Is anyone planning on...............

[Carbon]

Oh let me see, where to start?

Let's start with Transubstantiation. Shall we? You know that "change of essence" thing. First, do you agree with your church and popes, that the proclamation of these five words, " for this is my body," changes the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the natural and essential body and blood of Christ (His soul and Godhead being included) and thus into Christ Himself?

RC's?

There are some of you who may not be aware, including Catholics, but; the RCC is divided on this doctrine. There are a few things they disagree on, as in the timing of this change, which of the five words spoken actually causes this change in essence. etc...

They attack each other on these things. A lie just cannot be corrected. No matter how much they try.

 

[Arial]

I understand your criticism but that is what most of the 2.1 billion Catholics believe.

Of course they believe it if they even know of it but that is irrelevant. Address the post.

The reasoning is that Faith existed before the Bible (300s), and should be interpreted in the Spirit of that Faith. Not the other way around and forming your own Faith out of the Bible.

The content of the faith that is in the Bible is what existed before the Bible. There is no such thing as "the Spirit of the Faith." Explain please what you mean. The only way we can have a saving faith or know what it is from the Bible. What do you mean by faith?

Now you can argue with the reasoning but RC is forcing or suing other denominations to accept the RC belief.

What does this mean? It sounds like the RCC is trying to force all denominations to believe as they do through legislation. You can't legislate what people believe, though as has been proven by the Roman church before, you certainly can extract penalty for disagreeing with them. But you can't change what they believe or what they don't believe by force.

I don't agree with your opinion that the magisterium (the Pope, Bishops and many biblical scholar advisors) are removing The Spirit out of the picture.

So then they think they are the only ones who have the Holy Spirit?

Don't you think that the estimated 45,000 Protestant denominations, each with their own discipline interpretation will have multiple interpretations?

How does that address the issue. Let me restate it and see if you can address it head on instead of trying to sneak around behind it with logical fallacies.

The issue is whether there is one central, controlling, and final authority on interpreting the Bible and putting forth that interpretation as om effect, law, established by God? And the answer is no. The result would be the doctrines of men.

And how about the billion Protestants from the 45,000 denominations?

What is with all the red herrings? Respond to the post and address the issue. I will repost it for you so you have another chance and so you can see just how obviously you avoided it.

Again. Not the issue. But if scripture cannot interpret itself, then it contains inconsistencies of truth and is unreliable. Maybe the idea of scripture interpreting scripture is such an alien concept to one who depends on man to give them their beliefs, that you have no idea what it means?

Do you really consider the commenters on this forum experts? There could be a few biblical scholars commenting and there are some pretty smart pretty smart people on here but I have not seen any evidence given to support your "worst enemy" claim. If you opened the link I supplied in a previous post you would know RCs believe about sola scriptura.

And here comes the straw man. I never said experts. I said avid followers. And I am not in a debate with "link" on the internet. I am debating people here and what they post. And an attack on sola scriptura on completely fallacious grounds and in a fallacious way has been very prevalent. It has been presented as the worst, worst, thing a person could believe. And why would the Catholic be concerned about it at all, or so concerned with what Protestants believe in the first place, unless it was a threat to their religious system?

Please explain how the num

I don't even know what num is.

 

[Frank Robert]

Oh let me see, where to start?

Let's start with Transubstantiation. Shall we? You know that "change of essence" thing. First, do you agree with your church and popes, that the proclamation of these five words, " for this is my body," changes the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the natural and essential body and blood of Christ (His soul and Godhead being included) and thus into Christ Himself?

RC's?

Is it possible for you to stay on one subject at a time. If you do I think we can have great discussion where we can understand each other.

 

[Carbon]

Is it possible for you to stay on one subject at a time. If you do I think we can have great discussion where we can understand each other.

Haha. Well, let's get started, shall we?

 

[Carbon]

@Frank Robert

Hi Frank,

Would you show me just one text in scripture that teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, upon the pronouncement of those five words? And where it is changed into both the soul and Godhead of Christ?

Don't rush, take your time.

Thanks.

 

[Arial]

deleted by admin as unresponsive and off topic.

Anyone can exegete scripture.
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter (which can be anybody) of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.

Dei verbum

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei verbum

www.vatican.va

deleted by admin for being irrelevant and insulting and not addressing the post.

