Replies

Please tell me you did not proof these verses before posting? The author of this piece should be flogged by an albino monk a few times for this one:

"The Eucharist, a gift from God (Revelation 16:6), shows that we are with the Church."

Now the context of the Revelation 16:6:

Revelation 16:

4 Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 And I heard the angel of the waters saying:

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. 6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”

7 And I heard another from the altar saying, “Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.”

This is a punishment and not a blessing. Has nothing to do with the Eucharist (Thanksgiving).

I would not expect a Catholic agency to put out such "bulleted" verses out of context to put forth Roman doctrine. I mean only fundamentalists jigsaw puzzle verses together to build a theology...right?

I put that there in order to make what I think is an interesting juxtaposition. That particular verse was used more as a literary device there, rather than an argument. I like to point out that the story of Revelation is not necessarily literal, but does contain many spiritual truths, whether more obvious or more hidden.

For example:

I'd love for you to address some of the other things that I mentioned, though. :)

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things. 6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”

This is a punishment and not a blessing. Has nothing to do with the Eucharist (Thanksgiving). I would not expect a Catholic agency to put out such "bulleted" verses out of context to put forth Roman doctrine. I mean only fundamentalists jigsaw puzzle verses together to build a theology...right?

Sharp eye, but you must know that as the weight of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for the veracity of RC claims, thus she has infallibly defined very few verses (3?), leaving RCs with great liberty to adopt interpretations in seeking to defend Rome, which can thus be quire inventive. That was one of them.

But i remember dealing with that poster before, and a his argumentation was very naive.