The Importance of Sound Doctrine

Once was a Freeper named Elsie

Who kept his identity stealthily

As his Mormon Dude rude

Or his Catholic Dude crude

He exposed the hypocrisies healthily.

More better!!
3 stars at LEAST!

(’cept line 1 doesn’t REALLY rhyme with 2&5.)

I'm glad you said that. The Roman Catholic dogma of "transubstantiation" was one that developed over a long period of time and came about as Catholic theologians tried to make sense of how the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper could be rectified with what Jesus taught about his flesh and blood as written in the Gospel of John.

Actually the metaphysical "explanation" is necessitated due to the inability of Catholic "priests" to "confect" the manifestly incarnated Christ whose physicality John emphasizes in combating the belief attributed to Gnosticism and or Docetism (both nebulous terms), in which or Jesus was a spirit that only "seemed" to be human, which is a denial, a rejection of the incarnation.

Since the bread and wine in the Lord's supper was said to be that which would be "broken" and "shed," and since the only Christ was one whose incarnation was attested to by His manifest physicality, then a straight-forward literal understanding of the Lord's words in the texts at issue requires them to mean that what the apostles ate looked, felt, acted, and would taste and scientifically test as actual flesh and blood just as body of the crucified Christ would, as would, I believe, the resurrected body that Thomas was faced with.

They taste like bread and wine; they look like bread and wine; they would, if made to react chemically or placed in a mass spectrograph, behave in every way just as bread and wine do. Stephen M. Barr ;https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/05/does-quantum-physics-render-transubstantiation-meaningless

Yet apart from the dubious claims of Eucharistic miracles, (which do not conform to Eucharistic theology), the only christ that impotent Cath priests can confect is one that, as with the christ within Gnosticism and or Docetism, is not what he appears to be, and which all tests of physicality attest to, but instead of "God manifest in the flesh" they present inanimate objects as being Christ, until these objects, which are said to no longer exist (their essence and substance cease to exist, despite appearances, etc. and the reactions of those severely allergic to wheat, who are excluded from the Eucharist) begin to decay.

Pope Paul VI: “Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine.” - ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

The credibility of which is based on “faith in the divine authority” of the Catholic church.

Obviously this requires some fancy footwork to explain/justify, for which Aquinas looked to Greek pagan philosophy in trying to do so, as in Aristotelian ideas of substance ( what a thing is) and accidents (its appearance, and other evidences.)

While the use of the term “transubstantiation” was used a good century or more before Aquinas, yet as a RC source states,

That the bread and wine are somehow really the body and blood of Christ is an ancient Christian belief—but using the concept of “substance” to talk about this necessarily involves Greek philosophy. (Even really is a problematic term here, stemming as it does from the philosophical term res ). - Dennis Beach, OSB, http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2010/05/30/transubstantiation-and-aristotle-warning-heavy-philosophy/

Appeal to pagan philosophy itself is not necessarily wrong, (Acts 17:28) but must conform to Scripture, and the mere fact that God can do something will not justify a doctrine that claims He did do something. And transubstantiation requires a miracle which is nowhere seen in Scripture, and presents a christ that is contrary to the evidence that "Christ is come in the flesh" and is a christ only seen in heretical beliefs, and

Eucharistic theology holds that the elements which are consumed not the same manifestly corporeal body and blood by which is evidenced that "Christ is come in the flesh," (1Jn. 4:2) "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life." (1 John 1:1)

Instead, transubstantiation claims that the substance of the bread and wine are changed (but not as in transformation as we know it) during the Eucharistic consecration into the "real" but unbloody, unapparent Body and Blood, soul and divinity of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine which is not "real," but which looks, feels, tastes and would test as real bread and wine, just like the body and blood of the incarnated Christ looked, etc. would test as such when He walked the earth.

While Catholics insist that Christ "really" is Present, that He is "really" made present under the appearance of bread and wine, what it "really" means is that this is to be believed based on faith in the interpretive veracity of the Catholic church, versus appeal to the evidences the Scriptures invoke for its claim that Christ is come in the flesh.

Imagine how far the apostles would have gotten preaching an inanimate object as Christ, either before or after His resurrection, or in addition to it, which they did not .

