Well, never said that. He replaced small “l” lamb as element of the Passover for our remembrance, replacing it with bread and wine (also elements of Passover), and I suggested why, and thought it not shallow. I would be glad to hear of another explanation that may be deeper.
You think that because you limit your belief to the written Word of God which isn’t the full expression of the Word of God on earth. The prayer for an acceptable offering is an acknowledgment of the full reality of the Body of Christ.
Lol…but what position of said verse should I defend? I mean on day one he created light, yet on day four He created the sun, moon and stars etc. ???
Do you not believe that the Apostles brought all that they were to the banquet? How did they go about “preparing” the last supper, other than what they purchased and cooked? They didn’t all show up with Jesus at the last minute, and expect he would miraculously lay the table! They brought what had been prepared! We see this as early as the Apology of Justin Martyr, when he describes the Mass, an the Didache that describes how the faithful should prepare.
I am sure this is what you were taught to believe. For Catholics, that praise and thanksgiving is bringing all that we have, and all that we are to the altar.
The Lamb was slain marking deliverance from slavery. This was accomplished through His passion on the cross. This is why we call it the “source and summit” of the faith. It is the point where our whole being is brought in thanksgiving for His sacrifice.
It has been grossly truncated, certainly, and more so as communities move further and further away from the Apostolic faith.
Yes, I agree. If it is centered around us, it loses it’s meaning.
It is not strange to us. It brings clarity that we are not there because of anything we have done, but only because of what He has done.
Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.
Ok so it follows that God is the 'mist of our salvation. Jesus founded His Church on mist. You don’t see that as a limited expression of the Incarnation? God didn’t become a misty reality on earth. He was that before the Incarnation.
No, He founded His church on giving us eyesight to see thru the mist. Jesus told Peter the Father in heaven gave him divine revelation, to see thru the array of opinions. The church and we, came out of the mist. Anyone trying to look in or find her must be given divine revelation first.
To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.mcq72:
Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.
Then you agree the Church isn’t founded on mist. Especially in reference to eyesight.
reminds me of John 2 7-11
I think this is precisely what John wanted us to be reminded of when writing His Gospel. It was written after the Church had a half a century to reflect on the Last Supper and “all the other things that Jesus said and did”. John 6 looks back through decades of Sacred Tradition, and God’s revelation about the nature of the Eucharist.
yes, amen (not sure anyone said otherwise)
those are two different things, to eat and what we eat. We most assuredly eat the Lord but how. And yes, it is dependent on John 6, and last supper discourse, and Paul 's mention of eating at the table, with background of Passover etc.
Those that walked away took it literally (and they did not believe from the beginning)
He would have also explained that it wasn’t quite so literally , but thu the transformation of eating the passover bread and wine, but He didn’t.
Guanapore’s post expresses the veil as the Father’s of our Faith taught.
Would you mind sharing where Jesus literally asserted Transubstantiation in John 6?guanophore:
To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.mcq72:
Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.
He said what He meant on these points quite clearly, in John 6, at the Last Supper and elsewhere. Transubstantiation. No quibbling with consubstantiation or mere symbol there. And Apostolic and early church teaching is quite consistent on the point too.LilyM:
Those that walked away took it literally (and they did not believe from the beginning)
He would have also explained that it wasn’t quite so literally , but thu the transformation of eating the passover bread and wine, but He didn’t.
“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world…”LilyM:
Would you mind sharing where Jesus literally asserted Transubstantiation in John 6?guanophore:
To assert that it does not really transform into His flesh and blood and that eating and drinking of such is not essential is to totally deny the meaning of John chapter 6. In John 6 Jesus quite emphatically literally asserted both points, and allowed many to walk away who could not accept what He was saying. Note that He then challenged the Apostles to walk away also - to them at least He would have explained had He been speaking other than literally.mcq72:
Well, we read it differently, don’t we? On the contrary, this is exactly what was believed and taught, and held by the One Church from that time, until this. Those who departed from this understanding were called heretics.
You misunderstand that the importance of the building is contingent on the location of the Body of Christ. The Church isn’t filled with hearts changed to His but hearts obedient to what will change it.
We are a dim reflection of Christ and few of us alone are worthy of being pointed at as Christ’s body. That is the reason that our suffering united to His is made redemptive. That is how we become like Him enough to be pointed at. That is how we become One Bread One Body. The Martyrs exemplify that. Not us average joe’s.