G
- Status
B
BrunoMaria
Guest
Naming the Eucharist “repugnant” is a clear matter of blasphemy.
Disbelievers of course couldn’t care less about blasphemy, for they make themselves believe that there will be no consequence for committing this kind of outrage. Simply because they even hope: “There is no God”.
A risky thing that is, - for how do they know?!
So they feel; ‘blaspheming about Jesus doctrines is same thing as if taking fun of any fairy tale’ - which they hope the Bible is.
A hope that won’t come to fulfillment. They will see Jesus Christ right after their death, as all will. And what then?! Which verdict will they hear?
We might hope to get well when we are ill, hope for rain when it’s dry, hope not to lose our fortune etc. But to hope NOT to be wrong in our disbelief - for if we are the consequence might be eternally dreadful, really is Russian Roulette; - playing with Death.
When we say this and mention this to doubters, we get the reply we got nothing but threatening statements.
Now - what is the opposite or contrary of any good news?! Is being told that other thing a threatening, or is is simply pointing out the consequence? Any denial of the good, means in consequence - calling for the bad. If you deny food, you starve. If you deny water, you die of thirst. If you don’t love someone, you won’t be loved. Being told these consequences is not at all threatening, but far more so a certain and inevitable aftereffect. Even things one doesn’t believe, like: ‘This is a poisonous thing to eat’ - will entail the undreamed of consequence of death. Nothing about threatening, but simply fact. Blessed he who is told and dares to approve. But ill-fated he who won’t listen and denies that truth.
The TRUTH itself is independent of being believed or not. No, Jesus’ doctrine really isn’t threatening news, but the Good News of love and understanding. The Good News of the living God who wants us to be with Him in eternity. What’s bad or not to believe about it?
Disbelief ust because we can’t grasp it, would be plain silly.
Of course there’s another thing to mind too; for to actually see the truth as an obvious thing, is given to him only, who struggled to be given that gift of belief. So - it does take the effort of some steps twards God. For he who knocks will be opened - Matthew 7:7.
Disbelievers of course couldn’t care less about blasphemy, for they make themselves believe that there will be no consequence for committing this kind of outrage. Simply because they even hope: “There is no God”.
A risky thing that is, - for how do they know?!
So they feel; ‘blaspheming about Jesus doctrines is same thing as if taking fun of any fairy tale’ - which they hope the Bible is.
A hope that won’t come to fulfillment. They will see Jesus Christ right after their death, as all will. And what then?! Which verdict will they hear?
We might hope to get well when we are ill, hope for rain when it’s dry, hope not to lose our fortune etc. But to hope NOT to be wrong in our disbelief - for if we are the consequence might be eternally dreadful, really is Russian Roulette; - playing with Death.
When we say this and mention this to doubters, we get the reply we got nothing but threatening statements.
Now - what is the opposite or contrary of any good news?! Is being told that other thing a threatening, or is is simply pointing out the consequence? Any denial of the good, means in consequence - calling for the bad. If you deny food, you starve. If you deny water, you die of thirst. If you don’t love someone, you won’t be loved. Being told these consequences is not at all threatening, but far more so a certain and inevitable aftereffect. Even things one doesn’t believe, like: ‘This is a poisonous thing to eat’ - will entail the undreamed of consequence of death. Nothing about threatening, but simply fact. Blessed he who is told and dares to approve. But ill-fated he who won’t listen and denies that truth.
The TRUTH itself is independent of being believed or not. No, Jesus’ doctrine really isn’t threatening news, but the Good News of love and understanding. The Good News of the living God who wants us to be with Him in eternity. What’s bad or not to believe about it?
Disbelief ust because we can’t grasp it, would be plain silly.
Of course there’s another thing to mind too; for to actually see the truth as an obvious thing, is given to him only, who struggled to be given that gift of belief. So - it does take the effort of some steps twards God. For he who knocks will be opened - Matthew 7:7.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Po18guy,
I, too, have been amazed at all of the limitations Protestants put on the god that they have created in their own image. While it is easy to see the Jews walking away in disgust at Jesus’ own words - the idea that this would still be going on, defies my imagination. In 2,000 there does not appear to have been either much faith and not much learning.
