Im sorry if i've misunderstood you, but you appeared to me to be saying that the sacraments are miraculously changed into Jesus actual body and blood every time you partake of them. This is what i'm objecting to. I certainly believe, like you, that the sacraments are taken to commemorate christs one and only sacrifice that he gave of himself, but the idea that they are also his literal body and blood I do not.
You are saying here that the sacraments do become his literal body and blood, yes?
Hello Pegg,
Catholics believe that the Holy Eucharist is both a sacrament and a "sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving" as well as a "sacrifice of propitiation and petition." A sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a sacrifice of propitation and petition, however, does not mean that Christ sacrifice Himself over and over in the Mass. It is not the sacrament that is changed. The sacrament is still a sacrament. It is the bread and wine that has changed.
Yes, we do believe that the bread and wine miraculously changed into the body and blood of Christ. Yes, this is indeed the part that you disagree and object to. We believe that the bread and wine changed into the body and blood of Christ because we believe that in Scripture Christ meant it literally when He said, "Take, for this is my body and drink for this is my blood." We do not view His words in the Gospel of John symbolically because as I pointed out earlier, many of Jesus' disciples abandoned Him after He spoke those words. His disciples took His words literally as indicated by Scripture.
John 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying:
How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
So, bascially, these are our reasons as to why we took Christ's words literally. I'm sure you have your own reasons why you took His words symbollicaly. Perhaps, it is because like His disciples who left Him, you found it difficult to believe and even unthinkable of Christ saying it literally? Thus, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
But thats quite a questionable debate isnt it, basically any church father can claim to hold an oral tradition....but nothing can be proved that the oral tradition actually came from any of the Apostles or Jesus Christ. This is why we should stick to what God has provided us with in the written word. It cannot be changed. It has been preserved for us so that we can know everything we need to know.
You realise that the Jews also had and 'oral' tradition, im sure. And im sure you know what he said about those oral traditions in passages such as
Mr 7:3 Mt 15:9 Mt 15:1,
2,
7-11;
Mr 7:4-8
Rather then oral traditions that did not have Gods stamp of approval, we should only be looking at what is written because that is what God has provided us with as Paul shows
Ro 15:4;
2Ti 3:15-17
Yes, I am aware that the Jews also have an oral tradition. However, their oral traditions has nothing to do with the Sciptures that you posted. According to our Catholic Bible
(Sirach 17:9), "Moreover he gave them instructions, and the law of life for an inheritance." This is a biblical Scripture that you can find ONLY in a Catholic Bible. I understand that because you don't have this scripture in your Bible, you may view this as irrelevant and uninspired. But because it is in a Catholic Bible, then perhaps you can see why I as a Catholic understand about the Jewish Talmud.
Nevertheless, according to this Scripture, God gave the Jewish people oral instructions. The word "Talmud" in Hebrew means "instructions." Their oral instructions came from God, not from the traditions of men, and this is what is written in their Talmud. The Jewish oral traditions are now written in the Jewish Talmud, which conist of the Mishnah,( the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law); and the Gemara (a discussion of the Mishnah and Tannaitic writings).
As you know, the first Christians were also Jews, so it should not be surprising to learn that these first Jewish Christians passed on something "Jewish" to the Gentile converts. We Catholics still retain many of that Jewish heritage that has been passed down from the Apostles who were Jewish. Like the Jewish people, our oral teachings were written in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.
And the word "Catechism" is Latin meaning "oral teachings." Do you see the similarities? In Judaism, the Jewish Talmud (which mean "instructions") are the oral traditions of the Jews and it is in our Scripture that God gave them these instructions to keep. In the same way, the Catechisms (which means "oral teachings") are the oral teachings that St. Paul speaks about in Scripture. St. Paul never said to get rid of the oral teachings. He did say to hold on to those oral teachings.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brothers, stand firm and
hold to the traditions that you were taught by us,
either by our spoken word or by our letter.
Sacred Scripture instructs us to hold on to the traditions that were taught to us through the spoken word, and
this already had God's stamp of approval because it is written down in Scripture. Therefore, we cannot simply just get rid of these oral teachings. Our sacred tradition is already written in our Catechism and Cannon Law. Catechism is the latin word meaning "oral teaching." We are following exactly what is written in Scripture by the Apostle Paul. We have both....the oral teachings (Sacred Apostolic Tradition) and Sacred Scripture (the Bible).
By the way, I am taking a class this summer and may not be able to get online. So, if I don't answer right away, it is because I am busy with class. God bless you, my sister.
In Christ,
Selene