Posted on 03/28/2015 7:24:04 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Solemnity of the Most Holy Body and Blood of Christ, John 6:51-58
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. […] Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Most, though not all, Protestants wiggle and fidget as they come to the Bread of Life Discourse in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John; and they have good reason to be disturbed! Our Savior speaks quite plainly of the Eucharist when he states, For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:56).
The common solution for many modern Protestants (following the path set out by Zwingli) is to call upon the words which follow toward the end of the discourse: It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life (John 6:64). Appealing to these words, which reference the spirit as opposed to the flesh, these Protestants will claim that the Bread of Life Discourse is an extended metaphor.
There are four reasons why our Savior’s words in John 6:26-72 cannot be understood as an analogy or a metaphor. Among these, the second is perhaps rather unknown. [all four reasons come from Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]
1) From the nature of the words used One specially notes the realistic expressions “true” and “real” referring to the “food” and “drink” which is our Savior’s body and blood. Likewise, we note the concrete expressions employed to denote the reception of this Sacrament: the Greek word commonly translated as “to eat” is more literally “to gnaw upon” or “to chew”. The bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. […] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed (John 6:52,56).
2) From the biblical usage of the figure “to eat one’s flesh” In the language of the Bible, to eat another’s flesh or to drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him, to bring him to ruin and to destroy him. Thus, if Christ tells the Jews that we all must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if he means this metaphorically, we would be led to conclude (following the witness of Sacred Scripture) that our Savior intends us to reject him.
Consider how the metaphor of eating flesh and drinking blood functions in the Scriptures: Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh. My enemies that trouble me, have themselves been weakened, and have fallen. (Psalm 26:2)
By the wrath of the Lord of hosts the land is troubled, and the people shall be as fuel for the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall turn to the right hand, and shall be hungry: and shall eat on the left hand, and shall not be filled: every one shall eat the flesh of his own arm: Manasses Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasses, and they together shall be against Juda. (Isaiah 9:19-20)
And I will feed thy enemies with their own flesh: and they shall be made drunk with their own blood, as with new wine. (Isaiah 49:26)
You that hate good, and love evil: that violently pluck off their skins from them, and their flesh from their bones? Who have eaten the flesh of my people, and have flayed their skin from off them: and have broken, and chopped their bones as for the kettle, and as flesh in the midst of the pot. (Micah 3:2-3)
Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you. […] Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. (James 5:1,3)
And the ten horns which thou sawest in the beast: these shall hate the harlot, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and shall burn her with fire. (Revelation 17:16)
3) From the reactions of the listeners The listeners understand Jesus to be speaking in literal truth – How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (John 6:53) – and Jesus does not correct them, as he had done previously in the case of misunderstandings (cf. John 3,3; 4:32; Matthew 16:6). In this case, on the contrary, he confirms their literal acceptance of his words at the rist that his disciples and his apostles might desert him. Indeed, our Savior is willing to test his apostles on this point: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? (John 6:68)
4) From the interpretation of the Fathers and the Magisterium Finally, we can recognize that this text is not to be understood as a metaphor from the interpretation of the Fathers, who ordinarily take the last section of the Bread of Life Discourse as referring to the Eucharist (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexander, St. Augustine, et al.). Moreover, the interpretation of the Council of Trent confirms this. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life In John 6:64, Jesus does not reject the literal interpretation, but only the grossly sensual interpretation. Our Savior insists that the Eucharist is spirit and life insofar as it gives life. For the body we receive in the Eucharist is not dead flesh, but profits us unto eternal life.
So St. Augustine says, “This Flesh alone profiteth not, but let the Spirit be joined to the Flesh, and It profiteth greatly. For if the Flesh profiteth nothing, the Word would not have become Flesh.” The same (lib. 10, de. Civit. Dei) says, “The Flesh of itself cleanseth not, but through the Word by which it hath been assumed.” And S. Cyril, “If the Flesh be understood alone, it is by no means able to quicken, forasmuch as it needs a Quickener, but because it is conjoined with the life-giving Word, the whole is made life-giving. For the Word of God being joined to the corruptible nature does not lose Its virtue, but the Flesh itself is lifted up to the power of the higher nature. Therefore, although the nature of flesh as flesh cannot quicken; still it doth this because it hath received the whole operation of the Word.”
Hence, we do well to pray: May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ guard my soul unto everlasting life. Amen.
And just what mainline denominations are even Evangelical? Southern Baptists? Rather, the liberal Prot denoms are usually those closest to Rome, like the Episcopalians. Even 34,000 Black Churches just broke Ties With the liberal Presbyterian Church USA
And as fruit evidence what one really believes, which are more conservative on this issue, those who Rome counts as members in life and in death, or Evangelicals?
