Eucharist and Cannibalism

[Jude3b]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

[rocketman]

Jude, such an accusation of cannibalism is completely untrue and belies ignorance. I do not eat man's flesh the way the Donner Party did. If you wish to discuss the validity/non-validity of the Transubstantiation, I will glad discuss such with you. But ad hominem and unfounded assertions are simply provocations.

[spl_cadet]

Jude3b is a troll.

Running to TWeb to console yourself over the server move on DCF? :tongue:

[rocketman]

Yes. :bawl:

I have to find some way to procrastinate at college for a week...

[Jude3b]

Dear Rocketman: Obviously you must be a Roman Catholic, from your reply. If the bread and wine are turned into the literal body and blood of Christ by your Roman priests, than how is that not Cannibalism when you partake of it? Please explain, Jude3b

[Jude3b]

Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not in eating His body.

[Jude3b]

Jude, such an accusation of cannibalism is completely untrue and belies ignorance. I do not eat man's flesh the way the Donner Party did. If you wish to discuss the validity/non-validity of the Transubstantiation, I will glad discuss such with you. But ad hominem and unfounded assertions are simply provocations.

Why would the Roman Catholic church rather have us eating God than placing our faith in Him?

[romepunk]

If eating His flesh and drinking His blood, when taken literally, is cannabalism. And if cannabalism, under these circumstances, is a sin. Why would our perfect Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ use such a horrid and perverse practice, a hideous disgusting sin, as a metaphor for the his wondrous and beautiful salvific action.

Whether you believe it should be taken literally, as Catholics do, or metaphorically, as Protetstants. You can't call the very idea sinful, without casting aspersions on the rhetoric of our Lord Jesus.

[Jude3b]

[QUOTE=romepunk]If eating His flesh and drinking His blood, when taken literally, is cannabalism. And if cannabalism, under these circumstances, is a sin. Why would our perfect Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ use such a horrid and perverse practice, a hideous disgusting sin, as a metaphor for the his wondrous and beautiful salvific action.

Eating and drinking is used figuratively of partaking of the benefits of the death of Christ. We partake by faith and enjoy the benefits because God gives them on the basis of what Christ did for us. Eating is used figuratively of partaking of spiritual food (I Cor. 10:1-3); of other benefits received (Ps. 69:9; Ezek 2:3; 3:1-3; Rev. 10:9); and even of the evil results of sin (Pr. 9:17; Hos. 10:13; Jas. 5:3).

Unlike pope Innocent III who proclaimed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the year 1215 A.D., no figure of speech was more common to Jews at the time that Christ was being crucified, so there was no excuse for them to misunderstand His words.

Unlike Roman Catholics of the modern era, the Apostolic Christians in the church of God - the body of Christ - understood what Jesus was teaching. By comparing John 6:47-48 with 53-54 we see that believing on Christ is the same as eating and drinking Him.

I'll repeat: Though your verse John 6:53-54 does seem to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus also said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunder; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35). This teaching of Jesus is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

[romepunk]

Jude3b

With all due respect, you didn't answer my question. None of your examples involve eating human flesh. I ask again, why did Christ use a sin as a metaphor for his salvific action?

pope Innocent III who proclaimed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the year 1215 A.DJude, your better than that. It may have been dogmatized in Aristotelian terms in 1215, but it's much older. Take, for instance, Ignatius of Antioch.

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"
(Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


I responded to the last verse in DRR's thread "The Eucharist."

-romepunk

p.s. In the future, if you're going to cite that many verses, could you please simply quote them. Thanks.

[Jude3b]

Jesus was talking to murmuring religious Jews, just like I am talking to murmuring religious Roman Catholics. Moses did not give you the true bread that feeds the soul and sustains eternal life, but the more temporal bread that feeds the body only.

He was trying to teach those murmuring religious Jews that they will never thirst, that they can have "rivers of living water" flowing out of their innermost being.

[romepunk]

Jesus was talking to murmuring religious Jews, just like I am talking to murmuring religious Roman Catholics. Moses did not give you the true bread that feeds the soul and sustains eternal life, but the more temporal bread that feeds the body only.

He was trying to teach those murmuring religious Jews that they will never thirst, that they can have "rivers of living water" flowing out of their innermost being.
Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

I'll outline it again, if you didin't comprehend it before.

Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your opinion, he meant this as a metaphor for believing in him and his sacrifice. I'm cool with that. I used to believe that for years. I'm not trying to debate the real presence here, just fend off charges of cannabalism. Because if you call what RC's believe cannabalism, by neccessity you're saying that Christ used a sinful act as a metaphor. That's what I don't like here. And, I believe, it is why the majority of protestants would never use the "cannabalism" argument.

