Forbidden to drink blood

The accidents remain in Eucharist meal (bread and wine) yet the real presence is attained through consecration.

 

Check this out. It's an almost endless list of resources (links) on the Eucharist. You're bound to find something that will explain it in terms you are looking for:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=6565

 

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=243

Here is a good article on the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is what the Catholic Church either stands of falls on. If the Eucharist is true- we all need to be Catholic. If it is not true- it is idolatry and is nothing short of diabolical.

This is what I'm currently studing in depth as I explore Catholicism.

 

I would argue it is not the Eucharist, but infallibility. If the Catholic Church is infallible, we all must be Catholic. The eucharist is something that sprang from the CC through the power they wielded within the notion of being infallible.

The infallibility issue is why I am no longer Catholic.

jason

 

That is also a very big issue. It can be different for different people. The Eucharist is where I would rest my case.

 

I am not defending the Eucharist. But what about law vs. grace? Eating rare steak is not "kosher." But Catholics have no qualms about it. That puts a hole in saying that the Eucharist could not be Biblical based on the law against drinking blood since Catholics do not follow OT dietary laws.

 

So --- toss out our Bibles and accept man-made tradition?

In any case - if it is false - it is idolatry EVEN by RC standards. Notice what "they" say.

Eucharist is “idolatry” according to the RCC.

How insightful of our Catholic authorities to admit this

</font>[/QUOTE]In Christ,

Bob

 

What a great link! It shows just how thoughtless and free of Bible understanding one has to be to swallow the errors and myths of the RCC teaching ont his subject. It shall be one of my favored RC "sources".

RC Foible #1 as presented from that link:

Notice that the link quotes the "faithLESS" disciples of John 6. Those that leave Christ. It is THEIR view that most closely represents that of the RCC - and "the RCC is RIGHT" about that friends.

How can you miss it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

AFTER the faithLESS disciples leave - choking on a "literal" understanding of FLESH and blood in John 6 - Christ turns to the faithFULL and says "It is the SPIRIT that gives LIFE! LITERAL Flesh is worthless -- it is MY WORDS that are Spirit AND are LIFE" John 6:63

The discussion in John 6 was on what was needed to GAIN eternal LIFE. Christ made it appear that eating His flesh and blood was what was needed to gain ETERNAL LIFE. But this was a symbol - for His teaching AS His reference to the manna proves.

But the faithFULL disciples ACCEPT the teaching of Christ - that the WORDS are that thing that in fact GIVES life. They are not of the shallow group that is stuck on thinking that cannibalism is the secret of eternal life. They are NOT of the faithLESS group.

So notice that in the exchange with the faithFULL disciples - Peter zeroes in on "the point".

Foible #2 of the link given by Brother Adam -- it 'tries' to get the reader to "ignore" the text ofr John 6 - choosing instead to snippet this together.

Hence - no "serious Bible student" could accept this famous myth of Catholicism.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Then you clearly didn't understand infallibility when you were a Catholic. The only time something in Catholicism is to be considered a matter of infallibility is when it is an [/i]ex cathedra [/i] issue. There have been no ex cathedra issues since JP2 has been pope.

 

Christians are not bound by a biblical prohibition on blood.

 

There were no serious Bible students in the church before the 1500's?

No serious History student could accept your evaluation of the issue.

 

What makes you think I do not understand the issue? There are scant few (re: no) clues as to what I think the meaning of the Catholic Church's claim of infallibility in my post.

 

The biggest in my estimation.

Really? How?

I would argue that without infallibility you have no eucharist. With no scientific evidence of a transformation we are left with only the word of the church as to what is happening.

 

Once again the quote you post says exactly the opposite of what you say it does. How could you possibly have overlooked the word "if" after you went to all the trouble to bold-face it. Must be one of those "details" you're "always" putting in "quotes"

Hey, that inspires some poetry!

From my Catholic tomes edges worn and dry
A quote doth mine peepers spy
Cut and paste, and bold-face do I
Twist twist twist, it's a bald-face ***

(Hint: *** is a 3 letter word that rhymes with pie!)

 

You imply that the RCC Asserts perpetual infallibility. That implication simply fuels misunderstandings that Baptists have about the RCC. More to the point, it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, which is the RCC view of the eucharist vs a biblical prohobition on blood.

 

That is what they call a presumption. By you.

You presumed that is what I meant. I gave no indication which way I leaned. As a matter of fact, the only information you could have gleamed from my post was that I was once a catholic, I am not now and that it was beccause of the nebulus concept of infallibility. That concept was not defined by me yet so you knew nothing about my understanding of the idea.

Also, I am not a baptist. I am a Christian.

That is not an argument as to how you came to the conclusion that I did not understand the concept of infallibility. In truth, it is a nothing statement.

jason

 

If that's not your implication, then I apologize for my presumption. You are aware, then, that the RCC does not presume infallibility of all things in perpetuity, as some non-Catholics mistakenly claim.

BTW, by saying you're Christian, I assume your church is a non-denom. Just curious. I've been to The Phoenix area many times, and when there, I usually attend Saddleback Bible church.

 

Apology accepted.

And yes, I am aware of the limits on infallibility [ex cathedra, faith and morals, etc]. Even so, I am no longer Catholic.

Non-denominational, as God intended it

My wife and I moved to PHX last June (June 2nd, 2003). We have visited many churches in the area, but we have not gone to Saddleback Bible Church. Though it does sound familiar. Is that in Scottsdale?

I have to say though, my wife and I attended a baptist church back in CT before we left (Farmington Ave Baptist Church in West Hartford, T) and I miss the pastor there. Pastor Gary Jones was a great teacher who didn't side step tough issues. He challenged you to think and search for the truth in everything. Aside from my family which is still in CT, he and his church are the only things I miss about CT (-10 wind chill? no thanks. I'll take my 70 degree days instead )

jason