Why do Catholics…

[amigo de christo]

Lol....when does @amigo de christo EVER answer a question?

I used to always answer questions , but every member of the CC never listens . SO why debate those who refuse to hear .
Its like a lamb that purposefully rams its head into a brick wall over and over again expecting a different result .
All i can do is warn ,i cannot make anyone believe the truth . And many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible . Ps ,i cant wave a wand a change a man and its pointless
to continue to answer the same ones over and over again , when they refuse to listen .

 

[quietthinker]

I used to always answer questions , but every member of the CC never listens . SO why debate those who refuse to hear .
Its like a lamb that purposefully rams its head into a brick wall over and over again expecting a different result .
All i can do is warn ,i cannot make anyone believe the truth . And many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible . Ps ,i cant wave a wand a change a man and its pointless
to continue to answer the same ones over and over again , when they refuse to listen .

is it any wonder God is silent?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Lol....when does @amigo de christo EVER answer a question?

Tru dat . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

How can the eucharist actually be the body and blood of Christ? All one has to do is read the account of the Passover dinner that Jesus and His disciples had together.

The actual living person of Jesus Christ was reclining at a table and offered those who were there with Him bread and wine, saying that they should eat and drink: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

Think about it! Jesus is alive at the table, handing them bread and wine. How can it be anything but symbolic? Obviously it is not His body and blood; He is there in the flesh talking to them, telling them how to symbolically remember Him when He is no longer with them.

It is literally insane to think that eating bread and drinking wine is actually consuming the body and blood of Jesus Christ!

Really??
You can believe that Gos SPOKE the entire universe into existence - but you CAN'T believe that He can give us His flesh to eat while He is sitting there?? O, Ye of little faith . . .

It is possible because Jesus is GOD.

Matt. 19:26
“With man this is impossible, but with God ALL things are possible.”

 

[Berserk]

I used to always answer questions , but every member of the CC never listens . SO why debate those who refuse to hear .
Its like a lamb that purposefully rams its head into a brick wall over and over again expecting a different result .
All i can do is warn ,i cannot make anyone believe the truth . And many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible . Ps ,i cant wave a wand a change a man and its pointless
to continue to answer the same ones over and over again , when they refuse to listen .

As an evangelical, I deplore your evasive reply that masks your inferior knowledge of Scripture compared to Catholic apologists here. Catholics repeatedly challenge you to get into the Word and you act like you're ashamed of the Word. If you were sincere, you'd realize that most of the audience is the anonymous "Guest" category and you would write to help them if you were grounded in the Word.

I have my own disagreements with the Catholic apologists here and would express them if our evangelicals demonstrated an openness to honest and detailed engagement with the relevant biblical texts. But alas, instead they almost always stoop to insults and fundamentalist talking points that pander to their base with no effort season their penchant for bluster with a modicum of rigorous biblical exegesis. Any effort to critique an alternative spiritual tradition must focus on its best and most articulate exemplars. But our fundamentalists illustrate the essence of bigotry by critiquing Catholicism on the basis of its presumed weakest exemplars throughout history. Baptists here would scream foul play if their churches were judged on the basis of the infamous odious Westside Baptist Church's pronouncements and actions!

 

[Dropship]

Luckily we non-Catholics can feel secure nowadays and not expect the Inquisition to pay us a visit..
Oh wait..

 

[Berserk]

Luckily we non-Catholics can feel secure nowadays and not expect the Inquisition to pay us a visit..
Oh wait..

Luckily we Americans can enjoy our freedom today without expecting you evil British colonialists "to pay us a visit!"

 

[Marymog]

I used to always answer questions , but every member of the CC never listens . SO why debate those who refuse to hear .
Its like a lamb that purposefully rams its head into a brick wall over and over again expecting a different result .
All i can do is warn ,i cannot make anyone believe the truth . And many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible . Ps ,i cant wave a wand a change a man and its pointless
to continue to answer the same ones over and over again , when they refuse to listen .

I feel your pain my Protestant brother....I feel your pain.

You can't make anyone believe WHO's truth? Your truth? Your truth is not The Truth. Why would I believe your written interpretations of Scripture when I have the Apostolic Fathers written interpretations of Scripture to read? When your interpretation is opposite of their interpretation; should I believe them OR you?

