How Often Need Catholics Take Communion?

[God's Truth]

See post #19

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I read that post. Please clarify for me here how you eat the flesh of Jesus. Don't just say it is not literal.

Just tell me plainly how you eat Jesus' flesh.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Merely a False Dilemma Fallacy on your part. Try again.


Urm, maybe you missed this in your glaring lack of history and catechism classes, but the New Testament documents were written by fallible men who were nevertheless enabled by God to teach infallibly and bindingly. Having been penned in human languages, those same documents must also be infallibly and bindingly interpreted by the same sort of men---apostles and bishops (i.e., the Magisterium)---who are enabled by God to do so. As in the beginning, so today.


Back to Post #37 above.

That is legalism, not faith.

 

[Cruciform]

That is legalism, not faith.

Feel free, then, to actually disprove my statements in Post #39 above.

(Wait for it...)

 

[WeberHome]

Just tell me plainly how you eat Jesus' flesh.

Jesus informed his remaining followers that the words he spoke about eating his flesh and blood are spirit words (John 6:63). Not that people can't read and/or hear spirit words spoken in their native tongue; but in order to understand what spirit words are saying, people need some way to decode them.

No doubt Rome claims it has the ability to decode spirit words; but if John Q and Jane Doe pew warmer don't have the ability, then they're forced to take Rome's word for it.

Speaking for myself: I don't have the ability to decode spirit words, nor do I have access to an Enigma machine set up to decode them. I think I know what Jesus' spirit words are saying; but in reality, my thoughts are only a theory; so in sharing my thoughts, I'd just be muddying the waters.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[CabinetMaker]

Feel free, then, to actually disprove my statements in Post #39 above.

(Wait for it...)

They speak for themselves. Binding authority=legalism. The RCC is attempting to bind people to their sect through legalism. What does Galatians teach us about legalism?

 

[WeberHome]

-
During Jesus' last Passover meal; he told his men: “This is my blood". But that's not all he told them. There's more.

● 1Cor 11:25 . . After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood

So the cup doesn't represent only Christ's blood, it also represents the new testament; which is very important to note because according to Heb 9:16-20 testaments are not in force until the death of the testator.
'
Well; that's a bit of a problem because on the night before the day of Christ's crucifixion, he and the men with him were still under the jurisdiction of the first covenant; which forbids Jews to eat blood; any blood.

● Lev 17:10 . . And if anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, partakes of any blood, I will set myself against that one who partakes of blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Failure to comply with Lev 17:10 is curse-worthy.

● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this law

So then, had Christ actually led his men to eat blood on the night before the day of his crucifixion, he would have led them into breaking the law; and thus relegated himself to the position of least in the kingdom of heaven

● Matt 5:18-19 . . Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

FYI: The reason given for banning the eating of blood is because God designated it for sacrificial purposes.

● Lev 17:11 . . Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.

Was Christ's blood sacrificial blood? Yes; therefore it was illegal for Jews to eat it on the night before the day of his offering.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

 

[Cruciform]

They speak for themselves. Binding authority=legalism. The RCC is attempting to bind people to their sect through legalism. What does Galatians teach us about legalism?

Not a single disproof of my statements in Post #37 above, just as expected. Therefore, every single statement made in Post #37 stands exactly as given.

Back to Post #37 above. :yawn:

 

[God's Truth]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Jesus says we have to eat his flesh or we will not have eternal life. You say you do not know what that means. I think you should look into it.

 

[God's Truth]

-
During Jesus' last Passover meal; he told his men: “This is my blood". But that's not all he told them. There's more.

● 1Cor 11:25 . . After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: This cup is the new testament in my blood

So the cup doesn't represent only Christ's blood, it also represents the new testament; which is very important to note because according to Heb 9:16-20 testaments are not in force until the death of the testator.
'
Well; that's a bit of a problem because on the night before the day of Christ's crucifixion, he and the men with him were still under the jurisdiction of the first covenant; which forbids Jews to eat blood; any blood.

● Lev 17:10 . . And if anyone, whether of the house of Israel or of the aliens residing among them, partakes of any blood, I will set myself against that one who partakes of blood and will cut him off from among his people.

Failure to comply with Lev 17:10 is curse-worthy.

● Deut 27:26 . . Cursed be he who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of this law

So then, had Christ actually led his men to eat blood on the night before the day of his crucifixion, he would have led them into breaking the law; and thus relegated himself to the position of least in the kingdom of heaven

● Matt 5:18-19 . . Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

FYI: The reason given for banning the eating of blood is because God designated it for sacrificial purposes.

● Lev 17:11 . . Since the life of a living body is in its blood, I have made you put it on the altar, so that atonement may thereby be made for your own lives, because it is the blood, as the seat of life, that makes atonement.

Was Christ's blood sacrificial blood? Yes; therefore it was illegal for Jews to eat it on the night before the day of his offering.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

We drink Jesus' blood by believing, and we eat Jesus' flesh by obeying.

If you believe in Jesus, you are drinking his blood.

If you obey Jesus' words, you are eating his flesh.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Not a single disproof of my statements in Post #37 above, just as expected. Therefore, every single statement made in Post #37 stands exactly as given.

Back to Post #37 above. :yawn:

Maybe you should read what you wrote. The words prove themselves to be the very definition of legalism. Binding authority. Infallibility. These are the teachings of a person more concerned with laws than with love and forgiveness. At least the new Pope seems to be moving the Church back towards love and kindness and service and away from legalism. I really like the new Pope.

 

[God's Truth]

Maybe you should read what you wrote. The words prove themselves to be the very definition of legalism. Binding authority. Infallibility. These are the teachings of a person more concerned with laws than with love and forgiveness. At least the new Pope seems to be moving the Church back towards love and kindness and service and away from legalism. I really like the new Pope.

The new pope? At least? The very fact that a mere man calls himself the 'pope' is a sin against God.

 

[Cruciform]

Maybe you should read what you wrote. The words prove themselves to be the very definition of legalism.

They might---if the topic of discussion had anything whatsoever to do with soteriology! But of course that isn't the subject of discussion at all, is it. Rather, we're talking not about salvation, but specifically about doctrinal authority, an eminently biblical theme. You have a lot of trouble following a single line of reasoning and staying on topic, don't you. Try again.

Back to Post #37 above.

 

[Cruciform]

The new pope? At least? The very fact that a mere man calls himself the 'pope' is a sin against God.

Come back when you no longer reject the triune God of the Christian faith in favor of a mere idol of your own imagining. Until then, your decidedly non-Christian opinions will be just that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

They might---if the topic of discussion had anything whatsoever to do with soteriology! But of course that isn't the subject of discussion at all, is it. Rather, we're talking not about salvation, but specifically about doctrinal authority, an eminently biblical theme. You have a lot of trouble following a single line of reasoning and staying on topic, don't you. Try again.

Back to Post #37 above.

The theme of the Bible is salvation, not which men have authority over other men. Only men are concerned about who has authority over who.

 

[Cruciform]

The theme of the Bible is salvation...

It is A theme, but not by any means the ONLY theme. Again, the topic of discussion was not salvation, but doctrinal authority. If you don't want to discuss it, then go ahead and post somewhere else.

...not which men have authority over other men.

Rather, which men possess God's own endowed doctrinal authority to guide and teach the faithful in his own name and by his very authority. Christ's one historic Catholic Church (Magisterium) possesses God's delegated doctrinal authority; CM's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect does not.

 

[CabinetMaker]

It is A theme, but not by any means the ONLY theme. Again, the topic of discussion was not salvation, but doctrinal authority. If you don't want to discuss it, then go ahead and post somewhere else.


Rather, which men possess God's own endowed doctrinal authority to guide and teach the faithful in his own name and by his very authority. Christ's one historic Catholic Church (Magisterium) possesses God's delegated doctrinal authority; CM's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect does not.

You are still arguing for legalism over grace. You can try to spin it any you want but the truth of the matter is that salvation is THE theme of scripture, of God's interaction with mankind.

 

[Cruciform]

You are still arguing for legalism over grace. You can try to spin it any you want but the truth of the matter is that salvation is THE theme of scripture, of God's interaction with mankind.

Already decisively answered in Posts #52 and #55 above. If you come up with something new---something that hasn't already been corrected in a prior post---let me know. Until then, don't bother.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already decisively answered in Posts #52 and #55 above. If you come up with something new---something that hasn't already been corrected in a prior post---let me know. Until then, don't bother.

Biblical salvation is nothing new. It is the be all and end all of our time here on Earth. Jesus cam to free us from judgement under the law and your sect offers us bondage to a new law of their own creation. Bondage to the man made laws of Catholicism or freedom in our Lord and Savior. As you have never really responded other than o say that your preferred form of legalism is the correct form, I see no reason to stop pointing out the bondage the Catholic Magisterium commands for those who bow to them as leaders.

 

[patrick jane]

It is A theme.

You are anathema

 

[Ktoyou]

False.

Christ died for only His Sheep John 10:11, 15, those Elected in Him before the foundation of the world Eph. 1:4-5. It's only these who have the benefit from the death of Christ before believing, even while they were enemies in the flesh Rom. 5:10.

But all the others while being enemies in the flesh, were not reconciled to God, but instead were always under His Wrath and condemnation John 3:18, 36. So you see, they have no benefit from Christ's death like those who were reconciled did.

~~~~~

That is pretty dark and hopeless for all those who may benefit from a choice.