Replies

When someone insists that Jesus was being literal with the eating His flesh and drinking His blood, as in the cannibalism thingy, because it violates the Levitical laws which Jesus came to fulfill not violate, it is up to the one insisting these are literal flesh and blood eating to show how the Bible, God's Word allows such a violation?

Also, that Jesus spoke the clarification to the ones who He knew were steadfastly with Him should tells us what we need to identify the Truths. Jesus said eating His flesh profits nothing ... he as much as said, ‘the flesh eating and blood drinking thing is not the means to get God's Life in you. It is the Spirit that puts God's Life in you.

You guys keep insisting that we take Him at His words but then you want to twist those clear teachings to the ones who remained loyal so that they fit the specious meaning which caused the ones to walk no longer with Him!

In the same chapter, Jesus had already given a similar explanation of how to work the works God requires as what He had explained to Nicodemus. Is it that being catholic you must reject the Truth that it is by faith we are saved, not of works lest any man boast? Are you, as the Jews pushing Him that day, so focused on what you can do to eventually obtain eternal life that you will reject the clear Teaching of Jesus in order to hold fast to the pride of self striving to obtain?

The Promise of God to Give Eternal Life right then, not after some striving trail of sacraments and Masses and Penance and purgatory, was illustrated at Pentecost with the Holy Spirit coming into believers who were of a broken and contrite spirit. In the house of Cornelius the Holy Spirit came into the listeners even before Peter 'gave an invitation' or required of them a 'sinner's prayer'. God put His Eternal Life in the believers immediately. That wasn't a special case not to be repeated ever again without RCC priesthood. It was the essence of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, and the born from above didn't have any to drink to get that life in them!

Summa Theologiae, Part III, Q. 73, Art. 3

Article 3. Whether the Eucharist is necessary for salvation?
Sed contra: Augustine writes (Ad Bonifac. contra Pelag. I): "Nor are you to suppose that children cannot possess life, who are deprived of the body and blood of Christ."

I have already shown where cannibalism is expressly denied as an appropriate understanding of what we teach.

Here in the "Sed Contra" (the quick answer before the more detailed argument is set out) Aquinas cites a letter Augustine, one of the foremost proponents of Salvation by Grace through Faith, wrote against Pelagius, perhaps history's foremost advocate of salvation by works. I don't think you're likely to find Pelagianism in Aquinas. And I don't see how the dogma of transubstantiation impinges on the teaching of Paul.

You guys keep insisting that we take Him at His words

Just as you guys keep insisting that we not take Him at His words. Personally, I’d rather take Him at His words. He didn’t say He was joking, or speaking sarcastically, or speaking metaphorically. He said: “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” And Jesus never said “eating His flesh profits nothing.” He said the exact opposite.

If you don’t want to take Him at his words, fine. Don’t. Just keep repeating the mantra “REMEMBRANCE” so you can keep denying the words that Jesus spoke; His words of truth and life.

But if you don’t want us to insist that you reject your belief, please stop insisting that we reject our beliefs.