Posted on 08/02/2017 2:07:44 PM PDT by detective
The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference (CEV) has publicly invoked the intercession of the Virgin Mary to free the nation “from the claws of communism,” in a clear reference to the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.
“Blessed Virgin, Mother of Coromoto, heavenly Patron of Venezuela, free our country from the claws of communism and socialism,” the CEV posted on Twitter this Sunday, complete with an image of Santa Maria and a Venezuelan flag.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Amen.
But let's, for the sake of discussion, accept your supposal that they didn't know the symbolism of the Passover meal.
OK. And..?
Paul certainly taught them the significance of the Eucharist: 1 Co. 10:14-22 and 11:17-34.
"The cup of blessing that we bless: is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? This bread that we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?"
He says that those who receive unworthily, 'without discerning the Body', are eating and drinking judgment on themselves, and will have to answer for the Body and Blood of Our Lord.
`
`
God is not duplicitous, He changed many things from the old covenant to the new. Specifically dietary restrictions. There is no unclean food. “My flesh is food indeed”.
In the OT, the sacrifice was not God. There is no life in the blood of a lamb of the 4-footed woolly variety. We are no longer living under the old covenant. In the new covenant, the body and blood are consumed because there is life in the body and blood of Christ, and because Jesus told us to “take and eat”.
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” So if you DO eat and drink, you SHALL have life within you.
At the last supper, He gave us a miraculous way to do that.
God is not sacrificed over and over. He died once and for all. The mass does not ‘recreate’ the sacrifice, it celebrates and commemorates it and participates in the original sacrifice because God is not constrained by time. What it recreates is the last supper. “Do this in memory of me”. Jesus was not yet dead when He gave His Body and Blood to the apostles in the form of bread and wine. We can recreate that part without “killing Him over and over”.
As for:
“The carnal perspective inherent in the Catholic Mass cannot by ingesting bread and wine have you remaining in HIM unless it is a spiritual alignment.”
It is Jesus Who required the carnal component, and it IS a spiritual alignment.
Are you saying that if there is a carnal component there is not also a spiritual one? The transfigured bread and wine are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. The Catholic celebration of the Eucharist is EXACTLY what Christ taught us to do at the last supper.
When you follow God’s command to “Do this in memory of Me”, do you believe that Jesus is at least spiritually present in the bread and wine?
There is no cannibalism because God has freely given Himself to be consumed in a way that causes no harm or destruction to His Person. God can do things like that because He is God.
Love,
O2
A Roman Catholic priest disagrees with you.
When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors: it is greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of Seraphim and Cherubim. Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once but a thousand times! John O' Brien, Roman Catholic Priest, The Faith of Millions
When you follow God’s command to “Do this in memory of Me”, do you believe that Jesus is at least spiritually present in the bread and wine?
No. The bread and wine represent His flesh and blood.
His blood was poured out for us just as the blood was in the OT of the sacrificed animal.
The blood of the sacrifice was offered to GOD to make atonement for sin, because only by the blood is there atonement (See: Lev. 17:11). Those who were the beneficiaries of the sin atonement did not drink the blood, the blood was offered to God. It should be obvious that Jesus would never have told believers they had to drink His blood - literally - simply because all the blood was poured out upon the altar not to mention, consuming blood was forbidden.
The observance together with fellow believers of the Lord's Supper is to help us remember Jesus' sacrifice for us and our faith that He had a physical body and blood which was broken and shed for our salvation. When we partake of the bread and wine, we do show the Lord's death until He comes back to take us to heaven. Eating the bread and drinking the wine is our testimony to each other that we have received Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. There is no need to imagine the bread changes into Jesus' flesh or the wine changes into His blood - while never changing in appearance. They are sufficient as they are - as Jesus showed us, "This do in remembrance of me."
Yes, it is a wondrous thing to KNOW we are saved and will be with Him for eternity - not in ANY way because of what we have done to deserve it or earn it, but because of his matchless grace and mercy.
And all the people said, AMEN and AMEN.
