Catholicism is a very complicated religion

I thought this was an open forum for discussion. I have respect for many elements of all religions and also see fault in many so the discussion interests me. I always keep an open mind so please don't assume to know my motives based on two simple posts. I have experience with the Catholic religion and many friends and family still actively part of it. Truth is in the eye of the beholder

It is a forum open for discussion. As I explained earlier, my remarks weren't directed at you (or anyone) specifically. I don't know your motives, and I did not say I did. Re-reading your first post, I still don't see anything for us to discuss. Do you? If so, perhaps presenting one specific issue better might start us out.
 
Slade3200, I was not trying to insult you, I was trying to keep this thread on focus. I know that with guno around, there will be amusing diversions, but I would like for at least the Christians to stay on track. There is a lot Catholicism has to offer the world. The religion has probably more to offer than most non-Catholics appreciate.

There is a reason the Catholic Church is the only major religion which has a structure, definite leadership, and comprehensive theology that has lasted more than 2000 years. And the Catholic Church is also the largest Church in membership, and it is rapidly growing, especially in Africa and Asia. Non-Catholics have the wrong idea that Catholicism is in decline, but that is only true in Europe, which has been in spiritual crisis for hundreds of years.

When I was a teenager, I did not appreciate my Catholic faith as I should, and up until recently, I know I have been deficient in my faith life. I do not make it a regular habit to pray, I do not attend Mass as I should, and sometimes I don't even make it on Christmas or Easter. But the Church is drawing me in, stronger and stronger as I get older and the end of my life approaches like a door that I must soon go beyond. I fear what I will see there if I continue my life of spiritual negligence. I am not a bad or sinful man, but faith is required, and my faith is not as strong as it should be. Sharing my faith on this forum has always been my effort to strengthen my faith in my own life.

I know there will be those who will amuse themselves on this thread, but I'm going to ignore these diversions, and I hope the rest of us can have a faith discussion that enriches all of us. I'm not trying to convert anyone here, I'm just trying to share what I know.
I can respect that. Thanks for the explanation... With that said I'm probably not the best to partake In this discussion as my views are more challenging. Best of luck with your journey
 
I thought this was an open forum for discussion. I have respect for many elements of all religions and also see fault in many so the discussion interests me. I always keep an open mind so please don't assume to know my motives based on two simple posts. I have experience with the Catholic religion and many friends and family still actively part of it. Truth is in the eye of the beholder

It is a forum open for discussion. As I explained earlier, my remarks weren't directed at you (or anyone) specifically. I don't know your motives, and I did not say I did. Re-reading your first post, I still don't see anything for us to discuss. Do you? If so, perhaps presenting one specific issue better might start us out.
The title and the OP led me to believe that the poster had confusion about the sacramental elements of the religion. I was providing a general explanation from my experience and point of view. He just clarified his intent and I understand that we were going going down two different paths. I'll leave you all to delv further into this as I bring a dubious viewpoint which is counterproductive to the intended discussion.
 
I thought this was an open forum for discussion. I have respect for many elements of all religions and also see fault in many so the discussion interests me. I always keep an open mind so please don't assume to know my motives based on two simple posts. I have experience with the Catholic religion and many friends and family still actively part of it. Truth is in the eye of the beholder

It is a forum open for discussion. As I explained earlier, my remarks weren't directed at you (or anyone) specifically. I don't know your motives, and I did not say I did. Re-reading your first post, I still don't see anything for us to discuss. Do you? If so, perhaps presenting one specific issue better might start us out.
The title and the OP led me to believe that the poster had confusion about the sacramental elements of the religion. I was providing a general explanation from my experience and point of view. He just clarified his intent and I understand that we were going going down two different paths. I'll leave you all to delv further into this as I bring a dubious viewpoint which is counterproductive to the intended discussion.
Slade3200, you are exactly the person I am trying to reach, a Catholic who is lost or confused just as I am. I am not a good Catholic at this stage in my life, and I'm trying to improve. If you are seeking answers, then please continue to participate because I am also seeking answers, and we could seek them together.
 
Christ's command to eat his body and blood is probably his most controversial teaching, and even at the beginning, he lost followers because of this teaching:

"I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world." The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." John 6: 48-68.
 
