To Protestants: Why aren't you Catholic?

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Well, if it was to be taken 100% seriously/literally, and not in a parable sense, or there’s another, more deeper meaning, then after communion, you have my permission to pump out my stomach and look for human flesh and traces of blood other than my own. Eat so much “flesh” until you get sick and vomit. THEN see what comes out.
Maybe, just maybe, Jesus meant that every time, every thing you eat, remember that our Savior was beaten, bruised, and crucified for us. Maybe also He wants us to NEVER FORGET that we are under the New and Everlasting Covenant.
Everything we eat. Everything we drink. Everything we do… remember who He is and who we are through Him.
Never forget. Always remember.

But, then again, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s the ACTUAL flesh and blood so it IS.

It is ONLY the Catholic Church that is smart enough to let us know when Jesus is speaking in parables and when He is speaking plainly. We, not being a pope or bishop, cannot at all translate it.
Maybe that’s why the Bible was in Latin for those hundreds of years. That’s why there was a death warrant for Martin Luther after he translated the Bible from Latin to German, so us iliterate and ignorant people could read it.

Such arrogance.

That is funny! I cant help it! You talk about taking soooo much on faith, now you want PROOF that it is the flesh and blood of the savior. PLEASE! Also, you REALLY need to do your homework. The Lutherans and the Anglicans (there maybe more yet I am not sure) also beleive in the real presence as do the Orthodox! Luther himself believed- hence the Luthern belief that resounds today! You discredit yourself with everyother post my brother. None the less, God Bless you!

 

[St.Eric]

onesimplemind:

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” John 6:52

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” John 6:60

I know the Bible is prophetic but geeez … right before my very eyes. Think about this verse…

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. John 6:66

Sorry but I cant resist. You are soo right. For all of you bible code types and left behind believers : John 6:66 is where they walked away from the Lord and could not accept HIS teaching. And yet he did not call them back, saying “hey it was a parable. what I really meant what this…” NO, he let them LEAVE. HELLO!

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Maybe that’s why the Bible was in Latin for those hundreds of years. That’s why there was a death warrant for Martin Luther after he translated the Bible from Latin to German, so us iliterate and ignorant people could read it.

Such arrogance.

Again! try Greek on for size. Now we are getting into conspiracy theories! What next?

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Maybe that’s why the Bible was in Latin for those hundreds of years. That’s why there was a death warrant for Martin Luther after he translated the Bible from Latin to German, so us iliterate and ignorant people could read it.

Such arrogance.

Ok last one for the night. I forgot that the literate world in the 1500’s did not speak Latin…They all spoke and read German…no matter their locale…This is really unfortunate stuff.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

There had been several German translations before Luther’s, so I think the accusation that the Catholic Church put a “death warrant” out for Luther because he translated the Bible into the language of the people is completely unfounded. Here’s some info from a non-Catholic source:

Ulfilas (ca. 381)
The earliest Germanic version of the Bible was Ulfilas’ Gothic translation from Latin and Greek. From Ulfilas came much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary that is still in use today. Later Charlemagne (Karl der Große) would foster Frankish (Germanic) biblical translations in the 9th century. Over the years, prior to the appearance of the first printed German Bible in 1466, various German and German dialect translations of the Scriptures were published. The Augsburger Bibel of 1350 was a complete New Testament, while the Wenzel Bible (1389) contained the Old Testament in German.

First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.

God bless!

 

[kujo313]

onesimplemind:

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” John 6:52

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?” John 6:60

I know the Bible is prophetic but geeez … right before my very eyes. Think about this verse…

From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. John 6:66

There is no record of the disciples wanting to eat the body of Jesus after it was taken off the cross.

Acts 2:42
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:46
So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart

Acts 20:7
Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight

Acts 20:11
Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.

Acts 27:33-37
And as day was about to dawn, Paul implored them all to take food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day you have waited and continued without food, and eaten nothing.
Therefore I urge you to take nourishment, for this is for your survival, since not a hair will fall from the head of any of you.”
And when he had said these things, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it he began to eat.
Then they were all encouraged, and also took food themselves.
And in all we were two hundred and seventy-six persons on the ship.

 

[kujo313]

The Iambic Pen:

There had been several German translations before Luther’s, so I think the accusation that the Catholic Church put a “death warrant” out for Luther because he translated the Bible into the language of the people is completely unfounded. Here’s some info from a non-Catholic source:
God bless!

K, then, i stand corrected.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

There is no record of the disciples wanting to eat the body of Jesus after it was taken off the cross.

