>What if I pray to Baal as a saint? If I pray to Baal the way you pray to Mary, is it worship?
You're an absolute fucking idiot. You can't pray to Baal as a saint because he is not a saint! He is a false god! If you pray to Baal you'd be praying to him as a God you fucking faggot.
>Deuteronomy 18:10-12
"No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practises divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. For whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord; it is because of such abhorrent practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you." You fucking asshole, if you actually read the verse you'd see this is clearly about divination.
>Where do these say the eucharist ceases to be bread?
Can you not read you fucking faggot?
>This is about the Church, the body of Christ is the Church. It also refers to it as bread, not flesh
Your interpretation is gay. This what protefags do best. You're just twisting the text to fit your gay theology. And if you actually read the context you can see more clearly Paul is talking of the Eucharist. "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice 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. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" - 1 Corinthians 10:18-22
Replying to a protefag because I didn't get the chance last night
Other urls found in this thread:
onefold.wordpress.com
graceway.com
twitter.com
>being an autistichristian
>Never even refers to it as Christ's body and blood.
"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes." - 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 Looks like 'm right, you can't read you fucking faggot.
>This never refers to the eucharist, an in fact happens before it. So this clearly isn't the Lord's Supper. Furthermore, John 6:35 defines eating and drinking as faith.
"Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.…" - John 6:54-55
>Objectively false onefold.wordpress.com
Oh you really want to go there faggot? Ok bitch, you unleashed the monster. I am going to refute everything this gay site has on it. It's gonna take me a while but I'll do it. I am the new Irenaus and I will destroy all heresies!
>tfw you pray to Baal before performing the Moloch rite
>"But you are not inclined to understand it thus, but perchance more generally. Hear it also in the following way. The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood points out to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life; and the union of both is the Lord, the food of the babes–the Lord who is Spirit and Word. The food- that is, the Lord Jesus–that is, the Word of God, the Spirit made flesh, the heavenly flesh sanctified" - Clement of Alexandria
I don't understand how you see this as contradicting the real presence fagtard. He is simply saying what the flesh and blood could represent. He never denies the real presence. In fact, if you read back more he seems to be affirming the real presence, "The Word is all to the child, both father and mother and tutor and nurse. Eat my flesh, He says, and drink my blood. Such is the suitable food which the Lord ministers, and He offers His flesh and pours forth His blood, and nothing is wanting for the children's growth. O amazing mystery! We are enjoined to cast off the old and carnal corruption, as also the old nutriment, receiving in exchange another new regimen, that of Christ, receiving Him if we can, to hide Him within; and that, enshrining the Saviour in our souls, we may correct the affections of our flesh." If you actually read the whole thing you can see Clement compares the flesh and blood to other things too like milk. You're a fagtard.
>The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit;
"the Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak", I though spirits were energy that animated inanimate objects.
>“But we are God-taught, and glory in the name of Christ. How then are we not to regard the apostle as attaching this sense to the milk of the babes? And if we who preside over the Churches are shepherds after the image of the good Shepherd, and you the sheep, are we not to regard the Lord as preserving consistency in the use of figurative speech, when He speaks also of the milk of the flock?… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: “Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood; ” describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both,–of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood. For in reality the blood of faith is hope, in which faith is held as by a vital principle.”
Well guess what asshole? Clement does more clearly speak on the real presence later, which he was not doing here, calling it the union of the corporeal and physical blood,
"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word." - Clement of Alexandria
>Clement comes nowhere close to supporting the real presence doctrine, and indeed utterly denies it through his instruction. Clement explicitly states that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He said “eat My flesh and drink My blood.”
Obviously totally false when you read the above. Clement clearly saw the Eucharist as twofold. Something that can be symbolic but that it also has a real ontological presence to it.
>"it is not the material of the bread but the word which is said over it which is of advantage to him who eats it not unworthily of the Lord. And these things indeed are said of the typical and symbolical body." - Origen
Again, I don't understand how you see this a contradicting the real presence. Origen seems to affirm it here. Origen is just showing how we don't actually eat the body of Christ literally, as if there is real pure flesh in front of us. No, instead Christ gave us his real flesh to eat in the form of bread. Origen is affirming this.
autism
>“‘For if any one should turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away, and the Lord is the Spirit.’ Now some one when dealing with the passage might say, that just as ‘not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man,’ of even though it may be thought by the Jews to be defiled, so not that which entereth into the mouth sanctifieth the man, even though what is called the bread of the Lord may be thought by the simpler disciples to sanctify. And the saying is I think, not to be despised, and on this account, demands clear exposition, which seems to me to be thus; as it is not the meat but the conscience of him who eats with doubt which defiles him that eateth, for ‘he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith,’ and as nothing is pure to him who is defiled and unbelieving, not in itself, but because of his defilement and unbelief, so that which is sanctified through the word of God and prayer does not, in its own nature, sanctify him who uses it, for, if this were so, it would sanctify even him who eats unworthily of the bread of the Lord, and no one on account of this food would become weak or sickly or asleep for something of this kind Paul represented in saying, ‘For this cause many among you are weak and sickly and not a few sleep.’ And in the case of the bread of the Lord, accordingly, there is advantage to him who uses it, when with undefiled mind and pure conscience he partakes of the bread. And so neither by not eating, I mean by the very fact that we do not eat of the bread which has been sanctified by the word of God and prayer, are we deprived of any good thing, nor by eating are we the better by any good thing; for the cause of our lacking is wickedness and sins, and the cause of our abounding is righteousness and right actions; so that such is the meaning of what is said by Paul, ‘For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.’”
