NO!!
Mary said I could KEEP it!!!
Posted on 05/20/2022 2:44:14 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA
Right; this isn’t a “better late than never” scenario as millions of people have died and met their judgment while this witch preached infanticide while “playing Catholic” - and the hierarchy colluded with her.
There's a betting window? Is it in the BINGO room?
Yes. It is. You hit the nail on the head.
It's a very unusual faith, isn't is?
There IS a GOD and HE gets thru to us from time to time!!
Daniel 4:17 NIV
“‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’
Joe won’t buy the roof insurance needed.
Much like traveling to Mexico and getting auto insurance at the border.
Such POWER Rome has!
Mary said I could KEEP it!!!
...as if...
Luke 22:19-20
1 Corinthians 11:23-29
When you die, how will you explain to Jesus that you explained away these verses, instead of accepting their plain meaning? Worse, how will you explain that you tried to poach his sheep and lure them into rejecting the plain sense of these verses?
How? I will not need to, as by His grace I have often explained verses on this issue (including briefly to you on this issue as here, and here,and here, and here and here , that it is Catholics who DO NOT accept their plain meaning, neither taking the gospel accounts of the Lord's supper plainly literal, nor John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11:17-32 contextually, and reject the only meaning that easily conforms to the often used metaphorical language, including referring to eating. Which is what you could see if you seek to follow the Truth of Scripture according to its manifest meaning.
Thus it is the likes of you who must squirm and try to justify your devotion to a false church which compels you to reject any meaning contrary to it, and damnably lead others astray as well!
In addition, if you likewise too John 6:53 according to its plain meaning (ignoring what the rest of John and esp. Acts and the epistles teach, interpretive of the gospels) then you would be denying V2, which, as said, broadly affirms the regeneration of faithful SS-type Prots even though none have a valid Eucharist according to Rome. But of course, RCs seem free to interpret their own interpreter as well to fit their need.
As for your parroted polemical posted verses, rather than spend more time with my arthritic fingers, I will just post some of my previous responses, which, as with yours, are blithely ignored or forgotten as the just post the same refuted Roman rhetoric repeatedly, regardless of this exampling what one should not be a part of a church which fosters such.
Due to the inability of Catholic priests to produce what a plainly literal reading of the words of consecration at the Last Supper would mean, then Catholicism has had to engage in an attempted complex metaphysical explanation to justify their quite non-literal understanding.
For what a plainly literal understanding of “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you," (1 Corinthians 11:24) ) and "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matthew 26:27-28) would mean is that what the apostles consumed at the Last Supper was not that of non-existent inanimate objects that are said to be the “true body and blood” of Christ despite appearances and tests to the contrary, but would manifestly be the same manifest physical body and blood that proved Jesus Christ came in the flesh; That of the crucified body and shed blood of Christ which looked, smelled, behaved and would scientifically test as being real human flesh - and which Scripture emphasizes, and stands in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was.
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5:6)
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... And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. (Luke 24:39,42-43)
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27)
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. (Revelation 1:18)
From His condescending incarnation to His glorious ascension and exaltation the Lord Jesus never appeared as an inanimate object, and the appearance of the true Christ on earth always corresponded to what He became in His incarnation, even with His glorified physical body, versus a false Christ whose appearance did not, whether it be as the phantom Christ within Gnosticism who only looked human but did not feel pain, or a piece of bread which looks, smells, tastes and reacts as just that but is said to be the true body of Christ.
A plainly literal reading of the words of Christ at the Last Supper would mean that the bread actually looked, smelled, tasted etc. and was the actual bloody flesh of Christ (and the wine literally being actual blood) but while there are some claims to this literalism concurring, that is not Eucharistic theology on transubstantiation*.
Thus Aquinas confessed, "The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone..." (Summa Theologica; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q75_A1.html) The conference of American bishops states, "Christ's presence in the Eucharist challenges human understanding, logic, and ultimately reason. His presence cannot be known by the senses, but only through faith." (http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/norms-for-holy-communion-under-both-kinds/)
Christ can indeed be present spiritually, however.
