Please follow the only simple rule:

[Sellers1]

Jesus Christ said, “TAKE AND EAT; THIS IS MY BODY.” Matthew 26:26…

Now, do you believe what He said? He used very few words in this statement so He could not have been misunderstood. If you do not believe His exact words, then show me the symbolism, or the parable, or the metaphoric nature of this verse, and please follow the rule above. Tell me why you do not believe him. Is it a problem with the phrase, or maybe a word you do not understand? If so, which word? Is it ‘This’, or ‘Is’, or ‘My’, or ‘Body’? And please, I am not interested in personal opinions, only the facts.

---

I can see you that you are the type of person who likes to drive home bottom line points my friend. We can talk about many many things that Jesus said word for word in the Scriptures that nobody takes literally, not even those Bible (All the way) folks. As for the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus, I agree with you that it really is as Jesus said so. I believe this of course because he said it, but also because of the entire context of what the Scriptures do say regarding it. Beware though that in taking this approach, there are many other things that come into Scriptural light that may not be so beneficial for Catholics such as Jesus saying that those who believe in him are even more blessed than his mother.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

QUOTE]Radical;5418093]Greetings Scott, you seem like a decent fellow…please correct me if I am wrong.
One sees your rather brief and very confident and bold claim quite often on these threads and rarely is any hint given that the matter might not be as straightforward as the claim suggests. Good evening Radical. I pray God’s mercy and work on following The Golden Rule. I find that at times I am more successful than other. I also try to be as straightforward I matter As I can be without intentionally offending. As I basically see all matters in black and white, right and wrong.

It will take me quite a few large seconds…here is part one.
With this sort of claim one must realize that legitimate reasons exist for not equating the universal church in the first centuries and what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. To borrow from biological science, one can start with a particular species and through genetic mutations have that species undergo such significant changes and developments that the end result is no longer compatible (from a breeding perspective) with the source species. The same could be claimed wrt the RCC. It has undergone a number of developments where it has seen doctrine produced and expanded. The question then becomes whether the current RCC is doctrinally compatible with the universal church of the first centuries. Would the likes of Martyr, Tertullian, Ignatius, Origen or Augustine embrace or reject the modern RCC? No doubt the mere suggestion of that question will ruffle many feathers…but the fact is that a number of modern RC scholars (historians and theologians) recognize that not all modern RC doctrines are found in the ancient church (causing many of them to reject certain modern doctrines). This should cause one to at least ask the question (unless one is so committed to endorsing the RCC notwithstanding any sort of historical evidence, that asking the question can not even be contemplated).
I note that Irenaeus (heresies 1.10) described the core deposit of faith as:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.
Tertullian described the core rule of faith as:
Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved, was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

The independent views one that a man may hold do not necessarily reflect those of the Church and it is to the Church that he must conform or he will fall into heresy as Tertullian did. I over the course of my life and journey have held to beliefs that I have come to find are not what the Church teaches. When these type of teaching arise if necessary to deal with them council have been called and the matters are settled. Arianism comes to mind and even thought most all the Bishops at the time held to the same beliefs as Arius in the voting of the Council it went against him.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Radical;5418097]continuing…

The RCC of today has quite an expanded rule of faith. For example, one must believe quite a bit more about Mary than the virgin birth. The NT and the earliest writings of the Church tend to ignore Mary (except for her role in the virgin birth and a few of her interactions with Christ). Today, one must acknowledge the Pope as the proper successor to Peter and all that detail about Petrine supremacy. The modern trend in church history is to understand that Peter was never bishop of Rome and that the monarchical bishop was an early development (as opposed to a thing instituted by Christ or the Apostles). The status currently claimed for the bishop of Rome is not seen (by historians) to have been claimed at the outset. I realize your point has been made in an extremely brief fashion, but I would suggest that such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today calls into question whether the same church is involved. (Somewhere a new species emerged) Further, with such a difference between the rule of faith in the 2nd century and the rule of faith of the RCC today one can legitimately wonder if Tertullian or Irenaeus would embrace or reject the modern RCC.

