Like a Strong and Raging Fire, with a sound file to sing the hymn.
To Jesus' Heart All Burning, with a sound file to sing the hymn.
Posted on 06/27/2025 12:03:29 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
We believe that Jesus awaits us in the Holy Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle. This is a continuation of John Chapter 6: "…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. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." … "Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?" … "After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." So we believe Jesus because He tells us, and we are willing to be ridiculed by those who haven't been given the gift of Faith.
Today, June 27, is the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. We receive His message, from His servants, that, as His greatest suffering in the Garden of Gesthemane was to know that most sinners for whom He came to die and to save will contemptuously throw His gift of salvation away, He continues suffering for them until He comes back on the Day of Doom, now as a savior, but then as a judge.
Beloved soul, here in the Host where you see Me, I live silent, mute, perpetually bound before the modern Herods. Do you not hear, rising to Heaven, the insolent questioning which they make Me undergo, I Who am sovereign Power, Truth, and the sole Master of the world? I keep silence for love of you, for you whom I save by enduring the ignominious condemnation of the rulers of the world, judges of men but never of My doctrine … They seek authority and use it against Me, … and behold Me perpetually the Victim of their abuse of power. For them, thrones; for Me, the prisoner’s bench … for them, the golden scepter; for Me, always the reed of mockery! … for them, a retinue which applauds and flatters them; for Me, jeering cohorts and executioners! … For them, diadems and homage … for Me, the crown of thorns! … For Me, forgetfulness, always forgetfulness! …And if at times those worldly powers evoke, in spite of themselves, the remembrance of My Sovereignty, My Name alone is enough to cause a tempest of hatred, of legal persecution, and of blasphemy to break forth … Thus am I judged and condemned by the world which lives only by Me … I keep silence because in the Holy Eucharist I am the incarnation of a merciful love … but this revolt against My Sovereignty, this ignoring of My Majesty in the laws which rule nations is a direct outrage against Me, the Almighty Who dwells among men, reduced to nothingness in the Sacrament of Love … Is not this wrong, a real defiance of the Eucharistic God … an insult to Him Who speaks to you from the depths of His Tabernacle which often indeed becomes Pilate’s Praetorium? Here, consoling soul, meek and humble, I bear the affronts of slaves and the contempt of the vilest of men … I am taken out of this prison, only when earthly tribunals order Me to be scourged, and then to be shown, covered with blood, to the angry mob.
Like a Strong and Raging Fire, with a sound file to sing the hymn.
To Jesus' Heart All Burning, with a sound file to sing the hymn.
We believe that Jesus awaits us in the Holy Eucharist reserved in the tabernacle. The fantasy is that at the moment of the Consecration which is when the priest says, "This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood" the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is then really present as God and as Man sacrificing himself for us on the altar as he sacrificed himself on the cross (The Mass Explained - Catholic Education Resource Center)
At “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)
Notice the words “present” and “reality/real,” for unlike how Christ was manifestly present and real in His incarnation described in Scripture, and which manifest physicality is emphasized ( 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8) in contrast to a Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He was as regards incarnation (as within really Docetism and or Gnosticism), in Catholicism the Eucharistic Christ is not what He appears, feels, tastes and would scientifically test to be, for what He appears to be is mere bread and wine. But which itself does not exist, being replace by Christ, until this non-existent bread and wine begins to manifest decay, and then He no longer exist/is present under that appearance either.
The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")
"Christ's presence in the Eucharist challenges human understanding, logic, and ultimately reason. His presence cannot be known by the senses, but only through faith." (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America)
"the Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn’t (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn’t." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)
"the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration: " (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ Article 2) "On the altar are the body and blood of Christ; the bread and wine no longer exist but have been totally changed into the body and blood of the Saviour... - https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc).
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist;" (CCC 1377) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." ibid, Mulcahy, p. 32)
In contrast, the only Christ of Scripture has a manifestly physical body, even after being glorified:
“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life:” 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8)
“This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.” (1 John 5:6)
“Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:38-39) Nor are purported "Eucharistic miracles" consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions,
could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
A purely literal reading of the “this is my body/blood” that is broken/shed for us said at the last supper would mean that the apostles were consuming the same literally manifest human flesh and blood of Christ which attested to His incarnation, in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning.
Note that support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that NT church believed.
