I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[Ozzie]

hlgomez:

This is “your” interpretation of the Bible. Our interpretation doesn’t come from us but from the Magisterium.

Yes, I am well aware of that. And the "Magisterium’s interpretation doesn’t necessarily have to fit the context, they merely have to supply you with their “infallible” interpretation.

If Jesus was just saying “metaphorically” in John 6, then why would He say in the Last Supper the words;“This is my Body… this is my blood.”? Did Jesus say; “This is a “symbol” of my Body… this is a “symbol” of my blood”? If He said that, then I will believe in what you say. But Scriptures doesn’t lie, so don’t change the real meaning of Jesus words in the last supper.

First of all you’re assuming that the words Jesus spoke in Jn. 6 were referring to the “Last Supper.” But He was speaking to unbelievers, not believers - and not even the early Christians allowed unbelievers, or even catechumens, for that matter, to participate in their Communion. None of the Gospel writers say Jesus was fulfilling the words He’d previously spoken at Capernaum, or that the Disciple’s, participating in eating the bread and drinking the cup, fulfilled those words. Nor do any of the writers even connect the two events in their accounts. When Jesus in Jn. 6 stated that He was the “Bread of life,” it should have been obvious to all, and should be to you today, that He was speaking figuratively, metaphorically. Elsewhere when He said He was “the Light of the world” He did not mean His body would one day change into a cosmic flashlight. And He being “the door” didn’t mean that one day His body would change into wood attached to hinges. “I am the Bread of life” sets the figurative tone for all that He communicates in John six. His resurrected life is transferred to all who believe in Him.

At the “Last Supper” Jesus did not say this has become by body and this has become my blood. Nor did He say this will become My body and this will become My blood. He said, while in His body, “this is my body” and, “this is the cup of the New Covenant in My blood.” Again it is quite obvious that He was speaking figuratively. And nowhere does He say to His disciples in the room that He will give them the power to change the elements into His body and blood. But their participation was for the purpose of remembering Him (His work of redemption on the cross), and to proclaim His death until He comes. Quite simple my good man.

 

[Ozzie]

KLStevens:

We have all seen the result of the authority of personal interpretation of scripture on Christian churches–they splinter and divide, disregarding Christ’s command to be “one”–as we now have over 30,000 Protestant denominations while still only one Catholic Church.

My friend, have you ever read Church history? It’s full of opposing doctrinal views. There is one Catholic (universal) Church, yes, and it is made up of individual, TRUE believers called out from each successive generation down through the centuries since Pentecost. And this true, holy “Catholic” church has had one inerrant source down through the centuries, provided by God, as the basis for its faith and practice: The Written Word of God.

Oh yes, the Roman church claims exclusive catholicity, just as it claims all church history is its history, and all ecumenical councils were* its councils*. But that is far from the truth, historically. In fact, the church of Rome is not even mentioned in the Book of Acts, yet Peter was suppose to have been its Bishop (Pope) for 25 years. It claims Apostolic authority based on its own self-serving interpretation of Matt. 16:18, but even that has been repudiated down through the centuries, even by Augustine.

Where in the bible does it say CLEARLY that “personal interpretation” of scripture is authoritative way to interpret Scripture?

Dear fellow, do you recall to whom the Epistles are addressed? None were addressed specifically to the bishop of Rome. Nor were they addressed to any so-called “Magesterium” set up in Rome, so that they might be infallibly interpreted for the masses. Paul addresses those he writes to in Rome as, “the called in Jesus Christ, to ALL who are beloved of God in Rome, called as SAINTS” (Rom. 1:6-7). He gives no instruction for special interpretive filtering before being read to the people.

The New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit for all who belong to Christ to read and understand. There’s nothing esoteric or mystical connected to its contents and therefore in need of special interpreters. Although it is true that the spiritual truths revealed in Scripture can only be accepted and understood by those regenerated by the Holy Spirit, but like all literature nothing must be interpreted out of context. The organizations that claim their writings can be understood by only a certain few are usually deemed cults. To claim that the Bible can be understood and interpreted only by certain men, designated “infallible,” by men, turns Christianity into a cult, or at least a cult mentality. This is not true Christianity!! Certainly not the Christianity of the Bible.

 

[WBB]

Greg_McPherran:

You obviously don’t understand Catholicism! This is why you are not Catholic?! Because you don’t understand Catholicism?!

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 “Since “without faith it is impossible to please [God]” and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life ‘But he who endures to the end.’”

That’s the teaching of Rome Ozzie. In fact Rome speaks in the name of Jesus Christ by His authority. If you disrespect Rome, you disrespect Jesus. Rome speaks with authority conferred by Jesus to the apostles. We present the faith of the apostles.

