Former Catholics - Mary worship

[dronald]

While I appreciate it, you’re covering how to worship and I’m wondering how not to worship.

 

[KathleenGee]

How not to worship…is a choice and response of where you orientate your life.

You focus on God or you do not. Worship mostly is that practiced by a community of people with shared vision.

May be the term is idolatry. You idolize something that is a creature, not Creator.

The great sins of Israel was falling away from the Lord by not being faithful to Him, and by falling into idolatry…which if you think about it …

Idolatry is really about yourself…money, Golden Calf, my way or the high way…you find idols to serve you and give you what you want, rather than humbly worshipping the Lord…

Go back to Exodus…where you find authentic worship must be created and dictated by God, not man, as only God knows what is pleasing to Him. Only God can tell man how He wants to be worshipped, not man deciding how God wants to be worship.

Our Lord said at the Last Supper: ‘Do this in memory of Me’…and He took the bread and wine, the outer form remained but through Him, the apostles now witnessed His Body and Blood, and ate of Him.

Interesting that man seeks to be as god by eating…consider Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit…and then compare to the only good tree pointed out by the Lord they could eat…the Tree of Life…but refused…and how the Tree of Life could be seen by them outside the garden of Eden after they were expelled…hope for them.

Consider the Road to Emmaus and how our Lord appeared to the Apostles explaining Sacred Scripture to them, at one point exclaiming, ‘you still don’t understand?!’…to Him ending with a meal…and when they saw Him breaking the bread’, they recognized Him…and then they could understand.

We have Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist…the Word Made Flesh…and it is the Eucharistic Lord present among us who lives within us eternally in the state of grace ( if we do not commit mortal sin)…who gives us the grace to understand The Word. I find the best place to understand Sacred Scripture is at Mass because I get the true intent of the reading and Gospel at Mass and then it becomes alive through the reception of the Eucharist.

After Mass I really don’t like going to coffee and donuts but prefer to take the slow way home around the lake in quiet so that I can continue to digest and reflect on Mass, the Scriptures and the event of the Eucharist. I don’t depend on men or put my focus on men at Mass, but only on the Lord.

 

[Cube2]

If you have read “Catholicism” by Lorraine Boettner you may be getting a lot of out-of-context information. And I am sure there are more anti-Catholic writings out there such as Boettner.

I do remember that when bibles were chained in the Catholic Church it was so people would not walk out with them.,…they were hand written (calligraphy). Those who could read would read the Sacred Scripture in the Church.

I am not saying the Church was without corrupt people in it. That is everywhere, not just in the Catholic Church. But the Truth of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught is not eclipsed by the sins of those in the Church.

Peace,

Dorothy

We are all relying on history. What we consider as the true picture depends on how we are objective on the writings. If I’ll be biased towards what was written by a Catholic, then I may miss out. I have researched on all of them, including Papal Bulls, and there is some truth that at some point Bibles were forbidden to the laymen.

 

[Cube2]

Come again? It was sacred tradition that compiled the Bible. How can it have been unknown? What was unknown was sola scriptura.

I said history does not lie.
At Jesus time, there was only the OT writings which made up the Holy scriptures. By then there was no sacred traditions. The scriptures were in scrolls and at one time Jesus read a scripture in the temple. Jesus also quoted alot of OT scripture.

The NT was as a result of people writing as historical account, or a letter to somebody or a group of believers. It was very different to the OT. The compilation of the texts that would be considered of doctrinal value started when the church grew and had structures and needed a reference point.
Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).

To come up with an authentic Canon, there were three basic criteria for inclusion.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least
   directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word
   of God?

This ensured that only credible writings would be included in the Holy Scriptures.
Other writings like the letter to the Laodecians, Smyrna etc were left out.

From the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_tradition
Tradition and Scripture, are viewed and treated as one source of Divine Revelation, which includes both the deeds of God and the words of God:

The Word of God (Bible) was a compilation of what God deed during the 1st century. The Traditions are viewed as Gods deeds after the 1st century AD.
Some of the compilations of the Sacred Traditions are the writings that were not included in the Bible eg the letter to the Laodecians. They are the basis of the Catholic doctrines which are not biblical, but a Tradition. Since Catholics have 2 sources of authority, then they become part of the accepted teachings of the church.

 

[Cube2]

How not to worship…is a choice and response of where you orientate your life.