As pertains to the Lord’s supper, in Catholicism it is presented as "the heart and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1407) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) providing “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (CCC #1405) and only conducted by Catholics priests who offer it “in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC 1414) “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” (CCC 1393) ;
But rather than the NT church understanding the Lord’s supper as being the life-giving central hub and focus of the Christian life, what we see in the the only inspired and substantive record of how the NT church understood it is that it only being actually only taught in one epistle (aside from the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts and the “fest of charity” in Jude 1:12, which is in 1 Corinthians. In which the Lord’s supper is that of remembering His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in their dedicatory feasts, (metaphorical or metaphysical? 1Cor. 10)
Therefore in the next chapter the Corinthians are rebuked as not actually coming together to eat the Lord’s supper, for while they did come together for that purpose, yet they were not actually having the Lord’s supper due to how they treated the body of Christ, the church.
When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)
The apostle Paul thus reiterates what the Lord said at the institution of the Lord’s supper, an adding the interpretive conclusion, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)
Catholics actually invoke this section in support of the Catholic interpretation, but the nature of the elements is not the contextual focus, though in v. 26 the bread is still called bread and the cup represents its content, while the purpose of the Lord’s supper is stated, and with the focus continuing to be that of the corporate body of the church (and which focus continues into the next chapter) .
Which is to do “show the Lord’s death till He comes,” which was by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing affirmation of them and themselves in union with Christ, with the church being as "one bread."
Therefore, by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then there not actually having the Lord’s supper, but were acting contrary to the very act that they were supposed to be remembering and showing, and thus in essence were guilty of being contrary to the atoning blood of Christ, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) and were being chastened for it, some even unto death. For as Paul was very conscious of, to mistreat the church was to mistreat Christ Himself. (Acts 9:4)
This being the offense, not effectually considering/recognizing/discerning the body of Christ by mistreating its members by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then the solution is not some defining of the nature of the bread and wine, but even contrary to requiring fasting before the Lord’s supper, the apostle enjoins:
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
In addition, no where is the Lord’s supper presented as a sacrifice for sins and a means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the conducting of it a uniquely pastoral function, or their primary unique function, much less that of pseudo RC priests.
Instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3, 4; 2 Tim.4:2) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47, 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and by the preaching of which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished." (1 Timothy 4:6 ) Glory be to God.
A more extensive examination of the Catholic verses Scripture understanding of the nature of the elements consumed is here, by the grace of God.
Which literally would mean that regeneration is via partaking in the Eucharist, which not only not what Scripture teaches, in which spiritual life was never received by literally eating anything literal, but by believing the gospel with , spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating, justifying faith (Acts 10:43-47, 15:7-9; Titus 3:5) And thus desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, thereby being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Even Lumen Gentium 16 is contrary to literally reading Jn. 6:53.
consistent with your professed plain-language hermeneutic, why not believe that David was referring to literal blood since he was said it was, and thus refused to drink it but poured it out unto the Lord?
And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)
Here, David clearly calls drinking water human blood, and consistent with the command of Deuteronomy 12:16; 15:23 (cf. Lv. 17:10,11), he poured it on to the ground, and did so as an act of worship unto the Lord.
Likewise, why not believe that the Canaanites were literal “bread:
• “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us.” (Num. 14:9)Likewise, when David said that such enemies also saw him as food, for the came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)
And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)
And David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)
• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)
• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)
• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)
• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )
And in John 6 is preceded by metaphorical language and proceeded by more:
• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.
• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.
• In John 3:14, 15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.
• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life,” — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.
• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but believers were not water fountains, but He spoke ”of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.” (John 7:38)
• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.
•I n John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,” and “the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.
• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.
Rather, the Lord defines what consuming His flesh meant as being how He "lived by the Father," and said that we are to live by Him (Jn. 6:57) believing and thus doing His will, that being His "meat," (Jn. 4:34) and thus the Jn. 6 discourse ends with the Lord declaring that the flesh (as in consuming it) profits nothing, but His words they "are spirit and are life." (Jn. 6:63)
For we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical way in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers.
In Jn. 2:19, 20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) leaving Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which requires reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
Likewise in Jn. 4, standing beside a well of physical water, the Lord spoke to a women coming for physical water of a water which would never leave the drinker to thirst again, which again was understood as being physical. But which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirer who stayed the course, but which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
And thus we see the same manner of revelation in Jn. 6, in which the Lord spoke to souls seeking physical sustenance of a food which would never leave the eater to hunger again. Which again was understood as being physical, but which was subtly inferred to be spiritual to the inquirers who stayed the course. But which is only made clear by reading more of Scriptural revelation.
