How do you eat a symbol?

[Sy_Noe]

Well, if you don’t even believe this* to be true, then why should anyone else believe it?

*“By discerning with all your heart that Christ gave up His body on the cross for each of us. And having the faith understanding that you are eating as a remembrance of that sacrifice He made for us. And fervently believing and consuming with all your heart in what He did on that cross for us. With the understanding that to eat was spoken figuratively meaning to believe, to consume what He did for us with all your heart.”

It seems rather odd to assert something of which you have no belief in yourself.

Imagine if someone came to town to ask us for directions. You respond with, “You have to drive down Brodrinsky Road, and then take a left on Marshall Ave. But, I have to warn you, I don’t really believe this is the right way”

And I respond with, “You take Shanghai Road and then go right on Epistle Street. And I’m certain of that because that’s how I drive every day.”

Who is the better source?

#me

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

That’s just one of the differences between us I think. I don’t find it at all odd to venture into other possible ways. Your example in attempting to make a connection however I just don’t get. Since I find the fact that you might drive on Shanghai everyday an odd comparison to having a particular belief about the Eucharist.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Ok.

So let’s just take this dogma you asserted:

Surely you could give it a rating as to how certain you are of this assertion. Especially since you used the word “absolutely”.

1 through 10–what would you rate it?

1 being “almost totally unsure it’s true”
10 being “I am confident that if I told my 5 yr old daughter this it would be a correct assertion and I would feel good knowing that she, as a 25 yr old woman, asserted it as true as well.”

Hmm well now I have to say I believe you’re now veering far off the road (topic) in bringing up on this thread my opinion on using military equipment on the streets of our towns. And somehow attempting to correlate it to various POV regarding religious dogma or religious faith beliefs regarding Communion. But just to play along with your game just this one time, umm I dunno, I feel pretty strongly about that opinion so maybe an 8? I’m not going to sit here and assign numbers to every view I have though if that’s what you think and is your intention. 8 is probably something I wouldn’t assign to a lot though with regard to religious faith matters. Tanks in our streets and matters of faith are 2 entirely different things imo. Apples and oranges as the saying goes.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s just one of the differences between us I think. I don’t find it at all odd to venture into other possible ways.

Oh, you don’t know me at all, Sy. We are quite alike in that I, too, don’t find it at all odd to venture into other possible ways.

Your example in attempting to make a connection however I just don’t get. Since I find the fact that you might drive on Shanghai everyday an odd comparison to having a particular belief about the Eucharist.

You have to be able to think a bit in the abstract, Sy, to understand analogies.

What is being compared here is certainty. Certainty of one’s beliefs and assertions.

If you don’t even know that what you’re asserting is true (and that’s what you seem to be saying, although I am quite certain that NO ONE who is mentally stable posts responses here without believing in them), then why should anyone give any consideration at all to your views?

Like the person who’s getting 2 different answers as to how to get to St. Alban’s Church, all of us here will take the directions of the person who knows how to get there.

Not the person who says, “You go down Main Street. But I could just be making this up.”

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm well now I have to say I believe you’re now veering far off the road (topic) in bringing up on this thread my opinion on using military equipment on the streets of our towns. And somehow attempting to correlate it to various POV regarding religious dogma or religious faith beliefs regarding Communion. But just to play along with your game just this one time, umm I dunno, I feel pretty strongly about that opinion so maybe an 8? I’m not going to sit here and assign numbers to every view I have though if that’s what you think and is your intention.

Thank you for your response.

So you are quite certain of some of your beliefs. Excellent.

So please apply that to the rest of us here who also have some beliefs that we would score as an 8.

I find it peculiar that you object to people having certainty about their beliefs, when you yourself have certainty with yours.

8 is probably something I wouldn’t assign to a lot though with regard to religious faith matters. Tanks in our streets and matters of faith are 2 entirely different things imo. Apples and oranges as the saying goes.

What about moral beliefs? Tanks in our streets is a moral issue, no?