Again, how the fuck is there anything there denying the real presence. Origen is affirming it by showing how eating in mortal sin is bad. And that by abstaining from it in that state is good. The retard who posted these quotes clearly did not read them. This quote is actually affirming the real presence.
>They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 37)
...
edgy
you are severely autistic
>Oh you really want to go there faggot? Ok bitch, you unleashed the monster. I am going to refute everything this gay site has on it. It's gonna take me a while but I'll do it. I am the new Irenaus and I will destroy all heresies!
Tertullians view on the Eucharist is much discussed, indeed. It should be noted first and foremost that Tertullian did become heterodox by joining the Monatist. Still, he did believe in the real presence. His interpretation of John 6 is interesting. Albeit, he could just be interpreting it this way for this specific context. There are many quotes where Tertullian is shown to believe in the real presence and this is in the fact that he calls the Eucharist a "sacrifice" something this faggot poster omitted from one of the Tertullian quotes.
"The Sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord commanded to be taken at meal times and by all, we take even before daybreak in congregations… we offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries…. We take anxious care lest something of our Cup or Bread should fall upon the ground…" (The Crown 3:3-4)
A woman, after the death of her husband, is bound not less firmly but even more so, not to marry another husband…Indeed, she prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice (Monogamy 10:1,4)
"Likewise, in regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the body of the Lord…the body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice" (Prayer 19:1)
I know, thank you. I take pride in it.
Someone was talking about Matthew 16:18 on another site. graceway.com
How should I respond to this, OP?
>"Then, again, how can they [the Gnostics] say that the flesh, which is nourished with the body of the Lord and with His blood, goes to corruption, and does not partake of life? Let them, therefore, either alter their opinion, or cease from offering the things just mentioned. But our opinion is in accordance with the eucharist, and the eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.” - Irenaus
>Irenaeus transfers this reality to the bread of the Eucharist by claiming that the bread, which is of God’s creation, receives a Spiritual aspect upon receiving the invocation. The bread, he states, is “no longer common bread, but the eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.” Earthly, because it is bread which is of the creation, and heavenly, because it is blessed and received by those who themselves are both earthly (in the flesh) and heavenly (born of the Spirit).
>Irenaeus clearly denies the notion held by the Catholic Church that the bread is no longer bread; he calls it, “no longer common bread.” Compare this to what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in an answer to a relevant question.
This is one of the most slimiest interpretation of Irenaeus possible. Typical protefag. Only a retard would interpret it the way the protefag blogger interpreted it. It's so obvious what Irenaeus means here. You protefags get more and more retarded everyday.
The way the protefag bloggers interprets this is so slimy. If you read where he's quoting from it's so clear on the real presence and the sacrifice it's ridiculous. Again,only a protefag could twist Ireneaus in such a way. Irenaeus is saying how the Church offers a pure sacriifice with the Eucharist I don't know how anymore clear he could have been here. Yet, as always, protefags twist it.
Fellow christians, let us, on this occasion break bread in remembrance of the martyrs of Lyons,who went to their deaths denying they were eating human/divine flesh.
>For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 65-66)
>Earlier in his apology Justin defended against accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood. Here, in his description of the eucharist, he is making it clear that Christians do not partake of flesh and blood in any carnal way, but rather bread and wine mixed with water: “to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water.” Justin then asserted that though Christians partake of bread and wine, it is not common bread or common wine, but that the bread and wine are connected to Christ who became incarnate and was sacrificed at Calvary for those who believe. This food, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water, which by transmutation nourishes the body, is what the Christians call the flesh and blood of Christ. Justin therefore, refutes the accusations that Christians partake of human flesh and blood.
>"For having put some to death on account of the accusations falsely brought against us, they also dragged to the torture our domestics, either children or weak women, and by dreadful torments forced them to admit those fabulous actions which they themselves openly perpetrate; about which we are the less concerned, because none of these actions are really ours," - Justin Martyr
>This is the very definition of the Eucharist – a celebration of the remembrance of the Lord’s passion in which Christians offer thanks and prayer. The offering of fine flour was part of what the cleansed leper was required to offer. Justin tells Trypho that this offering was a type of the bread of the Eucharist. He goes on to explain what the bread of the Eucharist represents, thus by similarity, what the fine flour presented by the leper represented.
I think it would be best to remain in words that Jesus declared:
>It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
-John 6:63
>Truly, truly I tell you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death at all.”
-John. 8:51
Another slimy interpretation of the fathers by protefags also clearly demonstrating how they don't understand Catholic theology. We don't teach we actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus. We don't literally consume his flesh as if it were there. That is why Jesus gave us bread retard! So is could become his flesh yet still stay in the form of bread. This is what Martyr is saying dumbass. The Romans thought Christians were actually eating people. Martyr was demonstrating this was not the case with the Eucharist, that we do indeed believe it to be the body of Christ, but not the actual body in the sense that it is flesh. You are a fucking retard. This protefag blogger is retard clearly trying to manipulate Martyr and Catholic theology to sound like we're at odds with what Martyr s speaking about even though this is false.