First when I speak of the The Church or The Catholic Church I do not limit to Just the Roman(or Latin) Rites of the Church There are 21 Eastern Catholic Church in addiction to the Latin Rite that comprise the Catholic Church. That said yes it is a very modern trend to say that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, this is an incorrect teaching that came to being as a reason for protestants to reject the Athority of the Pope. Read Acts of the Apostles. Paul states after his conversion we must go see Peter and the others. It is Peter that says we must select a replacement for Judas, It is Peter that says how this is to be done. It is Peter that when the man and women sell their home and do not turn over all the Proceeds that with a word from him they die. As to the Teaching about the BVM. Things that today have been defined as Doctrine have been do so as they have always been held but until recently ( the last 500 years ) never came under such attacks as to have to be defined as doctrine.

This is an overstatement. Of those works known as the Apostolic Fathers, only two make mention of the Eucharist. So when you claim that they “all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ” you are making a grand assumption. The Didache is one of the two that mention the Eucharist and it gives no mention of a real presence, but calls it spiritual food. Ignatius is your best bet, but in the proof text that RCs invariably produce from Ignatius he is criticizing Gnostics (who would deny that Jesus came in the flesh) and so his comment could be taken as a dismissal of that Gnostic belief and not an endorsement of a RP. If so, then his comment should really be read as:

You seem to fall into this thinking that the Church really=ies only on what is found in writing. And You also forget that ( I know he is an Apostle and not a Church father) Paul’s writings in the New Testament leave little doubt that he believed In the Real Presence, as to who can one become sick and die from eating a symbol unworthily?

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. They have no regard for love; no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is (symbolically or spiritually) the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.** They do not confess such b/c they do not believe that Jesus possessed flesh such that he could suffer in the flesh or die in the flesh. As such, on the basis that Jesus did not have flesh, they deny that he gave us a symbol of his flesh even though we know that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ himself.**

I have added in bold what would have been understood, but not expressed.

It most definitely reads that he is supporting the Reality of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

 

[josie_L]

Well, I have read about what catholics believe about the eucharist, but the people in the crowd could never have jumped to that understanding just from what Jesus said. I did not mean that the eucharist is just bread, but that he did not clear up for them that it was bread he was talking about and not say, his arm. Does that make sense? It would be very confusing to the crowd.
I think its sad many left not understanding it. I wonder why Jesus didn’t go into more detail to help them understand.

They did understand and that is why they left.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

continuing…

If we move on to the next century, then we can look at Tertullian. I have posted most of this bit elsewhere:
Here are the passages that I would use (in the limited confines of a thread) to argue Tertullian’s figurative view of the Lord’s Supper:

*Against Marcion
Book III C.19 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. *

In that first quote Tertullian is using “figure” to mean “symbol”. Christ, by referring to himself as the bread of heaven, is using bread as a symbol and Christ’s body does not become bread other than it is given bread as its symbol.

*Against Marcion Bk. IV. c.40 When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. ** Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. *** *

(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown exactly how he understands how it is, that Jesus “made” bread his body. It was a figurative thing and not a literal thing. The bread is merely a symbol of his body and is viewed as being distinct from the body. Tertullian makes a very clear distinction with the symbolic bread on one hand, and the veritable body on the other hand. Some have claimed that Tertullian is using “figura” in a manner that does not mean “symbol” but if we continue with that passage it reads:

*An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! **But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, **** which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread, which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, …

(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown his view as to why Jesus used “bread” instead of another food. It is b/c bread was used as a symbol in the OT prophecy.

…continuing with chapter 40:

He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed in His blood, Luke 22:20 affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however,* that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah,*** who asks, Who is this that comes from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are your garments red, and your raiment as his who comes from the treading of the full winepress? The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes Genesis 49:11 — ** in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine.** Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.

(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands wine is used as a symbol for blood b/c of its red colour. He even goes on to point out how washing ancient garments in wine pointed to Jesus’s flesh and blood respectively. So after pointing to a metaphorical usage, Tertullian declares that God (through the patriarch) used wine as a figure of his blood. So if Tertullian views the wine as a metaphor/symbol of Jesus’s blood and uses “figure” to describe that, then the logical conclusion is that when Tertullian wrote “Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.” a few sentences earlier, he was using “figure” in the same symbolic fashion.