[Jude3b]

Does this mean you're not going to answer my question?

I'll outline it again, if you didin't comprehend it before.

Christ told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. In your opinion, he meant this as a metaphor for believing in him and his sacrifice. I'm cool with that. I used to believe that for years. I'm not trying to debate the real presence here, just fend off charges of cannabalism. Because if you call what RC's believe cannabalism, by neccessity you're saying that Christ used a sinful act as a metaphor. That's what I don't like here. And, I believe, it is why the majority of protestants would never use the "cannabalism" argument.

Not only was your question answered in Post # 9, you should also be aware that I am not a protestant. I am a former Roman Catholic that became a Christian.

[mandolin]

Jude, I beg of you...

The reason they believe in transsubstantioation is the same reason you are a polemic fundie...ignore context and take things too literally.

"This is my body"...hey, what do you know...it's christ's body. Cool, the bible says the eucharist is eating Jesus literal body...right? Who are you to say that it's figurative? Jesus says "This IS my body."

No, I don't believe it's literal. But why do you have so much catholic hatred? It's absolutely disgusting. Now they are heretics for taking christ's words to heart?

[romepunk]

Jude,

As I replied in post 10, I felt your answers in post 9 contained logical flaws. Once again, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

Mandolin,

Your quite right. Everyone, to some extant, takes certain verses at a more literal value than others. I suppose Catholics feel that just as Jesus was being hyperbolic when he commanded us to "Call no man father," just as Protestants believe he was using figurative language during the Last Supper. We can still celebrate what we have in common, and join together as brothers in Christ.

However, the Catholic approach to the John 6 and the Last Supper scenes in the synoptic Gospels is far from being a fundamentalist, literalistic reading of scripture out of context. Catholics, in fact, put the whole situation in its ultimate context. That is to say, Christ really is the passover lamb. The cosmic, perfect and universal passover lamb, whose slaughter gains for us not a temporal absolution of sins (as did a mere lamb in the Old Covenant), but the absolution of sin for all time. And just as the passover lamb was truly eaten, the act which seals the sacrificial act, we truly eat the Body and Blood of Christ. This is why he commanded us to eat his flesh, because he is the Lamb of God.

-romepunk

[mandolin]

Rome I understand what you mean totally. I was not tyring to equate the catholic eucharist with some fundamentalist view. I was simply trying to get the issue to the simplest form. The catholic view is a more literal view. So it is more fundamentalist than those against the transsubstantiation. This, I find ironic since it seems that many fundy protestants ignore the transsubstantiation view simply based on tradition (ironic because of their constant plea "sola scriptura")

I did not mean to call the eucharist fundamentalist, though. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[romepunk]

Mandolin,

I must have read too hastily. Mea culpa. I still agree with your general premise though, I just wanted to put the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist into a bigger context, for those that may not know it. Sorry if I jumped the gun on you. :blush:

romepunk

[Jude3b]

Jude, I beg of you...

The reason they believe in transsubstantioation is the same reason you are a polemic fundie...ignore context and take things too literally.

"This is my body"...hey, what do you know...it's christ's body. Cool, the bible says the eucharist is eating Jesus literal body...right? Who are you to say that it's figurative? Jesus says "This IS my body."

No, I don't believe it's literal. But why do you have so much catholic hatred? It's absolutely disgusting. Now they are heretics for taking christ's words to heart?

You have no right mandolin to accuse someone of hatred because they are willing to stand up to a false religious system that teaches a false religion and one that has another Christ. I am a former Roman Catholic and my burden is to help rescue poor Roman Catholics out of the lies of Satan. The Bible commands believers to "rescue the perishing" - I happen to love Roman Catholics with Agape. Enough love to share the truth of the Word of God with them. You - who are not willing to boldly state the truth of the Word of God - are the ones who refuse to love those trapped by Satan in false religious systems - such as Romanism. I forgive you, even if I am rebuking you.

[mandolin]

You have no right mandolin to accuse someone of hatred because they are willing to stand up to a false religious system that teaches a false religion and one that has another Christ. I am a former Roman Catholic and my burden is to help rescue poor Roman Catholics out of the lies of Satan. The Bible commands believers to "rescue the perishing" - I happen to love Roman Catholics with Agape. Enough love to share the truth of the Word of God with them. You - who are not willing to boldly state the truth of the Word of God - are the ones who refuse to love those trapped by Satan in false religious systems - such as Romanism. I forgive you, even if I am rebuking you.

standing up to heresy is one thing.

