Posted on 08/23/2021 12:49:38 AM PDT by Cronos
The readings this Sunday feature two “hard sayings,” one on the Eucharist, the other on marriage. One is hard because it defies our sensibilities, the other because it is out-of-season and politically incorrect. This is a long reflection. What I present here is really two separate sermons, but both merit some attention.
The first “hard saying” is Jesus’ insistence that the Eucharist is actually His Body and Blood. He says that we must eat His true Flesh and drink His true Blood as our true food, as our necessary manna to sustain us on our journey through the desert of this life to the Promised Land of Heaven.
We have examined this teaching extensively in previous weeks and it is clear that the Lord is not speaking figuratively or symbolically. His listeners understand Him to be speaking literally; He is insisting that they eat His flesh, really, truly, and substantially. The severe reaction of His listeners can only be explained if they believe that Jesus is speaking literally. The listeners scoff and murmur, but Jesus only doubles down, insisting that unless they gnaw (trogon) on His flesh and devour His blood they have no life in them (cf Jn 6:53-54).
This leads to the crowd’s response: This saying is hard; who can accept it? The Greek word translated here as “hard” is Σκληρός (skleros) and does not mean hard in the sense of being difficult to understand. Rather, it means hard in the sense of being violent, harsh, or stern. It describes a position (or person) that is stubborn and unyielding; it describes something (or someone) that won’t bend or submit.
Despite every protest, Jesus will not back down. He will not qualify what He said or in any way try to minimize its impact. So essential is the food of His Flesh and Blood that He will not even hint that there is some way out of this “hard saying.”
The upshot is that many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Knowing this and seeing it, Jesus still sticks to His teaching. He poses this question: Do you also want to leave?
The Eucharist remains a “hard saying” because it goes against our senses. Of the five senses, four are utterly deceived, for the Eucharistic elements still look, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine. Only the sense of hearing is safely believed: “This is my Body … This is my Blood … The Bread that I will give is my flesh.”
Yes, it is hard; will you leave? Maybe you won’t leave, but will your faith in the Eucharist be tepid, the kind of faith that is not devoted? Will you drift away from regular reception of the Eucharist? Where do you stand on this “hard saying”?
How consoled the Lord must have been by Peter’s words: Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God. How joyful He must be hearing your “Amen” each Sunday as you are summoned to faith: “The Body of Christ.” Yes, you stand with Christ.
Sadly, others leave. Only about a quarter of Catholics today go to Mass. Further, many others reject the dogma of the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist even though Jesus paid so dearly to proclaim it to us. In light of the recent scandals and the loss of trust, I am immensely grateful that many of the faithful can look beyond the mess and still find Jesus. He is still here and some live beautifully this old saying: “Don’t leave Jesus because of Judas.”
Is it a hard saying? Yes, but say Amen anyway! Stand with Jesus!
The second “hard saying” is hard for a different reason: it is (way) out-of-season and politically incorrect. It insists not only on headship within marriage but male headship. The Holy Spirit and the apostles apparently never got the memo that this teaching is a “no go” in our modern, “enlightened” age. Indeed, the text Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord is like a stick in the eye to most moderns. Talk about a hard saying!
There are cultural and worldly notions that underlie the rejection by many Catholics and Christians of the biblical teaching on the headship of the husband. This concept is unpopular in our culture, which usually gets pretty worked up over questions of authority in general, but that is because the worldly notion of authority usually equates it with power, dignity, rights, and being somehow better than someone else.
That is not the biblical view of authority. Consider what Jesus says about authority:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority and make their importance felt. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:41-45).
Jesus sets aside the worldly notion of authority, wherein those in authority wield their power by “lording it over” others using fear and the trappings of power. In the Christian setting there is authority (there must be), but it exists for service.
Consider a classroom teacher. She has authority; she must, so that she can unify and keep order. However, she has that authority in order to serve the children, not to berate them and revel in her power over them. The same is true for a police officer, who has authority not for his own sake but for ours, so that he can protect us and preserve order.