How many churches existed when John wrote that?

see above.

Literally every heretic in the patristic period thumbed their noses at the historic Church, and went by scripture alone.

deleted by admin for not addressing the post but the poster.

deleted by admin for addressing the poster not the post.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." 269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism 270 - do not occur without human sin:




818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." 272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity." 276

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

www.scborromeo.org

deleted by admin for addressing the poster and not the post.

Everything you post and everything the Catholic church puts out starts with the premise that that denomination and that denomination only is the Church of Christ. That they are the law of His church and the authority over His church. Not once have you or anyone else proven this. And it cannot possibly be the case since they contradict many things in the Bible, not the least of which is the insufficiency of Christ, the need for human priests to forgive sins, the pope who they call of all things Holy Father. They engage in magical practices such as transubstantiation, statues of saints and Mary, a graven image of Christ on the cross, holy water made holy by a human priest, penance for forgiveness, beads for prayer address the dead in prayer etc. etc.

Since your premise is unproven no one but another Catholic is going to agree with you when you state things as though the Catholic denomination is Jesus' church. And that last part you put in bold is just words. I suspect though I do not know, a conciliation to the ecumenical movement by a number of protestants.

I have nothing against Catholics. Nothing against anyone who is or wants to be a Catholic. I am very much against much of what it teaches. And I think there is a good chance that some of what it teaches would raise more than a few eyebrows in the pews were it openly discussed.

 

[Illuminator]

@Frank Robert

Hi Frank,

Would you show me just one text in scripture that teaches that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ, upon the pronouncement of those five words? And where it is changed into both the soul and Godhead of Christ?

Don't rush, take your time.

Thanks.

See John 6.
Within 60 years after Luther's nail job, Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, identified 200 Interpretations of the Words: This is My Body. How many are there now?

Jesus said, “this is my body” when he changed bread into his body and blood during the Last Supper. Three of the Gospels report that Jesus used these exact words. St. Paul repeats them in his First Letter to the Corinthians. Their meaning certainly seems clear. Yet with the invention of the principle of individual interpretation, their meaning has been the subject of controversy. Apparently, Jesus’ words were not so clear to some people.

In this essay these four words will be examined. Collectively, the passages that contain these words are called the institution narratives. They provide the simplest way to show that, when Jesus said these words, the bread was miraculously transformed into the substance of his body, blood, soul, and divinity – the whole Christ.

Mt 26:26-28 “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mk 14:22-24 “And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’.”

Lk 22:19-20“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood’.”

1 Cor 11:23-26 “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’.”

A recent President of the United States incurred a great deal of notoriety for his failed attempt to parse away the literal meaning of the verb is. With the introduction of Luther’s principle of individual interpretation of the Bible in the 16th century, called sola scriptura – “the Bible alone,” passages of Scripture were subjected to outlandish interpretations that bore little 2 relationship to the sacred text and the Christian faith that had been faithfully passed on from Jesus and the apostles for 1,500 years. One example of the confusion that followed is evidenced in Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, 200 Interpretations of the Words: This is My Body.1 Therefore, it is not surprising to find that some contemporary Protestant apologists strive to explain away the clear meaning of the institution narratives.

Protestant Objection
Robert Zins makes the following claims: “In the first place, the word ‘is’ would do too much if it did what the Catholics think it must do for them. This is My Body would have to make the bread the actual body of Jesus and it would no longer have the properties of bread. It would be his body. The Romanist skirts this issue by saying the bread is Christ in its essence but retains the characteristics of bread in its outward appearance. We ask how any serious Greek exegete can swallow this use of the Greek estin (is)! Where is the Greek language ever used in this manner?”
Catholic Response
There are several flaws to Mr. Zins’ reasoning.
First, Catholic exegetes do not claim that the Greek word estin (is) provides a theological definition for the miracle of transubstantiation. However, when Jesus holds bread in his hands and then says in relationship to what is in his hands: “This is my body,” Christians should accept the clear meaning of his words. What was bread is now his body regardless of its external appearance. Transubstantiation is merely the apt theological term formulated to explain this marvelous change that takes place. This is precisely Zins’ real objection, he claims the words, “this is my body,” are too literal and he refuses to accept the reality of the miracle. Therefore he reinterprets the words of Jesus in the following manner: “This [bread] is [symbolizes] my body.” Zins, like all those who reject the words of institution, are faced with the undeniable reality that four inspired writers: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul used words that can only mean the bread has changed into the body of Christ. Not one of these inspired authors employed symbolic language in their institution narrative. Therefore those who deny the real physical presence of Jesus need to substantiate their claim based on the inspired text. However, when the inspired Greek words are analyzed the Catholic understanding is reinforced and Protestant symbolism crumbles. There is no linguistic basis for claiming that “is” in the institution narratives means “symbolizes” or that “this” refers to the bread. Matthew (Mt 26:26), Mark (14:22) and Luke (22:19) use exactly the same Greek words for “This is my body”.
Touto estin to soma mou

