RE: Christians: What line are you unwilling to cross for God?
August 25, 2018 at 9:10 am
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2018 at 9:39 am by Catholic_Lady.)
(August 25, 2018 at 12:23 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:(August 24, 2018 at 11:08 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, we are required to believe what you posted above. And I do believe it. Neither myself nor the Catholic source I posted denied any of it. I actually said as much on my post, and then the article I posted explained in detail exactly what you just posted above lol. So I'm not sure what you are going on about. But like I said, if you want to keep thinking we consider communion cannibalism, go for it. Knock yourself out.Nope. What you do is engage in some pretzel logic to justify your beliefs. The source you posted stated that it really is the body and blood, but it isn't, but it is. And you agreed with that, all in a single paragraph.
Did we read the same thing? What the source I posted for you said is that it IS the body of Christ, but in the form of bread. Meaning it still looks like and tastes like bread. Obviously there is nothing heretical about saying the eucharist tastes like/looks like bread lol. If you were Catholic once, you should know the eucharist looks like and tastes like a wafer, not human meat lol. As the article explained, this is why it isn't considered cannibalism. Because the body of Christ is still in the form of bread, rather than in the form of human meat.
.
I'll post the paragraph again, this time with the relevant part bolded for you:
Quote:In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.
...as you can see, the paragraph I posted for you does very clearly say that we believe the eucharist is Jesus. Contrary to your accusations of heresy, there is no denying of that belief by myself nor the article I posted. The article I posted says exactly that. But then it simply goes on to explain that since it is still in the form of bread (meaning it looks/tastes like bread), it isn't cannibalism.
Here is the entire article again: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online...-cannibals
(Edited for typos, clarification, etc)
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