James 2:20 “Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?”* (note that is a scripture quote not my words, but if it makes the point then so be it)*

Greg

It is not that he doesn’t understand Catholicism, he just doesn’t want it to be true. The scriptures testify to our faith over and over, but protestants have to twist and manipulate what the bible says to justify their watered down theology. A good example is the baptism narrative between Jesus and Nicodemus…could it be any more straightforward? “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born through water and the Spirit.” The water is the visible sign of the invisible grace of the Spirit, yet the protestant will say, “No, the water is an earthly thing and that goes against the Spirit because Jesus says in the next sentence that what is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.” This to Catholics means that you receive natural life from your physical birth but you receive supernatural life (or grace) from your spiritual birth in baptism. Could it have been written any more clearly? But of course, the protestant thinker can not read the writing on the wall because that would be supporting Catholicism. Funny, it is a strange kind of pride! And the idea of matter versus spirit, the idea of dualism that exists in protestantism, is reminiscent of Gnosticism. Furthermore, Katholikos is not speaking the truth of the Catholic faith when he says that we earn our salvation because that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is what protestants believe the Catholic Church teaches. The above quote from the Catechism refutes what Katholikos says (No offense, Katholikos ).

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

1. Then you are saying Protestant communion is worthless?
2. If physically eating anything can do nothing, then why would Jesus command the apostles to eat the bread at the last Supper?

 

[KLStevens]

Dear Ozzie,

I still obviously did not receive an answer to many of my questions there Ozzie. Instead you now attempt to rewrite history by your interpretation so to avoid those questions.

I am well aware of our shared Christian history and am also well aware that while I was not a Christian, the secular history I was taught acknowledged the history of the Catholic Church that you do not.

Earlier you stated, “The New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit for all who belong to Christ to read and understand.”
Where does Scripture tell us this? It doesn’t.

You also stated: “There’s nothing esoteric or mystical connected to its contents and therefore in need of special interpreters.”

Above you contradict Scripture to benefit your interpretation:
2 Peter 3:15:
“…So also our brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them HARD TO UNDERSTAND, which the ignorant and unstable TWIST to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”

Clearly Scripture stated there are those who THINK they know the correct understanding of scripture while they actually don’t. So how do we determine who has it right? This is why we have 1000s of personal interpretations of what Scripture actually means?

And why do you ignore 2 Peter 1:20 (RSV)?
“First of all you must understand this, THAT NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS A MATTER OF ONE’S OWN INTERPRETATION.”

By what authority is YOUR interpretation the “correct” interpretation since it is obviously YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION?

You also state, “Although it is true that the spiritual truths revealed in Scripture can only be accepted and understood by those regenerated by the Holy Spirit, but like all literature nothing must be interpreted out of context. The organizations that claim their writings can be understood by only a certain few are usually deemed cults… This is not true Christianity!! Certainly not the Christianity of the Bible.”

Actually once again you are clearly contradicting Scripture here.
It is always easy to jump on the anti-Catholic wagon and start throwing around words like “cult” however, that is just your distraction in an effort to avoid the directives provided by Paul.

Here he clearly says: 1 Corinthians 1:10
“Now I appeal to you, brothers and sister, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ALL OF YOU BE IN AGREEMENT and THAT THERE BE NO DIVISIONS among you, but that YOU BE UNITED in the SAME MIND and the SAME PURPOSE.”

or in his letter to the Philippians 2:2
“Make my joy complete: be of the SAME MIND, having the SAME love, BEING IN FULL ACCORD and OF ONE MIND.”

As I said earlier, when left to the authority of our own personal interpretations–even if as you claim “Scripture can only be accepted and understood by those regenerated by the Holy Spirit”–we now have 30,000+ Protestant churches created by those who would have gave their lives in the belief that they were lead by or as you claim “regenerated” by the Holy Spirit. How is this something we can securely say of ourselves? (There’s too much pride in one’s own earthly self in a claim like that for me to be comfortable with such.)

Paul is asking us to be a part of a cult–the cult of Jesus Christ. And historically that’s what the first Christians did live like–in a literal community with shared goods where no one’s personal interpretation was given authority, only the understanding that conformed with the teachings (tradition) which had been handed on to them.

Why do you think Paul keep writing to all these communities telling them to hold onto what he taught? Obviously because at times they weren’t–hence they were doing it wrong! Clearly the Philippians and Corinthians WERE NOT LIVING OF ONE MIND and Paul needed to remind them of how important that was!

