Catholicism is not compatible with Christianity

[Hark]

Notice the first line of this article, DHK. Proves you are perpetuating a LIE! You now need to try to spin it around to try to save face and you will NEVER face facts. You will call it Catholic lies because of your hatred of The Catholic Christian Church! To bad, so sad!!

The Eastern Rite Catholics are part of the Roman Catholic Church, not the Orthodox Church. While the majority of Roman Catholics belong to the Latin Rite, the Eastern Rites provide a special dimension to our Catholic heritage and spirituality. The Second Vatican Councils Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches emphasized, The Catholic Church values highly the institutions of the Eastern Churches, their liturgical rites, Ecclesiastical traditions and their ordering of Christian life. For in those churches, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, there is clearly evident the tradition which has come from the Apostles through the Fathers and which is part of the divinely revealed, undivided heritage of the Universal Church (No. 1).

Again, turn the other cheek and just stick to the topic. Share why you believe the way you do and avoid judging the poster. Let the truth win out. Let God minister. But always be prepared to learn as well, in setting the example for others to follow. That is another example of how we are to love one another.

 

[Hark]

It requires supernatural grace in the life of the believer to believe the radical declaration of Christ concerning the Eucharist. As Jesus himself said both before and after this “hard saying”: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (Jn 6:44, cf. 6:65). Belief in the Eucharist is a gift of grace. The natural mind—or the one who is in “the flesh”—will never be able to understand this great Christian truth.

John 6:63 is not the only verse that can be used to understand what Jesus was talking about as it cannot be communion.

John 6:30-36 has the Jews asking Jesus to give this bread of life that God gives to the world, and Jesus told them how to receive that bread of life which is by coming to and believing in Him; and then Jesus told them why they had not received the bread of life and that was because they did not believe Him.

If it was about the Eucharist, then where is Jesus's promise in John 6:35 that we would never hunger nor thirst any more after having received it one time?

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

So you may want to consider the other words of Jesus to discern the spiritual meaning of how we are saved by believing in Him is how we receive the gift of life.

It was the Jews that had their mind stuck on actually eating that bread of life like manna, but Jesus pointed it out that this was not like that.

John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

Do you now have eternal life after eating the Eucharist the first time or not? And yet, you are still eating the Eucharist. That would be the same as if you did not believe Him and so you keep eating the Eucharist.

To be continued... God be willing...

 

[Hark]

3) On another level very closely related to our last point, Christ said, “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail,” because he wills to eliminate any possibility of a sort of crass literalism that would reduce his words to a cannibalistic understanding. It is the Holy Spirit that will accomplish the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in the Eucharist for the life of the world. A human body, even a perfect one, apart from the power of the Spirit could not accomplish this.

But would the Spirit actually do that? Would even Christ voluntarily offer Himself as a continuing sacrifice to be received again and again by the same believer? Would that not put His blood on par with the blood of goats and bulls if it bears repeating to be received again and again?

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Now this is all the basis for what the blood of Christ will do as being offered one time so that it bears not repeating.

Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:

The Holy Ghost being in us is proof that we are forever sanctified.

The danger of not believing that is to be willfully sinning in that regard. That means believing that there is necessity to receive that one time sacrifice for sins "again" and "again" is putting the blood of the New Covenant on par with the blood of goats and bulls, and that makes God the Father angry at His people for believing in that way and thus sinning willfully even after having that knowledge that there is no more sacrifice for sins.

Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

So it is by believing in Him is how we receive the bread of life and thus there is no receiving Him again in any shape or form for He is within us always.

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

 

[Hark]

The reason we do it is because Jesus commanded so at the last supper. He gave us the method in which way it is passed on.

Jesus just said to do this in "Remembrance of Him" ; not to receive His one time sacrifice for sins again and again every time you take communion.

See post # 262 & # 263

We do not verify this message with scripture, The other way around its by this we verify scripture. The WORD of God is greater then men.

We will tell you the bread and wine, The Word, is God.

Again, see post # 262 & # 263 for the word of God on that truth.

