Irenaeus 189 A.D.

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup[wine and water] (Cana) and the baked bread (Emmaus) receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

So we give it to baby killers like Biden, Pelosi?

Others are noticing, why does Pope Bergoglio not genuflect before God?

Bergoglio, the Man who Never Kneels Before God

He SHOULD pray that Christ would have a fuller presence in his life, take him out of his error, and lead him to know Christ better. It would turn his life around and could influence many lost souls to come to a saving knowledge of the Savior.

That is something to pray for.

That is something to pray for.

Here's a better thing to pray for, "Oh, My Jesus, forgive us our sins; lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in the most need of Thy mercy".
(emphasis mine.}

He thinks hes above God.

Bergoglio places beachball next to tabernacle, no genuflection, and then prays before both

Have an illuminated holy family statue of Joseph and Mary holding baby Jesus and a sign reading FOR AMERICA PRAY THE ROSARY facing the state highway which is our access and fronts our property lighted by red, white, and blue led lights.Plus have a lighted flag on pole close by.
When I say my daily rosary I begin it by singing this
“Dear Lady of Fatima I come on bend’ed knee/ to beg your intercession to help save our coun-try / I also include a prayer for the success for the use of Intervectin which is a low cost and available drug which is being used by countries in Asia and Africa. As well as reflect on the purpose of Jesus suffering and sacrifice when reciting the reflections (mysteries) of Our Lord’s effort to establish to to new Eternal Covenant which seems to be forgotten by Francis when dealing with the moslems,

Have an illuminated holy family statue of Joseph and Mary holding baby Jesus and a sign reading FOR AMERICA PRAY THE ROSARY facing the state highway which is our access and fronts our property lighted by red, white, and blue led lights.Plus have a lighted flag on pole close by. When I say my daily rosary I begin it by singing this “Dear Lady of Fatima I come on bend’ed knee/ to beg your intercession to help save our coun-try

Thus demonstrating that “Practice makes perfect”

MurphsLaw = FR must be abused to publish prevaricating propaganda no matter how many times he and it have been refuted:

"“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]). "

If David were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take water, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess and affirm that the mixture in the cup is human blood, and thus refuse to drink it but pour it out unto the Lord? Making the mighty men who brought it to be as Catholic priests?

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the water of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

If David were from other than the Father, how could he rightly refer to people - which is of the same creation as our own - as being bread? “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9) Indeed, even the church is bread. (1 Corinthians 10:17)

Other examples abound which should be readily perceived to be metaphorical language just as the words at the last supper are (which has been shown you in reproof) and which Catholics do not actually take plainly literally.

Other examples of the use of figurative language for eating and drinking include,

• The Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

• David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

• And complained that workers of iniquity ”eat up my people as they eat bread , and call not upon the Lord.” (Psalms 14:4)

• And the Lord also said, “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumblingblocks with the wicked; and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.” (Zephaniah 1:3)

• While even arrows can drink: “I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh ; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy.' (Deuteronomy 32:42)

• But David says the word of God (the Law) was “sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:10)

• Another psalmist also declared the word as “sweet:” “How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalms 119:103)

• Jeremiah likewise proclaimed, “Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

• Ezekiel was told to eat the words, “open thy mouth, and eat that I give thee...” “eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 2:8; 3:1)

• John is also commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And Scripture refers to Christ being spiritual food and drink which even OT believers consumed:

• And did all eat the same spiritual meat; "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:3-4)

• And Christ's word in Jn. 6, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst," (John 6:35) are correspondent to,

"Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." (Isaiah 55:2-3)

• Moreover, like as bread is broken, Is. 53:10 states that "it pleased the Lord to bruise him," and the word for "bruise" (da^ka^') means to crumble, to break..., (Strong's). And like as wine is poured out, so Is. 53:12 also states of Christ, "he hath poured out his soul unto death," both of which are correspondent to the words of the Last Supper regarding bread and wine.

. Only the metaphorical understanding of the Lord's supper easily conforms to Scripture overall, while the contrivance of it by Catholicism does not, as abundantly shown here, which I directed you to before, by the grace of God.

