Do the scriptures mean anything to you catholics?

Question

I am about to talk about your communion.
Leviticus 17:12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. Really the whole chapter would be best. So with that being said does that not mean that when your priest supposedly changes your wine into Jesus blood, it is going against God's law?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
So with that being said Jesus didn't take that part out of the law.

Also if I was to put rat poison in the cup before the blessing would you still drink it? Or something that would kill you, not saying I would but it would prove my point, hmmmm.

it's just a question that I am curious about, don't harrass me. No it is not good enough because they don't preach salvation, they follow many things that are leading them in the wrong direction, to hell. Some are saved yes but the way some think they can get to heaven is by communion and among many other things.

All I am doing is trying to expose the truth to catholics because I care, I want them to hear the truth. So don't question me and what I do.

So by doing the communion you are sacrificing Jesus over and over saying that at the cross of calvary that wasn't good enough.

Ok to say that Jesus becomes the bread and wine, is that not saying that the Holy Ghost doesn't live inside of you? So therefore why would you need to keep eating Jesus? When he is already in you. Scripture interprets scripture remember that.

Answer 1

I am non-denom., from what I have personally seen, yes, the Catholics DO read the scriptures. Unfortunately, not all, the same as so many Protestants.
Seriously, if you have a problem with the organization/structure/whatever of the Catholic church, and you want to take the role of a "reformer" to yourself, you really need to do it from a motive of LOVE.
Why be abrasive? You cannot force truth down anyone's throat.
First, consider YOUR OWN denom. practices. Can you honestly say your own doesn't have problems? No beam in your own eyes?

Answer 2

I'm not Roman Catholic but as a Confessional Lutheran I feel that I must come to the defense of truth regarding the Eucharist.

Read John Chapter 6. The words of our Lord (for the theologian types verbum Domini) state "this is my body" "this is my blood". How much more plain can it be.

Martin Luther said of Communion "it is what it is"

You Baptists and Calvinists further blasphemed the verbum Domini by coining the phrase "hoccus poccus" to mock the Sacrament. This comes from the Latin "Hoc est corpus Meum" (this is My body).

Either you take the whole of Scripture or you diminish the value and efficacy of Scripture by taking what you want and discarding and even mocking the rest.

Mark

Oh, to answer your question, I think our Catholic Brethren, maybe read parts of the Bible that you haven't even looked at.

------------------------------
Fr. Joseph, I understand where you are coming from regarding Zwingli. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Calvinist denial of the real presence is a result of interpreting Scripture with human reason. Zwingli reasoned that since Christ ascended bodily into heaven, His body (and blood) could not be in two places at once. Since he also professed a belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, he obviously forgot about the omnipresent nature of God.

I firmly believe that the Bible indicates as Luther stated in the Augsburg Confession that "word and sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men". Apostolic succession is not necessary for a valid Eucharist. Therefore reformed Churches that deny the real presence but celebrate the sacrament using the verbum Domini ARE administering the sacrament, and receiving it in an unworthy manor.

This leads to another question that Scripture does not answer. If someone has faith in the lord, but does not believe in the real presence, yet receives the Sacrament, do they receive the benefits? I know how the RC Church would answer, but it is an interesting point.

Mark.

Another point to ponder....
If a Church must have Apostolic Succession to have a valid Eucharist, men who are appointed or elected, does that not put some of the onus on men, taking some onus away from God? A sacrament IS a means of God's grace exclusively!

Mark

Answer 3

Matthew 26:25-27
Mark 14:21-23
Luke 22:18-20

1 Cor. 11:23-27
1 Cor. 10:16-17

All of these speak of the real presence in communion. Jesus did NOT say, "take, eat, this is a SYMBOL of my body...."

While Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation, we do fully believe in the real presence, as Jesus told us it would be. This is why only Catholics and LCMS Lutherans practice close communion, where we only commune with those who share the same belief.

Addition: First, the bread and wine become Body and Blood, not the other way around. And, yes, the Holy Spirit does dwell within us, but Christ calls us to take the Lord's Supper "in rememberance of me", see scripture versus above. There are 3 places where we encounter Christ... in the Word, in our Baptism, and in the Lord's Supper. So, yes, I want to partake of my Lord and Savior every week, in rememberance of all He has done and all He has given me.

Answer 4

At the Last Supper, Jesus said, “Take this bread. It is my body.” Then he said, “Take this and drink. This is my blood. Do this in memory of me.”

Catholics believe this was the First Eucharist, that through a miracle the bread and wine actually became the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Catholics reenact the Last Supper during every Mass, where God, acting through the priest, changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

This is a great sacrament of thanksgiving and unity of Catholics.

By the way, the Orthodox, Lutheran and many Anglican Churches also believe in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

For more information, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, sections 1322 and following: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 5

What we are speaking of is two totally different practices. The first identical to what the apostles taught and put into practice which is the real presence and the second a modernist interpretation of a man Ulrich Zwingli which is a symbolic ordinance. The first is actually Christ on the Cross where the worshippers are at the foot of the cross; the second is just a remembering of what Christ did as recorded in the Bible. When a Catholic Christian remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is from being there, when a Protestant remembers Christ’s sacrifice it is recalling what is written in Scriptures about the event. Certainly, one should be able to understand the level of passion one would have after being at the foot of the cross compared to the level of one just remembering what is written in a book. So even though you and others do not take it lightly, even though you do not believe, it cannot be the same passion for an exercise or ordinance in supposed obedience, as the Protestant act can be described; to the Catholic practice of being present with the living corporeal Christ at the cross and eating His real body and Blood as He commanded.

