Posted on 02/13/2021 8:18:22 AM PST by HypatiaTaught
Good morning my conservative FRiends.
I am reaching out to hopefully get an answer to my lifelong question of a central belief in the Christian faith, especially the Roman Catholic faith.
Background: I grew up in a very Roman Catholic family. I am number 10 of 13 children, 8 boys, 5 girls. Mom also had 2 miscarriages which in truth, she became pregnant with 10 boys rather than the 8. Mom had 15 pregnancies in 17 years.
We went to Mass every Sunday and all the holy days. Mom actually taught Catechism to the community and was a very loving soul.
My question since the age of eight and remains 50 years later, why do we have the belief of actually having to eat the body of Jesus Christ?
I am a very logical person, but this concept of consuming the flesh of God's son to obtain salvation simply doesn't make sense. I get that he died for our sins and was sacrificed. I know the history of sacrifices 2000 years ago. Tribes sacrificed lambs, goats and other livestock. But why the eating of his body or any human body? We don't eat humans. I don't even eat animals any more, for digestive purposes. Maybe I am the only one who finds this tenant extremely disturbing.
“I am the door.”
“I am the vine, you are the branches.”
Jesus often spoke in metaphor. He not a literal door or vine but He is not lying. He is using metaphor which is normal for language.
No salvation apart from saving faith alone, in Christ alone.
Implicit in the notion of requirement to eat the body and blood of Jesus is a works based system, where you must perform certain rituals (works) to get or keep what ONLY GOD can convey, The Grace of God In Christ. As you wrote, only available through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE, no rituals can add to the righteousness God imputes to the Believer when born again, born from above.
Not so. These are read by non-catholic church theologians and evaluated in light of Holy Scripture.
As for the apocryphal books, they were weighed and found false. Interesting, but not inspired.
Sola Scriptura basically claims salvation is in man’s hands and any interpretation of the condensed Bible will do.
Totally false.
Would be difficult to argue otherwise as there is no authority to say which of the many thoisands of interpretations are correct.
Here, I'm guessing you are referring to the millions of Catholic interpretations of what to believe??
There is also the fact that God gave us His laws and guides both scriptural and through tradition.
Sorry, tradition was not given by God and cannot save.
The Catholic church has the original from the source interpretations.
They do not. Nor can they trace back their traditions to before 100 AD and demonstrate they never changed - nor half their teachings.
The Catholic educates, feeds, provides health care to more people than any other entity on earth.
Proof?? Have you examined all other religions to demonstrate this is true?
If so, it is wonderful, but does nothing to get anyone to heaven... But a good thing.
Best.
"Thanks be to God for His Indescribable Gift!"
including original water squeezed from your Christening clothes and hermetically sealed ever since, authenticated by a bishop, would convince one who has rejected salvation by faith and instead clings to a fake scapula for salvation.
Yes they did...And for that they were burned at the stake, pregnant mothers were stabbed in the stomach, little kids had their arms and legs ripped off while they were alive, all to get them to confess that your religion was the one, true, religion...
You don't witness a miracle...You don't witness anything...You have a wafer...The priest says a couple of things and when he's done, it's still a wafer...You can pretend its something else if you want...
You realize the difference between “I am” and “this is.” Why play with His words in this case?
Duck test dude. Duck test.
Yes I do realize and am not trying to be irreverent.
He said both I am the bread of life and This is my body. Scripture interprets scripture. He said do this in remembrance of me and He partook, obviously His body intact, at that moment. Not eating His own flesh.
It it you who did not negate my argument for in response you argue that "the bible was quite clear the sense in which he meant, “I am the living water” since the hearers in John 7 did not think Jesus was speaking absurdly but knew exactly what he meant then it cannot be that, as I argued, that Jesus used the physical to led spiritually seeking souls to the spiritual, and requires more revelation, for in chapter and verse I showed that many times, and thus that this spiritual seeking is what the carnally minded Jews did not do.