• 99% of Protestant pastors who hold to very conservative theology strongly disagree that homosexual marriage should be legal, with 98% also describing themselves as pro-life, and of such 98 percent strongly agree with the statement "Our church considers Scripture to be the authority for our church and our lives." Among pastors who do not strongly disagree that gay marriage should be legal, 71 percent said they agreed with the above affirmation, as well as 65% of pro-choice pastors (three-fourths of all Protestant pastors surveyed said they are pro-life). LifeWay Research; http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-share-views-on-gay-marriage-abortion
• In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
39 percent of Roman Catholics and 79 percent of born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist American Christians affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful. LifeWay (SBC) Research study, released Wednesday. 2008 LifeWay Research study. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/survey-americans-divided-on-homosexuality-as-sin.htm
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)
Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)
This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.
69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^
19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage. ^
60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. ^
73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, and 63% favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. For the general public the figures are 68% and 58% respectively. ^
49% of Catholics and 45% of the general public agree that homosexuals should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements. ^
Among Catholics who attend services regularly (weekly or more), 31% say there should be no legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions), with 26% favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, versus 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less favoring allowance of homosexual marriage. ^
27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^
48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf
White evangelicals are most satisfied with their church’s handling of homosexuality, with 75 percent giving it an `A’ or a `B.’ Catholics are the most critical, with nearly a third — twice as many as any other group — giving their church a `D’ or `F.’ Oct. 2010 Poll sponsored by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service. http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/2010/10/22/survey-links-gay-bullying-to-religion/7682/
White, non-Hispanic Catholics express about as much support for same-sex marriage as Hispanic Catholics do (53% and 54%, respectively). White evangelical Protestants are somewhat more opposed to gay marriage (76%) than are Hispanic evangelical Protestants (66%). http://www.pewforum.org/Race/Latinos-Religion-and-Campaign-2012.aspx
45% of Hispanic Catholics and 51% of mainline Protestants say that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is morally wrong, compared to 16% of Catholics and 19% of mainline Protestants who say it is morally acceptable.10% of Hispanic Catholics and 4% of mainline Protestants believe the morality of same gender sexual activity depends on the situation, and 27% of Catholics and 23% of mainline Protestants say it is not a moral issue. http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf
72% of evangelical Protestants say that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is morally wrong, while 8% say it is morally acceptable. 6% say that the morality of the behavior depends on the situation and 14% say that it is not a moral issue. ^
51% of Hispanic Catholics and mainline Protestants say that it is possible to disagree with church teachings on homosexuality and remain a good Catholic or Christian, versus 70% of evangelical Hispanic Protestants who say it is not possible to disagree with church teachings on the issue of homosexuality and remain a good Christian. ^
For those in black Catholic churches, political affiliation or leaning in 2007 was 17%/74% Republican/Democrat, and 11%/76% for black evangelical churches. Opposition to homosexuality 37% by black Catholics and 58% by black evangelicals. Opposition to abortion was 35% by black Catholics and 53% by black evangelicals. 66% of black evangelicals and 36% of black Catholics say they attend services at least weekly. http://www.pewforum.org/A-Religious-Portrait-of-African-Americans.aspx
71% of Evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 25% of Catholics said that a candidates position on abortion would have a lot of influence on their decision of who to vote for in 2012. Likewise 63% of evangelicals, 35% of Protestants and 19% of Catholics and said a candidates position on homosexual marriage would have a lot of influence on their decision. Barna, April, 2011 http://www.barna.org/transformation-articles/482-voters-most-interested-in-issues-concerning-security-and-comfort-least-interested-in-moral-issues
Only 23% (20% now evangelical) of all Protestants converts from Catholicism said they were unhappy about Catholicism's teachings on abortion/homosexuality (versus 46% of those now unaffiliated); 23% also expressed disagreement with teaching on divorce/remarriage; 16% (12% now evangelical) were dissatisfied with teachings on birth control, 70% said they found a religion the liked more in Protestantism. 55% of evangelical converts from Catholicism cited dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings about the Bible was a reason for leaving Catholicism, with 46% saying the Catholic Church did not view the Bible literally enough. - Pew forum, Faith in Flux (April 27, 2009) http://pewforum.org/uploadedfiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/fullreport.pdf
98% of evangelical leaders agree that the Bible is the word of God. 96% disapprove of abortion at least conditionally, with 51% (59% in the “Global South,” including Africa) affirming that abortion is always wrong, with 45% saying it is usually wrong. 84% say that society should discourage homosexuality, and 79% say that men should serve as the religious leaders in the marriage and family, and 71% of the leaders are male, yet 75% think that women may be allowed to serve as pastors. (in contrast to historical Protestantism) http://www.pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% of R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Why should we then leave conservative evangelical churches and join Rome like your relative few who swim the wrong way over the Tiber, to become members with even liberal proabortion/sodomy/Muslim pols?