But, it does not end at the Eucharist - Protestant’s don’t believe Christ can keep His Church free of error. Considering how many Protestant groups in the past 100 years have claimed that it is OK to murder the unwanted in the womb, claim that homosexual behavior is now acceptable, disregard God’s Plan for marriage and announce that homosexual ‘marriages’ will be sanctioned in some churches, and for those who a bit ‘long in the tooth’ there is euthansia to dispatch them under the apparent approval of those who claim that murdering others is ‘mercy’. So, we have God’s clear commands (written in the Bible that they claim (even in their abridged version) is inerrant - that was just in need of a bit of interpretation so that ‘black’ really is ‘white’ after all!
From Peter - the First Pope - to Benedict XVI, there has never been error taught. There have been many who seemed to have gone out of their way to demonstrate just how human they really were … but, the teaching (and not the men) is error free. And, I think that it is important to clearly state that our God has no limits!
God bless
I, too, have been amazed at all of the limitations Protestants put on the god that they have created in their own image. While it is easy to see the Jews walking away in disgust at Jesus’ own words - the idea that this would still be going on, defies my imagination. In 2,000 there does not appear to have been either much faith and not much learning.
But, it does not end at the Eucharist - Protestant’s don’t believe Christ can keep His Church free of error. Considering how many Protestant groups in the past 100 years have claimed that it is OK to murder the unwanted in the womb, claim that homosexual behavior is now acceptable, disregard God’s Plan for marriage and announce that homosexual ‘marriages’ will be sanctioned in some churches, and for those who a bit ‘long in the tooth’ there is euthansia to dispatch them under the apparent approval of those who claim that murdering others is ‘mercy’. So, we have God’s clear commands (written in the Bible that they claim (even in their abridged version) is inerrant - that was just in need of a bit of interpretation so that ‘black’ really is ‘white’ after all!
From Peter - the First Pope - to Benedict XVI, there has never been error taught. There have been many who seemed to have gone out of their way to demonstrate just how human they really were … but, the teaching (and not the men) is error free. And, I think that it is important to clearly state that our God has no limits!
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, BrunoMaria,
For some reason, I had not thought in terms of this being blasphemy - but, this was my mistake - this really is blasphemy, to claiming God that He is lying because we do not believe He can do what He says He can do.
God bless
For some reason, I had not thought in terms of this being blasphemy - but, this was my mistake - this really is blasphemy, to claiming God that He is lying because we do not believe He can do what He says He can do.
God bless
G
GraceSofia
Guest
.
Gentlemen,
To be fair, the Protestants were not saying that God is lying. They were saying that the Catholic Church misunderstands Scripture. Although it is odd that they were arguing against the most literal Bible reading that can be put on the Gospel of John.
S
spockrates
Guest
Good point!
There are likely some who have that kind of rembrance, but I’ve seen Evangelicals who shed tears when the receive the bread and juice. For them, they likely remember the sacrifice Christ suffered for their sins. Do you think a Catholic might do the same and see the Eucharist as the real body, blood and divinity of Christ, but also solemnly recall his suffering for her?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, GraceSofia,
You bring up an interesting aspect to a complex discussion. Just how does one claim ‘Sola Scruptura’ as the basis for denying the Real Presence - yet reject such clearly written words in John 6. But, of course we can not stop there - we have all the writings of the ECF and essentially all of history - at least up to the 16th Century.
Candidly all I can see is that if one rejects the Catholic Church - one can not believe in the Real Presence because very soon the group will have no one to say the Mass. So, getting rid of the Real Presence was the only way to avoid that problem, at least as those leading the revolt crafted the debate. Today, we have the fruits of the revolt - and most Protestants have simply taken on the idea that those in revolt knew what they were doing and here we are 500 years later, so it must be right!