In so doing the Lord makes living by this "bread" of flesh and blood as analogous to how He lived by the Father, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57)
And the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
And therefore, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." (John 4:34)
And since the carnally minded Jews protoCatholics imagined that Jesus was going to literally give them His flesh, then the Lord stated that He would not even be with them physically in the future to provide this, but that His words are Spirit and life:
“What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63)
But as with those who imagined the Lord was referring to the physical Temple, the Lord left the protoCatholics to go their own way, who seemed to have yet imagined that the Lord was sanctioning a form of cannibalism, or otherwise had no heart for further seeking of the Lord who has "the words of eternal life" as Peter said, versus eating flesh, which profits nothing spiritually.
The redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account.
And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22, 23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Transubstantiation
1. Where in all of Scripture did Jesus Christ appear as an inanimate object0
2. Where in Scripture is the manifest physicality of Christ emphasized as establishing who the real Christ was, in contrast to one whose bodily appearance did not correspond to what He physically was? (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8)
3. Where in all of Scripture did the words of the Lord's supper necessarily teach that the body that "is broken" and the blood that is shed, appeared as bread and wine, rather than literally appearing as the manifestly physical flesh and blood that He would be crucified with? 0
4. Where in Scripture is actual water referred to as blood, and thus poured out unto the Lord, and bread referred to as food for the people of God, and the body of Christ as the church being bread? (2 Samuel 23:16-17; Num. 14:9; 1 Corinthians 10:17)
5. Where in all of Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally physically consuming anything? 0
6. Where in Acts and the apostles teaching in the NT (these being interpretive of the gospels) is spiritual life obtained by hearing and effectually believing the gospel of the grace of God? Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)
7. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship? 0
8. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by sharing a meal together (which effectually evidences remembrance) without literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship?? (1 Corinthians 10:20) (1 Cor. 10,11 )
9. Where are distinctive Greek words for a separate class of sacerdotal believers (hiereus; archiereus; hieráteuma) distinctively used for NT pastors? 0
10. Where is a distinctive Greek word (hieráteuma) for a separate class of sacerdotal believers used for all believers? (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
11. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or uniquely exampled conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food? Esp. with that being a unique active function of them? 0
12. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled as preaching the Word and feeding the flock with the Word, which is what is called spiritual food ("milk," "meat") by which they are nourished? (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2 ;1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32
The Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Which is blasphemous, as instead of an imprisoned false christ, the risen Lord Jesus
"is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." (1 Peter 3:21-22)
Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:24-25)
Yet the fantasy of Catholicism extends to this delusion:
The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command...No wonder that the name which spiritual writers are especially fond of applying to the priest is that of alter Christus. For the priest is and should be another Christ. (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256, O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974;
Acts 17:24-25 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.
John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Ephesians 2:4-9 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
👍👍👍👍👍
"Confined" is your word, not ours. Jesus, being God, is present everywhere in his divine nature. But his sacred humanity is present only (a) in heaven; and (b) in the Blessed Sacrament.
You don't understand typology at all, do you?
Passover is the type of Easter. The Exodus is the type of our deliverance from sin and death.
The Passover Lamb is the type of Jesus, and specifically Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. (Note John the Baptist: "Behold, the Lamb of God". Note Paul: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed, therefore let us keep the feast.")
What happened if you were firstborn, and you were present at the first Passover, and you didn't eat the lamb? Maybe you didn't like lamb, and just ate some "lamb crackers" to remind you of the Passover lamb?
Answer: you died.
If natural life at the first Passover depended on eating a specific food at a specific ceremonial meal, is it really so strange to suppose that supernatural life, during our "Exodus" on earth (which lasts for our whole life), is nourished by eating a specific Food at a specific ceremonial Meal?
Not for the early Christians, like Ignatius of Antioch, who called the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality".
And you continue to propagate your fantasy that the NT church ceased to exist at some point, such that we can only find it reflected in the writings it left behind. What does that say about the sovereignty of God? What does it say about the mere competence of God?
You guys talk a lot about being "saved by faith," but your "faith" doesn't extend to believing that God can maintain, preserve, defend, and extend his True Church in every age.
Thank you for this post.
Only in heaven. NO Scripture at all to support anywhere else.
Then you have NO clue what you are even talking about.
Yes he does. Your rebellion needs to say that the the church became corrupted and ceased to be the church of Christ to justify your rebellion and call it a reformation. If not then you know you are rebelling against the body of Christ.
You are right when you say you don’t have the Eucharist. Protestantism can’t have the body, blood, soul and divinity under the appearance of bread and wine as long as you reject his body, the church.
No, because that definition of what he calls faith and says we believe is not correct.
Jesus died once for all on Calvary, not to be re-sacrificed thousands of times daily around the world in Roman religion masses.
But this denies what God's word tells us:
I choose to believe God rather than someone who claims to speak FOR God in contradiction to His revealed word.
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.