|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 10/19/2013 5:52:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
Skip to comments.Catholic Evangelization and the Role of the “Eucharist” in This End-Time Deception
Posted on 10/18/2013 11:50:16 PM PDT by jodyel
For those who are not aware of the Catholic Churchs New Evangelization program, let me provide a brief overview. The Catholic Church plans to establish the kingdom of God on earth and win the world to the Catholic Jesus (i.e., the Eucharistic Christ). This will be accomplished when the world (including the separated brethren) comes under the rule and reign of Rome and this Eucharistic Jesus.
The Eucharistic Jesus is supposedly Christs presence that a Catholic priest summons through the power of transubstantiation, the focal point of the Mass. Many Christians believe the Christian tradition of communion is the same as the Catholic tradition of the Eucharist. But this is not so. The Eucharist (i.e., transubstantiation) is a Catholic term for communion when the bread and the wine are said to be transformed into the very body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Catechism states:
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.1
The host is then placed in what is called a monstrance and can then be worshiped as if worshiping Jesus Himself. The implications are tied directly to salvation itself. With the Eucharist, salvation becomes sacramental (participation in a ritual) as opposed to justification by faith in Christ alone, described in Galatians 2:16. While this mystical experience is a form of idolatry (as well as the very heart of Catholicism), there is a growing interest by evangelical Christians in this practice, particularly by the emerging church.
The Catholic Church leadership, concerned with apathy for the Eucharist within the Catholic ranks, is hoping to rekindle the amazement2 of the Eucharist through what is called their New Evangelization program.3 With a two-fold purposeto keep present Catholics and to bring evangelicals into the Catholic Churchchurch leadership has a plan to re-emphasize the Eucharist as the focus of the Catholic faith. By saying rekindle the amazement, they mean bring out the mystical, supernatural element of the Eucharist.
All Catholics are expected to worship the host (Eucharistic Adoration of the transformed wafer), and church leadership says it is anathema (to be accursed) to reject this teaching.
While it is true that during the Reformation and Counter Reformation, many who refused to believe in transubstantiation were tortured and executed for their faith in the Gospel, time has a way of forgetting the facts of history.
In April of 2003, the pope wrote an encyclical promoting the New Evangelization program for the purpose of rekindling amazement for the Eucharist.4 Then in October of 2004, John Paul II initiated The Year of the Eucharist as part of his evangelistic plan to bring the world to the Eucharistic Christ. Following his death in April of 2005, Pope Benedict XVI picked up Pope John Pauls mission immediately. He called the faithful to intensify devotion to the Eucharistic Jesus, and said the Eucharist is the heart of Christian life.5
The New Evangelization program plans to revitalize the Catholic faith by reigniting strong interest in the Eucharistic Jesus. It is not just the pope who is enthusiastic about thiscardinals, bishops, and priests all over the world are joining in to help with the mission. Something very significant is happening. Eucharistic adoration is becoming the foundation for the new evangelization of the Catholic Church.
In speaking of the popes view on the Eucharist, Protestant-turned Catholic Scott Hahn states:
The coming of Jesus Christ what the Greek New Testament calls his parousia is not simply some far-off event. It is his presence in the Eucharist. Fundamentalists reduce the meaning of parousia to Christs coming at the end of time; but for the first century Greek speakers the word meant presence. Catholic theology holds on to that original meaning.6
The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is the Second Coming Catholic style. Unfortunately, many evangelical Protestants are not even aware of this.
While Eucharistic adoration contradicts biblical Christianity, a growing number of popular evangelicals (especially those leaning toward emerging spiritualities) seem to find no offense in such a doctrine. And with the increased acceptance of mysticism and an attraction to imagery within evangelical circles, it only makes sense that many evangelical Christians find nothing wrong with the Eucharist and Eucharistic adoration. Such acceptance, however, is neutralizing former evangelical resistance to all things Catholic.