You seem quite certain of your assertion that it’s absolutely wrong to have that.

So others with the same degree of certainty on other moral issues are giveng the same consideration by you, yes?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you for your response.

So you are quite certain of some of your beliefs. Excellent.

So please apply that to the rest of us here who also have some beliefs that we would score as an 8.

I find it peculiar that you object to people having certainty about their beliefs, when you yourself have certainty with yours.

What about moral beliefs? Tanks in our streets is a moral issue, no?

You seem quite certain of your assertion that it’s absolutely wrong to have that.

So others with the same degree of certainty on other moral issues are giveng the same consideration by you, yes?

Sure I guess so if the new math is 8 now = 10.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure I guess so if the new math is 8 now = 10.

Huh?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s a hard saying, isn’t it?

One can imagine that God would make certain demands of us, no? Making some hard sayings, that we need to conform our views to?

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble?

We are agreed that if God makes “difficult statements” our job is to accept the statements, not re-create something that is more palatable, right?

I’ve been thinking, given how this thread has segued, while also considering the OP, how all of the “difficult statements” God has made over the 2000+ years of His Revelation have been rejected in one form or another, except for the CC.

The CC has been, for 2000 years the messenger of the Word, not its editor.

She has not taken it upon herself to get rid of anything unpalatable, unlikeable, or just plain difficult.

To wit:

• The OP is a great example–it’s hard to swallow (ha!) the idea of God commanding us to eat His flesh…so lots of Christian decide that He didn’t really mean that. It’s symbolic only.
• It’s a difficult concept to embrace that there is One God in 3 Persons…so lots of Christians decide that He didn’t really mean that, and there’s no such thing as the Trinity.
• It’s a difficult saying that divorce and remarriage is adultery…so lots of Christians decide that Jesus didn’t say that? (Actually, I’m not really sure how other denominations get around this. It’s clear he said it. I dunno. They ignore it? Think it’s too mean so they get to pretend he didn’t say it??)
• It’s a difficult saying that Mary remained ever Virgin…so lots of Christians decide that this couldn’t possibly be right…and Mary and Joseph did engage in marital relations. It’s too hard to think of a couple not doing this!
• It’s a difficult saying that only men can be priests…so lots of Christians decide that women, too, can be ordained.
• It’s a difficult saying that women, once there’s a baby in their womb, must bring this baby to term…so lots of Christians decide that God didn’t really think it’s wrong to killl a fetus.
• It’s a difficult saying that hell is eternal…so lots of Christians decide that there is no such thing as hell…or that there’s no such thing as an eternal soul.
• It’s a difficult saying that we must go to Mass one day a week…so lots of Christians decide that, hey, God doesn’t care if you go to Mass, watch a football game, worship Him in a beatiful sunset…it’s all the same to Him, right?

But the CC has retained all the difficult statements.

God isn’t going to make things the way WE want them to be.

God, being…well, God, is going to demand that we conform to the way He declared them to be.

 

[Tommy999]

I understand and respect the Catholic position on the literal translation of John 6 being the actual body and blood of Christ at Mass. It may be true, although no objective person can literally see the bread turn into physical flesh and the wine into blood. It is a mystery.

In other words, if someone was filming a parishioner taking holy communion, they would not see literal flesh and blood being consumed. It is being consumed as the body and blood of Christ in faith by the believer.

However, if that passage in John 6 was completely literal, Christ would’ve ripped off some pieces of His flesh from his arms, legs, or torso. If that verse is to be taken literally, why shouldn’t the following verse be taken literally, too?

*John 4:
10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”*

Since John 6 is supposed to be taken literally and not figuratively, why shouldn’t the Church teach that the living water Jesus was referring to was *literal water *? After all, Jesus talks about giving them this water so that they can have eternal life.

My Point being: The “living water” statement was obviously figurative and not literal because Jesus didn’t proceed to pull out a Bota bag with living water in it. Likewise, I don’t see why the John 6 passage couldn’t also be interpreted in the same manner because Jesus didn’t literally proceed to rip off pieces of His flesh to pass around to the disciples.