But is transubstantiation heresy? :huh:

You condemn folks to hellfire on such trivial things. Since when where these things salvific matters? Since when did god cast people to hell for taking jesus literally when he said "this is my body"?

I'm sure that you love these catholics...so quit being such a turd-burglar.

[kofh2u]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

Judas 3b,
Hi,
Few people have any guess, let alone a rational hypothesis, concerning why Jesus commanded us to perform the whole trip,...

Whether miracles of actually turning bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ seems immaterial to the reading of Revelation below.

The Eucharist is an admission, a reminder.

The blood of Christ is on our hands.
We are to remind ourselves that even all the aposltles except John of this Revelation deserted Jesus to his cross, sort of a double cross, on our part.


Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, the Old Testament and the New Testament, standing before the God of the earth, the Word of Universal Christianity.

Rev. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them by dissent or heresy, fire at the stake proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will offer doctrine at variance with the orthodoxy, he must in this manner be killed, burned at the stake.

Rev. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven ending religious discourse, that no controversy shall reign in the days of the Dark Ages of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters of congregations to turn them to the blood of the Eucharist in sacred dogma, and to smite the earth with all plagues of trials and inquisitions as often as they will.

[Jude3b]

Judas 3b,
Hi,
Few people have any guess, let alone a rational hypothesis, concerning why Jesus commanded us to perform the whole trip,...

Whether miracles of actually turning bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ seems immaterial to the reading of Revelation below.

The Eucharist is an admission, a reminder.

The blood of Christ is on our hands.
We are to remind ourselves that even all the aposltles except John of this Revelation deserted Jesus to his cross, sort of a double cross, on our part.


Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, the Old Testament and the New Testament, standing before the God of the earth, the Word of Universal Christianity.

Rev. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them by dissent or heresy, fire at the stake proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will offer doctrine at variance with the orthodoxy, he must in this manner be killed, burned at the stake.

Rev. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven ending religious discourse, that no controversy shall reign in the days of the Dark Ages of their prophecy: and they have power over the waters of congregations to turn them to the blood of the Eucharist in sacred dogma, and to smite the earth with all plagues of trials and inquisitions as often as they will.

First of all in Rev. 11:4 - "the Old and New Testament" and"the Word of Universal Christianity" is added to the text. Rev. 11:5 - "burned at the stake" is added to the text. Rev 11:6 - "ending religious discourse, that no controversy shall reign in the days of the Dark Ages...of congregations to turn them to the blood of the Eucharist in sacred dogma...and inquisitions"

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" (Rev. 22:18)

[kofh2u]

First of all in Rev. 11:4 - "the Old and New Testament" and"the Word of Universal Christianity" is added to the text. Rev. 11:5 - "burned at the stake" is added to the text. Rev 11:6 - "ending religious discourse, that no controversy shall reign in the days of the Dark Ages...of congregations to turn them to the blood of the Eucharist in sacred dogma...and inquisitions"

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" (Rev. 22:18)


Don't fault the Freudian Bible Translation and Interpretation.

Let the blood of the Eucharist be on my hands and the hands on my children. (It is for all of us anyway, of course.)

But I did not take the time to place the brackets that separate the Translation in each verse from the Interpretations:

Rev. 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks, (the Old Testament and the New Testament), standing before the God of the earth, (the Word of Universal Christianity).

Rev. 11:5 And if any man will hurt them (by dissent or heresy), fire (at the stake) proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, (]offer doctrine at variance with the orthodoxy), he must in this manner be killed, (burned at the stake).

Rev. 11:6 These have power to shut heaven (ending religious discourse), that it rain not (controversy shall not reign) in the days of the Dark Ages of their prophecy: and have power over waters (of congregations) to turn them to (the) blood (of the Eucharist in sacred dogma), and to smite the earth with all plagues (of trials and inquisitions), as often as they will.


Of course, this manner of interpretation is not unique. All explanations do add many words to the side, albeit not bracketed in the verse itself. It seems that those lengthy explanations deny the brevity of wisdom in this Bible, however, which is why I bring it to your attention.

Short and sweet, concise and cohesive throughout the entirity of Revelation. It smacks of a validity in this clear and direct bracketing, as is demonstrates here, hard to dismiss with vague and lengthy discourses I have read.

Those expositions seem as guilty in their shallow adding of ideas after the verses, or following them underneath, perhaps.

[Sir Gimli]

Jude-Rome-Mandolin,

You also need to see that Jesus said what He meant! [literally? ;)]
There's a pattern in the Bible of when Jesus meant things literally or if He meant things not-litterally. Here, I'll show you a little:

This is taken from a site:

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core devotional doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.