In Doug Pagitts book Church Re-imagined, he describes his initial attraction to rituals associated with the Eucharist:
The first day of Lent this year brought the first Ash Wednesday gathering in our churchs history and in mine . Until this point, Ash Wednesday had not been part of my Christian faith experience. Not only had I never applied ashes to anyones forehead, but I had also never had them applied to mine. After this experience I wondered how I could have celebrated 19 Easters as a Christian without this tremendous experience.7
Scot McKnight, another emerging church influencer and the author of The Real Mary and The Jesus Creed, in referring to an Anglican service, McKnight speaks of the Eucharistic focus. He states:
[T]he point of an Anglican gathering on a Sunday morning is not to hear a sermon but to worship the Lord through the celebration of the Eucharist First some scripture readings and then the sermon and then some announcements and then the Eucharist liturgywith everyone coming forward to kneel and participateâpubliclyin the body and blood.8
McKnight says that the Eucharist profoundly enables the grace of God to be received with all its glories and blessings.9 No doubt, McKnight will have an impact on those in the emerging church movement, and his views on the Eucharist will rub off. He has been a popular speaker at many events including Willow Creeks Small Group Conference and the National Pastors Convention. Both of these events have reached the postmodern generation.
The late Robert Webber was very influential in closing the gap between Eucharistic adoration and the evangelical church. A document he authored called A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future states: We call for a renewed consideration of how God ministers to us in Eucharist.10 Two well-known evangelical publishers, Baker Books and InterVarsity Press (both of which now publish emerging church authors) sponsored the document as did Christianity Today. The AEF, which the document is called, is endorsed by various emerging church leaders such as Brian McLaren who calls it a preaching resource that emphasize[s] the importance of Advent or Lent.11
Participants of the AEF include numerous Christian seminaries like Bethel Seminary in Minnesota, Dallas Theological Seminary, and pastors from many different denominations including Nazarene, Wesleyan, Mennonite, Reformed, and Baptist.
To those who traditionally havent had much ritual in their lives (i.e., Protestants), the ambience of the Mass would have great appeal because of its religious novelty thus the interest in the Eucharist by those who promote contemplative spirituality. And for many Catholics, the Mass (where the Eucharist is presented), in, and of itself, is not a mystical experience. However if the contemplative dimension is added, one actually can enter the mystical realm. On the surface, this phenomenon seems complex, but once we begin to understand mysticism, it all makes sense. Within the contemplative prayer realm, the meditator is actually getting in touch with a spiritual power or force. Combining the tradition of the Eucharist, which appeals to many raised in the Catholic Church, with the relatively recent explosion of contemplative practice, the Catholic Church sees this as a way to recover its robust state of previous decades.
Right now, some may be asking, is the physical presence of Jesus held inside the elements of the Eucharist? Or as some evangelicals and emergents have suggested, is there a special presence and power in the Eucharist? The answer to both is a resounding no! Jesus Christ indwells the heart of every person who is born again and who belongs to Him by faith through grace. He promises never to leave or forsake us, meaning that His presence is in our lives at all times. We are not required to partake in a ritual to experience His presence, nor is He confined in benign, lifeless wafers and wine (or juice). As Jesus said:
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit [spiritual as opposed to physical], and they are life. (John 6:63, emphasis added)
Jesus said this in response to his disciples confusion over His statement my flesh is meat indeed (vs. 55). Paul adds further clarity in writing to the Romans that all we need to do is call upon the true Jesus, and He is there:
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)
At this point, we see the great chasm that separates Catholicism from the light of the Gospel a light the reformers saw, for which many of them gave their lives. They recognized that participation in the sacraments is not what saves people.
The Catholics New Evangelization is no small issue. Darkness has fallen over the Christian church the same way an avalanche sweeps down a mountain. Every day new unsuspecting victims are being swept away and buried. And the role the emerging church plays in bringing this about is something that should alarm every discerning Christian.
To read more about the emerging church, read Roger Oaklands expose, Faith Undone.
