Posted on 05/25/2015 3:25:43 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Great, but Saint Augustine believed in the Real presence. So I would rather go by what he directly said about the Real Presence than what you infer.
Read what St. Paul said in Corinthians about eating the body of Christ when on is unworthy.
The question was are those infallible readings by the magisterium or just the opinion of the writer. The fact there was no magisterium citation makes me believe it is simply the rendering of a man..
They did in this case as Jesus told them there were some who did not believe in Him. It is not the first time, and not the last time, that people have heard the simple message of the gospel regarding faith in Christ and have walked away.
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him. 65And He was saying, “For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father.” 66As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.
“It is not the first time, and not the last time, that people have heard the simple message of the gospel regarding faith in Christ and have walked away.”
Name one time in the bible this happened other than John 6:66. I am looking for times that disciples, those who were following Jesus, left Jesus based on one of His teachings.
We do works because we ARE saved...
You do works out of fear...
It is not easy to love, pray and forgive my enemy, but I have to if I want enter into Heaven.
We do works because we love God...
The works you do are useless for your cause...
The works we do are FROM God...He puts those works into our hearts to do them...
As far as I know, none of them are leaders in any religion like priests, etc.
Name one time in the bible this happened other than John 6:66. I am looking for times that disciples, those who were following Jesus, left Jesus based on one of His teachings.
Judas for starters.
The point is not that disciples left Him, though they did in this case, others have heard the Gospel from Christ Himself and have walked away or denied Him.
How do you square your belief you can lose your salvation away with Ephesians 1:13-14?
I am a Christian, and I know the Lord, that's why you should at least listen long enough to understand what I'm saying, instead of apparently dismissing it out of hand.
For myself, this is not just some academic exercise where I'm merely relying upon opinions of others, although I am well enough apprised of opinions of others in this matter to understand those opinions, including what seems to be presently circulating among the RCC in this regard, what used to be written of about this, and what the basic theological implications are, for what differences there are...
SAME TO YOU!
Did you not just claim in other comment on this thread, that the argument (the apologetic) which you presented was "all scriptural"???
And I touched upon biblical foundation reasons for viewing the thanksgiving meal in ways other than carnal, corporeal flesh sort of view. I even supplied links to dictionary definitions of the words I was using, as I used those. Was that not enough?
If myself having tried to get you to think about this issue, is "an attack against the Catholic faith" then it deserves to be attacked.
Or at least -- honestly questioned & then explored/examined, which I did take pains to do, narrowly, and to precise aspect of one issue (communion bread, transubstantiation, etc.) in particular, getting quite specific about differences.
If what I presented to you, from such a closely related Christian perspective as was my own basis, is "an attack on the Catholic faith" in your world -- then I must ask -- what type & color panties do the men wear there -- for they must all be sissified, prissy pansies if mere talking about it is "attack".
You argue like an emotional liberal...(go ahead, Salvation, sic the moderator on me --- or at least try, but first --- scroll up and see that I'm just returning the ill-favor right back to where it came from!).
Perhaps I moved too fast, covered too much theological ground? Am I speaking over your head? (Polly want a cracker?)
Now you are mind-reading, for I myself said no such thing, as far as this particular conversation goes -- while you are still not addressing the central issue.
Yet this is the way it is just_about_every_single_time I attempt to communicate with a FRoman. *They* can't step out of the cocoon, it seems. Except to stick the head out and try to bite whoever it is that knocks on the doors, unless one comes to them hat-in-hand, like some beggar...(even then the results are most often entirely underwhelming -- which is why I gave up on trying to "be nice" to those who don't stinking care --- to be honest!)
I DID "listen" to the so-called "reasoned points" and showed you how a few of those were not so well reasoned, after all. Can't YOU READ?
What followed from there on from you, was not anything like approaching honest debate in regards to the principle of "sola scriptura", but it WAS and is what is termed "moving the goal posts", or else a "dragging it off into the bushes", changing the focus away from the previously "reasoned points" which I did address -- but which you have not lifted one tiny pinky finger to touch upon, other than to have initially brought to these pages copy/paste parroting of argumentation assembled by others, from elsewhere...
I've seen the whole schmear (of the entire set of RC apologetic) thousands of times, right here on these pages. Day in, day out, it rarely changes...
