Eucharist: Is this Correct?

[stormstopper]

I do so enjoy how you mix the physical and metaphysical in such a way.

Please, can you provide early church fathers holding your view?

I quoted to you from your official church teaching which report that your “jesus” makes a fast exit when the stomach acids begin their attack. It is therefore unnecessary to seek out an early father who spoke about stomach acids, per se, since their opinion is not over the Magisterium’s. Now if you want to make a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical to support your view and/or say how it conflicts with mine, then be specific and say what you mean so the kind readers of this thread will understand where you are coming from.

 

[ncgolf]

There are only two alternatives: either Jesus was saying “this is in fact my body”, or “this represents my body”. Contrary to the RCC, we believe that when we respect and stay within biblical parameters, the latter is the only logical choice----it being a metaphor. A metaphor boldly declares that one thing IS another —when it really isn’t.

You miss something so obvious I am surprised. You must look at who says those words. Jesus did many things that only God can do. When Jesus says “Your sins are forgiven” … they are forgiven. His words make it so … just as when God says “Let there be light” … it is so. Jesus’s words are effacious … they do what they say. Now tell me when Jesus says to blind beggar … “your sins are forgiven” … tell me how does this work … what really happened. You cannot tell me exactly how it happens but we can come with constructs that can explain how it is possible this happened. We know that the sins were forgiven … correct

Why can one understand “Your sins have been forgiven” or “Let there be light” as being exactly as they are spoken because of the the power of the one who speaks it but when Jesus says “This is my body” the 3rd alternative of it being true as he says it is discounted.

If you said “This is my body” … yes your two alternatives are valid but not with God.

The key is found in the verb “is”. It denotes representation. We have recourse to metaphor when we look over a map and say, “This is England”. We don’t mean that the paper is England, but those inkspots upon it represent that country.

Like I said above … why then do you not question Jesus’s words when he says “Your sins are forgiven”. Are is a form of the verb is.

The biblical evidence is crystal clear: the emblems of bread and wine were meant for us to mediatate on the solitary, majestic and horizon-filling grandeur of the Lord Jesus Christ’s rescue mission to humanity. It was never meant to be a sacrifice offered to God over and over again as we observe in the Mass. That happened “once” 2,000 years ago—“once” being stated 7 times in Hebrews 7, 9 & 10 . . .completely precluding any idea of repetition with, “Nor yet that He should offer Himself often” {9:25}. Needless to say, the event at Calvary doesn’t need to be renewed, re-enacted, reapplied, refurbished or “re-presented”. . . not now----not ever!

You see it one way … we see it another, but your analysis of the possibilities is incomplete and inconistent when you apply it other times God says something definitive.

 

[Lapey]

Lapey;6008860:

I will finish some of these for you, since you don’t understand some of the significance here.

They would have eaten the LAMB!!! Jesus is the Lamb of God.

---

I must emphatically inform you that Jesus Christ DID NOT EAT HIMSELF at the Last Supper. You must do away with these horrific traditions that are tied around your neck like a noose. The Bible simply will not support such nonsense.

I must empathetically inform you, HIS APOSTLES MOST CERTAINLY DID and scripture says exactly that! “He took bread, said the blessing and gave it to His diciples saying…” You just choose to not see it. Remember He say His words are “Spirit and Life”, there has to be spiritual meaning to these verses or you will not see the life that they hold.

Are you a Baptist minister, you debate like one. In other words, you always have the truth, the right answer in your own mind.

The Sacred Trdition you warn me about is part of the Gospel that was taught to the early Christians that is not written down, passed on through the Church to me. It is the Tradition of God. It can be said with more validity that the tradition you follow, and you most certaily do, is the tradition of men that Paul warns us about.

So when you warn about tradition, look in the mirror my freind.

 

[ralphinal]

I quoted to you from your official church teaching which report that your “jesus” makes a fast exit when the stomach acids begin their attack. It is therefore unnecessary to seek out an early father who spoke about stomach acids, per se, since their opinion is not over the Magisterium’s. Now if you want to make a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical to support your view and/or say how it conflicts with mine, then be specific and say what you mean so the kind readers of this thread will understand where you are coming from.

I doubt that the Catholic posters on here need it, but I will explain.

