Posted on 03/11/2015 2:49:15 PM PDT by RnMomof7
everything
Is it not the glorified body? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia it would appear the Catholic Church considers it to be the glorified body and blood.
" Now, the glorified Christ, Who "dieth now no more" (Romans 6:9) has an animate Body through whose veins courses His life's Blood under the vivifying influence of soul. Consequently, together with His Body and Blood and Soul, His whole Humanity also, and, by virtue of the hypostatic union, His Divinity, i.e. Christ whole and entire, must be present. Hence Christ is present in the sacrament with His Flesh and Blood, Body and Soul, Humanity and Divinity. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm]
I would suggest that the author of the article is not off base at all and that it is in fact the glorified body per the Catholic Church.
>>But I know more than this bozo knows<<
Not if he already knows the Catholic Church considers it the glorified body and you didn't.
what is "this" ????
Because they were just looking to have their stomachs filled, as Jesus also told them. They weren't interested in spiritual teaching of any kind.
When I joined the Catholic church, I rationalized that both East and West, in spite of the bitter division about 1066, believe in a real presence although the rituals, forms, and ministration are slightly different. I haven't looked up what the other ancient churches believe, but have assumed it is essentially the same as Catholic beliefs. The ones I'm aware of are Antiochan, Coptic, some other ancient ones, do not know what they teach about it.
The bible can be argued both ways except the admonition of Paul in Corinthians about not recognizing the "body" and other words.
I read the Didache and it does introduce the word Eucharist but speaks of bread scattered on mountains.
Even the reformation churches believe in a real presence with some variation. The Lutherans, the Episcopalians, I think the Baptists, and Presbyterians. The Methodists believe in symbolic. I don't know what the Mormons believe but they use bread and water. I don't know what the Pentacostals or other newer denominations believe.
But if you want to assume that the newer denominations are an attempt to return to the purity of the early church, they fail miserably, doctrinally and behaviorally.
Sometime back a Catholic posted more of the church fathers and what they taught about it than are mentioned to the point I gave it up for now.
So I sit on the fence.
Yeah, that'll work....kind of a do it yourself Christianity....whatever you think is right....well then, it's right......what does 2,000 years of history prove???
You added a new word yourself....the protestant way....congratulations!!!!
If they wanted their stomachs filled why wouldn’t they stay? Weren’t the followers of Jesus all being fed food? If your assertion was true then it shouldn’t have mattered what Jesus said - they would have stayed until the danger posed to their lives became clear in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Sorry, I only got to “When presented with a borage of other out-of-context quotes...” and couldn’t read any further.
Scripture does not say that Jesus ate or drank what He blessed and gave to His disciples.
Dude, why don’t you work this hard on the Democrat party? The Catholic Church is not taking your freedom away.
What is the point to go SO far in trashing the Eucharist? What is your point?
He writes: The doctrine also asserts that during the last supper where Jesus instituted the memorial of His passion, the bread, after being blessed by Jesus, became His literal glorified body.
The Church does not teach that the bread becomes His “literal” or “glorified” Body. The Church teaches that the substances of the bread and wine are replaced with the Real Presence of Christ. He is truly present, but His glorified Body is not literally replacing the bread and wine.
[i]Can you name anything the Papists believe that comes from scripture? [/i]
*************
Do you know where Scipture comes from? Catholic teaching existed centuries before the canon of the New Testament was established... by the Catholic Church.
Anyone nowadays who uses the epithet “Papist” probably handles snakes a lot, too.
John 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [R] [+]
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
Why would they be offended by what Jesus said? I could understand disappointed that He would not be feeding them again, but offended?
And, what was hard about what Jesus said if they were only thinking of their hunger?
MetMom wrote: Because they were just looking to have their stomachs filled, as Jesus also told them. They weren’t interested in spiritual teaching of any kind.
*****************
Your response does not take into account what is described. Christ says, “Unless you eat of My Body and drink of My Blood, you shall have no life within you.” His followers obviously took this literally, because they said it was too hard to accept and left. Don’t you think that Christ would have corrected their understanding if it had been wrong?
And do you think St Paul would have written “not discerning the Body of the Lord,” (1 Cor 11:29) if the Body of the Lord were not there to discern?
Ignore the fact he was equally - if not more - hard on his own German people.
If you’re going to say he was anti-semite, you’re gong to have to out of fairness say he was anti-Germanic too.
Good work mom.
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.