Posted on 12/29/2012 2:41:32 PM PST by narses
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Just so. If Jesus didn’t really mean what he said, then why did he let so many of his disciples leave? And why would they leave, unless they took his words literally but refused to accept them?
This question is at the very heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants.
Although I believe in transubstantiation I am pretty sure if I had been in the crowd listening to Jesus say that we should eat his flesh and drink his blood I would have thought “that’s it I’m outta here, what a whackjob.”
Reading a book on Eucharistic Miracles helped to firm up my belief in the Real Presence, though it left me wondering if at the next communion the accidents of bread and wine would turn into the real thing like it did in some cases. I told my friend, who gave me the book, that if that ever happens to me I am going to FREAK OUT, and he said that if that happened to me he would freak out too.
This question is at the very heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants.Precisely!
Imho, all that narses did was to acknowledge that he posted the article. Is that a problem?
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
In that case we can only keep posting truth for those who lurk but don’t post.
Here are some important verses in John 6:
1-6 After this Jesus crossed the Lake of Galilee (or Lake Tiberias), and a great crowd followed him because they had seen signs which he gave in his dealings with the sick. But Jesus went up the hillside and sat down there with his disciples. The Passover, the Jewish festival, was near. So Jesus, raising his eyes and seeing a great crowd on the way towards him, said to Philip, “Where can we buy food for these people to eat?” (He said this to test Philip, for he himself knew what he was going to do.)
7 “Ten pounds’ worth of bread would not be enough for them,” Philip replied, “even if they had only a little each.”
8-9 Then Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, another disciple, put in, “There is a boy here who has five small barley loaves and a couple of fish, but what’s the good of that for such a crowd?”
10a Then Jesus said, “Get the people to sit down.”
10b-12 There was plenty of grass there, and the men, some five thousand of them, sat down. Then Jesus took the loaves, gave thanks for them and distributed them to the people sitting on the grass, and he distributed the fish in the same way, giving them as much as they wanted. When they had eaten enough, Jesus said to his disciples, “Collect the pieces that are left over so that nothing is wasted.”
13-14 So they did as he suggested and filled twelve baskets with the broken pieces of the five barley loaves, which were left over after the people had eaten! When the men saw this sign of Jesus’ power, they kept saying, “This certainly is the Prophet who was to come into the world!”
15 Then Jesus, realising that they were going to carry him off and make him their king, retired once more to the hill-side quite alone...
... Some other small boats from Tiberias had landed quite near the place where they had eaten the food and the Lord had given thanks. When the crowd realised that neither Jesus nor the disciples were there any longer, they themselves got into the boats and went off to Capernaum to look for Jesus. When they had found him on the other side of the lake, they said to him, “Master, when did you come here?”
26-27 “Believe me,” replied Jesus, “you are looking for me now not because you saw my signs but because you ate that food and had all you wanted. You should not work for the food which does not last but for the food which lasts on into eternal life. This is the food the Son of Man will give you, and he is the one who bears the stamp of God the Father.”
Context is a wonderful thing. When Jesus talked about bread, he was referring BACK to the miracle of the previous day, and the one that had brought so many followers to him. None of what he said would make sense to ANY listener as referring to the Last Supper, which was a few years away...
I will add that it should be obvious that taking the Bible literally means that it is taken so when written, but not such as when metaphor is used, so that we neither believe that water has turned into blood even though David regarded it as such, (2Sam. 23:15-17, ) or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants,” or that “the people of the land...are bread for us” (Num. 13:32; 14:9), or thart Jeremiah did not literally eat God’s words when he said, “thy words were found. and I ate them,” (Jer. 15:16), nor Ezekiel (Ezek. 3:1) or John. (Rev. 10:8-9)
Those who insist on this kind of literalism have eaten the fruit of lies. (Prv. 10:13)
But what the basic literal hermeneutic of SS does require is that of taking historical accounts as literal events, but which officially sanctioned Roman Catholic scholarship denies, right in her own Bible: http://www.peacebyjesus.net/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks
you can lead a anti catholic ‘elitest’ to water, but you cant make him drink...
history, the bible and the early church and fathers speak out clearly and loudly against the protestant view, those who go against that history...will be the big losers in the end.
absolutely hilarious that 2000 years removed from THOSE WHO LIVED IT, WALKED AND TALKED with the apostles and church fathers, laid the foundations of the church, and learned through Sacred traditions of the teaching church, about the REAL PRESENCE, that folks can sit here on this board and others with their edited kjv and pretend to know more than those who were there...
seriously, what unmitigated gall.
No author was listed. What are you claiming is wrong with me posting this?
It appears all you have is — ‘tain’t so. But the clear words of Our Lord disagree with you.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16).
Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).
“To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
I’m not sure what your problem is. The link to the source is right at the top.
I followed the link in your post #5 and skimmed over the arguments made against the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist.
It sure takes a lot of wrangling of verses and words to explain away the plain words of Jesus and the early Christians writers.
It is Rome that is elitists, autocratically declaring she is infallible, while other sola ecclessia churches (Mormons and the like) make the same threats.
The real “losers” are those who follow those who presume of themselves more than what is written, including that even being the stewards of Holy Writ and inheritor of the promises makes them assuredly infallible, such as whenever they speak according to their infallibly defined formula.
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.