Jesus is present Body, Blood, soul, and Divinity in what seems to be bread and wine. Now, those qualities that make it bread and wine are still seen by us on earth (called accidents). However, the substance has changed to Jesus. Once digestion occurs (and it actually starts in the mouth), what seems to be bread physically ceases to be bread physically. At that time, as Jesus is there in the FORM of bread and wine, he is no longer there.

However, is presence, although Real, was not a physical one. It is one that defies physical description. It is a metaphysical one. As he leaves what seemed to be bread, I am one with Him, in the most profound spiritual way.

 

[stormstopper]

We are slaves of sin; the Eucharist provides spiritual nutrition to help me not sin.

No where in Scripture are we told that Communion wafer would help us not to sin. You are p(name removed by moderator)ointing one of the exact reasons why you see so many Protestant churches! The Scriptures describe what you have just said to be a benefit of injesting the Eucharist, as a promise to be received by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Catholicism is, shall we say, “ripping off” the virtues of the Holy Spirit, and transferring them over to the Eucharist. This you have no right to do. Helping you not to sin (aka "self-control) is something even your catechism admits. As I stated elsewhere

The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and SELF-CONTROL” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

As for what you said about the Eucharist being “NUTRITION”, I will remind you that we are told to put on the whole armor of God, which includes “the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit” {Eph 6:13-17}. Directly after these verses, the apostle Paul indeed says he wanted to open his mouth—but not in order to swallow the Eucharist. Notice— In Scripture, life is described as a battle. If there was anything even remotely nourishing in swallowing the communion wafer as the RCC claims {CCC #1003, “Ecclesia de Eucharista”, by John Paul II, #16-17) it would have been highlighted here as the ultimate “vitamin pill” to sustain “soldiers of Jesus Christ” in the wars ahead {1 Tim 1:18, 2 Tim 2:3}. The Pope says the Eucharist is, “our food for the journey” {Ecclesia, #61}. But the apostle did not include this food in the soldier’s battle plan, but only asks the Ephesians to pray that he would boldly open his mouth to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . period. In stark contrast to God’s marching orders as to what constitutes a soldier’s armor, the RCC again ventures outside the inscripturated Word and hundreds of years later expects us to believe we must add to our weaponry and be “invisibly equipped” with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.

However, the Lord has already promised the “invisible equipment” of the Holy Spirit—by whom we are promised to be “strengthened with might in the inner man” {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the RCC Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.

 

[stormstopper]

You miss something so obvious I am surprised. When Jesus says “Your sins are forgiven” … they are forgiven. His words make it so … just as when God says “Let there be light” … it is so. Jesus’s words are effacious … they do what they say. Now tell me when Jesus says to blind beggar … “your sins are forgiven” … tell me how does this work … what really happened. You cannot tell me exactly how it happens but we can come with constructs that can explain how it is possible this happened. We know that the sins were forgiven … correct

And I too am surprised that you miss something even more obvious. No one is arguing the efficaciousness of the words of Jesus Christ.

But your comment completely ignores that all too often Jesus used the most provocative and compelling expressions to drive His point home and John 6 is no exception. For example,

“If thy right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” {Matt 5:30} --and “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother. . .and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” {Luke 14:26}.

He was not speaking in the literal sense in these places, and neither was He speaking literally when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood! Yes, this is a hard saying, but you’ve only got 2 possibilites: was He speaking figuratively or literally? The overwhelming evidence is for the figurative view, since for the most part, all the RCC does is say, “Jesus said to eat Him----case closed”. We deny this.

 

[Lapey]

No where in Scripture are we told that Communion wafer would help us not to sin. You are p(name removed by moderator)ointing one of the exact reasons why you see so many Protestant churches! The Scriptures describe what you have just said to be a benefit of injesting the Eucharist, as a promise to be received by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Catholicism is, shall we say, “ripping off” the virtues of the Holy Spirit, and transferring them over to the Eucharist. This you have no right to do. Helping you not to sin (aka "self-control) is something even your catechism admits. As I stated elsewhere

