Posted on 06/23/2015 10:06:16 AM PDT by RnMomof7
The purest form of religion on earth, says Rome, is to bow before a piece of bread and worship it. “The Eucharist is ‘the source and summit of the Christian life,’ ” and “is the heart and the summit of the Church’s life,” says the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1324, 1407). And “the prayer of thanksgiving and consecration,” is “the heart and summit of the celebration” (1352). It is at the utterance of the consecration, the priest’s words, “This is My body,” and “This is the cup of My blood,” that the bread and wine are said to be “transubstantiated” into the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ:
By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity. (1413)
Because the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is said to be present under the species of bread, the Roman Catholic Church has determined that it is unnecessary to administer the Lord’s Supper to the sheep under both species—bread and wine—so members of the flock typically receive the supper under the species of bread alone: “Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace” (1390).
It is in this manner that Roman Catholicism “honoureth Me with their lips” (Matthew 15:8) by “this do[ing] in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:24), while at the same time “making the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13) by nullifying His Words which also say, “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25).
Then, after having the cup withheld from them, the sheep are told to worship the bread before eating it. We understand that it offends Roman Catholics deeply that we portray them as worshiping bread, but “bread” is exactly what Jesus (John 13:18), Paul (1 Corinthians 11:26-28) and Cleopas (Luke 24:18, 35) called it even after it was consecrated. And it is this—what Jesus, Paul and Cleopas all called bread—that Roman Catholics are instructed to adore.
Roman Catholics are taught to show reverence for the bread by not calling it bread, and by bowing to it prior to eating it. Bishop William K. Weigand of Sacramento, California, for example, issued a statement some time ago calling for more reverence toward Jesus in the Eucharist, requesting that Roman Catholics “…show reverence … by making a slight bow when receiving Communion, [and] by referring to the consecrated Species as the Body of Christ or the Blood of Christ—and not ‘the bread and wine’ ” (The Wanderer, Volume 127, number 32, August 11, 1994, “Sacramento Bishop Offers Some Liturgical Reminders,” page 1).
We will continue to call it bread, for that is what it is, and we certainly see no need to bow to it, genuflect to it, or give to it the worship of latria, which is due to God alone. But that is precisely what Rome prescribes to the flock:
Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. “The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession.” (1378)
The citation in paragraph 1378 is from Pope Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei, in which he also taught,
…the Catholic Church … has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone. As St. Augustine says: “It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation; but no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus adoring it, but we would be sinning if we did not do so.” (Mysterium Fidei, 55)
The latria that Rome offers to the host is the same that God reserves for Himself. The Roman Catholic Church calls this “Eucharistic Adoration.” Thus Roman Catholics are taught that “Adoration is the highest form of worship given to God,” and “the Mass is the highest form of adoration that exists.”
Just to be clear, it is the host that is the object of the latria. It is called “host” because it is derived from the latin “hostia” for “victim,” referring to the person or thing being sacrificed. Christ is alleged to be the hostia in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and it is the host that is being worshiped in the photograph, above. Just watch EWTN some evening when Mass is being said, and you’ll see the people fall on their faces before the host when the words of consecration, “This is My body,” are said. It is at that moment, we are told, that the bread is transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ—and being God, it is to be worshiped with latria. So they say.
We do not believe that transubstantiation actually occurs, but because the transubstantiation does not take place does not mean that the host is not still the object of Roman Catholic adoration. It is. The worship paid to the host is no less latria because the transubstantiation did not occur. What is worshiped in the Mass is bread, and nothing more. And since the source and summit of the Christian life is ostensibly the Mass, and the highest form of adoration humans can offer to God is that adoration that Roman Catholics offer in the Mass, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the core of the Roman Catholic religion is bread worship.
