Replies

This from yesterday’s posting.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/4239925/posts

I watched about five or six minutes of the video, and he explains that the woman was - for some unexplained reason - denied communion at a 10 a.m. Sunday mass. Then, she came back to the noon Mass and grabbed a bunch of hosts from the priest’s chalice or ciborium as he was dispensing them to communicants. She then began to crumble the hosts. Since both of his hands were full, the priest bit the woman in the hand to try to stop her.

Major Biden defense?

” in the State of Florida we have a stand your ground rule law”

Correct but does not apply for property.

That’s assault. Priest should’ve been arrested.

A moose once bit my sister. But no super natural phenomenon occurred.

Actually, the priest was illustrating what a purely literal reading of “this is my body/blood” that is broken/shed for us said at the last supper would mean, which is that the apostles were consuming what looked (and would feel, taste, etc.) the same literally manifest human flesh and blood of the crucified Christ, whose manifest physicality Scripture emphasizes in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was (Luke 24:39; 1 John 1:1-3; 4:2-3; John 5:6; 2 John 7)) in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, as is the case with the RC Eucharistic christ.

Meanwhile, in the metaphysical contrivance of RC Eucharistic theology (see before responding), the "Real Presence" only locally lasts/exists until the non-existent bread and or wine begins to manifest (appearance being critical) decay/corruption, at which point Christ is no longer locally present. Which relates to another problem, that of microscopic particles of the consecrated bread and wine, since these can end up in a vacuum cleaner, thus in this case i appearance becomes important in RC Eucharistic theology.

And of course, besides other distinctive Catholic teachings which 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). nowhere interpretive of John 6 is the Lord's supper referred to as spiritual food, but 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, whereby they "fed the flock." (Acts 20:28, 32)

What the Bible teaches is that the redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith (Acts 10:43-47; Acts 15:7-9) in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account , rendering them "accepted in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:6) - not deserved by any merit of themselves or any church.

For this faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) rendering one to be considered positionally righteousness, “justified” in God’s sight, and (as a result) this is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb. 12:22, 23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God. In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39)

The main difference on this versus Catholicism is that the latter believes in salvation by actually becoming good enough (via the act itself of baptism, and then via sacramentally aided (normally) attainment and - for most, Purgatory. to actually be with/see God in Heaven.