Again and Again



Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at 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, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).


No Corrections



Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?


Merely Figurative?



They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


Their Main Argument



For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).


Paul Confirms This



Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


What Did the First Christians Say?



Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


Unanimous Testimony



Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.

[Jude3b]

The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance" of Christ. It is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but it is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his suffering and death. "For as oft as ye this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

[Sir Gimli]

The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance" of Christ. It is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but it is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his suffering and death. "For as oft as ye this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."
If you won't accept the way that I showed to you in the last post, then I', wasting my time arguing against a wall.

[kofh2u]

Jude-Rome-Mandolin,

You also need to see that Jesus said what He meant! [literally? ;)]
There's a pattern in the Bible of when Jesus meant things literally or if He meant things not-litterally. Here, I'll show you a little:

This is taken from a site:

Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core devotional doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.


Again and Again



Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at 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, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).


No Corrections



Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?


Merely Figurative?



They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


Their Main Argument



For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).


Paul Confirms This



Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


What Did the First Christians Say?



Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


Unanimous Testimony



Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.



1) You are right to be proud of your Catholicism.

2) You have the stronger of the two arguments.

3) You, as do I, love the 13th century tone to the interpretations you offer.

4) Perhaps you might at least consider a third, as yet unoffered response to the hard problem of these verses? The verses were neither literal nor metaphorical.

A.) "And the Word was made flesh"... is the foundation for suggesting this: that Jesus was speaking neither literally nor metaphorically, but analogously.

He was saying: he was the Word, made flesh, de facto of a "manna," or a key, by which the Torah can be verbatim memorized... Hence, made flesh as opposed to written Torah. .

B.) If you can tolerate more, God bless you.

The above statement correctly implies that I am ready to support this with direct example of how it can and was done. The key also can be explicitly delineated as a now literary contrivance in the scripturs themselves. nWe could come back to this point at some other time.

C.) Jesus was the director, as mentioned numerous times in the Psalms.
What he directed was a resurrected art. The methodolgy of the Hebrew Kohanim.
That is, the Aaronic priethood.
These sons of Aaron were charged, in the days of Moses, with the oral and dramatic presentation of scripture, as a team effort. Each member had his little part, and as did Aaron, the highest of priest and the mediator for the sins of the people.

D.) To follow this rational further, we must read Matthew 3:11-12.
Here we discover that Jesus baptised with a fork shaped contortion to his hand.
Jesus held his hand as if a fan, like as if his hand was a fork for reaping wheat. (Luke 3:18 repeats this unmentioned mystery).

What has this to do with the Eucharist?

First, it sets the scene for the future, a moment such as this, that the significance of my point will be no small thing.

E.) We know that there was a key of some sort which Jesus referred to on occassion.

(Matt 3:11-12) The "fan in his hand"... that is, in the hand of him, "he who holds the seven stars in his right hand"... (Rev 1:16).... has to do with this idea of spiritual bread.
He was by these methods, the Word made flesh, by using the hidden manna. The command of Eucharisr is that we might remember.

By the Eucharist, his blood spilled for this bread, over this bread, the manna God fed in the wilderness to the children of Abraham would be the mystery, Eucharist, to introduce the mysteries of manna and the Word made flesh.

F.) Jesus related the whole concept of manna to real bread, but was using an analogy of a hidden manna he was using everyday.

The point was that this "manna" is a demonstratable "method," a method of verbatim memory of the Word.

This is the analogy I refer you too.

He was marking for our future discovery, that the spiritual aspect was mental in content and divine in meaning.
That he was then, and for us now, the interceder, as was Aaron, the Hebrew High Priest of the Kohanim, in the time of the manna of the days of Moses.

By this analogy he told to those people, he was setting the stage of the future, as he did so with his crucifixion. Marking the significance of his evangelium. Both ideas somewhat repugnant, crucifixion and eating his flesh.

Neither of these actions could be understood at the time because the apostles would remember, and understand only after the consequences of his martrydom lead ultimately to his victory.

G.) Isaiah 28:9

[Jude3b]

The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance" of Christ. It is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but it is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his suffering and death. "For as oft as ye this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden: "....No soul of you shall eat blood, (Lev. 17:12).

[Christy]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?


It's in the Bible. Actually cannabalism is something that the pagans actually accussed the early Christians of doing.

[Jude3b]

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)

[Amazing Rando]

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)

Yes Jude, we're all Christians here in this forum. We know that.