But, says the Roman Catholic, Pope Paul VI said that Augustine practiced Eucharistic adoration, and therefore, so should Protestants. Before we Protestants run off to condemn Augustine for idolatry, it would be helpful to cite him in context and give some background on his words, “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it.” Is Augustine speaking of Eucharistic adoration? Hardly. Augustine denies Transubstantiation in the very commentary in which Paul VI quotes him.
When Augustine wrote “no one eats of this flesh without having first adored it,” he was reading what we call Psalm 99:5, “Exalt the LORD our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy.” But Augustine was reading the Latin Vulgate. In the Vulgate it is Psalm 98:5, and it reads, “exaltate Dominum Deum nostrum et adorate scabillum pedum eius quia sanctus est,” or in Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims English, “Exalt ye the Lord our God, and adore his footstool, for it is holy.” In the Hebrew it is God who is worshiped, “for He is holy” (Psalms 99:5) and we bow at His footstool to worship Him. In the Vulgate, it is the footstool that is adored, and Roman Catholics are taught to worship the footstool, “for it is holy.”
Augustine struggled here “because his Latin version was at two removes from the original language, being a Latin translation of the Greek translation of the Hebrew” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, Introduction by Michael Fiedrowicz, pg. 22, From The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Book III, vole 15, Exposition of Psalms 1-32.).
As Augustine wrestled, we can feel the tension introduced by the Latin version: “Adore His footstool? But that would be idolatry.” That’s what Augustine was trying to sort out. Why would he adore something that is not God, even if it is holy? If the earth is God’s footstool (Isaiah 66:1, Matthew 5:35), should Augustine worship the earth? Augustine tried to think his way out of the box, starting with the Latin mistranslation (“for it is holy) of the Greek translation (“for He is holy”) of the Hebrew (“He is holy”):
I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, “fall down before His footstool.” I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, “the earth is My footstool.” In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord’s may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8)
We note that Augustine was wrestling with what appeared to be conflicting commands, and he determined that the only possible way he could “worship the earth” without committing idolatry was to worship Christ in the flesh. When he says we do not sin by worshiping but we sin by not worshiping, the object of His worship is Christ, not the Eucharist. And it is Christ Incarnate Whom we worship, for the Lamb Who was slain and sits at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:13) still bears the scars He received in the flesh (Revelation 5:6).
It almost hurts to look over Augustine’s shoulder as he thinks through this based on a mistranslation of a Greek translation of the Hebrew. But he manages to sort his way through, and concludes that “worship His footstool” must mean “worship Jesus.” We cannot approve of Augustine’s logic, but his conclusion is valid, nonetheless. But Paul VI’s use of Augustine suggests that Augustine taught that it was a sin not to worship the Eucharist. In what sense does Augustine’s commentary on Psalm 99:5 support Eucharistic Adoration?
The answer is “Not in any way,” for Augustine concludes his comments on Psalm 99:5 by soundly and explicitly rejecting the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” The Roman Catholic interpretation of John 6:53 is that Jesus taught that we are to eat the very flesh that hung on the cross, and drink the very blood that flowed from Jesus’ side. Paul VI taught that the Eucharist is
the true body of Christ—which was born of the Virgin and which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world—and the true blood of Christ—which flowed from His side. (Mysterium Fidei, 52)
But Augustine rejects this explicitly, and has Jesus explaining at John 6:63, “Understand spiritually what I have said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth.” (Augustine, An Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).
It is remarkable, is it not, that Paul VI used Augustine to support Eucharistic Adoration, in a commentary where Augustine taught the opposite of what Rome and her Apologists teach about Transubstantiation?
We, of course, do not rely on Augustine for our knowledge of the Word. We must remember the context in which Jesus spoke. He had just reminded the crowd following Him that they were unbelievers, pursuing Him only to have their bellies filled with bread (John 6:26-36). Therein Jesus instructed those that would truly follow Him that “he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Coming after Him and believing His words was the one thing those followers would not do.