“And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 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 24:38-39) “Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (John 20:27) “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” (1 John 4:3)
(That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 1:1; 5:6) , in contrast to a christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was. (For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist: 2 John 7)
What this "true body and blood of Christ" would not be then is inanimate objects, bread and wine - which look, smell, behave and would scientifically test as being simply bread and wine - and yet in Catholic theology these no longer even exist when the priest utters the "words of consecration,” - the invisible yet true body and blood of Christ having taken their place. "The very body" "true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ," whole and entire in His physical "reality,” "with His bodily organs and limb," His flesh being "corporeal, not spiritual" with the actual partaking being of Christ in person, hence literally,” yet not as "sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven," but under a "new mode of being," under the mere appearance of non-existent bread and wine, "in each particle and in each drop."
Until that is, the non-existent bread or wine manifest decay/corruption, at which point the Eucharistic Christ no longer locally exists under that mode either.
For this contrivance is actually what (Roman) Catholic Eucharistic theology teaches. [1]
In contrast to which is the metaphorical understanding which alone easily conflates with Scripture overall. And indeed, Jews were familiar with the abundant metaphorical use of language in the Hebrew Scriptures, including calling men “bread,” and water “blood,” and who were solemnly forbidden to consume blood. (Lev. 17:10,11)
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)
Or where God clearly states that the Canaanites were “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 (Numbers 14:9 KJV 1900 - Only rebel not ye… | Biblia))
Thus the very first Christians would have understood “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you,” (1 Corinthians 11:24) and “Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:27-28) as metaphorical.
And therefore what we see in the only description in much detail of the Lords' supper in the inspired record of how the NT understood the gospels, is that the understanding of the Lord's supper was that of remembering and thus showing/declaring His death by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship with the objects of their worship and each other in their dedicatory feasts, which was not by physically consuming their flesh.
And with no clergy distinctively ordained as "hiereus ," as a distinctive class of sacerdotal men (priests) and charged with or shown conducting it as a primarily unique function as a offering for sin and feeding the flock thereby. Instead, for NT pastors- for whom the distinctive word for priests or high priest (“hiereus” or “archiereus") are never distinctively used, being called presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer) referring to those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7 cf. Acts 20:17,28) - preaching the word is the primary active function of pastors, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby.
For is the word of God that is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Cor. 3:2; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12,14) and is said to nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and build them up, (Acts 20:32) and thus the primary active function of pastors is to preach the word, (2Tim. 4:2) which is how they "feed the flock." (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2)
Footnotes
For in John 6:25–69 we see a pattern in the Lord's teaching as recorded in John (and with His use of parables elsewhere: "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:" Matthew 13:13-14) in which He often uses puzzling speech which calls for further inquiry in order to understand it, but which is also a test to separate those who will pursue the meaning vs, those who will not.
Thus we see many examples of the Lord speaking in an apparently physical ways in order to reveal the spiritual meaning to those who awaited the meaning, which, as elsewhere, the Lord revealed to true seekers while letting the carnally minded to their own delusions .
- In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) Meaning that rather than the Lord having cleared up a misunderstanding before they left; He allowed them to reject their salvation on a mistake.
- Likewise, in Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
- And in John 4 the Lord’s speech resuts in the women at the well presuming He was referring to physical water, (John 4:14,15)
- And then to the disciples thinking maybe someone brought their Lord food in response to His answer that He had food. (John 4:32-34)
And in which cases, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Spirit of the Lord or Him personally goes on to distinguish btwn what is the below versus the above, the flesh and the Spirit, the temporal and the eternal, yet the Lord not personally clearly explaining this at the time:
Thus the words,
- “But he spake of the temple of his body. “ (John 2:21) which meaning was only revealed to His disciples after the resurrection. (John 2:22)
- "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) - much leaves Nicodemus to figure it out, requiring seeking, rather than making it clear. Which actually requires hearing or reading more than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
- But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life (John 4:14) - yet here it is not made clear that this is thru heart-purifying regenerating faith. (cf. Acts 10:43–47; 15:7–9; Titus 3:5)
- Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work (John 4:34) yet which is understood in the light of such teachings as Matthew 4:4.
