Are Roman Catholics too senstive?

[Zooey]

Has the OP (& others of his same mind) ever considered this:
This is CATHOLIC Answers Forum.
The rest of us are sitting in somebody else’s living room (even though it seems like our own, when we look up from the computer), and it is, IMNSHO, extremely rude to attack other people in their own homes.
This is not United Methodist Answers, nor, Presbyterian answers,nor Baptist Answers, nor LDS Answers, nor is it Pre-Millenial, PreTribulational, Paedo-Baptist, Etc-ad-nauseum Nondenominational Answers.

• [PS: Yes, those are all real thological terms… Except Etc-ad-nauseum. That one only** ought** to be real. IMNSHO, of course. ]

 

[dzheremi]

Is it possible to be too sensitive about the great burden that we shoulder to spread the gospel to all people? No, I do not think we are too sensitive.

 

[Snow]

Actually, I just stated the opposite. Those insecure about their faith come here and try to shake those who believe the truth, as if one of us were to fall, then those who came here feels maybe they are justified with what they believe.

God Bless,

I’ve seen the thread by the anti-Catholics. I don’t read them much. There are insecure and immature as well. What I also notice, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again is Catholics attacking other faiths. Insults, misconceptions, dishonesty, and pathetic name-calling. It’s take me mere moments to find dozens of examples.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve seen the thread by the anti-Catholics. I don’t read them much. There are insecure and immature as well. What I also notice, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and again is Catholics attacking other faiths. Insults, misconceptions, dishonesty, and pathetic name-calling. It’s take me mere moments to find dozens of examples.

Yes Snow, I’ve seen the arguments. Look at it like this, you corner up someone and repeatedly poke them with a stick, eventually they will come out fighting. These forums have been here for years now. Anyone who comes along and makes claims against Catholicism, that have been made before, takes the brunt of those who preceded them.

You and I were involved on a thread once and eventually I unsubscribed because of the degeneration of that thread into a world lacking of charitability.

It would be easy to find moments as you describe above. How long would it take to find the original source of the same accusation? It’s like asking, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

A forum originally designed to be a place for Catholics to share their faith and learn all they can about it, has evolved into a place for Catholics to have to defend what they believe. It’s not unique for here. I’m sure the same takes place on all forums, no matter which faith moderates the forum. This brings us to the same question asked at all forums, what brings those of a different faith here?

God Bless,

 

[underdog]

underdog;4545319:

I think passion is good. Christians are commanded to proclaim and defend the gospel. Eternal matters are significantly more important than all temporal matters. It’s tough to participate on another Christian community’s site when we have vastly different ideas on Christianity. What puzzles me is that only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches claim to be the One True Church… with fullness of truth. I’m amazed that any Christian could even think that their particular church has the fullness of truth. God is infinite in wisdom, beyond each one of us to be able to understand Him in full. We all see dimly in this life. We can all read this biblical passage and believe we are obeying God."

do you believe in what Jesus said in John 6:53ff? “Truly I say unto you that unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood there is no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.” many of his disciples who heard him say this left because they would not believe. Jesus did not call them back, and even asked his apostles if they wanted to leave too. of course they did not and affirmed that they believe, except for one. guess who? judas iscariot, the one who betrayed Jesus. now my second question is where can we partake of Jesus’ body and blood? in Orthodox and Catholic Church. that’s why they have the fullness of truth.
God bless.

Does fullness of truth simply mean partaking in the literal flesh and actual blood of Jesus Christ? For most non-Christians, we do not believe that Jesus Christ will literally leave the right hand of God to sacrifice Himself on the Catholic altar when Catholic or Orthodox Priests call Him down to the various altars. If you study John 6 in context, you might understand the non-Cathoic Christian’s position. I think Jesus Christ has more important things to do than coming down to the catholic altar over and over and over again. I don’t mean to fight anyone over this issue, but this is how non-Catholics understand this sacrament. Actually, there are various views on this sacrament within non-Catholic Christians. I used to attend a church who partook in the Lord’s Supper every Sunday as a means of grace. Some Protestant churches have a very high view of communion, but not as high of a view where Jesus Christ comes down from Heaven to offer Himself on the Catholic altar over and over again. In regards to the OP, it will be interesting to see the reaction to this post. Will everyone over-react?

 

[JonNC]

In reality, and in everyday life…the vast majority of Catholics are a pretty “passive” lot. Catholics tend to endure, and not respond to slurs and such. Its nothing new to us. Frankly…if we were half as aggressive as other people…we would still be “laid back” in general.