Rather than pursuing Jesus to see him multiply bread, they ought to come to Him and believe in what He was saying: “Eating” is coming to Him to hear the Word of God, and “drinking” is believing in the Word of God:
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)
Eating as coming to Him, and drinking as believing in Him, are the metaphors Jesus establishes before He ever says “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life” (John 6:54).
Thus, Roman Catholics attempt to follow Him in the Mass, but leave the Mass only with their bellies filled, but still not finding eternal life. Because they do not believe His Words—for they certainly do not believe “this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me” (1 Corinthians 11:25)—bread is all they have, and bread is all they worship. And thus it can be said of Rome, “he that believeth on me shall never thirst. … ye also have seen me, and believe not” (John 6:35-36).
He writes BOTH metaphors and literally in John Chapter 6!!
The Passover lamb had it’s blood poured out, with just enough spread on the door post and lintel. Build strawmen much? Try not to fabricate things like ‘splashed’. You have zero credibility when you seek to deceive.
...the clear words of our Lord...
I want you to please think about what happens with the third cup of four cups of wine at the Seder Passover. In the cup is wine and it is never His literal blood. The third cup of wine is to be mixed with warm water. ... When the soldier pierced the side of Jesus instead of breaking His legs, what poured forth? ... Even the little details of passover, done to Remember His Sacrifice for us is arranged to be sacred remembrance, not literal violation of God’s command to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS. The sacrilege of ‘transubstantiation’ magic is Satan’s substitution for the sacred remembrance. Christ was/IS our Passover lamb. John the Baptist even declared this when Jesus approached him for baptism. As our Passover lamb to take away our sins, was Jesus transubstantiated into little white sheep offspring?
“Do this in remembrance of Me” (The LORD Jesus Christ, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25)
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Nothing there about the bread becomes Me...
Jesus makes it clear that the act is merely symbolic...
You are correct TN.
The Passover lamb had it’s blood poured out, with just enough spread on the door post and lintel.
This only further proves my point which is: it doesn't matter the manner in which the blood is treated after the sacrifice. The only thing that matters, as far as atoning for sin is concerned, is that blood is shed. This is because there is Lev 17:11 in addition to the Pasover account you have now referred to, and they each treat the shed blood differently towards the same goal, which is the avoidance of death really (which is what atonement for sin does).
All you have done is shown that it's the shedding of blood that's important for the atonement of sin, not that the shed blood necessarily must be spread out on a doorpost and lintel or must be poured upon an altar (I read "splahed on" in another translation sorry if that offended you). An altar is not a doorpost.
Also, again, since neither of these things were done at the Cross, then you are subject to the same criticism you lay at the feet of Catholicism, to whit: unless you either spread the blood on a doorpost or splash it on an altar then you can't claim the sacrifice of Christ's blood is effectual for you either; the fact you don't claim to drink His blood is immaterial.
It's immaterial that you don't claim to drink His Blood since you (seem to be) claiming that when Catholics claim drinking His blood is effacious they are wrong since that's not how OT sacrifice and/or the Passover was originally done. The exact procedure as to how these acts were done must be immaterial to every Christian or else Christ's Sacrifice becomes ineffectual since His Blood was neither shed on a literal altar nor was it spread on a doorpost and lintel.
And what is this command you keep referring to that’s “to ALL THEIR GENERATIONS”?
I don't sense a desire to discuss these things, I detect the usual catholic haughtiness which issues forth the consensus opinion rather than following the Bible teaching in more than one verse. It is your unfamiliarity with the Bible and what God says in His Word that leads a catholic to ask 'what is this 'to all their generations' command?
The volume of the Book, from Genesis to the last word in Revelation, is about Him, Messiah, Jesus the Christ. The literal drinking of blood is forbidden for all their generations. Jesus would not have violated that command, especially before sealing the new covenant with His blood shed at Calvary. The catholic substitution of the sacrilege over His blood, rather than treating it in a sacred remembrance, is what I'm referring to. Catholicism substitues sacrilege for the sacred. Read Luke's rendering of the Passover meal scene. If you see there is something there not in the other Gospel accounts, and somehting NOT THERE that is in the other Gospel accounts, reconcile such apparent disagreement using the Word of God not traditions of men.