WUERL: A new morning with Pope Francis
Notes: 1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1374, page 383.6 2. H. J. Schroeder, The Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: Tan Books and Publishers, 1978), page 79, Canon 1. 3. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The New Evangelization (http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/Ratzinger.htm). 4. Zenit: The World Seen From Rome, Why the Pope Would Write an Encyclical on the Eucharist: To Rekindle Amazement, cited April 17, 2003, http://www.zenit.org. 5. Pope Benedict calls on faithful to intensify devotion to Eucharistic Jesus, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=3686. 6. Interview with Scott Hahn, Eucharist in the Pontificate of Benedict XVI (Pontifications, June 12, 2005, http://web.archive.org/web/20070209234229/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=940). 7. Doug Pagitt, Church Re-Imagined, p. 103. 8. Scot McKnight, An Anglican Service (Jesus Creed blog, http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2258 link no longer online). 9. Scot McKnight, Turning to Jesus, (Louisville, KY: Westminister John Knox Press, 2002 edition), p. 7. 10. Robert Webber, A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future (Online at: http://www.aefcall.org/read.html. 11. Brian McLaren, The AEF Document as a Preaching Resource (From the AEF Call website: http://www.aefcall.org/documents/TheAEFDocumentasaPreachingResource_000.doc).
I think that sometimes Communion is still given "in one kind," as they say, under certain conditions: celiac disease, esophageal cancer (communicant can't swallow/digest the wheat Host); alcoholism (communicant wishes to avoid Consecrated Wine); or sometimes just the Sacred Host if there are large crowds e.g. at a World Youth Day with a couple million people.
Latin Masses also do not offer the Chalice to the laity for communion,
Was the Mass you attended in Latin?
So you keep Jesus in the Catholic churches...And apparently Jesus can't leave your churches, either because he is restrained, or he just doesn't want to leave...
One must go to a Catholic church to experience Jesus...
Thank God real Christians have the words of God to guide us and keep us from falling into the trap that is the Catholic religion...
And you have to have a light on to let people know that Jesus is in...Oh brother!!! A religion built on so many lies...
Mat_18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Can someone imagine, a couple of Christians praying together out on someone's front porch with a candle burning nearby??? Well it wouldn't happen since Jesus can't leave the Catholic church...
What are all the links for??? You can’t just summarize what they say???
How do you consider us fellow Christians when we don't eat Jesus??? And we wouldn't if we could...
Christianity was anonymous in its understanding of the Real Presence until the Protestant Revolt. If Christianity was wrong prior to the 1500s in understanding the Real Presence, then Christ lied when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead His Church to all Truth and protect His Church from all error, and all Christians believe in vain.
No, this denial of the Real Presence and posts that repeat it are simply demonic. Those posting them deserve our pity and our prayers.
What i said was the substance of bread and wine is said to be "really" changed, though the sensory aspects of the earthly elements remain the same, which is contrary to the miracles which the Lord and His followers did. For in miracles in which a physical change took place then it was manifest, so that water that became wine tasted like wine, and those who were healed actually were changed, and not being different persons with no actual or manifest changes.
In contrast to the claims for transubstantiation, God was not transubstantiated, but incarnated, with the body God the Father had prepared for Him, (Heb. 10:3) so that He "took on him the seed of Abraham," " and was made in the likeness of men," (Phil. 2:7, but by the body of someone else being transubstantiated into God.
While both the incarnation of the Lord and in regeneration then there is a spiritual reality that physically is not evident, except in its expressions, this is not the same as transubstantiation, in which physical elements are said to undergo a actual change of substance so that they are actually said to be something else, and your own church does not see the incarnation as the same as transubstantiation.
See the link on the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano posted above.
If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?
And if so one would think that the Vatican would have DNA testing carried out on the tissue to trace the genetic origins of the person, and thus silence skeptics and bloester RC faith, rather than use some obscure poorly documented Italian medieval story.
