Catholic Inventions?

Finally - the RCC itself ADMITS that its practice regarding the bread as God is in fact idolatry -- if its traditions and doctrines ABOUT that bread are not true.

The seriousness of the problem is not lost on the Catholic leadership!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still waiting for examples.

 

The Catholic apologists typically respond to the devastating 'details of John 6' exploding the myth of the Eucharist teaching -- with an appeal to the errors of the church FOLLOWING the first century teaching of the Apostles -- EVEN THERE they are not safe from "inconvenient facts"!

Though Catholics claim to follow the scripture interpretations of the church fathers, early church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian viewed John 6 as figurative in harmony with the faithful disciples of John 6.

(Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6)

(Tertullian, On the Ressurection of the Flesh, 37)

Enjoy!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
The disciples did indeed say that Christ had the words of Life, including these words: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me". That's why they stuck around though not yet knowing what He meant by those words while the others abandoned Him. They would learn later that the bread and wine was the actual communion (participation in) of the Body and Blood of Christ, since Christ in all three synoptic Gospels says about the bread "This is my Body" and about the wine "This is my Blood".

(And it seems that the rest of my post was lost on you as well.)

 

only the faithLESS disciples focused on the "bite Christ" message. The faithFUL disciples heard Christ say that literal "FLESH IS WORTHLESS".

Christ ESTABLISHED the link in John 6 between BREAD and HIS statements about FLESH as he claims to BE the bread that CAME down out of heaven.

ONCE that is "noticed" we see the REAL lesson ALREADY predates Psalms and all other texts - it is in Deut 8:3 where we find that the spiritual LESSON for bread coming down out of heaven is "MAN does NOT LIVE by bread alone but by every WORD that comes from the mouth of God".

God HIMSELF gave them the CONTEXT of "teaching WORD" in this case - LONG BEFORE the book of Psalms.

Your attempt to restrict this to anything OTHER than what God said as CONTEXT in Deut 8 -- fails.

Further Christ shows that the focus is the SAME as in Deut 8 which is LIFE and that which is needed for LIFE.

The point remains.

You have ignored the fact that Christ in John 6 does NOT point FORWARD to any point in time and say "some day my body WILL be food". (In fact you ignore ALL the facts I enumerated in my post where I claimed you must be ignoring those facts!!)

Finally - John 6 is then the "context" for the Lord's Supper. Where AGAIN we see SYMBOLS of Christ's body in the form of the bread. Christ's body is "obviously" RIGHT THERE in front of them and His PRESENCE is RIGHT there at the table. They are not imagining that they have suddenly been given access to Christ's REAL body in undetectible form hidden in the bread or REAL presence hidden in the bread! He is REALLY seated at the table and His body is REALLY seen - not yet crucified - not yet sacrificed - not yet broken!

The SYMBOLISM there could not BE more obvious!

In Christ,

Bob

[ June 28, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Actually, Bob if you look at all that Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian said on the subject you will know that they did not deny the real presence (see Living4Him's quotes above).

 

If you have a way to twist that out of saying what it says - feel free to make the attempt

In any case - you asked for "examples".

 

And yet you can't get past the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

And Christ is the Word of God Incarnate.

That makes no difference. Christ says my flesh is food indeed (regardless of when we partake of it) and my blood is drink indeed (again regardless of when He establishes the Eucharist.) You're merely splitting hairs.

So? He's also literally right there in heaven at the right hand of the throne of God whenever the Eucharist is celebrated and He gives us His body and blood in the bread and the wine. That doesn't change the truth that the bread and wine is the communion of (and not an empty symbol for) His body and blood.

Wow...you're a mind reader now?

And yet the early Christians were unanimous in affirming that Christ is also present in the Body and Blood. With Paul they affirmed that the wine and the bread was the communion of (participation in) the blood and body of Christ. With Ignatius they affirmed that the Eucharist was thus the "medicine of immortality".