We don't know how much time exactly passed between Jesus' feeding of the five thousand and the night before his crucifixion (maybe several years) but we do know that it wasn't until that last supper that the Apostles were given the true meaning behind Jesus' John chapter 6 teaching.

No, the true meaning behind Jesus' John chapter 6 teaching was not given at thr Lord's supper, but right in Jn. 6, in which Christians are to live by Christ as He lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) which was by living according to His every word, (Mt. 4:4) thus the doing of it was the Lord's "meat," (Jn. 4:34) with His words being spirit and life, while consuming actual flesh profits nothing spiritually. Note also that if the Jews who walked no more with him did not because they found literally consuming the Lord's body and blood too hard to accept, then they were only rejecting what i think most Catholics themselves would find repulsive, that of consuming blood human meat. However, they did not reject the metaphysical Catholic spin in which one can consume what is only bread and wine according to all evidences of material reality, but which is really the Lord (until the non-existent bread and wine decay).

However, rather than the apostles understood the Lord literally or semi-literally as Catholics do, which would surely have resulted in protests, as Jews familiar with the abundant Hebrew use of figurative language, they would have recognized this use of "eat" and "drink" as another use of figurative language, including:.

And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless he would not drink thereof, but poured it out unto the Lord. And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives? therefore he would not drink it. (2 Samuel 23:16-17)

Notice that the men were literal men, in a literal story, and the water which they risked their lives for is plainly called "blood," and even is treated as such, refusing to drink it but pouring it out unto the Lord, like as the priest were to be pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar. (Lv. 4:14)

Yet in the light of the rest of Scripture we cannot take such literally, nor the words at issue in the Lord's supper.

Thus the apostles no more imagined that Christ, whom Isaiah said would be bruised/crushed/broken for our sins and pour out his soul as an offering for sins, (Isa 53:10) was going to be in their stomach at the same time He was sitting before them, including in some novel way that enabled them to disobey the command against consuming blood. (Lev. 17;10,11) any more than they would have though David was referring to water being actual blood, even if in some metaphysical way.

A length and exhaustive essay. But may I make a simple point here: "the mere fact that God can do something will not justify a doctrine that claims He did do something." It is in fact not possible for God to serve His actual flesh and blood to His disciples on the night before His Crucifixion, for to do so would have contradicted His own commandment to all their generations. God can not be duplicitous and remain the God of Truth, so in fact the Catholic claim (or Zoroastrian claim ...) that God can do this violation of His own commandment is the deepest lie at the heart of the Catholic Mass, or any other ritual which claims the flesh and blood of GOD's son is served for alimentary consumption. At a whole nother layer of deceit is the notion that one can physically eat the soul and Divinity of God. Spiritually, we may be Graced with The Life of God's Spirit in our human spirit, but we cannot obtain same via fleshly consumption; John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." and further on He told the disciples who stayed for the Words of life, John 6:63 It’s the Spirit who gives life; the flesh accomplishes nothing. The words that I’ve spoken to you are spirit and life.

God cannot contradict Himself, so He in fact cannot serve His flesh and blood for the disciples to put in their mouths and swallow. He DID offer His body and blood for the spirit to be born again, born of The Spirit, beyond the water of birth.

We may, by God's Grace, receive Spirit Life by faith in the Promise of God, not by eating flesh and blood, and since it is a contradiction to claim God can serve to His disciples His real flesh and blood, there are two lies in the Catholic Mass proving it of demonic origin.

Give him some time. He just needs some practice. 😀

Careful now, I’ll do one about an old cow and a skating air traffic controller ...

Careful now, I’ll do one about an old cow and a skating air traffic controller ...

LOL, bring it. 😀

An ex air traffic controller on blades;
Thought he really looked cool wearing shades.
He exemplified NICE!
While out on the ice;
Knowing he was no longer bound for Hades.

I brought it!

Correction: Ecclesia de Eucharistia was from Pope John Paul II (not Pope Paul VI) and who also states that the Apostles who took part in the Last Supper perhaps did not understand the meaning of the words spoken by Christ at the LS, though belief in the “Real Presence” (a term evidently taken from Anglicans) is necessary for one to receive the benefits of the sacrament.

Needs work ... meter and sound are off.

LOL

Everyone’s a critic!