Fine. All you had to say was “read Lev 3:17” to answer my question.
Two points then I’m done, you can have your precious last word:
“A perpetual law for all your generations...” (Lev 3:17): 1. “All YOUR generations”, so this applies to Jews technically speaking. If we are going by “the bible only” that’s exactly what those words mean.
2. Again, even with all your words in reply to me you still did not address my point which was that if you are going to demand that a sin offering must be made in the exact form of the OT law then Christ failed to offer a successful sacrifice on Calvary, since He clearly did not do so when he hung on the cross! A cross is not a doorway and lintel! A cross is not literally an altar!
Go ahead have the precious last word if you need it. You’re just like all the other critics of the Churcb around here, unable to recognize the very “haughtiness which issues forth the consensus opinion” in yourself that you claim I and other Catholics possess.
I can look to what Jesus referred to with the lifting up of the serpent in the desert and show How Jesus Himself explains that He is prefigured in that act by Moses for the people. The Israelites bitten by the poisonous snakes were by faith healed when they looked upon the brass serpent on the pole. Later in the History of the Israelites the people had turned that faith exercise into a pagan idol worship, making brass serpents that were venerated as if the totem could bring power. Catholicicsm does the very same turning the sacred remembrance into the sacrilege of something forbidden to all the generations of Jews, into which I am certain the body of Jesus is included. As a devout Jew and absolutel follower of the commands of God, Jesus would not have violated them prior to His sacrifice upon the Cross. To assert, even speciously, that He would offer His literal blood to the disciples at Passover is a sacrilege taught by your religion, a religion only vagurely similar to Christianity, an immitator but not a grafted branch.
The wood of the Cross is not the focus just as the brass of the serpent is not the focus, the sacrifice is the focus of Faith. To speciously try and refocus attention onto the altar, the cross, or the brass serpent on a pole is to ignore the sacred remembrance and worship instead the sacrilege.
Jesus was identified by John The Baptist as 'The Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world'. That sacrifice upon the Cross poured out His blood upon the ;argest altar human's can find, the Earth. If you were familiar with the Book of Romans, you would already know the Earth was the first altar before God, and Abel's blood was shed upon that altar. His blood cried out from The Earth. But trying to get a catholic to see the prefiguring God has given us in the volume of the Book is like searhcing hens mouths for teeth.
We are not n agame of 'last wording', we are discussing issues effecting the very destiny of immortal souls. There are people who read these threads and posts who are seeking the truth. Sadly, as we are being shown daily, the truth is not being taught to catholics. Leaving us to concluded the catholic church doesn't know the truth else they would not teach sacrilege to their faithful.
'Oh you foolish Galatians' ...
bumpity
For those who’s agenda is truth not vainglory:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-jesus-command-to-drink-his-blood-a-violation-of-gods-law
My obligation is filled as far as any lurker goes here.
Mark 7:18 And He said to them, "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?"[ Jesus declared that what goes in the mouth is going in the mouth, not into the soul. But the catholic twist is made, anyway. Jesus also taught that the eye can allow 'things' into the soul, and thus what is allowed into the eyegate can defile the soul. Committing sacrilege, committing an act which is against a command from God, can also defile the soul, because it is done by faith that this defiance must be accepted by God as sacred.]
That passage from Mark is used to fabricate mumbo jumbo. The followup passage from the 'wise' catholic answers should be seen in the light of the proof text scrabbled for use above:
Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).
Now readers can see why some are declaring catholicism is a false religion, for these catholic answers show that the religion has not a clue how GOD'S LIFE GETS INTO A CHRISTIAN! The Holy SPirit at Pentecost came INTO the listeners who received the Word with repentence. They didn't eat Jesus and drink His blood to get Holy Spirit life in them!
