Hi, Spockrates,
Two items to consider:
Not only were Christ’s actual words clear at the Last Supper…
Tom:
Thanks for the reply. If by clear you mean free of ambiguity, that I don’t see. Consider Christ’s words at the meal, as translated by the Catholic
New American Bible:
26
While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you,
28
for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.
29
I tell you, from now on I shall not drink this fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father."
(Matthew 26)
Jesus’ words, “Take and eat; this is my body,” are understood by Evangelicals to mean, “Take and eat; this is [like] my body.” The same words are understood by Catholics to mean, “Take and eat; this is my [actual] body.” In either case, a word is added to our Redeemer’s words to make them clearer. Why would there be any need to add anything if they were unambiguous?
…but the foundation He laid in John 6 is very detailed. Check the scriptures yourself - where else did Christ spend so much time explaining 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.
Yes, I agree. I’d add that since Matthew 26 is ambiguous, a Catholic trying to evangelize an Evangelical would be wise to discuss John 6 with her.
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. Match it up with whatever Bible you are using and they should track together.
Yes.
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. Just 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.
I’m thinking the fact that God cannot lie does limit the *quantity *of what he can do, but it in no way limits the *quality *of what he can do. Omnipotence, then is more likely a perfect quality of power, rather than a perfect quantity of power. I suppose the lie of Satan might be that he is more powerful than God, since he has the power to do things God is powerless to do–such as sin. Yet, the truth is that sinning reduces the perfection of one’s power, and so limits its beauty. But do you still disagree?
BTW, it’s a topic currently being discussed here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=709725&page=15
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.
Well, after spending many, many hours discussing the Real Presence with both Catholics and Protestants, I’d say most on both sides truly believe what Christ said, but not all truly understand what he was saying. What do you say?
*
