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 ...
But RCs claim that’s what John 6 is teaching. Literal blood and flesh had to be consumed.
Rather, as I am quite sure you have been told in the light of numerous reproofs of your parroted propaganda, which is clearly contrary to the context, in which the Corinthians were 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 (1 Corinthians 11:26) 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) and leaving others hungry, thus shaming other blood-bought members, utterly contrary to effectually remembering and thus proclaiming the Lord's death which bought them and made them one bread, because they were not recognizing/treating other blood-bought members of His body as being members, And thus were told that they were not coming together to eat the Lord's supper, and with the solution being that of self-examination (1 Corinthians 11:28) and waiting for each other, and not coming hungry to that communal feast. (1 Corinthians 11:33)
The nature of the elements is not at issue here, and are referred to as "bread" and "cup," consuming which declares/preaches (kataggellō) the Lord’s death, (1 Corinthians 11:26) but as in the preceding snd proceeding chapters, the focus is on the body of Christ, which was bought by His death, with His sinless shed blood, (Acts 20:28) to the glory of God in Christ.
Even the notes in the official RC bible for Americans states concerning "not discerning the Lord’s body" states,
"It follows that the only proper way to celebrate the Eucharist is one that corresponds to Jesus' intention, which fits with the meaning of his command to reproduce his action in the proper spirit. If the Corinthians eat and drink unworthily, i.e., without having grasped and internalized the meaning of his death for them, they will have to answer for the body and blood, i.e., will be guilty of a sin against the Lord himself (cf ⇒ 1 Cor 8:12 [But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:12)]).At length,
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" this 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.
Thus this section, as with the gospel accounts, must be interpreted in context, and related to this, in the rest of Scripture the word of God is the only spiritual food described which gives life, being "milk" (1Pt. 2:2) and "meat" Heb. 5:12-14 by which one is nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up, (Acts 20:32) and who are to let the word of God dwell in them richly, and thereby teach others, (Col. 3:16) and with the preaching of it the evident means of feeding the flock. (Acts 20:28; cf. 2 Timothy 4:2)
Well, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
However, as concerns non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals, while it is held that Rome will not teach salvific error - which is exactly what she does, even by presuming the above, yet there are 3 or 4 (depending on how the Interpreter is interpreted) magisterial levels, each with its degree of required assent.
RC priest William G. Most lists FOUR LEVELS OF OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING, (http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt) while a prolix Roman Catholic lay theologian lists 3, and states on that the general Magisterium "seeks the truth fallibly, includes the possibility of significant error, but is guided by the Holy Spirit. . seeks the truth fallibly, includes the possibility of significant error, but is guided by the Holy Spirit. (http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm) A non-infallible ordinary teaching requires only ordinary assent (the religious submission of will and intellect) because errors are possible in non-infallible teachings. (http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/contra-cardinal-ratzinger-on-levels-of-assent/)
For the Bible Christian, contrary to RC assertions of being "little popes," the veracity of any position must be based upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as it was for the NT church which began in dissent from the judgment of the historical magisterium on the status of John the baptist and Jesus of Nazareth and His disciples. Which did not presume ensured perpetual veracity of magisterial office, and whose veracity could be subject to the test of Scripture by noble men. (Acts 17:11)
I suspect some of these persistent parrots presume they are gaining an indulgence by doing so, and or it is driven cultic devotion to one's source of security in the light of an increasingly liberal RC body, which has resulted in various TradCath sects.
Yet since there is not only even one argument thread for distinctive Catholic teachings that has not been refuted here that I am aware of (want a list?), usually repeatedly by the grace of God, then blithely ignoring the latter and repeatedly posting more the same (does the OP actually thing she is the first) is actually an argument against being a RC.
I don't seem to recall Protestants leaping onto soapboxes to create threads arguing the contradictory point, but perhaps I just overlooked them.
There was one that popped up a while ago, and in response to one that posted a series of attacks some years ago then management put out the hook on such, while RCs took as giving them special privileges, I suspect partly in response to a certain RC of influence.
Another begging the question fallacious assertion. It remains that distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
Thus ultimately requiring reliance on oral tradition and the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, which itself appeals to the former, under which then tradition and history can only authoritatively assuredly mean what she says, if she says so herself. Thus RC teaching is supposed to be the supreme law, under the premise that it cannot contradict Scripture, according to her.
People who believe in virgin births, real presence, resurrection from the dead, etc., have no excuse whatsoever to reinterpret Genesis "in the light of modern science."