Having authority in a Christian setting does not make one person better than another, for authority is always exercised among equals. Our greatest dignity is to be a child of God, and none of us is more so just because we hold a position of authority.
Worldly notions of authority do affect Christians. Many harbor resentments against authority because they think of it in worldly ways. Further, many who have authority (and most of us have some authority in some capacity) can fall prey to these worldly notions and abuse their leadership role.
The key to understanding the authority of a husband and father within the home is to set aside worldly notions of authority and see the teaching in the light of the Christian understanding of authority: that it exists for love and service, to unite and preserve.
With that in mind, let’s turn to the highly unpopular and politically incorrect notion of wives being submissive to their husbands. The teaching is found in several places in the New Testament: Ephesians 5:22ff (today’s text); Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; and 1 Peter 3:1. In all these texts, the wording is quite similar: wives are to be submissive to, that is under the authority of, their husbands. In each case, however, the teaching is balanced by an exhortation that the husband is to love and be considerate of his wife.
The most well-known of these passages is today’s text from Ephesians 5: Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is Head of the Church … so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything (Eph 5:20-21, 23).
This may grate on your nerves, but don’t just dismiss what God teaches here. One of the great dangers of this passage is that it is so startling to modern ears that many people just tune out after the first line and miss the rest of what God has to say. There is text that follows. And before men gloat over the first part of the passage, or women react to it with anger or sadness, they should pay attention to the rest of the text, which spells out the duties of a husband.
You see, if you’re going to be the head of the household there are certain requirements that must be met. God is not playing around here or choosing sides. He has a comprehensive plan for husbands that is demanding; it requires them to curb any notions that authority is about power and to remember that, for a Christian, authority is always given so that the one who has it may serve. Before we look at submission we might do well to look at the requirements for the husband:
Love your wife – Pay attention, men! Don’t just tolerate your wife. Don’t just bring home a paycheck. Don’t just love her in some intellectual sort of way. Love your wife with all your heart. Beg God for the grace to love your wife tenderly, powerfully, and unconditionally. Do you hear what God says? Love your wife! He goes on to tell husbands to love their wives in three ways: passionately, with a purifying love, and with a providing love.
Passionate love – The text says that a man is to love his wife even as Christ loved the Church and handed himself over for her. The Greek word παραδίδωμι (paradidomi), translated here as “handed over,” always refers in the New Testament to Jesus’ crucifixion. Husbands, are you willing to give your life for your wife and children? Are you willing to die to yourself and give your life as a daily sacrifice for them? God instructs you to love your wife (and children) with the same kind of love He has for His Bride, the Church. That kind of love is summed up in the cross. Love your wife passionately. Be willing to suffer for her. Be willing to make sacrifices for her and for your children.
Purifying love – The text says of Christ (and of the husband who is to imitate Him) that He wills to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Now a husband cannot sanctify his wife in the same way that God can, but what he is called to do is to help his wife and children grow in their relationship with Jesus Christ. First, he is to be himself under God’s authority, thus making it easier for his wife and children to live out their baptismal commitments. He ought to be a spiritual leader in his home, praying with his wife and children, reading scripture, and seeing to it that his home is a place where God is loved and obeyed, first of all by him. His wife should not have to drag him to Mass. He should willingly help her to grow in holiness and pray with her every day. He should become more holy himself as well, thus making it easier for his wife to live the Christian life. He should be the first teacher of his children, along with his wife, in the ways of faith. In too many American homes, the man does not act as the spiritual leader of his household. If anyone at all is raising up the children in the Lord, it is usually the wife. Scripture has in mind that the husband and father should be the spiritual leader to his wife and children. Scripture says, Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4). Fathers and husbands need to step up and not leave all the burden on their wives.
