Blessed Corpus Christi Sunday to You All

[onel0126]

As I sat at Mass last night listening to the homily--I was reminded how lucky I am. On this great solemnity, Catholics have received a true gift--the Eucharist.

My thoughts quickly turned then to the ridiculousness of some Protestants that they accept as literal EVERYTHING in scripture except John 6. I know why, but for those of who adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture (based of course on your denomination's or or pastor's or your Bible's commentary) please in YOUR OWN WORDS explain to me why that literal interpretation ends with John 6. No cut and paste or links. Thanks!

 

[b23hqb]

You are truly obsessed and insane against protestants, little onel. Which do you mean - do non catholics accept everything except John 6, or do they believe everything up to John 5, and nothing after? Either way, you would be wrong on both for the vast majority, if you can show me which groups fall into your categories.

 

[Bann]

What I think is hypocritical is how one person will think that THEIR version of religion, THEIR way, THEIR interpretation of it all: the Bible, religious doctrine, etc., etc., etc. is the ONLY way and if someone else doesn't toe whatever ridiculous lines/parameters THEY decide are the CORRECT , then a pox on anyone who doesn't agree.

Crazy.

 

[Gilligan]

My thoughts quickly turned then to the ridiculousness of some Protestants

That might explain the recent surge in membership applications for us Druids.

 

[b23hqb]

That might explain the recent surge in membership applications for us Druids.

 

[stgislander]

Can't help you. We don't believe in the literal interpretation.

 

[onel0126]

You are truly obsessed and insane against protestants, little onel. Which do you mean - do non catholics accept everything except John 6, or do they believe everything up to John 5, and nothing after? Either way, you would be wrong on both for the vast majority, if you can show me which groups fall into your categories.

I can't hear you. Still waiting for you to be a man and post your church's website.

 

[b23hqb]

Gave it to you over a year ago. You assured me you would get back to me. You were enamoured with our communion/ breaking of bread. Do a little research to find it. Never the less, you and your cathalocholism is getting to you.

Now answer my question: what and who are you rambling on about concerning Johm 6, before or after?

 

[onel0126]

Gave it to you over a year ago. You assured me you would get back to me. You were enamoured with our communion/ breaking of bread. Do a little research to find it. Never the less, you and your cathalocholism is getting to you. Now answer my question: what and who are you rambling on about concerning Johm 6, before or after?

Specifically why have you chosen not to take our Lords words literally as He has clearly told us to do in John 6:53-56?

Once you explain why you reject this as literal in your words, answer these:

Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a giant fish and was spat out?

Which creation story in genesis have you chosen to "go with" since there's more than 1?

 

[hotcoffee]

I remember that argument from some time ago onel0126. If I recall correctly you are talking about the conversation Jesus had with his disciples after feeding the 5000.

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.​

I don't remember how you said the RCC explains this. What does the Catholic church teach concerning "have received a true gift--the Eucharist"?

I'm not being snarky here. I'm asking a real question so that I can understand your question about how I interpret the verses.

TIA

 

[b23hqb]

Specifically why have you chosen not to take our Lords words literally as He has clearly told us to do in John 6:53-56?

Once you explain why you reject this as literal in your words, answer these:

Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a giant fish and was spat out?

Which creation story in genesis have you chosen to "go with" since there's more than 1?

Every jot and tittle of the 66 books of the Bible. Now tell me why I don't believe whatever you say I don't believe. You seem to have the answers. in your own mind, at least.

The difference between us is that I do not add anything to the Bible as you do.

 

[onel0126]

Every jot and tittle of the 66 books of the Bible. Now tell me why I don't believe whatever you say I don't believe. You seem to have the answers. in your own mind, at least. The difference between us is that I do not add anything to the Bible as you do.

You dodged my questions again

 

[onel0126]

55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. I don't remember how you said the RCC explains this. What does the Catholic church teach concerning "have received a true gift--the Eucharist"? I'm not being snarky here. I'm asking a real question so that I can understand your question about how I interpret the verses. TIA

I'm talking about transubstantiation.

