WCH,You’ve been corrected on this guanophore. Why do you continue to sin willfully? Is it the “Roman Catholic” way of doing things? Sinning willfully?
Because John 6 is not used in connection with the Eucharist, but only the synoptic Gospels.
Well that’s amusing, since you haven’t answered anyone else’s requests for specific answers. . . .
Those who reject the faith of the Apostles in preference for the new innovations of the Reformation do not connect it. But those who receive the Teachings of the Apostles see the connection. When we read it, we read according to the One Faith that has been passed down to us through the Apostolic Succession. That is why we understand it differently.
Don’t hold your breath. This one seems to be afraid to do to much thinking.
Oh, but I have…over, and over, and over, and over again. The problem is you don’t follow along well.
You are absolutely right. I cannot follow the reasoning behind why you would think an author would quote from a book that had not yet been written.
Why isn’t Paul concerned with them not discerning both the body, and the blood?
I’ve told you four or five times, guanophore. It’s not my fault you can’t remember.
But you forget, guanophore (as usual), that Justin ***did quote ***from the synoptic Gospels.
You seem to have no experience in how to conduct a dialogue, debate, or even a discussion, WCH. Such dodging is not conducive to any of these. What brings you to CAF? It seems clear you are not here to get Catholic Answers, and you are not here to conduct any mature interaction with any other members. What needs are you getting met?
1 Cor 11:27, 29 NAB *Therefore whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND blood of the Lord.
Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing.
Luke 22:18-211 Cor 11:27, 29 NAB Therefore whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND blood of the Lord.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That’s why so many of you are ill and infirm and a considerable number are dying.
The death certificate reads: Cause of Death: Eating a symbol
The body and blood of the Lord are really, truly, substantially present in BOTH of the sacred species. We receive the resurrected, glorified body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord when we receive either. He is alive, and His body and blood are not separated. Separation of blood from a body is a sure sign of death.
Jim Dandy
Thanks Jim, but you didn’t answer my question. I don’t why I bother. You folks just can’t follow along, but like politicians, you unconsciously go to your talking points.1 Cor 11:27, 29 NAB Therefore whoever eats the bread OR drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body AND blood of the Lord.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That’s why so many of you are ill and infirm and a considerable number are dying.
The death certificate reads: Cause of Death: Eating a symbol
The body and blood of the Lord are really, truly, substantially present in BOTH of the sacred species. We receive the resurrected, glorified body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord when we receive either. He is alive, and His body and blood are not separated. Separation of blood from a body is a sure sign of death.
Jim Dandy
Right on!
WCH,
WCH has been pretty consistently Calvanistic. I think all of these elements of the Aposotlic faith were rejected by Calvin.
I grew up Calvinist and ostensibly (albeit lackadaisically) “studied” his Institutes of the Christian Religion (although, to this day I assert that it would be better translated from the Latin as The Institution of the Christian Religion) at the first Calvinistic college I attended. I’m not sure it’s safe to say that all those elements of the Apostolic teaching on the Eucharist were rejected by Calvin. While he did reject the Real Presence in the host on earth, he retained a kind of… semi-anamnesis (for lack of a better term) claiming that, during the Lord’s Supper we are taken up into heaven and mystically united with Christ, even though He doesn’t come down to us, so he seemed to conceive of a Christ who was, well, half present. In fact, during his days in Geneva, Calvin vehemently protected the elements during his services with as much fervor as the most devout Catholic would protect Our Eucharistic Lord from sacrilege (despite, of course, the obvious fact that he had absolutely no way of actually consecrating them since, unlike Luther, he wasn’t even a priest). Therefore, I don’t believe he would be willing to say that the Supper is either fully symbolic, nor that Jesus was truly present, but rather somewhere closer to halfway in between. Furthermore, I suspect - though I haven’t researched it - that Calvin did, at the very least, believe that grace was imparted to us during reception of the Supper (again, since he had no authority to consecrate it, I have no idea how much grace could actually subsist there, since it’s not really Jesus’ Body and Blood, but… Calvin didn’t know that), for how could we be taken up into heaven unless the grace of God were operating there to make that happen?
Tiberius1701,