Providing love – So also husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it. Husbands, take care of your wife in her needs. She needs more than food, clothing, and shelter. These days, she can get a lot of that for herself. What she needs more is your love, understanding, and appreciation. She needs for you to be a good listener. She needs an attentive husband who is present to her. Like any human being, she needs reassurance and affirmation. Tell her of your love and appreciation; don’t just assume that she knows. Show care for your wife; attend to her needs just as you do instinctively for your own. Encourage her with the children. Confirm her authority over them and teach them to respect their mother. Show her providing love by taking up your proper role and duty as a father who is involved with his children. That is what God is teaching here.
So, scripture does teach that a wife should submit to her husband, but what kind of husband does Scripture have in mind? A husband who really loves his wife, who is a servant-leader, who makes sacrifices for his wife, who is prayerful and spiritual, who submits to God’s authority, and who cares deeply for his wife and her needs. The same God who teaches submission (and He does) also clearly teaches these things for the husband. The teaching must be taken in its entirety, but all that said, there is a teaching on wives submitting (properly understood) to their husbands.
There is just no way around it. No matter how much the modern age wants to insist that there doesn’t need to be headship, there does. Every organization needs a head. Consider your own body. With two heads you’d be a freak; with no head you’d be dead. The members of your body need a head to unify the parts, otherwise there would be disunity, decay, and decay. Every organization needs headship. It needs an ultimate decision maker, a person to whom all look when consensus on a significant issue cannot be reached. The Protestants have tried to have a “Church” without a head, without a Pope, and behold the division. Even this country, which we like to call a “democracy,” is not actually a pure democracy. There are legislators, judges, law enforcers, and many other people and mechanisms that exercise local, state, federal, and final headship and authority.
Thus, in a family, where consensus and compromise may often win the day, there nevertheless must be a head, a final decider to whom all look and submit, in order to resolve conflicts that cannot otherwise be worked out. Scripture assigns this task to the husband and father. Headship just has to be, but remember to shed your worldly notions of it when considering the teaching of Scripture. Headship (authority) is for love and service; it is for unity and preservation not for power, prestige, or superiority.
Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to youthey are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.
Wrong - the Body of Christ present in the Eucharist is confirmed in Paul's writings to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 10:16)
and also 1 Cor 11:27-29
6 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
How clear can Paul get? "The bread IS a participation in the body of Christ" and "who eats the bread... will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" This is not just mere bread and wine anymore. This is the body and blood of Christ.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
We're Catholic and as Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
The "rightly divided divided Word of God" is your gibberish - the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not some 19th century dispensationalist nonsense
The Passover Lamb called up -- he wants his life back.
Come on, Daniel, the central ritual of the Jewish liturgical year, instituted directly by God, absolutely demanded the "actual physical ingestion" of the lamb. Not a "lamb cookie", not merely remembering the lamb, but no, there's that "actual physical ingestion" thing involved.
And Passover is absolutely the OT type of salvation. So the Passover Lamb is the type of ... what, exactly?
And what does John the Baptist say when he sees the Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God ..."
Rather, in the context of 1 Co. 11:17-34 means to effectually remember and thus show/declare the sufferings and death of the Lord by manifesting its effect, that of unity with Christ and each other, redeeming souls and purchasing them with His sinless shed blood as the body of Christ.
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
Which means that to remember the Lord's death is to show it, which here is by sharing food with fellow members of the body, confirming that they are such and as soul "bought with a price," and which thus are to be holy and caring for each other as members of that body of Christ, thus showing union with Him and each other.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:20)
Which holiness and caring union is so much emphasized by Paul in particular, as one who used to be persecute Christ by mistreating its members, and thus this theme continues into the next chapter.
And consistent with that emphasis Paul reproves the Corinthians for acting just the opposite of showing the Lord's death by how they treated its members for whom Christ died: Declaring that even though they came together for the purpose of eating the Lord's super, and were indeed eating under that presumption, yet they were not acting eating the Lord's supper, because they were acting completely contrary to what the Lord's death meant by mistreating members bought by His blood, thus not showing unity with Christ and each other, but treating members as if they were spiritually unclean:
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)
Therefore the apostle re-minds of the Lord's institution of that memorial meal and its purpose,
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11:23-25)
Paul (by the Spirit of Christ) then adds,
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Corinthians 11:26-29)
It is not the nature of the bread and the cup that is the focus, but the purpose of the meal, which is to show (kataggellō: to proclaim, promulgate: - declare, preach, etc.) the Lord's death, which again is by sharing food with other members bought His the Lord's sinless shed blood. And thus to treat other holy members of that body as if they were outcasts was to not recognize the Lord's body, which Paul here refers to as the church he used to persecute.