[kofh2u]

The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance: "This do in remembrance" of Christ. It is not actually Christ himself (though it symbolically represents him in his atonement), but it is a commemorative institution by which the sufferings of Christ for our sins are brought vividly before the mind, thus bringing us into closer fellowship with his suffering and death. "For as oft as ye this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" (I Cor. 11:26). In observing it, we do not obtain spiritual life, but we "show the Lord's death."

Jude, you changed the verse... only a little..

"The special design of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper is shown in the words of Christ when commanding its observance:

"This do in remembrance" of Christ.

Your interpretation, the "in rembrance of Christ" ... gives a less personal significance to what Jesus was saying. He was talking to men, eleven "friends" and associates, who had no idea what was going to happen. They had no idea how they would soon be "forgetting" him, denying him, running away from him. He was say, "everytime you eat bread and drjnk wine think of me, "eat this in rememberance of me, Jesus, the guy you are tsking for granted, as we do now, except on Sunday. As we do now EVEN when we eat the bread and take the wine, remembering not Jesus, focusing on ourselves, saved and assured because of the ritual of eurchrist, not the sin of it, his body and his blood spilled and all fled and deserted the Word, made flesh.
True?

Even the KJV seems unable to avoid the proper interpretation:

Rev. 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and
thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are worthy.

THOU HAS GIVEN THEM BLOOD TO DRINK...

[Jude3b]

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life..." (John 6:40)

Though the one verse John 6:53-54 does appear to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of Gof is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing on Jesus Christ, not by cannibalism.

[Jude3b]

Though the one verse John 6:53-54 does appear to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus said:
"... For the bread of Gof is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that BELIEVETH ON ME shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35).
This teaching is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing on Jesus Christ, not by cannibalism.

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (I Cor. 11:23-24).
When Jesus said, "Take eat: this is my body," He was not suggesting that they reach out and begin eating His literal body. To even suggest that Jesus was teaching cannibalism in light of Genesis 9:4 and Lev. 17:12 is outright blasphemy of our Lord. Jesus was speaking spiritually about what He was about to accomplish on the cross. Notice that verse ends: "... this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a cannibalistic reenactment.

[Agent Yoshi]

Child Sacrifice is also prohibited in the Bible. Now coming from a non-christian perspective, by the same logic you are using you should either 1) Reject Christianity or 2) Stop being a biggoted Catholic-hater

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

[Jude3b]

The Bible reveals that those who trust in traditions of menwill be bitterly disappointed on Judgment Day: "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." (Jeremiah 17:5).

I have been accused of hating Catholics because I tell them the truth...!

I do not, I love Roman Catholics. I used to be one myself and I became a Christian. My hearts burden is to see all Roman Catholics saved and set free from the bondages of that cultic religion. Amen.

If you are a Catholic who refuses to come out of Catholicism, you are, at best, a Christian living in disobedience to God, and, at worst, an unsaved person deceived into thinking you are a Christian: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

If you really want to please God, stop believing in Romes Cannibalistic doctrine of the Eucharist and come out of that religion. You must obey God and leave that system that denies His truths. You need not fear leaving the Roman Catholic religion. Jesus Christ will take good care of you.

[Agent Yoshi]

Re-read my previous messages.

[Jude3b]

The Bible reveals that those who trust in traditions of menwill be bitterly disappointed on Judgment Day: "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD." (Jeremiah 17:5).

I have been accused of hating Catholics because I tell them the truth...!

I do not, I love Roman Catholics. I used to be one myself and I became a Christian. My hearts burden is to see all Roman Catholics saved and set free from the bondages of that cultic religion. Amen.

If you are a Catholic who refuses to come out of Catholicism, you are, at best, a Christian living in disobedience to God, and, at worst, an unsaved person deceived into thinking you are a Christian: "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." (Ephesians 5:11)

If you really want to please God, stop believing in Romes Cannibalistic doctrine of the Eucharist and come out of that religion. You must obey God and leave that system that denies His truths. You need not fear leaving the Roman Catholic religion. Jesus Christ will take good care of you.

Fear not to trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation. He is the Way, the truth and the Life. Rome is not!

[Agent Yoshi]

Do you have a reason for constantly quoting yourself and replying to yourself?

[Jude3b]

Fear not to trust in Jesus Christ alone for your salvation. He is the Way, the truth and the Life. Rome is not!

Two factors motivate my love for Roman Catholics and my willingness to share the truth with them: 1) Roman Catholicism is not Biblical. It is a religion comprised of traditions of men which violate scripture. and, 2) I would love for all Roman Catholics to experience the freedom and peace of being free from the bondages of the Roman Catholic church by placing your hope and faith in Jesus Christ alone. Amen.

