Posted on 10/02/2023 11:57:46 AM PDT by ADSUM
“The Catholic Church teaches that when we partake of the Eucharist in Holy Communion, we are consuming the actual physical body of Jesus Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1244, 1275, 1375).”
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
Then everyone who does consume that should literally live forever
Didn't Jesus, in the same discourse, also say that anyone who ate would never be hungry or thirsty (vs 35) and that whoever ate would live forever (vs 510?
Do you eat and drink to stay alive?
So where are the apostles? They should still be around, right?
Why are there Catholic funerals?
I haven't seen any Catholic live forever. They age and die just like everyone else.
What's the matter? Doesn't eating His flesh and and drinking His blood, as you all believe, work after all?
Your question: “Why do you all pick and choose which words of Jesus to take literally and obey or disobey?”
I follow the teachings of the Catholic Faith passed down through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture from Jesus and the Apostles through the Catholic Church.
Why do follow the impetrations of men in the protestant religions 1500 years after Christ?
You still concerned about the literal meaning of father, and like a broken record continue to say it over without understanding the meaning.
So how did St Paul get unto heaven for saying he is A SPIRTUAL FATHER?
Proverbs 26:4 seems to be the answer to some of these angry & provocative threads.
I say ignore them and let them find out the hard way the consequences of their decisions.
We know the Fruit of the Spirit.
FWIW: My 81 year old Roman Catholic Aunt just gave her life to Jesus (Accepted, Believed, and Confessed in Jesus’s Finished Work on The Cross) and her entire attitude and outlook on life has changed. THAT IS THE HOLY SPIRIT.
She may have only a few months to live - pulled out of the fire (Jude 1:23) so to speak.
Nothing is impossible with Jesus!
Trivia Question regarding the GWTJ:
Is that before or after “Purgatory”?
😅😅🤣🤣
(Did the She-baas question how to construct an ark?)
(All that water)
When He was being crucified there are zero accounts of anyone trying to capture His blood.
Same goes for after He was crucified. No accounts of anyone capturing the blood or flesh for consumption.
IF, as Roman Catholicism claims, it was a literal requirement and was understood as such by the disciples or His followers, there should be accounts of people attempting to get His blood and flesh.
Yet, we have zero accounts of this happening in the New Testament.
So I take it you'd advise against grabbing a HTML bullhorn and posting a bombastic series of Sola Scriptura/Salvation by Faith/Once Saved Always Saved screeds?
Thrilling news about your aunt! It's never too late. Always love gaining more eternal brothers and sisters.
I'm reminded of my 87-year-old Lutheran grandmother, who as she aged became confused about salvation. So my wife and I sat down with her and reminded her of the Gospel's simplicity and her assurance of salvation. She is the one who prayed me into the Kingdom in the first place, and the Spirit let me have a part in assuring her. Like your aunt, her relief was palpable.
Pray for them, but sometimes casting pearls to swine isn’t exactly going to produce results.
The Gospel is easy and we humans make it impossible (with the help of evil principalities & powers).
Sometimes prayer is the only way (toss in some fasting there perhaps).
Great story BTW about your grandmother. The gentle touch of His Spirit to help his child.
I don’t know bro. I will leave it up to your imagination. 😆😆😆😆😆
—> I follow the teachings of the Catholic Faith passed down through Sacred Tradition
And that right there I is your problem
; 150 of 295; 149 of 295; 167 of 295; 197 of 295; 259 of 295; 281 of 295; 293 of 295 ; 203 of 987; 422 of 1,358; 435 of 1,358; 447 of 1,358; ; 1,048 of 1,358; 1,042 of 1,358; 1,060 of 1,358; 27 of 89; 47 of 89; 57 of 89 ; 67 of 89; 70 of 89; 78 of 89; 83 of 89; 85 of 89; 89 of 89; 150 of 547; 434 of 547 ; 158 of 295 ..
then see here, by the grace of God. :
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
4. 1Cor. 10,11 |
5. The Lord's Supper in the record and descriptions of the New Testament church |
6. Purely literal versus the contrived Catholic interpretation |
11. Endocannibalism |
12. Conclusion |
1. Taken literally, did the flesh and blood that the Lord said to eat at the last supper refer to His body which was to be crucified (broken) and the blood that was to be shed?
2. Was the incarnated and crucified body and blood of Christ that which appeared (along with other evidences of literal physicality) as an incarnated manifestly physical body, or as an inanimate object?