 

[b23hqb]

You dodged my questions again

There's nothing to dodge from you. HC was right - we've been over this several times. You believe you are taking some kind of magical blood and flesh that looks, feels, and tastes like your wafers and wine, but through the hands of those that place it on your lips it is turned into the actual blood and flesh of Christ.

More power to ya, cannibal wannabe.

 

[Bird Dog]

There's nothing to dodge from you. HC was right - we've been over this several times. You believe you are taking some kind of magical blood and flesh that looks, feels, and tastes like your wafers and wine, but through the hands of those that place it on your lips it is turned into the actual blood and flesh of Christ.

More power to ya, cannibal wannabe.

We have heard that insult also, from you "Born again" #######s

John 6 doesn't mention cannibalism.

Oh, that's right. If St. Paul didn't say, its not "Biblical"

 

[b23hqb]

We have heard that insult also, from you "Born again" #######s

John 6 doesn't mention cannibalism.

Oh, that's right. If St. Paul didn't say, its not "Biblical"

Take that as a joke, BD, OK? Of course you're not cannibals, but that is the impression that people who do not understand the words "figurative" or "symbolic" take away from it. Besides, there are other good reasons why we don't believe in your transubstantiation, which is simply not biblical or supported anywhere in the scriptures.

Short reasons (not in depth)

- The Lords Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ. I believe that during your mass is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice depending on the mass. That violates Heb 10:10-14 which states Christ died ONCE for all, not over and over again.
- It violates the incarnation of Christ as the human part of the Three in One. A human can only be in one place at one time, not all over the world being sacrificed at the same time. You are denying that Jesus is totally and completely a man.
- Those words were spiritual words. Jesus also called himself the door, the true vine, the bread of life - was he physically any of those? John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
-Would not the disciples present at the Last Supper have noticed that the bread and wine had changed into flesh and blood, and mentioned nothing in any other scripture of that miracle? Very doubtful.
- The elements were referred to by Jesus as bread and wine (Matt 26:26-29) Jesus called his blood wine when He stated "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine". Why would He call his blood wine if it was actually blood? And of course your St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:23-28.
- The disciples did not worship the elements as do catholics during their mass (latria). There is no biblical reference to such adoration.
-Jesus was alive when he instituted the Lord's Supper - He had not yet been crucified. How could the bread and wine used in the event be transubstantiated into actual sacrificed flesh and blood from someone who had not been sacrificed?

As usual, we will continue to agree to disagree on most points of theology.

onel is always trying to pick a fight.

 

[Dondi]

As I sat at Mass last night listening to the homily--I was reminded how lucky I am. On this great solemnity, Catholics have received a true gift--the Eucharist.

My thoughts quickly turned then to the ridiculousness of some Protestants that they accept as literal EVERYTHING in scripture except John 6. I know why, but for those of who adhere to a literal interpretation of scripture (based of course on your denomination's or or pastor's or your Bible's commentary) please in YOUR OWN WORDS explain to me why that literal interpretation ends with John 6. No cut and paste or links. Thanks!

I already expressed my views on John 6 in this thread. Why do you keep bringing this up?

http://forums.somd.com/threads/298248-Christ-s-Real-Presence-in-the-Eucharist

 

[b23hqb]

I already expressed my views on John 6 in this thread. Why do you keep bringing this up?

http://forums.somd.com/threads/298248-Christ-s-Real-Presence-in-the-Eucharist

Thank you. Hopefully, onel will read your post. Over and over again........

 

[hotcoffee]

I'm talking about transubstantiation.

I don't understand the term "transubstantiation".

I've never heard the term before, as a matter of fact.

Would you please explain?

TIA

 

[b23hqb]

I don't understand the term "transubstantiation".

I've never heard the term before, as a matter of fact.

Would you please explain?

TIA

Quick layman version: The catholic belief that the emblems/sacraments of the bread and wine are miraculously changed to the actual flesh and blood of Christ during the mass ceremony, and although the parishioners that partake are taking the wafer and wine from the priest, that looks, tastes, and feels like wafers and wine, they believe they are actually partaking in the actual flesh and blood of Christ.

Go figure.

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6] in Latin) remains unchanged.

Magic.