The people that you find here on this site and some others that defend the Catholic faith…are the more outspoken, vociferous ones if you will.

Yes, we can be defensive, and can even be aggressive, however, when one considers who we are defensive and aggressive with, its rather easy to see why. Having to redundantly and repetitively explain to non-Catholics their misunderstandings…and often to the same persons ad nauseum, is sad.

I, like many Catholics have no need to defend myself or my faith. I am a Catholic, and I believe as a Catholic, and in turn have little or no concern about what others think of my beliefs. I will willingly explain my beliefs, and whether or not a non-Catholic accepts my beliefs is up to them. Whether or not they understand them is up to them. I do however tend to take umbrage at those who criticize the Church and do so wrongly, regardless if out of ignorance or willfulness.

Bottom line: If I had a nickel for every anti-non-Catholic website owned by a Catholic I couldn’t buy a happy meal at MickeyD’s, in fact I’d be hard pressed to manage to buy a gumball out of a machine!

On the other hand, if I had a penny for every anti-Catholic website owned by a non-Catholic, I could most probably eat high on the hog for a month or more!

The OP’s question contains “untruth”. I wonder if he or she can figure out where?

Actually, the better questions would be: **Why are so many non-Catholics so worried, incensed, over-wrought, and even crazed over what Catholics believe? And why do they seem to think they have a righteous duty to set us straight about God? ** Seems like an awful lot of them spend an inordinate amount of time on this site trying to do just that.

Hi Rob,
I think the key phrase here is the last one. The n-C’s who are not here, for the most part, probably haven’t thought of it all that much. They were probably raised in their church, and have never considered what others, including Catholics believe.

One other thought; I have found here that those on either side who tend to be aggressive, are responded to by aggressiveness. Those that are reasoned, calm, and charitable, tend to be responded to in a like manner, as well.
There are strident posters on all sides, and I believe that polemics and lack of charity only perpetuates division (much to Satan’s glee).
Are Catholics too sensitive? Not anymore than non-Catholics.
Jon

 

[AshleyBelle]

Does fullness of truth simply mean partaking in the literal flesh and actual blood of Jesus Christ? For most non-Christians, we do not believe that Jesus Christ will literally leave the right hand of God to sacrifice Himself on the Catholic altar when Catholic or Orthodox Priests call Him down to the various altars. If you study John 6 in context, you might understand the non-Cathoic Christian’s position. ** I think Jesus Christ has more important things to do than coming down** to the catholic altar over and over and over again. I don’t mean to fight anyone over this issue, but this is how non-Catholics understand this sacrament. Actually, there are various views on this sacrament within non-Catholic Christians. I used to attend a church who partook in the Lord’s Supper every Sunday as a means of grace. Some Protestant churches have a very high view of communion, but not as high of a view where Jesus Christ comes down from Heaven to offer Himself on the Catholic altar over and over again. In regards to the OP, it will be interesting to see the reaction to this post. Will everyone over-react?

I think we are beginning to get a glimpse into why the great sacrament of the Eucharist is so difficult a hurdle in your faith right now, underdog. This is the second reference you’ve made to “well doesn’t he have more important things to do?” "

In another thread you phrased it this way:

Quote from Underdog:
What happens if Jesus had something more important to do like sustaining the universe of interceding for believers instead of comming down

We must not forget that Jesus is God! It boggles the mind to even begin trying to fathom the infinite, almighty, creator of the universe coming down at the incarnation, and becoming a baby in His mother’s womb! And yet, it is a matter we accept on faith, even though we can never reason it into our limited understanding.

The same is true of the Eucharist. When we partake of the bread and wine, should we ask of Jesus “don’t you have more IMPORTANT things to do?” Certainly not! He is our Lord, and He loves us beyond any love we can comprehend. We simply believe and have faith in His great gift of love

In that same thread, you asked the same question you are now…and when I answered you said we “must agree to disagree…” and changed the subject.

But if you really wanted to “agree to disagree” I find it odd that you are asking the SAME question here. I believe God is drawing you to the Eucharist, underdog. And rightly so! It is JESUS! He is really there… He is not just spiritually in our hearts, or written on the pages of your Bible… He is still Here, physically present and dwelling among us! “Even until the end of the age” as He promised!

The question is, will you listen to Him?