I take what Tertullian wrote and measure it against what the Church teaches then and now. As he did fall into Schism with the Church and joined with the heretical Montanist. It is hard to use him as the pillar on which to build an argument either for or against.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

From On the Resurrection of the Flesh:

*C. 37 Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, John 1:14 we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to **devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. ***Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be the bread which comes down from heaven, John 6:51 **impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling. **

(emphasis added by Radical) Here Tertullian has shown that he understands that devouring, ruminating and digesting the Word are all spiritual actions. Given the foregoing, there should be no doubt that Tertullian understood that the Eucharistic bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Tertullain specifically clarifies that when Jesus said (with respect to the bread), " This is my body" , what Jesus was actually saying is, “This bread is the figure of my body.”

When one looks at other things that Tertullian had to say about the Eucharist, the difference between the ancient Church and the modern RCC only becomes more obvious.

Further, similar cases could be presented wrt other ECFs and so, I trust, you should be able to get a glimpse of why I would say that your claim that they “all taught that the Eucharist was the Real Body and Blood of Christ” is an overstatement and is not correct.

God bless you.

I stand corrected there was not always total agreement on all issue by all The Fathers. As I noted earlier in the Case of Arius he held that Jesus was not divine very similar to what the JW’s believe today. he had a large following in this belief and If memory serves me at the council at Nicaea most all the 300 plus Bishops agreed with him ( I read somewhere that all but 3 or 4 agreed with him, I could be wrong there but he did have a large majority ). however as we know out of the council came the Creed that defines that Christ was not only Divine and human but the doctrine of the Trinity became official.

So a majority does not define doctrine and and even if a majority do believe one thing when it is place on the line the Holy Spirit will prevail and And not let a false teaching become prevail or become a Doctrine of the Church.

May God’s Blessing be on you.

 

[Radical]

I also try to be as straightforward I matter As I can be without intentionally offending.

no worries

As I basically see all matters in black and white, right and wrong.

I tend to notice grey patches in the blocks of black and white…so I expect we’ll rarely see eye to eye (regarding matters of history).

The independent views one that a man may hold do not necessarily reflect those of the Church and it is to the Church that he must conform or he will fall into heresy as Tertullian did.

Isn’t Tertullian’s alleged status of heretic under review?

Arianism comes to mind and even thought most all the Bishops at the time held to the same beliefs as Arius in the voting of the Council it went against him.

The arian controversy is an interesting thing…it seems that a bishop could be Trinitarian one year, Arian the next and finally Trinitarian again. Seems that bsihops weren’t exempt from political influence and weren’t all that clear on what was apostolic teaching and what wasn’t. Doesn’t exactly instill a great level of confidence in their ability to keep the rule of faith free from polution.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Hi,
I don’t know if that is totally true. You just said a few posts back that they stopped giving communion under the species of wine because of communicable diseases. Yet, the bible says to drink my blood and eat my body. So how is that not picking and choosing?

Hrm. Good question.

I guess it has to do with the fact that Christ’s whole body, blood, soul, and divinity are under both species so you only “need” one.

And actually, I wasn’t the one to make such a statement about not drinking from the same cup due to communicable diseases because I didn’t know that piece of information. Someone else said that.

Let me go back and check, but I DOUBT I said that.

Edited to add:
I looked through this thread and I made no such statement bolded above.

Lisa44, could you please go back to the post where I said that they stopped giving wine due to communicable diseases? The only thing I said that it is because Christ’s body AND blood is actually considered to be under both species that Celiac disease sufferers are suggested to take only the wine form, and that alcoholics are to only take under the bread form.

As to why the Catholic church says you can only have one or the other, I don’t know.

The fact of the matter is she still teaches the Last Supper literally. The bread IS His flesh. The wine IS His blood. How they got to combining the two, I don’t know.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Hi,
I don’t know if that is totally true. You just said a few posts back that they stopped giving communion under the species of wine because of communicable diseases. Yet, the bible says to drink my blood and eat my body. So how is that not picking and choosing?

The answer to your question is found here:


I looked it up because it is an answer I should know as to “why,” even though it was just something I knew, I didn’t know the why. Now I do.

But I still request that you show me the post where I made such a claim.

 

[Radical]

That said yes it is a very modern trend to say that Peter was never the Bishop of Rome, this is an incorrect teaching that came to being as a reason for protestants to reject the Athority of the Pope.

No, it came about out of a historical analysis…which is why those that say that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome include RC historians.

