There is no requirement to eat His flesh and drink His blood.
The consumption of blood is strictly forbidden by God in Scripture and was not done by Jesus or His apostles, according to Peter’s own words.
Besides, Catholics claim that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is required for salvation and yet not one Catholic is ever sure that they are going to make it to heaven.
By their own admission, the thing they claim is necessary isn’t guaranteed to work.
Metmom must eat in order to live.
If metmom eats but does nothing else, she will die.
Duh.
Prudent Godly people may wish to drink some coffee before posting such stupid remarks as yours.
You like vile sects.
“There is no requirement to eat His flesh and drink His blood.”
Right — no requirement in the Bible to observe communion. I heard that Catholics believe that the wine and bread actually beome flesh and blood when eaten at communion, when it’s actually just symbolic.
I guess Jesus didn’t know that when he uttered the last parts of John 6.....
By the way, you need to quit speaking for Catholics.
You’re not very good at it.
The first thing is that, to be as objective as I can be, both sides have an expanding and contracting definition of their membership.
PNSN says her side follows the word of God. Of course, the reality is that the various groups on her side follow their interpretation of God's word, One group can characterize others as following "a damnable heresy", but they will close ranks to say they follow God's word while the Catholics don't.
Similarly, while we admit that nailing down all the aspects of Catholic teaching is very hard, we will say that such and such a person, while Catholic, is not teaching Catholic doctrine.
But the way the non-Catholics band together top proclaim their allegiance to god's word disguises the reality that they differ enough to call one another heretics. The inescapable conclusion is that PNSN follows as interpretation of God's word and does NOT admit it, and we Catholics follow an interpretation and DO admit it.
Most non-Catholics say something like "councils can err." But this means that the individual or denomination must interpret the interpretations of others, just like Catholics.
So this often uttered cry of "Sola Scriptura" is not as crisp and clear as it may sound. Neither is our professed allegiance to the Magisterium.
HOWEVER, we make no bones of this. Right now I'm in a little discussion on Facebook about how to assess the authority of encyclicals and when various teachings are merely prudential and when they are authoritative.
Non-Catholics, do not make these distinctions and therefore look at the prudential parts of the Popes encyclicals and think them as binding as the more theoretical parts.
---
Now this shows that it takes hard work to understand the teachings/views of those with whom one disagrees. Those who seek understanding will do the work, and will be open to being told that their construction of a text or a teaching is wrong. But those who want to win cheap points prefer victory to truth. Nearly all the RF conversations about the Real Presence are excellent examples of this. I'm not sure I have ever heard one of my antagonists give an account of the Real Presence or of transubstantiation that would survive five minutes of questioning among those who believe and study the teaching.
What they argue against is not what we teach, and so the arguments they bring are usually utterly irrelevant.
metmom says: The Catholic teaching that one has to eat and drink the literal, actual flesh and blood of Jesus .....
I say that the words "literal" appear only in poorly written explanations and I am not aware of "actual" being used anywhere. "Real" and "substantial" are used and they are by no means synonyms of "literal" or "actual". At this point, instead of seeking understanding, the non-catholics start talking about the DAFFYNITIONARY.
This demonstrates that rather than argue against what we actually teach, our opponents prefer to win an argument against some kind of shadow, so long as they can appear to be winners.
There is the incredibly vast array of falsehoods presented as truth. metmom, I'm sorry, but you win here. You stated repeatedly and firmly that the Catholic Church did not permit married priests and you made much of it. You were firm and didactic right up until you were proved wrong. Then the question became unimportant.
Now you are repeating the old falsehood: yet not one Catholic is ever sure that they are going to make it to heaven.
IF you were as well catechized as you insist, you would know that both the Little Flower and Dominic comforted those around them as they did that they would be able to do more for them once they died and were in heaven than they could before they died.
I simply do not understand how somebody who can so readily, firmly, and repeatedly assert what is not so can still claim to be concerned about the truth. If you won't take care with the truth you can see, as John did not say, can we count on you to take care about unseen truths? How can we reasonably conclude that you and your cohorts care about the victory of the truth when so many untruths, easily ascertainable untruths, are put forth as gospel?
---
So now we come to my latest theme and my current opinion about the futility of the RF:
There really are metaphysical and theological similarities between some sorts of non-Catholicism and Islam, especially Islam since the Wahabists (I think that's whom I mean -- the gang that said that Avicenna and Averroes were heretics) seized control. In addition I detect congruences in piety, argument, and even courtesy
- courtesy: I wish PNSN a blessed Sunday. Among adversaries when peace is sought, a courtesy is met with a courtesy, for example an expression of thanks or reciprocation. PNSN answers, "ALL my days are blessed."
The immediate and obvious conclusion is that courtesy is wasted and welcome only as an opportunity to score a point.
- An argument using simple syllogisms renders PNSN's assertion absurd. She responds not with reason but with a rejection of any reasoning done according to "one's own understanding." Of course the diagnostic is that proper reasoning will lead to conclusions she favors.
But what is more important is that there is not one sort of reason, but two sorts which are distinguished not by their method but by their conclusion. In Catholic thought, if there were an error in reasoning or assumption, these would be tracked down. If there were no error, then we would have to change our opinion.
-The piety of Islam and of many non-Catholics incorporates hostility and discourtesy.
- The theology of Islam and of many non-Catholics assumes a God who can create a rational creature and destine it to eternal torment and still be good. The will of God is utterly inscrutable and never to be questioned and it has no room for freedom of any kind. Only God is free. This requires a redefinition of responsibility and of other concepts.
Finally in answer to the imponderable of the relationship between God and goodness, many non-Catholics will not rest in the mystery that goodness, truth, beauty, justice, etc are of the essence of God. God can command man to do evil, cause him to do evil, and punish him for the evil he does and still be called just BECAUSE "justice" is defined as whatever God does.
Our metaphysics assumes that the image of God which is man is a true image, since God can do nothing against he own nature, and his nature is truth.
Since that image, we hold, is bound up with reason, we can, to some extent, understand justice, as we can respond to beauty and make beautiful things and do just deeds.
But the critical point here is that real conversation beyond "a frank exchange of views" is simply made impossible by the metaphysics of these non-Catholics. As I wrote in an earlier post, just as it is noble for a Muslim to kill a kaffir in warfare but unforgivable for a kaffir to kill a Muslim, so incredible and relentless mockery, insult, discourtesy, and sophistry is virtuous when done by a non-Catholic, but forever wrong and culpable is done by a Catholic.
The only standard for reason, justice, courtesy -- for anything whatsoever is the faith of the one committing the act.
I could go on , for example,about what I call "affiliative truth." For example, roamer_1's account of the attributes of civilization receives kudos and thanks from people who could not possibly have assessed the data. They have already decided that he is right (and I wrong) NOT on the basis of historical evidence but because I am a Catholic and roamer_1 is not.
On that I pretty much rest my case.
I hope all of you are blessed, every day and in a special way this Holy Week and Eastertide.