"A Little Bread and Wine Does No Harm..."

That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill ^ | 4/25/14 | That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill

[Carpe Cerevisi]

There was a correction in post #51.

[metmom]

The flesh is for healing. By His stripes we are healed.

The blood is for the atonement. The life is in the blood.

But in context, Jesus is talking about eating His flesh and that is metaphorical. THAT’s where He says the flesh is no help at all.

It’s the SPIRIT which gives life, not the physical eating.

[Carpe Cerevisi]

It’s the SPIRIT which gives life, not the physical eating.

How do you account for the Greek word "trogos" for "eats"? It means to gnaw, crunch or chew.

[metmom]

The Mass is an unbloody remembrance. Christ said: Do this in remembrance of me.”

So Catholics claim to be reenacting the death of Christ, of which the shedding of His blood was ESSENTIAL, and the only means of forgiveness and yet they claim to be offering an *unbloody* sacrifice.

That makes it a useless ritual. Without the shedding of blood there is NO forgiveness of sins.

If the Catholic church is offering an *unbloody* sacrifice, they are simply participating in the reenactment of the murder of Jesus.

Besides, nobody offered Jesus up as a sacrifice for their sins. HE laid down His own life, of His own free will. Nobody took it from Him. So the whole premise of the mass is wrong from the get go.

[metmom]

Heaven is outside time, therefore everything is eternally present, at once "done" and "not yet done" and "still being done".

Prove it.

[metmom]

The ritual prescriptions of the Old Covenant have passed away. Including (inter alia) the prohibition on eating blood.

That's wrong.

The prohibition against eating blood was one of the few OT commands that was continued into the NT. That was decided at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and endorsed by the Holy Spirit.

[metmom]

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

So if literal eating in this body is required to be saved, to live forever, then literal living forever in this body ought to be happening also.

Where is that?

[johngrace]

Funny!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Goood catch. That's true --- you're right. But it's not the rule now, and I actually don't know when that changed. And as I understand it, those few (to us counterintuitive) priorities ---You are to abstain from

• food sacrificed to idols,
• blood,
• the meat of strangled animals and
• sexual immorality.

Butr that's not so. Paul later said people could eat whatever was sold in the marketplace, even if it all come from pagan abattoirs, because after all, the pagan gods don't exist, they're 'nothings', yet he himself would not eat any meat at all, if it constituted a stumbling block to the weaker brethren. He didn't see any point in offending the more scrupulous Jewish brethren needlessly.

Likely this decision was made, not to lay out Mosaic moral law, but a uniformity of custom so as to keep peace and unity in the churches.

As for the part prohibiting sexual immorality, well, sexual immorality was already prohibited (that's almost a tautology) but it probably referred to form of marriage which were accepted by Greeks but not accepted by Hebrews, e.g. within degrees of consanguinity or affinity that would be considered incest by Hebrews but not by Greeks.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Actually, the physical eating brings on condemnation, for those who do not discern the Body.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So if literal eating in this body is required to be saved, to live forever, then literal living forever in this body ought to be happening also."

Thou sayest. But that's not the doctrine. That's, in fact, a fleshly interpretation.

[Dutchboy88]

I am painfully aware that you do not wish to communicate with me, so I gingerly offer this info...

The letter to which you refer (Acts 15) was issued by the group to which Peter belonged, not actually by Paul. Paul was one of the contenders for the end of the Mosaic Law appearing before them. The group listened to Peter’s argument that no Jew had ever actually kept the Law, so burdening the Gentile believers with it was ridiculous and Paul was right.

The compromise of the group (to assuage the “sect of the Pharisees” (the Judaizers) was the letter issued to Paul, taken by the Judas & Silas, to take to Gentiles. Frankly, it appears that after his first stop from the meeting, Paul never brought the letter’s subject up again.

But, there is a difference between the meat sacrificed to idols (which is edible, since there are really no other ‘gods’) and drinking blood as a pagan ritual. Paul only refrained from eating meat when a weaker brother might be offended, not the rest of his life.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, my dear (I hope for a lessening of pain here) I think we're actually in agreement on this one. Paul said he "would" abstain if necessary, just in order to giving unnecessary offense --- he was, in a sense, a gentleman, a gentle man--- but that does not imply he abstained everywhere and for the rest of his life. He was even willing to circumcise Timothy in order to open a certain door of acceptance among the Jews; this did not mean he had a general policy of circumcising: very much the contrary!

Thank you, by the way, for your good will.

[LurkingSince'98]

“then why does your organization claim to “transubstantiate” the “elements” into the body and blood?”

D-B88,

there is a big difference in the noun of “transubstantiation” and the verb you used “transubstantiate”

‘transubstantiation’ is the change whereby, according to Catholic doctrine, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality the body and blood of Christ

‘transubstantiate’ however is a transitive verb meaning to ‘change into another substance’ and the only one I know that can do that is God.

Big difference you are claiming that the Catholic Church does what only God can do...

For the Greater Glory of God

[BlatherNaut]

1 Cor 11:23-29

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Clearly the commemoration is to continue "until he come". And St. Paul's words regarding eating and drinking unworthily are a strong warning that can't be logically applied to a metaphor, but make perfect sense in the context of a literal interpretation of John 6:56: For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.

[Dutchboy88]

And thank you for your kind response. And, you are right about Timothy.

[ravenwolf]

“A Little Bread and Wine Does No Harm...”

If this Pope doesn’t believe that the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, Humanity and Divinity of Our Lord, then that wouldn’t just explain things a little. That would explain everything.

---

This does not make sense to me, isn’t wine used in communion? so what is wrong with him saying that it does no harm?.`

[Mrs. Don-o]

Before the Consecration wine is just wine and bread is just bread. But after the Consecration, these ordinary-looking elements of the Eucharist are in truth the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, according to His word. They are he most sacred objects in this world. In a strict sense, they are the ONLY sacred objects in this world. We worship these sacred Eucharistic gifts.

If they were just unchanged ordinary objects, this would be idolatry.

One can certainly still use he words bread and wine, since the appearances of bread and wine are still there. But to refer to them as just "bread" and "wine" without any further description or qualification, would show a shockingly profane attitude, to say the least.

Futhermore, St. Paul, because he understood this profoundly, taught that if you receive this 'bread' and drink from the cup without discerning the Body, you are guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:2-29 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the Body and bBlood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the Body, eat and drink condemnation upon themselves."

This is the only Sacrament accompanied by both a blessing and a curse!

[ravenwolf]

“A Little Bread and Wine Does No Harm...”The Vatican must, at least, confirm that the Pope did not say that because if Pope Francis did say that, the Pope shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion.

---

This makes no sense at all, if a little bread and wine does no harm and that is what they use in communion then why should the pope not receive it?

Seems like this Pope catches hell every time he says anything, guess you can tell I am not a catholic.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ravenwolf, there's a subset of people out there who shall remain nameless --- not all united in the same denomination, in fact quite theologically diverse from each other --- who are nevertheless united in an anti-papal orientation. To them:

• All bad rumors must be true.
• All good news must be CYA
• Any ambiguous statement must be interpreted the way the Reuters News Agency would incline us to see it, not the way a Catholic context would incline us to see it
• the Pope is not Catholic, and bears shat in my Nutella jar.

As I said, this subset is made up of diverse parts. It's kind of like the Pharisees and the Herodians, naturally opponents, allying the basis of, "That Galilean has to go."