Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The bread and wine became the consecrated host. Whether this is what you mean by “the literal flesh and blood of Jesus” I have no way of knowing. If it is the same, yes; if not, no.
I haven’t checked specifically whether Jesus also partook or only offered to His disciples; you may wish to do so, I don’t see it as more than a curiousity. And I haven’t pondered what it would mean if the Divine partook of Communion with the Divine. It’s like a square circle kind of question to me.
Underneath all your questions is a profound lack of understanding about the Holy Eucharist and the Divine in general. A very materialistic view reminiscent of the charges against early Christians who had to hide away in catacombs to celebrate the Eucharist. It helps me understand them better and I thank you for that. I’m also extremely grateful that here today for me the defense of the faith in Christ’s institution of the sacrament only requires answering verbal charges on the internet secure in my home.
You are the first I’ve seen level the same type of charge against Jesus Christ in regards to the Holy Eucharist though.
So while there is nothing new in today’s heresies and charges that the Church did not see in its early history, I recognize your creativity. I believe our Orthodox brothers would say “only in the West...”
:)
Annalex, it is not a contradiction, and i have labored at length to explain it to you, yet you continue to entertain an erroneous conception of what Protestantism means as “faith alone.” Which again, essentially means that it is not by any merit of works (as per Rome) but by faith which is imputed for righteousness, yet which is a faith that bears fruit corresponding to conversion. Behind all works are beliefs.
Here is one last one from the Protestant WESTMINSTER
CONFESSION OF FAITH (1646), which is a most foundational Protestant document:
CHAPTER XI.
Of Justification.
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”
There is an overeaction within Protestantism as regards this, but it is time to do away with the strawman and accept the most historical facts that it is a faith which works by love that is salvific which the Reformers taught.
Your post of Leviticus can expand on John 6: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” And the parallel with your post is that you seem to be joining them based on your post.
You also seem to be confusing physical nourishment with the Holy Eucharist.
Though they are quite separate concepts of “meals,” if you’re looking for something concerning Christians and Jewish laws about eating, surely you remember Christ’s and Paul’s words in Holy Scripture.
I appreciate this post.
“Underneath all your questions...”
There are endless questions—questions which have been posted time and time and time again and repeatedly posted again. The answers are never accepted. This leaves me wondering what is the purpose of the endless and repetitive questions.
This is the heresy of Gnosticism. One of the primary beliefs in Gnosticism was the possession of "secret knowledge" by the chosen few. It would be good to repent of it.
We are past the mystery stage. God has reveled to us all that we need to know.
Claiming extra-Biblical revelation is a hallmark of cultic activity.
Ephesians 3:1-13 1For this reason I, Paul, a prisoner for Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles— 2assuming that you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, 3 how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have written briefly. 4 When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. 6This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. 8To me, though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things, 10so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11This was according to the eternal purpose that he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord, 12in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in him. 13So I ask you not to lose heart over what I am suffering for you, which is your glory.
Colossians 1:24-29 24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. 29For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
You post lots of words and they say nothing.
I have brought no charge against Christ, but you have indeed shown that you answered *yes* to the question.
Jesus called the cup *the fruit of the vine*.
Catholics want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that it’s both as the same time, but that can’t be. If Jesus said that it was His blood and Catholics insist that it really is, then He was either lying when He called it the fruit of the vine, or He violated the Law that He claimed He came to fulfill. Either one would render Him incapable of being the spotless lamb of God who died for the sins of the world. He would have sinned if He had actually drank His own blood.
So, the choice is the Catholics. Was it really blood that He and they drank, which made them lawbreakers and liars?
Or was it wine that they drank as a symbolic representation of what He was going to do?
ph
C )
Or was Christ instituting the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist as Scripture attests, and the Apostles believed and the One Holy and Apostolic Church believes to this day?
Once you leave the Church so much is lost: The Sacraments, the Communion of Saints, One Holy and Apostolic Church… It is truly a great sorrowful loss.
Relevant to this discussion, what is also lost is your individual claim to decide what the Church believed and believes.
You are spot on Wmfights. The same Gnosticism that permeated the church in the dark ages continues to this day within the catholic church. As Metmom has so amptly said.."catholics want it both ways"...they straddle the fence.... Thus they miss the mark of the high calling which is in Christ Jesus...and instead bask in the aura's of their own self-made doctrines and traditions.
I still think they hold tightly to the church and rome, rather than Christ, because doing so feeds their egos and their desire for self importance...especially those who have entrenched themselves in catholic writings and various authors over the centuries. Some read and study so that they might not feel alone, just as many of the ancient authors did. It fills the emptyness within rather than Christ and a relationship with Him.