Please continue with the next post…

 

[KLStevens]

Clearly personal, individual interpretation is neither ever as valid as the full truth contained in the teaching of Jesus’ Church or as fruitful since as such it has lead to the COMPLETE DISREGARD for the order by Paul that Jesus’ church be of ONE MIND. Let alone Jesus’ desire for us to be one.

Ozzie:

What’s your point here? With all this bickering?

Are you interested in becoming Catholic or just attempting to convince us that we all need to understand Scripture with the guidance of YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION?

Your comments in this forum seem more driven by the need for your interpretation of Jesus’ word to be THE correct one rather than of following Paul’s directive to be of ONE MIND with His Church.

Your humility is no where to be found but your righteousness seems to be directed at us Catholics as an insult.

Please take the time to consider your motivations and discover if what your doing is really God’s will for you or just your own personal ambition. We Catholics have the security of knowing that our Magisterium is the authoritative teacher spoken about in 2 Timothy 2:2, “and what you have heard from me entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others.” And that just seems to get your goat! I imagine you wondering how could 1 billion of us Catholic worldwide all be getting it so wrong? And so wrong for 2000 years? Acting as one mind–what are we thinking! Up until now when you have come to save us from this cult?

I obviously am not the most gentle person in my debate style but I do pray for you Ozzie. Please soften your heart, do not be convinced that what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches is what it actually does. Open yourself to what people are offering you here. And just maybe you will be able to see that in the end there is truth in the Jesus’ Catholic Church.

In closing I will offer all a warning from Paul to the ROMANS
(you know–those very early Christians who lived in ROME)
Romans 16:17:
“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them.”

I again hope and pray that you will read By What Authority?

Yours In Christ,
KLStevens

 

[Ozzie]

Catholic4aReasn:

I think an important point to make here is that there IS symbolism in the Eucharist but not merely symbolism. While you will find, in early Christian writings, allusions to the symbolic elements of the Eucharist you will never, ever find anyone denying the true presence.

Even the phrase “true presence” is vague. They do not all teach an actual transformation, that is, the full developed doctrine of “transubstantiation.” It became the offical, accepted doctrine of the Roman church, but it was not taught by all, or accepted by all, at all times. No doubt early writers had a mystical view about the eucharist, but you can’t extract from their writings exactly what they meant. That’s why you must always go back to Scripture which have a divine origin. [What a tremendously horrible heresy if it isn’t true.] That’s right. But there’s one even worse, that a person is not saved by grace through faith alone, hence denying the sufficiency of divine grace.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from the prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyreans, 6,2)”.

This is all very vague. He’s not writing a doctrinal treatise on the “eucharist.” And you can’t really know just how far he’s taking it, or what the opposition was actually saying. Plus he’s not presenting it as a sacrifice, a “re-presentation,” since he also refers to the resurrection. What you’re doing is reading into Ignatius the whole time-developed doctrine of transubstantiation. Sorry, but it’s just not there. I don’t deny that early in Church history there were those who adopted mystical views of the “eucharist.” But that doesn’t mean they were correct. Even their beliefs and writings must be tested by Scripture.

“The only divine source on the doctrine of the “eucharist” is the written Word of God.” You responded: With all due respect, this is a Protestant Tradition. You make a claim for Scripture that Scripture does not make for itself.

What other divine source do we have? If you say “oral tradition,” those traditions which were never written down, how can you know for sure which one’s were of divine origin? If any at all? At least Scripture itself testifies of its own divine origin.

To “answer for the body and blood of the Lord” is to be guilty of the crime of murder.

Paul says nothing of “murder” in the text. He merely says, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.” This is not speaking of murder, but guilty of a sinful attitude toward the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. You’ll notice that Paul, throughout this whole passage, retains the elements of the bread and cup. Transubstantiation is not at all taught here (see vs. 28).

It must be a reference to Jesus Christ’s body. If one eats and drinks without discerning the body of Jesus Christ one is actually bringing judgement upon oneself.

Exactly, but the bread and cup are holy representations of the actual body of Christ. They are holy because of WHO and WHAT they represent, hence the ceremony must be approached in a holy manner. It was to be done “in remembrance” of Him and to *“proclaim His death until He comes.” *It’s all quite simple, Nancy.

 

[Katholikos]

Definitions:

‘Salvation’ means primarily liberation from sin and its consequences.

‘Justification’ means the basis upon which we can get to heaven.

Protestants teach that salvation is by faith ***alone. ***All that is required is to simply believe that Christ has done all that is required. “Works” are only the fruit of justification, and sins (i.e., ‘bad works’) do not affect it; they have already been forgiven. Many teach that once a man believes in Christ, he is saved forever. This means that Jesus’s sacrifice covered all of mankind’s sins – past, present, and future.