[Agent Yoshi]

Do you have a reason for constantly quoting yourself and replying to yourself?

[Jude3b]

Two factors motivate my love for Roman Catholics and my willingness to share the truth with them: 1) Roman Catholicism is not Biblical. It is a religion comprised of traditions of men which violate scripture. and, 2) I would love for all Roman Catholics to experience the freedom and peace of being free from the bondages of the Roman Catholic church by placing your hope and faith in Jesus Christ alone. Amen.

You can search the Scriptures from beginning to end, but you will not find the Eucharist or Cannibalism helping anyone.

Jesus did all the work already. People enter heaven solely because of the good work Jesus Christ did on the cross. Salvation is a gift from God, not an item earned by our following some religion's concept of sacramentalism.

[Agent Yoshi]

Do you have a reason for constantly quoting yourself and replying to yourself?

[Agent Yoshi]

That will make it the 5th time I have asked you the above question. Do you feel the need to put in the last word on everything or something?

[Jezz]

Do you have a reason for constantly quoting yourself and replying to yourself?
Yes. His reason is that he is incapable of replying to anyone else. :shrug:

[Tickle Me Goody]

I am a former Roman Catholic that became a Christian.
I also am a Christian who once was a Roman Catholic. I also know a number of Roman Catholics who are Christians*. Do you somehow find these to be incompatible?


GG

* I also know some Catholics who are not Christians and some "Christians" who are not also.

[Jude3b]

I also am a Christian who once was a Roman Catholic. I also know a number of Roman Catholics who are Christians*. Do you somehow find these to be incompatible?


GG

* I also know some Catholics who are not Christians and some "Christians" who are not also.

Yes, I do find it incompatible for true Christians to remain apart of Roman Catholicism! First off, Romanism has another Gospel and a system of religious works. Romanism's plan of salvation - is based on sacramentalism. One who remains in Romanism after becoming a truly saved by Grace, Bible believing Christian - stays there due to ignorance or disobedience.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Yes, I do find it incompatible for true Christians to remain apart of Roman Catholicism! First off, Romanism has another Gospel
I find the Roman Catholic Bible at:

http://www.catholic.org/clife/bible/


Offhand I do not see a difference in the 4 Gospels. Could you point the difference out to me?

Thanks

GG

[kofh2u]

Jude, you are partly right:
"Yes, I do find it incompatible for true Christians to remain apart of Roman Catholicism!"

Church attendence in Europe is down to 20%.

The current events of a revealed sexual magnet in this church for abusive priests is not indictive of a sudden and new modern tendency. The church has been sexual abusive for and throughout most ages, but the Reformatin has helped.

Nevertheless, there are many out of the @ one billion Catholics who have not defiled the tenets of Christianity.

Rev. 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis (the sociological religious community in the time of The Reformed Catholic Church) write; These things saith he that he that hath the seven Spirits of God, (the seven Freudian Archetypes) and the seven stars (Id, Libido, Ego, Anima, Self, Superego, and Harmony); I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest (a long established Church), and art dead (in sacramental doctrines lost in ancient dogma).


Rev. 3:4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis (the time of The Reformed Catholic Church) which have not defiled their garments (with homosexulities and pedaphilia); and they shall walk with me in white (pages of scripture written anew): for they are worthy (in their reformations).

[Jude3b]

I find the Roman Catholic Bible at:

http://www.catholic.org/clife/bible/


Offhand I do not see a difference in the 4 Gospels. Could you point the difference out to me?

Thanks

GG

[Jude3b]

Romanism has a sacramentalism metod of salvation. That is Another Gospel and not what the Bible indicates is the Gospel.

[Tickle Me Goody]

Romanism has a sacramentalism metod of salvation. That is Another Gospel and not what the Bible indicates is the Gospel.
Can you comment on Protestant sacrements (eg Lutheran)?

GG

[Jude3b]

Can you comment on Protestant sacrements (eg Lutheran)?

GG

I am not a Lutheran or a Protestant and therefore do not want to comment out of ignorance on a particular denominations practice. I was a Roman Catholic, so I understand the Sacramentalism that exists in that denomination.

Concerning all denomination however, I will state that sacraments do not save or add to salvation. Only Christ is the savior.

We are told that we must be "born again," for without this experience we are not Christians at all and "can not see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3)

[Tickle Me Goody]

I am not a Lutheran or a Protestant and therefore do not want to comment out of ignorance on a particular denominations practice. I was a Roman Catholic, so I understand the Sacramentalism that exists in that denomination.