The problem is that the same passage can be interpreted in different ways by different Christians who love and serve Jesus, To proclaim that such a believer who doesn’t interpret it in the same way you do doesn’t have “life” in Christ is very presumptuous, in my opinion.

 

[KathleenGee]

Love your videos, PR…and nice to hear Tommy again…

In Judaism, the Be’Kaa is the memorial.

When Christ gave us the Memorial…it is the calling upon of His Word, deed, practice, mission.

Likewise, Christ had many followers who were with Him up to the time they would eat His body and drink His blood. Peter responded to their fleeing, ‘Where can we go Lord, for you alone can give us eternal life?’ At the Last Supper, the Lord said, ‘Do this…’…the institution of the priesthood…in memory of Me…‘This is My Body…this is My Blood…’ the New Covenant of the Blood and the new form of worship to fulfill the ancient Jewish sacrifice in the Temple…as well as fulfill the prophetic figure of Melchizedek…the only one who offered gifts of wine and bread.

And the whole Jewish family of daily life revolved around the Breaking of the Bread.

Then at the Last Supper the Lord fulfilled the Tree of Life that left the Garden of Eden, the only tree named…in that Adam and Eve could see it in their banishment…that gave one hope. The way one was to become divine was to eat, to gain nourishment and grow…but Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit.

The Angel Gabriel pointed out the sign…that Christ was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in an animal feeder…to become food for us.

Jesus wounded but triumphant, the Lamb of God…fulfilling the one Bloody Sacrifice…ministers to every generation that was and will be through the Mass, the atonement for sin.

We do not treat the Lord uncommonly. We truly receive Him in the outward form of bread and wine, but the inner reality of Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity is our daily nourishment.
The Eucharist is the fruit of the Tree of Life, the Church.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I understand and respect the Catholic position on the literal translation of John 6 being the actual body and blood of Christ at Mass. It may be true, although no objective person can literally see the bread turn into physical flesh and the wine into blood. It is a mystery.

In other words, if someone was filming a parishioner taking holy communion, they would not see literal flesh and blood being consumed. It is being consumed as the body and blood of Christ in faith by the believer.

However, if that passage in John 6 was completely literal, Christ would’ve ripped off some pieces of His flesh from his arms, legs, or torso. If that verse is to be taken literally, why shouldn’t the following verse be taken literally, too?

*John 4:
10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life*.”

Since John 6 is supposed to be taken literally and not figuratively, why shouldn’t the Church teach that the living water Jesus was referring to was *literal water *? After all, Jesus talks about giving them this water so that they can have eternal life.

My Point being: The “living water” statement was obviously figurative and not literal because Jesus didn’t proceed to pull out a Bota bag with living water in it. Likewise, I don’t see why the John 6 passage couldn’t also be interpreted in the same manner because Jesus didn’t literally proceed to rip off pieces of His flesh to pass around to the disciples.

The problem is that the same passage can be interpreted in different ways by different Christians who love and serve Jesus, To proclaim that such a believer who doesn’t interpret it in the same way you do doesn’t have “life” in Christ is very presumptuous, in my opinion.

I think you make some of the points I’ve tried to express. Probably just better than me. And I’m just coming from a Catholic experience and what I’ve been taught rather than AoG. But I try to understand and respect other positions as well. And frankly I don’t have that difficult of a time doing so. The Catholic view may indeed be true. Or maybe as far I know the AoG view is. I only know either way, RP or symbol, it does take some faith.

You ask though I think a reasonable question about the verses. But for the faithful Catholic, don’t they have the Catholic Church to interpret for them what is literal and what is to be taken figuratively?

 

[peace2u2]

You ask though I think a reasonable question about the verses. But for the faithful Catholic, don’t they have the Catholic Church to interpret for them what is literal and what is to be taken figuratively?