 

[Walter]

Jesus just said to do this in "Remembrance of Him" ; not to receive His one time sacrifice for sins again and again every time you take communion.

See post # 262 & # 263



Again, see post # 262 & # 263 for the word of God on that truth.

Yes, He said we are to do this 'in remembrance' but you want to make it just and only a memorial service. Then why didn't he give them a vine or door when He said: I am the vine and I am the door? If the Eucharist was merely symbolic then why did so many walk away in John 6? If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and say, 'come back? You didn't understand! I was speaking metaphorically! Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. Care to show me where in other places Jesus says I am the vine or I am the door, people really believed He was a literally a vine or door? Or were they able to comprehend His metaphor?

 

[Walter]

Again, turn the other cheek and just stick to the topic. Share why you believe the way you do and avoid judging the poster. Let the truth win out. Let God minister. But always be prepared to learn as well, in setting the example for others to follow. That is another example of how we are to love one another.

Good advice. I should have shrugged off his 'liar' accusation and used our Lord's directive.

 

[Walter]

Hark, I understand you wanting to emphasis our Lord's mention of the Lamb's Supper being a memorial. IT IS! But it is not JUST a memorial. As a Baptist, we did it four times a year and only at the Sunday evening service where few attended. It was explained that we were doing this because our Lord had asked to 'Do so in remembrance of Him'. But, I found so much compelling evidence that it was so much more than 'just a memorial by way of crackers & juice'.

Personally, I think John 20 is almost as compelling as John 6.
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not believe." (John 20:24-25)Like the disciples who walk away in John 6:66, Thomas simply will not believe that which is not provable by the sense of sight and touch. Like so many non-Catholics who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, upon being told that Christ has risen from the dead, Thomas demands tangible proof.

Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed. (John 20:24-29) How wonderful our Lord is! Jesus reveals himself to Thomas in a way which removes all doubt, but at the same time he confirms for all time how blessed we are if we have been given the gift of believing through the Holy Spirit. When we approach the altar to receive the body, blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, our human senses tell us that it is only a wafer of unleavened bread and a cup of common wine. How sad it is that like Thomas, some can only reason to be real that which can be tasted, touched, observed or measured by means of the flesh. Anyone who has heard Scott Hahn's conversion story (former evangelical pastor and seminary professor) remembers his now famous exclamation upon attending Mass for the first time and seeing the Holy Eucharist....My God it's you! It's really you!!!'

Also consider Luke 24.
While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you." But they were startled and terrified and thought that they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, "Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have." And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While they were still incredulous for joy and were amazed, he asked them, "Have you anything here to eat?" They gave him a piece of baked fish; he took it and ate it in front of them. (Luke 24:36-43) Jesus says to the desciples, "Peace be with you." But instead of being at peace the disciples are startled. Far from being at peace, they are terrified. How does Jesus respond? How does Jesus put them at peace? Jesus tells the startled disciples to look at his hands and feet. Jesus tells the terrified disciples to touch his flesh and bones. Jesus asks them for food. Look and see... that it is really me. Touch my body... so that you know. Eat with me... and be at peace.

Look... Touch... Eat.... for my flesh is true food... and be at peace.

How wonderful our Lord is!!!

 

[Iconoclast]

We do not worship a wafer, but the risen Christ.

 

[Jerome]

Confession 26:4b
"the Pope of Rome...is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming."

 

[DHK]

You had inferred deception to the other poster, and yet the other poster gave you his research as to why he had believed the way that he did.

The least you could so is provide a link proving why you believe the way that you do.

If it comes down to which source is the truth, then the discussion is at an impasse, and so just leave it at that. No need to engage the flesh on a point of contention where there can be no winner. Leave it to God.

I did provide a link, just a couple of posts before you posted this one. Here is the link:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en...t-guide-to-the-eastern-catholic-churches.html

 

[Walter]

The early Church Fathers also understood what the Eucharist meant. Some of them sat at the Apostles feet and were taught. There was NO dissension among them about what the Eucharist meant. They were in AGREEMENT. Your symbolic view was not INVENTED for 1,500 years!

