Well thankyou… I knew someone wiser than all those old fashioned, nutty, outdated Christians from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries would come along and tell me to “wake up” so I could quit believing in all that real presence nonsense… I can’t believe someone hadn’t thought of that already… it is so much clearer to me now… Just think if you could have been there for them back in the day… you could have saved 1500 years of them teaching the wrong doctrine… or Not!!!
Maybe for somewhat of the same reason that Catholics don’t take John 19:25-27 literally.
Jesus is directly addressing Mary and the ‘disciple whom he loved’ not everyone in the crowd nor the rest of all us christians and yet per catholic teaching this was ***‘symbolic’ ***of Him giving all of us Mary as our mother.
I will ask you the same question… If you take John 6 literally, why not John 19?
**
**Hisalone,
SD,
Uhh, I dont think so … they left because they knew He wasn’t kidding … they believed Him when He said to “eat my Body and drink my Blood.”
I have seen alot of creative hooha from Fundamentalists to get around difficlult places in scriptures, but this takes the cake. There is absolutely NOTHING in the Scriptures to support this! Nothing whatsoever. If you cant explain it just say you don’t know and you will have to ask your pastor or something. There is no shame in that, but to just make stuff up is not a good way to practice apologetics. Now, we will give you some time to have a real answer. Its ok to say “I don’t know, but I can find out”
At the last supper, the Apostles had already been told previously by Jesus that what he was saying was spiritual and that the flesh was of no avail. In fact, a lot of Jesus’ teachings were about how the spiritual understanding was just as important and true, or “real”, as the physical act.
You seem to be saying that the literal, physical things Christ referred to aren’t important but only spiritual meanings, so I have to ask you then, has Jesus Christ come in the flesh?
I agree with you. Very often when reading theological discourses, I can’t figure out any rational explanation or consistent rule for why one passage is quoted over another (or church father or encyclical or any other source of authority).
Over the years I’ve heard a lot sermons and homilies and apologetic arguments for particular traditional beliefs. I’d say about a third of such discussions with Protestants leave me wondering why they aren’t Catholic or Orthodox, and about a third of such discussions with Catholics leave me wondering why they aren’t Protestant. If they’d all just switch places, we’d have less infighting.**
All Christianities have their tradition, & this tradition is what decides which verses are to be given a heavy or light load. In RC & Protestant Fundamentalism, the tradition is used to prevent the passages saying anything that the tradition can’t accommodate.
CWBetts, that is a terrific parody of Hisalone’s statement!
Bald assertion without argument is the bane of this forum. You just left off an equivalently condescending Catholic version of Hisalone’s final “Wake up.” Other than that, it’s a nearly perfect mirror.Too bad this doesn’t take into account that there is no analogy between “I am the door” and “Whomever eats Me lives because of Me” and “My Body is real Food and My Blood is real drink”. And it doesn’t take into account what Christ himself says at the Last Supper or what St.Paul says (“descerning the Body”, "“Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” etc.) or what the early Church says and what was believed 1500 years until Zwingli came along.
If you’re interpretation is correct, we can safely say that Christ’s crucifixion was of no avail.
But you see that was a pretty big part to a very simple post… Basically saying I told you something so believe it and wake up! No explanation just opinions… but then again hisalone has been known to make comments like this without being able to back them up… I’m sure we all have, but normally if I can’t support an opinion I try to just leave it alone and listen… or go find the support I need to back my statement… I hope Hisalone will come back to support (with details) his/her statement.CWBetts, that is a terrific parody of Hisalone’s statement!
I understand … I was just reacting to Hisalone’s post… you know… I told you, so believe it and wake up… I stooped to an annoying level.
Here is the most recent survey of Catholic beliefs and practices I know of. Page 54 gives around 40% of Catholic respondents saying that Jesus is not really present in the bread and wine. Unfortunately, that survey is much more about how Catholics “feel” about various beliefs and practices, not about what they themselves actually believe. The 60% who believe in the Real Presence is not broken down into those who believe in transubstantiation vs consubstantiation vs some other variation. So there’s no way to tell how many Catholics are Methodist at heart.
Indeed.
Sure. Rbt Southwell’s argument was that if a survey indicates that a significant percentage of the members of a particular church don’t know or don’t believe the official teachings of that church, then there has beenCould you clarify this statement… thanks
SD
on the part of that church, regardless of that church’s official statements. He states
So one would expect a survey of Catholic respondents to indicate a very high degree of agreement with official teachings. I provided a counterexample. (And yes, I’m aware of some of the statistical weaknesses the study.)