The Catholic Church teaches that justification is a **process – not a single event. We grow in justification before God by our works. We are saved by grace in faith working through love (Gal 5:6) --not by faith alone. Works are necessary, as Mt 25:31-46 and other NT verses plainly tell us, but our works do not save us. “We are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus . . .” Acts 15:11. Luther and other Protestants after him got it wrong by teaching that salvation is by faith *alone. * Faith, yes. Faith alone, no. Grace precedes faith.

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” James 2:14. The answer is no, as the author of James goes on to explain in 2:15-26.

“See how a person is justified by WORKS and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.” James 1:27

No wonder Luther removed James from the NT!

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat . . . so that each one may receive recompense for what he did in the body, whether good or evil.” 2 Cor 5:10

“Work out your salvation in fear and trembling…” Phil 2:12

Following is an excerpt from the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification, an accord signed in 1999.

“Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”

The Lutheran World Federation, representing a majority of the world’s Lutherans, came to a Catholic POV. Since the doctrine of Sola Fide (by Faith Alone) started with Luther, let us hope other Protestants will someday do the same.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Ozzie wrote:

That’s why you must always go back to Scripture which have a divine origin.

Please produce the evidence that “scripture” has a divine origin.

Since the Bible is not a continuous book but is a collection of writings – written over a period of about 1,100 years – please tell us how you know which writings are “scripture” and which are not.

Your “scriptures” are one among several different collections of writings that are all called “the Bible.” Which is the “word of God”? Yours has the least writings of any – only 66 – because Luther cut eleven books from the original Bible. You have ceded to Luther the authority to decide what is scripture for you. (Later Lutherans put four of the 11 books back.)

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

WBB:

Furthermore, Katholikos is not speaking the truth of the Catholic faith when he says that we earn our salvation because that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. It is what protestants believe the Catholic Church teaches. The above quote from the Catechism refutes what Katholikos says (No offense, Katholikos ).

I was not implying that Catholics believe salvation can be earned. Salvation is a free gift of God. Works salvation is a heresy condemned by the Councils of Orange (529) and Trent (1545-63).

ON JUSTIFICATION - CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)

However, having received God’s free, unmerited gift, we are expected to perform the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. We will be judged “according to our deeds.” Mt 25:13-46, Rev. 20:12-13, et al.

JMJ Jay

 

[WBB]

Katholikos:

I was not implying that Catholics believe salvation can be earned. Salvation is a free gift of God. Works salvation is a heresy condemned by the Councils of Orange (529) and Trent (1545-63).

ON JUSTIFICATION - CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)

However, having received God’s free, unmerited gift, we are expected to perform the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. We will be judged “according to our deeds.” Mt 25:13-46, Rev. 20:12-13, et al.

JMJ Jay

Jay,

I perfectly understood what you were saying. However, a protestant will take it and run with it saying silly things like, “BINGO! That is the key to Catholic soteriology.”

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

1. Then you are saying Protestant communion is worthless?
2. If physically eating anything can do nothing, then why would Jesus command the apostles to eat the bread at the last Supper?

 

[Ozzie]

1. Then you are saying Protestant communion is worthless?

1. If physically eating anything can do nothing, then why would Jesus command the apostles to eat the bread at the last Supper?

(1) Worthless? Not at all. We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him” and “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” Just as the Scriptures state (1 Cor. 11: 25-26). And this answers your second question.

Now you tell me, what do you gain by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Ozzie:

We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him”…

Ozzie:

Physically eating anything can do nothing.

Does physically eating the bread do something or not? What are you saying Ozzie? I see two contradictory statements. No one has to eat anything to remember Jesus. You said eating anything can do nothing, so why is it neccessary to eat anything to remember Jesus? How can eating be necessary and at the same time “eating can do nothing”?

Greg

 

[Katholikos]

quote=Ozzie Worthless? Not at all. We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him” and “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.” Just as the Scriptures state (1 Cor. 11: 25-26). And this answers your second question.

Now you tell me, what do you gain by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood?
[/quote]

We receive GRACE – which means the Divine Life of God. He thus remains with us forever – “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him” (John 6:56).

Please understand that we do not drink type AB blood or gnaw on a thigh or a toe when we receive Christ – Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity – in Holy Communion. He gives Himself to us in His sacramental form. “This (bread) is my body; This (wine) is my blood.” Why don’t you believe Jesus? Take Him at His word.

“Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you” (John 6:53).

The first Christians, too, were accused of cannibalism. We believe as the first Christians believed, who were taught not by reading a book and trying to interpret the words, but by the lips of the living Apostles.

