What contributions have Catholics made...

Robryan:

I'f the RCC is wrong about its unbiblical claims regarding the eucharist then it is “idolatry” according to the RCC itself!'

I agree with you! If the the evidence was not so overwhelming that Jesus meant exactly what he said he did. If the ECF's had not made it so clear that the Eucharist IS partaking in the His Body and Blood. If saint Paul had not chastized the Corinthians for not discerning the body and blood of the Lord as they participated in the Eurcharist. If the disciples had not recognized Him only after the breaking of bread in the upper room. If there was not Overwhelming evidence in the Old Testament that the God was forshadowing the New Covenant in His Body and Blood.

I invite anyone who would seriously be interested in the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist to read the little book by: Dr. Brant Pitire

Here is a hint: Old Testament proto types are never greater thann N.T. Was Old testament Manna greater that new.

Again, Rob, if you are right, and the bread and wine do not supernaturally (not confection by a priest but by His word and Holy Spirit) I would say you have a valid point about Catholics and Idolatry. I hope you have the time to read this little book and give me your feedback. I value your opinions.

 

You speak of both "literal" and "supernatural", here, both of which we deny and believe also the apostles did not believe.

If you are correct in your interpretation then you must answer honestly, and if the answer is not correct you know that nothing literal or supernatural occurred.

When you partake of the bread, does it taste like raw flesh?

When you (or a priest) partakes of the "wine" does it taste like blood?

If the answer to the above questions are no, then you know that what happened was neither literal nor supernatural as you claim, and your interpretation is false. You believe in a hoax.

 

Surely then you have to see that from the POV of a non-Catholic -- someone who sees the Bible to contradict key Catholic doctrines -- the practice of the mass -- is in fact worshipping a piece of bread.

I also agree with you that a study on this topic would be a good idea.

I do not have that book at hand - but I do have a number of references where Catholic authorities state that the priests are in fact "confecting God" in the eucharist.

I take it from your response that this is a belief you do not share with the Catholic church.

“Confecting” God –

“WHO CAN” confect God? (who HAS this magic POWER?)

As for Pope John Paul II on this notion of Confecting Christ --

“Retaining the POWERS” even after being excommunicated

 

So, we know that most of the copying was done in monastery's. What denominations were those monastery's?

 

The Church does teach 'once a priest, always a priest'. That doesn't mean he is given permission by his bishop to administer the sacrament. It means he was set consecrated that by the action of the Holy Spirit may administer the sacraments with his Bishops permission.

 

I can take that same bread and wine and subject it to intense radiological exposure. If would sure look like the same bread and wine, but would you eat it?

 

That is a red herring. That is not what is done with your bread and wine and you know it. You claim it to be literal and supernatural. Does it taste like flesh and blood? Yes or no? If no, then it is not literal or supernatural. You know that.

Besides that, I often put bread in the microwave. :laugh:

 

In the once priest always priest - doctrine, even execommunicating a given priest due to heresy and apostacy "does not remove his POWERS".

They retain their powers - but they do so 'with sin' according to the RCC if they have been excommunicated - they are in sin as they exercise their powers to forgive sins and confect the actual body of God the Son.

But according to Pope John Paul II - not only does the priest have the "power" to confect the body of God the Son - he also has the power to do something "beyond" standing "in the place of Christ" -- I just don't know how far he is intending to take that point.

Pope John Paul II
“The priest offers the holy Sacrifice in persona Christi; this means more than offering "in the name of' or "in place of" Christ. In persona means in specific sacramental identification with "the eternal High Priest"[42]”
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02dc.htm
Dominicae Cenae
On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
Promulgated on February 24, 1980
To All the Bishops of the Church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

. . . and all this takes place ONLY by the power of the Holy Spirit and Our High Priest Jesus Christ who cuts through our human frailties and feeds us with His word and sacraments in spite of our failings.

 

Your sacraments, most of them, are man-made. They are flawed. Neither the Holy Spirit not Christ would ever work through them or feed you through them.

 

That's a pretty broad statement, DHK, because in the book of John we see at least two instances where Christ did work through sacraments to perform His miracles. First, water into wine in John 2. He could have just spoken the wine into existence from nothing but instead chose to use water as His sacramental. Second, restoring the blind man's sight in John 9. Here He used mud made from His own spittle to put on the man's eyes and then told the man to wash in the pool of Siloam. He could have restored the man's sight without doing all that but instead He chose to use the sacramentals of mud and water.