. As to the Teaching about the BVM. Things that today have been defined as Doctrine have been do so as they have always been held but until recently ( the last 500 years ) never came under such attacks as to have to be defined as doctrine.

we are not just talking about the lack of an eucmenical council to define doctrine…we are talking about a complete failure to mention her importance (beyond the virgin birth) by the authors of the NT epistles and the Apostolic Fathers. Do RCs only speak of Mary today when she is under attack…or does mention of Mary attach to almost everything?

You seem to fall into this thinking that the Church really=ies only on what is found in writing. And You also forget that ( I know he is an Apostle and not a Church father) Paul’s writings in the New Testament leave little doubt that he believed In the Real Presence, as to who can one become sick and die from eating a symbol unworthily?

Those who God wants to discipline will become sick and die from treating the symbol(s) of Christ’s sacrifice in a unworthy manner…God doesn’t need to have a Real Presence serve as some sort of poison to achieve that end.

It most definitely reads that he is supporting the Reality of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist.

You are right that you tend to see things in black and white

 

[Bill_Pick]

tHANK yOU FOR YOUR TIME AND A VERY GOOD ANSWER

 

[greggy53]

They did understand and that is why they left.

I don’t think any of them understood it. The 12 stayed because they took Jesus at his word without understanding it. They had faith in him, and his words. Looking back after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension it becomes easier for the writers of the NT to absorb what our Lord said in John 6. I still don’t understand it any more than I can comprehend the trinity, or the incarnation, or any number of the mysteries of our faith. I accept it as a child in faith. Ohthers don’t, like Jesus said “Some of you believeth not.”

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Radical;5420225]

Isn’t Tertullian’s alleged status of heretic under review?

I do not know, I also did not say he was a heretic just that he fell in with heretics.

The arian controversy is an interesting thing…it seems that a bishop could be Trinitarian one year, Arian the next and finally Trinitarian again. Seems that bsihops weren’t exempt from political influence and weren’t all that clear on what was apostolic teaching and what wasn’t. Doesn’t exactly instill a great level of confidence in their ability to keep the rule of faith free from polution.

What it show is that a man can be mistaken, but when it comes to to the Church Chirst promise to protect it from error holds true. The Church can not teach something that is not true.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

=Radical;5420340]No, it came about out of a historical analysis…which is why those that say that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome include RC historians.

Even the Orthodox acknowledge Peter as the First Bishop of Rome. St. Linus was the 2nd.

we are not just talking about the lack of an eucmenical council to define doctrine…we are talking about a complete failure to mention her importance (beyond the virgin birth) by the authors of the NT epistles and the Apostolic Fathers. Do RCs only speak of Mary today when she is under attack…or does mention of Mary attach to almost everything?

There are other things not mentioned in the New Testament as well: The Sunday should now be held as the day of worship. The New Testament itself is not mentioned. These are examples of what is know as Sacred Traditions. They were taught as word of mouth and not writen down till it became necessary to preserve them. St Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians was more than likely the first thing written in what became the New Testatment and was not written till 51 AD. The Gospel of Mark is held to have been the First written of the Gospels about 68 - 72 AD Remember that the literacy rate 2000 years ago was not very high so was not a big need to write things down. the started writing them down to preserve them. As for Devotion to the BVM not ever being held to be a mater of salvation until it came under attack there was never a need to write about it and it continued in oral Traditions.

Those who God wants to discipline will become sick and die from treating the symbol(s) of Christ’s sacrifice in a unworthy manner…God doesn’t need to have a Real Presence serve as some sort of poison to achieve that end.

God did and does not need to do anything that has been done. Creation was not a need. If this is true why only this symbol? Could it be that it is more than a Symbol? I have always found it really strange that people who believe God could make the world of creation, Have a virgin bring forth his Son, part the Red Sea, Raise men from the Dead. Ascend into Heaven. ETC… can not transform bread and wine into his body and blood just as he said he did. Atheist that believe non of it make more since to me.
Sorry if that sound nasty.

You are right that you tend to see things in black and white.

yep

 

[Lisa44]

The answer to your question is found here:


I looked it up because it is an answer I should know as to “why,” even though it was just something I knew, I didn’t know the why. Now I do.

But I still request that you show me the post where I made such a claim.