Thus in the previous chapter the church is called "one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread," (1 Corinthians 10:17) thereby showing communion/fellowship with Christ and each other, just like pagans have fellowship with demons by taking part in their dedicatory feasts, as would Christians if they took part in them:
Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:18-21)
Again, to take part in such feasts is to have fellowship with the object of the dedicatory feasts, but which was not be literally consuming the flesh and blood of them, while to act contrary to the Lord's death and its purpose, by mistreating holy members of it, is to not actually eat the Lord's supper and have and signify fellowship with Christ and each other.
And as that was the sin being reproved in 1 Co. 11:17-34, of some eating separately in lust for food, and ignoring others to their shame who were given nothing, then the solution was for members to examine their spiritual condition in the light of this, and as a practical measure, not come hungry to the Lord;'s supper, and be driven by hunger so as to treat it as if satisfying oneself with food itself was the purpose.
Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. (1 Corinthians 11:33-34)
And as the body of Christ as the church (for whom Christ died) was the subject, then in the next chapter that theme continues.
Some (bad) Protestant translations use the phrase "seal of approval", but "of approval" is eisegetical; it's not in the Greek. This is actually a reference to the practice of bread-baking in ancient times. A village would have a communal oven; housewives would bring their loaves of bread to bake, and would impress an identifying seal on top of the loaves so the baker could identify them when they were removed from the oven.
Jesus is saying "I am the true bread come down from heaven; God the Father has put his seal on me so you may know that I am his."
Maybe it was a reference to 2 Tim 2:15.
14 Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers. 15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer.
2 Timothy 2:14-17 NKJV (emphasis added so you can find it)
... not "gibberish", not "dispensationalist nonsense"
And, in fact - the full context of the referenced phrase reveals several other timely and pertinent truths.
(File under things that make you say, "Hmmm...")
" The Passover Lamb called up -- he wants his life back. Come on, Daniel, the central ritual of the Jewish liturgical year, instituted directly by God, absolutely demanded the "actual physical ingestion" of the lamb. Not a "lamb cookie", not merely remembering the lamb, but no, there's that "actual physical ingestion" thing involved."
" And Passover is absolutely the OT type of salvation. So the Passover Lamb is the type of ... what, exactly? And what does John the Baptist say when he sees the Christ? "Behold, the Lamb of God ..."
Come on Campion, you Catholics typically have a short memory and forget/ignore what refutes you, for you just tried this specious reasoning 13 days ago, mistaking obedience (taking part in the Lord's supper, etc.) as a result of obtaining spiritual life by faith, versus obtaining spiritual life by literally physically ingesting something, as was explained to you. Faith and works go together as cause and effect, as did forgiveness and healing in the case of the palsied man, (Mark 2:1-11) but the latter is not be to confused as being the former.
Thus your objection to "the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything" is simply invalid, as is that of Catholics enlisting John 6:53 in support, and of making the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sin and spiritual food via the the exclusive ministration of Catholic priests.
Try to remember this next time.
I have a question for you: Do you think of yourself FIRST as a Christian or as a Catholic?
You can say, "They're the same!" and run through some "logic" or "evidence" to prove your point...but play along: Which label is more important to you?
And so you take that literally, with the wool and hoves. And eternal life is literally living water, and the food of Jesus was also literal. (John 4) And the water David said was human blood and thus poured out on the ground unto the Lord, and the Canannites were bread for Israel was literally that. Etc. OK.
I am a proud American always, because America transcends whoever is in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. Even when Reagan or Trump were President, my love of or fidelity for country didn't hinge on them.