3. Does Scripture emphasize the manifestly physical body of Christ in countering an idea of Christ that was not materially, physically what He appeared and otherwise manifested Himself to be?
4. Is the body of your Eucharistic Christ that which is manifest as the incarnated physical body of Christ, or is that which appears (along with other evidences of literal physicality) to be inanimate objects, while it is claimed to be something different than was it materially appears to be?
5. Is the book of Acts and the rest of the NT the only wholly inspired substantive record of how the NT church understood the gospels?
Does the book of Acts and the rest of the NT show that:
6. Is literally physically consuming anything ever a means of obtaining spiritual life in Scripture aside from the interpretation of John 6?
7.Is spiritual life within oneself obtained by taking part in the Lord's supper, (cf. John 6:53) or by believing the word of the gospel that was preached, resulting in regeneration? (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13)
8. Is conducting the Lord's supper described as the primary unique function of pastors, changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offering it as a sacrifice for sins and feeding the flock thereby? Or is the word of God what is referred to as spiritual food, as "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock? (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)
9. Is the Lord''s supper manifestly mentioned in the epistles except for one (besides the cursory reference in Jude 1:12)?
10. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-22 did the pagans have communion with devils by consuming their flesh or by taking part in the dedicatory feasts?
11. Is the church described as one bread therein in communion with Christ via the Lord's supper?
12. Contextually, why did Paul state that the Corinthians were not actually coming together to eat the Lord supper in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22?
13. Is "not discerning the body" in 1 Corinthians 11:29 contextually referring to the nature of the elements consumed or the church due to their not treating members of it as souls who were bought by His sinless shed blood?
14. What did Paul say they did when taking part in the Lord's supper? By interpreting the bread and wine as themselves being the body of the Lord or that they were showing/declaring the Lord's death by sharing in the communal meal as one body?
15. Was the solution to the problem whereby the Corinthians were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, not discerning the Lord's body? A teaching on the bread and wine themselves being the Lord's body or that they needed to stop eating separately (and thus not come hungry)?
16. In the Old Testament is literally consuming human flesh and or blood affirmed or set forth negatively?
17. Is metaphorically consuming human flesh ever set forth positively?
18. Is water ever plainly called and treated as human blood? 18. Is consuming the word referred to as literal or spiritually?
That should be enough to deal with. See The Lord's Supper here for answers, by the grace of God.
that at the moment of the Consecration which is when the priest says, "This is my body," "This is the cup of my blood" the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ who is then really present as God and as Man sacrificing himself for us on the altar as he sacrificed himself on the cross (The Mass Explained - Catholic Education Resource Center)
At “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)
Notice the words “present” and “reality/real,” for unlike how Christ was manifestly present and real in His incarnation described in Scripture, and which manifest physicality is emphasized ( 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8) in contrast to a Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He was as regards incarnation (as within really Docetism and or Gnosticism), in Catholicism the Eucharistic Christ is not what He appears, feels, tastes and would scientifically test to be, for what He appears to be is mere bread and wine. But which itself does not exist, being replace by Christ, until this non-existent bread and wine begins to manifest decay, and then He no longer exist/is present under that appearance either.
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; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")
"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." (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America)
"the Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn’t (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn’t." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)
"the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration: " (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ Article 2) "On the altar are the body and blood of Christ; the bread and wine no longer exist but have been totally changed into the body and blood of the Saviour... - https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc).
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist;" (CCC 1377) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." ibid, Mulcahy, p. 32)
In contrast, the only Christ of Scripture has a manifestly physical body, even after being glorified:
“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:” 1 John 1:1; cf. 1 John 5:8)
“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)
“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)
A purely literal reading of the “this is my body/blood” that is broken/shed for us said at the last supper would mean that the apostles were consuming the same literally manifest human flesh and blood of Christ which attested to His incarnation, in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning.
Note that support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that NT church believed.