 

Show me in the Bible where transubstantiation is taught.
The miracles of Jesus were performed to demonstrate that He was deity. Even then they rejected Him. No one could perform the miracles that He did, and no one spoke with the authority that He commanded. This was the testimony of both Jews and Romans alike of the time.

 

Bob Ryan...

Thank you for your extensive documentation...from Catholic sources...regarding the issues at hand in this thread.

And yet...those who choose to not "see", will undoughtably continue to choose to not "see".


But they dont have to be that way.

They can turn and accept the truth at any time, for their great benefit.

Lets hope they do. :thumbsup:

 

As I understand it - the RC statement is that if you look at the bread with an electron microscope - it is bread - but in "substance" it is the body of Christ. They argue this point by saying that a carbon atom can be a part of a diamond or a part of bread - but "in substance" the carbon atom is either diamond, or the flesh of Christ, or actual bread no matter what thing it is actually in. Something that does not make a lot of sense today - but I think it worked a few hundred years ago.

 

Not a single member of the BB would take issue with this. You're 100% correct in what you say here. But that doesn't negate the fact that the miracles Jesus performed in John 2 and John 8 were done through the use of sacraments.

Matthew 26:26: Take, eat; this is My body.

Mark 14:22: Take it; this is MY body.

Luke 22:19: This is My body which is given for you.

John 6:53-54: Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

1 Corinthians 11:24: This is My body, which is for you.

Five different writers and not a single one said anything like, “This is a symbol of my body.” You would think at least one of them would drop a footnote or add a parenthetical that Jesus was using a metaphor, but they did not. Paul even stated that some were sick and dying because they had profaned the body and blood of Christ. Do you think people would get sick and die for acting badly toward bread and wine? The Eucharist is either plain old bread or it is the body of Christ. Which do these five passages say it is?

 

This is true, but
1) This was done because the Lord superintended it
2) This does not mean the doctrines of the RCC are okay.

If Buddhists had for some reason copied the biblical text, would that make Buddhism okay?

 

Your absolutely right. They have no grounds for asserting that Jesus or Paul or any of the ECF' were speaking metaphorically. Just the opposite. I was at a Baptist Lords Supper observance recently when the pastor actually said, Jesus took bread, broke it gave thanks and REALLY meant that this was a symbol of his body. He did the same thing when he re-wrote the Jesus' words of institution for the cup of wine. He said Jesus REALLY meant it was just a symbol. WOW! Now that is quite a stretch from what Jesus actually said. Jesus never ever said it was a symbol! Never mind the ECF's confirming that we partake in the actual body and blood in the Eucharist.

When Jesus said 'I am the vine, you are the branches, He was using metaphorical language. Not so in 'this IS my body, this IS my blood.
And look at he acrobatics you do with John chapter 6!

I would gladly spend time discussing the New Passover, the New Manna, the reason the new Christian readily believed the Eucharist was Jesus body and Blood (and were sometimes put to death for their belief in it) with you.

You see the Eucharist, like the Old Passavoer, participated in the New Passover of Jesus. In the Old Passover, you had to eat the Lamb to complete the sacrifice. St. Paul said "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast' We can talk about Jesus and the New Manna, manna kept in a Tabernacle tomorrow.Much to do tonight. Why did Jewish Christians believe the Eucharist was Jesus body and blood? a. They knew is was supernatural bread. Lord's prayer 'give us today our epi ousios or super substantial bread . No where else in the NT does these words occur.
b. They knew it is his risen body and blood. Remember they didn't even recognize him in the upper room after his resurrection until he broke the Bread. More tomorrow.

 

No, but it seems sensible and much more likely that the Lord would leave it to the faithful in Christ to do this extremely important work.

Since the Lord superintended it, don't you think He could have found a way to clarify what he must have REALLY meant and caused it to be translated 'this is only a symbol of my body and the cup is only a symbol of my blood? Certainly God's hands guiding those evil Catholic monks would have prevented such blasphemous mistake. I mean how many centuries was it interpreted that way before protestants found countless ways of making anything other that what Jesus said it was. I guess the Lord was busy with other things when St.Paul chastised the Corinthians for not discerning the true Body and Blood of the Lord in the Most Holy Eucharist.

Off to other business tonight, kids, God bless.