Blasphemy Is:

Do these declarations of the Catholic Church remain currently valid? Are there any rescinding Declarations? If still valid and not rescended by subsequent declaration, Woe unto those wascally protestants!

 

Where are the quotes taken from? (referring to the "ibid"

 

In my view, transubstantiation is sick! I would puke if I ate ANYONE's actual flesh and blood.

It seems obvious to me that this is a metaphor.

 

John 6:60-61 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? [61] When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

 

And how does this text support transubstantiation?

 

I'm not yet sure if/how the text directly supports transubstantiation, but the context is Christ talking about people needing to eat his flesh and drink his blood. The idea of eating someone else's flesh and drinking someone else's blood made people sick, just as it did for you. They too thought it was a hard saying, and they too murmured against it. Many of his followers even left him over these statements. Christ didn't say "I was just using symbolism, c'mon back guys!", he simply asked who else was going to leave.

I posted the verses, because your response to eating his flesh and blood reminded me of their response, that's all.

Maybe this thread is getting off-topic already.

 

BrianT,

Jesus explained this to His disciples that this is not his literal flesh that he is going to give them for bread. He said that its not the flesh he was talking about for the flesh profits nothing. The bread He is talking about is His words for they spirit and they are life.

John
6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 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.

Also please take note that the spiritual bread is the Word of God.

Matthew
4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Please take note also that Jesus is the very Word of God.

John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

 

St. Paul explains what the flesh is in 1 Cor 2:14 - 3,1, “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ. But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ.”

Our Lord in John 6:63 tells us that we must receive his words on the spiritual level above that of human and worldly reasoning. In order to accept and believe the reality of the Holy Eucharist, we must place ourselves above the confines of our flesh and into the supernatural realm of spiritual discernment. The same is true when we realize the witness of the entire celestial court, the existence of our guardian angel, or the reality of the Holy Spirit in our life.

The phrase "to eat the flesh and drink the blood," when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense. For an examples of this use, refer to Micah 3:3; 2 Samuel 23:15-17; Revelation 17:6; Isaiah 49:26, 9:18-20.

St. Irenaeus succeeded St. Pothinus to become the second bishop of Lyons, France in 177 AD. Considered one of the greatest theologians of the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus is best known for his Adversus Haereses, in which he refutes the Gnostic heretics who rejected Christ’s humanity.

Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 2, paragraph 3, written circa 190 AD:

"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? -- even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones -- that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.”

 

Singer,

If they will be consistent to their teaching, i think, they will eat His flesh and drink His blood literally. For the actual body of Jesus is more a reality than the bread and wine which they believed to be the literal body and blod of Jesus.

 

When Jesus returns, he will not be a "Casper Milktoast" who is vulnerable to human strength. He will be the mighty conquerer the Jews have always expected him to be. So I wouldn't be whetting my apetite for divine flesh if I were you.

[ June 21, 2003, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Whoa. VERY interesting.

Maybe they did. Christ turned water into wine. Is it such a stretch to believe in another miraculous change?

I'm not Catholic, but I think the answer is obvious:
1 Cor 11:24-26 "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. [25] After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. [26] For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

When Christ returns, it is no longer necessary.

"Catholic" simply means "universal". Thus, including all believers since day one.

 

I'm not sure what your point is. Your initial question had to do with how could people be part of the church before a capital-C 'C'atholic church existed. I'm simply saying the church always existed, it didn't just pop into existence once people started using the capital-C. The Catholic Church, like any other Christian group, can be traced back to Christ because Christian groups, sects and denominations "fan out" from Christ, usually through gradual change. Like a tree: the root is Christ, and Catholics think they are the main trunk (others think they are a predominant branch off the trunk) - just because they didn't formally take the term 'C'atholic until a feet off the ground (a few centuries from Christ) doesn't mean there is no tree below that point, and it's floating in air - the tree goes down to the root, regardless of whether the 'C'atholics are the trunk or a branch.

No comments on the answers I gave to your other questions?