However, if you want to actually attempt to defend your Eucharistic theology, then you must face challenges such as,

1. Where in all of Scripture did Jesus Christ appear as an inanimate object, which by all tests of physicality would be just that? 0

2. Where in Scripture is the manifest physicality of Christ emphasized as establishing who the real Christ was, in contrast to one whose bodily appearance did not correspond to what He physically was? (Is. 53; Lk. 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 4:2; 5:6,8)

3. Where in all of Scripture did the words of the Lord's supper necessarily teach that the body that "is broken" and the blood that is shed, appeared as bread and wine, rather than literally appearing as the manifestly physical flesh and blood that was bruised and shed? 0

4. Where in Scripture is actual water referred to as blood, and thus poured out unto the Lord, and bread referred to as bread for the people of God, and the body of Christ as the church being bread? (2 Samuel 23:16-17; Num. 14:9)

5. Where in all of Scripture is spiritual life obtained by literally physically consuming anything? 0

6. Where in Acts and the apostles teaching in the NT (these being interpretive of the gospels) is spiritual life obtained by hearing and effectually believing the gospel of the grace of God? Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)

7. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by literally consuming the flesh of the object of worship? 0

8. Where from Acts onward in the NT is communion/partakers with the object of religious feasts and each other realized by sharing a meal together ("feast of charity") in a way that effectually evidences remembrance? (1 Cor. 10,11 )

9. Where are distinctive Greek words for a separate class of sacerdotal believers (hiereus; archiereus; hieráteuma) distinctively used for NT pastors? 0

10. Where is a distinctive Greek word (hieráteuma) for a separate class of sacerdotal believers used for all believers? (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

11. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled uniquely conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food? 0

12. Where from Acts onward in the NT are church pastors charged with or exampled as preaching the Word and feeding the flock with the Word which is called spiritual food ("milk," "meat") by which they are nourished? (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2 ;1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22; Heb. 5:12-14; 1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32

For the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

He SHOULD pray that Christ would have a fuller presence in his life.....

Aren't WE, ALL of us as well, supposed to be doing that... everyday...?

Apparently the ~~six~~ five pals are still hard at it.

7

Since you asked.

It’s rather interesting that the “doctrine” of sola Scriptura which says everything is based on the Bible alone, as that "doctrine" is NEVER taught in the Bible. It’s the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism.

Steve Ray
catholicconvertdotcom

"When I say my daily rosary I begin it by singing this “Dear Lady of Fatima"

Prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH) certainly does not come from the Bible and the NT church of it. Nowhere in Scripture do we see any believers engaging in prayer to created beings in Heaven (PTCBIH), or instructed to do so, despite the Spirit inspiring the recording of over 200 prayers by believers, and despite this being a most basic practice, and despite there always being plenty of created beings to pray to, and occasions for it since the Fall. Yet the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in the spiritual world is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein.

Failing to find even one example of PTCBIH, and with instruction on who to address in prayer to Heaven only being that of to the Lord, thus you must resort to eisegetical extrapolation, presuming those in Heaven can not only hear/understand all prayers from earth, mental or oral (which only God is shown able to do), but that we are to address them, though again the Holy Spirit never mentions even one example of doing so.

Meanwhile, from what I recall, any two-way communication btwn created beings in Heaven and earth required both to somehow be present in the same location, and was not that of asking them to intercede to God for them, and was very rare.

Note that elders and angels offering prayers (Rv. 5:8; 8:4,5) in memorial - like as in Lv. 2:2,15,16; 24:7; Num. 5:15; 16:9, "an offering of memorial" cf. Num. 16:9, - is not that of them being addressed in prayer, nor does it indicate that they had heard them previously, nor is it described as being a regular postal service, but it is one of the things which is a preclude to the final judgments upon the earth, testifying to the persecutions of the saints by the devil and world that it fit to be punished.