Now--- address the issue -- answer/address the questions which I raised previously. No more little games.
Is the "Eucharistic flesh" (to use the term which you supplied) composed of human flesh (and blood) JUST AS WE OTHERWISE KNOW OF THAT ---
OR
Does some other meaning better fit the evidence?
Do you recall the context in which I referred to;
What does that mean, to you? ANYthing?
What could Jesus have been driving at in regards to John 6:61-62, also? Must I need publish it all again in hopes that it will eventually be considered in any way other than 'Polly want a cracker, squaawk' type of gathering of noises, as in a 'I'll just repeat what I think the RC church believes' sort of thing...
Be honest here with the actual & central-most issues raised...answer honestly. Corporeal flesh, Christ "present" in the bread in that way, yes, or no. That would be a good place to start.
No more boilerplate RC apologetic parroting. Try going back and answering what I originally put to you.
Or else be just yet another Roman Catholic failure (failure to communicate, failure to engage, failure to DO ANYTHING BUT LECTURE!). Well that, and putting the onus entirely upon others whenever the going gets anything like a little bit tough, coupled with response composed mainly of some sort of personal attack, attack, attack upon the person and/or else "faith" of the messenger, instead of open and honest discussion of whatever issue it is at hand. You know, the typical FRoman Catholic FReeRepublic religion forum type of response. After many years of it --- I stay angry at those sort of cheap & shallow forum debate tactics.
You are aware that there are more than a few so-called "early church fathers" who wrote of "the body & blood" as that pertained to the thanksgiving & memorial, breaking of the bread -- to signify spiritual truth, rather than have been from the earliest beginnings thare have been anything like the doctrine of transubstantiation which can result in an understanding that Christ's "presence" be literal flesh & blood corporeal presence, don't you?
In light of such, there is plenty of room to consider/contemplate that many early church writers --- when they wrote of "the body & blood" of Christ & Eucharist (though they did not always use that precise term "eucharist", particularly from earliest centuries) could be well enough thought to have been speaking of both figurative & spiritual reality, rather than have been speaking of a corporeal flesh "presence"?
Yet this latter, this corporeal, human flesh & blood type of thinking, when taken from the Cross itself (and His life here on earth, which He truly gave) and applied to bread of remembrance is strangely literal from the likes of those who refuse to take "call no man father" for it's most plain and direct literal meaning. I guess that's asking too much, for to see it plainly (and where most all of the Church went wrong, from fairly early on) is just too much for some to consider, being that their own faith is not in God EXCEPT for how their own church describes Him, and spiritual truths to be.
I don't have that particular problem, for I know Him much more directly, then merely and only second hand, as it were...
2000 years of *thinking* about it, huh?
Well, guess what?
The thinking has not always been the same for those 2000 years.
AND ---
You never addressed the issues...
GO BACK.
Read what I initially wrote to you, and LISTEN. At least TRY to understand what it is I am driving at.
Otherwise, it's fully as if the argument was judged, before hearing it. Proverbs 18:13
Yes, Jesus saved all by his blood, that blood opened the gates of Heaven. That is a fact. Nothing we ever do can change that. Without His death on the cross we could never hope for Heaven. I think the the problem here is in the word “salvation.” We Catholics believe, like you, that Jesus’s blood saved the world by allowing the gates of Heaven to be open to everyone. This “salvation” gives us the hope of Heaven where no hope could exist before because the gates were closed. That is one way to define salvation. We also use the word salvation to mean our own entering into Heaven. My individual salvation, is up to me. Jesus has opened the gates, but will I enter? Have I loved Him? Am I one of those he talks about who will say “Lord, Lord” but didn’t love his sheep.
Haven’t had your first cup of coffee yet? Your statement makes no sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Mary
Rome calls a wafer the Body of God.
Go figger...
My Savior has been around a LONG time!
Even though I attend one; I trust NO church!
I wonder who will be raised to deal with OUR nation?
We sure as HELL ain't on no path to repentance!
Don't you know that Vlad thinks he was a flipflopper?
Oh???
Proverbs 10:19
When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable,
But he who restrains his lips is wise.
Oh?
Where is this FACT recorded?
I'm waiting for the first time Francis goes "infallible". I wonder what it will be about: Globull Warming, the evils of supply-side economics, pro-Islam? I'm sure it will be a doozy.
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.