The Catechism readily admits that the Spirit will “teach us everything”, helps in understanding the Word of God, renews us into the image of Christ, sanctifies the church, and produces in us “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and SELF-CONTROL” according to Galatians 5:22 {CCC # 729, 1101, 1109, 747, 736}. Furthermore, they agree that He has been sent . … . “to lead us into all truth” — “to convince the world of sin, righteousness and judgment” ---- “to shine in our hearts to give us light” — “to give us wisdom” — “to quicken us to spiritual life” — “to help our infirmaties, to help us pray, to intercede for us” — “to confirm within our hearts that we are children of God” —and “to be the seal of our inheritence” { John 16:13, 1 Cor 6:20, 2 Cor 4:6, Eph 1:17, John 6:63, Romans 8:16; 26, Eph 1:13}.

As for what you said about the Eucharist being “NUTRITION”, I will remind you that we are told to put on the whole armor of God, which includes “the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the spirit” {Eph 6:13-17}. Directly after these verses, the apostle Paul indeed says he wanted to open his mouth—but not in order to swallow the Eucharist. Notice— In Scripture, life is described as a battle. If there was anything even remotely nourishing in swallowing the communion wafer as the RCC claims {CCC #1003, “Ecclesia de Eucharista”, by John Paul II, #16-17) it would have been highlighted here as the ultimate “vitamin pill” to sustain “soldiers of Jesus Christ” in the wars ahead {1 Tim 1:18, 2 Tim 2:3}. The Pope says the Eucharist is, “our food for the journey” {Ecclesia, #61}. But the apostle did not include this food in the soldier’s battle plan, but only asks the Ephesians to pray that he would boldly open his mouth to proclaim the mystery of the gospel . . . period. In stark contrast to God’s marching orders as to what constitutes a soldier’s armor, the RCC again ventures outside the inscripturated Word and hundreds of years later expects us to believe we must add to our weaponry and be “invisibly equipped” with the Eucharist! {Consitution on the Sacred Liturgy, para 2}.

However, the Lord has already promised the “invisible equipment” of the Holy Spirit—by whom we are promised to be “strengthened with might in the inner man” {Eph 3:16}. Thus, we are convinced that the RCC Eucharist does not belong in our artillery, let alone it being necessary for salvation. "Beware, lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men " {Colossians 2:8}.

Okay , bright one…where in scripture does it read that we should breath?

 

[stormstopper]

Does the Bible support its own Canon?

God bless

I’m afraid that your question is veering off topic and I fear some would say I am out of order if I go into length regarding it.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m afraid that your question is veering off topic and I fear some would say I am out of order if I go into length regarding it.

I do not see it as going off topic. Your premise was that the Bible did not support the Catholic belief in Communion so we should rid ourselves of it.

stormstopper:

I must emphatically inform you that Jesus Christ DID NOT EAT HIMSELF at the Last Supper. **You must do away with these horrific traditions **that are tied around your neck like a noose. The Bible simply will not support such nonsense.

I am asking you to apply your premise to the Canon. The Bible does not support its own Canon… I can see why you would wish to avoid this though.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Besides Stormstopper, since the OP of the thread was concerned with the anathemas of Canon Law and not the belief itself, you are already off topic. Something tells me though that you will not allow this to ruin your soapbox moment…

Here was the question in case you had forgotten:

shawn38:

A person is to be anathema if they say it’s idolatry?

God bless

 

[Lapey]

And I too am surprised that you miss something even more obvious. No one is arguing the efficaciousness of the words of Jesus Christ.

But your comment completely ignores that all too often Jesus used the most provocative and compelling expressions to drive His point home and John 6 is no exception. For example,

“If thy right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” {Matt 5:30} --and “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother. . .and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” {Luke 14:26}.

He was not speaking in the literal sense in these places, and neither was He speaking literally when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood! Yes, this is a hard saying, but you’ve only got 2 possibilites: was He speaking figuratively or literally? The overwhelming evidence is for the figurative view, since for the most part, all the RCC does is say, “Jesus said to eat Him----case closed”. We deny this.

Who are “we” that deny this, do you refer to reformed Christians? Didn’t the original reformers retain the “real presence” doctrine originally? Oh, yes they sure did. My bad.

In your choices listed above, it could be said a little differently, science (evidence) or faith (spiritual evidence), figuratively because it cannot be proven by science or literally which is proven by faith. I choose faith!

