Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You might be right, and the Real Presence might be wrong, but under no circumstance am I even possibly undervaluing the symbolism, if I'm taking Him wooden literally. That's absolutely impossible, that doesn't make any sense. If anything because I, in your view, err, in believing in the the Real Presence, I am even more focused on the symbolism than anybody else is, but especially those on the average, who do NOT believe in the Real Presence. I, and we collectively, on average, who believe in the Real Presence, and receive Communion as a devotion, cheerfully, not because we're gravely obligated to (once a year during the however many weeks of the Easter season, we are gravely obligated to receive Communion, so any other reception of Communion is supererogatory, so it's a devotion), am more focused on the symbolism than anybody else is, guaranteed. Nobody who's eating matzos and drinking grape juice is more focused on it than me, or the Catholics, or the Orthodox, or the Lutherans even, or the Methodists even, or even the Anglicans, as long as they believe in the Real Presence in some sense or way. We're all more focused, if we really believe, wrongly, in the Real Presence, on the symbolism behind it. It's not even possible that we're not max focused on it.
Says you. Right there, in this Scripture, it literally says, "This is My body", "This is My blood". That's the Real Presence.
of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 26:26-29 - New King James Version
Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper - And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the...www.biblegateway.com
And after He takes what is literal, he tells his disciples what they represent. As in, symbolism. Not literally his body and blood, but what they represent.
That's what the JWs certainly think. You know how their Bible translation twists the English, to keep their followers from reading the Scriptures plainly for themselves. Well for the Last Supper accounts, wouldn't you know it? they insert the English word "means". They say, "This MEANS my body". They say the word 'is' is too ambiguous, it might lead unwitting JWs into error, the error of the Real Presence iow. JWs don't want that.
Very interestingly, when I checked their Bible version for John 6, I just did not know what I was going to find, but it turns out, they just translate the Greek straightforwardly. They don't try to insert or subvert or anything, it's a faithful translation of John 6. Fascinating.
I don't see how that's true. If you have someone for example, identifying as former-Mid Acts, but they say they never believed some essential tenet of Mid Acts the whole time identifying as Mid Acts, you wouldn't credit them as really being Mid Acts. Now Catholicism's different because there's also the corporal issue that being Catholic is a corporal thing, as well as a theology. So @Lon was bodily a Catholic, but never, apparently, theologically Catholic.
Because you don't believe in the Real Presence. If you believe in the Real Presence then John 6 unmistakably is about the Real Presence. That's why it was so strange to read right out of the JW Bible, Catholic John chapter six, unvarnished, unblemished, unedited.
You wouldn't read John 6 in the JW Bible the same as me, but you'd be more comfortable with their "This MEANS my body" and "This MEANS my blood" than I am. To me that's ... creepy. Jesus said "IS" and the JWs changed it to 'means'. That's brainwashing.
That just doesn't connect for me. It makes more sense that we are not under the Torah, not that we are not under any law, such that there are no morals, which is nihilism, or theological antinomianism anyway.
And if all you mean is that you can't sin your way out of salvation, then that's just Roman Catholic, and there's no distinction between Mid Acts and Roman Catholicism on this point. You can't sin your way out of salvation. We both agree. That doesn't mean that there's no Apostolic ethic that we are gravely obligated to believe in. There is. Part of it is the Mass obligation. Don't forsake gathering together, gather together in His name, the Mass obligation. The other grave moral obligation is to avoid grave sin. You don't have to really avoid light sin, there's no grave obligation to avoid light sin, committing light sin is always automatically forgiven eternally, though you're ofc going to incur the penalties from all your light sins here on Earth, unless you receive an indulgence from the Church, or through sacramentals sometimes, is possible, also the penitential act of the introductory right of the Mass, but also, just much more simply, the valid reception of the Eucharist, just forgives even the temporal penalties for eternally forgiven light sins.
As I said in opening, there's no possibility that this true. You say we're wrongly imagining eating Jesus—fine, but don't then tell me that I therefore am somehow missing the symbolism. I'm treating the symbol as reverently as I can, there's no way for me to focus on the symbolism anymore than I'm already doing. I'm max focused on the symbolism, if I'm wrong.
If I'm not wrong, then I'm not wrong.
Yeah nobody has to do devotions, nobody has to do anything supererogatory. You're gravely obligated to do certain things and avoid certain other things, and apart from that, all other obligations are light, and mostly there's just no obligation of any kind anyway. Like, drinking liquor; there's no obligation to not drink liquor, there's no obligation to not smoke, not even light obligation, let alone grave obligation.
Catholicism believes the whole Bible. That means Catholicism and Mid Acts are equal on this point as well.
It is if it's offered up cheerfully, if it's done cheerfully, because it's not obligatory, not even lightly, to pray the Rosary. It's just a popular devotion, but then, so is the regular reception of Communion at Mass, a LOT of Roman Catholics have that devotion; if they're at Mass, they go to Communion, even outside the Easter season (you're only gravely obligated to receive Communion once per year, within the Easter season).