Right, and Scripture supports your above quote how we are all to adhere to the teachings of Christ Jesus handed on to His Apostles and successors:

2 Peter 1:20 says “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” And obviously Paul understood his brother Peter as well for Paul states in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 to shun those acting not according to tradition.
2 Thessalonians 3:5 says “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with tradition that you received from us.”

If you look at say a person who claims to be a Bible Christian or one who claims to be a Bible Catholic Christian, who is being obedient to His Word?

St. Ignatius of Antioch died around the year 110. He was also the third bishop of Antioch and a student of St. John the Apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus, you know the one who was faithful and stood by Jesus at the Cross with Jesus’ Mother Mary and obviously this would mean that Ignatius received teachings of Jesus thru Apostolic Succession. The letters that he wrote to the various churches show the support and belief in the early Catholic Church in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and it really being Jesus: His Flesh and Blood and Soul and Divinity - hidden in ordinary bread and wine not being just a symbol.

St. Ignatius of Antioch writes in this Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8 “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

 

[peace2u2]

I understand and respect the Catholic position on the literal translation of John 6 being the actual body and blood of Christ at Mass. It may be true, although no objective person can literally see the bread turn into physical flesh and the wine into blood. It is a mystery.

In other words, if someone was filming a parishioner taking holy communion, they would not see literal flesh and blood being consumed. It is being consumed as the body and blood of Christ in faith by the believer.

Tommy-the Lord wants our faith to be in our knees not in our eyes so correct He remains hidden in a sense because He wants our complete trust, yet that truth does not diminish the fact that Jesus does perform miracles, signs, that point to a deeper reality even today.

I’m sure you know the Miracles of the Eucharist. He does these miracles for the same reason He did miracles when He walked the face of the earth to prove His existence and yes even hidden in a tiny piece of bread, the host.

“Behold Him, Behold Him, the Lamb of God. Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb.”

“Lord, I am not worthy for you to enter under my roof, but just say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

That is the whole point of the Eucharist – So Jesus can come not just spiritually but rather in a tangible sign - physically present to heal our souls.
Recent miracles of the Eucharist:
catholiccompany.com/getfed/pope-francis-eucharistic-miracle-in-argentina

One more truth is that Jesus’ Church needs to be one and no longer divided. The wound of rupture resulting from the reformation needs to be healed and we know that only God Himself can heal this wound. But we must all participate in this healing. What must non-Christians think of us Christians. No wonder they don’t convert to Christianity when the Lord’s Church is still divided and when we argue we do not advance God’s Kingdom but sadly the adversary’s kingdom. We must agree and publicly on the things we are in unity about Jesus being our Lord and Savior and in the areas we do not agree we must pray for God’s Grace to fill us and for His Will be done not our will.

 

[Tommy999]

If you look at say a person who claims to be a Bible Christian or one who claims to be a Bible Catholic Christian, who is being obedient to His Word? .

Matthew 12:50 in my opinion sums up the answer to that:
“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

For example, loving and trusting in God with all our heart, mind, and strength; keeping His commandments, repenting of our sins, loving our neighbor as ourselves, giving to the poor, making our body a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2), etc. That kind of person, whether he or she be Catholic or a non-Catholic Christian, is the kind of person whose prayers are heard and answered by our Lord. I truly believe that. I don’t believe that Bible-believing Protestants are second-class Christians.

St. Ignatius of Antioch died around the year 110. He was also the third bishop of Antioch and a student of St. John the Apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus, you know the one who was faithful and stood by Jesus at the Cross with Jesus’ Mother Mary and obviously this would mean that Ignatius received teachings of Jesus thru Apostolic Succession. The letters that he wrote to the various churches show the support and belief in the early Catholic Church in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and it really being Jesus: His Flesh and Blood and Soul and Divinity - hidden in ordinary bread and wine not being just a symbol".

I agree, peace2u2. For me, that gives considerable credence to the Catholic perspective when the early church fathers who sat under the authority of Jesus’s disciples supported a belief in the real presence. Thanks and God bless you and everyone else who might read this.