When the text is examined in relationship to Greek grammar employed in the passage, the meaning becomes very clear. Touto (this) is a neuter demonstrative adjective. It can’t modify or refer to bread, which is a masculine noun. Instead, it clearly refers to soma (body), which is a nominative neuter noun. Therefore the only possible translation in English is: “This [substance in my hands] is my body.” St. Paul uses a somewhat different Greek construction in his First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:24). Touto mou estin to soma This of me is the body Once again, however, the meaning is very clear. Paul’s positioning of mou (of me) strengthens the meaning of touto (this). The text is so clear that Jesus is speaking about his body that it is so reflected in most English translations including Protestant versions.3 What was bread is bread no longer. It is the whole Jesus.

Protestant Objection
Mr. Zins offers another objection. “Secondly, the word ‘is’ is used by Jesus to define the New Covenant in His blood. ‘This cup [is] (estin supplied) the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you’ (Luke 19:20).4 No one in the Romanist community wants to say the cup is actually the New Covenant. Obviously it is a figure for the New Covenant. Likewise, Paul in 1 Corinthians says, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood’ (1 Corinthians 11:25). Here, too, the ‘is’ estin is used in a figure representing the spiritual truth of a New Covenant having been inaugurated.”
Catholic Response
Mr. Zins misses the figure of speech used in the institution passages by shifting the emphasis from “cup” to “is” (estin), which is lacking in the Greek text of the passages he cites. Both St. Luke and St. Paul employed a figure of speech called synecdoche. Synecdoche is the metaphorical substitution of a part for the whole (hand for sailor), the whole for a part (the law for policeman), the specific for the general (cutthroat for assassin), the general for the specific (thief for pickpocket), or the material for the thing made from it (steel for sword). Synecdoche is also used in other New Testament passages with the word cup. For example in Mt: 20:22-23 Jesus used the word “cup” in his discussion with the mother and the sons of Zebedee to refer to his suffering. Subsequently, Matthew used the word “cup” as a substitution for Jesus’ suffering in the agony of Gethsemane (Mt 26:39). In 1 Cor 10:16 St. Paul used the word “cup” as a substitution for the “blood of Christ.” Five verses later Paul used the word “cup” as a substitution for drinking the content of the cup (1 Cor 10:21).

In the two passages that Mr. Zins targets his objection (Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), it is clear form the context of the passages that “cup” represents the content of the cup, Christ’s blood. Thus even the figure of speech used in these texts with the word “cup” refutes the very reality Zins denies, namely, that the words of institution changes the wine into the blood of Christ. Zins is correct when he states that Catholic exegetes do not “say the cup is actually the New Covenant.” The reason is simple. Catholic scholars harmonize the potential ambiguity of Lk 22:20 and 1 Cor 11:25 with the clear meaning of Matthew’s quotation: “This is my blood of the covenant” (Mt 26:28) where the use of the genitive in Greek gives the precise meaning of Jesus’ words. Mr. Zins conveniently ignores this obvious meaning of the text.
continued...