As pertains to the Lord’s supper, in Catholicism it is presented as "the heart and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1407) “a kind of consummation of the spiritual life, and in a sense the goal of all the sacraments," (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) through which “the work of our redemption is carried out,” (CCC 1364) providing “the medicine of immortality, the antidote for death, and the food that makes us live for ever in Jesus Christ” (CCC #1405) and only conducted by Catholics priests who offer it “in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC 1414) “cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins.” (CCC 1393) ;
But rather than the NT church understanding the Lord’s supper as being the life-giving central hub and focus of the Christian life, what we see in the the only inspired and substantive record of how the NT church understood it is that it only being actually only taught in one epistle (aside from the mere mention of breaking of bread in Acts and the “fest of charity” in Jude 1:12, which is in 1 Corinthians. In which the Lord’s supper is that of remembering 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 in their dedicatory feasts, (metaphorical or metaphysical? 1Cor. 10)
Therefore in the next chapter the Corinthians are rebuked as not actually coming together to eat the Lord’s supper, for while they did come together for that purpose, yet they were not actually having the Lord’s supper due to how they treated the body of Christ, the church.
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 11:20-22)
The apostle Paul thus reiterates what the Lord said at the institution of the Lord’s supper, an adding the interpretive conclusion, “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.” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)
Catholics actually invoke this section in support of the Catholic interpretation, but the nature of the elements is not the contextual focus, though in v. 26 the bread is still called bread and the cup represents its content, while the purpose of the Lord’s supper is stated, and with the focus continuing to be that of the corporate body of the church (and which focus continues into the next chapter) .
Which is to do “show the Lord’s death till He comes,” which was by sharing a meal with others who were bought by His sinless shed blood, thus showing affirmation of them and themselves in union with Christ, with the church being as "one bread."
Therefore, by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then there not actually having the Lord’s supper, but were acting contrary to the very act that they were supposed to be remembering and showing, and thus in essence were guilty of being contrary to the atoning blood of Christ, by which He purchased the church, (Acts 20:28) and were being chastened for it, some even unto death. For as Paul was very conscious of, to mistreat the church was to mistreat Christ Himself. (Acts 9:4)
This being the offense, not effectually considering/recognizing/discerning the body of Christ by mistreating its members by selfishly eating independent of other blood-bought faithful believers, ignoring and shaming them, then the solution is not some defining of the nature of the bread and wine, but even contrary to requiring fasting before the Lord’s supper, the apostle enjoins:
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)
In addition, no where is the Lord’s supper presented as a sacrifice for sins and a means of obtaining spiritual life, nor is the conducting of it a uniquely pastoral function, or their primary unique function, much less that of pseudo RC priests.
Instead the primary work of NT pastors (besides prayer) is preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13; cf. Psalms 19:7) thus desiring the sincere milk (1Pt. 2:2; cf. (1Co. 3:22) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, and by the preaching of which pastors “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) by which they are "nourished." (1 Timothy 4:6 ) Glory be to God.
A more extensive examination of the Catholic verses Scripture understanding of the nature of the elements consumed is here, by the grace of God.
Now what we (and I) a believers need to do is better act in accordance with effectually remembering and thus showing the Lord’s death and resurrection till He comes.
Despite the emphasis upon the bread and wine being changed into the “true body” and blood of Christ, body souls and divinity, whole and entire, being “really present, Catholic theology does not hold that the Eucharist is literally actual physical flesh and blood as the incarnated body of Christ would test to be, for as Aquinas admitted,
“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; Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
Likewise,
"If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (RC priest Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation")
And,
"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." (Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America)
"the Most Holy Eucharist not only looks like something it isn't (that is, bread and wine), but also tastes, smells, feels, and in all ways appears to be what it isn't." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 22)
Thus, while claiming that the Lord is then “physically present,” this presence is not as that of the Biblical Christ in His incarnation, whose manifest physicality is so much stressed in Scripture, as opposed to a docetist or gnostic-type Christ whose appearance does not coreponf to what He materially was, and never appeared after His incarnation as anything but a bodily form.
Catholic Eucharistic theology is is that that at the words of consecration by the priest (and only be an ordained Catholic priest) then at this “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965)
But which means that the hosts which look, smell, and taste and would scientifically test as being bread and wine, is actually said to have ceased to exist at the words of consecrated by a validly ordained priest, being transubstantiated by the real body and blood of Christ (fully in both, even to subatomic particles):
"the substance of the bread cannot remain after the consecration: " (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ Article 2) "On the altar are the body and blood of Christ; the bread and wine no longer exist but have been totally changed into the body and blood of the Saviour... - https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc (https://www.ewtn.com/library/Doc).
That is, until the non-existent host shows corruption/decay. CCC 1377:
"The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." ibid, Mulcahy, p. 32) At which point neither the decaying bread or wine nor the body and blood of Christ really exist in that time and place. (Summa Theologiae, Question 77)
Which is what Catholic often refer to as the "literal" but understanding of the Lord's supper, yet which as we shall see, is actually metaphysical, and is in contrast to the metaphorical understanding which alone easily conflates with Scripture overall.