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[RedFan]

How can the eucharist actually be the body and blood of Christ? All one has to do is read the account of the Passover dinner that Jesus and His disciples had together.

The actual living person of Jesus Christ was reclining at a table and offered those who were there with Him bread and wine, saying that they should eat and drink: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take, eat, this is my body.” And after taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

Think about it! Jesus is alive at the table, handing them bread and wine. How can it be anything but symbolic? Obviously it is not His body and blood; He is there in the flesh talking to them, telling them how to symbolically remember Him when He is no longer with them.

It is literally insane to think that eating bread and drinking wine is actually consuming the body and blood of Jesus Christ!

Respectfully, I don't see it as insane at all.

Let me first distance myself from BreadOfLife's with-God-all-things-are-possible defense in #824, which could as easily be used to justify an insane belief in flying unicorns on Mars. Nobody doubts that it's possible for the eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Christ. But that wasn't your point in referencing Matthew 26:26-28. Unlike BreadOfLife -- whose convictions on this issue I share -- I will try to actually address your argument.

At the Last Supper Jesus was foreshadowing the significance of the eucharistic meal. Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24 and Luke 22:14-23 all quote Jesus as saying that his blood "is being poured out" (ἐκχυννόμενον), which suggests an ongoing rather than an instantaneous reality. As a description of a present equivalence between bread and flesh or between wine and blood, the symbolism you see naturally comes to the forefront -- but in context as a description of the institution of a ritual for commanded future action, it takes on the same equivalence as in John 6:54-56.

I'm not Roman Catholic, but I do consider the eucharist to be the actual body and blood of Jesus in accordance with the traditions of the early Church -- including Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnians ch. 7 (“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. . .”); Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 66 (“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, ch. 18 § 5 (“Then, again, how can they say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption and does not partake of life? . . . For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of resurrection to eternity”); Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 2 § 3 (“When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?”). Were they all "insane" to think this way?

I respect your belief that the eucharistic meal is symbolic only. And you may well be correct (although I don't think so). But drawing a conclusion of insanity as the explanation for those who believe differently is unwarranted.

 

[Marymog]

Luckily we non-Catholics can feel secure nowadays and not expect the Inquisition to pay us a visit..
Oh wait..

Ummmm......An Inquisition is a process by church leaders that takes place to determine if a member of the church is teaching heresy. Do the leaders of your church not care if a member of your congregation is teaching heresy?

Curious Mary

 

[Jim B]

I used to always answer questions , but every member of the CC never listens . SO why debate those who refuse to hear .
Its like a lamb that purposefully rams its head into a brick wall over and over again expecting a different result .
All i can do is warn ,i cannot make anyone believe the truth . And many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible . Ps ,i cant wave a wand a change a man and its pointless
to continue to answer the same ones over and over again , when they refuse to listen .

Again, what qualifies you to make the statement that "many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible"?

Have you actually polled most people are are you just condemning the body of Christ without evidence?

 

[Illuminator]

 

[amigo de christo]

Again, what qualifies you to make the statement that "many and not just catholics have heardened their hearts
to the simplicity found in Christ and in that bible"?

Have you actually polled most people are are you just condemning the body of Christ without evidence?

Sadly and i do say this with sadness i have plenty of evidence . As i myself have not only witnessed mainstream moves
on tv , but also in person at churches . Its just sucking all into its all inclusive unity tank of deceptoin now .
But as i said earlier GOD does have a true remnant and they wont be partakers of such a table that has compromised truth for unity
Compromised truth for feelings . Its just not looking good within the realm of christanity . BUT so long as we exhort with truth
so long as we point to the biblcal Christ , there stands a good chance of some repenting and souls also hearing the truth
and coming to the true Christ and not the christ many have invented .

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The difference is that the Seder IS symbolic of something past.
The Angel of Death isn’t lurking about the Egyptian countryside, slaying all of the firstborn children. The unleavened bread SYMBOLZED the haste in which the Israelites fled Egypt. Bitter herbs SYNBOLIZED the bitterness of their bondage and so on.

Jesus is the fulfilment of the passover lamb and you do not argue agains t that.