JMJ Jay

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

The problem with isolated quotes from men like these is they’re not doctrinal statements. It needs to be remembered that there’s a great difference between the half-poetic, enthusiastic, glowing language of devotion, in which the early writers spoke of the “eucharist,” and the clear, calm and cool language of logical and doctrinal definition.

Ozzie,

Would you kindly provide factual evidence historically and linguistically that support this absurd contention. You state, as fact, that men like Ignatius(and apparently all of the Church Fathers when they spoke of the true presence) were half poetic, enthusiastic, and glowing in their language of devotion. How would you know this? This is simply a dodge on your part to deny the truth of what they said.

You also contend that much of the writings of the Church Fathers is simply vague and that it is not the inspired word of God. You have not established that their writings are vague, and most people would disagree with this contention. And while their writings are not part of scripture they provide a solid historical foundation of how scripture was and is to be understood. After all, some of these men were taught directly by the apostles themselves. Their understandings have considerably more authenticity and credibility than yours. You have no humility in the face of historical facts. History is what it is, and no amount of silly spin on your part will undo it.

 

[Katholikos]

Ozzie wrote:

What other divine source do we have? If you say “oral tradition,” those traditions which were never written down, how can you know for sure which one’s were of divine origin? If any at all? At least Scripture itself testifies of its own divine origin.

The Church which testifies of Sacred Scripture also testifies of Sacred Tradition.

The knowledge of the Sacred Apostolic Oral Tradition was preserved in various writings that are not divinely inspired – such as the Church’s Liturgies, the writings of the Church Fathers, decrees of Councils and Synods, etc. And the correct interpretation and understanding of the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition was preserved in the Church’s memory and passed down through the centuries.

Where does Scripture itself testify of its own divine origin?

Where does Scripture tell us which writings are Scripture?

Scripture would first have to provide an inspired list of its own contents – it must tell us that it begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation and tell us the names of all the writings that come in between – in order to define itself. It doesn’t. Then it must include a statement such as “all the writings listed herein are of divine origin” or words to that effect. Or, in the alternative, every writing would have to proclaim somewhere in its pages, “This is Scripture – the inspired word of God.” None do.

The Scriptures make no such claim for themselves. The only way we know what the Scriptures are is through the declaration of the Catholic Church. The Church says “These writings and no others are Scripture – the inspired Word of God.”

"For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) - Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called Fundamental, Chapter 5, 6.

JMJ Jay

 

[Pax]

Ozzie:

First of all you’re assuming that the words Jesus spoke in Jn. 6 were referring to the “Last Supper.” But He was speaking to unbelievers, not believers - and not even the early Christians allowed unbelievers, or even catechumens, for that matter, to participate in their Communion.

Once again, you’ve made a totally unsubstantiated claim. You are saying that in John 6 that Jesus is speaking to unbelievers. Excuse me but among those that He was speaking to were the apostles. Moreover, right after Jesus worked the miracle of water into wine at the marriage feast of Cana we are told that, “This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed in him.”[John 2:11]

Apparently, His disciples did believe in Him and Jesus was talking to believers. Now this creates another problem for you because it demonstrates that if they were believers then (by your definitions) they were saved and “once saved they were always saved.” But if this were true, how could they leave Jesus and no longer follow Him? And remember their salvation would be exactly like that of all the OT Jews that went before them. They would have been saved by the anticipation of Jesus sacrifice.

This is just one more example of why your beliefs are inconsistent with scripture.

 

[hlgomez]

Now you tell me, what do you gain by literally eating His flesh and drinking His blood?

Answers:

1. We will live forever.
   “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” John 6:51
2. We will be raised on the last day by Jesus Christ.
   "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is* true drink.* "(emphasis added)
   "John 6:54-55
3. Christ will remain with us and we in Him.
   "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. "John 6:56
4. We will have life because of Him.
   “Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.” John 6:57

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

We eat and drink in “remembrance of Him” and "proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes."

Ozzie,

With reference to your reply above, you have made a very strong point by saying to “proclaim the Lord’s death.” But, unfortunately, you missed the whole point of this passage. By “proclaiming” the “Lord’s death” “until He comes”, you actually believe that what is happening is real and not symbolic. Because if you just use a symbolic Eucharist, then you are not really proclaiming the Lord’s death.

By “proclaiming” the Lord’s death, we actually “perpetuating” and not doing “again” for the second, third, and so forth, time." It is “making present” the sacrifice of Christ in Calvary. It is the same sacrifice. This is the essence of the Mass. That’s why you can see (if you did see it in a Catholic Mass) that by separating the Bread(Body) and Wine(Blood), it signifies the death of Christ.

Pio*