Here was my answer to you in the other thread, when you asked “Have you read John 6 in context.” And this time, if you really are not just happy to agree “to disagree.” (as you’ve illustrated by asking this question again here…) I hope you will read what I’m posting, and ask questions But most importantly, PRAY! I will be praying for you as well…that the Jesus will reveal Himself to your restless heart…so that you may truly find rest in Him.

God bless!

** Underdog: Please read John 6 in context.**

Posted by Ashleybelle:
The context is the last supper… which is actually a celebration of the passover meal. This is significant for many reasons…there are connections to the Melchiezadiek priesthood (I can never spell that correctly lol), and it symbolizes Christ as our paschal lamb. In Jewish tradition, they were to sacrifice a lamb, mark their door posts with its blood, and then consume its flesh. That’s important to keep in mind when we question if Christ literally meant to eat His flesh and blood.

He said “truly truly this is my body and this is my blood” And that “if you do not eat of my flesh or drink of my blood, you have no life within you.” Many left Him, saying “this is a hard teaching, Lord! Who can accept this?”

And when He turned to Peter (and this is important to note, because PETER was the first shepherd Christ entrusted with the keys to the kingdom later), and asked will you leave too? And Peter replied “Where would we go, Lord? You have the words of eternal life!”

Those who left could not accept His teaching…it sounded like cannibalism! In fact, when translated the terminology He used was actually “to chew.” The jews were forbidden to drink blood…this contradicted everything. But Jesus repeated it five times!

It’s true that He often spoke in parables…but throughout scripture when He would teach a parable, He always took the 12 aside afterwords to explain what He MEANT by it. In this case…He did not explain. It was NOT a parable…He meant His true flesh and His true blood.

In the first centuries of the church, Christians were accused by the jews, greeks, and pagans of cannibalism! That is because they heard that Christians ate flesh! So there are ECF statements clarifying that we do NOT eat human flesh…we are not cannibals.

That is because the body and blood of Christ are not pieces of our Lord. He did not tear the flesh from Himself when He said “this is my body.” He offered Himself…every time we partake of communion we are partaking of Him WHOLLY, His fully body, blood and divinity.

It would be cannibalism if it were human, mortal flesh. but we partake of Christ in His glorified body and glorified flesh…under the appearance of bread and wine.

I’ve read John 6 in context…have you?

 

[JonNC]

=underdog;4546345
If you study John 6 in context, you might understand the non-Cathoic Christian’s position. I think Jesus Christ has more important things to do than coming down to the catholic altar over and over and over again. I don’t mean to fight anyone over this issue, but this is how non-Catholics understand this sacrament. Actually, there are various views on this sacrament within non-Catholic Christians. I used to attend a church who partook in the Lord’s Supper every Sunday as a means of grace. Some Protestant churches have a very high view of communion, but not as high of a view where Jesus Christ comes down from Heaven to offer Himself on the Catholic altar over and over again. In regards to the OP, it will be interesting to see the reaction to this post. Will everyone over-react?

Speak for yourself, my friend. That is not how this nonCatholic Chrstian understands the Sacrament of the Altar. For Christ to be truly and substantially present in the Eucharist is probably the most important thing Christ does. Afterall, He has invested quite a bit in our salvation - torture, the Cross, and ressurection. He promised He would come, “as often as you drink”. He expects us to do it often. He wants to come to us often. Catholics may argue that my Lutheran Church doesn’t have His body and blood, but I believe it does, every bit as much as I believe their’s does.

Jon

 

[underdog]

Speak for yourself, my friend. That is not how this nonCatholic Chrstian understands the Sacrament of the Altar. For Christ to be truly and substantially present in the Eucharist is probably the most important thing Christ does. Afterall, He has invested quite a bit in our salvation - torture, the Cross, and ressurection. He promised He would come, “as often as you drink”. He expects us to do it often. He wants to come to us often. Catholics may argue that my Lutheran Church doesn’t have His body and blood, but I believe it does, every bit as much as I believe their’s does.

Jon

I can respect Martin Luther’s view of the Eucharist. As I mentioned, there are various views of non-Catholic Christians. Martin Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic view. Do you wish to explain the similarities and differences between Lutherans and Catholics on the Eucharist?

 

[underdog]

I think we are beginning to get a glimpse into why the great sacrament of the Eucharist is so difficult a hurdle in your faith right now, underdog. This is the second reference you’ve made to “well doesn’t he have more important things to do?” "

In another thread you phrased it this way:

We must not forget that Jesus is God! It boggles the mind to even begin trying to fathom the infinite, almighty, creator of the universe coming down at the incarnation, and becoming a baby in His mother’s womb! And yet, it is a matter we accept on faith, even though we can never reason it into our limited understanding.