That would be cannibalism. You are completely misunderstanding this idea; you and the pagans. The pagans thought the early Christians were cannibals too because they did not understand the Transubstantiation.

From the Word of God:
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means** “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood**.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Eden]

From early Christians:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D.* 110**).*

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” *Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165). *

“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” *Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200). *

“Having learned these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.”” *Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII:8 (c. A.D. 350). *

“For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me, and I in him. As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us. Is not this true? Yet they who affirm that Christ Jesus is not truly God are welcome to find it false. He therefore Himself is in us through the flesh and we in Him, whilst together with Him our own selves are in God.” *Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, 8:14 (inter A.D. 356-359). *

As usual, lots more on the Eucharist here: www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[DARichards]

kujo313:

There is no record of the disciples wanting to eat the body of Jesus after it was taken off the cross…

The reason that Jesus revealed the meaning of John 6 in the institution of the Last Supper. They then put together what Jesus had said to them in John 6.

John 6:51-56

51 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."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Luke 22:19-20

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

kujo313:

Acts 2:42
And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 2:46
So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart

Acts 20:7
Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight

Acts 20:11
Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed…

Please note that whenever the term "breaking of bread exists in the New Testament, it refers to the Eucharist. Look at the passage from Luke:

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

kujo313:

Acts 27:33-37
And as day was about to dawn, Paul implored them all to take food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day you have waited and continued without food, and eaten nothing.
Therefore I urge you to take nourishment, for this is for your survival, since not a hair will fall from the head of any of you.”
And when he had said these things, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it he began to eat.
Then they were all encouraged, and also took food themselves.
And in all we were two hundred and seventy-six persons on the ship.

It is quite interesting that in this passage, after the “bread was broken”(the Eucharist) the people gained grace from that as noted by the fact that “they were all encouraged”. They first ate a meal, then they celebrated the Eucharist.

 

[St.Eric]

Incase anyone is interested, I started a new thread in Non-Catholic religions on the Eucharist topic called:

Protestants: Why don’t you follow his command? “Eat My Flesh and Drink My Blood”
St.Eric

Come on over if this topic interests you.

 

[kujo313]

Eden:

That would be cannibalism. You are completely misunderstanding this idea; you and the pagans. The pagans thought the early Christians were cannibals too because they did not understand the Transubstantiation.

From the Word of God:
Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is “Touto estin to soma mou.” This phraseology means** “this is actually” or “this is really” my body and blood**.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - “touto mou estin to soma.” The statement is “this is really” my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying “this represents (not is) my body and blood.” However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for “represent,” but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for “estin” which means "is."

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul asks the question, “the cup of blessing and the bread of which we partake, is it not an actual participation in Christ’s body and blood?” Is Paul really asking because He, the divinely inspired writer, does not understand? No, of course not. Paul’s questions are obviously rhetorical. This IS the actual body and blood. Further, the Greek word “koinonia” describes an actual, not symbolic participation in the body and blood.

1 Cor. 10:18 - in this verse, Paul is saying we are what we eat. We are not partners with a symbol. We are partners of the one actual body.

1 Cor. 11:23 - Paul does not explain what he has actually received directly from Christ, except in the case when he teaches about the Eucharist. Here, Paul emphasizes the importance of the Eucharist by telling us he received directly from Jesus instructions on the Eucharist which is the source and summit of the Christian faith.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. 1 Cor. 11:30 - this verse alludes to the consequences of receiving the Eucharist unworthily. Receiving the actual body and blood of Jesus in mortal sin results in actual physical consequences to our bodies.

www.scripturecatholic.com

"Actual body and blood of Christ", but it isn't cannabalism.  I wonder how many more things Jesus talked about where He used "IS".

Since it isn’t cannabalism, then it isn’t flesh and blood, but bread and wine. Therefore, it has a different meaning.
I’ve been accused of “picking and choosing” but it seems that Catholics do it, too.
The Eucharist is concidered the actual “flesh and blood” of Jesus, but yet when Jesus talks in Luke 11:27-28, He’s not taken seriously.

 

[Church_Militant]

“Actual body and blood of Christ”, but it isn’t cannabalism. I wonder how many more things Jesus talked about where He used “IS”.
Since it isn’t cannabalism, then it isn’t flesh and blood, but bread and wine. Therefore, it has a different meaning.
I’ve been accused of “picking and choosing” but it seems that Catholics do it, too.
The Eucharist is concidered the actual “flesh and blood” of Jesus, but yet when Jesus talks in Luke 11:27-28, He’s not taken seriously.

If you actually read what the church teaches about this instead of reading what someone else thinks they know about what the Catholic Church teaches about this you might understand it…but I guess you’d just rather argue.