And which means that had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, (John 6:26) had continued on in seeking the spirtual meaning, then they would have 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 manifest 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, the doing of His will was "meat."
For as referred to above, once again using metaphor, the Lord stated to disciples who thought He was referring to physical bread,
Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4:34)
And consistent with this the Lord revealed that He would not even be with them physically in the future, thus not being able to provide them with His literal flesh as they would have presumed He was saying must be done (versus the metaphysical gymnastics Catholicism engages in): “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)
And which meaning of ingestion of God’s word, which Jeremiah says “were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts” Jeremiah 15:16) and which David said are “More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb,” (Psalms 19:10) is the only meaning that comports with the rest of the NT.
For as seen in what follows in John, and the rest of the NT, the Holy Spirit only and always taught that that obtaining spiritual life was by receiving the word of the gospel, and never shows this was by actual physical ingestion of anything.
For instead, one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by feeding upon the word of God. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) the word of God what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
For the word is what is to be salvitated for, chewed slowly yet thorughly, consumed, received meditated upon, giving spiritual life:
Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. 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 55:1-3)
There simply is no other meaning which conflates with the rest of Scripture and esp. Acts thru Revelation which best reveals how the NT church church.
And therefore what we see in the only book with description of detail in the inspired record of how the NT church understood the gospels, it was of the Lord's supper being that of effectually remembering His death by thus showing it by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus declaring union with Christ and each other as being "one bread," analogous to how pagans have fellowship in their dedicatory feasts, (The Lord's Supper:metaphorical or metaphysical?)
note that consistent with the abundant use of metaphorical language in Scripture, David plainly said that water was human blood, and thus would not drink it but poured it out unto the Lord. And that the Cannanites were "meat" for Israel, etc. And which is consistent with the use of metaphorical language in John. In John 1, the Lord is called the "Word became flesh," as representing Truth being incarnated, and "the Lamb of God" even though He took on humanity.
Then in Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord referred to Himself as the temple but spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the unbelieving Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
In Jn. 3:3, the Lord referred to spiritual birth in such an way that its was misunderstood as physical, so that Nicodemus exclaimed, " How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? (John 3:4) Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, " That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) thereby giving Nicodemus a clue to figure it out, inviting and requiring seeking, rather than making it very clear. And which requires more revelation than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
And 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, 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)
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)
For 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 that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, having first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by effectually feeding upon the word of God and thus obeying it. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.), the word of God is what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being that which is called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, and with the preaching of which being the primary active function of pastors. (Acts 20:32) Thanks be to God.
And therefore to come together to take part in a communal meal in effectual remembrance and thus proclamation (1 Corinthians 11:26) of the risen Lord's death - by which each believer is made part of the Lord's body, the church, being itself "one bread," (1 Corinthians 10:17) - while selfishly neglecting other members even at the same time is to actually fail to eat the Lord's supper. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22) For such neglect fails to remember and declare the Lord's death by effectually failing to recognize the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:29) as consisting of those bought with the sinless shed blood of Christ by His death, (Acts 20:28) which makes each member part of that universal body. (Rv. 5:9)
Thus such hypocritical participation can result such chastisement as even unto death, and with the solution being that of penitent examination of oneself whether his\her attitude and actions are consistent with the love of Christ for His body, as shown by His giving of Himself, and eating at home lest the Lord's supper become a focus on food and satisfying physical hunger, versus communal sharing as members of the body bought with the sinless shed blood of the now risen Lord, which taking part in the Lord's supper is to show. Thanks be to God, yet I certainly fail in such selfish love and care.