Jesus also memoralized this symbol by saying as often as you do it- remember me.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The normal Greek word for the was a human eats is “Phago” – but this is NOT the word used in John’s Gospel. He uses the word “Trogo”, which is the way an animal gnaws and rips apart his food. He was making a point that Jesus MEANT what He said.

Then why did Romanism teach for centuries to not bite the eucharist? I was Catholic and the sisters told us not to! I was an altar boy and the priests also told us not to.

But He also uses phago as well, trogo is a much more physical consumption.

But You and I will never agree on this. I was a staunch Catholic who held to transubstantiation. but I heard better biblical arguments for this to not be and believe they are correct.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus took the forth cup in the Upper Room. The Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Crucifixion is one and the same sacrifice. When you see that it's because God revealed it to you. It's a supernatural grace available to anyone who is humble enough to respond to it.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 – Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” – that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 – they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Yes there is evidence.

Mt. 25:
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

29 But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

From a messianic web site:

Interestingly, and a wonder to meditate upon, the Mishnah has an interesting note about not drinking additional wine between the third and four cups.

They mix a third cup; he blesses his meal. [The] fourth [cup] is concluded with Hallel, which he says with the [concluding] blessing. Between these cups, if he wishes to drink, he may drink. Between the third and the fourth [cups], he may not drink. – Pesachim 10:7


30 And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.

4. “Kos Revii” – The Fourth Cup

This cup is drunk after the concluding portion of Hallel is recited. According to Jewish Tradition, this portion is focused on the future, and asks G-d to redeem Israel and humanity-at-large, and usher in the period spoken of by the Prophets, in which “Nishmat kol chai tevarech et shimecha, Hashem” “The soul of every living thing will bless Your Name, O G-d.”

At that time, all of humanity will come to the realization that “lecha tov l’hodot, u’leshimecha naeh lezamer,” “to you it is good to give thanks, and to Your Name it is fitting to sing,” because truly, Hashem is the “Melech Kel, Chai HaOlamim,” “Almighty King, Life of the Universe.”

Blessings are recited before and after the drinking of the Cup, and the Seder is thereby concluded.

The great Hallel is started at teh third cup and concluded after teh fourth cup! That is why they sang and left.

Teh full passover was commanded by god, so Jesus would not have left the fourth cup (cup of redemption or restoration).

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 – the translation of Jesus’ words of consecration is “touto poieite tan eman anamnasin.” Jesus literally said “offer this as my memorial sacrifice.” The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

STRONGS G364:
ἀνάμνησις, -εως, ἡ, (ἀναμιμνήσκω), a remembering, recollection: εἰς τ. ἐμήν ἀνάμνησιν to call me (affectionately) to remembrance, Luke 22:19 [WH reject the passage]; 1 Corinthians 11:24f, ἐν αὐταῖς (namely, θυσίαις) ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν in offering sacrifices there is a remembrance of sins, i. e. the memory of sins committed is revived by the sacrifices, Hebrews 10:3. In Greek writings from Plato down.
[Synonyms: ἀνάμνησις ὑπόμνησις: The distinction between these words as stated by Ammonius et al. — namely, that ἀνάμν. denotes an unassisted recalling, ὑπόμν. a remembrance prompted by another, — seems to be not wholly without warrant; note the force of ὑπό (cf. our 'sug-gest'). But even in classic Greek the words are easily interchangeable. Schmidt ch. 14; Trench § cvii. 6, cf. p. 61 note; Ellicot or Holtzman on 2 Timothy 1:5.]
THAYER’S GREEK LEXICON, Electronic Database.
Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc.

and as the Word of God teaches- it is a reminder that Jesus death was the once for all time sacrifice for sin.

Num. 10:10 – in this verse, “remembrance” refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus’ command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Nope just a reminder.

