Posted on 06/22/2002 5:57:49 PM PDT by Siobhan
Save that "best evidence" wasn't seen for well over 1,400 years. The Real Presence was noted and accepted by every Council of the Church from the Death and Resurection of Our Lord until the heresy and apostasy of Luther and well after that and until today in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church. Who to believe? Christ or a heretic?
it is not a "fatal " error IMHO that is it does not block salvation..so I do not really usually chose to discuss it
I do think that putting your faith in rituals and symbols for salvation is a fatal error. There is only one Savior, only one sacrifice, only one shedding of blood for salvation..
It is by faith ye are saved not by works lest any man boast...
So my faith leads me to believe the Lord as have billions over 2,000 years. My works subtract not from that faith. I was validly baptised, I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and I am a faithful Catholic. How am I less than you in His eyes?
Too many say I am saved by grace + something else
Works that flow from our salvation are pleasing to God..we only get into trouble if we think we MUST do anything to be saved other than repent and believe
According to that statement, then, the following would hold true:
From the Apologia site:
All of these Old Testament sacrifices prefigure the New Testament Sacrifices instituted by Christ from Maundy Thursday (the day before Good Friday) and His Crucifixion (actually the same day by Jewish reckoning, from sunset to sunset). He'd told his disciples beforehand that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood; that He was understood to mean this literally is obvious when one reads that people were offended, disgusted! They were so revolted, that many walked away -- but Jesus didn't stop them and clarify, "You idiots, you misunderstand! I speak in spiritual terms and am not talking literally!" No. What He did was let them go: John 6:51-69
I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 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 1: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Can a homosexual be saved ..YES..we are all sinners.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
Jesus did not come for the righteous
We only think that somehow weare more worthy than someone else but the truth is
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean [thing], and all our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
The problem is we measure ourselves against each other instead of against a Holy God
Rom 3:10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Luk 5:32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Jesus died to save sinners, homosexuals are sinners..just as i am a sinner.
What I would expect of a Homosexual would be that God would replace his heart and turn his heart from that sin..I would expect to see fruit that are worthy of repentance..true repentance means turning from your sin..
So to make a long story short if someone tells me they are saved but there is an unchanged heart...could be that HE SAYS it...that does not make it so!
Have a blessed Sunday
Melchizedek's bread and wine, korban todah, korban pesach, the sacrifice of the red heifer, the Old Testament manna and the New Testament True Bread from Heaven, Malachi's "pure offering" -- all these sacrificial effects, gifts, and prophecies were brought together when Christ instituted the Mass at His Last Supper and then, on that same Jewish day, shed His blood for the remission of sin. At the Sacrifice of the Mass, we eat the body of Christ in a form whose "accidents" look like bread and wine after the order of Melchizedek, and whose very name, "Eucharist," means "Thanksgiving" (todah) -- as He commanded us to do. St. John the Divine's vision of our Lord, glorified and ascended, is that of a "Lamb as it had been slain" (Revelation 5:6) in a Heaven with an altar (Revelation 8:3), where He offers Himself to us in "hidden manna" (Revelation 2:17), the Eucharist.
So then you would agree with
Matthew 7:21
Not every one who says to me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
or
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [It doesn't say "unless these people have had the experiences of "feeling saved" or having been born again.]
What is different at Mass is the mode or manner of offering. It is to this sense that the Catholic refers when he says that the Mass is un-bloody. But in the Mass, bread and wine transubstantiate into the Body and Blood of Christ. So obviously, in that sense, the Mass is a bloody Sacrifice. It does (and must) contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, otherwise it could hardly be identical to the Sacrifice on Calvary. However, whereas on Calvary, Christ died and shed His Blood in a unique way, in the Mass our Lord mystically renews His death and Body-and-Blood Sacrifice in a sacramental way, not under the appearance of His Body and Blood, as on the Cross, but under the appearance of bread and wine; hence the manner of offering at the Mass is unbloody. It is bloody in the sense that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but unbloody in the sense that it is offered under the appearance of bread and wine in a sacramental fashion.
Hope that helps.
God bless!
Rn, we celebrate the Mass to unite us with the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ at Calvary. We are not repeating a new sacrifice, or re-sacrificing Jesus, we are sharing in the one perfect sacrifice. In essense, we are with Jesus at Calvary.
I think these sentences explain it very well:
It means that we once again take the already sacrificed Christ, hold Him up to the Father, and say, "Father, look upon the Lamb that was slain for our sake. Through this holy and perfect Sacrifice, pardon our sins, and turn Your wrath away from us; be appeased by the pleasing odor of this unblemished Lamb." In order to do this, obviously, Christ must be made present again — which is why the priest transubstantiates the bread and wine into Christ's Body and Blood.I know we've been through this debate in the past, and I doubt that I will be able to change your mind on this, but think about it and open your heart to try to understand.
God bless!
I would argue that the Jews understood the bread of life as the bread that came down from heaven and fed them in the desert..manna.
What was the complaint in the
desert? They were hungry and thirsty.They thought they were going to die in the desert , what did Jesus say?
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jesus identifes himself with the manna...and in effect says He is the manna Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Peter saw the3 analogy and the spiritual truth that Jesus was teaching ...He understood that Jesus was the manna and jesus was the rock from wich life giving waters flowed..
1Pe 2:4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious,
==================================================
Jesus spoke it very plainly to the Jews
Read it as they heard it
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Jhn 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
They understood that Jesus was comparing Himself to the manna..How could that be?
Melchizedek was a type of Christ A man, called and he offered sacrifices. He was a prophetic look at Christ.
How could Christ have "instituted" the "mass" at the last supper when your own liturture calls it the "unbloody "sacrifice of Calvery"
There was no Calvery at that time..there was no Bloody sacrifice at that time..
An unbloody sacrifice is not pleasing to God..ask Cain!
thanks for your reply
Relax..I think that all of us enjoyed the exchange..
Yes, He did.
Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Protestants say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. You quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" You claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what He was saying? Hardly. The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
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.