You have nowhere shown that what i said cannot be true. Sometimes the Lord did immediately reveal the meaning of His language to disciples, but at other times as shown, He used figurative language which was puzzling or misunderstood and separated the true seekers from those who were not. Thus Catholics do not understand John 6 in the light of the rest of Scripture, in which spiritual life is nowhere obtained by literally consuming anything physical, but which is obtained by believing the gospel message, and then living by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) with doing the will of the Father being one's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) as Jesus lived by the Father as we are to live by Him. (Jn. 6:57) for His words are spirit, they are life, (Jn. 6:63)
Moreover, contrary to what you argue re. John 7:37-40, that "they knew exactly what he meant: When the crowds heard him say this, some of them declared, “Surely this man is the Prophet we’ve been expecting” so that there was no physical leading to spiritual, yet believing Christ was the Prophet in response to His discourse - which actually begins in v.16 - does not mean they really understood what living water mean, much less what you imagine this living water metaphor means, being LITERALLY true as part of the eucharist/communion/lord’s supper.
Surely as I argued, further revelation would be needed for that, yet as said, the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) the word of God what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
Was not the Temple actually destroyed? In fact, before Rome demolished the rocks that comprised it, the Temple was already functionally destroyed: “At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split”
Yes, the Temple was actually destroyed but that was not at Christ's death or in 70AD as it is not the meaning of John 2:19-21: Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
The actual destruction spoken of was one that required rebuilding, being raised up, and Scripture clearly states he spake of the temple of his body and nowhere indicates the curtain of the temple being torn was what Jn. 2 refers to no matter if we try to force it. Only one temple is prophetically referred to and fulfilled. In addition, since Rome does not believe in the the 1,000 year reign of Christ then it does not hold that it will be built again either!
Where you keep insisting that because something has material meaning, it cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, and where it has a spiritual meaning, it cannot have a material meaning. But you keep citing examples where it is very plain that it has both meanings.
No, I am not the one who believes that because something has material meaning, it necessarily cannot have a spiritual meaning and where it is spiritual meaning, it necessarily cannot have a material meaning, for instead that is what your church does, as with the 1,000 year reign of Christ for instance. But as you just demonstrated, you deny that destroying the Temple in John 2 only has a metaphorical meaning.
The Nicodemus example is great! Nicodemus doesn’t mistake the physical for the spiritual; he mistakes the very meanings of words! Jesus uses here an idiom that exists in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic... The idiom is sort of preserved in English, but English grammar forces one to choose one of two meanings, and Protestants have chosen to translate it according to Nicodemus’ misunderstanding. Jesus says a man must be “born over.” He means “born from above,” not “born a second time” as he makes very clear in John 3:5-7, where he speaks of being born from Heaven.
No, I do not think Nicodemus was ignorant of the word the Lord chose to use here which is translated as "again," for though as we read on, it should be "from above," yet the word "anōthen" has a range of meaning flowing from "above," as in "beginning," as used in DRB: "from the beginning [anōthen] (if they will give testimony) that according to the most sure sect of our religion I lived, a Pharisee." (Acts 26:5) Or as we would say, "from the top" but Paul was not saying "from above" as in Heaven but according to strict usage for then he was. And it is used as "again" in the DRB in "you desire to serve again [anōthen]?" (Galatians 4:9) as in like before.
Thus Nicodemus mistook this "from the beginning" sense speculating the one had to be born physically as in the beginning, but as Nic. stayed with him the Lord clarified this with "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
the act of baptism/chrismation is indeed being born “anew.”
Meaning regenerating ritual (ex opere operato = by the act itself]) even for those who cannot obey the stated requirements for baptism of wholehearted repentant faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) versus penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) and by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved (Eph. 1:6) on His account. Thanks be to God. But that is another debate.
Your use of “my meat is to do the will of He who sent me” simply cannot be associated with consuming the eucharist/lord’s supper/communion, even though that lousy translation makes a modern English ear want to associate it with “my flesh.” Meat, here, means sustenance, or even more closely, what someone craves. In modern Greek, the word now even means “stink,” “rot,” or even “fetish.”