Be back later.
If this is true, rather than being an artifact of medieval hucksterism, then we can examine any consecrated wafer and find the same correct?
Is it fitting that Christ's Body and Blood become present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine?Eucharistic Miracles
Yes, for this way of being present corresponds perfectly to the sacramental celebration of the Eucharist. Jesus Christ gives himself to us in a form that employs the symbolism inherent in eating bread and drinking wine. Furthermore, being present under the appearances of bread and wine, Christ gives himself to us in a form that is appropriate for human eating and drinking. Also, this kind of presence corresponds to the virtue of faith, for the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be detected or discerned by any way other than faith. That is why St. Bonaventure affirmed: "There is no difficulty over Christ's being present in the sacrament as in a sign; the great difficulty is in the fact that He is really in the sacrament, as He is in heaven. And so believing this is especially meritorious" (In IV Sent., dist. X, P. I, art. un., qu. I). On the authority of God who reveals himself to us, by faith we believe that which cannot be grasped by our human faculties (cf. Catechism, no. 1381).
Are the consecrated bread and wine "merely symbols"?
In everyday language, we call a "symbol" something that points beyond itself to something else, often to several other realities at once. The transformed bread and wine that are the Body and Blood of Christ are not merely symbols because they truly are the Body and Blood of Christ. As St. John Damascene wrote: "The bread and wine are not a foreshadowing of the body and blood of ChristBy no means!but the actual deified body of the Lord, because the Lord Himself said: This is my body'; not a foreshadowing of my body' but my body,' and not a foreshadowing of my blood' but my blood'" (The Orthodox Faith, IV [PG 94, 1148-49]).
At the same time, however, it is important to recognize that the Body and Blood of Christ come to us in the Eucharist in a sacramental form. In other words, Christ is present under the appearances of bread and wine, not in his own proper form. We cannot presume to know all the reasons behind God's actions. God uses, however, the symbolism inherent in the eating of bread and the drinking of wine at the natural level to illuminate the meaning of what is being accomplished in the Eucharist through Jesus Christ.
There are various ways in which the symbolism of eating bread and drinking wine discloses the meaning of the Eucharist. For example, just as natural food gives nourishment to the body, so the eucharistic food gives spiritual nourishment. Furthermore, the sharing of an ordinary meal establishes a certain communion among the people who share it; in the Eucharist, the People of God share a meal that brings them into communion not only with each other but with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Similarly, as St. Paul tells us, the single loaf that is shared among many during the eucharistic meal is an indication of the unity of those who have been called together by the Holy Spirit as one body, the Body of Christ (1 Cor 10:17). To take another example, the individual grains of wheat and individual grapes have to be harvested and to undergo a process of grinding or crushing before they are unified as bread and as wine. Because of this, bread and wine point to both the union of the many that takes place in the Body of Christ and the suffering undergone by Christ, a suffering that must also be embraced by his disciples. Much more could be said about the many ways in which the eating of bread and drinking of wine symbolize what God does for us through Christ, since symbols carry multiple meanings and connotations. --http://www.catholic.org/clife/jesus/eucharist.php
Perhaps posting of some of that might stimulate some interesting discussion. The current thread will surely be the same old, same old that has been gone over ad nauseum, ad infinitum
Nah...They haven't gone off the rails...John MacArthur quoted a true, accurate statement from a fella who happened to have differing views about another topic over 20 years ago...
And Charles Stanley is as main stream non-New Age as they get...
What it amounts to is these relatively famous people quoted statements or phrases by people who had other beliefs as well...It would be like me quoting something Obama said that had nothing to do with why I dislike the guy...
For example, if Obama said 'another recession is heading this way', I could quote that without people thinking I supported Obama...
And these famous preachers have many staff people who handle most everthing and likely were not even aware of the full beliefs of those they quoted...
It however may be a fun story for you to post...
Aww c'mon...You searched the site high and low to find something negative about the source but you couldn't find it...So now you resort to THAT???