The same is true of the Eucharist. When we partake of the bread and wine, should we ask of Jesus “don’t you have more IMPORTANT things to do?” Certainly not! He is our Lord, and He loves us beyond any love we can comprehend. We simply believe and have faith in His great gift of love

In that same thread, you asked the same question you are now…and when I answered you said we “must agree to disagree…” and changed the subject.

But if you really wanted to “agree to disagree” I find it odd that you are asking the SAME question here. I believe God is drawing you to the Eucharist, underdog. And rightly so! It is JESUS! He is really there… He is not just spiritually in our hearts, or written on the pages of your Bible… He is still Here, physically present and dwelling among us! “Even until the end of the age” as He promised!

The question is, will you listen to Him?

Here was my answer to you in the other thread, when you asked “Have you read John 6 in context.” And this time, if you really are not just happy to agree “to disagree.” (as you’ve illustrated by asking this question again here…) I hope you will read what I’m posting, and ask questions But most importantly, PRAY! I will be praying for you as well…that the Jesus will reveal Himself to your restless heart…so that you may truly find rest in Him.

God bless!

** Underdog: Please read John 6 in context.**

The best way to understand the Eucharist is within the context of the entire Bible. Ready John 6 and understand it as a part of the rest of Scripture. But it you go beyond divine revelation, you might end of with the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

BTW

The score is 19 for Catholics are too sensitive as yes or maybe

to

19 with the answer of no.

Maybe the current results should allow you to communicate better with other non-Catholic Christians who Christ died for? The universal church does not include all Roman Catholics, nor does the body of Christ consists of only Roman Catholics.

 

[AshleyBelle]

The best way to understand the Eucharist is within the context of the entire Bible. Ready John 6 and understand it as a part of the rest of Scripture. But it you go beyond divine revelation, you might end of with the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is forshadowed throughout the old and new testament.

Please read the Bible in context

Here underdog… I pulled up a great website that lists so many references to the Eucharist throughout scripture. You can view it all at ScriptureCatholic.com

Please keep your heart open to this! I Truly believe Christ is calling you to full communion with Him!

Foreshadowing of the Eucharistic Sacrifice

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God.

Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.

Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.

Lev. 19:22 – the priests of the old covenant would make atonement for sins with the guilt offering of an animal which had to be consumed. Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant, has atoned for our sins by His one sacrifice, and He also must be consumed.

Jer. 33:18 - God promises that His earthly kingdom will consist of a sacrificial priesthood forever. This promise has been fulfilled by the priests of the Catholic Church, who sacramentally offer the sacrifice of Christ from the rising of the sun to its setting in every Mass around the world.

Zech. 9:15-16 - this is a prophecy that the sons of Zion, which is the site of the establishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice, shall drink blood like wine and be saved. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the priests of the Catholic Church.

2 Chron. 26:18 - only validly consecrated priests will be able to offer the sacrifice to God. The Catholic priests of the New Covenant trace their sacrificial priesthood to Christ.

 

[AshleyBelle]

More from ScriptureCatholic.com

Foreshadowing of the Requirement to Consume the Sacrifice

Gen. 22:9-13 - God saved Abraham’s first-born son on Mount Moriah with a substitute sacrifice which had to be consumed. This foreshadowed the real sacrifice of Israel’s true first-born son (Jesus) who must be consumed.

Exodus 12:5 - the paschal lamb that was sacrificed and eaten had to be without blemish. Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38 - Jesus is the true paschal Lamb without blemish.

Exodus 12:7,22-23 - the blood of the lamb had to be sprinkled on the two door posts. This paschal sacrifice foreshadows the true Lamb of sacrifice and the two posts of His cross on which His blood was sprinkled.

Exodus 12:8,11 - the paschal lamb had to be eaten by the faithful in order for God to “pass over” the house and spare their first-born sons. Jesus, the true paschal Lamb, must also be eaten by the faithful in order for God to forgive their sins.

Exodus 12:43-45; Ezek. 44:9 - no one outside the “family of God” shall eat the lamb. Non-Catholics should not partake of the Eucharist until they are in full communion with the Church.

Exodus 12:49 - no uncircumcised person shall eat of the lamb. Baptism is the new circumcision for Catholics, and thus one must be baptized in order to partake of the Lamb.

Exodus 12:47; Num. 9:12 - the paschal lamb’s bones could not be broken. John 19:33 - none of Jesus’ bones were broken.