Wrong: it is irrelevant what it means today, and it is used for the manner of spiritual food that the disciples in 1Cor. 10:3 were not ready for, and in regards to dietary laws in the OT in Heb. 9:10, and for what we are to share in Lk. 3:11 and for normal sustenance, not out of lust, in many other places. And the point was that as Jesus lived by the Father so we are to live by Him. (Jn. 6:57) living by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) with doing the will of the Father being one's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) for His words "are spirit, they are life," (Jn. 6:63) being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) To the glory of God.
But yours was...
CCC 1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
So you've still Jesus hanging on the Cross...His blood is still spilling out...
Bible says Jesus came down off the Cross, the sacrifice of blood was fulfilled, the priesthood was eliminated and he went home to be with his Father...You won't let him get off the Cross...
Impossible...Jesus himself tells YOU that whatever goes into the stomach goes out into the latrine...There is no crossover...There is no connection between the spiritual and the physical...
The Word??? What's that, a metaphor???
ping
Your Catholic magic thinking is run amok.
Me: All very true, but in no way in conflict with anything I wrote.
You: It [is] you who did not negate my argument.
Me: Let me try again. You successfully argue that there is a mystical meaning to what Jesus said. But God usually gives a physical sign to correlate to the mystical. This is the very meaning of “sacrament”: Something that is made holy by being a sign of something that is mystical.
In fact, I believe Luther’s rejection of transubstantiation in favor of consubstantiation is more of a misunderstanding of terminology than a heresy; there are senses in which the bread of the eucharist remains bread, and there is a sense in which it becomes exclusively the Body of Christ. By rejecting consubstantiation, the Church means that the eucharist isn’t part bread and part God as Luther seemed to inexpertly imply, but rather that to reaffirm that in the sense in which it is the Body and Christ, which is the ultimate sense, (the substance, the divine purpose) it is fully the Body of Christ.
Because I’m arguing that the mystical sense and the physical sense of Jesus’ mystical teachings are not mutually exclusive (and, to be clear, I’m arguing that the mystical sense is no mere metaphor), you can’t simply talk past the evidence I provide and provide evidence that he was speaking in some sense other than the strictly physical. Or, in logical terms, there’s no sense proving q to refute p if q doesn’t imply a refutation of p. If you mean to suggest that q DOES imply a refutation of p, you need to supply that argument.
Your comment; “Mary worship is heresy.” Yes, worshiping the Blessed Mother as divine is against the First Commandment. It is another false protestant belief and not part of the Catholic faith.
St. Thomas (II-II, Q. xi, a. 1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. “The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.
your comment: “ So is the idea that works are a part of salvation.” Again another protestant false belief.
Catholic faith is that salvation is a gift of God’s love for us, but requires Baptism, belief in Jesus Christ (both personal and communal relationship), Keeping God’s Commandments, The Sacraments including the Eucharist and enduring until the end by being in the state of grace. We are not saved by the works of law, but by our love and expression of our faith by doing good works as Jesus told us (John 14:12).
The Catholic Church is s holy mystery because of her origin in the Holy Trinity and her mission to be the Sacrament of Salvation.
From Catholic Catechism 846-847:
“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either o enter it or to remain in it” Mk 16:16 John 3;5
Your comment: “That the Catholic church named a communist as its Pope is all one needs to need about it.”
The Catholic Church has had many Popes- some good and holy and others not. It is not for us to judge why The Holy Spirit help choose the current Pope. Have you ever considered that God sees the sinful ways of man and He allows the sinful ways of man to draw us back to God?
We all need to seek the truth, and while the Catholic Church has sinners (Jesus came to save the sinners) and have made many mistakes, the Catholic Church continues to teach God’s revealed truths as it was granted authority by Jesus. Mat 28:19-20. It is apparent to me that protestant religions have passed down many false teachings about God’s truth from former Catholic priest Martin Luther.
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.