Posted on 02/20/2008 4:47:37 PM PST by NYer
So, your view of blasphemy is that it's wrong to follow what the Bible says because you happen to disagree with it. The FACT that you belong to some religious group that was formed some fifteen centuries after the Resurrection, which believes things that the majority of Christians in the world have NEVER believed, would seem to indicate that the "spiritual whoredom" has occurred sometime within the past five centuries.
Transubstantiation is simply wrong.
The fact that YOU don't believe something doesn't make it right or wrong. However, the fact that it is clearly demonstrated in Scripture makes it true.
If you can’t discern by the Holy Spirit and by a study of Scripture, contextually, what is metaphoric, what is literal, what is hyperbolic, what is symbolic, and what is poetic without consulting the Mystical Magical Magisterium or blindly following history, then you will remain in spiritual darkness.
When the Lord says, "Do THIS," there is not much left to discern.
Again, please don’t ping me to this garbage.
I never pinged you, I am simply responding to your posts.
What do you think He does when He presides at every Mass?
61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? 63 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. 65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
-- John 6:61-65
So, our Lord knew that the Eucharist would scandalize some, but He was unapologetic about it.
Then there is what Paul wrote:
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. 27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
-- 1 Corinthians 11:26-30
Now, how can one be unworthy of a symbol? How can one be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord if it is mere hyperbole? And why is Paul writing about this more than two decades AFTER the Resurrection if Christians were not already partaking in the Eucharist? These are questions that I have NEVER seen any Protestant adequately respond to (though most ignore them altogether).
You are not alone in these feelings. John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
No, it’s blasphemous to twist the holy word of God to mean what you want it to mean, to support centuries of spiritual whoredom.
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
And He made it clear that rejection of the Eucharist is betrayal of Him.
An anticipation of a food fight here is a given. The Screeching Swarm just descends on these sorts of things, and nothing good ever comes of it. It does no good to say that debate is always healthy. It isn't, especially when, as the long, sorry history of this forum demonstrates, the subject matter is almost invariably hijacked to at least some degree, sometimes to a level that makes one suppose that a highly predictable scandal of the Faith has ensued. It is not right to subject God, the Saints, or the holy doctrines of the Faith to the nether regions-inspired, printed vomit of The Swarm. The very capable Catholic apologists here have only so many fingers to stick in the dike when too many threads like this go on site uncaucused. Burnout is definitely becoming a problem for some of them. In any event, most have to work, too, and can only jump in as time allows. Caucusing still allows the message to be read by all, yet protects holy things from being dragged through the mud by people who are either ignorant or nefariously motivated. A more clear and apt application of Matthew 7:6 cannot be found.
Proposal: If threads treating to Catholic doctrine that are eligible for caucus status are, in fact, not caucused, then the poster should be willing to field all of the naysayers on his or her own. "You posted it, then you block time all day to defend it." The lack of discernment here sometimes is eye-rollingly distressing. For God's sake, people, let's use some sense and caucus threads whenever the guidelines are met! Let's not subject even the Eucharist to the vile and disingenuous spew from The Screeching Swarm!
Rant /off.
Thanks for the info. I pretty much knew this was the Catholic take on those scriptures, but this is a good summary of why Catholics believe what they do about the Eucharist.
Glad it was helpful to you. Guess you're now ready for part 2 - The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - A Primer for Clueless Catholics.
The White Rabbit put on his spectacles. `Where shall I begin, please your Majesty?' he asked.
`Begin at the beginning,' the King said gravely, `and go on till you come to the end: then stop.'
--Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland.
No food fights. Caucused threads may thwart attack but stymie discussion. There are fellow freepers with total misunderstandings of the Catholic faith and here is an opportunity to enlighten, address and involve everyone. The Religion Moderator will take care of any miscreants.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
Did you notice in the scripture that even after the blessing and consecration of the bread, and just before it is eaten, the bread is still only bread. It's not flesh or body or divinity or soul or spirit or anything else. It's still only bread -- consecrated bread, but bread nonetheless.
I guess Paul and the early church were just not privy to the magic formulae discovered by the Transubstantiationists --
This observation I found particularly brilliant. Scholastic language doesn't come easy to most of us today (myself included), so we don't need to go into a whole philosophical discussion of accidence vs. substance. What we simply need to ascertain is what Christianity has always said that the Eucharist *is*.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."I'll grant you that the language here is somewhat ambiguous as it does refer to bread. But Paul is also quite clearly connecting this bread with the Body and Blood of the Lord.
I can see how this passage can be thought to support consubstantiation ala the Lutheran understanding, but certainly not a wholesale rejection of the Body and Blood. That's just not supported.
Thank you. I can not agree with you more.
I have, over time, come to question the motivation of those posters who do not use the caucus designation. Why do they “cast pearls before swine” when they know full well that the pearls will be trampled. Is this not being an accessory to sin, when it causes others to blaspheme holy things?
It is something that all should consider before posting.
Thanks again.
Ouch!
What's the magic formula for the inspired nature of Scripture? What does "inspired" look like? Sound like? Feel like? I look at the Bible, and I just see paper and ink. If it's more than that, you need to prove concretely that the Bible is more than just a book, just as you expect concrete proof that the bread is no longer substantially "bread" but the substance of Christ. What do you see and why?
I believe that what Paul is saying is that if you don't believe the Gospel, then you shouldn't be partaking of the Lord's Supper.
Paul tells you what is really happening when one eats the bread and drinks the cup. He doesn't say that you are eating the body and drinking the blood, but:
"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
You are showing the Lord's death until he comes. You are proclaiming half of the Gospel -- the death half. The other half of the Gospel is the resurrection half.
Furthermore, if he is in the bread that you are eating, then he has already come. So what's to show ??? He's clearly not in the bread otherwise Paul could not and would not have written this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.