 

[Illuminator]

Fruit of the Vine Objection
Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mk 14:25 “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Lk 22:18 “For I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

James White writes: “Furthermore, we see that even after the supposed ‘consecration,’ the Lord, and Paul6 after Him, continue to refer to the elements as bread and wine, not as the body or blood of Christ! When Jesus refers to the cup, He says, ‘I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29). One can picture the Lord Jesus, still holding the cup, and referring to it as He speaks. But what does He say? Does He say it is literally blood? No, He says it is the fruit of the vine. And then He says He will not drink of it again until he would drink it with the disciples in His father’s kingdom. Does this mean that Jesus will still be transubstantiating wine into His blood in the kingdom of God? We are looking at the text very closely, very literally, but that is what is demanded by the Roman position. If we are forced to take ‘this is My blood’ as literally as the Roman Catholic Church insists, we must point out the contradictions and errors that come as a result of this method of interpretation.”

Catholic Response
The words “fruit of the vine” refers to wine. In the accounts of Matthew (Mt 26:28) and Mark (Mk 14:24) this expression occurs after the words of institution. Therefore Mr. White argues that these words points to the reality that only wine was in the cup over which Jesus said, “This is my blood.” However, as was demonstrated earlier, the Greek construction of “this is my body,” touto estinto soma mou, in the Synoptic Gospels compels the literal meaning of Jesus words. The meaning of the text, as was explained above, is clear. The bread is no longer bread, but truly Jesus’ body. Mr. White’s interpretation implies that Jesus contradicts this earlier declaration when he speaks about drinking “the fruit of the vine.” However, there is a plausible explanation that does not imply that Jesus contradicted himself and is in harmony with all the other Eucharistic passages. Both institution accounts begin with the statement “while they were eating” (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22). Furthermore, the words of institution are spoken in the context of Jesus imminent sacrifice on Calvary:
“for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28);
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk 14:24).
Therefore, it is clear in the context of these passages that Jesus is saying he will not dine again with them, that is, drink of the fruit of the vine, until after his death and Resurrection. However, there is no indication in the text that the expression “fruit of the vine” refers to the consecrated elements. This interpretation is reinforced when the short almost identical institution narratives of Matthew and Mark are reconciled with the more detailed version found in Luke’s Gospel, (Lk 22:13-16), which Mr. White ignored. Luke records that the Eucharistic celebration occurred during a Passover meal, but he places the words “fruit of the vine” after the meal, but before consecration of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood.

St. Paul’s understanding of the Real Presence
In addition to the words of institution found in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-26), St. Paul makes additional statements in this epistle that affirms his belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Let’s consider these passages. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we also are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul addressed the serious problem of idolatry that troubled the Corinthian church. In verses 1-5 of chapter 10 he recalled God’s displeasure and punishment of the Hebrew people in the desert. Then in verses 6-13 he warned this Christian community about the seriousness of idolatry and reassured these converts in Corinth that God gives them the strength to remain faithful.

Paul continued his urging against idolatry in verses 14-15: “Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say.” At this point Paul goes to the heart of his argument by demonstrating the absurdity of participating in idol worship and receiving the Eucharist. “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation [koinonia - fellowship, communion] in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation [koinonia] in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor 10:16-17).
The words “blood of Christ” and “body of Christ” in verses 16-17 are clearly used in the literal sense. There is nothing in the passage to indicate these words have a symbolic meaning. The literal meaning is underscored in the next verses where Paul contrasts eating and drinking the Eucharist with the eating that occurred at idolatrous sacrifices. “Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons” (1 Cor 10:18-21). Paul also teaches that communion/participation [koinonia] in the body and blood of Christ by the reception of the Eucharist is the basis for the Church’s unique unity with the members of his Church who form one body with him. Therefore, if one distorts the meaning of the words “the blood of Christ” and the “body of Christ” as mere symbols, it also undermines the meaning to the Mystical Body (1 Cor 12:12-30; Rom 12:4-5; Mt 25:40; Acts 9:4; Lk 10:10), which is also reduced to a mere symbol.
Protestant Objection
James McCarthy objects: “The bread represents Christ’s body, broken for us on the cross. The wine represents His blood, poured out for our sins. Partaking of each is a public declaration of faith in His finished work of salvation. It is saying, ‘I have a share in Christ’s body and blood. He gave His life for me’ (see 1 Corinthians 10:16). When believers partake of one loaf together, they are also witnessing to their unity in Christ as His body (1 Corinthians 10:17).”
Catholic Response
Mr. McCarthy’s explanation bristles with difficulties. Sacred Scripture never claims that the bread and wine merely represent Christ’s body and blood. On the contrary, it affirms that the bread and wine becomes Christ’s body and blood. If the Eucharist is only a symbol, as McCarthy claims, how can St. Paul claim that in Communion we “have a share in Christ’s body and blood?” Paul never claims that when receiving the Eucharist Christians are merely “witnessing to their unity in Christ as His body.” Rather he affirms that receiving the Eucharist is a “participation” in the body and blood of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:27-30 This is the final passage for our analysis. Because of its importance each verse will be examined.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. The key phrase in Greek is: “enokos (guilty) estai (will be) tou (of the) somatos (body) kai (and)tou (of the) haimatos (blood) tou (of the) kuriou (Lord).” These words express violence to the person of Christ as if one was guilty of his murder. This graphic statement makes no sense unless Paul is confirming that the Eucharist is literally the body and blood of the Lord. If the Eucharist were merely a symbol, Paul could say the unworthy reception of the Eucharist is profaning the image of the Lord, but not his body and blood.

Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. The word “examine,” dokimazo in Greek carries the meaning “to prove” or “to scrutinize,” “to discover if something is genuine or not, like precious metals,” “to deem worthy.”

Why is such a careful examination necessary for a mere symbol? For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. The Greek word translated as “discerning” is diakrino. That word means, “to judge,” “to separate,” “to withdraw from.” The Greek word translated, as “judgment” is krima, which means “damnation,” or “condemnation.” This is very strong language that makes no sense if Paul is speaking about a mere symbol. St. Paul affirms that the unworthy reception of the Eucharist brings damnation upon the recipient. This serious condemnation only makes if the Eucharist is truly Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. It is inconceivable that God would render such severe punishments for disrespect to a mere symbol. Indeed, there is no other instance in the New Testament where a death is a common penalty for sin much less for the misuse of a symbol.
source

 

[Illuminator]

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation,

Deleted by mod for violating rule of making false accusations against a poster. Warning points given for repeatedly ignoring instructions to not post in this way.

 

[donadams]

You need to check around.

You said, I think they've changed their mind to agree with salvation by faith alone, not by works.

At least in some quarters.

Documentation please

 

[Carbon]

See John 6.
Within 60 years after Luther's nail job, Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, identified 200 Interpretations of the Words: This is My Body. How many are there now?

According to the RCC there are five words. But who knows, since they disagree on parts of it, they may have removed or added a word or two.
John 6 proves nothing for you.

Jesus said, “this is my body”

Actually, if you look you will see he said, "For this is my body."

when he changed bread into his body and blood during the Last Supper.

How could you say such a thing?
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 1 Cor 10:16. Dosent Paul state clearly enough for you that, "the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Do you know what communion is?
Or,..................

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 1 Cor 11:23-28.

Do you see Jesus' words? The Lord took bread, he gave thanks, and then did what? broke it and said to take it and eat. He said this is my body broken for you. He did not say it was his body being broken, given, or eaten. Any child can observe that it is bread, not the body of Christ being broken and eaten.


Shall I go on?

Three of the Gospels report that Jesus used these exact words. St. Paul repeats them in his First Letter to the Corinthians. Their meaning certainly seems clear. Yet with the invention of the principle of individual interpretation, their meaning has been the subject of controversy. Apparently, Jesus’ words were not so clear to some people.

In denial I see.

In this essay these four words will be examined. Collectively, the passages that contain these words are called the institution narratives. They provide the simplest way to show that, when Jesus said these words, the bread was miraculously transformed into the substance of his body, blood, soul, and divinity – the whole Christ.

Mt 26:26-28 “Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Mk 14:22-24 “And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, ‘Take; this is my body.’ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, ‘This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’.”

Lk 22:19-20“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood’.”

1 Cor 11:23-26 “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me. In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me’.”

A recent President of the United States incurred a great deal of notoriety for his failed attempt to parse away the literal meaning of the verb is. With the introduction of Luther’s principle of individual interpretation of the Bible in the 16th century, called sola scriptura – “the Bible alone,” passages of Scripture were subjected to outlandish interpretations that bore little 2 relationship to the sacred text and the Christian faith that had been faithfully passed on from Jesus and the apostles for 1,500 years. One example of the confusion that followed is evidenced in Christopher Rasperger’s work published in 1577, 200 Interpretations of the Words: This is My Body.1 Therefore, it is not surprising to find that some contemporary Protestant apologists strive to explain away the clear meaning of the institution narratives.

