Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
I won’t go again into all the verses that support the Catholic belief regarding the Eucharist. You are well aware of them and reject them.
That’s fine.
The prohibition against drinking blood is what made what Jesus said such a “hard saying” and made many walk away from him.
If you can give me any Scripture where Jesus explains away this hard saying I would appreciate it.
I find it amazing that you have gone from claiming that Jesus was a rebel and a loner to using His observant Jew status to reject what He said regarding the Eucharist.
St. Paul believed it as is evident from what he wrote about it, even going so far as to reiterate the words Jesus used at the Last Supper.
Did God really say we must eat his flesh and drink his blood and that his flesh is true food and his blood true drink?
Well, yes, He did.
Jesus Christ is the head of the One True church and that church is the only one which can trace her origins back to Him.
That church is the Catholic Church.
Wanting so badly to deny it is so, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Interesting question....and could they celebrate Eucharist without a Priest?....Also could Rome exist without the Priesthood?
It does appear without the Priesthood it would all fall like a house of cards....because the Priesthood is central to everything else....rather than Christ our great High Priest.....and for that it is no wonder that the veil was rent...unfortunately catholicism put it back up and thus are unable to enter boldly into the presence of the Lord....Therefore they have no choice but to "create" another way to God, thru the various means and works they now have established.
whatever.
Talk about vain repetition.
It’s almost like a mantra to protestants.
Repeat constantly to ward off truth.
I don’t know which Mark is which or if there were two Marks.
There is disagreement among early church fathers.
It doesn’t matter to me, I accept Church tradition.
The point I was making was that CynicalBear claims to believe only eyewitnesses to the events and will not accept the writings of the early church as true testimony regarding Jesus, Mary and the early church itself.
Yet, the very attribution of who wrote which gospels and the NT are attributed by the early church and are indeed a tradition of it that protestants readily accept.
Mark does not claim to be the writer of his gospel.
Luke does not claim to be the writer of his gospel.
Neither of the gospels names its author.
The account of those who were personally with Christ would be most reliable and the account of those who spent their lives with the apostles will be more authoritative than someone 100 or 200 years later.
Don't talk about the 'roots' of catholicsm - it AIN'T pretty!
That church is the Catholic Church. Wanting so badly to deny it is so, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
God's WORD denies it - I DON'T HAVE IT! There is a reason Catholicism has a catechism.
Did God tell you to turn wine/water into blood??? Did God tell you how to turn wine/water into blood???
The magicians in Egypt under the authority of the Pharaoh turned water into blood...
Do your priests use the same power they used???
Would seem if God wanted you or anyone to turn water into blood, he'd have told you to do so, and would have told you how to do it...
What is the formula that Catholics use to turn water into blood??? Where did they and apparently only they get that information???
When God turned water into blood in the land of Egypt, it turned into real blood...The people could see that it was blood and they could not drink it...
Why would your wine not turn into physical, visible blood???
Most Catholics don't believe this stuff...Why would anyone believe it???
Man, the Cluelessness Factor here is completely off the charts....
Really? you worship Hostess twinkies? Congratulations. The mirror speaketh, eh?
You posted my words...You couldn't respond to me???
Clueless??? Well clue me in...That's what the questions were for...
I am happier than a Catholic on Casino Night that you can answer those questions...So let's hear 'em...
The Catholic Church is older than individual evangelical churches and denominations, but not old enough to accurately be considered apostolic..... Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches also claim to be apostolic, yet they disagree with each other and with the Roman Catholic Church on a lot of issues.... If all of these churches that claim to have apostolic successors were really who they claimed to be, there wouldn't be so many disagreements among them. .... There can be only one true church, yet a lot of groups claim that title.
The true church is a spiritual entity consisting of all believers, not a worldwide denomination. When Catholic ask for an alternative to the Roman Catholic Church, an alternative that would be a worldwide denomination, that could trace itself back to the apostles through successors, etc., .....they're asking for an alternative where there shouldn't be one.
No, I worship the living Christ who sits at the right hand of the Father. Whose Spirit indwells all true believers. I don’t make Him from dough and bake him in the oven.
Don't kid yourself. He's demonstrated an abysmal ignorance of where others are coming from.
It's all a front.
>> CynicalBear: wafer Christ <<
>> If you want to build your own religion around chips, go ahead. Christians like Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Lutherans, etc. will worship Christ. <<
Sorry, Cronos. Although his conclusions are monstrous, CB is partly right on this one. Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, which means that the wafer retains its bread nature. This would mean that the bread is Christ. As Catholics, we belief that even though it retains the formal accident of bread (”What is its form?”), it’s essence (”What is it?”) is no longer bread. So where CB’s accusation could be an incredibly crass description of Luther’s position, it is a falsehood to the Catholic position.
(In other words, although Catholics say it retains the form of bread, it has solely the substance of the Body of Christ; Luther argued it retains both the form and substance of bread, while attaining the added substance of the Body of Christ.)
Many other Protestant groups hold the position which is at first easy to believe, but which is philosophically absurd: that the presence of Christ is SUBJECTIVELY present. That means that if I have faith that I am receiving Christ, then I am receiving Christ. That makes Jesus out to be like Tinkerbell. I don’t imagine Him into or out of existence.
The bible is clear, that he that eats and drinks unworthily, without discerning the body of Christ, drinks death apon himself. In other words, if they eat what appears to be bread, without recognizing that it is in fact the body of Christ, then they will suffer death, rather than immortality. This is why sharing the Eucharist with Protestants may SEEM like a friendly, inclusive thing to do, but is in reality a horrible cruelty. And why the modern failure of so many Catholics to teach the transubstantiation is an abominable crisis.
Of course, CB believes it’s mere bread, so this is yet another passage he must throw away.
(Note: some Protestants argue that the phrase, “let him eat of the bread” means that it is bread, thus justifying Luther’s position. The real word translated as “of,” “eck” means “of” in the sense of “from.” Hence, the next phrase “and drink of the cup” doesn’t mean he consumes the cup, but what comes from the cup. Likewise, “eat of the bread” does not mean to consume bread, but that which comes from the bread.)
>> Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches also claim to be apostolic, yet they disagree with each other and with the Roman Catholic Church on a lot of issues.... .... If all of these churches that claim to have apostolic successors were really who they claimed to be, there wouldn’t be so many disagreements among them. <<
The Catholic Church recognizes the apostolic succession of Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches. This is why certain Anglican priests can convert to Catholicism without being ordained again, and why entire Orthodox churches rejoined the Catholic church without any change in their leadership or the status or their leaders.
Scripture doesn’t say it’s not the church I meet with so I’ve determined that it is.
Do you really not see the contradiction? Why would they need conversion if they claim Apostolic succession without being catholic in the first place.
Actually Rome is simply trying to fill in the ranks of the many who have left or being filtered out of the church altogether...especially since so many Priests have been brought up on charges...and their Preisthood numbers are toppling.
You mean like Jesus has the power to show up in a UFO, if he wants...Or Jesus may reveal himself in a coffee stain on an old bagel...
Or Jesus can show up as some guy named Ron Paul...Jesus has the power to do that...Or Jesus has the power to show up in Israel bringing worldwide peace...
So do your crackers talk to you??? Do they tell you that they are Jesus???How do you know your crackers are or aren't Jesus unless they tell you...And should you believe them if they do???
dangus — these guys are not “protestants” - they are varied beliefs that disagree with each other on most everything — you have some like Oneness Pentecosals that even disagree with the idea of the Trinity.
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.