Had to snip your quotes to get below the word limit. Sorry. Hope it is clear what I am responding to.
You’re kidding, right? You should put down the Catechism and pick up the Bible. Human philosophies are condemend in the Bible in so many places it is difficult to understand how anyone with “rudimentary knowledge”
of the Bible could reject this.
1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
The Catholic church has a disease. It’s the disease of feeling the need to give explanations using human wisdom. It simply cannot stop itself.
1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
To the Gentiles (Greeks, actually), Christ’s message is foolishness. Why? Because of their reliance on philosophies and their need to
explain everything.
1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
Again, too much “human wisdom” in the Catholic church.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”
The Catholic church has painted itself into so many theological corners over over hundreds of years, that this verse is particularly applicable. The Catholic church thinks it’s crafty, but in the end simply comes up with contradictory (both internally and Biblically), and nonsensical beliefs.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
The Catholic church’s doctrines are based heavily on deceptive philosophy (of Aristotle), human tradition, and the basic principles of this world.
While Paul debated philosophers and sometimes appealed to them on their level (becoming all things to all men), he did not encourage Christians to apply worldly philosophy to their understanding of Christ. Quite the contrary.
Seriously, he condemned the philosophies of man. Tell me, how does an application of philosophical principles to the matter of the Eucharist, which is Jesus Christ Himself, deny Jesus Christ?
See my comments above. It requires no explanation beyond what is written, and any attempt at an explanation can result in nothing but confusion and contradiction. While explanations can be entertaining, interesting, and good for discussion, they should hardly be made into dogma.
The Book of Revelation has many clues as to what Jesus condemned in his churches. He condemned them for forsaking their first love, becoming rich in the world, holding to the teachings of Balaam, learning “deep” secrets of the faith, not maintaining repentance, and being lukewarm. One of the things he praised Ephesus for was hating the practices of the Nicolaitians - those who instituted authoritarianism in their churches. Sound familiar?
God gave us brains and intended to use them. What you call “arguing over semantics” is just the application of plain ol’ common sense.
No, I say one thing, which is identical in meaning to what you are saying, but you continue to attack it because I don’t use the words “substance,” “essence,” or some other equally pagan philosphical jargon.
Christ is alive. How could you say that His body doesn’t contain His blood?
Ask the Jews if the bread for Passover is supposed to contain leaven, and ask them what’s in the cup.
You make two contradictory arguments in the same post. First you say, “ask the Jews.” Then you say below: “doesn’t matter what the Jews (or the first Christians for that matter) did.” I find it alarming that you can make two contradictory arguments within a couple sentences of each other. We either have to follow the Jews’ and Christians’ example, or we do not. Which is it?
And where is your evidence that “the Eucharist was originally a real meal, not a sliver of bread and a sip of wine?” Jesus didn’t command the consumption of anything but His Body and Blood.
In fact, we know that Christ Himself is the Passover sacrificed for us (
1 Corinthians 5:7). Thus, if we’re celebrating the Passover feast, then Christ is the Lamb.
Thus, the meal is complete simply by following His command. .
I don’t disagree that there is no need to have a complete Passover meal. That’s the point. You, however, try to argue that we should follow the Jews’ example (in using alcoholic wine), and then argue that we don’t need to follow the Jews’ (or the first Christians’) example in having a meal. Note that I’m not claiming we celebrate Passover every time we get together, but it was originally a
full meal.
So I have no need to read your link, and the common Baptist prohibition against alcohol isn’t the least bit reasonable, since it goes against the direct commands of Our Lord - and that’s never “perfectly reasonable.”
Thus, the very clear command (clear, that is, to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish Passover ritual) is that of consuming wine - not grape juice.
You are too funny. You appeal to the Jews’ example, and yet you do something different in practice (by taking only bread).
Which command would that be? Jesus uses the phrase “fruit of the vine” which grape juice surely is. Your point is refuted, and I stand by my statement that the Baptist prohibition is both reasonable and Biblically supported.
) to attempt to overthrow the church? What apostle every taught you your version of the gospel? Can you give by name the authority of the teacher that taught you your knowledge of the gospel?