Protestant Objection
Robert Zins makes the following claims: “In the first place, the word ‘is’ would do too much if it did what the Catholics think it must do for them. This is My Body would have to make the bread the actual body of Jesus and it would no longer have the properties of bread. It would be his body. The Romanist skirts this issue by saying the bread is Christ in its essence but retains the characteristics of bread in its outward appearance. We ask how any serious Greek exegete can swallow this use of the Greek estin (is)! Where is the Greek language ever used in this manner?”
Catholic Response

You seem to be the Catholic copy-and-paste king. Is there anything you would like to share? Or do you prefer someone elses work?

 

[Carbon]

Fruit of the Vine Objection
Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
Mk 14:25 “Truly, I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Lk 22:18 “For I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

James White writes: “Furthermore, we see that even after the supposed ‘consecration,’ the Lord, and Paul6 after Him, continue to refer to the elements as bread and wine, not as the body or blood of Christ! When Jesus refers to the cup, He says, ‘I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Matthew 26:29). One can picture the Lord Jesus, still holding the cup, and referring to it as He speaks. But what does He say? Does He say it is literally blood? No, He says it is the fruit of the vine. And then He says He will not drink of it again until he would drink it with the disciples in His father’s kingdom. Does this mean that Jesus will still be transubstantiating wine into His blood in the kingdom of God? We are looking at the text very closely, very literally, but that is what is demanded by the Roman position. If we are forced to take ‘this is My blood’ as literally as the Roman Catholic Church insists, we must point out the contradictions and errors that come as a result of this method of interpretation.”

Catholic Response
The words “fruit of the vine” refers to wine. In the accounts of Matthew (Mt 26:28) and Mark (Mk 14:24) this expression occurs after the words of institution. Therefore Mr. White argues that these words points to the reality that only wine was in the cup over which Jesus said, “This is my blood.” However, as was demonstrated earlier, the Greek construction of “this is my body,” touto estinto soma mou, in the Synoptic Gospels compels the literal meaning of Jesus words. The meaning of the text, as was explained above, is clear. The bread is no longer bread, but truly Jesus’ body. Mr. White’s interpretation implies that Jesus contradicts this earlier declaration when he speaks about drinking “the fruit of the vine.” However, there is a plausible explanation that does not imply that Jesus contradicted himself and is in harmony with all the other Eucharistic passages. Both institution accounts begin with the statement “while they were eating” (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22). Furthermore, the words of institution are spoken in the context of Jesus imminent sacrifice on Calvary:
“for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Mt 26:28);
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many” (Mk 14:24).
Therefore, it is clear in the context of these passages that Jesus is saying he will not dine again with them, that is, drink of the fruit of the vine, until after his death and Resurrection. However, there is no indication in the text that the expression “fruit of the vine” refers to the consecrated elements. This interpretation is reinforced when the short almost identical institution narratives of Matthew and Mark are reconciled with the more detailed version found in Luke’s Gospel, (Lk 22:13-16), which Mr. White ignored. Luke records that the Eucharistic celebration occurred during a Passover meal, but he places the words “fruit of the vine” after the meal, but before consecration of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood.

St. Paul’s understanding of the Real Presence
In addition to the words of institution found in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 11:23-26), St. Paul makes additional statements in this epistle that affirms his belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Let’s consider these passages. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we also are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul addressed the serious problem of idolatry that troubled the Corinthian church. In verses 1-5 of chapter 10 he recalled God’s displeasure and punishment of the Hebrew people in the desert. Then in verses 6-13 he warned this Christian community about the seriousness of idolatry and reassured these converts in Corinth that God gives them the strength to remain faithful.


source

Copy and paste?

Do you want to discuss these things? I'm not interested in where you get these things to copy and paste.

 

[Carbon]

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" 273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." 274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation,

The CC is not anti-Protestant, but Arial wants it to be.

Personally, I don't care what the Church or Rome thinks about the protestant churches and believers. The Church of Rome is not a Christian church. It has no say about anything of God's word.