Thus despite speaking about about the actual partaking of “Christ in person, hence literally,” they do not literally consume the actual bloody flesh as it was manifest in the incarnation and thus Catholic Eucharistic theology requires complex metaphysical theology to justify it.
Which “true body and blood” is in contrast to the manifestly incarnated Christ of Scripture, whose appearance actually corresponded to what He was, which looked, felt, etc. and would taste and (i believe) would scientifically test to be human flesh. And which manifest physicality is emphasized in Scripture:
“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.” (1 John 1:1) “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..” (John 1:14)
“For verily he took not on *him the nature of* angels; but he took on *him* the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16) “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)
As far as taking the words of consecration literally, 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 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.
Such as,
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 (http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Num.%2014.9))And therefore what we see in the only description of detail in the inspired record of how the NT understood the gospels, the understanding of the Lord's supper was that of remembering 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 in their dedicatory feasts, (http://www.peacebyjesus.net/The_Lord%27s_Supper.html#1Cor)
A purely literal reading of the “this is my body/blood” that is broken/shed for us said at the last supper would mean that the apostles were consuming the same literally manifest human flesh and blood of Christ which attested to His incarnation, in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning
Note that support for the Catholic miscontruance of the Lord’s supper largely relies upon reading the gospels in isolation from the rest of the NT, as well as so-called “church Fathers.” However, the uninspired (versus wholly God-inspired Scripture) words of men whose teaching came after the apostles had died, and which to varying degrees testifies to a progressive accretion of traditions not seen in the only inspired record of what the NT church believed, cannot be determinitive of what that church believed.
However, based upon what is manifest in that wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Acts thru Revelation in the New Testament, nowhere is the distinctive Catholic teaching of the Lord’s supper, of her Eucharistic theology, manifest, besides other distinctive Catholic beliefs. Including the fact that the NT church had no clergy distinctively ordained as "hiereus” denoting a distinctive class of sacerdotal men (priests).
Indeed, just as we believe that the water that men risked their lives to obtain for David, out of the well of Bethlehem, was their blood, therefore David would not drink it but poured it out unto the Lord as per 2 Samuel 23:16-17.
And just as we believe (the Canaanites were “bread" for Israel as per Num. 14:9.
And that Ezekiel ate the scroll of words that he was to speak to the house of Israel with as per Ezek. 2:8; 3:1; And just as we believe that Jesus is the Lamb of God. (Jn. 1:29)
And who was the temple Christ would raise up as per John 2 (misunderstood by the carnally minded).
And that one must be born anew as per John 3 (misunderstood by the carnally minded).
And would provided water whereby the drinker shall never thirst as per John 4 (misunderstood by the carnally minded).
And that the Lord's "meat" was to do His Fathers will as per John 4 (misunderstood by the carnally minded).
And that man shall live by every word of God as per Mt. 4
And that, "As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me as per John 6:57.
And that the words that Jesus spoke were Spirit and Life as per John 6:63
And that one obtains spiritual life by believing the gospel with heart purifying regenerating faith, as per Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9
Do we believe that Jesus can change the bread and wine into His Body and Blood (Transubstantiation) just as He changed water into wine (John 2:1-11)?
Indeed, we even believe that God could have enabled Noah to build a laptop, and allow Catholics to come up with fallacious polemics.
Do you believe that Jesus gave us His Body and Blood on the Cross to redeem the sins of mankind
Indeed, glory to God.
and He gave us His Body and Blood in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to eat and drink for our bodily nourishment and for our souls to have eternal life?
No way, since as conclusively shown in the past, but ignored, this is simply not Scriptural
Nowhere are church pastors exampled conducting the Lord's supper and offering it up as a sacrifice for sins and dispensing it to the people as spiritual food, esp. as a unique active function of them.
Instead, preaching the word being their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby (Acts 20:28) for it is the word of God that is called spiritual food, even milk (1Pt. 2:2) and “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, with believing the gospel being the means of obtaining life in oneself, by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) Which alone is said to spiritually nourish souls, (1Tim. 4:6) and which builds them up. (Acts 20:32) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34)
Interestingly, in Acts 10;14, Peter tells God that he had never eaten anything unclean.