Ultimately, no one can have it both ways. To claim one only believes the Bible is truly a lie - what is being said is one only believes particular interpretations of the Bible. All of the Protestant groups I am familiar with deny the Real Presence. In my view it is both fair and charitable to identify that one is denying the very Word of God - while hoisting the ‘Jesus Flag’ to say one is a follower. What is being followed is the Jesus who has conformed His actual teachings into the lies that allow for abortion, homosexual behavior, embryonic stem cell ‘research’ and everything else we have seen.
God bless
You bring up an interesting aspect to a complex discussion. Just how does one claim ‘Sola Scruptura’ as the basis for denying the Real Presence - yet reject such clearly written words in John 6. But, of course we can not stop there - we have all the writings of the ECF and essentially all of history - at least up to the 16th Century.
Candidly all I can see is that if one rejects the Catholic Church - one can not believe in the Real Presence because very soon the group will have no one to say the Mass. So, getting rid of the Real Presence was the only way to avoid that problem, at least as those leading the revolt crafted the debate. Today, we have the fruits of the revolt - and most Protestants have simply taken on the idea that those in revolt knew what they were doing and here we are 500 years later, so it must be right!
Ultimately, no one can have it both ways. To claim one only believes the Bible is truly a lie - what is being said is one only believes particular interpretations of the Bible. All of the Protestant groups I am familiar with deny the Real Presence. In my view it is both fair and charitable to identify that one is denying the very Word of God - while hoisting the ‘Jesus Flag’ to say one is a follower. What is being followed is the Jesus who has conformed His actual teachings into the lies that allow for abortion, homosexual behavior, embryonic stem cell ‘research’ and everything else we have seen.
God bless
.
Gentlemen,
To be fair, the Protestants were not saying that God is lying. They were saying that the Catholic Church misunderstands Scripture. Although it is odd that they were arguing against the most literal Bible reading that can be put on the Gospel of John.
S
spockrates
Guest
Are these words you’ve ever spoken to someone you were looking in the eye? Or are they words you only write online?
Isn’t it possible to be a cannibal without killing anyone? In desperate circumstances, haven’t people eaten the flesh of those who were already dead?
Yes, but is it not understandable how someone might read Jesus’ words from the last supper and misunderstand? For years, I was taught that he meant, “Take, eat, this is [like] my body, which is given up for you.” Understanding Christ’s words in this way gives them a merely symbolic meaning. Don’t you see?
Well, there are things that are impossible for God. For instance, the writer of Hebrews claims, “it is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). But please tell me what reason the skeptic gave as to why he believed it is impossible for Christ to give us his body to eat and blood to drink.
H
Heath_Bar
Guest
There are likely some who have that kind of rembrance, but I’ve seen Evangelicals who shed tears when the receive the bread and juice. For them, they likely remember the sacrifice Christ suffered for their sins. Do you think a Catholic might do the same and see the Eucharist as the real body, blood and divinity of Christ, but also solemnly recall his suffering for her?
One of the most unfortunate things about many, many Catholics is the failure to properly realize the significance of the Eucharist. The Evangelicals you mention, that properly remember Christ’s sacrifice, have a good intention and a proper demeanor. However, crackers and wine are not the Real Presence. Imagine if more Catholics, who have the privilege of receiving the Real Presence, would approach it the same way as some of these Evangelicals? I wish there was a way to marry the attitude of many of the devout Protestants with the truths of the Catholic Church. Instead of being on the decline, the Church would be as vibrant as ever. Some Catholics really get the significance of the Eucharist, as many of the posts testify to, but how many REALLY believe in the Real Presence? It would be sad to see.