By the way, hello to my friend KathleenGee. You have helped be there for me over the past several months and continue to do so. I always appreciate you and your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Right, and Scripture supports your above quote how we are all to adhere to the teachings of Christ Jesus handed on to His Apostles and successors:

2 Peter 1:20 says “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” And obviously Paul understood his brother Peter as well for Paul states in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 to shun those acting not according to tradition.
2 Thessalonians 3:5 says “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with tradition that you received from us.”

If you look at say a person who claims to be a Bible Christian or one who claims to be a Bible Catholic Christian, who is being obedient to His Word?

St. Ignatius of Antioch died around the year 110. He was also the third bishop of Antioch and a student of St. John the Apostle, the beloved disciple of Jesus, you know the one who was faithful and stood by Jesus at the Cross with Jesus’ Mother Mary and obviously this would mean that Ignatius received teachings of Jesus thru Apostolic Succession. The letters that he wrote to the various churches show the support and belief in the early Catholic Church in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and it really being Jesus: His Flesh and Blood and Soul and Divinity - hidden in ordinary bread and wine not being just a symbol.

St. Ignatius of Antioch writes in this Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8 “Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

While I understand where you are coming from, without faith I’m still not sure it’s quite that clear or simple as you might make it out to be. What I mean by that is what Scripture and writings of ECFs may or may not support it would seem to me is still quite dependent to at least some degree on having faith in an interpretation of what was written. Interpretations of which there are many as you surely know. For you as a faithful Catholic naturally you have faith in the CC’s teaching authority and interpretations. Others come from other places with their particular experiences and understandings. Some of those understandings may have evolved over time. And I have no problem with that speaking from a place deep within my heart where I can’t see closing the lid on the box when we human beings have severe limitations and finite minds compared to the infinite Being all of us believers seek. It’s a part of what it means to have faith. Of which there are as well of course many as you surely know. Now can everyone be right on everything? Of course not. But in the end it is still by faith in which believers walk by not by sight.

Peace in yours to you, Peace2u2 (I love your chosen screen name!) and God bless!

 

[PRmerger]

Sure I guess so if the new math is 8 now = 10.

Hi, Sy.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this?

Also, could you please address whether we are agreed that moral matters (such as the immorality of tanks in the streets) is something that we can have a certain degree of certitude over?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hi, Sy.

Would you mind clarifying what you mean by this?

Also, could you please address whether we are agreed that moral matters (such as the immorality of tanks in the streets) is something that we can have a certain degree of certitude over?

Hi again PRmerger, I saw your earlier post but I simply truly didn’t and still don’t understand why you need further clarification unless you believe even a certain degree of certitude, say 8, is the same as 10. Take your scenario of tanks and other equipment that had been used for military purposes, then being on our streets in the hands of police. Even if you and I can agree that we’re as nearly certain as we can be, that there’s a moral quandrum about it, there are others who support the idea. Same as there are people with differing ideas about the RP or symbol. But yes we agree, I think, that we can have a certain degree. We may not agree that we can have 10s on matters of faith. But that might be just because I’m a bit leery to risk some humility in putting 10s out there. But that’s just me and how I tick.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi again PRmerger, I saw your earlier post but I simply truly didn’t and still don’t understand why you need further clarification unless you believe even a certain degree of certitude, say 8, is the same as 10.

Of course I don’t.

And I’m puzzled as to why you would think that I do.

Point is: you have a pretty high certainty of the truth of what you assert.

Some Catholic folks do, too.

Not sure why you object to having a pretty high certainty?

Could you please explain why you object to Catholics feeling certain about a particular moral truth?

 

[Reuben_J]

I understand and respect the Catholic position on the literal translation of John 6 being the actual body and blood of Christ at Mass. It may be true, although no objective person can literally see the bread turn into physical flesh and the wine into blood. It is a mystery.

In other words, if someone was filming a parishioner taking holy communion, they would not see literal flesh and blood being consumed. It is being consumed as the body and blood of Christ in faith by the believer.