STRONGS H2146:Abbreviations
† זִכָּרוֺן, זִכָּרֹן noun masculineEcclesiastes 1:11 memorial, remembrance (compare LgBN 199, 200) — absolute זִכָּרוֺן Joshua 4:7 +; זִכָּרֹן Exodus 28:12 (twice in verse); Exodus 28:29; construct זִכְרוֺן Ecclesiastes 1:11 + 2 times; suffix זִכְרוֺנֵךְ Isaiah 57:8; plural הַזִּכְרֹנוֺת Esther 6:1; suffix זִכְרֹנֵיכֶם Job 13:12; —
1. memorial, reminder: **זִכְרֹנֵיכֶם מִשְׁלֵיֿ אֵפֶר Job 13:12 your memorial words are ashen sayings (i.e. worthless), compare Bu Du; Margolis (privately) suggests that seems to have read יִמָּשֵׁל לְאֵפֶר [? < רָנְּכֶם] רָנְיְכֶם your exultation shall be like ashes.
a. memorial-day Exodus 12:14 (P).
b. memorial-usage Exodus 13:9 (JE).
c. memorial-objects, altar-plates Numbers 17:5 (P); stones in Jordan Joshua 4:7 (JE); crowns in temple Zechariah 6:14; ז׳ in Isaiah 57:8 is symbol of strange god (Di), or perhaps phallus-image, as sign of harlot (Che), compare > Du (who proposes זְכָרוֺן, from זָכָר).
d. memorial-record; in a book Exodus 17:14 (E); compare סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֺן Malachi 3:16, הַזִּכְרֹנות דברי הימים ס׳ Esther 6:1; memorial, as proof of citizenship Nehemiah 2:20 (|| חֵלֶק, צְדָקָה); reminder of Israel, לִפְנֵי י׳, of כֶּסֶף הַכִּמֻּרִים Exodus 30:16; spoils of war Numbers 31:54; inscribed stones of ephod Exodus 28:12, 29, called אַבְנֵי ז׳ Exodus 28:12 = Exodus 39:7; blowing of trumpets Numbers 10:10 (foregoing all P), compare זִכְרוֺן תְּרוּעַה Leviticus 23:24 (H; where, however, no לפני י׳, see Di); מִנְחַת (ה)זכרון Numbers 5:15, 18 (P); memorial-sentence, apophthegm Job 13:12.
2. remembrance Ecclesiastes 1:11 (construct before preposition Ges§ 130, 1), Ecclesiastes 1:11; Ecclesiastes 2:16.

See related Aramaic BDB entry H1799.

Lev. 24:7 – the word “memorial” in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is “azkarah” which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus’ instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a “memorial offering” demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Wrong again!

Lev 24:7

And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

the Azkarah here is the frankincense. but nice try.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then why did Romanism teach for centuries to not bite the eucharist? I was Catholic and the sisters told us not to! I was an altar boy and the priests also told us not to.

I thought we were having a civil conversation – then you go and use a derogatory term like “Romanism”.
Can you just keep it civil?

But He also uses phago as well, trogo is a much more physical consumption. .

Yes, he STARTS OUT with “Phago “– then moves to “Trogo” to make his point.

As for what your teachers told you as a kid – this was nonsense. I was told the SAME thing by the nuns, yet, when I researched on my own – I discovered that there is no prohibition on chewing the Eucharist.

Sometimes nuns are wrong.

But You and I will never agree on this. I was a staunch Catholic who held to transubstantiation. but I heard better biblical arguments for this to not be and believe they are correct.

Well – you may have been a Catholic by name – but your “staunchness” is relative. I honestly believe that you left out of ignorance of the Catholic faith and were coaxed out by a ”feel-good”, easy-bellievism– like 99.999% of those who leave.

If you knew the truth – you might never have left . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Jesus is the fulfilment of the passover lamb and you do not argue agains t that.

And I never did.
As a matter of fact – I differentiated this fact with the idea that the Angel of Death does not lurk about every Passover or Seder.
QUOTE="Ronald Nolette, post: 1365411, member: 9091"]Jesus also memoralized this symbol by saying as often as you do it- remember me.[/QUOTE]
I’m NOT sure how this makes it purely symbolic? Since when does “DO this in memory of me” mean, “This is just a symbol”??

If I asked my family to light a bonfire every year on my birthday after I was dead – would it be a fake or symbolic fire – or a REAL one?

 

[Jim B]

Eating bread and drinking wine is... ready? ... eating bread and drinking wine. Jesus said to do those things to remember Him. The bread and wine are not Jesus' body and blood. It is impossible, since He was there in person when He told the disciples what to do to remember Him.