The Catholic Church is similar. Just because this Pope or that Cardinal or that layperson or this priest says whatever, that doesn't change the Church that Jesus built. Men are men, and disposed to the evils that men can do. But Jesus and the Church Trimuphant remain as my Guide.
So I'm an American and a Catholic, even if the two current respective executives leave much to be desired.
Rather, as in other places before this, after testing the hearers with seemingly physical language (birth, water, temple) in order to lead true seekers into spiritual Truth, in John 6 the progression, as explained, to toward the spiritual understanding. As ignored,
Had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, continued on in seeking the spiritual meaning, then they would understood, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6:57) And "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63)
For just how did Christ "live by the Father"? The answer is that the manner by which the Lord lived by the Father was as per Mt. 4:4: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Thus for the Lord Jesus who lived by every word of God and said were are to, (Mt. 4:4) the doing of His will was "meat."
For once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34) And likewise the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future (which the lost Jews presumed would be needed under a literal meaning), but that His words which transcendent time and space are Spirit and life: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:62-63) Indeed, "hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness." (Isaiah 55:2)
For as with the rest of John and Scripture, it is faith which obtains spiritual life by believing the gospel. As John esp. makes clear, contrary to consuming flesh. Thus as Peter affirmed, "thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 6:68)
"Trogon (τρώγω), unlike phago, has one very, specific, literal meaning: to gnaw, crunch or chew. It is a univocal term with a single meaning. "
Actually the word is used for simply eating bread, even by Judas, and by common eating even by lost souls in Noah's day!
I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth [trōgō] bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.(John 13:18)
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, (Matthew 24:38)
Rather desperate, while again, the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that spiritual life was obtained by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything. And the way Christ lived by the Father which He likened to how believers are to live (John 6:53) was by His word, (Mt. 4:4) doing His will, this being His "meat." (John 4:34)
Enough of your plagiarizing prevaricating profuse propaganda.
Your recourse is to simply assert again what has been refuted, and thus no more needs to be said!
That response itself is absurd, being a logical fallacy, presuming the very thing that needs to be proved, that your interpretation is correct, confecting the Lord's supper into a sacrifice for sin and spiritual food via the the exclusive ministration of Catholic priests contrary to the evidence shown.
Really desperate: the Greek word simply denotes a official seal or "stamp" which is used as such in various places in the NT (like for the tomb, seal of redemption, scroll), but never as pertaining to food. sealed, Rom_15:27-28 (2), 2Co_1:22, Eph_1:13, Eph_4:30, Rev_7:3-8 (15) Joh_3:33, Rev_10:4, Rev_20:3, Rev_22:10 Joh_3:33, Rev_20:3 Mat_27:66
Yes, Jesus is indeed a metaphorical "Lamb" - real manifestly incarnated man, scapegoat and sin offering, whose appearance and testable proprieties corresponded to what He was - "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" - (Luke 24:39) versus inanimate objects which are said to not even exist, yet manifest and test to be what they appear.
Sarx is used about 15 times in the NT, including in the negative sense in "the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" and as referring to the fallen sinful nature in Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. (Romans 8:12-13)
Meanwhile you are not only posting propaganda but pilfering and while passing it off as your own, unless you just forgot to mention where you copied your pasted polemic from. http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/apologetics/87-eucharistic-apologetics/240-flesh-in-john-6.html
Regardless, they all have been shown to be specious in the years here and such hardly warrants further reproof.
Well....it's a bit like some people being ashamed to say they're an America when some loser like the current President* is in the WH. I am a proud American always, because America transcends whoever is in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches. Even when Reagan or Trump were President, my love of or fidelity for country didn't hinge on them.
The Catholic Church is similar. Just because this Pope or that Cardinal or that layperson or this priest says whatever, that doesn't change the Church that Jesus built. Men are men, and disposed to the evils that men can do. But Jesus and the Church Trimuphant remain as my Guide.
So I'm an American and a Catholic, even if the two current respective executives leave much to be desired.
< ctl-F> Christ*
Nothing Found
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.