But wait, there's more mystery religion mumbo jumbo!
This supposed wise source of catholic dogma goes down the same heresy drain hole it created:
Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).
Because the author of the tripe is so twisted in thinking, it goes after the Passover Feast which included four cups of wine drunk in remembrance, as symbolic foreshadowing of realities. Though I am in no way a Jehovah's Witness, I join with their objection to the catholic mystery religion assertion that catholics should drink the literal blood of Jesus! THAT IS sacrilege taught as sacred. That is a form of blasphemy.
Catholic answers twist the seeker into pretzels so the only hope they appear to have is to just trust the priests of the mystery religion for their welfare. God forbide! The above 'catholic answers' teaching is an example of double talk used when the author had not a clue to the coming of God's Life into the believing/faithing person. Do readers really accept the teaching from catholicism that you must drink Christ's literal blood to have God's life in you? Or do readers believe the sacred ceremony of symbolically drinking the wine and breaking and eating the bread is an fiath affirmation of the sacrifice He made for us? The symbolic affirmation is exactly what Passover is all about! In fact, it is what all the Feasts, the Times of God, are about. Symbolism focusing the soul/spirit upon the Grace of God.
LOL at my gnarly fingers. ‘God Frobide’ should read God Forbid! When I get home to my desktop unit, I’ll wade into this catholic foolishness a little deeper. Oh yes, there’s more.
It is indeed "mumbo jumbo," which can be defined as needed as Catholicism does with the words eat My flesh and drink My blood." For these words, which RCs claim to take literally, do not convey "if you eat even a speck of consecrated bread you are consuming as its essence My soul and divinity, flesh and blood, but which by appearance really is not."
This is set in contrast to cannibalism in which actual flesh and blood is consumed, yet it can include the belief (in endocannibalism) that spiritual qualities of the deceased are thereby conveyed, though these are not seen in what they eat.
And if we allow for a extraBiblical; neoPlatonic theology of transubstantiation that of necessity (lest they be seen as typical cannibals) explains how one can consume the real body and blood of Christ without actually consuming His bloody body, and with what they appear to be eating being in substance something entirely different, so can we allow pagans to develop a theology that defines cannibalism as being what Catholicism claims, though in endocannibalism it can be in essence very similar.
Supposing one gains spiritual life by literally eating human flesh and blood is akin to pagan endocannibalism, and is not Scriptural and the Scriptural gospel.
Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%...9#Transmission
he custom of eating bread sacramentally as the body of a god was practised by the Aztecs before the discovery and conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards."
The May ceremony is thus described by the historian Acosta: “The Mexicans in the month of May made their principal feast to their god Vitzilipuztli, and two days before this feast, the virgins whereof I have spoken (the which were shut up and secluded in the same temple and were as it were religious women) did mingle a quantity of the seed of beets with roasted maize, and then they did mould it with honey, making an idol...all the virgins came out of their convent, bringing pieces of paste compounded of beets and roasted maize, which was of the same paste whereof their idol was made and compounded, and they were of the fashion of great bones. They delivered them to the young men, who carried them up and laid them at the idol’s feet, wherewith they filled the whole place that it could receive no more. They called these morsels of paste the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuztli.
...then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god....then putting themselves in order about those morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing and dancing. By means whereof they were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol. This ceremony and blessing (whereby they were taken for the flesh and bones of the idol) being ended, they honoured those pieces in the same sort as their god...
And this should be eaten at the point of day, and they should drink no water nor any other thing till after noon: they held it for an ill sign, yea, for sacrilege to do the contrary:...and then they gave them to the people in manner of a communion, beginning with the greater, and continuing unto the rest, both men, women, and little children, who received it with such tears, fear, and reverence as it was an admirable thing, saying that they did eat the flesh and bones of God, where-with they were grieved. Such as had any sick folks demanded thereof for them, and carried it with great reverence and veneration.”