 

[DARichards]

“Actual body and blood of Christ”, but it isn’t cannabalism. I wonder how many more things Jesus talked about where He used “IS”.
Since it isn’t cannabalism, then it isn’t flesh and blood, but bread and wine. Therefore, it has a different meaning.
I’ve been accused of “picking and choosing” but it seems that Catholics do it, too.
The Eucharist is concidered the actual “flesh and blood” of Jesus, but yet when Jesus talks in Luke 11:27-28, He’s not taken seriously.

Obviously there was confusion in the disciples minds after Jesus gave His discourse in John Chapter 6. They had no idea what He meant. And there were many that left because it was a hard saying. But there were many that stayed with Him after that. They believed in Christ. They believed that He would reveal what He meant. They could have actually thought that Christ was being literal. However, in their minds, it was all defined in the upper room. All questions were answered in regard to what the Body and Blood were.

Remember, **Christ defined ** what His Body and His Blood were in the upper room. At that point, there was no reason to believe otherwise. He said: “***This is * ** My Body…***This is * ** My Blood…” It couldn’t have gotten much clearer.

 

[Eden]

“Actual body and blood of Christ”, but it isn’t cannabalism. I wonder how many more things Jesus talked about where He used “IS”.
Since it isn’t cannabalism, then it isn’t flesh and blood, but bread and wine. Therefore, it has a different meaning.
I’ve been accused of “picking and choosing” but it seems that Catholics do it, too.
The Eucharist is concidered the actual “flesh and blood” of Jesus, but yet when Jesus talks in Luke 11:27-28, He’s not taken seriously.

I find that Protestants do not have a sense of the mystery of God. Their teachings, coming from human beings, are understood only on human terms.

Kujo - When Jesus was God incarnate, before He had fulfilled His role as Savior, to partake in His earthly Body would be cannibalism.

The Body and Blood that is in the Eucharist is that of the risen Christ. This is a great mystery.

Just as the Trinity is a mystery. Not everything that comes from God can be understood fully by human minds. We must take it on faith, because He said it IS.

 

[kujo313]

Church Militant:

If you actually read what the church teaches about this instead of reading what someone else thinks they know about what the Catholic Church teaches about this you might understand it…but I guess you’d just rather argue.

Well, clip and paste. I’ve only quoted from over 20 years experience in the catholic religion.

 

[Church_Militant]

kujo313:

Well, clip and paste. I’ve only quoted from over 20 years experience in the catholic religion.

Yours?

 

[kujo313]

Church Militant:

Yours?

yes. in cathecism, attending masses, having a deacon as an uncle, comparing catholic the catholic religion to the Bible.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

yes. in cathecism, attending masses, having a deacon as an uncle, comparing catholic the catholic religion to the Bible.

“Loss of faith” from New Advent:

From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God’s gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, “Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur” (St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. cxlv – “He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work”). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; “Vae homini illi”, says St. Augustine, “nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat”, i. e. “Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith” (Enarr. in Ps. cxx, 2, P.L., IV, 1614).

 

[kujo313]

“Loss of faith” from New Advent:

From what has been said touching the absolutely supernatural character of the gift of faith, it is easy to understand what is meant by the loss of faith. God’s gift is simply withdrawn. And this withdrawal must needs be punitive, “Non enim deseret opus suum, si ab opere suo non deseratur” (St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. cxlv – “He will not desert His own work, if He be not deserted by His own work”). And when the light of faith is withdrawn, there inevitably follows a darkening of the mind regarding even the very motives of credibility which before seemed so convincing. This may perhaps explain why those who have had the misfortune to apostatize from the faith are often the most virulent in their attacks upon the grounds of faith; “Vae homini illi”, says St. Augustine, “nisi et ipsius fidem Dominus protegat”, i. e. “Woe be to a man unless the Lord safeguard his faith” (Enarr. in Ps. cxx, 2, P.L., IV, 1614).

This “faith” that you speak of is not the “faith” in Jesus Christ.
First of all, I do not have faith in the infallability of the pope seeing that it was Peter (the so-called "first ‘pope’ ") who, after “given the keys”, DENIED Jesus THREE TIMES! It was Peter, also, who was undeniablly MARRIED.
According to the catholic religion, popes are not to be married. Yet, Peter was.
If, then, Peter was to be taken seriously when he spoke, I do see in the Gospels and in his writings just what he wanted to say.

Peter’s actions and words contradict some of the current teachings and traditions of the catholic religion. Had God changed His mind throughout the years? Or has there been some bad decisions throughout the years?