1)he was mirroring the serpents promise in Genesis
2)he was claiming himself most high in Heaven above God like Isaiah 14, therefore they stoped following him. John 6:66 does it need any greater clue then chapter verse?
He becomes the test, those that d0n't obey nor listen fall with the fallen error, but those who obey know not to fall for the image of the first fallen messiah deemed perfect as a god placed instead of G0d.
 
I thought this was an open forum for discussion. I have respect for many elements of all religions and also see fault in many so the discussion interests me. I always keep an open mind so please don't assume to know my motives based on two simple posts. I have experience with the Catholic religion and many friends and family still actively part of it. Truth is in the eye of the beholder

It is a forum open for discussion. As I explained earlier, my remarks weren't directed at you (or anyone) specifically. I don't know your motives, and I did not say I did. Re-reading your first post, I still don't see anything for us to discuss. Do you? If so, perhaps presenting one specific issue better might start us out.
The title and the OP led me to believe that the poster had confusion about the sacramental elements of the religion. I was providing a general explanation from my experience and point of view. He just clarified his intent and I understand that we were going going down two different paths. I'll leave you all to delv further into this as I bring a dubious viewpoint which is counterproductive to the intended discussion.
Slade3200, you are exactly the person I am trying to reach, a Catholic who is lost or confused just as I am. I am not a good Catholic at this stage in my life, and I'm trying to improve. If you are seeking answers, then please continue to participate because I am also seeking answers, and we could seek them together.
I do appreciate the invitation and am always happy to engage in conversation, however, I am a bit jaded at the Catholic religion. I don't want to be counter productive to your search. The best advise that I can give is to learn to "succumb to a higher power" whatever that may be. If the Catholic faith rings a bell for you then go with it and find your answers. For some people, analytical types, searching for every answer can be detrimental, as there will always be an unknown element and your faith in the unknown is what you need to lean on. For myself, the Catholic faith nor any organized religion rang true. I find truth in all religions and also in life... Truth, as I stated before, is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Catholicism is a very complicated religion which is why the Church actually doesn't encourage laymen to try to teach it to non-Catholics. They are afraid we will get it wrong, and do more harm than good.

So the job of the Catholic layman is

To build archs - not to destroy archs. To build bridges - not to destroy bridges. To build what we still are not able to know - not to destroy what we still are not able to know. ...

to spread the Good News by our example, by our deeds, and "they will know we are Christian by our love." Which is well and good, and I think for most Catholics, that is good advice.

To educate children means often to be in a position where only god seems to know the way any longer - except everyone else. So I would say the only important thing is (besides love - love is always the most important) the ability "to trust". A bad way is often a good way - how a bad conscience is indeed a good consience. We have also to trust in the ways of others. The problem are bad experiences, because bad exeriences are able to kill us - and death is not an experience at all: death destroys a second chance here on Earth. So the best is to learn from the bad experiences of others and from the own good experiences.

But I am going to try to teach Catholicism anyway, because I think maybe I can handle the task.

Sure you can - you are a Catholic.

I have taken a course in canon law,

Canons! Wonderful! If nothing helps any longer then take just simple a bigger canonball, lawfully following aerodynamic rules. :)

I have perused the Catholic Bible

We wrote the bible. The spirit of the bible is "catholic"="all-embracive" - but the bible itselve is only a book. We always need the spirit to find the spirit.

and know it well, and I have read the Catholic Catechism, or can find what I need out of it.

So here's a beginning:

The center of the Catholic Church, the thing that is above all things, the reason the Catholic Church exists, is to celebrate the Mass.

No. The center is to celebrate life. If we sleep, we sleep with god, if we wake, we wake with god, if we eat, we eat with god ... . Indeed some Clerics of our church are misusing the holy mass. The mass is in the moment often a separator and an excluder. Not to forget: if we speak - we speak with god and god is true. That's why I have to say so - otherwise I would be a liar. What doesn't mean I am true.

And the center of the Mass is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Delivery of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the world's one billion Catholics is the most important thing the Catholic Church does in this world.

Does that seem strange to you?

Here is the source:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist

A good book. But like all books and all codes or laws or even simple textes we are not able to understand the spirit without spirit. Fight your good fight. We need it. We need you. You're welcome. The world is in a bad situation in many ways. But do not forget: the wind blows not in little boxes. God is life. God is love. God is truth.

 
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Here is where bread, a metaphor for teaching from heaven, words from God, became flesh, a metaphor for the teaching of Jesus, teaching that he received from God like bread from heaven.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

If you do not receive his teaching (eat his flesh) about the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects of the law, and do it, (drink his blood) you cannot have the life promised for obedience to the law in you.


"Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Here Jesus explains that flesh is a metaphor for words, teaching.

"Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." John


Here the disciples confirmed their belief in his explanation , that his teaching, his words, are what give life.





Nothing in what you posted has anything to do with worshiping and eating a matzo at mass as if it was a god.

The only mysterious thing around here is why you aren't aware that your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.
 
Last edited:
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.

Here is where bread, a metaphor for teaching from heaven, words from God, became flesh, a metaphor for the teaching of Jesus, teaching that he received from God like bread from heaven.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

If you do not receive his teaching (eat his flesh) about the figurative nature of the words and hidden subjects of the law, and do it, (drink his blood) you cannot have the life promised for obedience to the law in you.


"Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Here Jesus explains that flesh is a metaphor for words, teaching.

"Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." John

Here the disciples confirmed their belief in his explanation , that his teaching, his words, are what give life.

Nothing in what you posted has anything to do with worshiping and eating a matzo at mass as if it was a god.

The only mysterious thing around here is why you aren't aware that your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.

A few things to consider:

1. Metaphors/words are eternal life? Or is it Jesus himself who gives eternal life? (Does Jesus offer metaphors, or does he offer himself?)
2. It was five hundred years (twenty generations) before there was ever a question about the bread and wine perhaps not becoming the body and blood of our Lord.
3. Would so many disciples have left Jesus over a metaphor?
4. Have you considered your attacks on Catholic belief that Jesus meant precisely what he said comes across as being desperate to prove that Catholics do not have the greater faith in Jesus and his teachings, they are merely foolish? Shrug. Scripture tells us God chooses the foolish....
 
A few things to consider:

1. Metaphors/words are eternal life? Or is it Jesus himself who gives eternal life? (Does Jesus offer metaphors, or does he offer himself?)

The promised reward for obedience to the law is life. Jesus was teaching that the words in the law were figurative and the subjects hidden and without his teaching, eating his flesh, one cannot fulfill the laws demands nor receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

2. It was five hundred years (twenty generations) before there was ever a question about the bread and wine perhaps not becoming the body and blood of our Lord.


That is not true at all. What I am saying is exactly what tertullian said,

Auditu devorandus est, intellectu ruminamlus, et fide digerendus”: “ Christ by hearing must be devoured, by understanding must be chewed, and by faith must be digested.

And Chrysostom : "This is that great bread that feeds not the body but the mind"


3. Would so many disciples have left Jesus over a metaphor?

Yes. They questioned how he could give his flesh to eat. They took it literally without understanding the implications or not so subtle reference to Kosher law and without understanding his meaning it was more than any rational person could stomach.



4. Have you considered your attacks on Catholic belief that Jesus meant precisely what he said comes across as being desperate to prove that Catholics do not have the greater faith in Jesus and his teachings, they are merely foolish? Shrug. Scripture tells us God chooses the foolish....


First of all. I am not attacking anyone. What I have revealed is for your edification.

What comes across as desperate is you trying to defend the indefensible and attempting to deny the irrefutable without any inkling that your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.
 
Last edited:
Catholicism is a very complicated religion which is why the Church actually doesn't encourage laymen to try to teach it to non-Catholics. They are afraid we will get it wrong, and do more harm than good.

Not encouraging laymen to try and teach is not such a bad idea in most cases. And for semantic accuracy I think you mean Catholic 'theology' rather than 'religion', the generalization? Even today, with mass printings and Bibles all over the place, most seem to have no concept of context, chiasmic structures, anthropomorphism, and all the other literary devices at work in both the Old and New Testament, so I think the reluctance to encourage laymen to teach in any sect is probably a case where the good outweighs the bad.

So the job of the Catholic layman is to spread the Good News by our example, by our deeds, and "they will know we are Christian by our love." Which is well and good, and I think for most Catholics, that is good advice.

Their organizations do some amazing work around the world, and in many hostile places, and have for centuries.

So here's a beginning:

The center of the Catholic Church, the thing that is above all things, the reason the Catholic Church exists, is to celebrate the Mass.

And the center of the Mass is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Delivery of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the world's one billion Catholics is the most important thing the Catholic Church does in this world.

Does that seem strange to you?

I see it as a form of meditation, which is nearly always a good thing.
 
Catholicism is a very complicated religion which is why the Church actually doesn't encourage laymen to try to teach it to non-Catholics. They are afraid we will get it wrong, and do more harm than good.