One of the most unfortunate things about many, many Catholics is the failure to properly realize the significance of the Eucharist. The Evangelicals you mention, that properly remember Christ’s sacrifice, have a good intention and a proper demeanor. However, crackers and wine are not the Real Presence. Imagine if more Catholics, who have the privilege of receiving the Real Presence, would approach it the same way as some of these Evangelicals? I wish there was a way to marry the attitude of many of the devout Protestants with the truths of the Catholic Church. Instead of being on the decline, the Church would be as vibrant as ever. Some Catholics really get the significance of the Eucharist, as many of the posts testify to, but how many REALLY believe in the Real Presence? It would be sad to see.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Spockrates,
Two items to consider:
Not only were Christ’s actual words clear at the Last Supper but the foundation He laid in John 6 is very detailed. Check the scriptures yourself - where else did Christ spend so much time explaininng His teaching? The usual response is that He gave parables and then explained them later to the Apostles. John 6 is quite different. But, the real issue is just what did the Apostles and their followers understand. St. Paul was quite clear to the Corinthians about the faith and respect they are to demonstrate when receiving Holy Communion. Here is a link usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11 Match it up with whatever Bible you are using and they should track together.
One of the things I have found so intriguing is that personal interpretation of the Bible is worse then a dice game - with 2 dice there are only 36 combinations. With personal interpretations - well… that is why there are over 30,000+ Protestant groups all claiming to be right and having the ability to interpret Scripture to suit themselves. Look at how you have misused Heb 6:18. We are told that God is All Truth - and you have made this into a limitation because God can not lie. Jutst who do you think God would like to? You stood this quote on its head…and that is truly a disgrace. God can do all possible things - He can not make a ‘square circle’, either.
Someone mentioned that God was in the burning bush (that did not burn) when he appeared to Moses. God can - and does - change the substace of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - True God and True Man. And, this total change of substance takes place every time the priest says the Words of Consecration.
The heart of the matter is that this is a matter of Faith. Either you believe what Christ said or you believe some human’s interpretation of what Christ said. There really isn’t a 3rd position for anyone calling themselves a Christian. Ultimately, we will all have to answer for how we have chosen.
God bless
Two items to consider:
Not only were Christ’s actual words clear at the Last Supper but the foundation He laid in John 6 is very detailed. Check the scriptures yourself - where else did Christ spend so much time explaininng His teaching? The usual response is that He gave parables and then explained them later to the Apostles. John 6 is quite different. But, the real issue is just what did the Apostles and their followers understand. St. Paul was quite clear to the Corinthians about the faith and respect they are to demonstrate when receiving Holy Communion. Here is a link usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/11 Match it up with whatever Bible you are using and they should track together.
One of the things I have found so intriguing is that personal interpretation of the Bible is worse then a dice game - with 2 dice there are only 36 combinations. With personal interpretations - well… that is why there are over 30,000+ Protestant groups all claiming to be right and having the ability to interpret Scripture to suit themselves. Look at how you have misused Heb 6:18. We are told that God is All Truth - and you have made this into a limitation because God can not lie. Jutst who do you think God would like to? You stood this quote on its head…and that is truly a disgrace. God can do all possible things - He can not make a ‘square circle’, either.
Someone mentioned that God was in the burning bush (that did not burn) when he appeared to Moses. God can - and does - change the substace of common bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ - True God and True Man. And, this total change of substance takes place every time the priest says the Words of Consecration.
The heart of the matter is that this is a matter of Faith. Either you believe what Christ said or you believe some human’s interpretation of what Christ said. There really isn’t a 3rd position for anyone calling themselves a Christian. Ultimately, we will all have to answer for how we have chosen.
God bless
D
Dubay
Guest
To concur that Communion is biblical, since Christ instituted it and commanded His followers to continue the practice in His remembrance (Luke 22:19). We also affirm that Jesus identified Himself with the elements — namely, the bread and wine — used in Communion (Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24). And then, of course, with Catholics we recognize Communion as a time of special fellowship with Christ when we commemorate and are strengthened by His sacrificeand by Hisspiritual presence (1 Cor. 11:26-27). But despitethese common grounds there remain serious areas of disagreement as well.
with the doctrine of transubstantiation,which teachesthatthesubstance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change — either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sensen at all. We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
with the doctrine of transubstantiation,which teachesthatthesubstance of the bread and wine is actually transformed into the literal body, blood, soul, and even the divinity of Jesus Christ during the Mass. While the bread and wine take on special significance during Communion, they certainly do not change — either visibly or invisibly —into Christ’s actual body and blood. When Jesus referred to the bread and wine as His body and blood, He wasn’t talking about this in a literal sensen at all. We believe that Christ is truly present during Communion, but certainly cannot go along with the doctrine of transubstantiation.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Dubay,
I really did not understand your post. In your first paragraph you appear to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. In your second paragraph this is not the case. Are both of these paragraphs yours, or were you quoting someone in the second paragraph?