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. ),in ANF,I:89


“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 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.” Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200), in ANF,I:486

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” “ Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:352

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, not physically but spiritually. He must undergo a supernatural rebirth. And if he is a new supernatural creature then he would require supernatural food, the body and blood of the savior, the Eucharist.

 

[DHK]

Yes, He said we are to do this 'in remembrance' but you want to make it just and only a memorial service.

What do you mean "just a memorial"?
It is a great thing to remember the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, the blood that was spilt on our behalf, the body that was sacrificed, and that rose again, his soon coming again. What a tremendous service this is, if done properly. "This do until I come." There is nothing mystical here; nothing supernatural; nothing that is transcendent or meta-physical. It is a service of remembrance as he commanded us to do:"This do in remembrance of me."
This is one of your problems.
The gospels are books of history, as is the book Acts. They are not our basis for doctrine. The epistles set forth doctrine clearly. You can see why. If the disciples were confused pre-cross, Christ had promised that the Holy Spirit would come to them and "guide them into all truth." All would be cleared up after his resurrection.
Thus, Paul, in a doctrinal epistle (1Cor.11) explains exactly what the Lord's Supper is, and how we are to keep it. The meaning of it is found there, not in the gospels. And that is where you fail. One must not take their doctrine primarily from a history book, but rather from a book of doctrine, especially when the historical books do not have all of the facts. And they didn't.

Then why didn't he give them a vine or door when He said: I am the vine and I am the door? If the Eucharist was merely symbolic then why did so many walk away in John 6? If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and say, 'come back? You didn't understand! I was speaking metaphorically! Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically. Care to show me where in other places Jesus says I am the vine or I am the door, people really believed He was a literally a vine or door? Or were they able to comprehend His metaphor?

There was no further explanation there because:
First, they understood, whereas the RCC doesn't.
Second, Paul explains it fully in his epistles which is where we get the doctrine explained to us.
Third, Our doctrine comes primarily from doctrinal epistles, not from history books.

 

[Walter]

I don't deny they are part of the "Catholic Church," Walter. That is not in question.
But they are not part of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Therein lies your mistake, and your pettiness in trying to deceive others by saying they do belong.

There is no 'Roman' Catholic Church VS the Catholic Church, DHK. Good grief! You don't even understand that! And you say you are knowledgeable about the Catholic Church! You just don't get it and probably never will because you just HAVE to be right. Easter Catholics ARE part of the Church of Rome, PERIOD. They may have assimilated some of the Latin Rite practices in Canada but that doesn't make them any less part of the Church of Rome. I proved that to you but you will ignore it, as usual. Sigh

And, btw, you USED to deny they were part of the Catholic Church, a few years ago, called me a liar and when I proved it to you refused to apologize.

 

[DHK]

The early Church Fathers also understood what the Eucharist meant. Some of them sat at the Apostles feet and were taught. There was NO dissension among them about what the Eucharist meant. They were in AGREEMENT. Your symbolic view was not INVENTED for 1,500 years!

First and foremost the ECF are not authoritative. The Bible is, it is the only book that is inspired.
Secondly, most of the heresies we have today come from the ECF. That is itself is a good reason to avoid them.
Thirdly, much of their true meaning is lost in their translation. Meaning is always lost in translation. English didn't even exist in the first three centuries.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to Smyrnaeans,7,1(c.A.D. ),in ANF,I:89

Meaning what? Without any valid context it is a useless quote.

“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 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.” Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185

Again some meaning was probably lost here as to what he probably meant. It isn't authoritative anyway.

“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:18,4(c.A.D. 200), in ANF,I:486

--A direct quote from Scripture. Should we expect anything less. You have proved nothing here.

“Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man’s heart, to make his face to shine with oil, ‘strengthen thou thine heart,’ by partaking thereof as spiritual, and “make the face of thy soul to shine.” “ Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:352

Meaning is lost through translation. Don't have all the context. The Lord's Supper in its remembrance alone is a worshipful service and those who partake of it, leave being spiritually strengthened. Thus, nothing new.

“You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body.” Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442

By this time the RCC had come into being.

Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again, not physically but spiritually. He must undergo a supernatural rebirth. And if he is a new supernatural creature then he would require supernatural food, the body and blood of the savior, the Eucharist.

Your ignorance of the new birth is really demonstrated here. You have no idea what it means. It has nothing to do with baptism or Communion.

 

[DHK]

There is no 'Roman' Catholic Church VS the Catholic Church, DHK. Good grief! You don't even understand that! And you say you are knowledgeable about the Catholic Church! You just don't get it and probably never will because you just HAVE to be right. Easter Catholics ARE part of the Church of Rome, PERIOD. They may have assimilated some of the Latin Rite practices in Canada but that doesn't make them any less part of the Church of Rome. I proved that to you but you will ignore it, as usual. Sigh

And, btw, you USED to deny they were part of the Catholic Church, a few years ago, called me a liar and when I proved it to you refused to apologize.

That is because I assumed we were on the same plane. When I spoke of Catholic, I always speak of "Roman Catholic," But it is obvious by all of this literature that these eastern churches are Catholic but not Roman Catholic, a fact you will not admit. Your own link admits as much.

 

[DHK]

There is no 'Roman' Catholic Church VS the Catholic Church, DHK. Good grief! You don't even understand that! And you say you are knowledgeable about the Catholic Church! You just don't get it and probably never will because you just HAVE to be right. Easter Catholics ARE part of the Church of Rome, PERIOD. They may have assimilated some of the Latin Rite practices in Canada but that doesn't make them any less part of the Church of Rome. I proved that to you but you will ignore it, as usual. Sigh

And, btw, you USED to deny they were part of the Catholic Church, a few years ago, called me a liar and when I proved it to you refused to apologize.

Here is the deceit, even used by the author.

In point of fact, the Catholic Church directly under the jurisdiction of Rome is properly and canonically termed the Latin Church. All official Church documents simply use the term, "Catholic Church." And contrary to popular belief, most of the day-to-day work preformed by the Holy Father is not in his role as pope and pastor of the Universal Church but in his position in the Latin Church as the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of the West.

So who are these "other" Catholics? They have their own hierarchies and liturgies, as well as their own distinct apostolic lineages. They may look and act like Eastern Orthodox churches, but they recognize the pope of Rome as the head of the visible Church on earth and have suffered for the cause of that unity.

I have demonstrated to you before that it is impossible for Peter to be the founder of the RCC as you claim, for Peter was never bishop of the church in Rome. That is easily demonstrated through the facts of the Bible itself. Tradition says he died in Rome, and that is only tradition. Even if we accept that, that is the only reason he was there--taken there to die. There is no possible way that he was the founder of Rome.

I have been in India. The Baptists in India claim that Thomas was the founder of their churches. Their claim is valid. Thomas never went to establish an apostate Catholic Church which never existed. He established churches, independent of one another such as Paul did, and after the pattern of Paul. History attests to that. The Easter Rite would like to take the credit for the work of Thomas inasmuch as the RCC would like to take credit for the work of Peter. Both claims are bogus.

Both started independent of each other. Peter in one area and the Easter rite in another (if they say their origins were from Thomas). But they really weren't. Geographically they had a different origin than Peter for they claim a different origin.

I hope that makes sense to you.

 

[Hark]

Yes, He said we are to do this 'in remembrance' but you want to make it just and only a memorial service.

That was all Jesus said to do it for when they had the Last Supper.

Do note that He had not died yet on the cross to apply communion in that way. If He had hinted for us to take communion the way you think He had meant it, He would have held it after His crucifixion and resurrection.

Then why didn't he give them a vine or door when He said: I am the vine and I am the door?

Was Jesus giving the vine and the door at the time He was saying that?

If the Eucharist was merely symbolic then why did so many walk away in John 6?

Because they did not believe in Him. Jesus said so. All they heard was that they were to eat His flesh, and thus they were not listening to what He has said before either that to receive the bread of life us by coming to and believing in Jesus Christ.

John 6:60 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? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

So by asking them what if they see Him ascending up to Heaven, He wasn't talking about communion, but believing in Him.