“...I noticed they were only distributing the host to communicants, without offering the cup to drink from as well. When did that become practice?”
It was first commonly shared up until the High Middle Ages. Because of cost, worries about spilling the cup, and heretical groups like the Hussites, the practice ceased in the Late Middle Ages. It was revived experimentally in the 1950s in Europe if I am not mistaken. It became common in the U.S. in the 1970s with the permission of the Vatican (because such a practice is not explicitly seen in the rubrics of the Mass). That permission was believed by some to have ended in 2010. One diocese - Phoenix - tried to restrict the sharing of the cup (as would have been proper since the permission was believed to have expired), but the bishop (a good bishop, Bishop Olmstead) has apparently waffled on that because of the outcry from Mass goers: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/11/20111111phoenix-bishop-reverses-ruling-wine-communion.html Apparently the permission was about a related matter and not the actual sharing of the cup. The sharing of the cup can only happen at the “new” liturgies: i.e. the new Mass since Vatican II and the Anglican Use Mass. It CAN NEVER happen at the old Latin Mass from before Vatican II.
They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrnians 7:1)
now, scoffers come along and deny this central belief of the Christian Faith.
You need a better source...
“In the final analysis, you dont get to decide whether Catholics are Christians or not. God makes that call, and you arent him. Sorry to burst your bubble.”
Well said. That will leave a mark!
Then why not take a wafer home so you can feel that way all the time???
This way, you gotta keep going back to the Church for another 'fix'...
Fortunately there is enough non Catholic history out there that we aren't stuck with only your religion's version...
First off we have the scriptures which proves that your religion is the antithesis of Christianity...So we know that it was not your religion that Jesus was speaking about...
And secondly, we know of the Christians thru out history prior to the 1500s who were tortured and murdered by your religion for refusing to bown down to your popes and pretend to eat Jesus via a piece of bread...Those are the Christians Jesus was speaking to...
Jesus said,' Drink of the cup'...
Well Lord, it just costs too much plus we don't want to get this expensive carpet dirty...So we'll just pretend there's blood in the bread...
Like a beer you mean? I..don’t..think..so..
TAKE ME OFF NOW!
Please do something (preferably permanent) about this person
In the final analysis, you dont get to decide whether Catholics are Christians or not. God makes that call, and you arent him. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Boom! I noticed the kook has not yet replied to you.
Thank you! As a Protestant I’ve been disgusted by his/her antics for some time now.
I routinely check the source site. High and low? Not so much. Organizations. Couple names jumped out. Dobson, MacArthur, Stanley keeping company with the Catholics as suspect. It is interesting.
Well, that’d be a big surprise to a lot of Christians, including me. Catholics are very welcome here on FR. Hope you’re ok with that.
I have been dismayed by some of what I have seen from this FReeper, but there is free speech, which FR is proud to champion.
We are not supposed to take things like this personally, though I can’t imagine how a Catholic would not take this as a personal attack on one’s faith.
Remember that Jesus knew this was going to happen. He said that the enemy would strike the shepherd in order to discourage/scatter the sheep. He was talking about Himself but also to the broader Church. He told Peter to tend my sheep, feed my lambs, feed my sheep.
What a poster like this truly needs is prayer.
It is my own faith there was one person who had a "sensory experience" as to the Incarnation, but she was made pregnant by Spirit, not by flesh and blood.
One could go so far as to say she most likely sensed it bodily also, but not by the more usual physical passageway (pardon the expression, but that's as delicate as I could say it). What we even more likely need not guess at, is that she most assuredly experienced the physical aspects of pregnancy itself, and the various sensations and discomforts that most usually entails, which leaves His arrival as a peasant carpenter not *entirely* lacking sensory experiences.
The babe leapt in her womb
Out of all the [Roman] Catholics who have on this site contributed comments to this sort of discussion over the years, is there a single individual who has testified that they too, experienced "Eucharist miracle" such as Lucky
Luciano Lanciano has?