For when "He maketh inquisition for blood, he remembereth them: he forgetteth not the cry of the humble. (Psalms 9:12; cf. Genesis 4:10) and before judgment God brings forth testimony of the warrant for it, which includes the cry of those martyred souls under the altar in Rv. 6:9, and with odors representing prayer, akin to Leviticus 6:15, "burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour, even the memorial of it, unto the Lord." (Leviticus 6:15)

Nor can Prayer to created beings in Heaven be extrapolated from general commands to pray or from requests for pray from other believers on earth, for this ignores the God-ordained divisions btwn realms. Which is why Christ had to come down to this earth, while only God is shown able to hear all prayer from Heaven, which is a Divine privilege and attribute nowhere shown to be given to humans.

The only heavenly intercessor btwn man and God is said to be Jesus Christ, (1 Timothy 2:5) and by Him believers have immediate spiritual access with humble contrite boldness into the holy of holies in Heaven to pray to the Lord God, (Hebrews 10:19) while the Spirit within believers cries out “Abba, Father,” (Galatians 4:6) and not “Mama, Mother.”

And believers kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods) - including having the uniquely Divine power and glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them - would constitute worship in Scripture.

Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?

If PTCBIH was part of the new and better covenant, then why, like other realities, is this also utterly absent in the NT record??? Not even in Hebrews is this taught, and if any book would teach it would be that, which details how this "better" (key word therein) covenant is. Instead it expounds on Christ being the all-sufficient Heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, who is pointed to as the One who can "be touched with the feeling of our infirmities" and is uniquely able to help those who are tempted seeing "he himself hath suffered being tempted," "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Therefore believers are exhorted, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need," (Hebrews 4:15-16) (Hebrews 2:18) and they have immediate direct access with "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," (Hebrews 10:19) who ever lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25) Thus let is be "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Hebrews 12:2)

It is to him that the great cloud of witnesses looked to and and look, and woulds have pray directly to, as part of the blessing of "so great salvation." Despite the many opportunities to include praying to created beings in Heaven, and their availability, with even more being present after the resurrection, the Holy Spirit nowhere records PTCBIH despite the abundance of prayer and this being a most basic practice, and only instructs addressing God in praying to Heaven.

Pope prays for greater awareness of Jesus’ Real Presence in Eucharist

In other news...

Emperor issues decree stating that little boys be restrained from commenting about his new clothes.

MurphsLaw = FR must be abused to publish prevaricating propaganda no matter how many times he and it have been refuted:

We FR Prots used to be chastized for picking on Catholics and Mormons.

Shall we return to the Good, Ol' Days?

For the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is just one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Likewise...

The temple rituals and oaths that the Mormons put themselves through are not to be found in any of their scriptures.

Not to mention Fatima “Fah - TEE - mah” was the so-called daughter of the legend called Mohammed.

The letter to the Hebrews instructed me away from the mass and the Roman eating ritual.

There is no NT priesthood other than Jesus having the Melchizedek priesthood and also the priesthood of the individual believers.

When I looked up “priest” in the NT in an old fashioned concordance, the picture got VERY clear.

"Since you asked. It’s rather interesting that the “doctrine” of sola Scriptura which says everything is based on the Bible alone, as that "doctrine" is NEVER taught in the Bible. It’s the Achilles’ heel of Protestantism. Steve Ray catholicconvertdotcom "

And since you once again impugn the Catholic faith by exampled robotic parroting of propaganda no matter how many times you have been refuted, then here is just one post of such to you (No replies):

MurphsLaw; That's more of what Christ wants.. He wants us - to follow him... not a book...It was never just about a book... not for the first 1200-1300 years anyways...

A false dichotomy. If following the Lord did not mean hearing His word then there is no sure light to follow, and if writing was not God's means of preserving and often originally providing His sure word than the Lord and His church would not have appealed to it, and their veracity tested by examination by Scripture. An authoritative body of which was established (due to its heavenly qualities and attestation) by the time of Christ, and who thru His Spirit inspired men to provide more to this only substantive body of wholly God-inspired writings.

And as far as the premise of another but amorphous, unwritten body of inspired revelation and arguments for it, then again consider :

Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and material senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,

1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of the preaching of apostles was subject to:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.

3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.

4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 182 8, etc.)

7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.

Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

And you even denied the plenary inspiration of Scripture!