 

[donadams]

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were physically dead when Jesus said that so what do you suppose He meant. You will find the answer in the full context out of which the verse comes. And what does that have to do in any way with the scripture I quoted?

For all men, not to them and not to the dead. In fact we are forbidden from communicating with the dead.

That is just a way of getting around what is being done. Why pray to God through saints, especially since He alone can hear and answer prayer. And the saints referred to are all believers, not those men and women the Catholic church claims the authority to deem saints. Once again overstepping Christ's authority.

I am not going through all your "proof texts' that the Catholic church has interpreted for you, claiming if they say that is what it means then that is what it means----no questions asked. (no questions are asked evidently.) You present them with your (excuse me, the Catholic)interpretation behind them and therefore stand as no support in a debate on the matter. Everyone has been dealt with individually by one person or another in other posts.

The apostolic church has the absolute authority of Jesus Christ the king!

Matt 28:18-20

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Matt 16:18-19

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[donadams]

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were physically dead when Jesus said that so what do you suppose He meant. You will find the answer in the full context out of which the verse comes. And what does that have to do in any way with the scripture I quoted?

For all men, not to them and not to the dead. In fact we are forbidden from communicating with the dead.

That is just a way of getting around what is being done. Why pray to God through saints, especially since He alone can hear and answer prayer. And the saints referred to are all believers, not those men and women the Catholic church claims the authority to deem saints. Once again overstepping Christ's authority.

I am not going through all your "proof texts' that the Catholic church has interpreted for you, claiming if they say that is what it means then that is what it means----no questions asked. (no questions are asked evidently.) You present them with your (excuse me, the Catholic)interpretation behind them and therefore stand as no support in a debate on the matter. Everyone has been dealt with individually by one person or another in other posts.

Not dead!
Jn
John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Mary all powerful advocate!
Help of Christian’s!

Mary ever virgin, mother of God, is all powerful in her prayers!

Mary’s prayers are all powerful not cos she is God but because her son is God!

and on becoming man He (Jesus) obeyed his own commandments

you might check out the one that says “honor Thy father and mother”

“My hour has not come”

Jn 2
The time set by almighty God for the public ministry of Christ had not come, Jesus Christ still performed the miracle cos his mother interceded, thus a higher law, “honor thy father and mother” if ANYONE else asked it would NOT have been done! The answer was no! But He honored His mother!

and cos of her intercession the disciples believed in Him!
Jn 2:11

 

[donadams]

The apostolic church is not the RCC. The RCC only claims to be but since they have no witness to what they claim but themselves, the claim is invalid, and their arguments for themselves like attempting to carry water with a bucket full of holes. Those are the plain facts.

Then who is?

 

[donadams]

1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.

You have not responded to #109?

 

[Carbon]

Not dead!
Jn
John 11:25
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Mary all powerful advocate!
Help of Christian’s!

Mary ever virgin, mother of God, is all powerful in her prayers!

Mary’s prayers are all powerful not cos she is God but because her son is God!

and on becoming man He (Jesus) obeyed his own commandments

you might check out the one that says “honor Thy father and mother”

“My hour has not come”

Jn 2
The time set by almighty God for the public ministry of Christ had not come, Jesus Christ still performed the miracle cos his mother interceded, thus a higher law, “honor thy father and mother” if ANYONE else asked it would NOT have been done! The answer was no! But He honored His mother!

and cos of her intercession the disciples believed in Him!
Jn 2:11

A prime example of an apostate church. Nice job.

 

[donadams]

Why ask another believer to pray for you? Why not go to God alone?

James 5:26 The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

How much more the immaculate virgin, the mother of God?

Thanks

 

[Frank Robert]

Oh let me see, where to start?

Let's start with Transubstantiation. Shall we? You know that "change of essence" thing. First, do you agree with your church and popes, that the proclamation of these five words, " for this is my body," changes the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the natural and essential body and blood of Christ (His soul and Godhead being included) and thus into Christ Himself?

RC's?

Transubstantiation is a Catholic belief. However, Transubstantiation doesn’t mean change of substance in the sense of modern physics and chemistry. So although the physical appearance of the bread and wine do not change, so the essence of what is there, is henceforth the Body and Blood of Christ.

Sorry that I was confused on this the first time around but like all humans I make mistakes.