However, if that passage in John 6 was completely literal, Christ would’ve ripped off some pieces of His flesh from his arms, legs, or torso. If that verse is to be taken literally, why shouldn’t the following verse be taken literally, too?

*John 4:
10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.”

11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his livestock?”

13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life*.”

Since John 6 is supposed to be taken literally and not figuratively, why shouldn’t the Church teach that the living water Jesus was referring to was *literal water *? After all, Jesus talks about giving them this water so that they can have eternal life.

My Point being: The “living water” statement was obviously figurative and not literal because Jesus didn’t proceed to pull out a Bota bag with living water in it. Likewise, I don’t see why the John 6 passage couldn’t also be interpreted in the same manner because Jesus didn’t literally proceed to rip off pieces of His flesh to pass around to the disciples.

The problem is that the same passage can be interpreted in different ways by different Christians who love and serve Jesus, To proclaim that such a believer who doesn’t interpret it in the same way you do doesn’t have “life” in Christ is very presumptuous, in my opinion.

Not in John 6, and therefore at that point in time it was just a discourse. He did however in Lk 22:19, " … this is my body" as he held the bread to give to the apostles.

As for the living water verse, yes, you are right, he did not pull out a Bota bag of water and therefore that was figurative.

 

[Reuben_J]

The Church does not teach that the Host becomes literal flesh and blood. This is apparent if you look at the following.

A cannibal is someone who eats literal flesh and blood. Catholics are not cannibals. Therefore Catholics do not eat literal flesh and blood, nor do they claim to do so. Well- some do, mistakenly, but it’s not doctrinally sound.

A transubstantiated host which contains the substance (but not accidents) of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is Not repeat Not one and the same as literal flesh and blood. It is not exactly figurative either. But not literal, and that can be a fairly important distinction.

Again, Catholics are not cannibals, nor does Church teaching point you in that direction.

Being not familiar with Protestantism that opposes the Real Presence in the Eucharist, I think I have heard this accusation that Catholics are therefore practicing cannibalism if they eat and drink human flesh and blood.

You are right in saying that the consecrated hosts are indeed flesh and blood of Jesus Christ in substance. The process this is done during the consecration in the mass.

Now if Catholics are cannibals in that they eat flesh and blood of the risen Lord, then so be it because it is really his flesh and blood. That is why this is hard teaching especially as it is an abomination to drink blood in the old law. It is easy nevertheless in the Eucharist to eat and drink the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ because only the substance is changed, not the accidents.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Of course I don’t.

And I’m puzzled as to why you would think that I do.

Point is: you have a pretty high certainty of the truth of what you assert.

Some Catholic folks do, too.

Not sure why you object to having a pretty high certainty?

Could you please explain why you object to Catholics feeling certain about a particular moral truth?

Sigh. I’m only sighing, PRmerger, because I have in my mind that I have previously in our prior thread discussions explained myself to you. But incase not…

PRmerger, you said back there, “So please apply that to the rest of us here who also have some beliefs that we would score as an 8.”

You see PRmerger, that’s the thing. I don’t object if you and others score an 8. Because 8 is not 10. It’s not even 9.

What it is that confuses me (and why I couldn’t help but wonder if you thought 8 is 10) is when Catholics say with such certainty things such as we know the truth. We have the truth. We are the only true church. The rest of you have some truth but we hold the fullness of truth. I see the word truth used so much here and if I turn on EWTN, I often hear someone talking about the truth. So understand it’s not the number 8 that I object to, it’s the extent of such certainty, the degree if you will, that Catholics go around it seems to me saying they have the truth, that it just sounds like 10 to me. Honestly sometimes I find it to such a degree that I sometimes wonder if it’s those of us who are less than faithful to the Catholic faith or who are non Catholics that Catholics are trying to convince or is it themselves that they are reassuring. Don’t take me wrong though. I do fully understand faithful Catholics believe and think you know. But I just don’t see as much black and white set in stone in some of the denominations that attract me. In any case I surely do hope this helped to settle your puzzle.