8/10/2021, 11:47:30 AM · 108 of 109 daniel1212 to Campion no matter how much bluster you manage. Rather than allegiance to ROPIOS (Rome's Own Perverted Interpretation Of Scripture), only the metaphorical understanding is shown to be Scriptural, and the Catholic contrivance of the Lord's supper is not what the NT church manifestly believed.
In the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, when many followers were scandalized by Jesus' words, He doesn't say -- even to the Apostles!-- "Hey, we're cool! It's just metaphorical language! It's only a symbol!" He lets them, and you, remain scandalized by the truth.
To the contrary, the Lord leaves them to their proto Catholic delusions since they did not follow His use of metaphor which the Lord used prior to this to lead souls to the spiritual understanding, which He provided in Jn. 6. For that is consistent with in the use of metaphorical language in John.
In John 1, the Lord is called the "Word became flesh," as representing Truth being incarnated.
In Jn. 2:19,20, the Lord spoke in a way that seems to refer to destroying the physical temple in which He had just drove out the money changers, and left the unbelieving Jews to that misapprehension of His words, so that this was a charge during His trial and crucifixion by the carnally minded. (Mk. 14:58; 15:29) But the meaning was revealed to His disciples after the resurrection.
In Jn. 3:3, the Lord spoke in such an apparently physical way that Nicodemus exclaimed, "How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?" (John 3:4)
And in which, as is characteristic of John, and as seen in Jn. 6:63, the Lord goes on to distinguish btwn the flesh and the Spirit, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit," (John 3:6) thereby giving Nicodemus a clue to figure it out, inviting and requiring seeking, rather than making it very clear. And which requires more revelation than that chapter, as with Jn. 6, revealing being born spiritually in regeneration. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; 2:5)
And which means that had those carnally-minded Jews in John 6, who were looking for physical food, had continued on in seeking the spirtual 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, 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,
Jesus saith unto them, 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, but that His words 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) For Christ would not be physically present to they presumed He would need to be, but 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.
For Lord 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, but that one "lives by" (upon) God's word as well, first by repentant faith in the gospel and then by feeding upon the word of God. For while the Lord's supper is nowhere referred to as spiritual food anywhere interpretive of John 6 (Acts thru Rev.) the word of God what is taught as being spiritual nourishment, being uniquely called "milk" and "meat" (1Co. 3:2; Heb. 5:13; 1Pt. 2:2) by which believers are "nourished" (1Tim. 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32) Thanks be to God.
Sorry if you remain scandalized by the truth.
How can one bring condemnation on themselves if it were not the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ?
How? In context, by hypocritically supposing to be remembering the Lord's death, by which the the Corinthians had union with Christ and each other and were supposed to be declaring this by sharing bread as themselves being one bread, (1 Corinthians 10:17) yet some were eating independently and to the full (the Lord's supper was not a bit of bread and wine) while shamefully ignoring others who had nothing. And thus they were not even having the Lord's supper. Which problem is established before anything more is said about the LS. (1 Corinthians 11:21,22) The section begin in v. 17 with,
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 [sects] 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)
Thus they failed to effectually remember the Lord's death, who bought them with His sinless shed blood (Acts 20;28) and made them one with the Lord and each other, and failed to show/declare/preach the Lord's death which Paul proceeds to state they where to do after repeating the Lord's words of consecration:
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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [kataggellō=preach, declare] the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:23-26)
And thus by independently and selfishly eating and to the full while ignoring members of the body of Christ they were supposed to be coming together as, to effectually remember the Lord's death which effected the unity they were to show, then they failed to discern the Lord's body (and which Paul majors on), contextually this being the church, and which body the adjoining chapters (10+11) elaborate on, and which problem is what the focus was on.
