The Roman Catholic Eucharistic Christ and the Jesus of the Bible

[balshan]

And that has to do with the price of tea in China, how exactly?

That is another way of asking: What does this have to do with anything?

Again putting others down and showing us what love your neighbours means to RCs.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

At least we nccs KNOW what Jesus did and accomplished on the cross. And we rest on Him for our salvation.

All true. Not sure what this has to do with my point.

Why romanist bother to even remember his death on the cross is totally beyond me.

What did you just say above that I agreed with? THAT is why the "Romanist" would "bother to even remember what Jesus did and accompished on the cross..." and "rest on Him for salvation."

His death wasn't enough for romanist's salvation.

Says WHO?

Romanists have to jump through hoops and are required to believe and perform man made things to maybe be enough help to Jesus for a "maybe" chance that you have done enough to save yourselves from an eternity in hell.

You mean celebrate the Sacraments? I do not see the Sacraments as "jumping through hoops" as much as I see the Sacraments as an encounter with Christ.

Jesus, to those of the romanist religion, is an impotent Savior wanna be, unable to save anyone on His own merit and needs the romanist "church" to complete the work of salvation for Him.

No, we need the "Romanist Church" to be the Body of Christ; that is, to reveal the presence of Christ.

And that is an unbiblical, other gospel, and why your religion of romanism is accursed, and will save nobody!

The only Gospel that will save no one is Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

 

[bluedog1us]

All true. Not sure what this has to do with my point.

What did you just say above that I agreed with? THAT is why the "Romanist" would "bother to even remember what Jesus did and accompished on the cross..." and "rest on Him for salvation."

Says WHO?

You mean celebrate the Sacraments? I do not see the Sacraments as "jumping through hoops" as much as I see the Sacraments as an encounter with Christ.

No, we need the "Romanist Church" to be the Body of Christ; that is, to reveal the presence of Christ.

The only Gospel that will save no one is Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

So you deny that the sacrements are necessary for salvation. That you have to do penance for salvation. That you have to be subject to the pope for salvation. That you have to believe in the Marian dogmas for salvation. That you merit any part of salvation by works.
That one does has to be a member of the rcc for salvation. That baptism is salvific. That baptism effects the remission of all punishments of sin, both the eternal and the temporal.

You deny all of the above are needed for salvation, right? If not, then you are adding to the gospel preached by the apostles, and changing the gospel of Jesus Christ


.

 

[bluedog1us]

I mean that is hard to bring up what the catechism actually teaches to prove an RC wrong.

Truth is brutal at times.

 

[RayneBeau]

All true. Not sure what this has to do with my point.

What did you just say above that I agreed with? THAT is why the "Romanist" would "bother to even remember what Jesus did and accompished on the cross..." and "rest on Him for salvation."

Says WHO?

You mean celebrate the Sacraments? I do not see the Sacraments as "jumping through hoops" as much as I see the Sacraments as an encounter with Christ.

No, we need the "Romanist Church" to be the Body of Christ; that is, to reveal the presence of Christ.

The only Gospel that will save no one is Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

So in brief, would you say that your Roman Catholic belief is that the Eucharist is the sum and summary of your faith, and that your way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn then confirms your way of thinking?

 

[RayneBeau]

And he gave us his body and blood in the form of bread and wine.

I can't believe that the nCCs keep being up this "sacrificed again" attack. For the 1000th time - the CC doesn't teach that Jesus is sacrificed again.

Well, once again, you must get all your information from your book, "Roman Catholicism According to Ding."
I don't mean to alarm you, but guess what - you better trash that book, and read exactly what the Roman Catholic Church teaches their "attack" about Jesus really being "sacrificed again" Ready ding? Here goes:
The Eucharist represents Christ as a sacrifice for sons and that during the "sacrifice of the Mass," Christ is daily being sacrificed for our sins. The Roman Catholic Catechism states:

• The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Euchrist are one single sacrifice."The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner."

First Image Books edition, Second Edition, April 1995, para. 1367 pg 381

It should be apparent then that the Eucharistic Jesus present on every Roman Catholic altar is of paramount importance to Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic faith. Truly the Eucharistic Jesus is the Jesus of Roman Catholicism. However, the true question asks: Is the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Jesus, the same Jesus of the Bible?

 

[RayneBeau]

I didn't say I had no experience with them. I only suggested that experience is subjective. In other words----sharing my experience might make for nice conversation, but in the end it is irrelevant.

Mormons would share their experience and claim they "know" Mormonism is true based on that. For that matter anyone who is religious might say the same thing. Look at the followers of Ken Copland. That guy is a snake oil salesman masquerading as a Christian pastor--how many people love him based on their experience?

How many former Protestants, now Catholic, would argue that their experience with Catholicism made them convert? How many former Catholics would argue the same in reverse?

See now why I think talk of experience is worthless?

Instead of talking about your experiences then, have you ever personally studied any of your experiences?

 

[RayneBeau]

No, the RCC doctrine of the Eucharist is based on what the Scriptures teach. Transubstantiation is just a theological term that describes what the Scriptures teach like "Homoousios" is a theological term that describes wat the Scriptures teach about the Trinity.

Being a proponent of the Eucharist, romish, you may argue that 1 Corinthians 11 supports the Roman Catholic Church's own magic trick which they've deemed as: 'transubstantiation.' Verse 29 is refered to, which states: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. A thorough reading of 1 COrinthans 11 revels that the Corinthians were not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not discerning the Lord's body meant not discerning the bread and wine symbols of Christ's body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently as if it were a common feast.

 

[ramcam2]

Being a proponent of the Eucharist, romish, you may argue that 1 Corinthians 11 supports the Roman Catholic Church's own magic trick which they've deemed as: 'transubstantiation.' Verse 29 is refered to, which states: "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. A thorough reading of 1 COrinthans 11 revels that the Corinthians were not making the proper distinction between Communion and common meals. Not discerning the Lord's body meant not discerning the bread and wine symbols of Christ's body and blood, but partaking of them irreverently as if it were a common feast.

1Cor11:27 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.

The Greek text, 'enochos estai tou somatos kai tou haimatos tou kyriou', translates 'will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.' The phrase 'guilty of blood' is a figure of speech that connotes murder (Ezek35: 27). it is used in the negative in numbers35:27. Pilate declares he is innocent of Jesus' blood (matt27:24). 'Blood on his hands' is also a phrase that is used today. In order to be 'guilty of blood', a victim has to be present. When Paul says one is 'guilty of blood' if we partake of the eucharist unworthily, the only way it makes sense is that Paul believes the eucharist is literally Jesus Christ. There is no way the victim is just a symbol.