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. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Jesus said it plainly that some of them believed not in Him.

65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

That was Jesus way of saying that after His ascension, people that believe in Him will be because the Father drew them to the Son so they can beiieve in Him and be saved. Thus why these disciples walked away for they did not believe in Him.

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and say, 'come back? You didn't understand! I was speaking metaphorically! Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But they were not accepting everything up to that point. They were not listening to Him about how to receive that bread of life in the first place.

John 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

They had asked Him for a sign so that they would believe in Him. Then the Jews referred to the O.T. about manna from Heaven.

31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Now Jesus is answering them.

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jesus is now telling them below on how to receive this bread of life.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Then Jesus pointed out why they had not received that bread when they had asked Him to give that bread to them right now.

36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

Care to show me where in other places Jesus says I am the vine or I am the door, people really believed He was a literally a vine or door? Or were they able to comprehend His metaphor?

His disciples were not literally believing He was the bread or the wine either at the Last Supper. Neither did Judas Iscariot, whom did not believe in Him, was a thief, and a betrayer.

 

[utilyan]

Hark,

Our teachings are not secret. Here's a link to the Catechism concerning Eucharist: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
Each line may have references to bible and early church fathers.


We don't redo the cross. When you find something here you don't agree with then you have something REAL on us. Its best that you draw all criticism of us FROM the catechism, else I'm gonna be shrugging all day at "straw-mans" Like I worship saints and I take full credit of salvation of the world.

When the church was under the persecution of Romans one of the prime accusations was we were cannibals because of real presence (that accusation still happens today).

Malachi 1
10Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the LORD of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. 11For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

From Day even Night his name is great among the Gentiles. In every place incense is offered..... you do offer incense to God? What is a Perfect and PURE offering?
(we got you covered buddy, The Eucharist is celebrated 24/7)

Below I found a small list of church father stuff on this. I'd like to explain later the connections between The Cross, Communion, And how the validity of a sacrifice Also depends on that offering being put on an ALTAR

Early Church Fathers

The Didache
"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).
Pope Clement I
"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
"He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles" (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"If Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, is himself the high priest of God the Father; and if he offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father; and if he commanded that this be done in commemoration of himself, then certainly the priest, who imitates that which Christ did, truly functions in place of Christ" (Letters 63:14 [A.D. 253]).
...To be continued

 

[utilyan]

Here some other church fathers, I used 310 ad as a cut-off that's when we first have a bible canon.