So the job of the Catholic layman is to spread the Good News by our example, by our deeds, and "they will know we are Christian by our love." Which is well and good, and I think for most Catholics, that is good advice.

But I am going to try to teach Catholicism anyway, because I think maybe I can handle the task. I have taken a course in canon law, I have perused the Catholic Bible and know it well, and I have read the Catholic Catechism, or can find what I need out of it.

So here's a beginning:

The center of the Catholic Church, the thing that is above all things, the reason the Catholic Church exists, is to celebrate the Mass.

And the center of the Mass is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Delivery of the Sacrament of the Eucharist to the world's one billion Catholics is the most important thing the Catholic Church does in this world.

Does that seem strange to you?

Here is the source:

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sacrament of the Eucharist
The catholic religion is an institution that binds it's people by being the intermediary between God and the individual. The church is gods house, the priest is gods messenger and representative that is here to guide and teach. It's foundation is based in sacraments, baptism, communion, confession, etc. and it's people live and worship through "works", meaning following the doctrine and rituals as directed by the church. Basically, follow the rules... Go to church, receive the sacraments, take communion, confess your sins, and do your penance. Do these things and you will be guided to heaven. Don't do them and spend eternity in hell. Fear God! This message used to be pushed very hard as the church was a very powerful and political part of society. This God fearing message was made to scare people And discourage questioning or doubt... It was a way to keep their power and control. There was much corruption that came from this.

Through a a lot of this crap and corruption there are virtuous elements of the faith and a truly beautiful message. One that other denominations teach in their own way. A message that most other religions reach in there own way. Whether you accept it as truth or as good or bad, right or wrong is entirely up to you

Never felt bound
I was hoping this would be a dialogue, with people responding to what I posted, and not striking out in random directions.

I posted about the Eucharist, let's talk about that. What is the Eucharist? It is the Body and Blood of Christ. This is not a symbol, it is the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine.

This is the process called transubstantiation. When the priest says the words of concencration, the bread and wine transform into the Body and Blood of Christ. Only the appearance of bread and wine remain.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

That is what they say, they did believe it in the old days, but I know of no RC's who believe it actually turns into the body and blood of Christ. My family never did and every one was an altar boy, even my alter boy nephews never did. It was a symbolic of receiving the spirit of Christ, but more special than a cracker some take at other churches. Transubstantiation was never taught fully that I remember, the nuns sort of just skimmed over it.
It sounds like you and your family either did not get a good education regarding Transubstantiation or chose not to embrace a foundational teaching of the Church. Meanwhile, today, many a Catholic will spend time in Eucharistic adoration because they believe Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

We lived in the UP of Mi, maybe that is why, of course we were taught that the bread and wine turn into the blood and flesh of Christ or just the Eucharist, but it was never stressed. In the first 20 years after Vatican II everything was changing. We never did adoration, nor would I. I hear them, to keep Jesus company, just never believed in , none of us did. At 8 we had our first communion and at about 12 confirmation. Most RC's I know, never read the bible , although they have one.
 
Last edited:
Learning the similarities and differences among the Anglican and Episcopalian sects re 'official' Catholicism would be interesting for some also, and what distinguishes them as 'Protestant'.

And ignore the silly kids posting from the short busses who make a point of disrupting any attempt at real discussions in this forum; they're simply sick giggly little gimps with no education or manners, so just carry on as if they don't exist; their parents do.
Haha, Somebody scribbled on the back of one of the seats on the short bus... WWJD... Not sure what it means but perhaps it applies to how your faith teaches you to act towards others.

So you're aware your behavior fits what I was saying without me naming or quoting you... Thanks for recognizing yourself, at least.

And, I'm an agnostic, in the sense of the word as it was invented by Thomas Huxley. And like him, I know that theology and religion are not interchangeable words, and like Hegel and Huxley and others I don't find Christians detestable, just the opposite; the social revolution they began and spread has been a great paradigm shift that made the West a far better place over time than any other religion has done for non-Christian peoples, in law, culture, sciences, politics, and any other area of progress.
 
Last edited:
The reason why this is difficult for you people is because
1) you don't know or understand where the Olam Habah is therefore you beezlebub false soul flying life teachings distract you from seeingvthe most obvious.
You think heaven is at the beginning, but I assure you it's at the end being non linear.
2)you worship the image of an oracle and don't see the source of the message.
It would be like Muslims giving Mohammad worship or credit instead of Allah or his messengers he's conveying. Christians say this is wrong then turn around and create that worse with the Jesus figure being credited as the one messaging him. Thr NT even discusses this problem when "they say they do not understand son of man speaks through him." or in Rev 1:16 like unto son of man means emulation not that he is the messenger he's like unto him. Words elsewhere (in John?)say:"Another" that "comes in his own new name".
To make Jesus the Messenger would be like Dan being Deemed the messenger he conveyed as his "Night"(Evening Star) Visions and Michael.

The Shew (Shewb)=Shev bread in the Temple
is coming from where the Olam Habah (world to come)aka future to come aka at the end not the beginning.
Where you will drink the wine established in 1888 from Man/is/Shevitz
So who is this Shev that we remember on the Sheva [7th] day?
SHALEM in it's original Canaanite language spelling starts with the letters SHV. Hence the one named in the holy city.
It's why David named his sons after Shalem.
*note*
Sheva(7), HaSheva(redeemer), Micah
The suffix “ah” (a) appears on the end of many Hebrew names and words, and means “of God” or “from God.”
Sources for Shalem:
YeruShalem would carry the name. (1 Kings 11:36 &
in dead sea scrolls: Words of the Archangel Michael scroll 4Q529, 6Q23)
The Gemarah (Baba Batra 75) Tells us Jerusalem is named after G0D and is the place commemorating his name and essence. In Sefer D’varim (12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21; 14:23,24, 25; 15:20; 16:2, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16; 17:8, 10; 18:6; 26:2; 31:11).the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose (12:18) as “Yerushalayim”.

Now that should put an end to their arguments about me.
 
the place that I will choose to place My Name. That is referring to YeruShalem because Sifri identifies the place which Hashem will choose


This is not about any temple or city, and it certainly isn't about you.


This is about the person HaShem will choose to speak in his name. A reference to the person spoken of in deuteronomy 18:18, the messiah that Jesus claimed and proved himself to be.

"I will put my words into his mouth and he shall convey all of my commands."
 
A few things to consider:

1. Metaphors/words are eternal life? Or is it Jesus himself who gives eternal life? (Does Jesus offer metaphors, or does he offer himself?)

The promised reward for obedience to the law is life. Jesus was teaching that the words in the law were figurative and the subjects hidden and without his teaching, eating his flesh, one cannot fulfill the laws demands nor receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

2. It was five hundred years (twenty generations) before there was ever a question about the bread and wine perhaps not becoming the body and blood of our Lord.


That is not true at all. What I am saying is exactly what tertullian said,

Auditu devorandus est, intellectu ruminamlus, et fide digerendus”: “ Christ by hearing must be devoured, by understanding must be chewed, and by faith must be digested.

And Chrysostom : "This is that great bread that feeds not the body but the mind"


3. Would so many disciples have left Jesus over a metaphor?

Yes. They questioned how he could give his flesh to eat. They took it literally without understanding the implications or not so subtle reference to Kosher law and without understanding his meaning it was more than any rational person could stomach.



4. Have you considered your attacks on Catholic belief that Jesus meant precisely what he said comes across as being desperate to prove that Catholics do not have the greater faith in Jesus and his teachings, they are merely foolish? Shrug. Scripture tells us God chooses the foolish....


First of all. I am not attacking anyone. What I have revealed is for your edification.

What comes across as desperate is you trying to defend the indefensible and attempting to deny the irrefutable without any inkling that your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.

1. Read what Tertullian and Chrystendom said in addition. They believed.
2. They took it literally, and more telling, Jesus didn't say, "Wait a minute, it was a metaphor!"
3. I know and understand my beliefs. You don't. Speaking of edifying, you have no wish for me to edify you on Catholic beliefs, do you? So why don't we each speak about our own beliefs and let others speak of their own without. No one needs or benefits from sneering and insulting phrases on alternate beliefs.
 
A few things to consider:

1. Metaphors/words are eternal life? Or is it Jesus himself who gives eternal life? (Does Jesus offer metaphors, or does he offer himself?)

The promised reward for obedience to the law is life. Jesus was teaching that the words in the law were figurative and the subjects hidden and without his teaching, eating his flesh, one cannot fulfill the laws demands nor receive the eternal life promised for obedience.