It is interesting that you did not mention how leaving the catholic church might affect ones relationship with Christ? I would think one might sense more of a loss of His fellowship if all the catholic church claims were indeed true.
Perhaps others who have left the church might better say if or not their relationship with Christ was lost or in fact was enlarged and better for leaving.
I say this because some people have a "need" to practice rituals....they might feel like a fish out of water without participating in these. So over time they very well might return in order to again 'feel significant' since practicing these rituals does fill otherwise voids in ones life....they do not know how to stand by faith alone.
I did mention it. It’s just that we don’t share the same understanding of the word “church”
The Church is the Body of Christ with Christ as the head. It is our spiritual home of the Sacramental Life in communion with God and all the saints.
Alright, when you put it like you did I agree with all of it. I'll stick to easy language like that. :)
A Christians spiritual home should be hidden in Christ... and their communion with is with Him. Those who attend a church reflect Him....the church itself is nothing apart from the centrality of Christ and the relationships individuals have with Him...no matter how many “Sacramental” rituals are practiced.
I understand, I think, what you are inferring about how I, or others, feel in the Church.
From my perspective, this is not accurate. To me your view is like asking: What is the least I can accept of God’s gifts to me. How can I isolate myself to the greatest degree from all it means to be part of the Body of Christ? This would be the way to “feel significant” in your words rather than the opposite.
It recalls to my mind Christ’s prayer in the garden and believe that life in His Church is the way He intended. It is living as one body that the individual self is decreased and God in our lives increased.
I converted late in life and this was my worry as well. Three realizations of mine apply:
First, the Church is huge. I mean that in terms of individual spirituality and room. Having been three stripes of Protestant, I recognized pieces of each in the Church, but all harmonized. I gravitated toward what was natural to me, but recognized others doing the same in different directions.
The point here is that there is room for all types, but no necessity for any one to be completely familiar with the territory of them all.
Second, the Church is very old and therefore has a long and rich history - art, philosophy, science, politics, spiritual practice, scripture, theology, etc - tons of it.
The point here is there is a lot of stuff, but again, no one need become expert in all of it.
Thirdly, the Sacramental Life, the basics of life in the Church, is extremely simple. To me it was like going from Windows to Macintosh - most of the problem was in trying to complicate what was simple. For example, the Mass is in a very large part, the same each week. And the Eucharist is one degree different than God's omnipresence.
I experience the Church simply. Like experiencing the warmth of the sun. It just is. Truth is not an argument. The Word is not reducible to words.
It's arguing theology that's confusing.
:)
I don't think that at all...perhaps you missed my point and I was not clear enough.
I realize all the window dressing in certain churches is an attraction to some...and the catholic rituals equally as much.
But when these become the focus...rather than learning about Christ, His life, and our call as Christians, then we stop being the reflection of Christ to an unsaved world and become an institute or simply a building where people meet and go thru the motions of "churchianity". Which is pretty much what I have seen and heard from catholics.
Rather than lifting up Christ, everything else is... and His name is simply attached to whatever might be showcased at the moment...more as an afterthought.
Hey, something we agree upon.
I would only add that:
- learning about Christ does not just mean bible study - or any other intellectual activity.
- Rituals are not bad in themselves, and referencing your previous point, they help simplify.
I still think we have different perceptions of what “church” is. I do know personally that what was church before my conversion is very different from what it is to me now.
Man can have total sovereignty over his own salvation if the belief is that God delegated His own sovereignty away from Himself. If God actually made that transfer, the sovereignty then belongs to man, not God.
Well, if God created us, as we are told, in His image and likeness, we would be endowed with the divine attribute of Free Will, would we not?
I don't think it is comparable. I would say that only God's will is truly free. Our free will is completely subjugated to His free will. Whenever different, His will overrides ours every time. That's what Jesus prayed for.
The Church has always taught that mankind was created having the potential to become like God. That potential was lost in the Fall and restored by the Incarnation. But I would like to hear why you think God created mankind. Did He create some for theosis and some for damnation and if so, why?
The standard general answer for why God created man is for His good pleasure, as in:
We know God had no need for man, and that He wasn't "lonely" or anything like that. We can only say that it pleased Him to create us and establish a relationship with us in worship and prayer. He wishes to be our God and for us to be His people.
In this light I would say that God created no one FOR THE PURPOSE of reprobating them. He created all of us for the same purpose, and part of His good pleasure is evidently that some will be with Him in eternal life and some will not. Ultimately, the creation of every person will bring glory to God, but that will manifest itself in very different ways.
But believing in talking snakes and donkeys and dead people getting up and walking away is not? :)
Nah, I see talking snakes and talking asses all the time when I flip on C-SPAN, and we've all seen dead people voting in places like Chicago and Louisiana for years. :)
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.