Idolatry is really about yourself…money, Golden Calf, my way or the high way…you find idols to serve you and give you what you want, rather than humbly worshiping the Lord…

Idolatry during the time of the Israelites was pure worship of moulded idols eg Baal, Asherah, Chemosh etc Idolatry at our time is very different. I would single out false religion, as the worst form of idolatry.
At the same time, obsession to wealth, fame, beauty, etc can turn away somebody from giving God His due honor.

Go back to Exodus…where you find authentic worship must be created and dictated by God, not man, as only God knows what is pleasing to Him. Only God can tell man how He wants to be worshipped, not man deciding how God wants to be worship.

True in the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant we have the Holy Spirit in our hearts.
The Apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit.
Apostle Peter, at the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit came upon the gentiles etc.
The Holy Spirit guides us oh how we should worship God.

Our Lord said at the Last Supper: ‘Do this in memory of Me’…and He took the bread and wine, the outer form remained but through Him, the apostles now witnessed His Body and Blood, and ate of Him.

Not very convincing. Why eat Jesus body many times?
Adam & Eve ate the fruit only once and they were plunged into sin.
Had they eaten of the Tree of life, they would have eaten only once and gotten life eternal. They would not have eaten it every day to maintain eternity.

After Mass I really don’t like going to coffee and donuts but prefer to take the slow way home around the lake in quiet so that I can continue to digest and reflect on Mass, the Scriptures and the event of the Eucharist. I don’t depend on men or put my focus on men at Mass, but only on the Lord.

I too like to reflect on Jesus and his sacrifice for the atonement of my sins. Its a time to remember that its not because of our hard work, but because of the Grace of God. We thus remain faithful unto him.

 

[Dorothy]

We are all relying on history. What we consider as the true picture depends on how we are objective on the writings. If I’ll be biased towards what was written by a Catholic, then I may miss out. I have researched on all of them, including Papal Bulls, and there is some truth that at some point Bibles were forbidden to the laymen.

I am aware of that too. It is so easy for some laymen to misinterpret what they read in the bible. And that has been done, and is still being done.

I strongly believe we have the promise of the Lord that in spite of, at times, having weak corrupt leaders, the successors of Peter, by the power of the Holy Spirit, will not teach error in faith or morals.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[FathersKnowBest]

I said history does not lie.
At Jesus time, there was only the OT writings which made up the Holy scriptures. By then there was no sacred traditions.

What history are you reading?
The Jews relied heavily on sacred tradition. They had the Talmud & Mishna which were, at the time, primarily oral. In the first few centuries AD, they had committed much of these to writing.

The scriptures were in scrolls and at one time Jesus read a scripture in the temple. Jesus also quoted alot of OT scripture.

Yes, and He also acknowledged and advocated for the oral teachings as well, as did St. Paul and the other NT writers.

See Matthew 23:2-5, 1Cor10:4,1Pe3:19, Jude9, 2Ti3:8, and James5:17 for instance.

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235).

and not until the CHURCH COUNCILS of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo did we have agreement on what constitutes the NT. Determined by the Church, through the Holy Spirit who acted in and through the Catholic Church.

To come up with an authentic Canon, there were three basic criteria for inclusion.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least
   directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word
   of God?

Very good, although not in the proper order. Item 3 was of primary importance: which books were used IN THE LITURGY, i.e. at MASS.

 

[Dorothy]

Cube wrote: " Not very convincing. Why eat Jesus body many times? "

I need to receive the Eucharist as often as I can as every day is a new day, and I need the grace given by our Risen Lord to grow in His Love.

Due to Adam’s sin I have very selfish leanings. Every day I need to put on the armor. He is the armor.

have eaten it every day to maintain eternity.

I too like to reflect on Jesus and his sacrifice for the atonement of my sins. Its a time to remember that its not because of our hard work, but because of the Grace of God. We thus remain faithful unto him.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise…then what is the Daily Sacrifice Christ is referring to …that what happened in the ancient Temple?

What about we Christians who in spite of our best intentions fall to sin?

I mean Christ gives us all the grace to overcome all sin that tempts us every day, but nevertheless, our faults many times lead us to sin.

Also where in Scripture does it say Sola Scriptura? Historically, practically all Jews did nto follow Sola Scriptura. Why did God bother to give so much detail in how He wanted to be worshipped?

What about afterwards?

Why ignore, if you are Sola…to ignore the Last Supper in John when Christ said to eat and drink of His body and blood for eternal life…and that the Word and Eucharist was the ancient liturgy happening after Pentecost?