I know you have been asked this before, but here goes nothing. Why didn’t Jesus explain He was speaking figuratively when the majority left, all but the twelve left? For that matter, why did the twelve remain, was it because they understood exactly what Jesus was saying? Do you realize this is one of the only “hard” teachings that Jesus gave and He did not explain when the reaction was profound?

PS. Please refrain from the disrespectful manner in which you insist on referring to the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. You may have a “ritts cracker” heart, I have a Eucharistic heart. Your pride shows in your tone.

 

[stormstopper]

Let us discuss as reasonable humans or not at all.

First claim, Jesus cannot be there. Please reconcile that with Matt 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

This does not refer to the Holy Spirit, this is Jesus saying that he will be there.

Ralph,

Even though you don’t agree with me, I feel I have at least been conducting myself in a “reasonable” manner, so your insinuation that I am not, by saying we must discuss as reasonable humans or not all, is somewhat unjustified. Now as it regards your question, there is not one Protestant on planet earth who denies the real presence of Christ in our lives! The difference is that the RCC makes a big brahuha about needing the PHYSICAL presence, which is supposed to be more “blessed”. Nonsense. Even though I am the first to admit that I do not understand the glorious workings of the Trinity, Jesus has told us that He would be with us BY His Spirit. We ought to let the Scriptures breathe on their own instead of going outside biblical parameters. God’s word is relentless that after Jesus’s physical exit out of this world, we would NOT be relying upon the PHYSICAL presence of Him any longer. He promised not to leave us orphans, but would send His Spirit instead. As the apostle said, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we HIM NO MORE [after the flesh].” (2 Cor 5:16)

*** The presence of the Holy Spirit is the birthright of every born again Christian; "God has made known to us the riches of the glory of this mystery, [namely] “Christ in you, the hope of glory” {Colossians 1:27}.

*** “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him…” and “manifest myself to him” {Rev 3:20, John 14:21-23}.

*** After you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the downpayment of our inheritence" {Eph 1:13}

*** “Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” {Galatians 2:20}.

*** The Spirit of God will “abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive…but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” {John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13}.

*** The believer has the promise of being, “strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” —not by transubstantiation {Eph 3:16-17}. Again, God has sent forth the Spirit into our hearts by faith, and not via the mouth and into the stomach—as Catholicism falsely teaches. He has come to reinhabit our redeemed humanity so that our bodies might become the temple of the living God {1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 13:5}. Each believer is called a “living stone” that is being “fitly framed together” with the others, being built into a “spiritual house for the habitation of God through the Spirit” {1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:21-22}.

*** Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" {1 Cor 3:16}.

*** In Isaiah 57:15, the Lord says that He is the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, and “I dwell also with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit.” Thus, it simply staggers the imagination to realize that the God of all creation and eternity dwells with each and every one of His people, just as He knows the name of each and every star in the universe {Psalm 147:4}. “For ye are the temple of the living God; as He has said: I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people” {2 Cor 6:16, Rms 8:11}.

*** “And because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts…” {Galatians 4:6}

“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” {Matt 28:20}.

 

[ralphinal]

Ralph,

Even though you don’t agree with me, I feel I have at least been conducting myself in a “reasonable” manner, so your insinuation that I am not, by saying we must discuss as reasonable humans or not all, is somewhat unjustified. Now as it regards your question, there is not one Protestant on planet earth who denies the real presence of Christ in our lives! The difference is that the RCC makes a big brahuha about needing the PHYSICAL presence, which is supposed to be more “blessed”. Nonsense. Even though I am the first to admit that I do not understand the glorious workings of the Trinity, Jesus has told us that He would be with us BY His Spirit. We ought to let the Scriptures breathe on their own instead of going outside biblical parameters. God’s word is relentless that after Jesus’s physical exit out of this world, we would NOT be relying upon the PHYSICAL presence of Him any longer. He promised not to leave us orphans, but would send His Spirit instead. As the apostle said, “Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we HIM NO MORE [after the flesh].” (2 Cor 5:16)

*** The presence of the Holy Spirit is the birthright of every born again Christian; "God has made known to us the riches of the glory of this mystery, [namely] “Christ in you, the hope of glory” {Colossians 1:27}.