If peter had thought that Jesus really meant what He was passing around was literal flesh and blood, Peter would have refused to eat, and in fact, did, based on his testimony in Acts 10.
He was an observant Jew and would not have violated the Law like that, and since Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not do away with it, neither would He have commanded anyone to break it, nor would He have broken it Himself. That would have been sin and thus disqualified Him to be the spotless, sinless Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
The claim that the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus fails on many, many levels.
That is a misunderstanding of Catholic eucharistic theology, as while words such "true body and blood" are used, that at “consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood,” thus becoming the “true Body of Christ and his true Blood,” (CCC 1376; 1381) having been “substantially changed into the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord,” being corporeally present whole and entire in His physical "reality.” (Mysterium Fidei, Encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 1965) "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins,"(CCC 1365) with His human body and human soul, with His bodily organs and limbs and with His human mind, will and feelings. (John A. Hardon, S.J., Part I: Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence) Thus the statement, "Consequently, eating and drinking are to be understood of the actual partaking of Christ in person, hence literally.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist) Yet this is not as a body "sensible, visible, tangible, or extended, although it is such in heaven," but under a "new mode of being," (John A. Hardon, S.J., Doctrine of the Real Presence in the Encyclical "Mediator Dei") so that the Eucharist being "the true and proper and lifegiving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ," "the very body which he gave up for us on the cross," etc. and in each and every visible particle or the bread and the wine, does not mean the bread and wine are literally transformed into actual literal bloody human flsh with its evident properties. 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; 75:1) Thus "If you took the consecrated host to a laboratory it would be chemically shown to be bread, not human flesh." (Dwight Longenecker, "Explaining Transubstantiation") Therefore purported "Eucharistic miracles" are not consistent with what the Real Presence via transubstantiation means. Francis Clark, S.J. states that Thomas Aquinas (a "doctor of the church"), considered the issue of such purported miraculous manifestations of the physical flesh of Christ in the hosts and explained that what appeared on those occasions, And since there is a problem with invisible particles falling or floating away (thus ending up most anywhere), and since decomposition has been ongoing to some degree since they were baked, then in theology it is stated (or argued) that only what is visible in "normal" vision is the "true body and blood." I do not have the link now for that. could not be the real flesh and blood of Christ, for such a possibility was excluded by the nature of transubstantiation and of Christ’s sacramental presence ; but they were miraculous representations produced by divine power as tokens to direct men’s thoughts to, and to strengthen their belief in, the true flesh and blood of Christ invisibly present under the Eucharistic species. ('Bleeding hosts' and Eucharistic theology, Francis Clark, S.J., p. 219-20,22)
But it is imagined that that at the moment of the completion of the words of consecration by the priest (and only by ordained priests) then the bread and wine no longer exist, while the "Real Presence" of Christ's body that these elements are changed into (which change is said to be occur outside of time, and regardless of appearing as bread and wine) only exist until the bread or wine - which again, are held to no longer exist - begin to manifestly (appearance being critical) decompose, as Aquinas affirms (Summa theologiae, III, q. 77, a. 6) as well as others: "The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ." (CCC 1377; Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641) "...that is, until the Eucharist is digested, physically destroyed, or decays by some natural process." (The Holy Eucharist BY Bernard Mulcahy, O.P., p. 32) Thus persons with celiac disease can suffer adverse effects to the non-existent gluten in the Eucharistic host) and wine (which one could get drunk on in sufficient quantity) takes place (as with mold, digestion, etc.), in which case "Christ has discontinued His Presence therein." (Catholic Encyclopedia>The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist)
Indeed, and was silent when Christ told vocal protester Peter (what Catholics imagine) to literally consume His body and blood. But with recourse to amorphous "oral tradition," Catholics can argue that the Lord could have explained eucharistic theology to him, even if not that Gentiles could be saved now.
And how do we know what oral tradition contains? Well, on Rome's say so, as possessing ensured conditional magisterial veracity . And how do we know that Rome possesses this? Because she says tradition teaches this, even if not in Scripture.
Time now for me to get some sleep, by the grace of God.
And yet offer no solid proof of what they claim. It's just their say so and we're supposed to take them at their word as if they have never lied or done anything wrong in the past, ever.
Reminds me of the FBI investigating itself and finding no evidence of wrongdoing.
How very convenient.
Jesus meant what He said when He called Peter, the supposed founder of the Catholic church, “Satan!”
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.