Does Church of Rome Hold the The True Gospel?

[church mouse guy]

Yes but, “This is my body.” Not “This symbolizes my body”

Did you miss the verse in John where the Jews objected to cannibalism?

 

[church mouse guy]

Wouldn;t the mass fall under Pagan idolatry?

I am not sure but it is certainly bad hermeneutics, isn't it?

 

[Vincent1]

Did you miss the verse in John where the Jews objected to cannibalism?

Nope. Didn’t miss it. I’m just not sure why Christians should care how Jews feel about the Eucharist. It appears to me that they would rather obey their law than obey the Lord. I will follow the example of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and 2000 years of Church Teaching. Others can follow the Jews on this matter.

 

[Vincent1]

Like I said - I don't say that when I show you a picture of my mother - this symbolizes my mother, but - this is my mother
Besides that Jesus told you what He meant.

In the Douay-Rheims:

John 6:64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

In the KJV
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.

Friend, John 6 is indeed full of hard sayings, but believe that St. Augustine explains this best:
“They had under stood by His flesh, as it were, of a carcass, that was to be cut up, and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit. Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profits much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit has done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.”

 

[Adonia]

Why would it be sinful to eat the body of the Lord if commanded by Him to do so? Disobeying Him would be sinful.

Not sinful at all as this is doing as what He said to do concerning proper worship. We are right and the new interpretation of this biblical action is wrong.

 

[Adonia]

Friend, John 6 is indeed full of hard sayings, but believe that St. Augustine explains this best:
“They had under stood by His flesh, as it were, of a carcass, that was to be cut up, and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit. Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profits much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit has done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.”

Oh no, now you dare to bring up an Early Church Father? To our separated brethren they (the ECF's) mean nothing.

 

[Adonia]

Let's see if this is an answer to what you are asking, Yeshua1


The Eucharist is the glorified body of Jesus Christ. Christ’s risen body is not a resuscitated corpse like that of Lazarus, but an utterly transformed “spiritual body” (I Cor. 15:44) far different from the spatio-temporal “body of our lowness.” (Phil. 3:21) Therefore, when a Catholic Christian receives the Eucharist, he is receiving not just flesh but glorified flesh, a resurrected and transfigured “super body” that foreshadows the new reality of a new Heaven and a new earth. Cannibalistic practices don’t do that.


The Eucharist is life. Cannibals eat what is dead. The Aztecs, the most notorious cannibalistic society in history, ate the beating hearts of victims, but they were still eating something doomed to die, and in the act of eating, it did die. By contrast, Christ, is alive. He rose on the third day, and is present in the Eucharist as fully alive (indeed, He is Life itself). Our reception of the Eucharist doesn’t destroy or change that in any way.

Now that was a spot on explanation of the Holy Eucharist and what it really means if I ever heard one. It correctly separates the "cannibalism" that our brother seems to think is going as we partake of the Holy Eucharist with what we are actually ingesting - true life at it's core. Well done!

 

[Adonia]

were where the reformers rediscovered the truths of the real Gospel.

So God would allow a lie to be perpetrated for some 1600 or so years until the so-called reformers got it right? Haaaaaaaaaaa! I don't think so!

 

[Adonia]

I know that you think that you are drinking blood, etc, but it is still wine poured into the cup and drank by you, etc.

While the elements are wine and bread, they are quite different then what they appear to the human senses.

 

[Adonia]

Wouldn;t the mass fall under Pagan idolatry?

Quite right if it were true ( but it isn't). But I will play along for a second, because if your query is right then every Christian who followed this orthodoxy of the Holy Mass and everything it entails as worship is going straight to hell, no doubt about it. Now if we are right and you are wrong, then at the appointed time you will have some explaining to do as to why you completely and utterly offered only rejection to it.

 

[HankD]

Friend, John 6 is indeed full of hard sayings, but believe that St. Augustine explains this best:
“They had under stood by His flesh, as it were, of a carcass, that was to be cut up, and sold in the shambles, not of a body animated by the spirit. Join the spirit to the flesh, and it profits much: for if the flesh profited not, the Word would not have become flesh, and dwelt among us. The Spirit has done much for our salvation, by means of the flesh.”

That's a s-t-r-e-t-c-h but I'll accept that you sincerely believe it.

 

[church mouse guy]

While the elements are wine and bread, they are quite different then what they appear to the human senses.

Wine in, wine out. Nothing about transubstantiation is logical. Neither Judaism nor Christianity accepts cannibalism. Jesus says that it is symbolic but Catholicism has said that it is literal.

 

[church mouse guy]

Nope. Didn’t miss it. I’m just not sure why Christians should care how Jews feel about the Eucharist. It appears to me that they would rather obey their law than obey the Lord. I will follow the example of the Apostles, the Church Fathers, and 2000 years of Church Teaching. Others can follow the Jews on this matter.

There you go again. There weren't any Christians at the Last Supper.

 

[Walter]

So God would allow a lie to be perpetrated for some 1600 or so years until the so-called reformers got it right? Haaaaaaaaaaa! I don't think so![/QUOTE

He claims "Baptistic churches' existed long before the reformers that believed in a purely symbolic view of holy communion and that there is proof of this. I am still waiting for him to produce his historical evidence.

 

[church mouse guy]

What about the Last Supper as proof?

 

[Vincent1]

There you go again. There weren't any Christians at the Last Supper.

Really? The eleven had faith and were baptized. They sound like Christians to me. Is your objection that Christ had not yet died for them? Obviously they were all Jewish ethnically, but “the Jews” didn’t say things like this:
Matthew 16:16 (ASV): And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 6:68–69 (ASV): Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.

 

[church mouse guy]

Really? The eleven had faith and were baptized. They sound like Christians to me. Is your objection that Christ had not yet died for them? Obviously they were all Jewish ethnically, but “the Jews” didn’t say things like this:
Matthew 16:16 (ASV): And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

John 6:68–69 (ASV): Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we have believed and know that thou art the Holy One of God.

So you are saying that Christianity began before???

 

[Walter]

What about the Last Supper as proof?

The proof is that NOBODY interpreted the words of Jesus and St. Paul in Corinthians as meaning that the bread and wine are only symbols. NOBODY! Not until the reformers began spewing their various heresies did the idea come up. That is 1600 years of historical evidence CONTRARY to your symbolic view. The records of so many heresies survived regarding a myriad of subjects but no objections to the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. That doesn't matter to you at all. It should.

 

[church mouse guy]

The proof is that NOBODY interpreted the words of Jesus and St. Paul in Corinthians as meaning that the bread and wine or only symbols. NOBODY! Not until the reformers began spewing their various heresies did the idea come up. That is 1600 years of historical evidence CONTRARY to your symbolic view. The records of so many heresies survived regarding a myriad of subjects but no objections to the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. That doesn't matter to you at all. It should.

John 6:60 (KJV) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Somebody didn't think that cannibalism was right.

 

[Walter]

John 6:60 (KJV) Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Somebody didn't think that cannibalism was right.

Yes, and they went away, didn't they? Because they thought he was talking about cannibalism. He wasn't. Also notice He didn't say, 'Oh, no! You misunderstood what I meant about feeding upon my Body & Blood, please come back so I can explain that it is only symbolic. Jesus took opportunities to correct the followers when they didn't understand, why not now? He let them go away. Probably most of them departed from Him. I explained why receiving the Lord in Holy Communion is NOT cannibalism. Did you miss that post?