Why don’t we find any early Christian worship that just covers the Bible…there were no books?

To say the Church condemned the reading of Scripture is out of context. THe Church never forbid if one could read and understand the books inspired by the Holy Spirit for the Church. The protestant bibles were created by individual and protesting men.

It makes me think of the Hebrew interpretation, 200 years after Christ, the Masoretic text…where like what happened some what in the Septuagint interpretation, rabbis were called together to translate and put their bible together. There was much dissension an dispute…and Luther ditched the Septuagint, seeking a pure version…and went to the Hebrew version…likewise those who did not anticipate the Messiah as did the Septuagint!!

Cube, I just don’t think you were ever focused on the Mass growing up, you were not focused on the Lord. But now you are and you are seeking Him in the Word. But there is more.

You are reading from a perception you have that is not taking into context the Catholic materials you are reading.

 

[KathleenGee]

For Dronald and others, well in the Catholic deposit of faith, what does the Church consider idolatry???

References…

CCC1852. There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.’

The 3 particularly pertaining to idolatry are 2112 - 2114.

1. The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of “idols, of silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see.” These empty idols make their worshippers empty: “Those wh make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.” God however, is the "living God’, who gives life and intervenes in history.

So to idolize something, one has to see it as a god. We do not venerate Mary as a god, rather we recognize her role in salvation, and as our heavenly mother, and wish to show her heart felt gratitude, that is directed in thanksgiving to the Lord for giving us the grace to acknowledge her.

1. Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. it remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in the place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and mammon.” Many martyrs died for not adoring “The Beast” refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

I find it interesting that racism, ancestors, and the state are noted as forms of idolatry.

1. Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man’s innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who ‘transfers’ his indestructible notion of God to anything other than man."

I really have enjoyed a new poster’s thread who finally went to Mass after we shared with him our faith and how we worship the Lord in adoration. He finally went and said it was exactly how we shared with him and he was planning to go again the next day.

So I hope the catechism clears up notions of how Catholics actually worship and what Catholicism considers is idolatry…that taking the place of God HImself seeking to make something divine when it is not.

 

[Cube2]

and not until the CHURCH COUNCILS of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo did we have agreement on what constitutes the NT. Determined by the Church, through the Holy Spirit who acted in and through the Catholic Church.

The church did very well to compile a reference of sacred scriptures. Or the Emperor did a good thing to adopt Christianity.
However, what was omitted as part of the holy scriptures was brought in as sacred tradition.

Very good, although not in the proper order. Item 3 was of primary importance: which books were used IN THE LITURGY, i.e. at MASS.

If we use traditions; at Jesus time, the traditions of liturgy are in the bible. eg reading the scriptures on Sabbath in the synagogues.
immediately after Jesus, the first church would meet for prayer and braking of bread. they were not meeting in the temple or in synagogues, but in the believer’s houses.
The liturgy surrounding the breaking of bread was very minimal.
Apostle Paul expounds on the tradition of the Lord’s table in 1Cor 11:33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. 1Cor 11:34: And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.

The eating of bread & drinking of wine was a holy event of consecration to the Lord. Symbolically, it implies that one has swallowed everything pertaining to Christ completely as the bread & wine are swallowed into the stomach. One should be ready to carry his cross and imitate Christ.

 

[Cube2]

Cube wrote: " Not very convincing. Why eat Jesus body many times? "
I need to receive the Eucharist as often as I can as every day is a new day, and I need the grace given by our Risen Lord to grow in His Love.

Due to Adam’s sin I have very selfish leanings. Every day I need to put on the armor. He is the armor.

Well, Christ wishes that we eat his body & drink his blood symbolically as a sign of total commitment to him. Its not a one way-traffic, we have a commitment to imitate Christ in all that we do and say. Jesus said, “…do this in memory of me”, the memory of Him is the part of commitment to him. Christ committed Himself to us, so we too have to commit ourselves to Him.
By eating, we are accepting to take up the commitment, and not swallowing Jesus to come into our lives.

About the armor of God, based on the Bible, Apostle Paul gave an analogy of the armor of GOD; Eph 6:11: Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
Also we we see another armory in Re:12:11: And they overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony;

 

[rcwitness]

If we use traditions; at Jesus time, the traditions of liturgy are in the bible. eg reading the scriptures on Sabbath in the synagogues.
immediately after Jesus, the first church would meet for prayer and braking of bread. they were not meeting in the temple or in synagogues, but in the believer’s houses.
The liturgy surrounding the breaking of bread was very minimal.
Apostle Paul expounds on the tradition of the Lord’s table in 1Cor 11:33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. 1Cor 11:34: And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.