And therefore the solution to the issue is that of self-examination (as to how they are acting consistent with the death of Christ) and eating at home:
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....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 11:27-29,33-34)
Thus contextually, from beginning to end, "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper," (1 Corinthians 11:20) and "let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation" all refers to their sin of how they were acting utterly hypocritical by selfishly filling themselves, ignoring others, while they were supposed to be remembering the Lord's death which made them one, and were to manifest being one bread, and thus were unworthy to take part in this communal feast of charity.
And as seen in the previous chapter, to take part in religious dedicatory pagan feasts would mean they would have fellowship with devils (1 Corinthians 10:20) - not by consuming their flesh of devils, but by identifying with them in taking part in worship, like as the bread which believers break in the Lord’s supper is the communion of the body of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:16)
In contrast, nowhere in 1 Co. 11 (nor anywhere interpretive of the gospels) is there any elaboration on the nature of the food being consumed and reproving them for not recognizing this, despite the Catholic attempts to read this into the simple reiterating of the Lord's words of consecration in 1 Co. 11.
This section, as with the gospel accounts, must be interpreted in the rest of Scripture, in which the word of God is the only spiritual food described, being milk and meat by which believers are nourished and built up, and which is often described, and is the primary active work of ministers, while the Lord's supper is not even clearly described aside from 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 (and Jude's mere mention of the "feast of charity").
The priest does not change the bread/wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus….Jesus does.
Do you really think this is some kind of refutation? So Judas did not betray Christ. The devil did.
The rest of your rant is simply typical vain RC psychological polemics and slander. And since once again you are arguing against what is dealt with in my linked page which you ignore, then it manifests you are flailing away in ignorance, and in this episode you are simply ignoring context, evidencing driven by confirmation bias rather than being willing to go wherever the Truth may lead. That is what I hope to do, versus finding my security in a self-proclaimed elitist church.
But again, may God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Actually Ted whose hands were red because of the babies whose blood was shed, got mass to be said in his own house while manifestly impenitent, and wrote to the pope, basically justifying himself, and who kindly replied, thanking him for his prayers with only a subtle reproof by way of an apostolic blessing, and had a church funeral. As I explained long ago on FR:
he was treated as a member of the Catholic church (in contrast to the NT church ) in life and in death, even receiving an ecclesiastical funeral, Canon 915 being interpreted as not disallowing it, and a letter Ted wrote to the Pope to the pope, recently before his death, delivered by Obama who gave the eulogy (also against the letter of canon law i believe) was read at his graveside, in which he ]Kennedy] insolently asserts he “never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings” of his church, and tried to be a faithful Catholic, etc..
The closest thing we get to any kind of contrition is the ambiguous, “I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path” [evidence needed!], before he goes on to to defend his wonderful works, including universal health care. Not a word of remorse about supporting abortion or promoting homosexual rights, or indolence and a welfare state.
In the provided response of that which was written, as usual, through a senior Vatican official, the pope states,
“He was saddened to know of your illness, and has asked me to assure you of his concern and his spiritual closeness. He is particularly grateful for your promise of prayers for him and for the needs of the universal Church."
The Holy Father has read the letter which you entrusted to President Barack Obama, who kindly presented it to him during their recent meeting. His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the Risen Savior to all who share in His sufferings and trust in His promise of eternal life.
Commending you and the members of your family to the loving intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Holy Father cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of wisdom, comfort and strength in the Lord." "(http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/29/ted-kennedy-to-pope-benedict-i-am-writing-with-deep-humility/)
One may see " joyful surrender to the will of God our merciful Father"as an oblique reproof, as is what he needed to do, but this treats TK as one who already has God as his father, and this boilerplate nuanced prayer is hardly going to convict a politician who thinks he never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of his faith. Instead he would easily see himself as being in surrender to the will of God, sharing in Christ's sufferings
However, if he had converted and become a very conservative evangelical, then i am sure real concern for his soul would have been expressed.
(As one in need of grace, i do not want to be hard on struggling believers, but such men as Kennedy were critically in error and unrepentant, and illustrates what Rome effectually conveys, in part.)
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.