That is very interesting. I too was a Roman Catholic and yet I missed all that. I went to the official Catholic web site and discovered the truth of what you say.

http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php

Of course, the interesting thing about the RCC is that many of the belivers do and say whatever they want to anyhow -- e.g. J F Kerry.

goody

[Jude3b]

That is very interesting. I too was a Roman Catholic and yet I missed all that. I went to the official Catholic web site and discovered the truth of what you say.

http://www.catholic.org/clife/prayers/sacrament.php

Of course, the interesting thing about the RCC is that many of the belivers do and say whatever they want to anyhow -- e.g. J F Kerry.

goody

Roman Catholicism states that "7 sacraments are necessary" for salvation.

That is "another gospel" - a "false gospel" - JESUS CHRIST is the Way, the Truth and the Life. JESUS CHRIST alone is the door!

If we could be saved by 7 sacraments or by being a Roman Catholic, we would not need a savior!

[Agent Yoshi]

I am not a Lutheran or a Protestant and therefore do not want to comment out of ignorance on a particular denominations practice. I was a Roman Catholic, so I understand the Sacramentalism that exists in that denomination.

By the common definition, you are.

By the strict definition, one who protests against the RCC, you are.

Therefore, you are a Protestant.

[Benedict]

I was a Roman Catholic, so I understand the Sacramentalism that exists in that denomination.

No, you don't.

[Jude3b]

Roman Catholicism states that "7 sacraments are necessary" for salvation.

That is "another gospel" - a "false gospel" - JESUS CHRIST is the Way, the Truth and the Life. JESUS CHRIST alone is the door!

If we could be saved by 7 sacraments or by being a Roman Catholic, we would not need a savior!

I forgot to add for those who are trusting their religions for a hope so salvation that: Jesus Christ said "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (John 3:3)

To be born again, my dear Roman Catholic friends, you must receive Jesus Christ by faith as your personal Savior and trust Him alone for your salvation. When you do this, you will be born into God's family, the bod of Christ - the church of God (see Acts 2:47): "But as many as received him, to them gave he powerr to become the sons of God, even to them tha believe on his name:" (John 1:12).

If you do that, you can claim this promise: "And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." (I John 2:25)

Say good by Rome, come unto the Master, Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. He is the only one who can save you!

[Kath]

If I may just add, when Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, the Consecration of the mass is initiated by the Invocation of the Spirit. Being a Trinitarian faith, when the Spirit of God enters the accidents of the sacrafice, we believe that God is truly present in the Eucharist and in partaking of it, we are receiving the living Spirit of God into our hearts and souls.

I know it's possible to assert that Matthew 26:29; "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine" contradicts the possibility of receiving Chrsit's blood, but Luke, who is often more chronologically exact, places these words before Jesus' words "This is my body...This is my blood". (22:18)

I know it's a bit outdated, but I've only just joined and I dont think any one has stated this. Thanks.

[WebToaster]

Hey Jude,

(Very) Early Christians were often persecuted in Rome as cannibals because of their belief in drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. Of course, I doubt you'll have the honesty to explore this subject, but just in case, do a quick search on "christian persecution cannibalism" and see that the imperial Romans had similar beliefs to yours.

[kofh2u]

If I may just add, when Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, the Consecration of the mass is initiated by the Invocation of the Spirit. Being a Trinitarian faith, when the Spirit of God enters the accidents of the sacrafice, we believe that God is truly present in the Eucharist and in partaking of it, we are receiving the living Spirit of God into our hearts and souls.

I know it's possible to assert that Matthew 26:29; "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine" contradicts the possibility of receiving Chrsit's blood, but Luke, who is often more chronologically exact, places these words before Jesus' words "This is my body...This is my blood". (22:18)

I know it's a bit outdated, but I've only just joined and I dont think any one has stated this. Thanks.


That Jesus said he would not drink from the cup again until he returns was avreference, as you know I am sure, to the ritual of Passover, where five wines glass are set in the Kiddush service but only four used, ine always awaiting tge knock on the door by the messiah.

The whole dinner was a Passover meal so that it is hardly strange to see Jesus sipping from the fifth glass and markedly noting that he would do so again, on his second coming to dinner.

I also have long held that when Jesus said, "Drink this in remembering me," he wasn't implying a buddy-buddy relationship on the exact same night when they would all expressedly forget him, desert him, disavowel him, and flee from him.

It is my suspicion that he meant, the blood of Christ is on our hands and the hands of our children, all continuously guilty of the same sins he need sacrifice himself inmour place then, and still.