Christ as God-Man transcends time and space. He who changed the water into wine and who multiplied the loaves and the fishes has no problem communicating Himself--humanity and divinity--to us in the bread and the wine while still being incarnate at the right hand of the Father. This was the common faith of the Church until the 1500s when certain Reformers (but not all) following Zwingli began to deny the real presence.

 

But these are "non-examples" since looking at their writings as a whole, neither Tertullian nor Clement denied the real presence.
Besides, "symbol" in that day meant a real connection between the sign and reality signified. That's why in several of the church Fathers you can read of the bread and wine being "symbols", yet considering writings as a whole this does not negate belief in the real presence because the same fathers affirmed their belief in the real presence belief elsewhere.

 

DHK, do you think the "Eucharist" is the little round wafers?

Eucharist - (taken from the Modern Catholic Dictionary) The true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, who is really and substantially present under the appearances of bread and wine, in order to offer himself in the sacrifice of the Mass and to be received as spiritual food in Holy Communion. It is called Eucharist, or "thanksgiving" because at its institutiion at the Last Supper Christ "gave thanks" and by this fact it is the supreme object and act of Christian gratitude to God.

Although the same name is used, the Eucharist is any one or all three aspects of one mystery, namely the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and Communion.

As Real Presence, the Eucharist is Christ in His abiding existance on earth today; as Sacrifice, it is Christ in His abiding action of High Priest, continuing now to communicate the graces He merited on Calvary; and as Communion, it is Christ coming to enlighten and strengthen the believer by nourishing his soul for eternal life.

(ETYM. Latin eucharistia, the virtue of thanksgiving or thankfulness; from the Greek eucharistia, gratitude; from eu-, good + charizesthai, to show favor) </font>[/QUOTE]As I said--a good reason to be suspicious.
A Catholic word, taken from a Catholic dictionary, to describe a Catholic doctrine, none of which has to do with the Bible.
DHK

 

You are quite arrogant to assume that the Catholic Church developed all this theology. You give no credit to the Bible at all. Why not just write your own Bible. Oh, I forgot, It is called a Catechism.
DHK

 

"Always"?? Does that apply to the Scriptures as well? Afterall, those too were translated.

Pot...kettle...

What could Ignatius mean by this quote? </font>[/QUOTE]Umm..he could mean that that the Docetists abstain from the Eucharist (ie from partaking of the bread and wine) because they deny that the Eucharist (bread and wine) is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, (the same) flesh which suffered for our sins and was raised by the Father.

Not at all, and if you didn't beg the question by assuming that Bible was speaking metaphorically regarding the Eucharist, you wouldn't even have to ask.

Nope, the fact you'd pull that idea out of thin air shows the lengths you'll go to deny the obvious.

Please do, before you embarrass yourself any further. It's apparent that you are really straining to avoid the obvious.

Neither is the word "Trinity". I guess you should look at any quotes about the Trinity with suspicion as well.

And yet this is what those early believers called the celebration at the Lord's table. You're making a distinction where there isn't any.

And the idea that the eucharist was an "invention" of the Catholic Church is itself an invention of conspiracy-minded Protestant historical revisionists.

Stop it, DHK! You're killing me!

 

If you have a way to twist that out of saying what it says - feel free to make the attempt

In any case - you asked for "examples". </font>[/QUOTE]So far this quote is getting no response - dead silence on "the details" ...

Hmmm I wonder why!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Umm...Bob...I responded to that particular post yesterday at 5:10 PM. As far as the particular quote goes, the "detail" is that Clement of Alexandria (along with Origen) was an allegorist who was fond of ascribing multiple meanings to multiple passages (not just this one). I figured since you like to quote him you'd already know that about him. As I said (twice already now) when you look at all of what he ever wrote on that passage, you'll know that he did not deny the real presence (and I believe I've already directed you to Living4Him's quotes).

So basically you just cited an example of one of his "meanings" of a particular passage--the allegorical one. Now you can stop "wondering why" all you were getting was "dead silence".