Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Cannibalism has nothing in common with the Christian Eucharist. The Eucharist has no identifiable "anatomy". We aren't eating "parts." And He isn't "dead."
The charge of cannibalism is exactly the error the early Christians knew the Roman pagans would make, which is one reason why they had their Eucharists in secret. The pagan mentality just wouldn't "get" it. That's why one of the oldest Eucharistic hymns we have, says "Ponder nothing earthly-minded." Now that you can see the different criteria which distinguish two quite different things --- Eucharist and cannibalism --- please do not repeat the mistake of conflating the two.
Sorry friend ......God placed the jewish law into effect that blood was not to be consumed.. Jesus had to keep the WHOLE law perfectly if He was to be the spotless Lamb ...which meant He would not violate that law or encourage others to do so...
Did the apostles eat the real actual flesh of Christ at the last supper? Did they drink His actual blood?? Did He ??
Who do you think you are kidding? The eucharist fits perfectly with pagan thought. Constantine worked diligently to combine the two and was very successful.
Real (or True) Flesh, yes; and Real (or True) Blood, yes. We have it on His word:
John 6:51-56 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.Plwase pay close attention to v.63 where Jesus says "The flesh is of no avail," because He is obviously not referring to "His" flesh. He has just told us that "His" flesh is true food, and "His" flesh avails for eternal life.The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
No, rather He speaks of "the" flesh. Our fleshly-minded, or shall I say meat-headed, way of thinking about things, which is the sense in which he is using the term "flesh." He is speaking of un-regenerate thinking.
For instance, mixing this up with pagan cannibalism. That would be a fleshly, undiscerning error. Or saying it's not "real" or "true" flesh and blood because all of the appearances (including chemical characteristics) remain of bread and wine. That's another fleshly, undiscerning error.
You don't have to parse this all out. It's beyond human comprehension anyway.
It's sufficient that when you hear Jesus' blessed words, "This is My Body," you say "Amen."
Just "Amen".
Take every thought captive in obedience to Christ.
And that intent failed miserably. Because they didn't use Scripture as they should have. And because the title *mother of God* doesn't mention Jesus as the title *mother of Jesus* does.
The best thing to counter error is not creating more error by renaming Mary as *mother of God* but to simply use Scripture to teach correctly about the nature of Jesus.
. And now people are getting led into more error than ever with all the false teachings about Mary that Catholicsm has promulgated.
Jesus offered ONE body for sin, shed that blood, and was done.
There can be no participation becuase Jesus is not in heaven being continually offered for our sin. He has a different body, one that can no longer die, and one that does not need to die because the son debt is paid in full.
Quit now. Constantine had nothing to do with Christian Eucharistic theology. He did legalize Christianity and gave public buildings to Christians as houses of worship, and to his credit he attempted to defend the Christians of Armenia from conquest by the Persians, but he did not live in the Faith nor even call himself a Christian. Finally on his death-bed he chose the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, not a Catholic, as his baptizer.
I know our esteemed friends the Orthodox have a different view of this, but in the Catholic Church he is not seen even as a fellow believer, let alone a canonized saint.
And what dd he have to do with the Eucharist? Ningun cosa. Nada. Zilch. He had nothing to do with Catholic theology.
You're evidently a victim of spurious history purveyed by people who don't know jack chick about Catholicism.
An angel told Joseph in a dream to not fear to take Mary AS HIS WIFE.
That comes with understood repsonsibilities and privileges, one of which is sex. I have no doubt that when God had the angel give Joseph that message, that HE knew how Joseph would interpret it.
And Scripture tells us that Joseph did not know her (aka have sex) until AFTER she gave birth.
Since Mary did not have physical union with the Holy Spirit, there was no one flesh union that happened therefore the charge that a conjugal union happened is not valid.
If the charge is to be made that she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit and that a conjugal relationship was established, you’re forced into the position of claiming that physical sex was involved.
Jesus called the cup * the fruit of the vine* acknowledging that it was wine in the cup and that he was using a metaphor by calling it blood.
Since otherwise forcing His disciples to drink blood or tricking them into it, would have violated the Law that He Himself handed down at Mt. Sinai.
That’s curious. You’ll notice nobody’s in error about the meaning of the term “Mother of God” except certain 16th century polemicists who, whether misled or misleading, misconstrued the term -— and their intellectual progeny.
If the term * mother of God*. were superior to and preferable to, the term *mother of Jesus*. to prevent error in the understanding of the nature of Jesus, then pray tell, why did the Holy Spirit inspire the writers of the NT to say *mother of Jesus*?
Does the church really think it can improve on the work of the Holy Spirit?
* Mother of God*says a whole different thing than *mother of Jesus* and it’s simply a matter of the clear, basic meanigns of the words, having nothing done with nefarious motives.
The only misunderstanding that occurs is when the Church demands that people by default intuitively understand that God means Jesus in this one particular, specific instance but not any other, that God means God, the Trinity as opposed to specifically the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity.
In fact, these are the very words used in the Canon of the Mass, for example, Eucharistic Prayer IV:
In a similar way, taking the chalice filled with the fruit of the vine, he gave thanks, and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying: TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT; WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.
Jesus and the Apostles certainly must have drunk of the other cups of Passover wine during the Last Supper, before the consecration of what He said is "the chalice of my Blood." It does not follow that he had partaken of the consecrated wine, His blood, which he gave his Apostles. The text doesn't say that.
This was His last meal before His death. The time would be short. This is why He said "But I say to you that I shall not drink again from this fruit of the vine until the day in which I shall drink it with you new in the Kingdom of my Father.”
This meal was His last drinking of the Passover wine before His death.
Exactly ... either he was lying or He was revealing the typology of the passover meal ...
Mary is not the Mother of the Trinity. I never heard anybody assert as a plausible meaning with the exception of you, my dear. And maybe one or two other FReepers, misled or misleading, though --- I am willing to assume --- inadvertently. That's it, tout court.
I guess I can be glad we're no longer arguing about Baby Jesus' transitional stools.
Please realize that it's neither of those.
It's neither a figure of speech, or a soon to be dismembered and cannibalized Mini-Me. The reality is that, as Jesus said, "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." Then, at table, He said "This is my Body" and when the supper was ended, "This is the chalice of My Blood, the Blood of the New and eternal Covenant."
It must be obvious that we connect those two statements.
His true, Eucharistic body and blood have the appearance and chemical characteristics of bread and wine. They are nevertheless what He says they are.
Can't we settle with that?
It reminds me of an argument with my older son when he was an adolescent: "Is light a particle or a wave? It's got to be a particle or a wave!"
It's like what Nils Bohr said about quantum physics: "You never actually understand it. You just, so to speak, get used to it."
LOL...Actually had a priest say in a sermon that “those were not roses in Jesus’s diaper “
The choice is either Jesus was lying or His words had an other meaning ..one the apostles understood..because not one questioned Him about breaking levitical law
He was wearing His body and using His blood at the time.. so it could not have been the real actual "body of Christ" could it ??
BTW there is a question if the resurrected Jesus even had any blood.. He said He was flesh and bone? not flesh and blood.. Might Jesus have shed every drop of His blood for our salvation?? Does a resurrected body need blood??
(Minor snark, but no malice.)
I'd better festoon this with /s/
............/s/
/s/
............/s/
...../s/
/s/
............/s/
lest this spark a new round of bug-tussling.
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.