God bless
I really did not understand your post. In your first paragraph you appear to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church on the Eucharist. In your second paragraph this is not the case. Are both of these paragraphs yours, or were you quoting someone in the second paragraph?
God bless
D
Dubay
Guest
I was trying to respond to a post that said 75% of Catholics believe in real presence.
This is their opinion as best I understand it of non believers.
T
tqualey
Guest
T
thesmiter1
Guest
You fail to understand the difference between the physical make-up of the bread and wine and the substance. You claim you are Catholic, yet you deny a fundamental teaching of the Church, and worse still, you claim that WE cannot go along with transubstantiation. Please, do not speak for me.
The very first Christians believed in the True Presence, as has been shown. Here is an excellent paper on it (it is a Word document and will have to be downloaded):
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholic-convert.com%2Fdocuments%2FEucharist-in-Fathers2.doc&ei=AtJoUPLHEsWq2gWFjYCoDQ&usg=AFQjCNGuhVj4SZ5zDDkBjOr_xarwCqJSOA
St Ignatius actually, literally refers to the Eucharist as the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. This was around 106 AD. How, exactly, do you reconcile not believing in the True Presence if the ENTIRE CHURCH has believed it for the entirety of its existence?
If you are really Catholic, then you must also believe that the Church is infallible in faith and morals and we must be obedient to the teachings. If you believe that the Church teaches false doctrine, it is not the true Church. My friend, you should speak hastily to a priest about this, and, more importantly, pray very hard about it. You are essentially renouncing your Catholic faith, and though it appears to be out of ignorance, it is still quite a serious thing. Please speak to someone about this immediately and read the Catechism and other resources to help you understand.
D
Dubay
Guest
Thanks, I should have had that information on first post.Hi, Dubay,
Thanks for the clarification.
God bless
T
thesmiter1
Guest
Could you clarify a little for me, as well? I’m confused as to whether or not you are Catholic and believe in the True Presence.
C
Cinette
Guest
I believe what Jesus said in John 6 although I confess I do not understand and I cannot explain how it is that we consume the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus. How is it His body, how is it His Blood? I don’t know. I just know that Jesus was emphatic and repeated himself six times in succession when the disciples turned their back. He did not try to “explain”, He stated that “those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal live and I will raise them up on the last day;” This is good enough for me. I realise that Faith implies believing in the mysteries of Faith.
C
Cinette
Guest
*Since you do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation you cannot receive the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. You do not understand but neither do we - the difference is we believe because we trust Jesus’ word. We have Faith in Jesus’ teachings - all of them!
**Lumen Gentium – the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church – paragraph 14:
To be in full communion with the Catholic Church one must accept all the teachings of the Church and all the means of sanctification in three main sources:
a) the profession of Faith
b) the sacraments
c) the ecclesiastical government of the Church*
*Therefore my friend you are not in full communion with the Catholic Church and therefore cannot call yourself Catholic. It is as simple as that!
*
I pray for people like you every day.
C
Cinette
Guest
*Gosh yes what a relief. The large number of lapsed Catholics constitute what some call the largest “denomination”.Hi, Dubay,
Thanks for the clarification.
God bless
The problem as I see it is that many people today have become secularised and, as such, come to believe in themselves above all things. They think they know it all and no-one can tell them otherwise. Also life as a secular is so much more “fun”. Or so they think until they come to reflect deeply and realise that it is not so.
I apologise to Dubay but he really had me worried - I see I was not alone!
- Status