Serapion
"Accept therewith our hallowing too, as we say, ‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth, with your magnificent glory, Lord of virtues. Full also is this sacrifice, with your strength and your communion; for to you we offer this living sacrifice, this unbloody oblation" (Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice 13:12–16 [A.D. 350]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Then, having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth his Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before him, that he may make the bread the Body of Christ and the wine the Blood of Christ, for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched is surely sanctified and changed. Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that propitiatory victim we call upon God for the common peace of the churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and offer this sacrifice for all who are in need" (Catechetical Lectures 23:7–8 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory Nazianzen
"Cease not to pray and plead for me when you draw down the Word by your word, when in an unbloody cutting you cut the Body and Blood of the Lord, using your voice for a sword" (Letter to Amphilochius 171 [A.D. 383]).
Ambrose of Milan
"We saw the prince of priests coming to us, we saw and heard him offering his blood for us. We follow, inasmuch as we are able, being priests, and we offer the sacrifice on behalf of the people. Even if we are of but little merit, still, in the sacrifice, we are honorable. Even if Christ is not now seen as the one who offers the sacrifice, nevertheless it is he himself that is offered in sacrifice here on Earth when the body of Christ is offered. Indeed, to offer himself he is made visible in us, he whose word makes holy the sacrifice that is offered" (Commentaries on Twelve Psalms of David 38:25 [A.D. 389]).
John Chrysostom
"When you see the Lord immolated and lying upon the altar, and the priest bent over that sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that precious blood, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven?" (The Priesthood 3:4:177 [A.D. 387]).
"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the sacrificial victim who is placed thereon!" (Homilies on Romans 8:8 [A.D. 391]).
"‘The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not communion of the blood of Christ?’ Very trustworthy and awesomely does he [Paul] say it. For what he is saying is this: What is in the cup is that which flowed from his side, and we partake of it. He called it a cup of blessing because when we hold it in our hands that is how we praise him in song, wondering and astonished at his indescribable gift, blessing him because of his having poured out this very gift so that we might not remain in error; and not only for his having poured it out, but also for his sharing it with all of us. ‘If therefore you desire blood,’ he [the Lord] says, ‘do not redden the platform of idols with the slaughter of dumb beasts, but my altar of sacrifice with my blood.’ What is more awesome than this? What, pray tell, more tenderly loving?" (Homilies on First Corinthians 24:1(3) [A.D. 392]).
"In ancient times, because men were very imperfect, God did not scorn to receive the blood which they were offering . . . to draw them away from those idols; and this very thing again was because of his indescribable, tender affection. But now he has transferred the priestly action to what is most awesome and magnificent. He has changed the sacrifice itself, and instead of the butchering of dumb beasts, he commands the offering up of himself" (ibid., 24:2).
"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, and this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:3(6) [A.D. 403]).
Augustine
"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).
"For when he says in another book, which is called Ecclesiastes, ‘There is no good for a man except that he should eat and drink’ [Eccles. 2:24], what can he be more credibly understood to say [prophetically] than what belongs to the participation of this table which the Mediator of the New Testament himself, the priest after the order of Melchizedek, furnishes with his own body and blood? For that sacrifice has succeeded all the sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were slain as a shadow of what was to come. . . . Because, instead of all these sacrifices and oblations, his body is offered and is served up to the partakers of it" (The City of God 17:20 [A.D. 419]).
Sechnall of Ireland
"[St. Patrick] proclaims boldly to the [Irish] tribes the name of the Lord, to whom he gives the eternal grace of the laver of salvation; for their offenses he prays daily unto God; for them also he offers up to God worthy sacrifices" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 13 [A.D. 444]).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
"Hold most firmly and never doubt in the least that the only-begotten God the Word himself became flesh [and] offered himself in an odor of sweetness as a sacrifice and victim to God on our behalf; to whom . . . in the time of the Old Testament animals were sacrificed by the patriarchs and prophets and priests; and to whom now, I mean in the time of the New Testament . . . the holy Catholic Church does not cease in faith and love to offer throughout all the lands of the world a sacrifice of bread and wine. In those former sacrifices what would be given us in the future was signified figuratively, but in this sacrifice which has now been given us is shown plainly. In those former sacrifices it was fore-announced that the Son of God would be killed for the impious, but in the present sacrifice it is announced that he has been killed for the impious" (The Rule of Faith 62 [A.D. 524]).

 

[Hark]

Hark,

Our teachings are not secret. Here's a link to the Catechism concerning Eucharist: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm
Each line may have references to bible and early church fathers.

We don't redo the cross.

If you are making the one time sacrifice for sins present "again" in the Eucharist to be received "again", you are redoing the cross.

Had you received that one time sacrifice for sins the first time or not?

Then when you repeat that again, you are redoing the cross as if that one time sacrifice for sins was not good enough the first time you had received it because you are receiving it again.

The Holy Ghost is in you so you do not need to receive it again.

Those that wish to have their sins forgiven can just go to Jesus for that.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

By walking in the light as He did in fellowship with the Father & the Son, is how His blood cleanses us from sins too.

1 John 1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.......7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

The Eucharist does not do that. Jesus Christ is already in you which is why forgiveness is that accessible so that is why the Mass is not necessary because it was never a means to obtain forgiveness or the remission of sins by.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

So believe Him, brother. You don't need the Eucharist nor be a slave to the RCC' system of works to get your sanctfication from when all invitations points to Jesus for life.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

How was this done... ?

2 Thessalonians 2:14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You are not going to find such an emphasis for salvation in any of the N.T. instructions to the churches that you find so many of in the Catholic catechism. Truly, the simplicity of the gospel is lost in the catechism.