Posted on 04/28/2010 9:41:30 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random):
Holy Communion as food of the soul. Implied in Christ's words when he told his followers to eat his body and drink his blood, the Eucharist is the principal source of sustenance of the supernatural life. Like food in the natural order, Communion nourishes this divine life, produces a sense of well-being and satiety in the soul, and protects a person from the ravages of spiritual disease or sin.
19 [54-58] Eats: the verb used in these verses is not the classical Greek verb used of human eating, but that of animal eating: "munch," "gnaw." This may be part of John's emphasis on the reality of the flesh and blood of Jesus (cf John 6:55), but the same verb eventually became the ordinary verb in Greek meaning "eat."
20 [60-71] These verses refer more to themes of John 6:35-50 than to those of John 6:51-58 and seem to be addressed to members of the Johannine community who found it difficult to accept the high christology reflected in the bread of life discourse.
21 [62] This unfinished conditional sentence is obscure. Probably there is a reference to John 6:49-51. Jesus claims to be the bread that comes down from heaven (John 6:50); this claim provokes incredulity (John 6:60); and so Jesus is pictured as asking what his disciples will say when he goes up to heaven.
22 [63] Spirit . . . flesh: probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6. Spirit and life: all Jesus said about the bread of life is the revelation of the Spirit.
Catholic Word of the Day – links will be provided later by another FReeper.
|
Contumely |
Alienation |
Ethics |
|
Quam Singulari |
Indissolubility |
Celibacy |
|
Comparative Religion |
Founder |
Edification |
|
Noumenon |
Stag |
Ecclesia |
|
Eternal City (Rome) |
New Earth |
Samuel |
|
Benefice |
Papal Regesta |
Defender of the Faith |
|
Sacrament House |
James the Less |
Devotion to St. Joseph |
|
Vicar-General |
Holy Doors |
Te Deum Laudamus |
|
Preconization |
Determinants of Morality |
Penitential Psalms |
|
Hatred |
Synoptics |
Proclamation |
|
Serra International |
Purity of Intention |
Abomination of Desolation |
|
Matrimonial Contract |
Conventual |
Doubtful Conscience |
|
Homosexuality |
Promised Land |
May Laws |
|
Toulouse |
Mystery Theology |
Eucharistic Meal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Catholic Word of the Day Ping!
Please send me a FReepmail if you would like to be on the Catholic Word of the Day Ping List.
Make sure the “Son of God” is only placed on your tongue...if “He” touches your hand, evil spirits may defile you!
“Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father.” - Our Lady of the Roses, June 30, 1984
“You must not take the Body of My Son in your hand! You open the door for the entrance of evil spirits to defile My Son’s Body! The consecrated fingers of a duly ordained man of God, the priest, shall place My Son into your mouth, and you must absorb His Body with goodness and love.” - Our Lady of the Roses, March 22, 1975
“We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand, Communion in the hand began, in the hand, with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the [U.S.] bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.
“In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.
And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”
- Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference
in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.
My opinion is that Communion on the Tongue will once again become the norm. What do you think?
Will you come back to the Catholic Church if that happens?
Therefore I say to the Israelites, "None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law...."
Communion taken in the hand seems to closely follow Christ's command to "Take this and eat" much more so than "receiving" the host on the tongue.
Of course not. As someone else stated: “SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism.”
I already belong to the only true church there is, the one that includes all Christian believers, regardless of their temporary affiliations.
You are referencing only the Old Testament. We also have the New Testament.
But you are still baptized in the
One
Holy
Catholic and
Apostolic Church.
We welcome you home at any time. Sit down with a priest and get your questions answered truthfully...........not according to your own interpretation of Scripture.
You’re REALLY good at ignoring the content of people’s responses to you.
Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, I AM a member of the church that is one, holy, catholic (universal) and apostolic — but I am NOT a member of the Roman Catholic organization, whatever your priest or “Rome” may have told you.
Nor do I want to be. If you could take off your “pope” colored glasses for a second, you might realize your theological view is in the minority, as is everyone’s, until we “cease looking through a glass darkly.”
BTW, I would not trust a Roman Catholic priest to give me any better, or even nearly as good, answers than I have/can come to in my present condition, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and other “resources” already at my disposal.
But why should I expect you to hear/believe the Scriptures for yourself, as you admittedly state you are incapable of knowing God without a priest to interpret Scripture for you. You better hope he’s right, because he won’t be standing there with you on judgment day.
My Counselor will.
1 John 2:26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
And just because the scripture isn’t of “private” interpretation, it doesn’t mean that private individuals cannot and should not interpret it...if you are able to grasp that concept.
If you want to seduce people into Roman Catholicism, be my guest...but it won’t work with me. However, let me know if you’d like to come to (or come back to) the Bible, we’ll accept you with open arms.
Which part of the Bible, do you think, Catholics need to “come back to”?
He also told the Apostles to "do this", that is, He commanded them to be priests (Luke 22:19).
Yes. This is a part of the wholesale lifting of various dietetic prohibitions dictated by God to the Jews.
Christ authorized the Church to “bind and loose” in these matters. This is the fulfilling of the Law He spoke about.
The first two verses were the "old" testament, the third I quoted was Matthew 5 and Jesus says until heaven and earth pass away, the law remains in place! Which means drinking blood is an abomination today.
Matthew 5 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law...."
I just quoted Jesus saying the law doesnt pass away. Not one iota. All has not been fulfilled. Otherwise why would there be a need for the second coming.
LOL! You aren’t even giving me credit for having a brain and a conscience — saying I depend on others for my decision making.
You are really warping what I say, aren’t you?
** However, let me know if you’d like to come to (or come back to) the Bible, **
Good grief, man. The Catholic Church gave YOU the Bible. The Protestants just dumped six books of it. That’s all.
The horror that the introduction of the Eucharistic meal produced among the Jews is palpable in John 6:41-67
41 The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had said: I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said: Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then saith he, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered, and said to them: Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father, who hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hath heard of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.46 Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 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. 53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 54 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. 55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
56 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. 58 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. 59 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. 60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 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.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. 67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
There is, of course, much more to Judaism than diet and ceremony. Jesus strengthened and expanded the moral laws given the Jews and by doing so (see primarily the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7) He made it law for the Christians.
You can say that Christ is coming for the second time to filfill the law that He gave, although the common way to understand the second coming is public delivery of judgment. As far as the law that the Jews received through Moses it has been fulfilled for the Christians at the Incarnation. There is some debate among the Christians whether or not it has also been fulfilled in the Jews. The Church has not spoken authoritatevely on that. Messianic Jews (i.e. Christians of Jewish origin), as far as I know, either do not obey the laws of kashrut, or if they do, they do it as a mark of ethnic identity rather than a commandment. The Church certainly doesn't ask of the circumcised Jews anything in addition to what it asked of all Christians.
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.