Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Natural Law

Which proves nothing because those verses don’t give any justification for changing the way communion is celebrated.

Jesus gave the disciples BOTH the bread and cup.

The bread is for the remembrance of His broken body. The cup for His shed blood.

It’s very interesting that the Catholic church removed the part that remembers the blood sacrifice because without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.


1,280 posted on 06/05/2012 11:04:14 AM PDT by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1278 | View Replies ]


To: metmom
"Jesus gave the disciples BOTH the bread and cup.

Do you partake of both the blood and body of Christ or just some infrequent symbolic gesture? Do you wash anyone's feet as was commanded at the last supper?

We have no more right to infer that all are obliged to drink of the cup because the Apostles were commanded to drink of it, than we have to suppose that the laity are required or allowed to confect the bread and wine because the power of doing so was at the last Supper conferred on the Apostles or required and allowed to bind and loose sins because that too was given to the Apostles?

The charge of withholding the cup by some Protestants is completely disingenuous because in their own practice and in their own doctrines have destroyed the intrinsic virtue of the Sacrament by giving to their followers nothing but symbolic bread and wine. The difference between them and Catholics is that under either form we give the entire substance, the Real Presence, while under two forms Protestants give only the shadow.

Again, not only are you at odds with Catholicism, but with nearly all of Christendom too. Protestant theologian Gottfried Leibnitz wrote his Systema theologicum; "It cannot be denied that Christ is received entire by virtue of concomitance, under each species; nor is His flesh separated from His blood." [Systema Theol., p. 250.] Martin Luther himself was so clearly convinced of the completeness of the Real Presence in both species that he was an uncompromising advocate of communion under only one kind. Luther wrote: "If any Council, should decree or permit both species, we would by no means acquiesce; but, in spite of the Council and its statute, we would use one form, or neither, and never both." [De formula Missae.]

Now I ask that you drop this inane line of argument because the longer it goes the more foolish and vindictive you appear. Remember, this is not about who is right, it is about what is right.

Peace be with you.

1,281 posted on 06/05/2012 11:33:50 AM PDT by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1280 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson