[Basilissa]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

I am very well aware that the Poincare conjecture has been proven recently by a brilliant Russian mathematician. However, at this point in time, I do not understand the proof and further study is required for my understanding. Similarly, the fact that someone is very well aware of Catholic claims on Transubstantiation does not necessarily imply that he will understand the teaching. That is why I gave the two links above. Further study may be required for those who do not understand this teaching.

Sweetie,


you have been shown over and over and over again that the Catholic belief is wrong because it stands in clear contradiction of the Holy Bible. I will not repeat what has been already said but I do recommend that you read Dr. Elmer's posts. The passages in bold red and blue are directly from the Bible, and they clearly show that Catholics are wrong.


Therefore, it is pointless to try to understand why Catholis believe what they believe - it's wrong either way. It's like trying to understand where the 72 virgins for each Muslim martyr come from. They don't exist either way because the Muslim belief is wrong. Q.E.D.


I hope that was helpful.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Actually, John 6:51-54 does make sense to a believing Christian, but since I have been given an infraction by a mormon moderator after bringing up this quote, I don't see any point in continuing the discussion. I only hope that people who claim to be Christian will reread John 6:51-54. Of course, if you are a heathen who is set on taking pleasure in mocking religion, you will not accept what is written there.

As God is absent in the Church of Rome, in order that miracles may be done in accordance with

John:14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

the Whore of Babylon took the simple solution and lied - "Priests can perform miracles, and here is a miracle...".

There is no miracle. Nothing happens. You may as well have a cracker. The essence is simply to remember Jesus. The minions of the AntiChrist like to mock God and deceive the people and once having succeeded then they sit around screaming with demonic laughter because of one their number has invented as really stupid "explanation" (or as they say "an apology".)

This idea of transubstantiation has been going on for a few thousand years now and still the Beast of The Seven Hills of Rome has still not stopped telling the joke because its weak-minded slaves are all nodding and defending the indefensible. (<sigh> It makes Mormons in magic underwear look positively intelligent.

Let me remind you of how miracles are certified in the Satan's Temple of Lust:

A committee decides if a miracle happened by asking themselves: "Is there any reasonable explanation for what has happened?" If they cannot find one, then it is a miracle.

This speaks more of the ignorance of Catholics than the robust qualities of the system. I give you "The Miracle of the Herring"

After his death, Thomas Aquinas was considered for sainthood but nobody could find a miracle to attribute to him – a necessity for canonization until someone remembered that, on his deathbed, said, “Oh, I really fancy a herring. Some herrings, have we got some herrings?”

Now, they’re in the Mediterranean, where there are no herrings, so they thought, “We’ll give him some pilchards, he won’t know.” So they gave him some pilchards, and he went, “Mmm. Very [good]. They’re the best herrings I’ve ever tasted!”

And so the Catholic Church decided to interpret that as the miracle of the herrings: that the pilchards had turned to herrings in his mouth. And therefore he qualified as a saint, and therefore he is to this day St. Thomas Aquinas.

Now, what seems more likely, Aquinas, dying, had no idea what he was eating, or there was a miracle?

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Thomas Aquinas … ?

I've read the Scripture references. Clearly what this heretic was up to was eating and drinking damnation to himself.

I CORINTHIANS 11 . KJV . look up
27 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.
29a For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself

What would be the first thing to check for Thomas Aquinas if he were to examine himself? Remember, he's pretending to be a theologian. Surely he'll have read The Ten Commandments? The bit about worshipping God and not obsessing over hideous idols chief among which must be the DEAD JESUS monstrosity? Satan would love for Jesus to be still dead. From the perspective of anyone who actually believed what The Bible commands to be important this would be the first thing. "Am I about to celebrate the most blasphemous idol ever conceived?" he should ask during his self-examination. A quick glance around would reveal idols, idols to which this sacrament is dedicated. If it were not so Aquinas would either destroy all the idols or leave the Romish cult. He did neither.

God is always consistent. He does not say one day:

DEUTERONOMY 4 . KJV . look up
15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:
16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air,
18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth:
19a And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven,
19b and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven,
19c shouldest be driven to worship them

..and the next day recommend tantric massage for all newcomers as a sort of introductory offer with free tarot cards and a bag of idols. If Thomas Aquinas or any other catholic actually believed what God said they would not have idols and would examine themselves to avoid damnation. Just as God spelled out so plainly. It's not as though He said ONLY and EVER to build stone buildings one day and the next day said, "Oh, and you can paint it tartan or polka dots or puce & aqua zigzags if you like," because whether it's stone has nothing to do with how you paint it. God could reveal the extra details by revelation at any time without contradicting Himself.

Blatant frauds, on the other hand, do the opposite. They don't care what God has already commanded. They just tell you to do whatever they feel like and chop your head off if you read The Bible. Or burn you alive. And it's easy to tell if they're frauds. Just read The Bible. I have. That's how I know what it says.

claims on Transubstantiation … gave the two links above. Further study may be required for those who do not understand this teaching.

Why would anyone want to understand contrary teaching when we have The Bible? Its message is straightforward and easy to understand. It's unnecessary to guess which bits are true and which bits are lies because it's all true. Additional links are not called for because we understand God's message already. And as for study to appreciate something different, why should anyone take your word for it that yours is the correct denial of reality? What about Norse mythology or Maori traditions? How do you know they're not the real delusion? After all, they also contradict God. Perhaps next time you see your guru you could ask for an answer on that point.

It will be interesting to see what you come up with.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

No answer...

I then mentioned I the dismissal of our legitimate questions made us sad and weary. However, no answer was received, instead..

The answer was given already. And the links on Transubstantiation give more detail.

Reference can be made to the essence or to the accidents.
The essence is the Blood of Christ.
The appearance is the wine.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

The answer was given already. And the links on Transubstantiation give more detail.

Reference can be made to the essence or to the accidents.
The essence is the Blood of Christ.
The appearance is the wine.

Thank you for your patience and for answering the question for a second time. Now you can answer mine:

claims on Transubstantiation … gave the two links above. Further study may be required for those who do not understand this teaching.

Why would anyone want to understand contrary teaching when we have The Bible? Its message is straightforward and easy to understand. It's unnecessary to guess which bits are true and which bits are lies because it's all true. Additional links are not called for because we understand God's message already. And as for study to appreciate something different, why should anyone take your word for it that yours is the correct denial of reality? What about Norse mythology or Maori traditions? How do you know they're not the real delusion? After all, they also contradict God. Perhaps next time you see your guru you could ask for an answer on that point..

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Thank you for your patience and for answering the question for a second time. Now you can answer mine:

<<Why would anyone want to understand contrary teaching when we have The Bible?>>
Catholics don't think that the words of Jesus Christ are contrary to the Bible. He said: this is my body... this is my blood.

[Basilissa]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

<<Why would anyone want to understand contrary teaching when we have The Bible?>>
Catholics don't think that the words of Jesus Christ are contrary to the Bible. He said: this is my body... this is my blood.

You do understand the concept of a parable, do you, sweetie?

Or do you actually believe that you are committing a cannibalistic act every Sunday, eating human flesh and drinking human blood?

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Or do you actually believe that you are committing a cannibalistic act every Sunday, eating human flesh and drinking human blood?

However you want to describe it, this is what the Holy Bible says: John 6:23 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

However you want to describe it, this is what the Holy Bible says: John 6:23 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Sorry, was a typo. Should be John 6:53.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

However you want to describe it, this is what the Holy Bible says: John 6:23 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Big font for the hard-of-hearing time:


PARABLES. DO YOU GET THEM?

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

PARABLES. DO YOU GET THEM?

No, because you are misusing the work parable. A parable is a story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson. That does not apply here. What we have here is just a simple statement of fact.
Jesus says:
This is My Body.
This is My Blood.
Where is the moral lesson?
What is the moral lesson?

[Basilissa]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

However you want to describe it, this is what the Holy Bible says: John 6:23 Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

No, because you are misusing the work parable. A parable is a story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson. That does not apply here. What we have here is just a simple statement of fact.
Jesus says:
This is My Body.
This is My Blood.
Where is the moral lesson?
What is the moral lesson?

If this is not a metaphor, not a parable, then is the human blood dripping from your communion bread?

Are there chunks of human bone or pieces of intestines, or just muscle and fat? How about brains, do you ever get a piece of a brain? Are you ever worried about mad cow disease in this context?

Are you allowed to spice that human meat up with something, or at least bring it to medium rare state, or do you have to eat it raw and as-is?



On the other hand, if it is a parable or metaphor, which would mean that you are not consuming actual human flesh and blood, the moral lesson here is that people don't live on bread alone, and while bread and wine are needed for the human body to survive, Jesus' teachings are equally necessary for the human soul to thrive and avoid Hell.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

... bread and wine are needed for the human body to survive, ...

Not true. People can live without bread or wine. There are some Buddhist monks in Asia who eat only rice and who do not drink wine. Many Asians do not eat bread, but eat rice instead.

[Basilissa]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

Not true. People can live without bread or wine. There are some Buddhist monks in Asia who eat only rice and who do not drink wine. Many Asians do not eat bread, but eat rice instead.

I see. You are completely unable to understand the concept of a metaphor. I probably should stop wasting my time now, but after reviewing some pictures I shot yesterday I'm feeling exceedingly cheerful, so I'll try anyway.

A metaphor is a type of comparison. It means that the thing being spoken about is like something else in some regards, even if the connection seems rather loose. Metaphors are rather common in languages; for example a very common metaphor in several languages is ARGUMENT = WAR (as seen in expressions such as, "X won the debate," "Y lost the argument," "Z lost her line of thought"). You can read more on the subjects searching for Lakoff and Johnson on Google Scholar, some pretty good stuff there.

The metaphor I was making is also common, and it was used since antiquity, including by Jesus Himself, more than once. Below is the specific verse I was trying to allude to, but I guess as a Catholic you're allergic to the Bible, so you couldn't have known it. I apologize for making that mental shortcut.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

If you were to understand this verse literally, it would mean that bread is the only means of giving nourishment to human body. That would be plain stupid, wouldn't it? Well, Jesus is God, so He ain't stupid. What Jesus means here, is that just like material food (including but not limited to bread, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy, oils, do I really have to list the whole food pyramid for you?) is necessary for the body to live, the same way the Word of God is the nourishment for the soul. Basically, Jesus is using a metaphor BREAD = FOOD, making bread stand for all foods. Since He did it once, it is rather logical that He used it multiple times - including the verse you cited before.

I apologize again for using a metaphor derived from the Bible without explaining it in more detail, and therefore making assumptions about your knowledge of it.

Seriously, though, you should try reading the Bible sometimes. It is the Word of God, after all. I know you were brainwashed to believe that the words of your popes are more important than the Word of God (even when they contradict the Bible and the words of previous popes), but I do hope you can try to overcome that problem someday.

Now, please satisfy my curiosity:

(copied from previous post)
If this is not a metaphor, not a parable, then is the human blood dripping from your communion bread?

Are there chunks of human bone or pieces of intestines, or just muscle and fat? How about brains, do you ever get a piece of a brain? Are you ever worried about mad cow disease in this context?

Are you allowed to spice that human meat up with something, or at least bring it to medium rare state, or do you have to eat it raw and as-is?

I thank you in advance for your answer.

[tomdstone]

Re: Question for Catholics about the eucharist

I used to be a practicing, believing, faithful, very devoted Catholic.

Apparently you have been led astray by Satan. You are always welcome back to the Church. This is something you have to decide for yourself.