Consuming animal blood was forbidden. Jesus is not an animal. The OT is somewhat lacking on whether or not consuming God’s blood was forbidden, considering God didn’t have a human body yet. In any event, all of the dietary restrictions were removed by the new covenant. Are we all supposed to be keeping Kosher? Can I not enjoy a rare steak? This was covered in the previous post.
Whether or not Jesus is speaking literally is a matter of personal interpretation based on context, later relevant verses and the response of the people to whom Jesus is speaking, studied with guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus uses qualifiers such as “indeed” and “Amen, amen” and “true” on this subject, indicating to me that He is being literal. He allows people to leave Him because they cannot accept this “hard saying” literally. Paul says we are guilty of the body and blood of Jesus if we receive it unworthily. Again, pointing to the literal presence of Jesus.
There is nothing hard about symbolically eating His flesh and blood. Your objection to it being literal proves that.
When Jesus tells me something, almost word for word in every verse that deals with it, in no less than 10 verses, I take Him literally.
Obviously it is not obvious that Jesus was not being literal, or there would be no debate, and there is a lot of debate between thoughtful and prayerful people who are all trying to do God’s will.
You may not agree with my interpretation, but you must agree that it is bible-based. If you do not want to believe Jesus was speaking literally, don’t believe it, but you have no authority to define the truth for me.
Using every article that mentions anything remotely Catholic to accuse Catholics of being non-Christian, Mary-worshiping idolators is tiresome. Not every thread is meant to be a debate about dogma. How about saying, “Oh, look, Venezuela needs prayers. I don’t believe in praying to Mary, but I’ll pray in my own way that they are delivered.”
Wouldn’t it be better to start a thread about a particular belief and invite debate?
Besides, as ealgeone already knows, I (and every Catholic) accept Jesus as my only Lord and Savior, so we’re gonna be up in Heaven with you regardless.
Love,
O2
Have you cut off your left hand....or gouged out your eye? Have you sold all of your possessions?
Those are things He literally told some people to do.
Why haven't you done those things....if, as you claim you take Him literally in your statement above?
We're also told not to make idols or serve them....yet you do by your own admission of praying to Mary, serving her, etc.
Whether or not Jesus is speaking literally is a matter of personal interpretation based on context, later relevant verses and the response of the people to whom Jesus is speaking, studied with guidance of the Holy Spirit.
And this is where Rome accuses non-Catholics of having their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
I agree the context is key to understanding the Scripture. When all of the verses regarding the Lord's Supper are examined we come to the conclusion we are not literally eating His flesh and blood.
We come to Christ through faith. The bread and wine represent the flesh and blood.
Obviously it is not obvious that Jesus was not being literal, or there would be no debate, and there is a lot of debate between thoughtful and prayerful people who are all trying to do God’s will.
There is debate due to the RCC of not understanding the context of the relevant verses. That has lead to so much bad theology on Rome's part and it continues. Hence the on-going discussions regarding Mary.
You have no idea what heaven is
Paul did not teach them romes version of it
The sheet coming down from heaven to with food or it did not include Christ’s flesh nor Christ’s blood
Besides, as ealgeone already knows, I (and every Catholic) accept Jesus as my only Lord and Savior, so we’re gonna be up in Heaven with you regardless.
That’s what our FR MORMONS say, too
You are right: “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”
The glory which God raises each saint to in heaven cannot be comprehended while we live upon this Earth. The Blessed Virgin’s glory will not be below your glory, nor mine, nor any of the angels.
But how does the communion of saints, wrapt in the beatific vision after having been purified and glorified by God’s saving Grace, how does take away from God’s glory in any way? Can you explain?
No more than you can explain how this is NOT sharing in God’s glory.
What in the world are you talking about....."beatific vision after being purified??"
For starters, "communion of the saints" came to include considerations not originally part of that communion (such as departed saints, "Mary" most particularly, acting on their own accord upon request, and even without request -- much as God Himself has been known to intervene in the affairs of me, upon occasion making His presence known).
If we cannot start somewhere near to there, truthful, accurate answer toward what you asked for could end up being precluded before we even began.
His true presence is unmistakable to those to whom He desires to make Himself known.
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.