By Grace alone, through Faith alone, in Christ alone!

[Integrity]

I know.
You take care now.

You as well.

 

[BigGuy2732]

Have at it.
When it comes to God I always like to see what his word says about things.

Catholics believe that Christ is the Head of the Church. He speaks continually through it, forever. I know the idiot at the helm right now is working his hardest to bury Our Lord but his efforts are in vain. Just as the Sacrifice of the Mass for us is a calvary in real time, the same sacrifice that happened in 33AD, happening on the altar presented in an unbloody sacrifice, with the words of the priest literally consecrating bread and wine into the literal Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that it's a symbol, we believe it is truly Him. I always tell Protestants that you can't get much more of a personal relationship than that!

 

[BrownFlush]

Catholics believe that Christ is the Head of the Church. He speaks continually through it, forever. I know the idiot at the helm right now is working his hardest to bury Our Lord but his efforts are in vain. Just as the Sacrifice of the Mass for us is a calvary in real time, the same sacrifice that happened in 33AD, happening on the altar presented in an unbloody sacrifice, with the words of the priest literally consecrating bread and wine into the literal Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that it's a symbol, we believe it is truly Him. I always tell Protestants that you can't get much more of a personal relationship than that!

Jesus is the Head of the Church. His Church.
Pentecost. The day the church came into being as prophesied in Jerusalem.

I’d like to give you some things to consider from the Bible concerning the “ the priest literally consecrating bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus"
1. A chemical analysis would certainly show that after the priest blesses it, that it would literally still be bread and wine, but that wouldn't convince you of that because the Catholic Church teaches that it's just a mystery how God does that.
2. Please note: the question is not "Could Jesus do that?" Of course. Jesus can do anything. The question is "Did Jesus do that and is that what he means when he says" this is my body and my blood." I'm all for taking the Bible literally ...when it was meant to be taken literally. Example: Jesus said, "I am the Door" Nobody is going around saying Jesus is a Door. " I am the Vine" No one thinks that Jesus is a literal plant. Jesus was very capable of speaking figuratively and did so often. Jesus says he speaks figuratively at times.( John 16:25. )
3. In John 6:53 "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." Literal? Some people there were repulsed by that and left. There was some discussion there ...then ...John 6: 60-63 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Notice what gives life...It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.... Jesus is saying it was a figure of speech in V53. He didn't literally mean for them to become cannibals ..he was saying take in what he was saying and teaching..digest that.
4. If Jesus literally turned the cup into blood and told his apostles to drink it, he is literally telling them to break the law of Moses (which all lived under at this time) and do what is sinful and wrong. Lev.17:13 and other places forbade the drinking of blood. It was a sin to drink blood.
5. In Mark 14:23-25 Jesus doesn't say it's real blood...he calls it what it is and what it will be when it hits your gut.. fruit of the vine.
....Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them,“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly I tell you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”…
6.1 Cor.11:26 Paul doesn't talk about eating flesh but bread.

These points and others convince me the elements do not change. They remain unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.

 

[BigGuy2732]

I’m a former Protestant, I know all of the arguments.

 

[BrownFlush]

I’m a former Protestant, I know all of the arguments.

I'm not a Protestant or Catholic. I'm a Christian.
If you know all the arguments, would answer some of them to clear up why you think that actually happens?

 

[Integrity]

Jesus is the Head of the Church. His Church.
Pentecost. The day the church came into being as prophesied in Jerusalem.

I’d like to give you some things to consider from the Bible concerning the “ the priest literally consecrating bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Jesus"
1. A chemical analysis would certainly show that after the priest blesses it, that it would literally still be bread and wine, but that wouldn't convince you of that because the Catholic Church teaches that it's just a mystery how God does that.
2. Please note: the question is not "Could Jesus do that?" Of course. Jesus can do anything. The question is "Did Jesus do that and is that what he means when he says" this is my body and my blood." I'm all for taking the Bible literally ...when it was meant to be taken literally. Example: Jesus said, "I am the Door" Nobody is going around saying Jesus is a Door. " I am the Vine" No one thinks that Jesus is a literal plant. Jesus was very capable of speaking figuratively and did so often. Jesus says he speaks figuratively at times.( John 16:25. )
3. In John 6:53 "Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." Literal? Some people there were repulsed by that and left. There was some discussion there ...then ...John 6: 60-63 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? Notice what gives life...It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.... Jesus is saying it was a figure of speech in V53. He didn't literally mean for them to become cannibals ..he was saying take in what he was saying and teaching..digest that.
4. If Jesus literally turned the cup into blood and told his apostles to drink it, he is literally telling them to break the law of Moses (which all lived under at this time) and do what is sinful and wrong. Lev.17:13 and other places forbade the drinking of blood. It was a sin to drink blood.
5. In Mark 14:23-25 Jesus doesn't say it's real blood...he calls it what it is and what it will be when it hits your gut.. fruit of the vine.
....Then He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, and they all drank from it. He said to them,“This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25Truly I tell you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”…
6.1 Cor.11:26 Paul doesn't talk about eating flesh but bread.

These points and others convince me the elements do not change. They remain unleavened bread and fruit of the vine.

You are not alone, this is the opinion and belief of many.

I respect understand both points of view but my opinion , belief and my experience has me leaning toward the Catholic teaching.

 

[Integrity]

Catholics believe that Christ is the Head of the Church. He speaks continually through it, forever. I know the idiot at the helm right now is working his hardest to bury Our Lord but his efforts are in vain. Just as the Sacrifice of the Mass for us is a calvary in real time, the same sacrifice that happened in 33AD, happening on the altar presented in an unbloody sacrifice, with the words of the priest literally consecrating bread and wine into the literal Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. We don't believe that it's a symbol, we believe it is truly Him. I always tell Protestants that you can't get much more of a personal relationship than that!

Thanks for sharing. I certainly appreciate and respect the manner in which you share your beliefs.

I love the sacred and supernatural nature of the Eucharistic Celebration and the oneness of the Mass.

 

[Integrity]

I'm not a Protestant or Catholic. I'm a Christian.
If you know all the arguments, would answer some of them to clear up why you think that actually happens?

@BrownFlush,
What denomination church to you attend?

 

[BigGuy2732]

I'm not a Protestant or Catholic. I'm a Christian.
If you know all the arguments, would answer some of them to clear up why you think that actually happens?

Because the Church has always believed it to be literal. The two groups who can actually claim to be the actual Church, both believe in the Real Presence. I follow the traditions of the Church, not just the Scriptures. The Early Church Fathers all believe in the Real Presence. I don't trust a guy who showed up 1500 years later. The Sacrifice of the Mass is why I am a Christian at all, actually.

 

[BigGuy2732]

That is why I reverted to the Christian faith and became a Catholic.

 

[Integrity]

Because the Church has always believed it to be literal. The two groups who can actually claim to be the actual Church, both believe in the Real Presence. I follow the traditions of the Church, not just the Scriptures. The Early Church Fathers all believe in the Real Presence. I don't trust a guy who showed up 1500 years later. The Sacrifice of the Mass is why I am a Christian at all, actually.

Well said.

 

[BrownFlush]

Because the Church has always believed it to be literal.

This is not answering the arguments listed that expose the doctrine as being false.
"Always believing" is not an answer to anything.

Because the Church has always believed it to be literal.

The Catholic Church has not always believed it to be literal. The doctrine of transubstantiation was much debated among Catholics. It was not adopted by the Roman Catholic Church (and pushed back by many )until 1215 at the 4th council of lateran.

I follow the traditions of the Church,

You follow the traditions of the Catholic Church. The traditions of the Church found in the New testament and the traditions of the Apostles, and what Jesus, who established the Lord's Supper, are silent about transubstantiation. In fact, the scriptures prove it to be a false doctrine.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is why I am a Christian at all, actually.

I'm a Christian because I was lost in sin. And now, I have hope of eternal life because of Jesus Christ and my obedience to him.

 

[Integrity]

This is not answering the arguments listed that expose the doctrine as being false.
"Always believing" is not an answer to anything.


The Catholic Church has not always believed it to be literal. The doctrine of transubstantiation was much debated among Catholics. It was not adopted by the Roman Catholic Church (and pushed back by many )until 1215 at the 4th council of lateran.

You follow the traditions of the Catholic Church. The traditions of the Church found in the New testament and the traditions of the Apostles, and what Jesus, who established the Lord's Supper, are silent about transubstantiation. In fact, the scriptures prove it to be a false doctrine.

I'm a Christian because I was lost in sin. And now, I have hope of eternal life because of Jesus Christ and my obedience to him.

Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist - Wikipedia

 

[Integrity]

@BrownFlush,
Does the church you attend have it’s origins in the Restoration Movement of the 1800’s?

 

[BigGuy2732]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t matter if it was a defined dogma or not. We only define dogmas half the time because heretics like you start getting uppity!

transubstantiation is the explanation, but beyond that it was and still is a mystery. The orthodox don’t bother even explaining it, but they had way less problems with heresy than we did in the west and that is most likely why. The Church teaches that the Real Presence is a dogma because it is a fact. Ive seen what the Eucharist has done in my own life to know that it is the literal body and blood.

 

[BrownFlush]

The problem with your argument is that it doesn’t matter if it was a defined dogma or not. We only define dogmas half the time because heretics like you start getting uppity!

transubstantiation is the explanation, but beyond that it was and still is a mystery. The orthodox don’t bother even explaining it, but they had way less problems with heresy than we did in the west and that is most likely why. The Church teaches that the Real Presence is a dogma because it is a fact. Ive seen what the Eucharist has done in my own life to know that it is the literal body and blood.

I'm an uppity heretic? lol
Yeah..anytime someone wants to know where you get the approval from God ( in the Bible)to practice and teach a doctrine that you can't....

It's a mystery alright. It's no wonder people think religions are for nut jobs. It's no mystery. It doesn't happen.
You eating the physical body and drinking the actual blood of Jesus Christ. ......Imagine....a mystery...LOL!

 

[BigGuy2732]

The difference between us is that you find yourself qualified to disseminate the Gospels for yourself. It ain’t my call, I trust the whole of doctrine and dogma, of beliefs held by men who were ordained by Christ himself and those after Him. Tradition is the democracy of the dead. Men having their say long after they are gone. To be outside of the Roman faith is to be outside of Christ’s church, scattered forever with no home.

 

[BrownFlush]

The difference between us is that you find yourself qualified to disseminate the Gospels for yourself.

There's a lot more difference than this between you and I. "Find myself qualified ?" I better as well as anyone searching truth.
Disseminate? Of course. Paul says we need to "rightly divide" the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)

It ain’t my call

Wow. You must be the exception. The Bible tells all of to"work out our own salvation with fear and trembling" Personal responsibility. (Phil.2:12)

I trust the whole of doctrine and dogma, of beliefs held by men

I like what Paul says in 1Cor. 4:6 to"not to think of men above that which is written" You trusting what men tell you and not even search the scriptures to know if what they are telling you is true? You're trusting your eternal destination to what men tell you? smh

 

[BrownFlush]

men who were ordained by Christ himself and those after Him.

There are no such men alive today and haven't been for 2000 years. I'd show you scripture, but I don't think you can look it up.

Tradition is the democracy of the dead.

2 These 2:15 speaks of the only traditions any should be interested in knowing..those written down by the apostles in the NT.

To be outside of the Roman faith is to be outside of Christ’s church, scattered forever with no home.

To be inside the Roman faith is to be outside Christ's church, lost forever.
The Roman Catholic Church is not found in the pages of the New Testament.

 

[BigGuy2732]

There are no such men alive today and haven't been for 2000 years. I'd show you scripture, but I don't think you can look it up.

2 These 2:15 speaks of the only traditions any should be interested in knowing..those written down by the apostles in the NT.

To be inside the Roman faith is to be outside Christ's church, lost forever.
The Roman Catholic Church is not found in the pages of the New Testament.

we assembled the book, cope harder.

the clergy of the Catholic Church are in a line of succession. All of the apostles are entombed in our churches. All of the early pilgrimage sites are Catholic. We have the faith, no one else does. The orthodox do, just illicitly.