Is there even one? If not, why not? Please spare me the "it was sign" reasoning, for to not have that as the usual phenom, is to leave Lucky all but alone in communion (which is a common sharing of the elements) like some heavenly lottery winner.
If it were common phenom, it would be like steak on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and twice on Sundays, but we know it's not that...
It would help if those seeming to press for there being material change into earthly flesh and blood (as such is known in earthly or carnal fashion) would just come out and SAY it.
But the [Roman] Catholic
church ecclesiastical community doesn't actually teach that, now does it?
One can put the words body and blood in big capital letters all they wish, but the wording used never included "physical" as in physically present other than an explanation of it, that He is said to be present "under the forms" of the bread & wine.
Again, it could be helpful to those now pressing for materialistic altering of "substance" to know that the Aristotelian idea of substance could be employed in manner conceptually different than what we know today (from our own present-day materialist philosophies) for the "substance" of a thing, was more it's conceptual function, than it's material composition.
A chair can be made of wood, but wood is not "chair substance". A chair can be made of stone, but stone is not "chair substance" in that instance either --- following the same conceptual understandings as the language used 800 years or so ago to describe the transformation --- as to what it actually was that was being "transformed".
A baker could bake a cake (or an entire series of nearly identical cakes) and fashion from cake dough and icing, set atop the cakes, the forms of a "chair". The baker could even put (or make) a small figurine like say a little monkey with a pope hat to sit in one of the chairs, and other little monkeys looking suspiciously like televangelist with big-hair "monkey" wives to sit in other cake chairs. Remove the monkeys, eat the chairs, and one has eaten "chair substance". (there's a reason why I include this paragraph -- you'll see...)
Do not get me wrong, or mistake my own meaning here, for I am not saying that He (Christ) can not or is not present within that which is consecrated, but rather that although He did indeed come to this earth in the form of a man, born of a virgin, lived as a flesh & blood human being, was crucified and literally died, rose again unto Life, walked again in the form of a man, was seen by hundreds if not thousands, then later (forty days) was witnessed to having miraculously ascended, He did not convert His own followers from being Israelite to becoming cannibals in the same fashion that Papua New Guinea tribesmen were until not that long ago...
When He ascended, were did He go? Is there air to breath there? Is oxygen necessary? Is bread, or beef-steak, or even cabbage and beans needed there for Life?
He chose not PNG savages as His own chosen peoples, but through His own peoples He can convert the PNG tribesman into His own people, one person or individual at a time.
I would venture answering "no" to those last immediate inquiries (as to air & food as we know of them) and say further that it is that Life of Him (the life is in the blood) which He sends to be present to become that which is ritually consecrated, shared, and consumed.
Now as to "body" of the bride of Christ (which is the Church) many are appointed as members, but not all are the same member, or have the same functions. Are not they "the flesh and blood" of the body?
We are all not fingers, thumbs, hands, feet, or an arm or a leg. Yet taken all together (with all other necessary parts) we are still one body (no matter how widely scattered) even if not all of identical "ecclesiastical" community as to earthly organizational administration.
The hand can not say to the foot, "I do not recognize you--you do not look like me, I do not need you to grasp that which needs be grasped" neither the eye that sees have no need for the lungs which breathe.
But not all body parts are all that wonderful to gaze upon. Elbows. Who is it that singles out elbows as singularly beautiful? But we all need them to function, and do miss them when they are either gone, or suffering loss of function.
Did you ever hear the joke about the body parts arguing amongst themselves who would be "boss"? Never mind the punchline for that one, for the time being...
Or the one about the cannibal who "passed" his brother on the trail?