Which referred to 82 disciples, not simply 12, while the Lord said that even though who were not of the formal ordained company of the 12 were on His side. (Mk. 9:38-41)
Your entire post is irrelevant. We are not talking here about the personal” views of individuals based on polling data. We are speaking here about the Church founded by Christ with a Great Commission to teach ONE truth.
That infallible authority is what produced the authentic text of the written Word of God in the Synod of Rome AD 382 and for eleven centuries (until the Reformation) and since then has produced saints and martyrs and stigmatists and gave us the Catholic Credo and the teaching magisterium: The Catechism.
That infallible authority to promulgate ONE truth continues to the end of time. The rest are all heretical teachings. In the words of the great English essayist, Hillaire Belloc, unlike other heresies, Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.” Just look around!
The authority was to Peter and his successors. This is Petrine authority. It was the Church that authenticated the canonical texts. If you doubt Petrine authority, then you must also for sure have doubts on whether the canonical books chose by the Church are indeed the true written word of God.
You can’t have it both ways. Dispute Petrine authority and also accept the selection of books made by the Church is the true written Word of God. This is why preeminent Protestant and Episcopalian theological have after a lifetime of intense study and instruction have converted to Catholicism.
What blindness. Your propagandist assertion about the "Church founded by Christ with a Great Commission to teach ONE truth" is what is irrelevant, for as said, what one effects evidences what one believes, and the fruit of Rome overall is actually liberalism wherever she predominates.
And despite RCs here trying to relegate them as excommunicated, the reality is that Rome does not treat them as such, which actually fosters more of the same. This is your church, and these are your brethren, and you must own them.
That infallible authority is what produced the authentic text of the written Word of God in the Synod of Rome AD 382 and for eleven centuries (until the Reformation)
Even if that was true, which it is not , then what would that argue for? That the being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God? Yes? No?
since then has produced saints and martyrs and stigmatists
And cults have their mystics and "saints." But . For Rome is her own autocratic authority, while her own basis for that, that of the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, is unScriptural, and unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, as is her separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" human flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, and literally consuming this to obtain spiritual life, around which act all else revolves, and looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome, and a separate class of believers distinctively titled "saints," and praying to created being in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm. Etc.
That infallible authority to promulgate ONE truth continues to the end of time.
Spare us the bombast, Perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility is never seen nor was it necessary in Scripture for the promulgation and preservation of Truth. Including which writings were of God. You simply have no argument, only parroted assertions.
So what are you , a propaganda machine? Do you think parroted these vain assertions makes them true, though it may comfort you?
It was the Church that authenticated the canonical texts. If you doubt Petrine authority, then you must also for sure have doubts on whether the canonical books chose by the Church are indeed the true written word of God.
What kind of absurd logic is that? Besides the fact that it took Rome over 1400 years to provide an infallible, indisputable canon, do you realize where this historical magisterium =veracity logic takes you? To requiring 1st century souls to submit to those unto whom "were committed the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:4-5; cf (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
Instead, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture. And followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Unlike your basis for assurance of Truth.
You can’t have it both ways.
Indeed you cannot. Either be consistent with your historical magisterium logic and remain deceived or be like the NT church and make Scriptural substantiation your supreme authority and basis for discernment of Truth. Your choice and eternity.
You position logically leads to multiple truths since by your lights there is no ONE visible Church. This is an absurdity brought on with the curse of the Reformation. You cannot possibly deny that for ELEVEN centuries the Catholic Church assembled, interpreted and taught the canonical texts through the prism of scared scriptural, the received oral tradition and liturgy. That’s an irrefutable truth. Even Protestant scholars admit to this.
You say for 1400 years the Church failed to provide an indisputable cannon? From where on earth did you fetch this piece of historical nonsense?
It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible and its universal interpretation given by the Church. The only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
But you play “internet theologian” as do Bible Christians by dipping into the shallow end of the theological pool and fishing out a quote from here and there. This is the stuff of neophytes untutored on scripture, context, and history.
You keep again and again avoiding the tough questions on why scores of eminent Protestant theologians have joined a constellation of Catholic scholars and theologian in proclaiming both historically and scripturally that it is the Catholic Church (not some amorphous group) that Christ selected to proclaim His ONE true teaching. You cannot assail the unassailable i.e. the faith and interpretation of the early Church Fathers as to the teachings of the Church. You blithely ignore the writings of many of them, some whom were contemporaries of the Evangelist John. You gloss over the unwritten Word of God (Jn: 21:25) which ONLY the Church carried forward. There was no other Church at the time.
At the end of the day, as it has been for over 2000 years, there is ONE Church and the rest is all drivel from Billy Graham to David Koresh and the Moonies and the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witness and whatever any corner street Foursquare Church pastor purports to say about Scripture.
No wonder Protestantism has been reduced to a Saturday Night caricature from the likes of TD Jakes to Joel Osteen.