The eating of bread & drinking of wine was a holy event of consecration to the Lord. Symbolically, it implies that one has swallowed everything pertaining to Christ completely as the bread & wine are swallowed into the stomach. One should be ready to carry his cross and imitate Christ.

Good Word

I think this faith is very much in line with Catholic Teaching.

Catholic Teaching does recognize the Symbolic value of the Bread and Wine, which is what you say, receiving (swallowing) everything pertaining to Christ! This is what we are called to raise our hearts to… the hidden treasure which is within Christ Jesus. The Eucharist is more convicting, however, than mere symbol, because the consequence of eating this Bread are not rendered invalid by our state of heart before God, but determined by our manner of receiving His Word.

If we eat of His Body while our spirit is indifferent to His Spirit, then we truly profane His body, therefore are accountable. But if we receive His body with a spirit in obedience and love for the life of Jesus, we are consecrated in holiness to His Life and Spirit, in union with the whole Mystical Body who partake of this One Bread.

This is incidentally why I have strong reservations towards a “Consecration to Mary”. This is my Consecration and there can be none higher.

 

[Cube2]

For Dronald and others, well in the Catholic deposit of faith, what does the Church consider idolatry???
So to idolize something, one has to see it as a god. We do not venerate Mary as a god, rather we recognize her role in salvation, and as our heavenly mother, and wish to show her heart felt gratitude, that is directed in thanksgiving to the Lord for giving us the grace to acknowledge her.

So I hope the catechism clears up notions of how Catholics actually worship and what Catholicism considers is idolatry…that taking the place of God Himself seeking to make something divine when it is not.

A Catholic sees what the church teaches as ok just because its coming from the Church.
This is endorsed by the believe that the teachings are infallible.
However, we all ascribe to Christ as the author of the Christian faith. If what the church teaches differs from the stand of Christ, then we should raise concern.

Jesus himself never endorsed veneration of her mother or of any saint.
The bible records in Luk 11:27: And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
But Jesus responded, Luke 11:28: …Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus was very quick to point out the error in that woman’s thought, and referred her to God. So, its clear on Jesus stand on deviating glory from God. If he did not acknowledge Mary’s veneration then, would He acknowledge it now?
Well, its a Church’s teaching which is not in accordance to Christ’s teaching.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, Christ wishes that we eat his body & drink his blood symbolically as a sign of total commitment to him. Its not a one way-traffic, we have a commitment to imitate Christ in all that we do and say. Jesus said, “…do this in memory of me”, the memory of Him is the part of commitment to him. Christ committed Himself to us, so we too have to commit ourselves to Him.
By eating, we are accepting to take up the commitment, and not swallowing Jesus to come into our lives.

Now, you have reduced His Eucharist to our own sentiments and faith. His body is real and substantial. It was made by the Word of God and Jesus extended this Word into our Communion Eucharist.

“In Memory” is a Command to both continue the Sacrament, and to do so, with our hearts raised to His Work of Redemption in the Paschal Sacrifice.

God too “remembered” His covenants with His people. Did that mean He forgot at any moment? Or that He somehow thought about something less at any given time? No, it meant that He actualized His Covenant wholeheartedly at a given moment, just as He does in the Mass So, we too are called to give our hearts to His Covenantal Body and Blood.

 

[rcwitness]

Jesus himself never endorsed veneration of her mother or of any saint.
The bible records in Luk 11:27: And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.
But Jesus responded, Luke 11:28: …Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Jesus was very quick to point out the error in that woman’s thought, and referred her to God. So, its clear on Jesus stand on deviating glory from God. If he did not acknowledge Mary’s veneration then, would He acknowledge it now?
Well, its a Church’s teaching which is not in accordance to Christ’s teaching.

Jesus was not telling the woman that Mary was not blessed, but rather why she, and all who keep the Word of God, are truly blessed.

Luke 1:41-45
41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be[e] a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.”

Luke 2:51
51 Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. His mother treasured all these things in her heart.