*** “Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him…” and “manifest myself to him” {Rev 3:20, John 14:21-23}.

*** After you believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the downpayment of our inheritence" {Eph 1:13}

*** “Nevertheless, I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” {Galatians 2:20}.

*** The Spirit of God will “abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive…but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” {John 14:17, 15:26, 16:13}.

*** The believer has the promise of being, “strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith” —not by transubstantiation {Eph 3:16-17}. Again, God has sent forth the Spirit into our hearts by faith, and not via the mouth and into the stomach—as Catholicism falsely teaches. He has come to reinhabit our redeemed humanity so that our bodies might become the temple of the living God {1 Cor 6:19, 2 Cor 13:5}. Each believer is called a “living stone” that is being “fitly framed together” with the others, being built into a “spiritual house for the habitation of God through the Spirit” {1 Peter 2:5, Eph 2:21-22}.

*** Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" {1 Cor 3:16}.

*** In Isaiah 57:15, the Lord says that He is the high and lofty one that inhabits eternity, and “I dwell also with him that is of a contrite and humble spirit.” Thus, it simply staggers the imagination to realize that the God of all creation and eternity dwells with each and every one of His people, just as He knows the name of each and every star in the universe {Psalm 147:4}. “For ye are the temple of the living God; as He has said: I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God and they shall be my people” {2 Cor 6:16, Rms 8:11}.

*** “And because ye are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts…” {Galatians 4:6}

“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” {Matt 28:20}.

Actually, it was addressed to everyone. Not everyone is being as charitable as they should, but no one has been so bad that I felt the need to single anyone out.

So, how do you know when Jesus is being literal and when he is not?

 

[Lapey]

I’m afraid that your question is veering off topic and I fear some would say I am out of order if I go into length regarding it.

You were out of order with most of your post so far, but we are a charitable people…I will say that you haven’t made friends here by referring to the Eucharist as a rits cracker. Do you remember that?

We’ll wait for an apology.

Proof texting scripture is a dangerous thing for the soul. One must be mindful that he doesn’t have all the answers before he delves into scripture study.

Didn’t answer my question, First Baptist minister, right?

 

[stormstopper]

stormstopper;6008939:

I must empathetically inform you, HIS APOSTLES MOST CERTAINLY DID and scripture says exactly that! “He took bread, said the blessing and gave it to His diciples saying…” You just choose to not see it. Remember He say His words are “Spirit and Life”, there has to be spiritual meaning to these verses or you will not see the life that they hold.

Are you a Baptist minister, you debate like one. In other words, you always have the truth, the right answer in your own mind

Yes, I am a minister, but I feel it’s quite hyocritical of you to, shall we say, “make fun” of my “always having the right answer”. It is your church afterall, that is making the claim that it is the sole possesser of all salvific truth, so the very thing you repudiate me for, I can say the same about you. More importantly, the Lord tells us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you” (1Pet 3:15). This website is called, “Catholic Answers”. If they wish to follow the admonition of Peter the apostle, you should not have any objection if I do likewise.

In regard to your actual comment that I simply “don’t choose to see it your way”, I will remind you that I am endeaving to look at it the LORD’S way, and the Word of God is my witness. For example,

someone has correctly observed: “The interaction in John 4 bears remarkable similarity with John 6. In J-4, Jesus picks up on the woman’s interest in water. In J-6, He picks up on the crowd’s interest in bread. In both cases, eternal life is in view. In both cases, a metaphor of consumption is used to illustrate belief in Jesus. Since He is speaking of eternal life in both passages, the question must be asked: If the RCC insists on viewing J-6 literally, in that we must actually eat bread to gain eternal life, why does that same RCC not teach that we must drink physical water to obtain eternal life per J-4? If the RCC understands J-4 symbolically, (and she does) then she has no basis for rejecting the symbolic understanding of J-6.” {“Evangelical Answers”, by E. Svendsen, p. 246}. The parallel is clear: if drinking literal water does not produce eternal life, then neither does eating actual bread.

 

[stormstopper]

I doubt that the Catholic posters on here need it, but I will explain.

