifice after expressly telling humans he hates human sacrifice.

These things (leaving aside a deliberately comical reference to them) are indeed miraculous acts of sovereign God, but by what logic are they something Sovereign God would "never" do?

50 posted on 04/24/2010 10:06:11 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; srweaver
the author of the first gospel deliberately focused on the primary meaning of "ha’almah" by giving the more restrictive definition in Greek so that anyone reading it would have no doubt as to how the Hebrew word was being used in this context.

First, for a Catholic Christian, the Gospels are the direct message from God and the Old Testament is in many parts vague and imprecise , -- albeit inspired -- prefigurements of it. So, in principle, it is possible that the New Testament clarifies and rephrases the Old. This is why it was wrtiten in the first place.

However, to take "almah" in some way that excludes the sense of "virgin" is absurd, because to say, "behold, a young woman will conceive and call the Child Emmanuel" is a meaningless statement. It is old women conceiving that is near miraculous and is perhaps worth prophesying about, not young ones.

51 posted on 04/24/2010 10:13:27 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: annalex
For example, “this is my body” literally means the physical body. The opposite of that is allegorical, for example, “this is my body” really refers to my friends or relatives.

"This is my body" when referring to things other than ones literal body is allegorical usage - if I took a piece of bread and said "this is my body", that is allegorical usage - That is what Jesus did. "This is my body" can also be used in a spiritual sense, which Jesus also spoke about; "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." This was spoken in response to his allegorical reference of his body being food and his blood being drink - which his disciples said was a "hard teaching" if referring to his "literal body." Your allegorical use of "this is my body" being a reference to "my friends or relatives" is sort of ridiculous usage. You can do better than that :-)

The Church teches that the literal meaning is to be preferred unless the allegorical is clearly indicated by context.

Exactly, just as I said above about "this is my body."

“Literal” does not mean “morphological”. That words like priest or bishop have morphological origin in various ordinary ways to describe a leader of any kind, — even a leader of animals — does not mean they should not be used in the narrow technical sense in the Church.

Hmm...Salvation must have pinged you to explain something he/she couldn't do - is that right? Regardless, the terms used in the Bible do have literal meanings in the cases I cited about the terms presbuteros, episkopos, etc. They are used to describe the office of certain people. Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22. I sure would like to hear from you on that specifically! Ref: Acts 20:17, 27–28 and 1 Peter 5:1–2.

Good luck...

52 posted on 04/24/2010 3:03:47 PM PDT by Ken4TA (The truth hurts those who don't like truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

**You mean dumping of dogma into a discussion format and then not answering those that respond to the dogma.**

Which dogma?


53 posted on 04/24/2010 3:08:19 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

So can I. LOL!


54 posted on 04/24/2010 3:08:53 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA

Why do you speak, as a former Catholic, of the Catholic Church being a supercult. You, I think, would know better than to throw that around. LOL!


55 posted on 04/24/2010 3:10:30 PM PDT by Salvation ( "With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Why do you speak, as a former Catholic, of the Catholic Church being a supercult. You, I think, would know better than to throw that around. LOL!

LOL! I knew it would get your attention - and it did, that was the purpose! I was hoping that you would actually address what I had posted - but you didn't.

Explanation: The apostle Paul was accused of being a leader of the church in Acts 28:22. The term used was "aireseos", i.e., sect, cult, scion, etc. I used it to emphasize the point that the RCC was simply a very large sect of Christianity, a cult, sect, scion, etc., of the church of Christ: actually, a division, faction, religious party and even a false party or teaching.

56 posted on 04/24/2010 3:40:08 PM PDT by Ken4TA (The truth hurts those who don't like truth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

You posted: Which dogma?

Are you seriously that clueless to what you are doing when you post?

Your initial post #1, and subsequent posts #6 and #7 — are pure Catholic dogma.

If you want to “dump” it you should defend it, or at least have the courtesy to respond to those who comment on your posts.

So, help me here, should I feel sad for you because you don’t realize what you are doing, or because you “dump” and run?


57 posted on 04/24/2010 5:38:51 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I don’t consider the old covenant (Old Testament) either vague or imprecise, nor do I consider the new covenant (New Testament) unclear.

I consider the old covenant to be the “old” covenant and the new covenant to be the “new” covenant.

It makes sense to me what you posted about a young woman conceiving being a meaningless statement as it was supposed to designate a “sign” from God. Good point!

1) sign, signal
a) a distinguishing mark
b) banner
c) remembrance
d) miraculous sign
e) omen
f) warning

2) token, ensign, standard, miracle, proof

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign! I think (agree with you) that He would pick something designed to demonstrate His omnipotence as opposed to an everyday occurence.


58 posted on 04/24/2010 5:53:12 PM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ken4TA
if I took a piece of bread and said "this is my body", that is allegorical usage

Only because you and I know that you are not God capable of working miracles. But in the case of Jesus and the Eucharist we also have John 6 where His body is said to be "food indeed". Further, if you were going to suffer and die and your words to me were, pointing at bread, "This is my body", I would at least have the courtesy, knowing you as a thoughtful person to assume you meant it literally and not joking around on a solemn moment like this. The Apostles did take Christ literally -- St. Paul, for example, considers "not discerning the body" in the Eucharistic bread a great sin, akin to spiritual death (1 Cor 11:23-30). The ideas that the Eucharist is merely a memorial meal with bread and maybe grape juice is a late invention, wholly outside of the Apostolic tradition.

Explain, please, exactly what those verses and words mean that I bought out about the offices of the church in post #22.

Why, you are correct that in Acts 20:17, 27–28 St Paul speaks of the holy office of the Episcopacy:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood (Act 20:28)

Was your point that priesthood was at the time not separated from episcopacy? That is correct also, -- the Church was not big enough to have preists who are not bishops. That is also clear from 1 Peter 5:

1 The ancients [πρεσβυτερους]therefore that are among you, I beseech, who am myself also an ancient [συμπρεσβυτερος], and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: as also a partaker of that glory which is to be revealed in time to come: 2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it, not by constraint, but willingly, according to God: not for filthy lucre's sake, but voluntarily: 3 Neither as lording it over the clergy [κληρων], but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart. 4 And when the prince of pastors [αρχιποιμενος] shall appear, you shall receive a never fading crown of glory. 5 In like manner, ye young men, be subject to the ancients [πρεσβυτεροις]. And do you all insinuate humility one to another, for God resisteth the proud, but to the humble he giveth grace.

This speaks of the consecrated character of the priesthood, no? I love these verses too, this is why I am, glory be to God, Catholic.

59 posted on 04/24/2010 5:59:23 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: srweaver

Yes, thank you.


60 posted on 04/24/2010 6:00:28 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-207 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson