Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
It's the old Catholic 'shell game'...They always have different answers depending who is asking the question...
We were told earlier that the Eucharist is 'substantially, but not fully Jesus Christ; with the false caveat that Jesus was substantially but not fully God...
So in another place in the CC we find that the Eucharist IS fully Jesus Christ...
With a thousand pages in the CC which barely covers any of the scriptures, it has more twists and turns than a corkscrew...
Mixing theology with philosophy is like mixing water and oil...They don't mix...
Philosophy is man's faulty wisdom...Bible is God's wisdom...And never the twain shall meet...
You can not expound on scripture with philosophy...
No matter how they slice it, they cannot get around the fact that the CCC teaches that the host becomes in substance, the literal body and blood of Christ, and that it never changes appearance but is still just a wheat wafer.
The semantic gymnastics they go through to rationalize it away are olympian in magnitude.
It's the same Christ in the consecrated bread and wine,dear sister,nothing was changed with God and the Holy Trinity since He is outside of time and unchangeable.God allows us reach into the eternal Christ at the Consecration of Bread and Wine
Do you believe Christ is eternal and always existed?
We have to pray for and forgive those who put us into the dilemma of having to either disbelieve their claims to have once been Catholic, believe that they no longer remember what they once learned, or are lying about the teachings of the Church. When they refuse to respond to efforts to teach and clarify or to enter into an honest dialog the causes of their actions become even more tragic and in greater need of our compassion.
Peace and Blessings.
That apparently is man's philosophy talking and not Jesus...Jesus said 'eat the bread' AND 'drink the wine'...I don't see where Jesus gave anyone the option to take away from his command...
If you don't drink the wine, you are out of the will of God...We are to drink the wine for a reason...
Like these pagans with their man made teachings? The Catechism is not a physics text, it is a theological and philosoplical work.
So you admit you were being untruthful when you said in post #1086 that your reason for posting what you did was:
What part of my post did you find haunting or unkind? My intention was to give counsel and comfort to Papertyger.
I appreciate the apology, but I think it would be more beneficial to everyone if the scatological terms used to describe others with whom one disagrees were actually NOT viewed as necessary at all. After all, as our Lord said in Mark 7, it is what comes out of the heart that defiles a man. If your intention is to teach, then it can surely be done with respect. After all, us "flies" like honey more than....
1 Corinthians 19:15-16 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:23-30 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
Jesus didn't seem to think it was the same or else He would not have given the bread AND the cup and commanded to eat AND drink.
So again I ask, Who gave the RCC authority to change that and when?
Don't Catholics hold the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture above all else? Why don't they follow His instructions then?
I find it very interesting that of the two parts of communion the one that is left out is the blood, by which we have forgiveness and redemption.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins, and yet eliminating the drinking of the cup removes the recognition and the remembrance of the blood sacrifice by which we are saved. It removes the focus from that which is most essential.
If all I wanted to accomplish was to counsel I would have sent a private message. I obviously had a multipurpose in my post. Besides, If you think I was accurately describing your behavior what is it I have to apologize for?
(In my experience it is bees and not flies that are attracted to honey)
Peace be with you.
I find it interesting that you think that Christ is divisible and not wholly present under the appearance of either the bread or of wine in the Eucharist and that you think that the Blood of Christ is not offered. But then again none of us are done learning, are we?
Peace be with you.
The command is to believe you're receiving Christ fully,which is present in both the consecrated bread and wine
Now Answer the question if you believe Christ is eternal and ALWAYS existed.
If you don't believe Christ existed eternally than you're not a Christian.
FWIW,dear friend, your theology is so far outside of historical Christianity that I feel that prayer and fasting is all that can help you
Then why did Christ give us the bread AND the cup?
Why did the Catholic church decide to change that for its members? Who gave it authority to and when?
The rest of us will continue to take the bread AND the cup in obedience to the Lord's and apostle's instructions.
Iscool's theology is perfectly sound scripturally.
So when and why DID the Catholic church remove the cup from the communion service in disobedience to Jesus' command to drink the cup to show His death until He comes and under whose authority was that done?
Us? Exactly who, besides yourself, do you speak for? As far as I know you are a denomination of one. That might make for a convenient communion, but nothing else.
Every church outside the Catholic church that I’ve been in, and it covers a WIDE range of denominations, celebrates communion with both the bread and the cup.
Unless you can provide evidence that there are other denominations which prohibited its members from partaking of the cup like the Catholic church did.
And how about answering the questions?
Why did the Catholic church remove the cup, and under whose authority, in direct disobedience to the commands of Jesus Himself?
And I’m sure that the others pinged here can confirm that when they take communion, they partake of BOTH elements, both the bread AND cup, jsut as Jesus commanded.
Are you now declaring that you speak for every church outside the Catholic Church or can we just agree that this was more of the usual hyperbole. The truth is that you can only recite a few anecdotes. How representative they are of "every Church outside the Catholic Church is doubtful.
"Why did the Catholic church remove the cup, and under whose authority, in direct disobedience to the commands of Jesus Himself?"
The Church has removed nothing. I receive the Eucharist in both species daily. If by circumstance the Eucharist should only be available in a single species it would be no less Christ who is wholly sacramentally present under each of the species.
I don't know why you think it OK to pass off this transignification, empiricist claptrap as Catholic doctrine, but it isn't clever and it isn't honest. Please be aware that I will continue to be a counter to it and will continue to post the truth for all to see. Those who genuinely seek the truth will be able to independently verify and see through your canard. If you are honestly in error it can be an opportunity for your enlightenment as well.
Peace be with you.
I would suppose that the real beef with Webster is like I said, he was a Roman Catholic and he left that church for Protestant Evangelicalism. He also has an article posted that explains his reason as well as why he will continue to remain Evangelical. It is Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me, a Former Roman Catholic, to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant . It is also well-sourced. Enjoy.
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.