Jesus told us it requires Faith to accept God’s revealed Truths even if we do not understand the supernatural mystery. Jesus declared to Peter that revelation came from “my Father who is in heaven”
Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him” (CCC 153), and not simply an opinion one has come to by some other means.
St. Thomas Aquinas helps us flesh out the implications of this Catholic view. He says that true faith is not simply assenting to what is known (Summa Theologiae II-II Q. 2 A.1); after all, demons do this, but they do not have faith.
Instead, faith requires an act of the will—not just the intellect. God does not reward or punish people for their knowledge, but for what they choose.
Christians can choose not to believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as taught by Jesus and the Catholic faith. Your comment: “No way, since as conclusively shown in the past, but ignored, this is simply not Scriptural”
I disagree with your opinion and I believe in the Words of Jesus.
Why is this article and posting is provocative?! Please tell us why posting once again and again on Catholic beliefs which are contrary to evangelical Bible faith is not provocative? Do you have a short memory, or do you want a list of links to vain arguments of RCs - including you - who have previously attempted this one alone?
If I Jesus told us to share His teachings with all nations. (Mt 28)
Jesus did not teach logical fallacies, including your practice of "begging the question," presuming as a conclusion what needs to be established, in this case that what you post is what Jesus told to share with all nations, which as shown, is not what the NT church taught.
Another ignorant logical fallacy, that of arguing as if someone can do something then it means that that person did so, and thus those who disagree must not believe that they can.
The rest of your delusion has been already exposed as being so, in context. Time for me to go fix some bikes.
I stand corrected.
Creepy if true! LOL
My point was merely to introduce to them the Holy Spirit as a/the source for posting, inasmuch as that seems to be novel to them. How nice and lovely heaven's conversations will be, when our personal foibles are behind us and His Spirit permeates our free will.
He who Eats his Flesh and Drinks his Blood, will have
Covenental, Eternal (forever) Life in Them.
Why don't you believe in what Jesus said and did?
Why do you not believe St. Paul's warning about the Sacred body:
For He who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner
eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning THE LORD'S BODY."
Heck, I still haven’t got any answer to whether the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals in their selection of the new pope.
I don’t expect any other Catholic to look for His leading either.
So you pick and choose what passages to take literally and which to take figuratively or spiritually depending on what Catholic doctrine you want to support, eh?
Because the way Catholics flip between literal and non-literal within one discourse or from verse to verse, or sentence to sentence, indicates no genuine desire to learn and believe what Jesus actually taught and said, but rather smacks of cherry picking verses to support the predetermined conclusion. Or doctrine.
I do. He said the flesh profits nothing, that it’s the Spirit who gives life and the words He spoke were spirit and truth.
If y’all are so bound and determined to believe what Jesus said and taught, are you still calling your priests “Father?”
CCC 1374 states “The whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.”...”by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.”
That's certainly correct.
Don’t want to hide my light under the ol’ basket. Want them to ask me what makes me different, as Peter formatted, and I’m giving them a hint Who is behind me.
HIS FLESH, which was Sacrificed for us, is everything Isn't it?
Why do you persist in this verse pretend game?
Either Jesus contradicts himself in God-Breathed inerrant scripture-
OR
He SAYS what he means 4-5 times! in a row! (Emphasis Mine):
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat
THE FLESH OF THE SON OF MAN and drink his blood,
you have no life in you.
54 WHOEVER eats MY FLESH and drinks my blood HAS ETERNAL LIFE, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD and my blood is real drink.
56 WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH and drinks my blood REMAINS IN ME,
and I IN THEM.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father,
SO THE ONE WHO FEEDS ON ME WILL LIVE because of me.
58 THIS IS THE BREAD that came down from heaven.
He meant what HE said there, 4-5 times over.
And you wish to call this symbolic? Metaphor?
Did Jesus call himself a Door, a Gate or a Vine - 4 times in a row?
Did any disciples leave when He called himself a "Gate"?
You don't think those Disciples knew he was NOT being symbolic-
when they went away and left him?
Think.
Just exactly - or how many times do you need Christ to tell you to Eat His Flesh for Life within in Him?
6 times? 10 times? 20 times? How many would convince you?
Seems like Jesus is pretty dang adamant there,
trying to get you to understand that.
Would you have left him to as his many supposed disciples did?
If y’all are so bound and determined to
believe what Jesus said and taught,
are you still calling your priests “Father?”
Aren't you the same FRiend that chastised me for...
changing the subject?
;)
You mean, like the plan of salvation? 😁😆
Does that snake need a pit? 😂
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.