2. It was five hundred years (twenty generations) before there was ever a question about the bread and wine perhaps not becoming the body and blood of our Lord.


That is not true at all. What I am saying is exactly what tertullian said,

Auditu devorandus est, intellectu ruminamlus, et fide digerendus”: “ Christ by hearing must be devoured, by understanding must be chewed, and by faith must be digested.

And Chrysostom : "This is that great bread that feeds not the body but the mind"


3. Would so many disciples have left Jesus over a metaphor?

Yes. They questioned how he could give his flesh to eat. They took it literally without understanding the implications or not so subtle reference to Kosher law and without understanding his meaning it was more than any rational person could stomach.



4. Have you considered your attacks on Catholic belief that Jesus meant precisely what he said comes across as being desperate to prove that Catholics do not have the greater faith in Jesus and his teachings, they are merely foolish? Shrug. Scripture tells us God chooses the foolish....


First of all. I am not attacking anyone. What I have revealed is for your edification.

What comes across as desperate is you trying to defend the indefensible and attempting to deny the irrefutable without any inkling that your sin is as obvious as a white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.

1. Read what Tertullian and Chrystendom said in addition. They believed.
2. They took it literally, and more telling, Jesus didn't say, "Wait a minute, it was a metaphor!"
3. I know and understand my beliefs. You don't. Speaking of edifying, you have no wish for me to edify you on Catholic beliefs, do you? So why don't we each speak about our own beliefs and let others speak of their own without. No one needs or benefits from sneering and insulting phrases on alternate beliefs.


No, by saying that Christ must be devoured by hearing tertullian is clearly saying that the body of Christ is eaten by the ear. If you think that he was being literal try putting the eucharist into your ear next time you are at mass. It will do you about as much good.

Jesus lived during a time of brutal Roman occupation in a strange land ruled by an oppressive theocracy and compulsory observance of a literal application of Mosaic law where there was no such thing as freedom of speech and people were maimed and killed for trivial reasons on a daily basis.. If he didn't speak using figurative language he would have been killed the very first day that he opened his mouth.

Still I find it amazing that he was able to openly speak over their heads for as long as he did.
 
I believe Jesus was saying become me, when he said to drink his blood and eat his flesh. He is the bread of life, like the mamma was in the OT. Sustain oneself on spiritual things before physical. Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors and allegories.

I doubt the RCC knew what to do with this saying, since most in those days took it literally, and so they decided to call it transubstantiation taken from Aristotle, which does not mean what they say. There is a bacterium that turns reddish when its moist, and so I do believe that some actually thought the hosts did bleed in early centuries.

Its really very special the way the Mass is, but even if one believes in transubstantiation or not (me), its receiving the spirit of Jesus, and its the main part of the RC Mass, of which we all participate. I can't imagine belonging to a church that hands out grape juice and crackers and lectures for an house. We go to Mass to worship , not get a sermon.
 
Can you just imagine what people thought when they saw this, they thought it was blood !!!


(PDF Version)

Serratia marcescens: Masquerader of Blood

Victor L. Yu, M.D.

Some strains of S. marcescens are capable of producing pigment, the intensity of which ranges from dark red to pale pink, depending on the age of the colonies. The pigment can be present after incubation at room temperature but usually disappears after subculturing. The pigment was extractred by 1902 and named "prodigiosin" . Serratia marcescens has a predilection for growth on foodstuffs, especially of the starchy variety, where the pigmented colonies were easily mistaken for drops of blood. As early as the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras had noted the appearance of a bloody concentration on foodstuffs, and in the 1800’s, Ehrenberg uncovered almost 100 historical references to the miraculous appearance of blood on food.

http://www.antimicrobe.org/h04c.files/history/serratia.asp

Officials released this statement Wednesday:

"In November of 2015, it was alleged that a consecrated host (communion bread wafer) from Saint Francis Xavier Church in Kearns, Utah, appeared to be bleeding. A thorough investigation has concluded that the host did not bleed, but the change of appearance in the host was due to red bread mold. The consecrated host has been disposed of in a reverent manner, as is required."

Back in November, during the holy communion, a host was returned to the father overseeing the service.

A host is the small wafer handed out as part of the communion.

The priest placed the host in glass of water near the head of the church.

Typically, the host will dissolve away in a few minutes.

Three days later, members of the church say the host was still floating and it appeared to be bleeding.

‘Bleeding host’ was mold, not miracle, according to diocese
 

Forum List

Back
Top