Jesus is present Body, Blood, soul, and Divinity in what seems to be bread and wine. Now, those qualities that make it bread and wine are still seen by us on earth (called accidents). However, the substance has changed to Jesus. Once digestion occurs (and it actually starts in the mouth), what seems to be bread physically ceases to be bread physically. At that time, as Jesus is there in the FORM of bread and wine, he is no longer there.

However, is presence, although Real, was not a physical one. It is one that defies physical description. It is a metaphysical one. As he leaves what seemed to be bread, I am one with Him, in the most profound spiritual way.

Thank you Ralph for that explanation, which I was quite aware of, being an ex-Catholic myself. Suffice it to say that the metaphysical escape route you have taken to validate your position, cannot be supported biblically. Considering that we will be judged by the Word of God on Judgment Day (Jn 12:48), I should think you ought to feel a little worried…since nothing you say may be found therein. And if and when you find out your metaphysical beliefs were wrong–and hope to find a way out by simply saying, “The Catholic Church told me so”---- by that time it will be too late. Protestants fully embrace the multiple promises of the Holy Spirit as stated by the Text, and you, sir, are embracing promises which do not exist-- such as “being one with Him in the most profound spiritual way”. I do admit it sounds all so very pious. But you are dead wrong.

 

[stormstopper]

Okay , bright one…where in scripture does it read that we should breath?

I have no idea what you mean by this statement, so you must clarify.

 

[ralphinal]

Thank you Ralph for that explanation, which I was quite aware of, being an ex-Catholic myself. Suffice it to say that the metaphysical escape route you have taken to validate your position, cannot be supported biblically. Considering that we will be judged by the Word of God on Judgment Day (Jn 12:48), I should think you ought to feel a little worried…since nothing you say may be found therein. And if and when you find out your metaphysical beliefs were wrong–and hope to find a way out by simply saying, “The Catholic Church told me so”---- by that time it will be too late. Protestants fully embrace the multiple promises of the Holy Spirit as stated by the Text, and you, sir, are embracing promises which do not exist-- such as “being one with Him in the most profound spiritual way”. I do admit it sounds all so very pious. But you are dead wrong.

Actually, the Catholic position is just as Biblical as yours. We can throw verses out there, too.

I did not know you were an ex-Catholic. When did you leave the Church?

 

[ncgolf]

And I too am surprised that you miss something even more obvious. No one is arguing the efficaciousness of the words of Jesus Christ.

Actually … you are. You choose not to believe what He was saying, there is another explanation and you dismiss it.

But your comment completely ignores that all too often Jesus used the most provocative and compelling expressions to drive His point home and John 6 is no exception.

John 6 is no “mere expression”.

“If thy right hand causes you to sin, cut it off” {Matt 5:30} --and “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother. . .and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” {Luke 14:26}.

My point exactly. You describe the need for a teacher who can be trusted. These quotes are typical Jewish hyperbole … no Christian really thinks Jesus literally meant these. That is why it is important to know how to separate the two.

He was not speaking in the literal sense in these places, and neither was He speaking literally when He told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood!

He did say it … and this is no more compelling than saying your sins are forgiven. You do deny the effaciousness of these words.

Yes, this is a hard saying, but you’ve only got 2 possibilites: was He speaking figuratively or literally? The overwhelming evidence is for the figurative view, since for the most part, all the RCC does is say, “Jesus said to eat Him----case closed”.

Overwhelming … underwhelming is a more accurate description. There is much more written than case closed … JP II, Aquinas … spanning hundreds of years … much more developed theology on the subject than the Protestant understanding.

We deny this.

A perfect example of how Grace can be refused.

 

[stormstopper]

I do not see it as going off topic. Your premise was that the Bible did not support the Catholic belief in Communion so we should rid ourselves of it.

I am asking you to apply your premise to the Canon. The Bible does not support its own Canon… I can see why you would wish to avoid this though.

God bless

In light of the fact that I have broken my back to write out long answers on this thread, it is ridiculous to assume that I am trying to avoid anything as you wrongly suppose. My premise that the Bible doesn’t support the RCC take on Communion, and YOUR premise that the Bible doesn’t support its own canon, are comparing apples and oranges—and therefore it is off-topic. I advise opening another thread at some time in the future, and be sure to invite me to participate, as I will do so as time permits.