Once again, all that the Christians of FR can manage to do is fight with each other and put each other down.
Is this the Love Jesus preached to us?
This is often quoted as a blank check, but what "tradition" is PAUL speaking of?
It's clear in both letters:
1)Abstain from sexual immorality
2)Aspire to live quietly
3)Mind your own affairs
4)Work with your hands, as we instructed you
5)Respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work
6)Admonish the idle
7)Encourage the fainthearted
8)Help the weak, be patient with them all
9)Always seek to do good to one another and to everyone
10)Rejoice always
11)Pray without ceasing
12)Give thanks in all circumstances
13)Do not quench the Spirit
14)Do not despise prophecies, but test everything
15)Hold fast what is good
16)Abstain from every form of evil
17)Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss
That's in the first letter. Your quote from 2 Thes. 3:6 is specifically addressing the idleness of some believers. The "tradition" there is the example set by Paul & Co.:
...we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate...
Whither the additional traditions claimed by Rome? Protestantism? Both schools make stuff up because they are mere MEN.
Concerning the Bible—"whose canonical texts were first infallibly authenticated under Petrine authority in the Synod of Rome AD 382", (per whom?)—it is God-breathed and would have NO POWER if it's preservation and authority were dependent on any MAN. God has been speaking to man from the creation of the world, through what has been made "so they are without excuse". He made everything through His Son, so creation necessarily preaches Jesus! "Except the grain of wheat falling into the ground die, it abides alone; but if it die, it bears much fruit." Resurrection!
Scripture written down is from GOD. Period. End of item. Who authenticates and empowers the book of Proverbs, for example? If it's Solomon we would be in deep trouble! Let God be true and every man a liar, His Wisdom stands whether supported or opposed by fallen man. He always has a remnant reserved who do His will (praise Him for that!). Such persons acknowledge "we have only done our duty" and refuse to build kingdoms around their duty, as if to lord it over others. Those who try to put others in ungodly debt to man DESERVE rebuke.
Actually, most Protestants ... by the time they get to verse 56 in John 6 have already understood the message of the entire passage, which Christ has already mentioned a half dozen times.
Whereas your average Roman does not even bother to read the discourse in context ... and thus they adhere to worst reading possible ... in which whole generations of Catholics have been lost.
“Maybe if you’d take the beam out of your own eye you’d see the very point I am making.”
Right back at ya.
Do you not see how funny it is that the first word you use in talking about denigration of others’ beliefs is “Romanists”?
I’m sure our opinions differ but I don’t think “Protestants” is anywhere nearly as offensive as “Romanists”. I know many Protestants who refer to themselves as “Protestants”.
If the flesh and blood is meant to be taken literally, then John 6 is at best a FORESHADOWING of (not the INSTITUTION of) the Lords Table ... which at this point in His ministry is still several years away. It is a foreshadowing at best because they did not literally sit down and celebrate the Lords Table there in John 6.
Now the point that is overlooked is this: the gospel of John is the only gospel that does not record the Lords Table. If John 6 is a foreshadowing ... then it is not possible that John would neglect to complete the thought by mentioning it in the Upper Room Discourse in John 13-17.
The best attempts by Catholics usually involve some variation of ... "The other gospels mentioned the institution of the Lords Table, John didn't need to be redundant ..."
This is simply not a valid explanation ... because much lesser events, for example, the Triumphal Entry, ARE included in all 4 gospels.
So far, not even a Catholic priest could present a cogent explanation for this.
I urge every Roman Catholic to go read the entire discourse in John 6 ... count how many times Jesus mentions belief ... and non-belief.
It doesn't surprise me you wonder that. Muslims are also fixated on sex in paradise.
It doesn't surprise me you wonder that. Muslims are also fixated on sex in paradise.
What does sex have to do with flesh and blood and eating supper and using the bathroom??? It is the Catholic religionists who are 'brothers in God' with the muzlims, not me...
After making crazy statements like Jesus has flesh and blood in heaven you guys just let it go ignoring any ramifications that follow...
And rather than attempt to consider or respond to any questions the pat Catholic answer has to be, 'duh, I dunno', or, it's a mystery, mystical...
Either that or come up with the best insult they know to cover up for their ignorance on the false belief they are trying to push on other people...
So, typical Catholic response from you...
So He told a mass of unsaved people He had jut rebuked to eat His flesh
I do not thank so
Exactly. I have no idea why you brought it up.
..Scripture is silent on the resurrected Christ's blood.. HUMAN life is in the blood..not a Spiritual life Here is what Jesus said "…39"See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."Luke :24:39
There was no blood coming out His side He offered to Thomas to put his finger in ...no blood coming from His hands
The carnal mind of the Catholic Church will never understand the spiritual.
You keep using that line as if it has some sort of magic affect. What you don't seem to get is that the Catholic Church has harboured homosexual men for much longer than any Protestant church.
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.