Posted on 07/12/2014 5:58:41 PM PDT by Salvation
AMEN.
Of course, you should post as the Lord leads you. I would never think to tell you not to and some response should be given lest they imagine Free Republic is all "theirs". It's just that we should be wary of threads like this especially on a slow Saturday night - as they are intentionally provocative, hoping to reignite counter responses and arguments. It is NOT done to simply encourage each other - they have their Caucus for that.
“In this little Host is the solution to all of the worlds problems.”
Saint John Paul II
That is proof that Jesus was drawing an analogy ... exactly like his "I am the door, I am the good shepherd, I am the vine ... "
WELCOME HOME and WELCOME BACK as well Johnnie! God Bless!
AMEN!
In my parish church, I recieve both the body and precious blood of Jesus.
How can someone be "guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord" if it's only a symbol?
BTW, what was Jesus doing running around implementing more *symbols* anyway? The Old Covenant was full of *symbols*; the New Covenant was promised to be better.
Finally, please note that God was especially present in the Temple in Jerusalem, according to Jewish belief. Are you telling me that Jesus took away the Temple, and replaced it with a mere symbol?
You ought to expect better from God. He loves you more than that.
Says who? You? That is not in fact what we believe; we believe his one sacrifice, which is continually being offered in the Holy of Holies in heaven (Hebrews 9), is made present to us in time and on earth.
BTW, repeating "it's symbolic" over and over again is not an argument.
Do you realize that no Christian denomination that can trace its history to the first millennium believes that communion is merely a symbol?
When He said "I am the door/.../I am the vine, you are the branches..." etc, he was clearly speaking metaphorically as the structure of the text is completely different. He didn't indicate a door or a vine and say "this actual, physical object is MY BODY." Furthermore, in the case of John 10:6, the text of scripture states "He used this figure of speech..." Clearly, this was a parable.
He stated on multiple occasions on the other hand, that you must eat the Flesh and drink the Blood to be saved, and many walked away because of it. And at the last supper He took physical objects into His hands and stated that these things have become His Flesh and Blood. Consider the context as well. He was not preaching, He was partaking of the Last Supper with his disciples. On the night He was betrayed, do you suppose He would tell another parable, or do think His words at such a time would hold much, much greater significance, as the context and structure of the scripture suggest?
**John is the only gospel that doesn’t mention the Lord’s Table in the Upper Room Discourse. **
John, instead, write a long theological discourse on the Body of Christ, the Bread of Life, explaining the Last Supper.
“if we aren’t also faithful Roman Catholics”
Roman Catholic?? How about also the 2nd largest Christian group on this earth, the Orthodox? They all believe in the Real Presence at the Eucharist. ALL CHURCH FATHERS believed in the Real Presence and so did your great hero Martin Luther.
And let’s not forget about those protestants called Lutherans and Angelicans. They also believe in the Real Presence.
Suffice to say that more Christians walk this earth that believe in the Real Presence of Christ at the Eucharist than do not believe. You’re outnumbered. You lose.
Not at all. Those analogies like parables were well understood. But eating His flesh and drinking His blood is no analogy. When they took Him literally and began to leave Him, He did not correct them. The early Church Fathers found this to be the case. Remember, there was an oral tradition that existed for 60 years before the Gospels were written. Unlike the sacrifice of animals, He now offered Himself as the Living sacrifice.
Even tho Jesus said clearly to do both...Claim to be the true church but yet reject what the God of creation tells you to do...
Context as lead by the Holy Spirit. In either case, you don't read something into the text that isn't there. I beg to differ. The key is the Holy Spirit, who Christ promised to His Church, to guide them in their understanding. He did not tell them to get it from a book, and he did not tell them that understanding would be a spiritual free-for-all. One Holy Spirit, One Church, One Truth.
So, what the Church teaches comes directly from God, not from some self-appointed Biblical teacher. And the Church teaches that the Host is the real Body and Blood of Christ, not a symbol.
The RCC has not been consistent on their teachings throughout history either.
The other assumption, you and other catholics make regarding the early church fathers, is that they were all in one accord on their perspective on every theological issue. For starters they weren't all in agreement on which books of the Bible we should have. So why should i take their word on other topics due to their inconsistency. Got news for you on their consistency...they were not. So if you're building your house on shaky sand you know what happens.
What the heck are you talking about?
Did you not read my post that you cited?
Particularly the word “both”?
Actually He did do away with the need for the Temple with His death on the Cross. Recall the veil in the temple was torn into....from top to bottom.
With His sacrifice there is no longer a need for the OT Temple and its sacrifices.
For a sacrifice to be complete you must eat a portion of the sacrifice.
Therefore if the Eucharist isn't the real body and blood of Christ there's no way to accept accept His sacrifice for us because acceptance requires that we partake of a portion of the sacrificial Lamb Jesus Christ. That's why Christ says that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood there is no life in us.
Believe in Him. Five times He tells us this. Only believe in Him....nothing else required. If our RCC friends want to hold to a literal translation of the text, then they have to agree that faith in Christ, and Christ only, is the way to salvation. Nothing else can or will save you.
He is the bread from Heaven. When the Jews asked how do we get this bread His reply was to believe in Him.
Believing in Him is eating the bread. It is how we come to have a relationship with Him.
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.