 

[Brandall]

Deuteronomy 6:15 ‘(For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you)’

Hi ,rcwitness,
As a former believer of Mary as mediatrix,I would now claim no such link is ever seen or shown to be needful :according to the written word that is.
As the writer to the Hebrews States,‘Having therefore, brethren,boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus’(Hebrews 10:19)
If Then ,I was seeking ,as you say ‘recourse to Jesus’ by or in my own person,I no doubt would be in (desperate)need of another advocate to speak on my behalf.
But what I now believe to be the (my) case is, that ,if my passport 'to enter into the holiest ’ is through another,and that by his ‘blood’ then for me ,not to believe in this access, is therefore for me also to deny the efficacy of and the sacrifice involved in the ‘blood’ that was shed.

On my part also ,looking back on my time as a catholic,I would now claim that there seems to me to be a suggestion ,if we need the mother of Jesus to speak on ones behalf,that Jesus himself, is unwilling to give to those who believe his blood was shed for them,the fruits of that which his blood secured for them.But somehow another entrance( into his affections) is needful.would you agree?

I know it is a very sensitive subject for one who,I know,is trying to uphold or magnify a godly women,but can Catholics see how that we who believe ‘everything is ours’ by the blood of the lamb, it would be disrespectful and unbelieving to not believe that it is he who is said 'to be touched with the feelings of our infirmities ’ and go directly to him in person by ‘his blood’?
When her son ascended did not this same Mary, do exactly that?
Then why not now?

I see what you’re saying but I have a question for you. If your best friend called and said there was a gunman in his office building and wanted you to pray, what would you say? Would you tell him to take it to Jesus or would you pray for him?

The Apostle Paul asked others to pray for him and prayed for others. Were they making a mistake? Was Paul wrong to pray for others and ask for the prayer of others? Should he have been telling them that they should only pray for themselves and that the “blood” of the sacrifice was good enough and gave them access to the high priest?

 

[FathersKnowBest]

The church did very well to compile a reference of sacred scriptures.

Yes, infallibly, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Or the Emperor did a good thing to adopt Christianity.

What role do you suppose the Emperor had in this?

However, what was omitted as part of the holy scriptures was brought in as sacred tradition.

NO idea what you’re saying here. Can you try again to be more clear?

If we use traditions; at Jesus time, the traditions of liturgy are in the bible. eg reading the scriptures on Sabbath in the synagogues.

Do you suppose that’s the extent of it? Hint: it isn’t.

immediately after Jesus, the first church would meet for prayer and braking of bread. they were not meeting in the temple or in synagogues, but in the believer’s houses.
The liturgy surrounding the breaking of bread was very minimal.

You know this — how, exactly?

Apostle Paul expounds on the tradition of the Lord’s table in 1Cor 11:33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait for one another. 1Cor 11:34: And if any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation.

Back up a few verses:
1Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Tell me, how can one profane the body and blood of the Lord if it’s not really present?

The eating of bread & drinking of wine was a holy event of consecration to the Lord. Symbolically, it implies that one has swallowed everything pertaining to Christ completely as the bread & wine are swallowed into the stomach.

Now you’re just making stuff up!

Please show any contemporaneous writings which uses eating one’s body or drinking one’s blood to mean what you assert it means.

From Christ in the Eucharist:
Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

One should be ready to carry his cross and imitate Christ.

 

[rcwitness]

Back up a few verses:
:

Or back up a chapter

1Cor. 10
14 Therefore, my dear friends,[c] flee from the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

But again, we can’t deny the levels of meaning with the Eucharist. We share in the Mystical Body, and we receive what we believe to be the Word who became flesh. Also, the gifts of bread and wine are both symbols of (and really are) our labors and our joys.

 

[Bernard_Lyons]

From Christ in the Eucharist:
Merely Figurative?

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

John 7:24 “Judge not according to the appearance,but judge righteous judgement”

Hi,FathersKnowBest,
If Catholics believe this to be a literal flesh that Jesus wanted them to eat and literal blood which was to be drunk(John 6) then I could just as easily accuse this interpretation as being a means whereby justification for murder ( eats - present tense- my body) is being advocated.
Not only so, but with these words ,a comprehensive endorsement by Jesus has been given for what has been on every cannobil’s plate ever since they were uttered ;and a hearty ‘Amen’ has been said to such a nutritional delicacy as this.

What about those believers among the Gentiles who were being instructed ( Acts 15:20) “write unto them,that they abstain from pollutions of idols…from fornication… and from blood”
After all that we were warned of the dangers,are we then to drink( his ) blood?