How about the prisoner, on his first day in jail? He hears someone yell out "37!" and everyone starts laughing. A little while later someone yells out "41" and that one gets a few laughs. This keeps occurring over the course of several hours until finally the new jailbird asks someone nearby -- "what is going on? why is everybody laughing when numbers are called out?". It's then explained to him that since most of the guys in that jail had been there a long time, they had told and heard the same jokes so many times, they decided to number them, so that way when in the course of conversation something would come up reminiscent or possibly tangential to one of the jokes, or if someone just wanted to lighten the mood by remembering a joke, they could say the number or unexpectedly yell it out sort of like an unexpected punchline (which is how jokes "work") which then would make people laugh.
After a while, desiring to fit in with the crowd, the new guy yells out "37! but nobody laughs, in fact the whole place went deadly silent. Wondering what went wrong, he turns to the guy nearby and asks "how come nobody laughed?" The guy next to him says, "sometimes, it's all in how you tell it".
I would have no problem with that, for He dwells not in temples made of hands.
I can't believe I just read that. Who died and made you god? Where in the heck do you get off anointing yourself the arbitrator of who is Christian and who is not? Not even the Pharisees were that presumptuous.
“Well Lord, it just costs too much plus we don’t want to get this expensive carpet dirty...”
The hypocrisy of Protestant anti-Catholics is amazing. Jesus said it was His body yet you don’t believe Him. When you do, get back to me.
“So we’ll just pretend there’s blood in the bread...”
Nope. There’s BLOOD in the FLESH. The bread WAS just bread. Again, hypocrisy on your part doesn’t change truth on His part. You lose again as you always do Iscool.
Catholics are not Christians...sorry to burst your bubble.So jodyel - who do you think are Christians? What denominations are Christian in your view and why? What makes someone, in your view, a Christian? A profession of faith? Baptism? And do tell, what special power or authority do you have and what sect or cult do you hold as the True Church?
Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve. [John 6: 49-71]
First off we have the scriptures which proves that your religion is the antithesis of Christianity..Ooh, another denial of Catholic Christianity! What sects or denominations ARE Christian, in your world?
The irony is that if it wasn’t for Catholicism there would be no Protestantism for them to argue with! To borrow from Harper Lee’s Miss Maudie, some people are so busy reliving the Reformation that they aren’t living in the present.
I think that's a silly statement because of Romans 10:13 - "Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
However, you seriously misunderstand the power of communion:
1 Co 11: 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 10:16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?
1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
How can you be guilty of "sinning against the body and blood of the Lord", and how can you be guilty for "not recognizing the body of the Lord", if the Lord is not present?
There is far more power and presence in Communion/Eucharist than you are acknowledging. It is not some passé symbolic act.
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the Law said to Him, Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you.
39 He answered, A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Jesus answered, The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.
1 John 3:21-24
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. The one who keeps Gods commands lives in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Only TWO choices?
Surely not the SAME church that gave us...
Pope John XII (955964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (10321044, 1045, 10471048), who "sold" the Papacy
I'm sure glad that Roman Catholicism hasn't said such vile things ab out PROTESTants!
"It is my desire to eat this meal WITH you."
It's like manna - worthless if you try to save iut.
You MUST return to the source to get it.
Kinda like having your own drug pusher I guess.
Or else you’ll throw a hissy fit?
Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?
The world knows what Rome thinks of PROTESTants...
The word "participation" seems to be ignored a lot...
Make something and then bow down and worship it.
Seems to me that God had something to say about that once or twice.....
For the true believer, the true Christian, Christ dwells in the heart through faith.
He doesn't live there because we eat Him.
We don't have to go somewhere to meet Christ. Our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit who swells in us.
Anyone who isn't sure they have Jesus in them, doesn't.
You got any links?
I've just been doing some research on the emergent church and the mysticism that is creeping in.
I have never seen you post here on these frequent debates on the FR RF, but posting more propaganda rather than reasoned conclusions based on objective examination of Scripture, which your article is not, accomplishes nothing except to indicate that indoctrination is behind belief in the Real Presence as defined by Rome.
Save my FReeper handle and ping me when a Catholic claims Protestants aren’t Christians, mmm kay?