That is, indeed, rich...the Catholics try to defend what true Christianity is and the revolutionists scream and holler that their "new" ideas are correct.....yeah, THIS IS MY BODY doesn't mean this is my body....it means this is still a hunk of meaningless bread.....Thanks, Jesus, for making it so clear.......PATHETIC.
Actually, all you have is specious parroted polemical assertions which are exposed as such, to which RCs complain and demand censure as they cannot stand to see their desired image of Rome impugned.
THIS IS MY BODY doesn't mean this is my body....it means this is still a hunk of meaningless bread.....Thanks, Jesus, for making it so clear.......PATHETIC.
Which is another example of such, as in fact you do not go by the plain clear meaning of such, as this would mean that you are consuming the actual literal bloody body and blood of Christ, so that if tested, it would test as corporeal flesh and blood, which some RCs censure us for saying RCs teach (which others invoke purported miracles to support this being true).
For in reality what the Lord meant according to Eucharistic theology was "drink this cup," does not really mean drink the cup, but what it represents, and that "my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed," (John 6:55) and "eat this bread" only means recently made gluten-free bread, even a molecule of it, which in essence is the Lord's body and blood (since both are contained in the bread or wine) though the molecular composition (qualities) by which this appears as bread does not change, so vegetarians need not abstain. But the appearance (accidents) of bread and wine replace the appearance of the body and blood of Christ (who is in Heaven) who is really corporeally present under the appearance of bread and wine via a supernatural mode of existence. That is, if a man properly and distinctively ordained as a priest consecrates it so that Christ obeys him, even though no clergyman was so ordained in the New Testament, nor are any ever shown doing so or described as having that as a unique function.
And that "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you," (John 6:53) means - unlike My other 'verily verily' unequivocal statements - unless you are one of the properly baptized separated brethren, as they also have the Spirit, as did all those souls in the NT who received life in them when they believed the gospel."
Which it is not what Christ taught, but imports Neoplatonic philosophy to explain what you call "clear" teaching.
From a RC monk and defender:
Neoplatonic thought or at least conceptual terms are clearly interwoven with Christian theology long before the 13th century...
The doctrine of transubstantiation completely reverses the usual distinction between being and appearance, where being is held to be unchanging and appearance is constantly changing. Transubstantiation maintains instead that being or substance changes while appearance remains unchanged. Such reversals in the order of things are affronts to reason and require much, not little, to affirm philosophically. Moreover, transubstantiation seem to go far beyond the simple distinction between appearance and reality. It would be one thing if the body and blood of Christ simply appeared to be bread and wine. But I don’t think that is what is claimed with “transubstantiation.”
Aristotle picked up just such common-sense concepts as “what-it-is-to-be-X” and tried to explain rather complex philosophical problems with them. Thus, to take a “common-sense” concept like substance–even if one could maintain that it were somehow purified of Aristotelian provenance—and have it do paradoxical conceptual gymnastics in order to explain transubstantiation seems not to be not so anti-Aristotelian in spirit after all...
That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy (Br. Dennis Beach, OSB, monk of St. John’s Abbey; doctorate in philosophy from Penn State; http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy)
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.
For in FACT only the metaphorical view is consistent with Scripture in its totality.
The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or real flesh and blood?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
|
Thank you Lord Jesus for your sure word of Truth by which we are to prove all things. |