Posted on 02/23/2016 8:17:35 AM PST by Salvation
I give you the text of the Bible, not my opinions of it.
John 6, the Last Supper, 1 Cor. 11 all support the Catholic understanding and would make no sense all together when read the Protestant way.
THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
This is the collection of patristic literature on that particular verse.
CHRYS. He tries to remove their difficulties in another way, as follows, It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing: that is to say, You ought to understand My words in a spiritual sense: he who understands them carnally is profited nothing. To interpret carnally is to take a proposition in its bare literal meaning, and allow no other. But we should not judge of mysteries in this way; but examine them with the inward eye; i.e. understand them spiritually. It was carnal to doubt how our Lord could give His flesh to eat. What then? Is it not real flesh? Yes, verily. In saying then that the flesh profits nothing, He does not speak of His own flesh, but that of the carnal hearer of His word
AUG. Or thus, the flesh profits nothing. They had under stood by His flesh, as it were, of a carcass, that was to be cut up, and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit. Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profits much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit has done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.
AUG. For the flesh does not cleanse of itself, but by the Word who assumed it: which Word, being the principle of life in all things, having taken up soul and body, cleanses the souls and bodies of those that believe. It is the spirit, it, then, that quickens: the flesh profits nothing; i.e. the flesh as they understood it. I do not, He seems to say, give My body to be eaten in this sense. He ought not to think of the flesh carnally: The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life.
CHRYS. i.e. are spiritual, have nothing carnal in them, produce no effects of the natural sort; not being under the dominion of that law of necessity, and order of nature established on earth.
AUG. If then you understand them spiritually, they are life and spirit to you: if carnally, even then they are life and spirit, but not to you. Our Lord declares that in eating His body, and drinking His blood, we dwell in Him, and He in us. But what has the power to affect this, except love? The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which is given to us.
Catena Aurea John 6
No problem whatsoever. I took it as you speaking for yourself.
That is not the Catholic teaching though so you cannot say that I moved the goalpost. Sanctification is the process of drawing closer to Christ both in faith and in works, which results in salvation at the time of death.
The distinction you are missing is, who interprets the Law? The Jewish interpretation of the Jewish Law was that putting oneself at the right hand of God as His son is blasphemy. The Christian interpretation takes into account that Christ is god, but the Sanhedrin did not know that.
και δεξαμενος ποτηριον ευχαριστησας
And having taken the chalice, he gave thanks (Luke 22:17)
Yes, the Last Supper is the first Eucharist. It can be called the Lord's Supper also.
I am sure did. You know Els, ders too much charlatanism goin on out der. 😆
All we get from you is your opinion.
This is an interesting comment coming from you. I recall another thread that you were asked by four people to document a claim and just went silent.
How is this different?
Particularly noticeable are the haughty, arrogant, minds-like-steel-traps-closed-tightly condescension issuing forth daily from same.
Actually my own personal experience as an agnostic is that the Catholics are the ones that give polite answers to my questions. While several of the Protestants have given polite answers there are a large number that have done nothing but attack me.
This leads me to wonder, if you can't explain your belief, why do you believe it.
Jesus, by catholic heretical reasoning that the chalice contained the Blood of Jesus, was either lying to His disciples calling the cup contents wine but giving them blood, in violation of the Law as recorded in Leviticus (unlikely since He was not yet sacrificed for sin so He would not have made His disciples break the Law), OR Jesus turned the contents back into wine just before He poured the last out and made His proclamation about not drinking the fruit of the vine at that Passover ending. In the latter case He would still have caused His disciples to violate the Law before He went to the Cross as the Lamb of God, in which case He would not be without spot or blemish for the next Day sacrifice of Himself for the sins of the world.
Since we have the words of Messiah Himself calling the cup contents WINE, which is it, catholic? Did Jesus lie to His disciples (or is catholiciism in error calling the contents blood camouflaged as wine), or did Jesus turn the blood back into wine before calling it wine as He poured it out [ wine according to Luke's iteration of the Passover Seder]?
The solution to such a seeming dilemma is to read the text as it is, with JESUS identifying the cup contents as wine, fruit of the vine, demonstrating the sacred metaphor for His disciples. This reading then does not contradict the LAw and aligns with the vast majority of scriptures where Jesus used metaphor to confound the chasers after signs and the twisters, but then clarified the teachings for His faithful disciples.
Catholicism as practiced is not Christianity. It is another religion, a religion in which pagan rites and practices (like imagining the adherents eat the actual body and blood and thus the divinity of the pagan god) are installed over the Gospel of God's Grace in Christ toward humankind. This heretical installation empowers an institution of priests and Bishops and a pope, but does not lead to the narrow gate to Heaven.
As final example, the following assertion is contradictory to what The Bible teaches, yet is at the heart of the catholic religion: "Sanctification is the process of drawing closer to Christ both in faith and in works, which results in salvation at the time of death." post #574
The catholic apologist erringly assigns sanctification as a works based means to deserve salvation at the time of death. God tells us differently in the Bible, that Salvation is the moment we are born from above, followed by His process of sanctifying us during the remaining lifetime of being alive in Christ, as a member of The Body Of Christ.
Doubtful; this is actually a huge symptom of Roman Catholicism. Little things like:
1 Timothy 2:5:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,"
But yet, Roman Catholics pray to Mary to intercede on their behalf... and CCC 969 teaches that Mary is a "Mediatrix". According to that "plain scripture in front of them," Catholics still are taught to believe that Mary is a Mediatrix.