Hi
I went back over the thread and I couldn’t find WHERE I got the communicable diseases part? I don’t know? My mistake.
I did ask in another thread if offering only the body or blood of Jesus was “picking and choosing”.
I’m trying to understand presently how the church has the authority to decide matters such as these. Its part of understanding what the Church is, and how it gets its authority and why it has this authority etc… Its going to take me some time to figure it out so nevermind the question. I did read the link you gave me though. I wished that it has quoted from those councils mentioned. It will take me some time to find those councils online and then find the relevant sections.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Hi
I went back over the thread and I couldn’t find WHERE I got the communicable diseases part? I don’t know? My mistake.
I did ask in another thread if offering only the body or blood of Jesus was “picking and choosing”.
I’m trying to understand presently how the church has the authority to decide matters such as these. Its part of understanding what the Church is, and how it gets its authority and why it has this authority etc… Its going to take me some time to figure it out so nevermind the question. I did read the link you gave me though. I wished that it has quoted from those councils mentioned. It will take me some time to find those councils online and then find the relevant sections.

It’s all good. I read the same thing you did too, so I know it’s somewhere here on the forums.

You wondered how the church as the authority to decide such matters. The way I look at it is that Christ built His Church on Peter so… by that extension the Church has that authority on earth.

I’m sure there’s probably a better explanation that what I can give. Infact, I should go look it up. I think there is a tract on something like, “by what authority?” or something like that. I’ll PM you when I find it.

 

[Liraco]

We can talk about many many things that Jesus said word for word in the Scriptures that nobody takes literally, not even those Bible (All the way) folks. As for the Eucharist being the body and blood of Jesus, I agree with you that it really is as Jesus said so. I believe this of course because he said it, but also because of the entire context of what the Scriptures do say regarding it. Beware though that in taking this approach, there are many **other things that come into Scriptural light that may not be so beneficial for Catholics **such as Jesus saying that those who believe in him are even more blessed than his mother.

Nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts scripture. It’s merely when things aren’t understood properly that these apparent contradictions appear (unless you want to put the Bible itself in doubt at some “contradictions” it contains as some claim). Glad to know you agree on His body and blood though.

@Lisa44: There’s a whole bunch of info if you go to the catholic.com main site and use their search for things like church or papal “authority”.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401clas.asp

As for the Eucharist. I’m certainly no expert but it makes sense to me that receiving only one is sufficient because it’s not like you can receive half of infinity. You always receive the whole Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Receiving both also doesn’t mean that you receive infinity times 2.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts scripture. It’s merely when things aren’t understood properly that these apparent contradictions appear (unless you want to put the Bible itself in doubt at some “contradictions” it contains as some claim). Glad to know you agree on His body and blood though.

@Lisa44: There’s a whole bunch of info if you go to the catholic.com main site and use their search for things like church or papal “authority”.
catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401clas.asp

Thanks for the link. I’ll be checking it out myself too.

As for the Eucharist. I’m certainly no expert but it makes sense to me that receiving only one is sufficient because it’s not like you can receive half of infinity. You always receive the whole Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity. Receiving both also doesn’t mean that you receive infinity times 2.

As a math type person myself, I like this, ALOT!

 

[Sellers1]

Nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts scripture. It’s merely when things aren’t understood properly that these apparent contradictions appear

that’s the oldest one in the book. Sorry, it doesn’t wash with me.

 

[Radical]

And You also forget that ( I know he is an Apostle and not a Church father) Paul’s writings in the New Testament leave little doubt that he believed In the Real Presence, as to who can one become sick and die from eating a symbol unworthily?

Ok, so tell me how this works…apart from the rare anecdotal tale, no RCs are falling sick and dying b/c of partaking of the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. So what’s the deal? Is it:

a) RCs are an extremely worthy lot these days;
b) modern medicine has thwarted God’s attempt to discipline;
c) the RP existed at the time of Paul, but ain’t around no more; or
d) God exercises his prerogative as to when he will discipline and that exercise is not dependent on a RP?

I’d go with (d) myself.

God did and does not need to do anything that has been done. Creation was not a need. If this is true why only this symbol? Could it be that it is more than a Symbol? I have always found it really strange that people who believe God could make the world of creation, Have a virgin bring forth his Son, part the Red Sea, Raise men from the Dead. Ascend into Heaven. ETC… can not transform bread and wine into his body and blood just as he said he did.

The key word is “transform”. In all of your examples an actual and observable transformation occurs…Christ never said anything about a change w/o a change. The efforts of certain ECFs’ and the RCC’s efforts to explain the transformation w/o a transformation only compound the problem.