...They believed that by consecrating bread their priests could turn it into the very body of their god, so that all who thereupon partook of the consecrated bread entered into a mystic communion with the deity by receiving a portion of his divine substance into themselves.
The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the magical conversion of bread into flesh, was also familiar to the Aryans of ancient India long before the spread and even the rise of Christianity. The Brahmans taught that the rice-cakes offered in sacrifice were substitutes for human beings, and that they were actually converted into the real bodies of men by the manipulation of the priest.
...At the festival of the winter solstice in December the Aztecs killed their god Huitzilopochtli in effigy first and ate him afterwards. - http://www.bartleby.com/196/121.html
There are some differences, but these have far more in common with the Cath idea of the Eucharist than anything seen in Scripture interpretive of the words of the last supper. ^
Thank you. brother, for shining a more intense light upon this heresy. The magic implied by the Vatican and its mystery religion priesthood needs exposure for time is short.
Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. [The twisted apologist just defined the aspects of classic cannibalism, done in such a way as to exclude the catholic practice of same in their magic rite] Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain.
Christ is present, body, blood, soul and divinity, to be cannibalized! I mean, the magic priest brings the Christ down to the cannibalizing 'substantially present', BUT, and this is a corker, the 'accidents' of bread and wine remain.
Mumbo jumbo rickety racks, catholic magic is on their backs. This astonishing 'magic' is what is taught to sincere people who genuinely seek The Lord. Well some, anyway. The devout catholic is unable to see the absolute pagan magic the catholic church is trying to invoke!
And we have sincere catholics on these threads insisting that the circle of reasoning the catholic church has drummed into their confused heads is able to ingest the Life of God into them! I mean, if that is not the epitome of the magic mystery cults ... Ask them where is the blood and flesh at Pentecost or in the house of Cornelius and they scurry after anything else to excuse not thinking past the magic they have been indoctrinated with.
Jesus sat at Passover with His disciples, taking the cups of wine and the unleavened bread IN REMEBRANCE of the Passover of their History.
The first cup of wine was to remember the coming out of Egypt.
The second cup of wine was to remember to get Egypt out of them.
The third cup ... well, for the catholics who remain clueless, the third cup was to be mixed with warm water ... and what came from Jesus's side when the soldier pierced Him with the spear? Blood mixed with water! Still warm from His recent death. BUT the Passover cup was never filled with actual blood, for it was forbidden because the life of the animal is in the blood.
Had Jesus served blood at the Passover remembrance He would have violated the commandment of God begun all the way back in Genesis 9, even before the giving of the law, where it was re-emphasized with Leviticus 3:17.
Jesus had not yet sealed a new covenant with His own blood, so the lie that He could do this serving of His blood to the disciples is specious at best, demonic in the main.
The claim that one must literally eat the body and blood of Christ, that even a particle of the consecrated wafer is held to wholly contain Christ, (CCC #1377) and is "able to sanctify thousands of thousands and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it,” (St. Ephrem, Hymni et sermons, IV, 4) is a result of attempting to apply Jn. 6:53 to the Lord's Supper under a literal hermenuetic.
In both cases Caths boast of going by the plain literal meaning of the text, but which would mean that eating what the Lord said is "my body which is broken for you" (1Cor. 11:24) "my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world," (Jn. 6:51) actualy was that bloody body, not something that somehow had its essence changed so that it looked, tasted, behaved like bread/wine but really was flesh and blood under the appearence of bread and wine, with bread alone also being flesh and blood. And so that the Lord could digest like bread and wine while yet sitting before them.
Likewise, if Caths are to be consistent with Jn. 6:53 being literal, and with the absolute unequivocal imperitive nature of other "verily, verily" statement, then they must hold that none of those who deny the Cath "real presence" are born again, and can have eternal life.
But they cannot, unless they are one of the sects that constitutes Catholicism.
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.