So, please...best not be lobbing any accusations like that around. The Catholic Church has already been hoist on its own petard many, many times.
Hoss
Those seeking after signs and twisting the metaphors Jesus gave were looking for what Jesus appeared to give them, an excuse of breaking the law against drinking blood, so they could soothe their consciences for turning away from Him.
For how many generations have Christians kept the Passover ? And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
...
And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you. Thus did all the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.
Exodus, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses fourteen to fifteen,
and forty three to fifty,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
In the case of modern catholiciism, the exercise is to soothe the conscience with works unending in this life as substitution for surrendering the will to God’s directing. Once born from above, the new born submits their will for ‘raising up in the way that they should go’ as a child of God. By stopping self from submitting to the new birth, lots of indulgences can continue to be practiced so long as the ‘sin’ is confessed in the booth and the boot-monger issues sufficient hail Mary’s to absolve the guilt. Perhaps that reality of hollow righteousness is why catholic apologists are fond of accusing born agains of ‘saying they believe then doing as they please’. It is a form of recognizing the salvation of God but denying the power thereof.
The Passover Seder is a Jewish celebration. During the 'church age' --that period of time during which God declares there is neither Jew not gentile-- Christians, those members of the Body of Christ, are not celebrating Jewish Seders. In submitting our will to God, being born again from above, we acknowledge that we are incapable of keeping the Law the Jewish celebrations amplify.
This is one core reason why the imagined drinking of the real blood of Jesus and eating the real body of Jesus at catholic Mass is such a blasphemy! WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, so eating His body in a catholic wafer is nonsensical because We ARE the Body Of Christ by HIS SPIRT in us. By not acknowledging that WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST, catholic mass does not rightly discern the body of Christ thus the priest is feeding not blessing but damnation to the sincere adherents!
We who are born again are celebrating a remembrance of what our Lord and Savior did for us. Eating the bread and drinking the wine offering, we are identifying with the death of ourselves on His Cross, where He sacrificed Himself for us. He went where our sin nature says we should be, but instead, we remember that He went there for us. Thanks be to God. With His resurrection we are assured that the Promises of God cannot be diverted.
Finally a Catholic that affirms Scripture is essential for the preservation of the gospel message, while others exalt oral tradition so much that Scripture becomes almost superfluous, except to be abused as needed to try to support RC traditions against "Bible Christians." But of course, there simply was no "Catholic" Bible because the NT church simply was not Catholic, esp. Roman.
Which is basically a invisible church in Scripture, not being a church which looked to the street-level leader Peter as the first of a line of exalted supreme infallible popes in Rome;
over a class of clergy distinctively titled "priests" officiating at the Lord's "Supper" (or tasting) in turning bread and wine in the "real" (neoplatonic)but not bloody flesh and blood of Christ, and offering it as a sacrifice for sins and to be consumed in order to obtain spiritual and eternal life;
and with infant baptism rendering one good enough to be with God, with that basis thus usually requiring postmortem purifying torments to attain entrance into Heaven, and offering indulgence$ to obtain release from it;
and praying to created beings in Heaven, including the only believers in Heaven who are distinctively called "saints," esp. to an almost almighty sinless vestal virgin demigoddess highly exalted far above any other created being;
and either much relying on the sword of men for conformity to doctrine and or requiring implicit assent, or becoming an admixture of proabortion, prohomosexual public members as well as devout, while attacking conservative evangelicals, since the preeminence of Rome is primary.
It seems to me you really do not have a good answer. Let's go with church age though as that seems closest. I see one plausible explanation. The one holy catholic apostolic church bound that the Body and Blood be celebrated and memorialized daily in the Mass rather than annually in the Passover Seder. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses eighteen to nineteen,
As authorized, but not authored. by King James
... we acknowledge that we are incapable of keeping the Law the Jewish celebrations amplify.
Okay, the Law exposes sin. A Protestant who rejects the Real Presence in Orthodox Christianity could still keep the Passover annually as an everlasting memorial or is one forbidden to protest by his denomination, sect, or pastor ? Do you think Christians are part of the commonwealth of Israel or not ?
That is not the approach to Christianity that your system takes. Most particularly, its hermeneutic is not the literal, historical, grammatical, and cultural, that gives The Christ and His Spirit preeminence, the one employed by true Biblicists, as the Scriptures themselves insist.
No, your approach to translation and interpretation of Biblical texts is established on the Platonic allegorical philosophy worldview, brought into the Christian sphere by the Greek-trained pagan Gentile philosophers, that holds the soulish imaginations of fallible self-serving men superior to that of the plain literal sense of the Bible. They are the group of Catholic aristocracy constituting what is now called the Magisterium, who cast their non-scriptural opinions into the concrete of tradition as dogma, and are mulishly unwilling to change even though the position is absolutely crosswise both to Scripture and to common sense.
Your system indeed is the one doing the "protesting." Y'all protest against and decry literal-historical, common-sense, Biblical interpretation, and consists of charlatans who hold themselves higher in authority than the Holy Scriptures, and hold themselves forth as a "protection racket" to deliver lost souls from Hell based on adherence to their rituals and dogmas.
And anyone who exercises common sense, who is honest, would agree. Your claim about Protestants relying on:
". . . the traditions of men of their own kind they've accumulated in the past few centuries. . . ."
is so phony, when the touchstone of the Reformation was/is "Sola Scriptura," historically not tradition, that you ought to bow your head in shame.
Who do you think you're going to fool with your FR tag line? Only credulous gulls, I would say.
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.