Exodus 16:4-36; Neh 9:15 - God gave His people bread from heaven to sustain them on their journey to the promised land. This foreshadows the true bread from heaven which God gives to us at Mass to sustain us on our journey to heaven.

Exodus 24:9-11 - the Mosaic covenant was consummated with a meal in the presence of God. The New and eternal Covenant is consummated with the Eucharistic meal - the body and blood of Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.

Exodus 29:33 – God commands that they shall eat those things with which atonement was made. Jesus is the true Lamb of atonement and must now be eaten.

Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word “eukaristia” which means “thanksgiving”).

Lev. 17:11,14 - in the Old Testament, we see that the life of the flesh is the blood which could never be drunk. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ’s blood is the source of new life, and now must be drunk.

Gen. 9:4-5; Deut.12:16,23-24 - in these verses we see other prohibitions on drinking blood, yet Jesus commands us to drink His blood because it is the true source of life.

2 Kings 4:43 - this passage foreshadows the multiplication of the loaves and the true bread from heaven which is Jesus Christ.

2 Chron. 30:15-17; 35:1,6,11,13; Ezra 6:20-21; Ezek. 6:20-21- the lamb was killed, roasted and eaten to atone for sin and restore communion with God. This foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was sacrificed for our sin and who must now be consumed for our salvation.

Neh. 9:15 – God gave the Israelites bread from heaven for their hunger, which foreshadows the true heavenly bread who is Jesus.

Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40 - the raining of manna and the bread from angels foreshadows the true bread from heaven, Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 53:7 - this verse foreshadows the true Lamb of God who was slain for our sins and who must be consumed.

Wis. 16:20 - this foreshadows the true bread from heaven which will be suited to every taste. All will be welcome to partake of this heavenly bread, which is Jesus Christ.

Sir. 24:21 - God says those who eat Him will hunger for more, and those who drink Him will thirst for more.

Ezek. 2:8-10; 3:1-3 - God orders Ezekiel to open his mouth and eat the scroll which is the Word of God. This foreshadows the true Word of God, Jesus Christ, who must be consumed.

Zech. 12:10 - this foreshadows the true first-born Son who was pierced for the sins of the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem.

Zech. 13:1 - on the day of piercing, a fountain (of blood and water) will cleanse the sins of those in the new House of David.

 

[JonNC]

I can respect Martin Luther’s view of the Eucharist. As I mentioned, there are various views of non-Catholic Christians. Martin Luther did not believe in the Roman Catholic view. Do you wish to explain the similarities and differences between Lutherans and Catholics on the Eucharist?

We’re a bit off topic, my apology to the OP. Lutherans believe that Christ is truly and substanially present, given, and received. We reject transub as presumptuous, that His presence is truly a mystery beyond our ability to describe. Luther described the presence as “in, with, and under”. It can be argued that that is presumptuous as well. So be it. What is not different is our shared belief in the real presence.

Jon

 

[AshleyBelle]

continued:

esus Institutes the Eucharist / More Proofs of the Real Presence

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means “is.”

Matt. 26:28; Mark. 14:24; Luke 22:20 - Jesus’ use of “poured out” in reference to His blood also emphasizes the reality of its presence.

Exodus 24:8 - Jesus emphasizes the reality of His actual blood being present by using Moses’ statement “blood of the covenant.”

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

1 Cor. 11:27-30 - thus, if we partake of the Eucharist unworthily, we are guilty of literally murdering the body of Christ, and risking physical consequences to our bodies. This is overwhelming evidence for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These are unjust penalties if the Eucharist is just a symbol.

Acts 2:42 - from the Church’s inception, apostolic tradition included celebrating the Eucharist (the “breaking of the bread”) to fulfill Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me.”

Acts 20:28 - Paul charges the Church elders to “feed” the Church of the Lord, that is, with the flesh and blood of Christ.

Matt. 6:11; Luke 11:3 - in the Our Father, we ask God to give us this day our daily bread, that is the bread of life, Jesus Christ.

Matt. 12:39 – Jesus says no “sign” will be given except the “sign of the prophet Jonah.” While Protestants focus only on the “sign” of the Eucharist, this verse demonstrates that a sign can be followed by the reality (here, Jesus’ resurrection, which is intimately connected to the Eucharist).

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ’s union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ’s body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Luke 14:15 - blessed is he who eats this bread in the kingdom of God, on earth and in heaven.

Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus commands the apostles to “do this,” that is, offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, in remembrance of Him.