It must be noted for understanding that for many of the Reformers that this approach by Zwingli was necessary to give some credibility to the new Protestant movement which denied the successive apostolic leadership of the Church established by Christ. These reformers knew full well that they had no true legitimacy and no authority from Christ. They also knew that without a legitimate episcopacy that they could not continue Holy Orders, the Sacraments nor do they have the authority to confect the Eucharist which authority can only be given by Christ through the Church. Therefore, they could not continue the Eucharist even if they desired without a valid priesthood.

So, I am not saying that I do not believe that your Protestant communion service is not special or a sign of unity but it is to me a sign of unity for a false, heretical belief outside of historical, Traditional and orthodox Christianity and is a doctrine of men warned about in the Gospels.

(Mat 15:7 DRB) Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:

(Mat 15:8 DRB) This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.(Mat 15:9 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

(Mar 7:5 DRB) And the Pharisees and scribes asked him: Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the ancients, but they eat bread with common hands?

(Mar 7:6 DRB) But he answering, said to them: Well did Isaias prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

(Mar 7:7 DRB) And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

(Mar 7:8 DRB) For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these.

(Mar 7:9 DRB) And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.

(Luk 6:46 DRB) And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 6

"All I am doing is trying to expose the truth to catholics because I care, I want them to hear the truth. So don't question me and what I do."

Sorry, my brother, but if you are questioning me (as one of "you Catholics") I can certainly question you. And I submit that your "care" is the hedge behind which you lob anti-Catholic rhetoric, as if appearing to have care and concern for us excuses the holier-than-thou condescension toward us and our Christian faith.

I am well aware of the truth regarding Holy Communion. I do not need one of my former Baptist brethren to insinuate that I do not, and that Scripture means nothing to me. Do get off your high horse, brother. It is unbecoming a Christian.

[edit] Mark R, below: Thank you. Well-said.

Answer 7

Christ through the Holy Spirit makes himself available as the Lamb of God to be consumed continuously. That's the whole point of the Resurrection, incidentally. St. Paul is clear, as well, my deluded Baptist friend, when he says: "As oft as ye do eat of this bread and drink of this cup, ye do shew forth His Death until He come." The Holy Spirit raises up that body and glorifies it so supernaturally that body and blood which is glorified may be internationally distributed through the elders and priests of the Church so that all of God's children can be bound back to the Father in the New Covenant sacrifice of Christ. He didn't die again. He's not bleeding and he's not suffering. He's reigning in glory and giving us his own flesh and blood.

Where does that come from? From the Old Testament -- the manna, the Passover, the sacrifice as it's described on Calvary as it's initiated in the Upper Room and as he states right here in John 6 - verse 51. "If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." Jews stop - just like you do, wait a second. Hold the phone. "John, what do you mean 'my flesh?'" Verse 52, "The Jews then disputed among themselves saying, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'" Cannibalism, paganism, barbarism, sin in the highest degree.

So did Jesus say to them, "I didn't mean it, guys. I was just kind of, you know, using hyperbole or metaphor." No. He actually intensifies the scandal. He actually raises the obstacle even higher. "He said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,' which Leviticus condemns, the drinking of blood, 'unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.'"

He said that four times in four different ways.

In verse 60, "Many of His disciples when they heard it said, 'This is a hard saying. Who can listen to it?'" That is an understatement. "Jesus, however, knowing in Himself that His disciples murmured at it" (the disciples, the followers, the spiritual proteges, not just the crowd now, the disciples themselves are taking offense at this and murmuring and grumbling), "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? It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.'"

Answer 8

We gave the New Testament to the world when it was canonized at the council of Rome in the 4th century, and the monks in all the monastaries preserved the Bible by copying it by hand throughout the centuries. Is that good enough for you?

from the Catechism Of The Catholic Church:

CCC 103 - "....the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body."
CCC 104 - "In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God." "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them.""
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.htm#art2

Answer 9

Jesus' Passion is Connected to the Passover Sacrifice where the Lamb Must Be Eaten
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus' passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).

John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.

Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.

Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself "without blemish" refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.

Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.

Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.

Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.

Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb's sacrifice is completed.

John 19:23 - this verse describes the "chiton" garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus' death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus' death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.

1 Cor. 5:7 - Paul tells us that the Lamb has been sacrificed. But what do we need to do? Some Protestants say we just need to accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.

1 Cor. 5:8 - But Paul says that we need to celebrate the Eucharistic feast. This means that we need to eat the Lamb. We need to restore communion with God.

Heb. 13:15 - "sacrifice of praise" or "toda" refers to the thanksgiving offerings of Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30 which had to be eaten.

1 Cor. 10:16 - Paul's use of the phrase "the cup of blessing" refers to the Third Cup of the seder meal. This demonstrates that the seder meal is tied to Christ's Eucharistic sacrifice.

John 19:34-35 - John conspicuously draws attention here. The blood (Eucharist) and water (baptism) make the fountain that cleanses sin as prophesied in Zech 13:1. Just like the birth of the first bride came from the rib of the first Adam, the birth of the second bride (the Church) came from the rib of the second Adam (Jesus). Gen. 2:22.

John 7:38 - out of His Heart shall flow rivers of living water, the Spirit. Consequently, Catholics devote themselves to Jesus' Sacred Heart.

Matt. 2:1, Luke 2:4-7 - Jesus the bread of life was born in a feeding trough in the city of Bethlehem, which means "house of bread."

Luke 2: 7,12 - Jesus was born in a "manger" (which means "to eat"). This symbolism reveals that Jesus took on flesh and was born to be food for the salvation of the world.

Answer 10

Catholics believe in Jesus. Isn't that good enough for you? Why do you people feel the need to tear each other down all the time?