Rev. 16:6 For they have shed the blood of the saints, and the prophets, and thou hast given them blood (of The Eucharist) to drink; for they are worthy (of the guilt).

[Jude3b]

Hey Jude,

(Very) Early Christians were often persecuted in Rome as cannibals because of their belief in drinking the blood and eating the body of Christ. Of course, I doubt you'll have the honesty to explore this subject, but just in case, do a quick search on "christian persecution cannibalism" and see that the imperial Romans had similar beliefs to yours.

I do not find a single verse of scripture in the Holy Bible to indicate that Early Christians were persecuted in Rome as cannibals. What verse is that?

[Agent Yoshi]

The Holocaust isn't recorded in the Bible, either.

Of course, you could have simply taken his suggestion and did a search on "christian persecution cannibalism", and you'd have plenty of results on the first page.

[Jude3b]

If I may just add, when Catholics celebrate the Eucharist, the Consecration of the mass is initiated by the Invocation of the Spirit. Being a Trinitarian faith, when the Spirit of God enters the accidents of the sacrafice, we believe that God is truly present in the Eucharist and in partaking of it, we are receiving the living Spirit of God into our hearts and souls.

I know it's possible to assert that Matthew 26:29; "I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine" contradicts the possibility of receiving Chrsit's blood, but Luke, who is often more chronologically exact, places these words before Jesus' words "This is my body...This is my blood". (22:18)

I know it's a bit outdated, but I've only just joined and I dont think any one has stated this. Thanks.

Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body. The Lord Himself clarified this: "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life... (John 6:40)

[WebToaster]

I do not find a single verse of scripture in the Holy Bible to indicate that Early Christians were persecuted in Rome as cannibals. What verse is that?
Look for the writings of Minicius Felix, a 2nd century Roman.

[Jude3b]

The Scirptures that my beliefs are based on are called the Holy Bible.

"And he (jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you; THIS DO IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (Luke 22:19)

Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, not a reenactment and certainly not an excuse for Cannibalism.

[BibleMan]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?



Religion does that to people. It is the "opiate of the masses!"

[Joe Gofish]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

i SEE THAT jUDE HAS BEEN BACK AT cARM AND GOT MORE jACK cHICK BOOKS.

[Joe Gofish]

Does anyone know why Romanism encourages Cannibalism?

Roman Catholicism teaches that during their mass, priests allegedly have the power to supernaturally turn bread and wine into the actual and literal body and blood of Jesus Christ! Romanism teaches its members to partake in literal cannibalism!

Nowhere in the Bible does God endorse cannibalism. In fact God forbids the practice (Gen. 9:4 and Lev. 17:12).

God would never command His children to do something He had already forbidden. Why does Romanism encourage this?

Jude, You are one very confused person,in one of your many anti-catholics post you said <It was just grape juice and bread and now its CANNIBALISM.
Do you even know what you are talking about,How can bread and wine be cannibalism,can you please TRY to explain yourself you must be off your meds,again

[Joe Gofish]

[QUOTE=romepunk]If eating His flesh and drinking His blood, when taken literally, is cannabalism. And if cannabalism, under these circumstances, is a sin. Why would our perfect Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ use such a horrid and perverse practice, a hideous disgusting sin, as a metaphor for the his wondrous and beautiful salvific action.

Eating and drinking is used figuratively of partaking of the benefits of the death of Christ. We partake by faith and enjoy the benefits because God gives them on the basis of what Christ did for us. Eating is used figuratively of partaking of spiritual food (I Cor. 10:1-3); of other benefits received (Ps. 69:9; Ezek 2:3; 3:1-3; Rev. 10:9); and even of the evil results of sin (Pr. 9:17; Hos. 10:13; Jas. 5:3).

Unlike pope Innocent III who proclaimed the false doctrine of transubstantiation in the year 1215 A.D., no figure of speech was more common to Jews at the time that Christ was being crucified, so there was no excuse for them to misunderstand His words.

Unlike Roman Catholics of the modern era, the Apostolic Christians in the church of God - the body of Christ - understood what Jesus was teaching. By comparing John 6:47-48 with 53-54 we see that believing on Christ is the same as eating and drinking Him.

I'll repeat: Though your verse John 6:53-54 does seem to teach cannibalism, if you read the entire passage in context, the meaning becomes clear. Right before making that statement, Jesus also said:
"... For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunder; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:33-35). This teaching of Jesus is consistent with the rest of Scripture. Eternal life comes through believing in Jesus Christ, not eating His body.

Jude you are reading the wrong verse the verse that is talking about you is John 6:66 try reading it again