Luke 24:26-35 - in the Emmaus road story, Jesus gives a homily on the Scriptures and then follows it with the celebration of the Eucharist. This is the Holy Mass, and the Church has followed this order of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist for 2,000 years.

Luke 24:30-31,35 - Jesus is known only in the breaking of bread. Luke is emphasizing that we only receive the fullness of Jesus by celebrating the Eucharistic feast of His body and blood, which is only offered in its fullness by the Catholic Church.

John 1:14 - literally, this verse teaches that the Word was made flesh and “pitched His tabernacle” among us. The Eucharist, which is the Incarnate Word of God under the appearance of bread, is stored in the tabernacles of Catholic churches around the world.

John 21:15,17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed” His sheep, that is, with the Word of God through preaching and the Eucharist.

Acts 9:4-5; 22:8; 26:14-15 – Jesus asks Saul, “Why are you persecuting me?” when Saul was persecuting the Church. Jesus and the Church are one body (Bridegroom and Bride), and we are one with Jesus through His flesh and blood (the Eucharist).

 

[underdog]

The Eucharist is forshadowed throughout the old and new testament.

Please read the Bible in context

Here underdog… I pulled up a great website that lists so many references to the Eucharist throughout scripture. You can view it all at ScriptureCatholic.com

Please keep your heart open to this! I Truly believe Christ is calling you to full communion with Him!

The Holy Spirit or the vicar speaks through His divine revelation called the Holy Bible. Therefore, God the Holy Spirit already has united me to Jesus Christ will full communion with the Father. It is through faith that we come to the Father through Christ, and not through the Eucharist.

Jesus the Great High Priest

Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. - Hebrews 4

 

[AshleyBelle]

There are so many more references throughout scripture… I could continue posting…there are at least three more posts worth of examples that ScriptureCatholic.com cites.

I encourage you to prayerfully read your Bible in the light of Christ’s Eucharistic miracle and offering for us.

God bless

 

[CatsAndDogs]

It seems some Roman Catholics are over-sensitive and very aggressive when discussing Christianity with non-Catholic Christians.

It never a bad thing to be as sensitive as possible.

But we need to “gate in” the stimuli with which our extremely sensitive “BS about God”-sensor uses, so that we don’t “go off” on morons instead of understanding their limitations.

Truth belongs to God and not a particular Christian community. What do you think?

There is only one Christian community, in reality. That would be Christs Body, the Church (Catholic = Universal).

Truth doesn’t belong to us (The Church). We belong to the Truth (God).

Once these two facts are understood, many “oddities” about the state of “Christian Fractionalism” are rather obvious and obviously corrected.

:shamrock2:

 

[underdog]

There are so many more references throughout scripture… I could continue posting…there are at least three more posts worth of examples that ScriptureCatholic.com cites.

I encourage you to prayerfully read your Bible in the light of Christ’s Eucharistic miracle and offering for us.

God bless

At least you are posting in a nicer way. I will hold fast to the once for all sacrifice, instead of calling Jesus down from the right hand of God to the Catholic and Orthdox altars at the call of priests. On a side note do you see the elements of the bread and wine change before your very eyes to the acutal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ? Do the remains after the change rot like ordinary elements of bread and wine? How many masses are held in one week in all the Catholic and Orthodox churches? Jesus must be ascending and descending from Heaven to the atar on a regular basis.

 

[underdog]

We’re a bit off topic, my apology to the OP. Lutherans believe that Christ is truly and substanially present, given, and received. We reject transub as presumptuous, that His presence is truly a mystery beyond our ability to describe. Luther described the presence as “in, with, and under”. It can be argued that that is presumptuous as well. So be it. What is not different is our shared belief in the real presence.

Jon

I’m glad Martin Luther had such a high view of the Eucharist.

 

[underdog]

It never a bad thing to be as sensitive as possible.

But we need to “gate in” the stimuli with which our extremely sensitive “BS about God”-sensor uses, so that we don’t “go off” on morons instead of understanding their limitations.

There is only one Christian community, in reality. That would be Christs Body, the Church (Catholic = Universal).

Truth doesn’t belong to us (The Church). We belong to the Truth (God).

Once these two facts are understood, many “oddities” about the state of “Christian Fractionalism” are rather obvious and obviously corrected.

:shamrock2:

Do you understand that their is a difference between Roman Catholic and catholic, right?

FYI… the score has changed to 22 for yes and maybe against 19 for no. The catholics are winning the poll, in contrast to the Roman Catholics. Don’t feel bad, the catholic church includes Roman Catholics too.